^{page 59 note 1} I leave out of account

(a) The local city issues, the pseudo-autonomous series authorised by the imperial government.

(b) The special provincial issues of and Æ (e.g. in Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt), which, though probably official issues of the government, were only designed for local circulation.

If I have occasion to refer to such issues, I shall expressly mention the fact.

^{page 59 note 2} For more detail cp. E. A. Sydenham, N.C. 1917, p. 53 ff, ‘The Mint of Lugdunum’; E. Gabrici, ‘La Numismatica di Augusto’ in Milani's Studi e Materiali di Archeologia e Numismatica: Mowat, M., ‘Les Ateliers monétaires impériaux en Gaule,’ in Revue Numismatique, 1895, 143 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 59 note 3} Roman coinage in gold (apart from the exceptional issue during the Hannibalic War) originated in the provincial issues of Sulla, Pompey and other generals. Julius Caesar was the first to strike gold in Rome, and it was only after his death that its issue was entrusted to the regular moneyers.

^{page 60 note 1} The Civil Wars of 49–45 B.C. practically destroyed the senate's prerogative of coinage. For, apart from the usurpation of Julius Caesar, the senate was quite unable to control the actions of its own supporters, who struck coins for their troops as occasion demanded.

^{page 60 note 2} The moneyers' names cease to appear on the coins and the style and fabric too shows a marked change after this date.

^{page 60 note 3} The reason for this suspension of coinage is unknown. The sons of Pompey issued bronze in Spain, as did Antony in the East; but the lack of such currency must have been acutely felt in the closing years of the republic.

^{page 60 note 4} ‘Provincial’ here means ‘struck in a province,’ not ‘limited in circulation to one particular province.’

^{page 60 note 5} cp. here Laffranchi, Riv. Ital. 1912, 13, 14, 16, 17, ‘La Monetazione di Augusto.” He assigns the gold and silver of this period to Nicomedia and Nicaea in Bithynia, to Ephesus and uncertain mints in Phrygia and Lycia, and to Emerita, Colonia Patricia and Caesaraugusta in Spain. His researches have undoubtedly advanced our knowledge very considerably and deserve the fullest recognition.

^{page 61 note 1} In this brief summary I have to pass lightly over a mass of details, some of them matters of dispute. The chronology of this coinage has been fixed, with great accuracy, by Willers in his Geschichte der römischen Kupferprägung vom Bundesgenossenkrieg bis auf Kaiser Claudius, Leipzig, 1909Google Scholar. Mention of the emperor on these coins is invariable, though the portrait as obverse is at first regular only on the as; later it became the rule for all but the smallest denominations.

The interesting and difficult questions of the standards of weight, the relation of the orichalcum to the copper, etc. lie outside the scope of my present paper.

^{page 61 note 2} This series of aurei and denarii gives us the names of fifteen moneyers—presumably five different colleges. The dates assigned have usually been about 19–15 B.C.; in a paper awaiting publication, I have tried to prove that the coinage certainly continued down to 13 B.C. and may not have commenced till 17 B.C. The presence of the moneyers' names is proof that the coinage was, formally speaking, senatorial, not imperial; but we shall probably be right in holding that a certain Claudius, supervision was exercised by the emperor.

Mommsen, working on a plausible assumption, now proved false, fixed the year 15 B.C. as that in which Augustus

(1) confirmed the senate in its monopoly of token coinage;

(2) excluded it from any share in coinage in the precious metals. It is certain, to-day, that this settlement was made in gradual stages, not by a single legislative act. Mommsen, apparently, never even entertained a doubt that the main imperial mint was from the first in Rome. Here again recent research has fresh light to throw on the old problem.

^{page 63 note 1} Or “XVII”: the number is disputed.

^{page 64 note 1} It has been pointed out to me that my argument here seems to conflict with my argument against the mint of Rome earlier in the article. But here there is definite evidence of the Lugdunum mint on both sides of the period of apparent inaction; in the case of the mint of Rome, evidence for its institution was shown to be lacking.

^{page 64 note 2} Whether Caligula or Claudius ever sought to justify the usurpation by calling upon the senate to sanction it, we do not know. That the usurpation was still felt as such is evident from the facts quoted above.

^{page 64 note 3} Some gold quinarii of Nero lack the EX s.c.—why we do not know (possibly they were struck at a mint other than Rome). But this one exception cannot affect our general contention. If this series, marked EX S.C. was issued at Lugdunum, as well as at Rome, we must certainly regard Lugdunum as being merely a branch mint; for even the self-assertive senate of Nero's early years could hardly have claimed control over the coinage of the ‘imperator’ in his own provinces.

^{page 65 note 1} cp. Willers, op. cit. p. 187 ff.

^{page 65 note 2} For the symbolism of the globe in imperial portraiture see Mrs. Strong, in J.R.S. (1916), i, p. 32Google Scholar ff.

^{page 66 note 1} For a detailed discussion of the intricate coinage of this period, I must refer to my article in the Numismatic Chronicle, 1914. From a numismatic point of view, the period is a fascinating one to study, and it requires some self-denial on my part to spare my readers the detailed evidence here. The main facts are fairly well assured; where there is serious doubt, I have indicated it by qualifying my statements.

^{page 66 note 2} We can identify the Lugdunum issues of the period by a comparison of coins of Galba and Vespasian with those of Vitellius, whose Lugdunum issues can be fixed with certainty; similarly the coins of Otho show us the style of the Roman mint and so enable us to pick out the Roman issues of Galba, Vitellius and Vespasian. From Galba to Vespasian there is a clear difference of style between the issues of Rome and Lugdunum, such as we look for in vain under Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

The arguments for the closing of the Lugdunum mint are:

(a) The paucity of issues in Galba's name from the mint.

(b) The natural indignation of Galba against a city that had defied him almost up to the last. It is a plausible theory, but cannot be considered proved as yet.

^{page 68 note 1} It is probable that the mint of Lugdunum continued to strike as a branch of the Roman mint right into the third century after Christ. Absolute proof of this is hard to obtain, but the finding of a coin die of Faustina junior near Lugdunum points in that direction (cp. Hirschfeld, C.I.L. xiii, pars. I, fasc. i, p. 251).

^{page 68 note 2} For the Roman mint, see Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, p. 181 ff.