Nestor, Iliad x., 215, promises to the successful spy a black ewe with its young, a matchless gift; and Hector x., 305, promises on his side a chariot and a pair of horses. 6. The Homeric poems were probably written, according to the best authorities, about the beginning of the ninth century, B.C. At that period, therefore, we have seen that there was no money of any sort in Greece, nor even were gold and silver used as measures of value. But soon after this, though how long we cannot say, a currency of a curious nature came into use throughout Greece. They used large iron and copper nails, called oẞɛXíσkot, of such a size that six of them made a handful, and when silver was substituted, the standard silver coin of the Greeks derived its name from the fact that it was of the value of a handful of these nails. They are mentioned by Plutarch in his life of Lysander, § 17. He says that Lysander sent a quantity of gold and silver money to Sparta, by Gylippus, who stole a part of it, and this being discovered, made the chief Spartans demand that all the gold and silver should be sent away as a foreign nuisance, and that they should use nothing but their own national coin, which was, of iron, and tempered with vinegar, so as to render it useless for any other purpose. And he says "Probably all the money in former times was of this kind, for they used iron skewers as money, and some used copper ones. Whence it comes that even now a quantity of small coin is called obolus, and a drachma is six oboli, because the hand can grasp that number." We shall see below that Pheidon, who introduced a silver coinage into Greece, collected a number of these skewers, and laid them up in the Temple of Juno, at Argos, as a curiosity. 7. Although Pollux says that the invention of coining was by different writers attributed to four different persons, or peoples, the claimants for this honour are practically but two-Pheidon of Argos, and the Lydians. The majority of ancient authorities attribute it to Pheidon, king of Argos. Thus the historian, Ephorus, is quoted in two places by Strabo. In VIII., 6, he says, “Έφορος ἐν Αἰγίνῃ ἄργυρον πρῶτον κοπῆναί φησιν ὑπὸ Φείδωνος. Εμπόρειον γὰρ γενέσθαι παρὰ τὴν λυπρότητα τῆς χώρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων θαλαττουργούντων ἐμπορικῶς.” "Ephorus says that silver was first coined in Egina by Pheidon. For the Island became a commercial port, as the inhabitants were obliged to betake themselves to maritime commerce, in consequence of the sterility of the land." Also in VIII., 3:— “ Καὶ μέτρα ἐξευρε τὰ Φειδώνεια καλούμενα, καὶ σταθμούς, καὶ νόμισμα κεχαραγμένον τό τε ἄλλο καὶ τὸ ἀργυροῦν.” "And he invented the measures, called the Pheidonian ones, and weights, and coined money of silver, and other kinds." The Etymologicum Magnum, under the title 'OẞEXίokos, says “ Πάντων δὲ πρῶτος Φείδων ̓Αργεῖος νόμισμα ἔκοψεν ἐν Αἰγίνῃ, καὶ δοῦς τὸ νόμισμα καὶ ἀναλάβων τοὺς ὀβελίσκους, ἀνέθηκε τῇ ἐν "Αργει Ήρα.” "And Pheidon of Argos was the first who ever coined money, which he did at Ægina, and he both put money into circulation, and withdrew the skewers, and laid them up in the temple of Juno at Argos." And in accordance with this, Elian says, Var. Hist. XII., 10. De Eginetis : “ Καὶ πρῶτοι νόμισμα ἐκόψαντο, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐκλήθη νόμισμα Αἰγιναῖον.” "And they were the first who coined money, which, too, is from them called Eginaan money." So also the Parian Marble says, Clinton's Fast. Hellen. I. All these authorities, therefore, are perfectly clear that Pheidon of Argos was the first who coined money, which he did at Ægina; and the reason why he set up his mint at Ægina, is very plainly given by Ephorus, as quoted above, because it was a great commercial port, and, therefore, it was most wanted there for the convenience of commerce. The period at which Pheidon lived has been a subject of much dispute. For while some carry it back so far as 865, B.C., others bring it down to 783-744, B.C. The question is fully discussed in the first Appendix to the first Volume of Mr. Clinton's Fasti Hellenici; and in his opinion, the latter is the true date. And in this decision all scholars now acquiesce. We may, therefore, place the introduction of coined money by Pheidon in the first half of the 8th century, B.C. And there is a very probable reason why he should have invented it. At this period he was by far the most powerful sovereign in Greece. Argos was the metropolis not only of the Peloponnesian Dorians, but also of the Asiatic Dorian colonies. The Dorians carried on a very large commerce with the Phoenicians, and it was from them that Pheidon adopted his system of weights. From time immemorial there had been two standard weights used in Assyria, the Babylonian and the Euboic talent. The Dorians traded with the Phoenicians, and adopted the Babylonian talent. The Ionic Greeks adopted the Euboic talent. As Ægina was the great commercial depôt, this talent was afterwards called the ginæan talent. The Assyrians at this period had no coinage. And Pheidon introducing the system of Babylonian weights into Greece, seems to have invented a system of measures of his own, which were called after him, and also a silver coinage, to supersede the clumsy iron and copper nails, or skewers, then used as currency. The Spartans, however, who at this period were a subordinate, but independent tribe of Dorians, steadily refused the new invention of a silver coinage, probably from jealousy, and adhered to the old iron skewers. They retained this iron money to a comparatively recent period. 8. The account of the invention of coinage just given, seems to be natural and probable. There is, however, a passage in Herodotus which seems to contradict it. He says, I., 94, speaking of the Lydians, “ Πρῶτοι δὲ ἀνθρώπων, τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν, νόμισμα χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου κοψάμενοι ἐχρήσαντο.” "And they were the first men, we know of, who coined and used gold and silver money." This has always been supposed to mean that the Lydians were the first who invented coining, and that they used a double standard, as it is called, of gold coins and silver coins. If this be the case, the authority of Herodotus is against the claim of Pheidon, and though it is somewhat singular that Julius Pollux does not mention this passage, he says that Xenophanes of Colophon assigns the invention to them. It occurs to us, however, that there may be a means of reconciling the apparent contradiction between Herodotus, and the writers already cited as attributing it to Pheidon. It seems to us that the passage will bear a different construction from that invariably put upon it. For in Greek when kai is used to connect two qualities, it means that the thing spoken of partakes of both these qualities at once. Thus, as the month began in the middle of a day, the last day of a month was called evn kaì véa the newand-old day, because it belonged partly to one month, and partly to another. So there are many other examples. Now if we apply this principle to the passage in question, it would mean not that the Lydians were the first to coin gold money and silver money in separate coins, but that they were the first who struck a coinage of a MIXTURE of gold and silver. Now we find that this rendering of the passage, which is the genuine Greek idiom, exactly tallies with the fact. The Lydians had a coinage of λεктρоν, or electrum, which is a mixture of gold and silver, in different proportions, but usually three parts of gold to one part of silver. And this material was generally adopted throughout the western states of Asia Minor for their coins. 1 Several of these coins are in the British Museum. Such is the solution of this apparent contradiction, which we offer to our readers for them to consider its probability. We offer it with the greatest diffidence, because it seems to us that if it be the true solution, it is so simple and obvious that it could hardly have escaped the notice of the many able and acute critics and writers, both on Herodotus and Numismatics. 2 9. It may almost appear superfluous to remark that this stamp, or certificate, in no way effects the value of the metal, or the Encyclo. Brit., Art. Numismatics. 2 Since this view, which is not given by any German or English edition of Herodotus that we have seen, was published in our Dictionary of Political Economy, Art. Coinage, we have submitted it to two distinguished scholars who have given it their approval. Mr. Reginald Stuart Poole of the Numismatical Department of the British Museum, and author of the article Numismatics in the Encyclopædia Britannica, gave it his unhesitating approval, and said that if he had known of it sooner, he would have introduced it into his article on Numismatics. Dr. Reichel, also, Vicar of Mullingar, formerly Professor of Latin in Queen's College, Belfast, one of the most distinguished scholars and ornaments of the Irish Church, also expressed to us his approval of it: we have therefore the greater confidence that it is right. quantity of things it will exchange for. Its only object is to save the trouble of weighing and assaying the bullion in commercial transactions. Nor can the name of the coin in any way affect its value. Values, it is true, are estimated in the number of these pieces of bullion, or coins, but it is perfectly clear that it is necessarily implied in the bargain that these coins shall contain a certain definite quantity of bullion. Nevertheless, although this seems so perfectly clear, it is a confusion on this point which is at the root of all the extravagances of the currency question, which have so long vexed the public ear. They almost all arise from confounding the name, or denomination, of a coin, with its value, its name with its purchasing power; and from supposing, that if the Legislature chose to call a shilling a pound, that therefore a shilling would have the value of a pound. Any one who will brand on his mind the simple principle, that although the stamp gives the coin currency, it is the weight of bullion alone which gives it value, will be able to steer his course safely through all the shoals and quicksands of monetary controversies. We shall see, a little further on, that calling the reader's attention to these self-evident truths, is not so superfluous as it may appear at present. It is also perfectly evident, that if this process of stamping bullion, and so turning it into coin, is done free of all expense, at the will of any one who chooses to present bullion, and demand to have it stamped, and also without any delay, the value of the metal as bullion must be exactly the same as the value of the metal as coin. If, however, a charge is made for the workmanship, or if any tax is levied on changing the metal from one form into the other, or if a delay takes place in doing so, there will be a difference between the value of the metal as bullion and as coin, and this difference will manifestly be the charge for the workmanship, the amount of the tax, and the quantity of interest accruing during the period of delay. These, however, are all fixed, or constant quantities, which may be ascertained, and they form the limits of the variation of the metal in one form from its value in the other. In the following remarks we shall assume that there is no charge for the workmanship of coining, no tax upon it and no |