and the evidence of the monuments themselves, that this was really the case. As regards the commercial and banking systems of ancient Egypt, we are almost entirely without information. Their standard of value seems to have been the "outen" or "ten" of copper (94-96 grammes), which circulated like the æs rude of the Romans by weight, and in the form of bricks, being measured by the balance. It was obtained from the mines of Mount Sinai, which were worked as early as the fourth dynasty. Gold and silver appear to have been also used, though less frequently. Like copper, they were sometimes in the form of bricks, but generally in rings, resembling the ring money of the ancient Celts, which is said to have been employed in Ireland down to the twelfth century, and still holds its own in the interior of Africa. This approximated very nearly to the possession of money, but it wanted what the Roman lawyers called "the law" and "the form." Neither the weight nor the pureness was guaranteed by any public authority. Such a state of things seems to us very inconvenient, but after all it is not very different from that which prevails in China even at the present day. The first money struck in Egypt, and that for the use rather of the Greek and Phoenician merchants than of the natives, was by the Satrap Aryandes. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as in Egypt, the precious metals, and especially silver, circulated as uncoined ingots. They were readily taken indeed, but taken by weight and verified by the balance like any other merchandise. The excavations in Assyria and Babylon, which have thrown so much light upon ancient history, have afforded us some interesting information as to the commercial arrangements of these countries, and we now possess a considerable number of receipts, contracts, and other records relating to loans of silver on personal securities at fixed rates of interest; loans on landed or house property; sales of land, in one case with a plan; sales of slaves, etc. These were engraved on tablets of clay, which were then burnt. M. Lenormant divides these most interesting documents into five principal types. Simple obligations. 2. Obligations with a penal clause in case of non-fulfilment. One he gives which had

79 days to run. 3. Obligations with the guarantee of a third party. 4. Obligations payable to a third person. 5. Drafts drawn upon one place, payable in another. He gives the following illustration of one of these letters of credit. "Four minas fifteen shekels of silver (credit) of Ardu-Nana son of Yakin upon Mardukabalussur son of Mardukbalatirib in the town of Orchoe. Mardukbalatirib will pay in the month of tebet four minas fifteen shekels of silver to Belabaliddin son of Sennaid. Our, the 14 arakh-samna in the second year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon." Then follow the names of witnesses. Nabonidus lived about 550 B.C. These Assyrian drafts were negotiable, but from the nature of things could not pass by indorsement, because, when the clay was once baked, nothing new could be added, and under these circumstances the name of the payee was frequently omitted. It seems to follow that they must have been regularly advised. It is certainly remarkable that such instruments, and especially letters of credit, should have preceded the use of coins. The earliest banking firm of which we have any account is said to be that of Egibi and Company, for our knowledge of whom we are indebted to Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Pinches, and Mr. Hilton Price. Several documents and records belonging to this family are in the British Museum. They are on clay tablets, and were discovered in an earthenware jar found in the neighborhood of Hillah, a few miles from Babylon. The house is said to have acted as a sort of national bank of Babylon: the founder of the house, Egibi, probably lived in the reign of Sennacherib, about 700 B.C. This family has been traced during a century and a half, and through five generations, down to the reign of Darius. At the same time, the tablets hitherto translated scarcely seem to me to prove that the firm acted as bankers, in our sense of the word.

As regards the Hebrews,* Mr. Poole tells us there is no distinct allusion to coined money in the books of the Old Testament before the return from Baby

* I am much indebted to Mr. Poole, Mr.

Head, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Evans for the information which they have kindly given me on various points connected with the history of money.

lon. Shekels, of course, are often mentioned, but the word, like our pound, denotes a weight as well as a coin, and in the older Scriptures it appears to have been used in the former sense. The earliest distinct mention of coins in the Bible is supposed to refer to Persian money, the word "drachm," which appears in our version, being a mistake for daric." These darics" have on the obverse the king kneeling, holding a bow and arrow. The reverse shows a rude incuse. They were probably struck in the fifth century B.C. At a much earlier date, indeed, we read, that Abimelech gave Abraham "a thousand pieces of silver" in expiation of his treatment of Sarah; and, again, that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites for "twenty pieces of silver." But in both these cases it will be observed that the word pieces" is in italics, and there is much doubt about the word in the Septuagint it is "shekels. Considering the zeal and success with which the Jewish race subsequently devoted themselves to commerce and finance, it is remarkable how small a part these professions play in the early history of the race. One ingenious writer, indeed, has attempted to account for the turbulence and frowardness of the Jews in ancient times by suggesting that they were fretted, being driven by circumstances into pastoral and agricultural pursuits against all their instinctive and natural tendencies, being, in fact, des banquiers comprimés. One type of the ancient shekels has on the obverse, in Hebrew," Shekel of Israel, year 4," above a chalice; on the reverse, Je rusalem the Holy triple city." Some numismatists ascribe these coins to Ezra. The first Jewish coins were apparently struck by Simon the Maccabee, under a grant from Antiochus the Seventh.

66

The earliest coinage in the Western world is generally ascribed to Pheidon, King of Ægina, who has also the great merit of having introduced the use of weights and measures. According to Herodotus, however, we owe this invention of money to the Lydians probably in the reign of Gyges, about 700 B.C. The question turns very much on the date of Pheidon, in reference to which there is great uncertainty. Some writers have carried him back to 895 B.C., which

seems to be certainly untenable, while others have endeavored to bring his date down to 660 B.C. The claims of the Lydians have recently been advocated by some eminent authorities, especially Rawlinson, Barclay Head, and Lenormant. Lord Liverpool also, in deference to the authority of Herodotus, inclined to the same opinion. In either case the honor rests with the Greek race. The early coins form an interesting transition between the metallic ingots which previously performed the functions of currency and true money. Those of Lydia are not round, but oval, with an official stamp indicating their weight and giving their legal value: the Æginetan silver staters also imitate the elongated form of the earlier period, and are even more irregular than those of Lydia. Still they possess more of the character of a true coinage, in having been struck on a block. Many of these ancient coins have been found in the neighborhood of Sardes. They have a device on one side only, the other being occupied by the incuse square, which is the admitted sign of the earlier condition of the earliest coins. "The masses of metal," says Rawlinson, "prepared for coinage were originally placed upon an anvil with a rough excrescence protruding from it, having for its object to catch hold of the metal while the impression is made by means of a die placed above and struck with a hammer. This excrescence, a mere rude and rough square at first, which gradually improves, being first divided into compartments, and then ornamented with a pattern, until gradually it becomes a second device, retaining, however, to a late date its original square shape on the coins. The quadratum incusum is of the most archaic type, having neither pattern nor divisions, and presenting the appearance which might be produced by the impression of a broken nail."

The Greek coinage, however rude at first, soon acquired a beauty and perfection surpassing all our modern efforts. The staters, for instance, of Philip and of Alexander, the coins of Syracuse and Metapontum, present to us the most lovely female faces and deities-perfect models of human beauty. Animals also are admirably represented, not only the horse, the lion, etc., but other smaller

creatures, as the harvest mouse on an ear of wheat on a Metapontum coin, and even insects, as, for instance, the praying mantis. The heads on the earliest coins represent gods and goddesses, the first human head being that of Alexander the Great on a coin of Lysimachus, and even in this case the great conqueror is represented in his divine character as descended from Jupiter Ammon, which is indicated by the ram's horns. It would not, however, be fair to modern mints to attribute the comparative poverty of modern coins to want of skill. It is a great convenience that coins should lie flatly one on another, and the greater boldness of ancient coins, however it may add to their beauty, necessarily rendered this impossible. Not only were the Greek coins admirable for their beauty, but they were also made of pure metal and full weight, offering in this respect a striking contrast to those of most other countries. There were, however, of course, exceptions. Thus the money of Phocæa was notorious for its bad quality. Herodotus mentions, though with some doubt, that Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, having to pay a large sum to the Lacedæmonians, "coined a large quantity of the country money in lead, had it gilt, and gave it to them; and that they, having received it, thereupon took their departure." That the true theory of coinage was well understood in Greece, we may see from the words of Aristotle, who thus describes the origin of coins:

lute, never did so : issued in the name of the people. Coins are, of course, very instructive from an historical point of view. Nevertheless it is somewhat remarkable that the Greeks do not seem to have ever struck commemorative medals. Even on their coins, they did not for a long time admit any allusions to contemporary events, and then only in an indirect manner. Almost the only exception is the enormous gold piece struck by Eucratides, king of Bactriana, of which the French possess the only known example. The fact that it is just equal to twenty staters, does not prove that it was ever intended to serve as a coin, against which its size must have been a great objection. Moreover it would appear that very few specimens were struck. Indeed there is some reason to suppose that the French example is the only one ever made, as the die appears to have been broken in striking it. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any name for a "medal as distinguished from a true coin.

* their money was

In Greece, the original business of bankers seems to have consisted in changing money for foreigners, but they soon commenced banking and allowing interest on deposits. We are incidentally informed that the father of Demosthenes kept part of his fortune with one of these Trapezitæ or bankers. Some of them enjoyed considerable credit. Pasion, for instance, we are told, was well known and trusted all over Greece. The ordinary rates of interest were very high, and will not at all bear comparison with those of the present day, as they ranged from 10 to 37 per cent; but the risks also must have been extreme, and, notwithstanding this large rate of interest, their profits seem to have been small. Even Pasion's business is said to have been worth but 400l. a year, which appears scarcely credible. The Greek bankers seem to have been as much notaries as

bankers, and a large part of their business consisted in witnessing contracts between others. They seem, however, to have possessed a document not very dissimilar to our check. They were acquainted with letters of credit, and had even invented a form of indorsement. Thus Iceratus, we read, drew in Athens

* With one exception, Alexander of Pheres.

a bill on his father in Pontus, which was guaranteed by Pasion, and then bought by Stratocles. Bottomry bonds also were in use. It is often said that the great banks of Greece were the temples, but I confess I have my doubts about this. No doubt there are frequent references to deposits being made in the temples, but there is a second and not less important function of banks, viz., repayment of deposits, as to which the evidence is very deficient.

The earliest Roman coins are said to ha ve been struck either by Numa or by Servius Tullius. They were of bronze or copper, silver not being used till the first Punic war, 269 B.C., and gold some sixty years later. Even under the earlier emperors the different provinces and colonies had their own coins, and it was not until the time of Diocletian that one coinage was established for the whole empire. For a long period, indeed, every great Roman family had the right of coining denarii with their own device, though precautions were taken to preclude any tampering with the weight or fineness.

66

The first step in the degradation of the coinage was effected by the celebrated Flaminian law. We must, however, remember that this was passed as a measure of desperate necessity, when Hannibal was at the gates of Rome, and when the disasters of Lake Thrasimene and the Trebia had brought the Republic to the very verge of ruin. By it the denarius was reduced fromto of a pound. Still more important in its results was the principle recognized in the law, namely that the coin was a sign." This unfortunate error naturally opened the door to further debasement. Nevertheless, it was not till the time of Nero that any further steps were taken in this direction. He lowered the aureus, and reduced the denarius from to of a pound, increasing the alloy at the same time from 5 to 10 per cent. After this, though the aureus remained stationary for some time, the denarius rapidly fell in value. Although, as already mentioned, the great Roman families were long permitted to coin under certain precautions, this was nevertheless not only under the supervision, but in the name of the State. The first coins were not inscribed, but afterwards they generally

bore the legend "Koma," not as a geographical expression, but as a recognition of sovereignty. The same feeling which rendered the Greeks so long reluctant to put any human head on their coins, influenced the Romans also: to have done so would have indicated a claim to sovereignty, which, under a republic, would of course have been totally inadmissible. During the earlier period of Roman history, indeed, such coins were unknown. In the year 58 B.C. M. Æmilius Scaurus represented himself on a small scale, in the act of receiving the submission of Aretas, king of the Nabatheans. We find also Marius, Sylla, and Pompey, on their triumphal cars, but not even they ever ventured to put their likenesses on the coins. This feeling extended with still greater force to female heads. Even the representations of the women belonging to the imperial family under the earliest emperors were not only posthumous and commemorative, but were moreover at first introduced under the disguise of goddesses. Thus Julia was represented as Diana. Tiberius, in honor of his mother Livia, attached her features to heads of the goddesses Pietas, Justitia, and Salus Augusta. Agrippina was not satisfied with this, and placed herself on coins with her husband Claudius, though she did not venture to have one struck with her own effigy alone. The rule was first broken by Drusus, who struck coins in honor of his wife Antonia.

The Greeks appear to have introduced banking into Italy, at least if we may judge from the fact that in early Latin writers most of the words relating to banking and finance are of Greek origin, and were gradually replaced by Latin words. The bankers in Rome soon became of great importance, and the old Roman comedies contain many allusions to them, not always, indeed, of a very complimentary description, although their professional honor stood very high. It has been mentioned, as an indication of the unpopularity of Gaulish bankers, that when the revolt of Vercingetorix took place, the houses of the bankers were first attacked. But surely another explanation may be given. Moreover, the extortion of high interest was not confined to bankers. Pompey, we are informed, lent money at 50 per cent :

Brutus, and Cato himself, at 48 per cent. The rate of interest in Rome, as elsewhere in ancient times, was, in fact, excessive. There was, however, no legal rate till the law of the Twelve Tables. It was then fixed nominally at 8 per cent. Subsequently, in the time of Cicero, it was raised to 12 per cent, at which it continued until it was reduced by Justinian to 4 per cent for " illustrious" persons, for those engaged in commerce 6 per cent, and 8 per cent in other cases. We are told that all money transactions were carried on through the intervention of bankers, and that they kept the account books of their customers. But, however this may be, the system of banking does not appear to have been very thoroughly developed, because when Cicero sent his son Marcus to complete his education at Athens, he wrote to Atticus to inquire if it would be possible to procure a letter of credit on Athens, or whether it would be necessary for Marcus to carry money with him. The later Roman law contains numerous provisions relating to banks. One is rather curious.

It seems that if a banker failed, those who had simply deposited money with him for safety ranked before those who placed sums with him at interest. But although they have been the subject of various learned dissertations, it is by no means clear how the Roman bankers kept their accounts. We may hope that We may hope that we shall ere long know more about Roman banking, because the house and archives of a Pompeian banker-Lucius Cæcilius Jucundus-have recently been discovered in that city.

By general consent, gold, silver, and copper have been the metals used as money. Iron indeed is said to have been used in Sparta under the laws of Lycurgus, but in this case there is no reason to suppose that it was ever coined. It seems to have been used, as it was, according to Cæsar, amongst the ancient Britons, in the form of bars. Pollux mentions that the inhabitants of Byzantium in ancient times used iron for coins instead of copper, and so have the Japanese, but on the whole this metal is much too heavy, in proportion to its value, for convenience. Coins of tin are reported to have been struck by Dionysius of Syracuse, and subsequently in Gaul under the reigns of Septimius Severus and

Glass

Caracalla, but they appear to have been almost immediately abandoned again. Cast coins of this metal were in use among the ancient Britons: the similarity of such coins to those of silver constituted a very serious inconvenience. seems to have been likewise, at one time, used for subsidiary coinage in Egypt and in Sicily. Platinum was tried in Russia, but was found unsuitable; lead is still used in Burmah; nickel in Belgium, the United States, and Germany; and in 1869 and 1870 we struck some nickel pence and halfpence for Jamaica. In addition to the commercial uses of coins, they are important from an historical point of view, and also in giving us authentic portraits of many interesting persons-Cæsar, Cleopatra, and many others.

I have already alluded to the high rates of interest which prevailed in former times. These of course were very injurious to commerce, and naturally provoked unfavorable criticisms, which however were by no means confined to usurious rates, but often extended to any charge whatever for interest. Indeed the idea that there is some wrong about charging interest for the use of money is not the least remarkable, or disastrous, of the various prejudices, which have interfered with the happiness and comfort of man. The supposed axiom that pecunia non parit pecuniam, the misapplication of certain texts of Scripture, and the supposed interests of the poor, all contributed to the same error. Thus in the reign of Elizabeth (1571) (13 Eliz. cap. 8) an Act was passed against usury and " and "corrupt chevisance and bargaining by way of sale of wares," which were declared to have abounded "to the importable hurt of the Commonwealth," declaring usury to be forbidden by the law of God, in its nature sin, and detestable. Quaintly enough, however, this was in the first instance limited to five years, but subsequently (39 Eliz. cap. 18) it was continued, on the ground that it was found by experience to be very necessary and profitable to the Commonwealth of this realm."

64

It was for a long time, indeed until the middle of the last century, generally supposed that the rate of interest would, apart from legislative enactment, be regulated by the scarcity or abundance of