THE COINAGE OF THE POPES; ITS RISE, PROGRESS AND TERMINATION.

UNPREPARED to do justice to this important specialty of numismatic study, I may yet be able to stir up to the task some one more competent and having more time.

Whether Bishops are proper authorities for coining money, is not for us to settle. They have done it, here and there, and from age to age. In Anglo-Saxon times, the Archbishops of York and Canterbury had their Mints. In later centuries, even down to the day when the first Napoleon overturned everything, various Archbishops and Bishops of Germany issued their own money. And for nearly eleven centuries, namely, from the latter part of the eighth century to "only the other day," the Bishop of Rome exercised this secular prerogative. It is of this last instance, by far the most interesting and important, that we propose now to make some notes.

The original Church was not planted upon a money basis. It had no capital, no endowment, no rich men. There are several intimations that its Author never carried a piece of money about his person. In his memorable answer about paying tribute to Caesar, he had to ask for a penny by way of illustration. When the temple-tax was to be paid, the astonished disciple was sent to find it in a fish's mouth. The twelve disciples evidently looked upon three hundred pence (denaria) as a great sum of money, not to be wasted on ointment. And the first occupant of St. Peter's chair, Peter himself, spoke disrespectfully of money. "Silver and gold have I none," was his reply to an appeal for alms. The salvation which he preached, was not to be made little by comparison with " corruptible silver and gold," as he expressly says in one of his Epistles.

Turning rapidly the wheel of ages, we come upon the times when this poverty had vanished, or was to be found only in the cells of the monasteries. The imposing cathedrals, the golden vestments, and the paraphernalia of the altars, all needed the outlay of money. Besides, the Bishop of Rome had become a temporal prince, and the State must have its currency. The Peterpenny, or dernier, was a tax collected all over Christendom. And it seemed but right that the successor of Peter should have a hand in striking the coin, which brings us to the subject before us, the coins of the Popes. It is a

curious subject, and a help to the study of history generally, and of the Church particularly. These coins, especially the earlier ones, are very rare. When a noted collector has made a specialty of them, and his collection is well catalogued and put under the auction hammer, we have a good opportunity, indeed, the best, of knowing all that is to be known. Such a chance offered in October, 1875, in the sale of Henri Regnault's very fine collection, at Frankfort, Germany, and strange to say, another has just occurred in our Western world, in the classic catalogue and auction sale of a superb series of Papal coins, and notably scudi, forming part of the collection of Professor Anthon.

In the present sketch, we distinguish between the medals and the coins of the Popes; leaving the former for some one else to discuss. In the immense numismatic collection of Baron Bretfeld, (over fifty thousand pieces,) which was sold at Vienna in 1842, there is a department of "PAEPSTE.” It consists chiefly of bronze and leaden medals, numbering about fourteen hundred pieces. The medals go back to the second century. But it seems hard to believe that the Bishops of Rome, in those early ages, when most of them were put to death by heathen emperors, were in a position to strike medals, or cared for any such pastime. They are ascribed to Soter, Calixtus, and others, without sufficient corroboration; so that they may have been fabricated at a much later date, to make up a series, just as there are modern medals of the early French and English kings.

I may here insert, that Regnault's Catalogue is based upon the Italian work, "Le Monete dei Papi," by Cinagli, 1848.

The first coinage appears to have been issued about A. D. 783, under Pope Hadrian. It bears his name; but VICTORIA DNN. (i. e. Victory of our Lords) distinctly implies submission to the reigning emperors, East and West. This acknowledgment is still more pronounced on a Papal coin which bears the name of LVDOVVICVS IMP., which was Louis the Meek, son of Charlemagne. But while the one was master in things temporal, the other was paramount in things spiritual. Louis came near being excommunicated, and was only saved by the intervention of French Bishops. This coin bears three names: Emperor Louis, Pope Gregory, and Saint Peter. The triplicity was carried on for a short time, and then the emperor was dropped out. In his stead we observe the "Senate and People of Rome" as in old time, with the high assertion ROMA CAPVT MVNDI "Rome the head of the world."

It is historically affirmed that the Apostle Peter stood at the head of the dynasty of Popes. But we observe, that for a considerable time Peter and Paul were conjointly named on the coins as of equal power. In fact, it was not until Leo X., the famous Pope in the time of Luther, that we find Paul omitted, and Peter recognized as the only Rock. Afterwards this was interrupted for a brief period, but eventually Peter stood alone.

This coining of money had become so essential a part of the papal prerogative, that when the Popes retired to Avignon in France, and long remained there, the "Church in the Wilderness," they kept their mint at work. This is very remarkable. It shows that they did not simply strike coin as local princes, or for the petty "patrimony of St. Peter." And yet, this money, by its present scarcity, seems to have had no great currency. To speak generally, the coins give us the names and pictures of the Popes, with a great

variety of reverse devices and legends mainly taken from Scripture, the Latin version of Jerome. We have a large display of these pictorial moneys, in the plates of Bonneville's folio, and in other works. They show the great skill and great activity of the mint artists, among the most distinguished of whom were the three Hameranis.

Quite remarkable is it, that in so small a territory they should have maintained two mints-at Rome and Bologna. At least, there were those two classes of coins. Why the latter city should have a mint, at only a few hours' distance from Rome, is not easy to explain, except as an ancient franchise, or as an imitation of the cities of the old world, and of the mediæval hanseatic towns, many of them making their own money. Bologna became a part of the Pontifical State in 1506. It has long been famous for two things very unlike. The University, founded in the twelfth century, is one; and by reason of it the coins of that city wore the proud legend, Bononia Docet. The other celebrity is the Bologna sausage, which, no matter what it is made of, is eaten the world over.

Some of the pieces of Bologna were very remarkable. We may instance the dieci Zecchini, or ten sequins, of Pius VI.,—famous for having excommunicated Talleyrand, the French diplomatist Bishop, about a century ago. It was made of absolutely pure gold, (as almost no coins are,) and was worth twenty-three dollars. Such coins would seem to indicate a rich people, as well as "a royal priesthood." They were probably more for show than for use. Sixty years ago, and doubtless before and after, all payments at Rome above five scudi (dollars) were made in bank notes, which by law could not be refused. As to the artistic parts, specially at the chief city, there was never, in the history of coin-engraving, such a rich variety of pictures, devices and mottoes. Both the gold and silver series were magnificent. In this fine art they were never surpassed. In the mechanic art their mint was considerably behind; especially if we take into view, that up to the extinction of the mint, its machinery was very middling, and its motive power was the water-wheel. One is puzzled to imagine where the engraver could find so many subjects in a territory no larger than twice the size of Massachusetts. An old basilica or a new bridge must be celebrated on the coin. But the change of Popes, or the Vacant See, gave a fine scope to the artist.

It must have been in obedience to a fashion of the Church, that the engravers of the whole seventeenth century complied with an odd taste. It may be owned that the human head never appears to less advantage, than when it is shrouded in a nightcap. And yet the Popes were exhibited in something very like this undress. Not the neat little tonsure as we see on recent coins, but an umbrageous, shapeless cap, rolled at the edge, and pulled down upon the ears, altogether unbecoming and unpontifical. But, en revanche, the engraver had full opportunity to display his art on the reverse.

The legends show, as we have said, no ignorance of Scripture. They were usually short texts in Latin. Supra Firmam Petram runs through centuries of coins. When the See was vacant, there was the promise, I will not leave you Orphans (or comfortless, as in the Protestant translation). Come, light of all hearts, was a reference to the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove.

Three times the Papal coinage apparently ceased. In 1798, under Republican influence; in 1809, when the State became a department of France;

and again in 1848, when the Republic was revived. These were harbingers of the decisive event, which was brought about by steps in the decade of 1860 to 1870. The latest date we have seen is 1869, and no doubt this was the conclusion.

W. E. DUBOIS.

Philadelphia, Pa.

FRANKLIN'S SUGGESTION OF THE MEDAL ON THE SURRENDER OF THE BRITISH AT YORKTOWN, 1781.

In view of the approaching centennial celebration of the victory at Yorktown, closing the Revolutionary War in 1781, the following correspondence between Benjamin Franklin and Robert R. Livingstone, with reference to a memorial of that event, will be read with interest, although a portion of it has already appeared in the Journal. The medal is well known, but the pillar ordered by Congress has not yet risen. It is hoped that the end of this year will see the work begun.

Robert R. Livingstone, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to Benjamin Franklin. PHILADELPHIA, October 24, 1871.

Inclosed you have the capitulation of Yorktown and Gloucester, by which a British army of 5,600 men was surrendered to the allied arms of France and America; and no inconsiderable fleet, with 800 seamen, to the navy of His Most Christian Majesty.

Same to Same, dated Philadelphia, December 16, 1781.

I inclose a resolution of Congress for erecting a pillar to commemorate the victory at Yorktown. I must request your assistance in enabling me to carry it into effect, so far as it relates to me, by sending the sketch they require, with an estimate of the expense with which it will be attended. I could wish it to be such as may do honor to the nations whose union it designs to celebrate, and, for that reason, should think the execution ought to be deferred till our finances are in a better situation than they are at present; but as this lies with Congress only, you will be so obliging as to enable me to do my duty by laying the sketch before them as soon as you can conveniently get the same executed.

Benjamin Franklin to Robert R. Livingstone, dated Passy, March 4, 1782.

I will endeavor to procure a sketch of an emblem for the purpose you mention. This puts me in mind of medal I have had a mind to strike since the late great event you gave me an account of, representing the United States by the figure of an infant Hercules in his cradle, strangling the two serpents, and France by that of Minerva, sitting as his nurse, with her spear and helmet and her robes speckled with a few fleurs de lis. The extinguishing of two entire armies in one war is what has rarely happened, and it gives a presage of the future force of our growing empire.†

* I have a 5 lire of 1870.-W. S. A. This suggestion by Franklin led to the striking of the medal so familiar to American collectors as the Libertas Americana; it may not however be so generally known

that the two serpents which the infant Hercules strangles, typify the armies of Burgoyne and Cornwallis, which were defeated at Saratoga and Yorktown, and to which the dates on the medal allude.

1

Livingstone to Franklin, dated Philadelphia, May 30, 1782.

I am charmed with your idea of a medal to perpetuate the memory of York and Saratoga. The thought is simple, elegant, and strikingly expressive of the subject. I cannot, however, but flatter myself that before it can be executed, your Hercules will have tasked your invention for a new emblem. Benjamin Franklin to Robert R. Livingstone, dated Passy, August 12, 1782.

Your approbation of my idea of a medal to perpetuate the memory of York and Saratoga victories gives me great pleasure and encourages me to have it struck. I wish you would acquaint me with what kind of a monument at York the emblems required are to be fixed on — whether an obelisk or a column, its dimensions, whether any part of it is to be marble, and the emblem carved on it, and whether the work is to be executed by the excellent artists in that way which Paris affords, and, if so, to what expense they are to be limited.

THE FIRST USE OF THE WORD CENT.

In the printed Proceedings of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, for the year 1880, recently issued, we find some comments on the question whether the piece comThis monly known as the "Washington Cent of 1783," was really struck at the time it is dated. involves some other interesting numismatic and historical points, and we reprint the following extract in relation to the coin.

A letter was read from the Rev. Israel W. Andrews, D. D., President of Marietta College, Ohio, making inquiry as to whether the Washington cent of 1783, with the inscription "ONE CENT," "Unity States of America," was really issued in the year it bears date; and if it was, whether it is not the first use of the word cent to denote the hundredth part of the unit. He writes, "The term cent appears first in our legislation in 1786. Robert Morris had used the word two or three years before, but in a different sense. He employed it to indicate a hundred units. We use it to denote the hundredth part of the unit. If this copper token was issued in 1783, the word cent was used three years before it appears in the records of Congress. In fact, the designer of that little coin, struck in France, would seem to have invented that money term, and I cannot learn that the word cent is found on any other coin till after the action of Congress in 1786.”

Robert Coulton Davis, the Curator of Numismatics, to whom the letter had been previously referred, stated that it was true, as mentioned by Dr. Andrews, that Robert Morris, in January, 1782, suggested that the lowest silver coin" might be called a cent," to be composed of "one hundred units, and that the first use of the term in legislation was in 1786. Jefferson, in his notes on the establishment of a money unit in 1782 or 1783, suggests the division into tenths. If we adopt the dollar for our unit, we should strike four coins, one of gold, two of silver, and one of copper, viz: 1. A golden piece, equal in value to ten dollars. 2. The unit, a dollar itself, of silver. 3. The tenth of a dollar, of silver also. 4. The hundredth of a dollar, of copper." This last, however, he calls a "penny or copper," nowhere a cent. We know that in 1782 and 1783 there was much agitation in regard to the establishment of a mint, and in the latter year many trial or pattern pieces were made. In a