II. COINAGE
Arrangement.
The
most convenient order in which the
Imperial coins of Egypt can be catalogued
seems to be the following.
The
coinage is first separated into
two classes, the Alexandrian coins
and those of Nomes and Cities. Although
the money of the second class was
struck at one mint, that mint being
Alexandria, its types are local,
and therefore it is well to keep
it separate.
The
Alexandrian coinage consists of
billon coins and bronze coins of
four denominations. It is catalogued
under each Emperor, the first division
being of coins which bear on the
reverse a second imperial portrait,
followed by the second, of various
other types of reverse arranged
in the order explained in the section
Types, p. xxxix. sqq. The
portrait reverses are in the earlier
billon coinage placed first on account
of their importance. For instance,
there would be no billon of Tiberius
if, according to the usual custom,
the billon money with the head of
Augustus were placed under the reign
of Augustus. He would then only
have bronze money, and what was
his billon money would thus precede
the far less important bronze. Under
each division, that of portrait
reverses and that of various reverses,
the billon precedes the bronze.
The order of the coins is not chronological,
nor according to sizes, in the case
of the bronze, but according to
types. The chronological indications
are explained first by the Table
of Contents, and second by notices
in the Introduction, to which there
are references in Index II. of the
Catalogue. The reason for the abandonment
of the strict chronological system
is, that it has the effect of separating
recurrent types and making it impossible
to describe them accurately without
elaborate reference, and in the
case of varieties without probable
confusion. It is obviously best
to place all the types of, for instance
Nilus, of one Emperor together,
so that there is no need of reference;
the varieties, as recumbent or seated,
&c, being grouped together,
and their description not divided
by the chronological order. A glance
at the tables will justify this
method.
The
Nome-series is arranged first geographically
and then chronologically. It is
most important to keep under each
nome the coins struck for it, in
order to give their evidence upon
its local mythology.*
Denominations.
Bronze
of Augustus.
On
the subjugation of Egypt Augustus
seems to have made no change in
the coinage, which was of bronze
only. His first coins are identical
in the reverse types, the mint-letters,
and the two denominations, with
those of Cleopatra VII. (Comp. Pl.
xxv. 1, and p. 1, no. 3, with Cat.
Ptol., Pl. xxx. 7, 8.) Subsequently
Augustus issued one or two lower
denominations. Whether this bronze
coinage had any relation to that
of Rome has not been determined.
Billon
Tetradrachms begins under Tiberius,
A.D. 19
The
long series of billon coins begins
with Tiberius. He reissued the tetradrachms
of the Ptolemies, the latest of
which, those of Ptolemy XIII. Auletes,
are of base metal, the latest base
metal coin being the drachm of Cleopatra,
year 6, B.C. 47. (Cat. Ptol. p.
122, no. 1.) The earliest date of
these coins under Tiberius is of
year 7, which began AD 19.*
The aureus was equal to 25 tetradrachms;
the tetradrachm, though in weight
equal to 4 denarii, was in silver
contents only equal to 1. But in
legal value the Alexandrian drachm
was estimated as an obolus, thus
one-sixth of the denarius, which
makes the tetradrachm equal in legal
value to two-thirds. This billon
coinage falls in purity, and in
the time of Commodus is almost copper,
washed with silver.*
Thus concurrently with the depreciation
of the Roman coinage, though more
rapidly, the Alexandrian billon
decreases in purity and also in
volume, until the small tetradrachms
of Claudius II Gothicus contain
only .38 of pure silver and those
of Diocletian, in whose reign the
series closes, 18.*
Later
Bronze.
Largest
bronze introduced by Vespasian.
The
bronze coinage continues and is
of three denominations, until a
fourth is added, corresponding to
the Roman sestertius in size. The
first examples of the largest size
occur under Vespasian. Then and
subsequently we find four denominations,
until the reign of Commodus, when
all regular issue of bronze ceases,
(as the baseness of billon made
it unnecessary,) only to be occasionally
resumed, chiefly for chronological
commemorative purposes.
No
attempt is here made to determine
the relation of the bronze to the
imperial gold or the provincial
billon, as the materials for the
inquiry have not yet been collected.*
Mint.
All
the imperial coins of Egypt, whether
the so-called Alexandrian or those
of Nomes or cities, were struck
at one place. The subjects of the
"Alexandrian" are local
of that city, referring to its edifices,
its mythology, and to the city itself,
or else imperial, and there is no
reference to the Nome worship except
as connected with that of Alexandria.
The money is legally imperial, never
being autonomous or local, as Mommsen
has conclusively shown.*
Thus the term Alexandrian is numismatically
good, though not legally. This term
is therefore here retained inasmuch
as the relation of a coin to its
place of minting is the essential
matter to remember in considering
its value in evidence for history;
mythology, and art. The Nome-coins
are on the other hand struck for
the Nomes at Alexandria.
Influence
of Historical Events on coinage.
The
changes and fluctuations in the
coinage of Alexandria deserve a
slight notice here, as they may
be traced to historical causes,
and thus there may be indicated
a line of inquiry likely to be more
fruitful in the future.
No
Coins of Caligula.
The
first gap in the series is the whole
of the short reign of "Caligula,"
AD 37-41. This may be explained
by the disturbed state of Alexandria,
shown by the Prefect's persecution
of the Jewish citizens.
Coinage
Enlarged by Vespasian
The
coinage gained true importance by
the issue under Vespasian of large
coins of bronze. It is evident that
he had a special regard for the
city which first asserted his pretensions.*
Types
developed by Domitian.
Under
Domitian there was a great development
of coin-types, the interesting series
of large bronze with a variety of
types distinct from those of the
lower bronze then having its true
beginning, a series to continue,
only interrupted in the short reign
of Nerva, until the accession of
Commodus.
First
issue of Nome-coins.
In
the same reign began the issue of
local Egyptian coinages for the
Nomes, a privilege afterwards extended
to a few cities, such coinages being
struck at Alexandria. This was a
large concession to the native Egyptians,
as distinguished from the citizens
of Alexandria. It was destined to
influence the Alexandrian coinage
by introducing into its types Egyptian
subjects suggested by the local
types, and so to render the coinage
of the capital more Egyptian in
character. At the same time the
local coinage felt the influence
of the Alexandrian, inasmuch as
the subjects were not usually presented
in a purely Egyptian form, but were
Hellenized.
Trajan.
The
Coins of Trajan witness to the prosperity
of the empire and to that policy
of beautifying the provincial cities
which was carried further by Hadrian.
The Nome coinage was issued more
largely, and it is clear that, as
just mentioned, it had its influence
on the central issues in which the
same subjects occur. The first coin
struck for a city occurs in this
reign. It may be noted that Trajans
coinage is the most Egyptian in
the series.
Hadrian.
Hadrian
departs somewhat from the Egyptianizing
tendency seen on the money of his
predecessor. Though the Nome-coinage
continues, it has less importance,
being of the third instead of the
largest size, the types do not reappear
on the central coinage, and Greek
subjects, edifices, and what may
be termed imperial types are frequent.
Antoninus.
Under
Antoninus Pius the coinage, otherwise
similar to that of Hadrian, took
a new departure in consequence of
a very important chronological event,
the beginning of a Sothiac Cycle
AD 139, in the 3rd Alexandrian year
of the Emperor. The effect is first
the issue, in the 6th year, of a
commemorative type, the Phoenix
in billon, with the inscription
ΑΙωΝ, and then
that of a large number of mythological
types of an astrological character
in the large bronze series. These
appear in the Emperor's 8th year,
AD 144-145. In the same year Nome-coins
of the largest bronze were issued
with the heads of the Emperor and
Aurelius Caesar. No explanation
has been offered of the strange
postponement of the commemoration
of the Cycle.
M.
Aurelius.
Under
Marcus Aurelius there is a remarkable
decline of the coinage. This was
undoubtedly due to the disturbed
state of the province. The Bucolic
War shows a wide-spread discontent
among the native Egyptians, and
the difficulty of its suppression
shows their strength. Avidius Cassius
having put down the revolt, rebelled
and maintained himself for three
months in AD 175.*
We cannot wonder at the cessation
in this reign of the Nome-coinage
and the decrease of that of Alexandria.
Aurelius could not restore the unity
of Egypt. Henceforth, the types
are Alexandrian and Roman: the splendid
series of large bronze virtually
ceases.
Decline.
The
decline of the coinage is marked
under Commodus and the family of
Severus. With the oriental Elagabalus,
there is a distinct revival, due
no doubt to his liking for the Alexandrian
forms of worship. This is maintained
in the issues of Severus Alexander.
The coinage, as it becomes more
and more debased, loses its interest.
Under the military Emperors, Roman
military types increase, until the
leading subjects are aquilae with
or without vexilla. It is the money
not of Egypt nor of Alexandria,
but of the Roman garrison of Egypt.
Thus the adoption of the purely
Roman coinage of the Monetary Reform,
with its Latin inscriptions, was
no sudden innovation: it was only
the last step in the Romanization
of the province.
The
Art of Egyptian Coins under the
Romans.
Early
Greek Influence.
Naukratis
founded.
To
discover the source of the Art of
the Egyptian coins under the Roman
rule we must go back more than six
centuries before the subjugation
of the country by Augustus, to the
days of Psammetichus I, who became
sole ruler of Egypt in the middle
of the seventh century before our
era. He encouraged the Greeks to
settle in Egypt, not only as mercenaries
but also as craftsmen and merchants.
To this policy was due the foundation
in his reign of the great emporium
of Naukratis and the military settlement
of Daphnae, which ultimately became
commercial also.
Saïte
Renaissance.
The
presence of skilled Greek workmen
in Egypt could not fail to affect
Egyptian art, which having fallen
very low, was under the rule of
the Saïte house of Psammetichus
revived with all the conditions
of the oldest monumental civilization
of the country.
Its
Art.
Similar
movement in Assyria.
That
the characteristics of the art of
this renaissance were due to the
influence of the Greek settlers
needs some evidence. This is supplied
first by the circumstance that a
like movement in the same direction,
assignable to the same cause, is
seen in the latest Assyrian sculptures,
which are of the age of the King
Asshur-ban-habal, against whom Psammetichus
I rebelled. Secondly, the Egyptian
and the Assyrian sculptures of this
time show a freedom and a delicacy
never, so far as we know, attained
in earlier times, while the Egyptian
are marked by a naturalism which
had long disappeared. It may be
objected that we here antedate the
movement of Greek art, that the
works executed in Greek countries
in the seventh century BC are far
behind those just cited from Egypt
and Assyria, and no doubt this is
true. In Egypt and in Assyria, however,
the craftsmen had, if they worked
for foreign masters, not to invent
but to modify. The hypothesis is
merely that men of flexible and
original power took in hand the
old subjects, which thus revived.
It must also be remembered that
the wars with the Lydians and the
Persians and the fall of the tyrants,
involving a complete political change,
with the transfer of the patronage
of art from the few to the many,
may have had the same effect in
retarding the onward movement of
Greek art, which was produced in
the middle ages on the Renaissance
in the East by the Crusades, and
in the West by the political failure
of the Emperor Frederick II.
Greek
influence on Egyptian Architecture
from BC 358.
Whether
this view be true or not, there
can be no doubt that the great development
of Egyptian architecture in the
forms of the capital can only have
been due to the Greeks: in the first
place, it bloomed in the time when
art had otherwise declined very
low;*
in the second, it was accompanied
or followed, both ultimately existing
together, by a strong Greek influence
on the meaning of the temple itself,
the whole plan of which was changed
by the theories of Platonism. *
The
foundation of Alexandria introduced
the Greek art of the age, ruled
by the style of Lysippus and by
that of contemporary masters in
all branches. The special qualities
of this style may be seen in the
portrait of Ptolemy I on his own
coins and those of his son. The
native art continued beside this
purely Greek art, even at Alexandria,
and between the two there grew up
a mixed style, not unlike the "archaistic"
Graeco-Roman.
Art
under the Ptolemies.
It
might have been supposed that the
wealth and magnificence of the first
two Ptolemies and their delight
in shows, like the Pomp of Philadelphos,
would have greatly developed art,
and that the love of allegory which
then prevailed would have given
it a special direction. There was,
however, a strong counteracting
influence in the rule of science
at the Museum. Moreover, the later
Ptolemies were rather Egyptians
than Greeks. Thus Alexandrian art
was limited to the capital and stunted
in its growth. On the other hand,
the rule of Platonism which succeeded
to that of science, introduced another
Greek influence, as already mentioned,
and gave to the temple an orderly
arrangement with a view to Platonic
exposition. Egyptian art, left undisturbed,
pursued its natural development
from the Greek principle which had
been earlier implanted. The mixed
art is seen in some well-known types,
such for instance, as those of Isis
and possibly her priestesses. It
resembles all uncertain and merely
imitative art. Its works show want
of knowledge and want of confidence.
Art
under the Romans as seen on Coins.
It
is reasonable to think that there
was a Greek revival under Cleopatra,
but if so, it can have had no powerful
effect. At the Roman subjugation
of Egypt her art had fallen far
below the general level of the Greek
world. Henceforward Egyptian art
is lifeless. Whatever changes it
experiences are due to the changes
of Graeco-Roman and Roman art. The
coins afford at once its best examples
and its clearest history. The three
divisions of art are maintained.
There are Greek types, Egyptian,
and mixed, characterized in their
treatment by certain qualities,
showing that there had been the
three styles. The chief movements
are the renaissance under Trajan
and Hadrian, which is part of the
history of all imperial coinage,
the decline under Aurelius, as evident
in the quality as in the variety
of the coins, this due to political
causes, the revival under Elagabalus,
quasipolitical, the decline after
Severus Alexander, owing to the
weakening of imperial power, this
being a specially imperial coinage,
and the final debasement at the
close of the three centuries. The
Reform of Diocletian made the Alexandrian
money in all respects Roman, and
mechanical as it is it shows a superiority
to what it supplanted.
The
artistic interest of the coins lies
in what they tell us of the sources
from which they took their subjects
and in their manner of representation.
Subjects
of Coins.
The
subjects of coins, besides the portraits
of imperial personages, are statues,
reliefs, the coin-types as the original
reliefs, animals, and various architectural
objects. The range is extraordinarily
wide and the variety great.
Quality
of Art.
The
quality of Alexandrian art is inferior
in delicacy to that of Asia Minor
at the time, and even to Roman.
It is not wanting in vigour and
in a certain picturesqueness that
is almost original. It also has
an element of fancy or caricature
which is true to ancient Egyptian
art and to the Alexandrian character.
As instances, the representations
of Nilus may be cited in which the
little Cubits are introduced in
playful attitudes (Pl.
xxi. 1577, 1587, 1672), and
the subject of Isis with Harpokrates
on her knee, while a second Harpokrates
endeavours to climb up her leg (no.
1127, not engr.). The portraits
are generally rough, but not always
without character and force.
Iconography.
Probable
Sources.
The
Iconography of the Alexandrian coins
is of inferior interest. This is
due to the circumstance that the
Emperors were at too great a distance
to be seen, except in the rare cases
of those who visited Egypt, and
these did not in all cases do so
early in their reigns, when the
type of portrait might more readily
be modified. Probably, in the case
of the more powerful of the earlier
Emperors, a bust, not in most cases
an original, was sent to the province;
usually, however, the only authority
would be the Roman coinage.
Retention
of earlier portraits.
As
a consequence of the want of accurate
information when the portrait was
first put on the coin-die at the
beginning of the reign, there being
a desire to strike money of the
first year, however few weeks it
contained, there are instances of
the retention of the portrait of
the portrait of the previous Emperor.
Thus Vespasian in his 1st year almost
always, and in his 2nd year sometimes,
has a similarity to Vitellius. It
will be remembered that he was proclaimed
at Alexandria very near the close
of the Egyptian year, so that the
coins with the earlier portrait
may have been struck within a short
interval, which is the more likely
from the appearance of the later
portrait in the 1st year.*
Similarly, the earlier portrait
of Hadrian is not characteristic
of him, and has a general resemblance
to that of Trajan. Of his 1st year
there are no coins known, which
is not surprising, as it began only
three weeks before the beginning
of the Egyptian year.*
The change to the regular portrait
cannot be fixed to any year. It
occurred in the course of years
2-10, after which the old portrait
disappears.
Inscriptions
of Coins.
Obverse
and reverse inscriptions independent.
The
Alexandrian coins as a rule follow
the usual custom of Greek Imperial
money in having independent obverse
and reverse inscriptions. The coins
of Aelius Caesar are an exception:
on them the inscription begins on
the obverse, and is completed on
the reverse, the obverse giving
the Caesar's style, and the reverse
his offices, according to an occasional
use of Roman Imperial coins, thus:
obverse, Λ ΑΙΑΙΟC
ΚΑΙCΑΡ;
reverse, ΔΗΜ ΕΞΟΥC
ΥΠΑΤ Β
(Pl.
x. 921, 923). Cf. Commodus,
no. 1369.
Titles,
COS. TR. P. IMP. occasional
not given.
Imperator,
Αυτοκρατωρ.
The
Alexandrian coins similarly conform
to the general usage of the Greek
Imperial class, and do not give,
except again those of Aelius, the
consulship, tribunican power, and
"occasional" imperatorship.
The imperatorship, which is here
termed occasional, is the last office
on Roman Imperial coins, and is
numbered I, II, III, &c., the
first occurrence being implied in
the title IMP. as conveying the
perpetual command, which usually
begins the inscription. The Greek
Αυτοκρατωρ
is the equivalent. On the Alexandrian
coins Titus alone, as Caesar, bears
the title Imperator, exactly as
Vespasian on the same coins, at
the head of the inscription, but
probably he only takes it as general
(Pl.
xxxii. 225, cf. nos. 2268).
It is regularly taken by the Augusti
in the sense of perpetual command.
AUGUSTUS,
Σεβαστος.
The
title Augustus, Σεβαστος,
is limited to the Emperors with
four exceptions. Phillip II Caesar,
Saloninus Caesar, Carinus Caesar
(sometimes), and Numerianus Caesar,
bear the titles Καισαρ
Σεβαστος.
The only possible explanation that
suggests itself for this extraordinary
deviation from usage is that these
Caesars may have thus been especially
designated as successors.*
Inscription
obverse.
The
inscriptions of both obverse and
reverse are, as a rule, in the nominative.
Exceptionally however the inscription
is sometimes given in the genitive:
thus we find, in the coins of Augustus,
the inscriptions ΣΕΒΑΣΤ
ΚΑΙΣΑΡΣ
and ΣΕΒΑΣΤΣ
ΚΑΙΣΑΡ,
showing indifference as to the use.
Of the accusative there is an example
in the money of Aemilian, the legitimate
Emperor, who is, to judge from the
coins in the Museum always styled
ΑΙΜΙΛΙΑΝΟΝ.
Inscriptions
reverse.
The
reverse may bear two inscriptions,
the name of the type and the date,
and it must bear the date, unless
it is on the obverse. If it bear
the date alone the name of the type
is understood. The date may be written
with the symbol of the year and
the numeral, or either or both may
be written in words complete or
abbreviated.
TYPES.
Obverse
type.
The
obverse type of the Alexandrian
coins is, with insignificant exceptions,
an imperial portrait. As a rule
the Augusti are laureate and the
Caesars are always bare-headed.
Augustus and Tiberius are bareheaded
in their earlier years. The radiate
diadem is worn by Augustus as deified
on coins of Tiberius. Afterwards
it is very unusual. Nero, the first
after Augustus who wears it, and
the first who does so (and frequently)
in his lifetime, may do so in imitation
of Ptolemy III Euergetes, or V,
Epiphanes. (Cat Ptol. Pl. xii. 3,
4, 5; xvii. 1, 2). Domitian occasionally
wears a corn-wreath and this may
be in imitation of Ptolemy V. (Cat.
Ptol. Pl. xvii. 5).
Reverse
type.
The
reverse type is rarely an imperial
portrait, second in importance to
that on the obverse; usually, the
reverse type is a subject. The subjects
are generally taken from Greek and
Egyptian mythology or represent
cities, &c., personified, animals,
the Egyptian sacred animals, or
those in relation to Greek divinities,
Imperial persons and acts, buildings
of Alexandria, and various objects.
List
of types.
It
is useful here to notice the most
important and interesting types
of reverse Greek mythology.
Kronos.
For
Kronos, planet, see Zodiac, Saturn.
Zeus.
Of
Zeus the only remarkable type is
the figure carried by the eagle
(Pl.
i. 397, 1015). When Zeus, standing
or seated is accompanied by the
eagle, the bird stands at his feet,
looking back at him, the old type
of Zeus Aetophoros having fallen
into disuse. The local forms are
Zeus Olympios (Pl.
i. 127), Zeus Nemeios, who is
crowned with the Nemean parsley-wreath,
and strangely wears the aegis (Pl.
i. 130), and Zeus Kapitolios.*
These types are in the series issued
by Nero, no doubt in commemoration
of local games in imitation of the
great contests and others. For Zeus,
planet, see Zodiac Jupiter.
Zeus
Ammon.
Zeus
Ammon is not to be regarded as a
local form of Zeus, but as a foreign
divinity identified with the Greek
Zeus and the Libyan Ammon. This
characteristic is the ram's horn
(Pl.
i. 677 sqq.), and the ram is
sacred to him. Thus, Zeus Ammon
drives a biga of rams (405),
and the ram is constantly associated
with him. For pantheistic Zeus Ammon,
see p. lxii.
Hera.
The
only types of Hera which we can
certainly identify are the bust
of Hera Argeia (Pl.
i. 133); and a standing figure
(Pl.
i. no. 1470). It is possible
that types attributed to Demeter
in the Catalogue may in some cases
be of Hera, though Demeter as identified
with Isis would be a more favourite
goddess at Alexandria.
Poseidon.
Poseidon,
as a sea-god, was worshipped at
Alexandria. The absence of any Egyptian
divinity with whom he could be identified
must have limited his cultus to
the Greek inhabitants. For pantheistic
Poseidon see Sarapis, p. lxii.
Hades.
Hades
was identified with Sarapis worshipped
by the Egyptians, and thus, as an
unpopular divinity, identified with
one of great popularity, he almost
disappears from inscriptions and
wholly from art. Even Kerberos was
transferred to Sarapis, and constantly
accompanies him. The only subject
connected directly with Hades is
that of the Rape of Persephone,
which rather belongs to the myth
of Persephone, on whose account
it was no doubt introduced as a
coin-type.
Demeter.
Demeter
frequently occurs on the coins of
Alexandria. No identification with
Isis is traced in these representations,
unless it may be that when Euthenia,
assimilated to Isis, and Demeter
occur together in the same type
there is an intention to signify
a double form of the same divinity,
Isis, in the Egyptian fashion (see
Euthonia, p. lxxix, lxxx.) The worship
of Demeter seems to have been introduced,
like that of Euthenia, in relation
to the corn-production of Egypt.
It was, therefore, the material
part of her myth which is represented
on the coins of Alexandria, the
story of Triptolemos and the corn-modius
being most important.
Persephone.
Persephone,
as might be inferred from what has
been noticed above, scarcely appears
on the Alexandrian coins. There
are none of these types which occur
on Greek autonomous coins of the
ages of the finest art and of decline,
in which there may be doubt whether
a head represents Demeter or Persephone.
Rape
of Persephone.
The
only subject which relates to the
myth of Persephone is a remarkable
reverse type of Trajan, which is
apparently a reminiscence of a picture
like other such subjects which do
not suggest sculpture or relief.
Hades is represented in a quadriga
drawn by galloping horses: he holds
Persephone, who is naked to the
waist and seems to have fainted;
the horses are led by Hermes Psychopompos;
beneath the chariot are seen the
maiden's overturned basket and scattered
flowers and corn. The presence of
Hermes shows that the myth is taken
in a mystic sense (Pl.
ii. 407).
Triptolemos.
While
Demeter remains purely Greek, not
withstanding the possible idea that
she was equivalent to lsis, Triptolemos
appears in a singularly mixed form.
His myth was evidently accepted
by the Alexandrians as a form of
that of Osiris.*
Thus we see his type to be Greek
Egyptianized. The only form of the
type shows Triptolemos scattering
seed in a car drawn by two serpents.
He usually wears the elephant's
skin on his head, and the serpents
are generally winged, and whether
winged or wingless mostly wear the
crown of Upper and Lower Egypt,
the skhent: they are therefore Agathodaemones
(Pl.
ii. 408, 582, 1332). The myth
was no doubt popularized through
the influence of the idea of the
colonization of Athens from Saïs
(Athena, p. xliv.). The type is
a modification of the well-known
Greek types of Triptolemos in the
winged serpent-car. The elephant's
skin headdress connects the subject
with Alexandria, as if Triptolemos
were specially Alexandrian. This
would agree with the types which
connect Alexandria herself with
the corn-produce of Egypt (Alexandria,
p. lxxxiii, lxxxiv).
Apollo
Philesios. Statue by Kanachos.
The
most remarkable types of Apollo
are those which represent the statue
of Apollo Philesios by Kanachos,
at the temple of Branchidæ
near Miletus. They occur in the
series of Antoninus Pius. The first,
on a billon coin, presents the usual
type, holding stag and bow, though
in a somewhat late style, as if
from a Graeco-Roman copy, and there
is a tripod behind the statue, denoting
the famous oracle (Pl.
iii. 936). The second type is
also on a billon coin (937).
It is, unfortunately, in bad condition.
The statue is represented facing
and showing the archaic style of
the original; in the right hand
is what looks like a patera and
can scarcely be the stag; in the
left is the bow. Although variation
in the subject is the rule in the
best period of Greek art in the
coin types, which give not copies
but varied recollections of famous
works of sculpture, it is the exception
in the later ages, when the direct
copy is the rule, yet the resemblance
in this representation to the others,
those now to be noticed, of the
type of Kanachos, justify its being
classed to that type which the bronze
coins of Antoninus present. There
Apollo stands facing between two
Nemeses, both looking towards him
(1028)
with, in one coin, the tripod on
the left, the proper right, of the
central statue (1031).
This type recalls that of the "Homonoia"
coin of Miletus and Smyrna, which
shows the same Apollo facing to
the left of the two Nemeses, looking
towards each other. It is of the
same Emperor, Antoninus Pius, as
the coins of Alexandria.*
It
would be very interesting if we
could trace the appearance of the
Apollo of Branchidæ to the
influence of Naukratis. It is well
known that there was at this city
a special cultus of the Milesian
Apollo,*
whose great temple was at Branchidæ.
It is evident that the influence
of Saïs was felt by the Alexandrian
coinage. (In the instance of Athena,
p. xliv. sqq.) But that the same
was the case as to Naukratis may
be doubted, inasmuch as we have
the parallel coin of Miletus with
the two Nemeses of Smyrna, to compare
with the bronzes of Alexandria of
the same Emperor: thus the billon
coins with the Apollo alone are
of no value in evidence of Milesian
influence through Naukratis: it
was rather direct.
Apollo
Pythios, Aktios.
Among
other types of Apollo, may be mentioned
these which occur in the billon
series of Nero connected with the
Games, ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝ
ΠΥΘΙΟΣ
(ΠΥΘΕΕΙΟΣ,
Pl.
iii. 141), and ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝ
ΑΚΤΙΟΣ
(Pl.
iii. 144). Both have the ordinary
laureate bust, but there is this
difference, that the Pythian Apollo
has a quiver on his shoulder, the
Aktian has a trident.
Helios.
Helios
is distinguished by the radiate
diadem. He remains a Greek divinity
without taking any of the characteristics
of any Egyptian divinity, though
in pantheistic types Egyptian divinities
borrow his radiate diadem. Considering
the importance of the sun god in
Egypt as occupying the basis of
the whole system of worship, and
extending with its development,
this is most remarkable, and is
sufficient to establish an axiom,
that greek types are not affected
by Egyptian, but Egyptian by Greek.
When a type shows a double origin
we find that the Egyptian form is
Hellenized, and not the converse.
For pantheistic types see Sarapis,
Anubis.
Artemis.
Artemis
is a purely Greek divinity. The
Asiatic types do not occur, nor
is there any assimilation with Egyptian
divinities.
Selene.
Selene
appears with or without Helios,
and is likewise Hellenic only.
Hephaistos.
The
Greek Hephaistos does not occur.
For the Egyptian see Phtha.
Athena.
Athena
occurs in various forms on the Alexandrian
coins, and her types are frequent,
although she does not seem to have
been specially worshipped in the
city. The cause of her prominence
on the money seems to "have
been the popularity of the idea
that Athens was a colony of Sais.
This idea was so fully accepted
by the Egyptians that Athena appears
as the Nome goddess on the large
and third sized bronze coins, thus
corresponding to the Egyptian Nit
or "Neith."
Athena
of Saïs.
Her
type at Saïs, the characteristic
of which is that she usually holds
the owl on her extended right hand,
recurs at Alexandria (Comp. iv.
942 with Langlois, Nomes, Pl
iv. 3). In the Scholia on Aristophanes
this type is described as Athena
Archegetis. (της'
Αρχηγετιδος
' Αθηνας
το αγαλμα
γλαυκα
ειχευ τη
χειρι Schol.
Av. v. 515). The Scholiast
or some author with whom he was
acquainted must have known of a
statue of the Saïte type called
Athena Archegetis. The coins of
Athens show that there was such
a statue in the city about Hadrian's
time (Cat. Attica, p. 84,
no. 585, and note +, p. 93, Pl.
xv. 3; xvi. 2). The epithet Archegetis
designates the leader of a colony,
either the human leader or the divinity
under whose auspices the enterprise
was undertaken. Obviously the statue
would be dedicated at the colony.
There were two ideas of the origin
of the Athenians, the one that they
and the whole population of Attica
were autochthons, the other that
Athens was colonized from Saïs
in Egypt. The last is no doubt a
late idea, yet earlier than the
appearance on coins of the Saïte
type of Athena. It must be remembered
that the Greek city of Naukratis
was in the Saïte Nome,*
although evidently enjoying a kind
of quasi-independence under the
Roman Emperors. To Naukratis was
no doubt due the Hellenic type of
Saïs, and that this type had
been long naturalized in Egypt is
evident from the occurrence of a
peculiar local form of Athena on
the coins of the Oxyrhynchite Nome,
in which the goddess of Oxyrhynchus
is no doubt assimilated to Nit of
Saïs under the form of Athena.
In a purely Egyptian part of the
country, such a type would not appear
under the empire, had not Greek
influence long before made the identification
of Nit and Athena widely popular.
It seems, therefore, that we may
describe the type of Athena carrying
the owl as Athena Archegetis at
Alexandria and Saïs, though
it by no means follows that the
type should be so described elsewhere.
Athena
Stathmia.
Another
noticeable type of Athena is that
in which she appears wearing helmet
aegis and chiton, holding the scales
and cornucopiae of Dikaiosyne. This
remarkable type must be the Athena
Stathmia of Hesychius, who, it should
be remembered, was an Alexandrian.
(Lex. Σταθμια
επιθετου'
Αθηυ.) No doubt
she was worshipped as guardian of
equity in commerce. The A. Agoraia,
whose temple appears to have stood
in the Agora at Sparta, takes her
epithet from the locality.*
The
other types of Athena on the Alexandrian
coins cannot as yet be specially
designated: no doubt they represent
local statues, one or more of which
may be of forms special to the city.
The
occurrence together of Athena and
Ares (Pl.
v. 418), is unexpected, but
it is justified by the description
of the shield of Achilles.*
Ares.
Ares,
while retaining his type in Graeco-Roman
art, is assimilated to an Egyptian
divinity, the warrior Horus of Sebennyfus.
(Comp. Pl.
iv. 1037, 1494 with Langlois
iii. 12. Here, as in the case of
Athena, the Egyptian type assumes
the foreign form. This is the usual
representation of Ares. For the
Roman, see Pl.
iv. 1040. It is important to
discriminate between the Emperor
in military attire and Ares: the
rule seems to be that the Emperor
in these circumstances is bareheaded
Alexander is possibly represented
like the Emperor, on the coinage
of the District of Alexandria, as
the divinity of the district, but
the type may be of Ares, for a like
figure appears on the coins of the
Leontopolite Nome. (Cf. Langlois,
Pl. iv. 10, with infra p.
344, 14.) So far as I have ascertained
Alexander never appears on the coins
of the city which he founded and
named after himself. This is remarkable,
considering the importance of the
head of Alexander in the earlier
coinage of the Ptolemies. (Cat.
Ptol. p. xvi, sqq.) The representation
of the founder seems to have been
lost in that of the city, in the
form wearing the elephant's skin,
common in the imperial coinage.
Aphroditie,
Eros.
Aphrodite
is scarcely represented on the Alexandrian
coinage, although we should have
expected types to occur frequently.
In the Ptolemaic coinage Cleopatra
VII and Ptolemy XVI Caesar appear
as Aphrodite and Eros (Cat. Ptol.
p. 122, Pl. xxx. 6), and the temple
of Arsinoe II as Aphrodite at Zephyrium,
near Alexandria, was famous. The
money of Faustina Marci presents
the solitary type of this goddess
in the Roman form of Venus Victrix.
She stands to the l., clad in talaric
chiton and peplos, holding a helmet
and a shield inscribed ΔΥΝΑΜΙC
which rests on a column. (Pl.
v. 1345). On the Roman imperial
coinage Venus Victrix is sometimes
fully clad, and she may hold a helmet
in her r. hand, or a shield in her
l., the helmet and shield not commonly
occurring in the same type. Occasionally,
she leans her l. on a column. The
shield has as a device the Wolf
and Twins. It is evident that the
Alexandrian coin represents the
same form of the goddess with the
substitution of ΔΥΝΑΜΙC
for the Wolf and Twins. Whether
the Greek word is a translation
of Roma, 'Ρομη,
is too long a question to be here
discussed.
Hermes.
Hermes
is almost wanting in the series
except in the compound form Hermanubis.
(p. lxviii., ixix.)
Hestia.
Hestia,
in the Roman form Vesta, may perhaps
be traced in the future among the
Roman personifications.
Dionysos.
Dionysos, not withstanding on the
one hand the identification with
Osiris by Greek writers, and on
the other, the fame of the Mareotic
wine, is scarcely represented on
the coins.
Herakles.
Labour, &c., of Herakles.
Herakles
appears almost exclusively in the
reign of Antoninus Pius, and then
as performing his labours or going
through adventures of the same class
of actions. (Pl.
vi.) His popularity being thus
limited in time, can scarcely have
been due to his identification with
Harpokrates, one of the three chief
Egyptian divinities of Alexandria.*
It may rather have been due to an
association of the myth of Herakles
with solar phenomena,*
for the novel types introduced by
Antoninus Pius probably had their
origin in the commemoration of the
recurrence in his reign of the beginning
of the great Sothiac Cycle. It may
be observed that the coin-types
are no doubt taken either from metopes
or pictures, more probably, to judge
from their style, from pictures.
In
the Museum collection only nine-labours
are found, and the series does not
seem to be complete in known coins.
The most interesting types are those
which refer to adventures outside
the series of labours.*
In one Herakles is portrayed striking
a giantess with his uplifted club
(PL
vi. 1053). This has been supposed
by Mionnet to be the slaughter of
Echidna (VI. p. 251, no. 1708),
but there is no warrant in the myth
of Herakles. Two rare subjects,
for the identification of which
I am indebted to my colleague Mr.
Murray, are Herakles destroying
the vines of Syleus (Pl.
vi. 1056), and Herakles entertained
by the Centaur Pholos (1057).
Dioskuri.
The
Dioskuri as sea-gods were specially
worshipped at Alexandria This must
be regarded as a Greek cultus, there
being no analogues in Egyptian mythology.
A bronze coin of Trajan has the
type of the Dioskuri standing on
either side of a goddess of Egyptian
type who can only be Isis (no. 451).
Considering that Isis Pharia was
the protector of the Pharos, the
Dioskuri, as gods of navigation,
might well be associated with her
at Alexandria. The inscription of
the Pharos according to Strabo was
this:τουτου
δ'αυεθηκε
Σωστρατος
Κυιδιος,
Φιλος τωυ
βασιλεωυ,
της τωυ
πλωιζομευωυ
σωτηριας
χαριυ,
ως Φησιυ
η επιγραΦη,
xvii. i. 6. This is evidently a
loose quotation as we should say
the inscription tells how, &c.,
adding the substance. In Codex C
the following words are added in
the margin: επυγραμμα.
Σωστρατος
Κυιδος.
This second form has the characteristics
of a Greek dedicatory inscription.
It evidently had no place in the
text, but was added by some one
who knew it.*
Clearly, therefore, the Pharos bore
the architect's dedication to the
Dioskuri, as θεοι
σωτηρες.*
Hence, the type of the Dioskuri
on either side of Isis, here Isis
Pharia. Another reference is found
in the παρασημον
of the Alexandrian ship in which
St. Paul left Melita, Acts xxviii.
11.*
Kybele.
The
only Asiatic divinity whose figure
occurs in the series is Kybele,
whose worship, or at least type,
may have been introduced from Rome.
There is no trace of the Artemis
of Ephesus.
Asklepios,
Hygieia.
The
types of Asklepios and Hygieia are
not infrequent in consequence of
the importance of healing in the
Alexandrian philosophic development
of religion. There are no specially
interesting forms except the combination
of Asklepios with a pantheistic
Sarapis. See Sarapis.
Orpheus.
One
subject occurs which relates to
the myth of Orpheus, in which he
is represented playing his lyre,
surrounded by the listening animals
(Pl.
xi. 1373). This must have been
taken from a picture.
|