STATUES REPRESENTED ON COINS.

(Vol. vi., p. 485.)

Mr. Burgon (Inquiry into the Motive of the Representations on Ancient Coins, p. 19.) says:

"I do not believe that the types of coins are, on any occasion, original compositions; but always copied from some sacred public monument.... When we find Minerva represented on coins, we are not to understand the type as a Minerva, but the Minerva of that place; and in some cases which might be brought forward, the individual statues which are represented on coins, or ancient copies, will be found still to exist."

This opinion is certainly borne out by a very great number of proofs, and may almost be considered demonstrated. The Farnese Hercules is found on many coins, Roman and Greek. The commonest among the Roman are those of Gordianus Pius, 1st and 2nd brass, with "VIRTVTI AVGVSTI." Three colonial coins of Corinth, of Severus, Caracalla, and Geta (Vaillant, Num. Imp. Coloniis percuss., ii. 7. 32. 54.), exhibit the same figure. As an additional illustration of Mr. Burgon's view, I would advert to the Corinthian coin of Aurelius (Vaill. i. 182.), which has a Hercules in a different attitude; and which Vaillant regards as a copy of the statue mentioned by Pausanias as existing at Corinth. Du Choul (Religio vet. Rom., 1685, pp. 158, 159.) gives a coin representing Hercules killing Antæus; and quotes Pliny for a statue representing this by Polycletus. Haym also (Tesoro, i. 248.) gives a coin with a reversed view of the same subject. The figures of Hercules on coins of Commodus are certainly copied from the statues of that Emperor. Baudelot de Dairval (De l'Utilité des Voyages) gives a small silver statuette of Commodus as Hercules, certainly copied from the larger statues, and corresponding with those on coins.

I am not aware of any coins exhibiting exactly the Venus de Medici. It is possible, however, that they exist, though I cannot at present find them. Haym (Tesoro, ii. 246., tab. xvi. 3.) gives a coin of Cnidus, with a very similar representation, the Cnidian Venus, known to be copied from a statue by Praxiteles.

I must say the same as to the Apollo Belvidere.

I cannot at present refer to an engraving of the equestrian statue of Aurelius, but Mr. Akerman (Descr. Cat., i. 280. 12. 14., 283. 10.) describes gold coins and a medallion of Aurelius, representing him on horseback; and I find in the plates appended by De Bie to Augustini Antiquatum ex Nummis Dialogi, Antw., 1617, plate 47., one of these coins engraved. I find the medallion engraved also by Erizzo (last edition, n. d., p. 335.) who explains it as referring to this statue. He says, however, that the attribution of the statue was uncertain; and that on a medallion of Antoninus Pius, which he possessed, exactly the same representation was found, whence he was inclined to suppose it rather erected for Antoninus Pius.

I suppose the coins of Domna, alluded to by Mr. Taylor, are those with the legend "VENERI VICTRICI." In spite of the attitude, I can hardly think this intended for Venus Callipyge, from the fact that Venus Victrix is found in the same attitude on other coins, holding arms; and sometimes again holding arms, but in a different attitude, and more or less clothed. The legend is opposed also to this idea. See the coins engraved by Ondaan, or Oiselius, Plate LII. The coin of Plantilla in Du Choul (l. c. p. 188.) is a stronger argument; for here is seen a partially clothed Venus Victrix, with the same emblems, leaning on a shield, as the Venus of Domna leans on a column, but turned towards the spectator instead of away: thus demonstrating that no allusion to Callipyge is to be seen in either.

Erizzo (l. c. p. 519.) mentions the discovery at Rome of a fragment of a marble statue inscribed "VENERIS VICTRICIS."

In the British Museum (Townley Gallery, i. 95.) is a bas-relief representing the building of the ship Argo. There is described in the Thomas Catalogue, p. 22. lot 236., an unpublished (?) medallion of Aurelius, possibly copied from this very bas-relief. A very doubtful specimen exists in the Museum of the Scottish Antiquaries, which enables me to make this assertion, although it is not minutely described in the catalogue, and is otherwise explained. This is an additional confirmation of the original statement, and many more might be added but for the narrower limits allowed, which I fear I have already transgressed.

W. H. Scott.

Edinburgh.