Numismatik, Dr. K. Regling is responsible for a singularly exhaustive bibliographical list (Jahresberichte, 1903 and 1904), and also for a notable review of Svoronos's Corpus of Ptolemaic coins.1 Earlier in the year he was fortunate in being able to publish in the same journal an exceedingly interesting and previously unknown tridrachmon of Byzantium, and thereby to establish the historical fact (which no one had before suspected) that the great city on the Bosporus had been one of the members of the Anti-Spartan League formed after Conon's victory at Cnidus. It is unnecessary to enter into detail here-all the more so because this discovery is one of the matters handled by Mr. G. F. Hill in his Historical Greek Coins.3 Mr. Hill's book is one which should be in the classical library of every school. It discusses with great fulness and clearness one hundred Greek coins, which have been skilfully selected as bearing more or less directly on individuals or events that are familiar in Greek history. To mention only one other of the subjects touched on, readers will find here a summary of some remarkable results which have been reached by Dr. H. Gaebler through the minute examination of the dies of second-century Macedonian tetradrachms. Dr. Gaebler, in a series of papers contributed to the Zeitschrift für Numismatik, has thrown fresh light on the settlement of Macedonia by the Romans after Pydna, as well as on the revolt of Andriscus and the efforts to suppress it. The concluding paper of the series, which appeared some months ago, covers the issues of the Macedonian "Koinon" in the third century A.D. If less important than its predecessors, it is specially welcome as heralding the speedy advent of a second instalment of the monumental Berlin Corpus Numorum. The year's work in Roman numismatics chiefly affects the beginning and the end of the long line of Roman 1 Op. cit. Bd. xxv. pp. 344 ff. and Supplement. 1 lb. pp. 207 ff. 3 London, Constable, 1906. Z.f.N. Bd. xxv. pp. 1 ff. coins. Dr. E. J. Haeberlin, of Frankfort, the lucky possessor of what is probably the finest collection of aes grave in Europe, has launched a theory which can only be described as calculated to revolutionise our whole conception of the earliest money of Rome.1 The brochure in which it is put forth is admittedly the prelude to a Corpus Aeris Gravis, on the preparation of which Dr. Haeberlin has for many years been engaged. The period concerned extends from 335 B.C. to the first striking of the denarius in 268. Put briefly, the following are the main points. The whole of the uninscribed aes grave, tentatively assigned by numismatists to different Central Italian towns, is really Roman money. When Rome embarked upon an independent currency, she set up two distinct mints. In the city itself bronze was the acknowledged standard, and from the city mint were accordingly issued the characteristically Roman series of aes grave. But among the districts towards the south that owned the sway of Rome, there were some which required silver. To meet the demand, a Roman mint was established at Capua. From this second mint came the various series of struck coins usually known as "RomanoCampanian," they being inscribed ROMA and ROMANOM. Finally (and this is the most novel feature in the theory), aes grave was cast at Capua too-to wit, the sets of pieces that have up till now been attributed to "Central Italy," including the whole of the great brick-shaped blocks of bronze. There is no space here to speak of the correspondences ingeniously traced between the three parallel classes, or of the interpretations placed on the successive reductions of the as. If Dr. Haeberlin's conclusions are ultimately accepted, they will have to be reckoned with by economic historians. The coins of the earlier Emperors have not attracted much attention in the course of the year. A full inventory of the Roman medallions in the Hunterian Collection is pub 1 See Berliner Münzblätter, 1905-6. A translation into Italian is appearing in the Riv. Ital. di Numismatica for 1906. He lished in the latest number of the Numismatic Chronicle.1 The inventory includes ninety-six entries, and is particularly rich in "inedita." About twenty of the medallions described are not to be found in Cohen's Médailles Impériales. Most of these are illustrated. M. Jules Maurice has given us yet another of his thoroughgoing studies of the coinage of the Constantinian epoch." This time he deals with the mint of Cyzicus. has also continued his researches into the iconography of the later Emperors.3 Some of his results are a little disturbing. It would seem that the person whose head is represented on the obverse of a late Roman coin is frequently not the person named in the inscription that runs round it. Those interested in Roman Britain would do well to note Mr. Percy Webb's careful article on the coinage of Allectus.4 Mr. Webb has an almost unrivalled acquaintance with the numismatics of one of the most curious episodes in Romano-British history -the reign of Carausius and his successor. A perusal of his brightly written introduction may also be commended to disciples of the "blue-water school" of national strategy. During 1905-6 there has been some discussion on what may be called "general numismatic principles." The Rhind Lectures for 1904, which it was my privilege to deliver, appeared about a year ago in book form as Coin Types, Their Origin and Development. The lectures were addressed to a popular audience, not to specialists, and the title is self-explanatory. The types of Greek coins necessarily furnish the basis of the inquiry, but account is also taken of Rome, of Byzantium, and (to a less considerable extent) of Mediaeval Europe. How far the views enunciated 1 Op. cit. 1906, pp. 93 ff. * Z.f.N. Bd. xxv. pp. 129 ff. are likely to win approval, time alone can show. The general trend of expressed opinion has certainly been favourable. But a vigorous defence of the extreme "orthodox" position by Dr. H. von Fritze will be found in the Wochenschrift für Klassische Philologie for July 25th. GEORGE MACDONALD. VII GREEK MYTHOLOGY AND RELIGION Ir may be allowed in the first issue of this publication to refer to the more recent works that bear on the whole or on parts of these subjects, before giving a bibliographic bulletin of the writings of the last year. As regards mythology, a comprehensive and scientific work on the whole field of Greek legend, treating it in the light of comparative folk-lore and revealing its manifold relations with Greek religion, social life, and ethnology, is still a desideratum both in this country and others. Meantime, excellent special work has been done in England, dealing with parts of the whole subject, by Miss Jane Harrison, for example, in her Myths and Monuments of Ancient Athens and Myths of the Odyssey; and the anthropological value of Greek myths has been well illustrated and defended by Mr. Andrew Lang in his treatise on Custom and Myth, published in 1884, and at greater length in his two volumes on Myth, Ritual, and Religion in 1887. Looking at the productions of foreign scholarship, we find a vast mass of dissertations or monographs on special myths or special cycles of myth. As a work of reference and often of sound theory, the Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (edited by W. H. Roscher), which has now reached the middle of the letter p, is of the greatest value both to the general as well as the special student. As the Lexikon has been continuously growing for many years, a marked improvement is found in the later articles in regard to scientific handling of the material; the monotonous hypotheses, once so prevalent, of the physico |