Rev.-As before, but from a different die. (Pl. XV. fig. 7.)

Described and figured as above. This differs from the preceding in the legend of the obverse (the I for invictus being absent), and also slightly in the type of the dress. The original is in Mr. John Evans's collection.

3. Obv.-IMP. C. ALLECTVS AVG. Radiated bust to right, with the cuirass.

Rev.-LAETITIA AVG. Galley with four rowers and a steersman; in exergue Q. C. (Pl. XV. fig. 8.)

This abbreviated legend of the obverse is very rarely met with on coins of Allectus. Cohen mentions only one example (n. 64). The reverse is as Mon. Hist. Brit. XV. 29, nearly; but one of the rudders in the present coin is very distinctly drawn. The module is rather small,

size 4.

Purchased from Mr. F. W. Lincoln.

4. Obv.-IMP. C. ALLECTVS P. F. AV. Radiated bust to left, with the paludamentum.

Rev. PAX AVG. Peace standing to left, holding olivebranch and upright sceptre; in field S. P.; in exergue MLXX apparently.

Differs from Mon. Hist. Brit., xvi. 14, in having S.P. and not S only in the field; the specimen may have been imperfect. There is not much doubt about the letters in the exergue.

Obtained by me in Bury St. Edmunds.

5. Obv. Same legend, except AVG. for AV., but the bust has the cuirass.

Rev. Same legend and type. In field S. P. as before, but in the exergue ML. only.

Purchased from Mr. F. W. Lincoln. This also slightly differs from the published coins.

6. Obv.-Same as the preceding.

Rev. PIETAS AVG. Female standing to left, her hand over an altar; in the field S (?) A.; in exergue

MSL.

None of the coins of Allectus with this type and legend, published in Mon. Hist. Brit., have MSL in exergue.

MAXIMIANUS HERCULES.

1. Obv.-IMP. MAXIMIANVS AVG. Bust radiated to right, with cuirass and paludamentum.

Rev.-SALVS AVGG. Health standing to right, feeding a serpent from a patera. In exergue C. (Camulodunum). E. 3. (Pl. XV. fig. 9.)

Obtained at Mr. Burns's sale (Lot 1).

In 1866, Mr. De Salis (Archæological Journ. vol. xxiv. p. 155, reprinted in Num. Chron. vol. vii. N.S. p. 57), observes that no copper coins of Maximian, "struck at Colchester, have yet been found, but there can be little doubt of their existence." Cohen, however, appears to have known one or more coins of this class, as he places C among the letters found in the exergue of the small brass of this emperor; and Mr. De Salis regards this letter as the Colchester mint-mark at this time (Méd. Imp. v. p. 431). For the types and legends of this and the following coin see Cohen, n. 387 sqq.

2. Obv.-IMP. MAXIMIANVS P. AVG. Radiated bust to right in the cuirass.

Rev.-The same as before. Æ. 3. (Pl. XV. fig. 10.)

Purchased in a miscellaneous sale at Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson, and Hodge's rooms. Differing from the preceding in the style and legend of the obverse. It is not precisely the same as any in Cohen.

III.

ON THE COINS OF ETHELRED, KING OF

NORTHUMBRIA.

IN the Numismatic Chronicle for 1869 Mr. Rashleigh published a valuable paper on the Saxon and Danish kings of Northumbria, in which, among other matters, he attempts to separate the coins usually ascribed to Ethelred the son of Eanred, into two divisions, one of which he attributes to the earlier Ethelred the son of Ethilwald, who died forty-six years before the second Ethelred ascended the throne. As, after a careful examination of the coins with the name of Ethelred in the series of Northumbria as represented in the British Museum, I cannot bring myself to agree with Mr. Rashleigh, I will venture to state the reasons which have prevented me from accepting his attribution.

Mr. Rashleigh's separation of Ethelred's coins is as follows:

(1) The coins which have a quadruped on the reverse, as well as the moneyer's name (Leofdegn), he attributes to the first Ethelred. These coins have the king's name spelt Ethilred.

With this first attribution I entirely agree, the sufficient reason for it being that these coins mark the cessation of the quadruped type, and the adoption of the moneyer's name on the reverse-changes which no doubt

belong to the first half of Ethelred I.'s reign—that is, before the year 778, when his throne was usurped for twelve years by Elfwald.

(2) The coins on which the name of the king is spelt Ethelred, Mr. Rashleigh also gives to the first Ethelred, the son of Ethilwald; while,

(3) Those on which the name is spelt Ethilred he gives to the second Ethelred the son of Eanred. As the coins of the quadruped type are very rare, these two last divisions form the most important part of Mr. Rashleigh's attribution.

Now it seems to me that we must have far more assurance than we possess that moneyers were accustomed to be very particular in their spelling of the king's name, before we venture to ascribe to different kings, coins which are distinguished only by this variety. That there was no such care taken must be admitted by Mr. Rashleigh himself when he attributes the coins of the quadruped type to Ethelred I., because on these coins we have the very orthography which he supposes to characterize the coins of Ethelred II. Indeed, I cannot help thinking that he would have given to the earlier king all the coins spelt Ethilred if the moneyers' names would have allowed it, and if the coins of this class had not been twice as numerous as those of the other.

The main argument against Mr. Rashleigh's theory lies in the number of moneyers' names which occur in both classes. Supplementing Ruding's plates by the coins in the British Museum, I find about twenty-four distinct moneyers, and of these seven have the spelling of the king's name with both i and e. These seven are: Broder, or Brother; Eanred, or Anred; Eordred, or Fordred; Leofdegn, Monne, Vulfred, and Vintred or Pintred.

Now, if we adopt Mr. Rashleigh's theory, we cannot suppose that these moneyers with the same names who coined under the two Ethelreds, were the same men; first, because such an explanation would involve the supposition that seven moneyers, out of some eight or nine, who, according to Mr. Rashleigh, coined in the reign of the first Ethelred, lived on till after the accession of his namesake some forty-six years later, or (as four of these seven must have done) till the usurpation of Redulf, four years later still-in all, fifty years; and, secondly, because, out of these seven moneyers, five only occur on the coins of Eanred; so we should have to imagine that these seven moneyers coined during part of the first Ethelred's reign, that two of them left off coining during Eanred's reign, and then began again on the accession of his son. These two suppositions, therefore, involve such a high degree of improbability as to amount to an impossibility. Mr. Rashleigh, of course, does not suppose that these moneyers with the same names were the same men, but maintains that the moneyers who spell the king's name with an e are not the same as those who spell it with an i. Now it happens that of these seven moneyers the same four occur on the coins of Eanred, who preceded Ethelred II., and on those of Redulf, who usurped the throne when Ethelred II. had reigned four years. Mr. Rashleigh's theory, therefore, amounts to this. Out of eight or nine moneyers of the first Ethelred seven happened to bear names which were afterwards borne by seven (out of, say, twenty-two) of the moneyers of the second Ethelred, while only five of these names occur on the coins of Eanred, who lived between the two Ethelreds. Is this more probable than that four at least of these seven names belong only to four moneyers who began to coin in