passages cited, and many other reasons, render the most probable is considered by Cavedoni to be the sacred vase which was used to contain the wine prepared as an offering to Jehovah, while the small pellets sometimes placed at each side of the vase are fancifully supposed by some to represent the loaves which were placed on the table of proposition. Their small size, however, renders this interpretation open to objection. The type which has long been considered as "Aaron's rod" is considered by several eminent numismatists, M.M. Longperier and De Saulcy among the number, to be the same object as the triple flower represented in the hands of the pontiffs on the bas-reliefs of Nineveh. If this be so, and that symbol be accepted as a priestly badge or ensign, the issue of these shekels under immediate priestly authority, in a state governed by a pure theocracy, is further authenticated, and their assignation to the priesthood of Yaddous appears the more probable. Dr. Levy, however, a German numismatist, has proposed to return to the old system, and reassigns the coins in question to the epoch of the Maccabees. The style of the workmanship of these coins, however, does not at all accord with the already debased style of the neighbouring Syriac coinage at that period, while it very closely resembles that of the earlier Greek period of Alexander, and still more closely that of the Persian satraps of Tarsus of the same epoch; rendering the theory of M. de Sauley, on the whole, the most probable in the present state of our knowledge.

The copper pieces of the fourth year have as types, in addition to the sacred vase, the loulab, or bunch of green leaves that was carried in the right hand to the temple on the festival of the Tabernacles, and also the cedar-cone which was carried in the other hand.* The large pieces have also a date-tree, with fruit, which was evidently a national symbol; that emblem, as well as the cedar-cone and the loulab, being adopted by Barcocebas on the coins which he issued during the last revolt in the reign of Hadrian.†

In reply to the correspondent who wishes for illustrations of the coinage of Herod, especially a piece bearing the eagle type, suggesting that the appearance of the eagle on that coinage has an interesting historical significance, my answer must be want of space, both for that and several other matters of interest omitted with regret. I however disagree with my correspondent as to the kind of interest which attaches to the coins of Herod of the eagle type. He states, which I believe is also the opinion of a very eminent numismatist, that the eagle was placed by Herod on the coinage as a sort of defiance to the

* See Leviticus xxxiii. 40.

See the paper, "Jewish Shekels," in the December Number.

people of Jerusalem, who had torn down and destroyed a golden eagle which he had placed over the chief entrance to the temple; the introduction of such a form being considered idolatrous, and opposed to the ancient principles of Jewish law. My explanation of that type would be, that as on the coinage of the Asmonean or Maccabæan line of princes the types of the anchor and the cornucopia (which were symbols belonging to the Syrian princes of the Selucidæan dynasty) were adopted to express a friendly alliance with the sovereign of Syria; so the eagle (the emblem of Roman power) was used as a monetary type by Herod, the Idumean usurper, to denote his close alliance with Rome, without which he would have been unable to sustain his usurpation of the right of the legitimate princes of the Asmonean line. The same correspondent asks if I can explain the tripod type on the coins of Herod. I presume he alludes to the one engraved below. It is a burning altar, and is sup

coins appear to be of that epoch.

posed to have reference to the re-consecration of the Temple after its splendid restoration in the fifteenth year of his reign. This view is not borne out by the date, year 3, though the

I may observe here that the two sons of Herod, Archelaus and Antipas, preserved the name of their father Herod; and Antipas, who was denied the title of king by the Roman Senate (or, more strictly speaking, the Roman emperor), but received the title and powers of Ethnarch of Judæa-placed no other name upon his coins than that of Herod, represented by the initial letters of the name in Greek, as HP, and his title of Ethnarch abbreviated as EON.

It should be stated, as a learned French numismatist has observed, "Que le dernier mot n'as pas été dit sur la numismatique Judaique." Indeed, the question is far from settled. M. Lenormant, M. Longperier, M. Vogüé, and many others, are for removing most of the coins formerly attributed to the first, second, third, and fourth years of the Maccabæan dynasty, to an earlier period; while Dr. Levy and others have since declared for reinstating them. The question at issue is by no means decided. "The last word has not yet been said." It is at all events sufficiently clear that coins bearing the impress of workmanship of evidently distinct epochs of art, cannot be classed together as belonging to one historical period. In the mean time, I have endeavoured to give such a general view of the subject, from its earliest treatment by modern numismatists,

as may enable the general public to follow and appreciate the new views on the subject which are from time to time appearing; especially the logical and very complete theory of M. de Sauley, from which, however, I have ventured to differ in some particulars.

Among other remarks of my correspondents on the subject, it has been suggested that the date on the coins issued under the auspices of the first Roman Procurators of Judæa is that of the era of Augustus, and not that of the battle of Actium. I think it probable that it may be so, but the dates only differ by three or four years, and I have therefore thought fit at present to follow the great authority of Eckhel, who calls it the Actian era. Cavedoni, another very good authority, considers it to be the Alexandrian era; while both the Actian and Alexandrian eras bear reference to the first establishment of the power of Augustus throughout the eastern possessions of Rome. The coin engraved below is one of the coins in question, bear

ing date the 39th year, TO, which was misprinted in the former article.*

The same correspondent observes

that the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΛ should be ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩ

KAI

AгPINA, with one II. He is not aware, it would seem, that the inscription occurs in both forms, as D. Cavedoni expressly states. My correspondent further suggests that the coins with this inscription all belong to Agrippa I. D. Cavedoni, on the other hand, gives them all to Agrippa II., and says nothing of coins belonging to Agrippa I.

Another remark I have to reply to is, that, according to my correspondent, the Emperor Titus, in the coins of the celebrated JVDAEA CAPTA type, places his foot upon a helmet, and not upon a clod of earth, as I have stated. It is true that in many of the devices of that class it is so; but they vary very considerably, even in the more important features. Many which I have examined have the object on which the emperor places his foot of such irregular shape, that it is impossible to trace the form of a helmet by the utmost stretch of imagination. I have, therefore, in describing the coin before me, presumed it to be a clod of earth, seeing that in other Roman devices of a similar class a figure seated on a small mass of rock is intended to symbolize a taking possession of territory.

ERRATA FOR THE DECEMBER NUMBER, 1863.-In the interpretation of the inscription at page 332, the Hebrew letter at No. 1 should be (yod), instead of (zain), and at Nos. 4 and 5, and 17 and 18 there should be (vau) instead of (yod); at page 341, line 30, (beth), and (daleth), should be respectively (caph) and (resch); at page 338, line 35, for ПР read HP; at page 340, for BAEIAENE read BAZIAENE; at page 318, read A. rC (year 39).

* The A.ÃO is very indistinct, and the A of ancient form.

The coin engraved below is one of those struck on the occasion of the final suppression of Jewish independence, in the reign of Hadrian, after the revolt of Barcocebas. It bears the name of the colony, abbreviated, which in full would be COLONIA AELIA CAPITOLINA: beneath, in the exerque, are the letters COND, being an abbreviation of the word CONDITA (founded). The type is the old colonial one of the Romans, the two bullocks at plough, in allusion to an ancient and primitive Roman custom of attaching as much land to a colony as two bullocks could encircle with a furrow in a single day. The standard behind the bullocks intimates that the colony is a military one. The obverse of this coin has the head of the emperor, laureated, with his name and titles.

CLUSTERS AND NEBULE.-OCCULTATIONS.THE ACHROMATIC TELESCOPE.

BY THE REV. T. W. WEBB, M.A., F.R.A.S.

CLUSTERS AND NEBULE.

WE shall have little trouble in recognizing the next object if the telescope is competent to show it. It is by no means remarkable in itself, but, should the suspicions entertained concerning it be verified, it will prove one of the most curious objects in the heavens.

6. The Nebula in the Pleiades.-1859, October 19. Tempel at Venice discovered with a small instrument a previously undescribed nebula close to the star Merope in that group, which he says was large and bright, and twinkling in places, similar to a beautiful bright comet.-1860, December. Peters and Pape at Altona, in tolerably favourable weather, could only perceive it with difficulty in a 6-feet telescope.-1862, Aug. D'Arrest and Schjellerup, with the new great Copenhagen refractor, of about 11 inches aperture and 16 feet focus, could not find it in nights when a nebula called "extremely faint" by II and "excessively faint" by H was not only easily distinguished, but seen double. Such an apparent change in connection with the fact that a similar and contemporaneous decrease of light had been noticed in two other nebula in the same region, of course excited great interest. Familiar as observers have become with the marvellous phenomenon of variable brightness in stars, the evidence of which is rapidly accumulating with each succeeding

year, there is something in the idea of a simultaneous variation in a whole assemblage of stars, as we have already pointed out in the case of the nebula in Orion, which seems to pass the bounds of probability, and inclines us rather to the alternative of luminous mist. The question, however, as to whether this nebula-so curiously situated among the Pleiades-is actually variable, can hardly be considered as decided, notwithstanding the evidence which has been adduced. Schmidt, the present director of the observatory at Athens, is strong on the affirmative side. He states that he has been in the habit of watching the Pleiades more or less since 1841, and commenced drawing them in 1844, and that between that date and 1860 he had observed them on thirty-two nights; his comparisons of brightness, several hundred in number, being intermitted only in 1846 and 1859; but that during all this time he had never seen the nebula. He thinks it could not have escaped him had it been visible in 1861 with a 4-feet Dollond; February 5th in that year he saw it for the first time with the refractor at Athens (probably a Dialyte by Plössl, of 73 [French?] inches aperture; but not, as it seems, of the highest quality). The air being quite clear, it appeared very large, very pale, and quite shapeless, Merope lying in its N. corner, so as to appear a nebulous star in comparison with its brilliant neighbours. Between this date and the end of 1861 he saw it two or three times.1862, March 26th, he finds "the great triangular nebula in the Pleiades easily visible; its extension towards the west is, however, much greater than I had previously believed." On the other hand, Schönfeld at Mannheim doubts the fact of variation. He saw it, 1862, September 20th, not fainter than in 1860, as Chacornac had done at Paris two nights previously; and he thinks that this and the other suspected nebula, being very feeble, large, and diffused, are influenced in visibility by magnifying power, varying transparency of air, and practice of the eye, so that aperture is less concerned in their case than in that of minute stars. Auwers, of Göttingen, argues on the same side. It has often, this observer says, been remarked-Encke's comet being an instance of it—that large, ill-defined, faint objects are best seen with small instruments, and that probably this nebula, having 15' of extent, filled D'Arrest's field under a considerable magnifier, and so became inconspicuous; he found it an easy object in a comet-finder of 2 feet focus, and saw it repeatedly;-1860, September 23rd and 24th, when only 16 high; 1861, January 14th; 1862, February 19th and 21st. From its size it can be distinguished with only twenty-one lines of aperture (1 French inches).-Winnecke, again, the assistant at Poulkowa, saw it with 4 French inches in March, 1862, large and ill-defined, yet easily visible, as it was also in a