THOMAS SIMON AND THE ROETTIERS. [Extracted from the Numismatic Chronicle, April, 1844.] SIR, I have been favoured by Peter Cunningham, Esq. of the Audit Office, with the sight of a document preserved among the records of that establishment, entitled an "Accompt of Sir William Parkhurst and Sir Anthony St. Leger, Knights, Wardens of H. M. Mint, for payments and disbursements from 31 Dec. 1662 to 20 Dec. 1666." Under the head of " Annuities and Speciall Warrants" occur the following items: To Thomas Simonds, Graver, Annuity £50 for 3 years [In the margin "N.B. Deduct £12 10s.] ,, Peter Blondeau, Engineer, Annuity £100 for 2 £ 8. d. 150 0 0 These notices are interesting and useful, as evidence of a fact (the date of Simon's death) which, from Vertue's time until within the last two years, had baffled the researches of every antiquary. The discovery of Mrs. Simon's Petition* to Government for money due to her late husband," afforded inferential evidence that he died in 1665; the subsequent discovery of his Will,† which was proved in August, 1665, shewed that it was previous to that date; and now the payments above mentioned furnish proof that it occurred subseIbid. vol. v. p. 161. See Num. Chron. vol. iv. p. 211. quent to 30th June of that year, for the deduction of 12l. 10s. (one quarter's pay) from the total amount of the three years' annuity shews that he had entered on the third quarter of the third year (1665), but had not entered on the fourth, evidencing that he was living on the 1st July, 1665, while the circumstance of the Will proves he had "departed this life" previous to or very early in August. Thus the period of his decease is brought within as brief a compass as the absence of any proof of the exact day could lead us to expect. Another interesting fact is gathered from this "Accompt;" viz. that Simon's "annuity" was much greater than the joint pay of the three Roettiers; and we observe that, in addition to this, he was receiving other remuneration as graver, under the term of "salary." Thus we see Simon in receipt of his full pay at the mint to the period of his death; and all the misrepresentations that have heretofore prevailed as to his being dismissed from his official employment and superseded by the Roettiers, are by this, and the other authenticated papers alluded to, for ever and entirely dissipated. Had Vertue, when he was compiling his account of the "Coins, Medals, and Great Seals of Thomas Simon," had access to these documents, throwing such light upon the very points where his keenest researches failed, how they would have gladdened the heart of that industrious artist and zealous antiquary. To the Editor of the Numismatic Chronicle. BENJAMIN NIGHTINGALE. * Simon's "salary" involves a question, Was he Chief or Under Graver? If the latter, the item of salary for two years and three quarters agrees with the period of the annuity; if Chief Graver, then the charge is for four years, which can only be made out by reckoning from 2nd June, 1661, the date of his patent as "one of his Mties Chief Gravers," to July, 1665, when he died, exactly four years. But then the "Accompt " only includes payments from 1662. Moreover, in Simon's patent of appointment, his salary is said to be 501.; but the sums in the accompt are, for the Chief Graver, 30l., and the Under Graver 401.-curious discrepancies, involving the fact of the Under Graver receiving more than the Chief. [The Chief Engraver may have been entitled to fees on the coinage, by which he received a larger income than the Under Graver.-R. S.] RECTIFICATION (?) OF A PRESUMED ERRONEOUS ATTRIBUTION OF A COIN IN THE OLLA PODRIDA. NOVIC In the former Volume, for reasons detailed at some length, I came to the conclusion that the above coin was struck at the Roman colony of Noviomagum, in Kent. In a paper read before the London Numismatic Society by a very learned and distinguished numismatic antiquary, my appropriation is pronounced erroneous, rather in an "ipse dixit," "ego et rex meus" style. "It is so, and therefore so it is" disposes of four pages of authorities and consequent reasoning and inferences, by which I arrived at my conclusion that the coin was struck at Noviomagum, in Kent. It is, perhaps, the characteristic of great minds, unconscious of their superiority, to give only their conclusions, they taking it for granted that what is so clear to them should be equally apparent to others; and thus, making no allowance for inferiority, leave the less gifted in a hopeless puzzle as to the why and wherefore of the decision pronounced so "ex cathedra." I feel it, however, as my duty to present this "Rectification" to the readers of the Olla, that they may decide for themselves: for I admit that, with all respect to my corrector, and having read his paper with the sincerest wish to arrive at a correct decision as to the coin, my opinion of the place of its mintage remains precisely the same as when I addressed my letter to Mr. Crofton Croker. RECTIFICATION OF ERRONEOUS ATTRIBUTION OF A COIN. 363 RECTIFICATION. "Having lately met at the library of the Numismatic Society a book, entitled An Olla Podrida, London, 1844, 8vo. by Richard Sainthill, I observed in that volume, page 251, the publication of a coin attributed to the Roman colonial city Noviomagum in England, and which publication is dedicated to T. Crofton Croker Esq., founder and president of the Noviomagian Society." "As a sincere disciple of numismatics, I am obliged to deprive that society of so interesting and important a document. The nummus in question is a coin of Dutch Geldria in value six stivers, and dated A.D. 1685, (not Anno Urbis). It was struck at the city of Nimeguen, the Noviomagum of Cæsar. The lion on the reverse of the coin, which the author compares to the angry lion of Velia, of Cardia, &c., ready for a spring, is but the harmless Dutch lion, holding in his left paw, not a thunderbolt-but a bundle of arrows, a well-known device, indicating the confederation or union of the cities of Geldria.” "I shall attribute a Celtic coin to Nimeguen, which exists in the cabinet, and is described by a very distinguished numismatist, the Marquis de Lagoy of Aix in Provence. The coin is mentioned by Mr. A. Duchalais, in his descriptive Catalogue des Medailles Gauloises de la Bibliothèque Royale, Paris, 1846, page 227. The Marquis has already very ably appropriated the coin, which is inscribed MAGUS, to Gallia Belgica, and very justly to the Batavi, but has not yet decided to what town. I am inclined to attribute it to Nimeguen, which in its primitive period was the principal place of the Batavi, and had only the Celtic nomination of Mag, Magus, as much as to say Town, similar to Urbs for Rome, and in our present days, Town for London. Urbem, mi Rufi, cole ista luce vive.”— Cicero. The Magus of the Batavi was taken by a Kelto-Germanic tribe, the Catti [the present Hollanders], whose chief Bato fortified it with triple walls. It was then denominated Niu-maga, or the new town. The word Mag, Magus, was mostly applied to towns situated in a level country, like Borbetomagus, Ricomagus, Baromacus: at a later period Cæsaromagus, Chelmsford? in England. Dun was more applied to elevation, like Lugdun, Nio or Noviodun, &c. Dur, in or near a marshy country, like Durmag, Durnomagus; 364 RECTIFICATION OF ERRONEOUS ATTRIBUTION OF A COIN. Marcomagus, Maguntiacum [Moguntia] at the confluence of the Rhine and Maine-here the determination ac or ach, for water. Cæsar had a castrum erected at Niu-maga, and so it remained the Roman Noviomagum.* Charlemagne renewed the castle, and in 838 the Emperor Louis I. held at Noviomagensis an imperial court for the purpose of allaying the discord between him and his ungrateful sons." * "Many coins and other Roman antiquities have been found in and about the town." |