84 SYLVA CRITICA CANADENSIUM. 
Jormarum spectator siem. Terence, Hunuch, iii. 6, on which Donatus remarks : 
‘Spectator, probator, ut pecunie spectatores dicuntur ;’ Adcipe: heic sunt quinque 
argenti lecte numerate mine. Plautus, Pseudol, iv. 7,50; Lectwm’st: conveniet 
numerus quantum debui. ‘Terence, Phormio, i. 2, 3, on which Donatus remarks : 
‘Spectatione lectwm est: Veri speciem calles, ne qua suberato mendosum tinniat 
auro? Persius, v. 105, on which Keenig remarks : ‘ Swmptwm hoc ab illo hominum 
genere, quorum erat probare numos, quique spectatores vel docimaste vocabantur.’ 
In later times, the provers of gold were called spectatores, as we know from 
Symmachus, Zpist. iv. 56: Nullo jam provincialis auri incremento trutinam 
Spectator inclinat. In none of our English works on archeology is there any 
explanation of either of these terms—spectatio or spectator—but the necessity 
for employing persons skilled in distinguishing base from good coin, and the 
origin of this spectatio, are well pointed out in an article by Dr. Schmitz, on 
Moneta, in Smith’s ‘ Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities :’ 
*«* As long as the Republic herself used pure silver and gold, bad money does not seem to 
have been coined by any one; but when, in 90 B.C., the tribune Livius Drusus suggested the 
expediency of mixing the silver which was to be coined with one-eighth of copper, a temptation 
to forgery was given to the people, and it appears henceforth to have occurred frequently. As 
early as the year 86 B.C. forgery of money was carried on to such an extent that no one was 
sure whether the money he possessed was genuine or false, and the pretor M. Marius Grati- 
dianus saw the necessity of interfering. (Cie. De Of. iii. 20.) He is said to have discovered a 
means of testing money and of distinguishing the good from the bad denarii. (Plin. H. N. 
xxxiii. 46.) In what this means consisted is not clear; but some method of examining silver 
coins must have been known to the Romans long before this time. (Liv. xxxii. 2).’ 
“‘Dr, Schmitz’s interpretation of the passage in Pliny’s Natural History 
seems to me very doubtful. The words are—‘ Miscuit denario triumvir Antonius 
ferrum. Miscentur cera false monete. Alii e pondere subtrahunt, quum sit 
justumn lxaxiv e libris signari. Imgitur ars facta denarios probare, tam jucunda 
lege plebi, ut Mario Gratidiano vicatim totas statuas dicaverit.’ Ars facta dena- 
rios probare do not appear to me to signify ‘a means of testing money and of 
distinguishing the good from the bad denarii was discovered,’ for that cannot 
have been done lege, ‘by a law;’ but rather ‘the testing of denarii was made 
an art, became a recognized occupation,’ i. ¢., the law of Gratidianus provided 
for the appointment or recognition of a certain class, whose business it was to 
distinguish good and base denarii. . . . 
“Tt seems not improbable, then, that these seeps were carried, or, it may 
be, hung round the neck, by those who acted as spectatores, as badges indicative 
of their occupation, and that the inscription showed that they were authorized 
to act as such, having been approved on the stated days, or in the stated months. 
Thus the frequency of the occurrence of the Calends, Nones and Ides seems to 
be satisfactorily accounted for; for these were, as is well known, the settling 
days, the principal times for money transactions. But a question presents 
itselfi—which may also be asked if we accept the old reading spectatus with 
reference to gladiators—why the days arestated on those tessere which were found 
at or near the city, whilst the three examples of the month alone are on those 
found in other places, viz., Parma, Modena and Arles? Mommsen is of opinion 
that perhaps we should take in these instances the month as used for the Calends 
of the month—‘fortasse intelligende sunt ipse kalende in tesseris his nescio quo- 
