took place during the Second Punic war and the _denarius_ was reduced (as we learn from the actual coin weights) to 62 grs., and it was made to pass for 16 _asses_ instead of 10 _asses_, he finds that since 62 grs. of silver = 16 _asses_ of 432 grs. (_unciae_) silver was to bronze as 112:1. But in the latter case he omits to explain why it was that the _denarius_ in paying the troops only counted for _ten asses_. It is evident that if the relation between copper and silver was really as 1:112, there could have been no need for making this difference. But as the soldiers were serving outside Rome, and Roman local token currency would not be taken in payment, it was necessary to pay them according to the market value of bronze. At Rome the _denarius_ was made to pass for 16 _asses_, or three-fifths more than its actual value. It appears therefore that the data given us by Pliny are not sufficient to allow us to come to any definite conclusion as regards the relative value of silver and bronze at that time. Moreover there is no evidence to show that the _denarius_ was reduced from 70 grs. to 62 grs. by the Lex Flaminia. It is on the whole more likely that this reduction took place when the first gold coinage was issued (62 years after the first silver) in 206 B.C., since there was every inducement to make such a change in the silver as would admit of a convenient relation between the gold _scruple_ and 20 _sestertii_. This again raises just doubts as regards the accuracy of Mr Soutzo’s calculation. With reference to the reduction of the _as_ to the sextantal standard we have seen that the truth of his deductions rests entirely on the assumption that the degradation took place _before_ the First Punic war at the same time as the issue of the first silver coinage. This of course is directly contradicted by the historians. But even granting that it was correct, it is difficult to see why we should assume that the Roman _as_, which according to Soutzo’s own principles had been nothing more than a token, should suddenly have been treated as though it really was of the actual value which it represented. There was no reason why, even though the unit of account was the sextantal _as_, the _as_ should have been anything else than a token in its relation to the silver currency: certainly it is strange that, if the Romans after treating the _as_ as a token down to 268 B.C. then suddenly gave it its full monetary value, they did not continue to carry out their new principle. For as a matter of fact there are very great differences in the weight of the sextantal _asses_, and after the reduction to the uncial standard, the same process of degradation went on without ceasing, as Soutzo himself has shown[448]. All these facts point to the conclusion that the bronze coinage at Rome was only a local token currency, such as is our own silver and bronze series at the present day.