'The British Library has a volume of papers concerning Simonds D’Ewes, mostly concerned with coins (BL Add MS 22916). There are two principal groups. ... The second group consists of copies of the introductory notes D’Ewes had been preparing for his unpublished Thesaurus Numarius Romanus, and are copied from Harley MS 255, which also included rough drafts listing his coin collection in various ways. The copies were made c. 1700 by someone with access to the D’Ewes papers. It is tempting to think that they were made by Humfrey Wanley, who was also interested in coins, and whom we know had seen the inventory of D’Ewes’s coin collection (presumably Harley MS 255), when he was sorting through D’Ewes’s papers in 1703, prior to their purchase by Robert Harley in 1705. The handwriting, however, is different from his, so we must assume that the copies were made by someone else.
One of the documents copied in the manuscript (ff.25–8) is a listing of the Gorlaeus collection, arranged by metal and giving the numbers of coins of each Roman emperor, or Republican family. Totals are also given, including for Greek coins, but unfortunately the Greek coins are not listed.
Its title shows that it dates to 1608–11, after the death of Gorlaeus in 1608 and before it was bought by Prince Henry in 1611:
Impp: Romanorum antiquisima rarissima nec non varia singulorum Caesarum numismata, a Julio Caesare ad Heraclium, quae Abrahamus Gorlaeus collegit, et haeredes possident
[Very ancient and very rare coins of the Roman emperors, and varied specimens of individual Caesars, from Julius Caesar to Heraclius, which Abraham Gorlaeus collected, and his heirs possess].
Each section, after itemising its contents by emperor, gives a summary. They are:
(after gold):
Numismata suprascripta 474
Sunt et alia superioribus haud dissimilia 173
Praeter haec sunt etiam alia Impp: post Heraclium 30
Consularia 30
Graeca 108
Summa aureorum 825
(after silver):
Numismata suprascripta 2907
Sunt et alia superioribus haud dissimilia 1874
Graeca 754
Gothica 62
Summa 5597
(after bronze)
Numismata suprascripta 2230
Sunt et alia superioribus haud dissimilia 522
Praeter haec sunt etiam Graeca 160
Summa 2912
(after consular silver)
Numismata suprascripta Coss: 1470
Sunt et alia superioribus haud dissimilia 842
Summa 2312
These section totals are then summarised at the top of f.29r:
Summa omnia aureorum, argenteorum, et aereorum, quae in hoc indice posita sunt 11642
Superioribus hisce sepositis, sunt et alia aurea, argentea, et aerea, de quibus an vere antiqua sint dubitatur 1618 (13260)
Sunt et aurei, argentei, et ferrei annuli antiquissimi et rarissimi plusquam ducenti, quos imperatores et Consules Romani gestarunt, et obsignandum usi sunt:
Sunt etiam antiquissimi preciosi incisi lapides, ut Achates, Onyx, Heliotropium, Sarda, numero 200
[Total of all gold, silver and bronze pieces, which are recorded in this list: 11642
Separated from the above are also other gold, silver and bronze pieces, concerning which it is doubtful whether they are ancient: 1618 (13260)
There are also more than 200 gold, silver and iron rings, very ancient and very rare, which the Roman emperors and consuls carried, and used for signing There are also very ancient and valuable cut stones, such as agates, onyx, heliotropes and sard, 200 in number]
The total of 13,260 is exactly the same as in the letter of 1601, so we can conclude that Gorlaeus had not acquired any coins after 1601, and that he had not been successful in selling any of his duplicates.
As this listing is immediately followed by the report of the Commission of 1640 (on which, see below), it is clear that the original must have been a listing made at the time of the purchase of the coins by Prince Henry in 1611. D’Ewes would have access to it in 1648, when he was appointed in charge of the Royal collection with Patrick Young, the royal librarian and his friend. However, D’Ewes was clearly using the list in the letters he wrote to Smetius in 1647 (FINA 4199 & 4208), so it seems likely that Young would have shown it to him before then, especially if it is correct to think that Young looked after the royal collection after 1640. As we have seen, they were friends and regular companions.
It is possible that the c. 1610 listing was either the same as or based on that made by Daniel Heinsius who, several years later, in his letter to D’Ewes of 1642 had mentioned that he had made an ‘index’ of the collection. We do not know when Heinsius made his ‘index’ or exactly what it may have included; but the word ‘index’ is also used in the inventory here.
Since the collection still included 12,916 coins in 1640, it is clear that Prince Henry bought all 13,260 coins on offer.'
(Burnett 2020b, pp. 1413-14)
