Light weight solidi and Byzantine trade during the sixth and seventh centuries / by Howard L....

8/2/2019 Light weight solidi and Byzantine trade during the sixth and seventh centuries / by Howard L. Adelson

1/231

NUMISMATIC NOTES AND

MONOGRAPHS

No.

138

LIGHT WEIGHT

SOLIDI

AND BYZANTINE

TRADE

DURING THE SIXTH

AND

SEVENTH

CENTURIES

By

HOWARD

L.ADELSON

THE

AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

NEW YORK

I957

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:39:22 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/231


3/231

NUMISMATIC

NOTES AND

MONOGRAPHS

Number

138



4/231

NUMISMATIC

NOTES

AND

MONOGRAPHS

is devoted to

essays

and treatises

n

subjectsrelating

to

coins,

paper money,

medals

and

decorations.

PUBLICATION

COMMITTEE

A.Carson

Simpson,

Chairman

Alfred R.

Bellinger

Thomas

O.Mabbott

Theodor E.Mommsen

EDITORIAL

STAFF

Sawyer

McA.

Mosser,

Editor

Howard L.

Adelson,

Associate ditor



5/231

ALL

RIGHTSRESERVED Y

THE

AMERICAN

UMISMATICOCIETY

PRINTED N

GERMANY

ATJ.J.AUGUSTINGLCKSTADT



6/231

/ ;-=09 )(8*

=-0/ ]



7/231

Light Weight

Solidi And

Byzantine

Trade

During

the Sixth

and Seventh

Centuries

BY

HOWARD

L. ADELSON

THE

AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

NEW

YORK

1957



8/231


9/231

CONTENTS

FORWORD

Vii

THE STATEAND NATURE F THE PROBLEM I

THE

COINS

36

FINDS,

HOARDSAND MINTS

78

THE

BYZANTINE RADEWITHTHE WEST

IO4

CATALOGUE

138



10/231


11/231

FORWORD

The commercial

relations of

Byzantium

with

the

West

during

the

early

mediaeval

period

have been

the

subject

of

many

historical

studies

such as those

of Henri

Pirenne

and

Alfons

Dopsch.

As the

olderviewof a catastrophicbreak in the streamofcivilizationduring

the

period

of the barbarian

invasions

was

relegated

to the

history

of

historiography,

he

importance

of the

economic

changes

of the

early

Middle

Ages

assumed

greater

nd

greater

ignificance.

t

is,

of

course,

true that

most of the scholars who have

attempted

discussions

of the

history

f this

period

have made

some

use

of the numismaticmaterial

available to

them,

but

they

have in no sense exhausted the nformation

that

may

be

derived

from that source.

In

the

study

of the

early

Middles

Ages

numismatics

has been used

largely

as illustrative

material to support conclusions based primarilyupon the literary

sources. The

archaeological

and numismatic studies

have therefore

not served

their

true function

s

ancillary

sciences

of

history.Many

reasons for this

situation are

immediately

evident,

f

a

summary

perusal

is

made of the

secondary

literature

n

those

fields

and

the

training

of most

mediaevalists

is

considered.

This book is not

designed

to cover this tremendous

gap

in

historical

scholarship,

but

it

is an

attempt

to indicate that certain facts which

may

be

derived from the

numismatic

and

archaeological

data are

vital to a completesynthesis f thehistoricalmaterial. It is no longer

possible

for

mediaevalist,

anymore

than for n

ancient

historian,

o

relegate

the

vital

ancillary

sciences to the field of

antiquarianism.

From the

deductions based on the

results of

archaeological

and

numismatic

tudy

of the

remains of the

early

mediaeval

period

a

new

view of

that

epoch may

be

constructed which

will

encompass

the

literary

vidence

as

well.

This

book

itself,however,

did not

begin

as an

attempt

to

correct

this

woeful

ack

of utilization of

numismatic

evidence.

While

I

was

working n a much arger tudyonthesubject ofByzantine monetary

policy

from

Diocletian

to

Heraclius,

it

soon became evident

that the

vii



12/231

viii

Forword

light

weight gold

currency,

which had

received

passing

interestfrom

numismatists

but

was

generally

ignored by

historians,

was

really

deserving

of

a

much more

ntensive

reatment.

No

successful

ttempt

had been

made to

integrate

this

unique

series

of

gold

coins into the

economic

history

of

the sixth and seventh centuries.

The

amount of

material at the

disposal

of a researcher had

grown

considerably

in

recent

years,

and

several

men of

stature

in

numismatic studies had

begun

to

collect data on these

pieces.

A fair

number

of

site finds nd

hoards were known which had a directbearing on the problem,and

the

general

situation

had

never been so favorable

for

n

attempt

at a

solution.

In

addition the

American

Numismatic

Society

was

very

fortunate

n

securing

the

participation

of Mr.

Philip

Grierson

of

Gonville

and Caius

College

of

Cambridge University

forthe Summer

Seminar

n

Numismatics

of the

year 1954.

The

opportunity

o

discuss

the

many

problems

which

naturally

arose

in

connection

with this

study

with a man of

Mr. Grierson's tature

n

numismatic

tudies was

most fortunate.

Mr.

Grierson's

help

was

invaluable

for

a

number o

reasons not the least of which was the fact that he placed all of the

photographs

of the

gold

coins

in his own collection

as well

as

those of

the

light weight

solidi which

he had

encountered

n

the course

of his

own

studies

at

my

disposal.

Mr.

Grierson

lso

analyzed

his own

coins

by

the

specific

gravity

technique,

and thus

he made available data

which

was

previously

unknown. For

all

of these

things

and most

importantly

or

his

willingness

o

discuss individual

problems,

wish

to

acknowledge

a

deep

sense of

gratitude

to

Mr. Grierson.

Since

my

own

training

has

been in

history,

t

was,

of

course,

vital

that there be some scholar who would aid me in thepurelytechnical

aspects

of numismatics.

In

this

capacity

Mr. Louis

C. West

of

Princeton

University

and

President of the

American

Numismatic

Society

has

been of

nvaluable

assistance.

The most

technical

aspects

of this

work have been

perused by

Mr.

West,

and

many

of

his

suggestions

have

been

incorporated

nto

this

book. If

there is

any

merit

to be found

n

that

aspect

of this

work,

t

is

largely

the

result

of

the aid

and

counsel of

my

teacher,

Mr.

West,

who

introduced

me to

the

value

of numismatic

tudy

while was a

graduate

student

and has

done so verymuch to encourage myresearches.

Sole

responsibility

or the

hypotheses

and

historical

explanations

put

forward

n

the

course

of

this book must

rest

with

me,

but

the

debt



13/231

Forword

ix

which is

owed to

my

teachers,

Professor

Theodor

E. Mommsen of

Cornell

University

and Professor

Joseph

R.

Strayer

of

Princeton

University,

annot be calculated.

Both of them

verykindly

onsented

to read

the

manuscript,

nd

their

uggestions

have been

incorporated

into

the

finished

product.

The

techniques

and methods which were

utilized

n

the

work

were earned

in

the seminars

conducted

by

them,

and

my

nterest

n this

field f

historical

research s the result of

many

most

enjoyable

hours

spent stuying

under

their

tutelage.

This book, however,would have been

impossible

withoutthe aid

of

so

many

scholars who

sent me casts or

photographs

of

coins

and

notes

regarding

these

pieces. Among

these should be

numbered

Dr.

Theodore V.

Buttrey,

Jr.

of the

Classics

Department

of

Yale

University

who

secured

photographs

of the

coins in the

Hermitage

through

the

help

of Dr. L. Belov

of

the staff f the

Hermitage,

and

who

also

managed

to obtain

photographs

of

the

coins in

the

Poltawa

Museum of

Regional

Studies

from

the

manager

of

that

museum,

Dr. V.

T. Shevtshenko. Dr.

Buttrey's

kind

efforts,

owever,

extended

even further, nd with his help and the assistance of Dr. Maria R.

Alfldi

nd

Dr.

L.

Huszr,

Keeper

of

Coins and Medals of he

collection

in

Budapest,

casts

of

all

of the

light weight pieces

in

that

collection

were also

secured. In

addition

the aid and

assistance

of

Mr.

R.

A. G.

Carson of the

Department

of Medals

and

Coins of the

British

Museum,

M.

Jean

Babelon,

Conservateur en chef

du

Cabinet

des

Mdailles

of

the

Bibliothque

Nationale,

Dr.

E.

Erxleben of

the

Staatliche

Museen

zu

Berlin,

Dr. A. N. Zadoks-

Jitta

of the

Royal

Cabinet in

the

Hague,

Dr. W.

D. Van

Wijngaarden

of

the

Rijksmuseum

Van

Oudheden

te

Leiden, Dr. K. Kraft,Konservator ofthe Staatliche Mnzsammlung

in

Munich,

Dr.

Eduard

Holzmair

of the

Bundessammlung

von

Medaillen,

Mnzen

und

Geldzeichen

in

Vienna,

and

Mr.

Enrico

Leuthold

of

Milan

have been

most

important.

The

grateful

hanks of

the author

for all of

the

specimens,

many

of them

unpublished,

furnished

by

these

scholars cannot be

expressed

in

terms

forceful

enough

to

convey

the

full

extent

of the

debt owed

to

them.

My

sincere

thanks

are also

due to the

authorities of

the

Museum in

Nicosia,

Cyprus,

for

permission

o

publish

Coin

no.

79a.



14/231

THE

STATE AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

It is to

the unusual

specimens

n

coinage

that

the

historian

s

most

oftendrawn

n

his

search

fornew

information

egarding

he

past.

The

continued

repetition

f

older

types

without

any seemingly ignificant

alteration is not likely to catch the eye of the scholar, nor is it

probable

that it

will

excite a

great

deal of

discussion or

interest.

Perhaps

this is

in

part

the

explanation

for the fact

that a

rather

surprising

eries

of solidi

which

are

to be

distinguished

primarily

n

the

basis

of the

marks in the

exergues

have

received

only

passing

numismatic comment and

have never been

adequately

studied

from

the

historical

point

of view.

When

it

is remembered

orhow

long

a

period

of time the

study

of

coinage

has

fascinated

men of

culture

t

is

strange

to note

that

it

was

only n 1910

that a scholar commented

upon

the series

of ightweight

solidi

with

unusual

exergual markings.

Dr.

Arnold

Luschin von

Ebengreuth,

n

his

study

of the denarius of

the

Salian

Law,

made

use

of the fact

that

such a series of

light

weight

solidi

marked

BOXX

existed.1

He

was, however,

aware of the

existence

of

only

a few

of

these

pieces,

and

the entire

scope

of

the

problem

was not

evident

to

1

Dr. Arnold uschin

on

Ebengreuth,

Der DenarderLex

Salica,"

Sitzungs-

berichte er

Kaiserlichen kademie er

Wissenschaften

n

Wien Phil.

hist.

Klasse,

CLXIII

(1910),

Abh.

4,

pp.

34-39.

See

Karl

August

ckhardt,

Zur

Entstehungszeiter Lex Salica/'FestschrifterAkademie erWissenschafteninGttingen1951,pt. II, pp. 16-31;and Pactus egisSalicae . Einfhrung

und 80

Titel-Text

Gttingen:

Musterschmidt,

954),

pp.

186-192,

which

s

volume

II

in

the

Westgermanisches

echt

eries

of

the

neue

Folge

of the

Germanenrechte

ublished

by

the

Historisches

nstitut des

Werralandes.

Eckhardt

rgues

very

strongly

or

greater

ntiquity

or the Lex

Salica.

Unfortunately

e s rather

avalier n

his

reatmentf he

numismatic

vidence.

Also

see H.

Brunner,

eutsche

echtsgeschichte

2nd

edition:

Leipzig,1906),

PP-

3I2-3I3>

and

Hugo Jaekel,

Die leichten

Goldschillinge

er

mero-

wingischen

eitund

das Alter er

Lex

Salica,"

Zeitschrift

er

avigny

Stiftung

fr

Rechtsgeschichte

Germ.

Abt.,

XLIII

(1922),

p.

103-216.

he

iteraturen

this

subject

of

the

date

of

the

Salic law

is

very

xtensive,

ut it

is rather

indirectly

elated

to the

true Roman

lightweight

olidi. The

barbarian

coinages re used to date the Germanicaw codes,but thesecoinages re

largely

mitationsf

Roman

oinage.

i

I



15/231


16/231

2

Light Weight

Solidi

him.

Only

a few

emperors,

Justinian, Justin

II, Phocas,

Heraclius

during

his

sole

reign,

and Heraclius

and Heraclius

Constantine

during

their

joint reign,

were

represented

on

the

solidi

that

he

studied.

It

is,

of

course,

true

that

a

certain number

of

these

light weight

Byzantine

gold

pieces

had been

reported

n

sale

catalogues

on several

occasions

prior

to

the

date of Luschin von

Ebengreuth's

study,

and

also

it is true that

Sabatier

as

well as

Wroth had noted the existence

of a few

specimens

of this series, but there was still no

body

of

material

collected

which

warranted

any study

of the

series itself.

Luschin

von

Ebengreuth

could use

these coins

n his

study

of

Frankish

coinage

and the

Salian

Law to

indicate

a

Byzantine

adumbration

of

the

subsequent

decline

in the

weight

of the Frankish

solidi

and

trientes,

ut he

could

derive

nothing

from hem

regarding

he

policies

of

the

Byzantine

emperors

whose names

appeared

on

these

strange

pieces.

By

1923,

however,

enough

material

had been

collected

to make

it

possible forUgo Monneret De Villard to writethe firstnumismatic

study

devoted

solely

to the

light weight

solidi.2

In

the

intervening

period

a

series

of

finely

written and

well

illustrated sale

catalogues

which

included

a

number of

such

coins

had

appeared,

and the

monumental

Byzantine

coin

catalogue

of Count

Tolstoi

had been

published.

Thus it

was

possible

for Monneret De

Villard

to discern

the true

imits

of this

series of

solidi,

and

though

the

catalogue

which

is included

with

the

present

study

s

more

than

three imes

as

long

as

that

of Monneret

De

Villard

nonetheless the

first

truly

significant

collectionofthe numismaticdata was made by him.

From

a search

of

all of the

literature

available

to him and

from

research

n

the

various

major

museums

of

Europe,

he discovered

that

there

was

not one

series of

light weight

solidi,

but rather

that

there

were everal

series

of

uch coins

each

bearing

differentet

of

markings

2

Ugo

Monneret e

Villard,

Sui

Diversi

aloridel Soldo

Bizantino/'

ivista

Italiana

di

Numismatica

XXXVI

(1923),

p.

33-40.

This rticlemust e used

with

great

caution. Several of the coins which

ppear

twice

n

separate

publications

re isted

s

separate

nd

distinct

ieces.

No account

was taken

of the condition fthe coins n discussinghemetrologicalspectsofthe

problem,

nd the

techniques

sed

by

Monnerete Villard re

susceptible

o

serious

rrors.

e

did

not

distinguish

he

pieces

f

barbarian

rigin.



17/231

State anel

Nature

of

the Problem

3

in

the

exergue

on the reverse.

t was also

evident,

when the

material

had been

gathered,

that these

light

weight

coins

were not

issued

intermittentlyy

several

emperors

f the sixth and seventh

centuries,

but rather

that

they

formed a series which extended

in

unbroken

fashion

from

he

reign

of

Justinian

to that

of Constantine

V

Pogo-

natus.

As

a result

of this

numismatic

nquiry

nto the nature

of

these

coins

Monneret

De Villard concluded that there were at least

seven

different arieties of

markings

that

appeared

in the

exergue

on the

reverses of

Byzantine

solidi

which would

indicate

that the coins

in

question

were

ight. Unfortunately

e did not

distinguish

etween the

authentic

Byzantine

gold pieces

and those of

barbarian manufacture.

His

list of

markings

would

therefore e

somewhat smaller

if

it were

devoted

only

to the

genuine

Byzantine

coins.

The

marks as

he

listed

them,

however,

were

1)

OB*+*,

2)

OB

XX

or

OB'XX,

3)

OB+

or

OB+*,

4)

BOXX,

5)

BOrK,

6)

CXNXU,

and

lastly 7)

CX+X-^.

The

weights

of

almost all of the coins

bearing

these marks

in

the

ex-

ergue

were

clearly

below the lowest

weights

whichone

might

reason-

ably

expect

from

olidi whichhad

originally

een

struck t

full

weight.

Of

all the

markings

isted, however,

Monneret

De Villard felt that

only

two series

could

be

grouped

in

which

he

was

possessed

of a

sufficient

umber

of

weights

to

postulate

any hypothesis regarding

the theoretical

weight

at which

these coins had been

struck.

The

forty-two

oins

which

were

contained

in

groups

two and four

he

considered as

one

series. This he

might

ogically

do

because

there was

nothing

more than a

transposition

or

metathesis

of

the

first two

lettersofthe

exergual

mark involved in

distinguishing

hemfrom ne

another. These coins when

considered

as a

single

series showed an

average weight

of

3.657

grammes

according

to his

calculations.

A

second series of

coins,

he

felt,

might

be

constructed of

those

coins

which

had

the

exergual

marks in

groups

one

(OB*+*)

and

three

(OB+*).3

The three

coins

that

were

listed with

the mark

OB*+*

had

a mean

weight

of

3.866

grammes,

while

the nine

coins with the mark

3

There s some

discrepancy

etween

he earlier

nd the later

parts

of

the

articlen thereproductionfthesemarks n theexergues f the coins.His

meaning,

owever,

s on all

occasions

uite

clear,

nd the correct

orms ave

beenused

n

our

text.

i*



18/231

4 Light Weight

Solidi

0B+*

had an

average

weight

of

3.96 grammes according

to the

calculations

of MonneretDe Villard.4

The

three

mean

weights

which

had been

obtained

by

this

process

were

all

well below what

might

be

expected

of solidi

which had

originally

been struck

at full

weight.

Theoretically

and

actually

the

solidus

had

been struck

al-pezzo

at

i/72nd

of

a

Roman

pound.

This

fact

was attested

from he

egal

texts n the

Theodosian and

Justinian

Codes as

well as from

he marks

of

value

which

were found

on

certain

ofthe earliersolidi. Luschin von

Ebengreuth

had also demonstrated

most

scientifically

hat one

could

hardly

expect

a

weight

of ess than

4.35

grammes

for

any

undipped

solidus.

This

is

in

accord

with

our

knowledge

concerning

the

weight

of

the Roman

pound.

It

is

now

generally

conceded

among

numismatists

that

the solidus must

have

been struck

at a

theoretical

weight

of

4.55

grammes

and that the

siliqua

auri was

theoretically

.1895 grammes.5

Monneret

De

Villard,

however,

had

adopted

the

weight

of the

Roman

pound

which

Naville

had calculated6.

According

to the

system

set

forth

by

Naville

the Roman

pound

weighed

322.56

grammes,

and the

siliqua

auri

which

it

is

quite

certain

was

i/i728th

of

a

pound,

was

0.1867

grammes.

Since

there

were

twenty-four

iliquae

or four

scruples

in the

normal

solidus

of

i/72nd

of a

pound,

the

theoretical

weight

of the

solidus,

according

to

Naville,

would

be

4.48

grammes.

It

can

be seen

immediately

that there

is

only

the

slight

difference f

seven-hundredths

f

a

gramme

between

the

theoretical

weight

of

the

4

Monneret

e Villard

omitted

ne

of the

coins

marked

OB+

fromhis

calculationsecause heweight fthepiecewas4.50grammes,ndtherefore

it was

within he

range

f rue

ull

weight

olidi.

He also

omitted

heone

coin

marked

OBJ

though

he

weight

was

3.75 grammes.

ee Coin no.

29

of the

Catalogue.

his

s not

a

good

method

f

procedure

ecause

t

prejudges

he

result

y excluding

nfavorable

ata.

5

The

range

f

24-25

arats

would

herefore

ave

been

4.55-4.74

rammes,

nd

that

from

3-24

would

have

been

4.36-4.55

grammes.

6

A.

Naville,

Fragment

e

mtrologie

ntique,

Revue

usse

de

Numismatique

XXII

(1920),

pp.

42-60.

t

mustbe stated

that there

s

no

unanimity

on-

cerning

he

weight

f

he

Roman

ound,

ut he onsensus

f

cholarlypinion

seems

o favor

he

traditional

eight

f

327.45

grammes.

ll of the

figures

quoted

n

this discussion

f

Monneret

e

Villard

would

therefore

ave to

beadjusted o accordwith his,f heywere o beused nanyfurtheriscussion

of

the

problem.

ince

his

s

not

the

case,

t seemed

est

oset forth is deas

as

he

wrote

hem

nd

to use

Naville's

alculations

n the

description.



19/231

State

and

Nature

of

the Problem

5

solidus

as

calculated

by

Naville

and that

according

to the

traditional

view.

Sixty

coins

were

listed

in

the article

by

Monneret

De

Villard

according

to the

rulers

and with

notations

regarding

the

peculiar

markings

n

the

exergue

on the

reverses.

When, however,

the

coins

were

grouped

according

o

the

marks

n the

exergues

t

was found

hat

only

in

one

instance,

those

inscribed

BOXX

and the

like,

was

there

really

a

sufficient

number of

coins

to

warrant

an

attempt

at

a

scientific reatment. n another

case,

that of the coins marked

OB+*,

only

some

hypotheses

could be

put

forward.

Unfortunately

Monneret De

Villard

did

not make use

of

the

frequency

curve

method of

statistical

analysis

of

the

metrological

data

which he

had

accumulated,

but

he resortedto the

less

scientific,

and

therefore

more

uncertain,

practice

of

calculating

mean

weights.

As a

result

he

was

only

able

to

discuss

with

any

degree

of confidence

those

coins

which

he

had

assembled

in

his

first

roup,

a

total of

forty-

two

specimens.

Monneret De Villard concluded that the solidi of this first

eries,

i.e.,

those

with

a mean

weight

of

3.657

grammes

were struck at

twenty

iliquae

to the

solidus

theoretical

weight

ccording

o

Naville's

system

of

3.734

grammes).

He

was

aware of

the fact that the

siliqua

was

mentioned

everal

times in

the

Edictum

Rothari s

well

as

in

the

Capitula

Extravagantia

of

the

Lombard

laws,7

and he

found,

as

Brunner

had

noted

much

earlier,

hat in

the

Glossarium

Matricense

3

it

was

stated

that

Siliqua

vicsima

pars

solidi est

while

the Glossarium

Cvense

104

and

163

asserted

Siliquas

. Id .

vicsima

pars

solidi

and

Siliquas , id estvicsimapars solidi ab arbore, uius semen est voca-

bulum

tenens8

Monneret

De

Villard held

that

since

the

glossators

themselves

believed

this

valuation

of

the

solidus at

twenty

iliquae

it

indicated

quite

clearly

that

they

knew

that it

corresponded

to

the

actual

worth

of

the

solidi

which

circulated

during

the

reign

of

Rothari

(636-652

A.D.).

The

reign

of

Rothari,

moreover,

was

roughly

contemporary

with

that of

Heraclius,

and

the

greatest

number f

ight

7

Monneret

e

Villard

ites

he

Capitula

xtravagantia

s the

Memoyatorium

( decaminata. It isnormallyited s Merced8Ed.

Bluhme,

MGH

,

Legumf

V,

pp.

651,

655-656.

All

these re

glosses

f

he

same

passage,Roth.,

46.



20/231

6

Light Weight

Solidi

weight

solidi

were struck

with

the

name

of Heraclius

imprinted

on

them. From

these

facts and

premises

MonneretDe

Villard

concluded

that the

light weight

solidi

of

twenty

iliquae

were

actually

referred

to

in

contemporary

exts and

probably

were a

part

of the

monetary

system.

In

doing

this,however,

he erredmost

seriously,probably

because

of

the factthathis

training

was that of a numismatist

nd not ahistorian.

His

use of the

legal

texts

does not meet the

requirements

f

historical

technique.

The Edictum Rothari, t is true, was issued in

643

A.D.

during

the

reign

of that Lombard

king,

and

the

Capitula

Extra-

vagancia

are attributed

o

either

the

reign

of Grimoald

(662-671 A.D.)

or

Luitprand

in

the firsthalf of the

eighth century.

The word

siliqua

does occur

n

both

cases,

but

it is not definedwithin

the

text

but

only

in the

two

glosses

that have

been

quoted.

The

glosses

which are cited

by

MonneretDe

Villard

in

support

of

his

position

that these

siliquae

were

the

twentieth

part

of the

solidus

are

more recent than the

legal

texts

themselves.

They

may safely

be

put

into

Carolingian

times

or

later, when the solidus in westernEurope was uniformly alued at

twenty

iliquae.

The two

manuscripts

n

which

these

glosses

occur are

related

n the stemma.

hey

come from common

source. hat source

seems to be a

relatively

ate

one,

and

these texts are

more

valuable

for

the later

period

of Lombard law.

The Codex Matritensis

egius

D

iiy

was

probably

written n

the

region

of

Beneventum or

Salerno

in the

tenth

century.10

While

the

Codex

Cavensis

was most

likely produced

in

the

region

of Beneventum about

the

year

1005

A.D.11 t is

probable

that the

glossator

himself was a

Beneventan of about

the same

period.1*The actual text of the glosses is apparently derived from

Isidore

of

Seville

(

ca

560-636 A.D.),

but

Isidore

retains

the older

valuation of

the solidus at

twenty-four

iliquae.18

Perhaps,

as

is

most

MGH.,

Legum,

V,

pp.

XXIX and

XXXIII.

1

MGH.,

Legum,

V,

p.

XXVIII.

11

MGH., Lesum, V, p.

XXX.

la

MGH.,

Legum,

V,

pp.

651

ff.

he

glosses

re

reproduced

here. f.

Edicta

Regum angobardorum,

istoria

Patria

Monumenta

Augusta

Taurinorum,

1855)

VIII,

p.

CX,

and

Bluhme,

Leges

Langobardorum,"

rchiv

erGesell-

schaftr ltere eutscheeschichtskunde,, p. 255.13 sidore f

Seville,

tymologiarum,

VI,

24:

'

Siliquae

d estvicsima

uarta

pars

solidi,

b

arbore,

uius emen

st,

ocabulum

enens."



21/231

State

and Nature

of

the Problem

7

likely,

he nfluence

f the Frankish

monetary

ystem

was

the

stimulus

for the lower

valuation

of the solidus

among

the

Lombards.14When

this

change

was

accomplished,

however,

must

remain

uncertain. t

is

quite

definite hat the

glossators

referred o

by

Monneret

De

Villard

were not

giving

us exact information

regarding

conditions

in

the

time

of

Rothari and

Grimoald,

but

rather

that

they

were

utilizing

he

valuations

known

n

theirown

time. The

glossators'

knowledge

of

the

monetary ystem

n

force

during

the

reign

of

Rothari

was

very ikelymuch less than that available to numismatists nd historians

today.

In

addition these

glosses

can

hardly

be

used

to

prove

that

the

Byzantine government

ssued such

light

weight

solidi

for

normal

circulation

within

the

Empire during

the seventh

century,

ince

they

are derived from a

later

period

and

they

comment

on a

matter

of

Lombard and not

Byzantine

law.

In

studying

the second

group

of

coins,

those marked

OB*+*

and

OB+*,

Monneret De

Villard

found himself

eriously

hampered

by

an

insufficiency

f

data.

Three coins

marked

OB*+*

had

an

average

weight

of

3.866

grammes,

and the nine

pieces

marked OB+* had a

mean

weight

of

3.96

grammes.

This seemed

to

indicate

a

theoretical

weight

of

approximately

twenty-one

siliquae

which

should have

corresponded

to

3.92 grammes

according

to

the

system

worked out

by

Naville

and

accepted

by

Monneret

De

Villard.

If this

were

so,

then

Monneret De Villard

suggested

that the

mark

which

he

transcribed

as-*

might

be

explained

as

-

+*,

and

that the two X's

would thus

be combined

into

the

single

sign

*. The

total

would

then

be

twenty-

one.

Unfortunately

such

an

explanation

is

hardly

satisfactorybecause, as will be shown,thereare no solidimarked and, further-

more,

the

coins

marked

OB*+*

and

those marked

OB+*

or

OB%

all

belong

to a

single group.

The

marks

OB+*

and

OB

are

merely

abbreviations of

OB*+*.

These

asterisks

cannot

therefore e taken

as

the

combination

of

two

X's

or

the

total

would

be

in

excess

of

forty

rather

than

twenty-one.

These

solidi, however,

were

supposedly

struck

at

approximately

3.92

grammes

or about

1784th

of

a Roman

pound.15

Monneret De

14Cf.Brunner, eutsche echtsgeschichteI, p. 313,note7.16

Monneret e

Villard,

Sui

Diversi valori

del

Soldo

Bizantino,"

Rivista

Italianadi

Numismatica

XXXVI

(1923),

.

38,

uggests

lso

that hemiliarense



22/231

8

Light Weight

Solidi

Villard,

following

Luschin von

Ebengreuth, pointed

out that some

of the

pseudo-imperial

solidi

struck in Gaul

during

the

early

Mero-

vingian period

were issued at

approximately

the same

average

weight.16

Some

of these

Frankish

gold pieces

were

issued with

or

large

ilver

oin

prior

o the

reign

f

Justinian

as struck

t

i/84th

f

a

pound.

t

would

thus

be a

silver

ounterpart

f

the

lightweight

olidus.

Actually

e

is

in

error,

or

he silver oins

werenot struck t

a

standard f

i

/84th

f

Roman

ound

t

any

ime

uring

t

east

two

hundred

ear

eriod

before hereign f Justinian,ordid Justinian imselftrike uchsilver

coins.

Heavy

silver

oinage

s

noticeably

bsent

n

the ifth

entury.

hen

he

quantity

f silver oins ssued

began

to

rise

n

the first

uarter

f the

sixth

century

t seems hat

heavy

oinof

1

/72nd

f

a

pound,

he

ounterpart

f a

full

weight

olidus,

was

struck,

ut

noneof 1

/84th

f a

pound

were ssued.

A

solidus

t

i

/84th

f a

pound

would

ctually

e

equivalent

o

20.57 siliquae.

Monneret

e

Villard

has

apparently

ounded

hisoff o

twenty-one

iliquae.

Twenty-one

iliquae

would

weigh

3.9207

grammes

ccording

o

Naville.

A

solidus

f

wentyiliquae

would

ctually

e struck

t about

/82nd

f

pound

while

ne

of

wenty-one

iliquae

wouldbe struck

t about

1

/86th

f

pound.

See also

Theodor

Mommsen,

istoire e la monnaie

omaine

trans.Duc de

Blacas

(Paris,1873),

II,

p. 77,

note

2.

16He citesE. Babelon, La Siliqueromaine,e sou et le denier e la loi des

Francs,"

La

Gazette

umismatique

VI

(1902),pp.

72-73

to that

effect.

he

point

s most

learly

made

by

Luschin

on

Ebengreuth,

Der Denar derLex

Salica,"

Sitzungsberichte

erKaiserlichenkademie

er

Wissenschaften

n

Wien,

Phil.-hist.

lasse,

CLXIII

(1910),

Abh.

4,

pp.

1-89,

but

especially p.

22-39,

which ndicates

hat

sometime fter

580

a.d.

the

Merovingians egan

to

strike

heir olidi

n a standard

f

22

y2

iliquae

nd that his

tandard

apidly

fell o

twenty-one

iliquae

o the olidus.

rior o

580

a.D.,

he

maintained,

he

Merovingians

ad struck heir

old

on theConstantinian

tandard

f

twenty-

four

iliquae

o the solidus.

A

furthereduction

n

the

weight

f

Merovingian

gold

coins

to

twenty

iliquae

probably

ook

place

in

the first

ecade

of the

seventh

entury,

ut

in

any

event,

t

was

an

accomplished

act

during

he

reign fChlotar I (613-629A.D.).The exact dateofthe decline o twenty

siliquae

to the

solidus,

ccording

o

Luschin

von

Ebengreuth,

annot

be

firmly

stablished.

. E.

Rigold,

An

mperial

oinage

n Southern aul

n the

Sixth

and

Seventh

Centuries,"

umismatic

hronicle

Series

6,

XIV

(1954)

pp.

93-133,

iscusses

his

seudo-imperial

old

oinage.

e

suggests

hat t

was

begun

uring

he ast

years

f

the

reign

f

Justin

I,

probably

bout

574

a.d.

His

work

supersedes

hat

of

Luschin

von

Ebengreuth.

f.

Maurice

Prou,

Catalogue

es monnaies

ranaises

e

la

Bibliothque

ationale

Les

Monnaies

mrovingiennes

Paris, 1892), pp.

XIV-XXVII,

esp. pp.

XXIV-XXV.

A.

Duchalais,

Poids de

1'

ureus omain

ans

a

Gaule,"

Revue

umismatique

V

(1840),

pp.

261-265,

ncl

Maximin

Dloche,

"Explication

d'une

formule

inscrite

ur

plusieurs

monnaies

mrovingiennes,"

tudes de

numismatiques

mrovingiennesParis,1890), p. 227-235, eprintedrom evue rchologique

2e

srie,

XL,

provided

he basic

information

pon

which uschin on Eben-

greuth

etermined

is

dating.

ee note

1.



23/231

State

and Nature

of

the Problem

9

imperial portraits

and

they

bore marks of

value,

XXI

in

the

case

of

the

solidi

and

VII

in

the case of the trientes. These

Frankish coins

will

be examined more

closely

at a later

point,

but

it

should

suffice

or

the

present

merely

o indicate that

the

existence of such

coinage

from

mints

n

southern Gaul

is

well attested.17

There

was

also

a certain amount

of

literary

vidence

that bore

on

the

question

of

such

light

solidi

which

weighed

less

than

i/yznd

of

a

pound,

and

Monneret De

Villard

dealt with

a small

portion

of that

evidence. He cited a Novella ofthe

Emperor

Majorian

in whichthat

Emperor

required

that all solidi of full

weight

be

accepted

by

the tax

collector

with

the one

exception

of the

Gallic

solidi,

the

gold

of

which

was of esser

value.18

his

legal

text was

issued

in

458

A.D. and therefore

precedes

the

issuance of the

peculiar

series

of

light weight

solidi

in

whichwe

are

interested

by

at least

eighty

years

and

possibly

as much

as a

century.

That the Romans had

certain

problems

connected

with

the unofficial

triking

f

solidi

of

ight

weight

during

the fourth nd

fifth

enturies

annot be

doubted

in

view

of the

extant

aws

regarding

gold coins,but these laws cannot be used to indicate that an

imperial

gold

coin

was

struck at

a

lighter

tandard. The

entire

body

of

iterary

evidence will

be

discussed

at a

later

point,

but it

should

suffice

or he

present

merely

to

point

out that the

particular

Novella

just

cited

17

Another

eriesmarked

VIII in

the

case

of

the

trientesndicates hat the

change

was

clearly

nderstood.

18

Nov

Maioriani, II,

i,

14

458

.d.) (ed.

Th.

Mommsennd Paul

M.

Meyer,

Codex

Theodosianus

II,

p.

171).

"

Praetera

nullus

olidm

ntegri

onderis

calumniosae

mprobationis

btentu

ecusetxactor

excepto

o

Gallico

cuius

urum

minore

estimationeaxatur

omnia

concussionum

emoveatur

ccasio."This

passageand severalother imilar neshave formed hesubjectof a great

number f

articles. drien

Blanchet,

Les

((sous

Gaulois))

du

Ve

sicle,"

e

Moyen

Age,

2e

srie,

XIV

(19

0),

pp.

45-48,

uggested

hat

hewords

minore

aestimatione

ndicated

old

thatwas

debased nd

not

coinswhich

were

not

of

full

weight.

e therefore

nterpreted

his

passage

n

terms f

the

few

ebased

coins

ound

n

the

Dortmund

oard.

Wilhelm

ubitschek,

Zum

Goldfundon

Dortmund/'

Numismatische

eitschrift}

eue

Folge

III

(1910),

pp.

56-61,

discusses

heview

aken

y

Blanchet,

nd

he

goes

venfurthern

formulating

the

heory

hat

barbarous

oinages

f

poor

uality

were n

increasing

roblem

for

he

Romans

uring

he

period

f

he

migrations,

ut

that

by

themid-sixth

century

he

Byzantines

ad

conceded

efeat

n

this

matter.

e

probably

oes

too

far.

Maurice

rou,

es

Monnaies

mrovingiennes

p.

XVI

and

E.

Babelon,

"La Silique omain,esou et e denier e a loidesFrancs aliens,"JournalesSavantsFvrier

901,

p.

120,

note

1,

statetheir

elief

hat

a

lighter eight

coinage

s

meant. ee

chapter

I

for

further

iscussion f

this

Novella



24/231

io

Light Weight

Solidi

cannot

refer

o the

light

weight

solidi

which form he

subject

of

this

book.

In

addition

to that Novella

however,

MonneretDe

Villard

refers

o

several

other documents

which

should

be treated

in

connectionwith

a

critique

of his work. One of the

documents

to which

reference

s

made is

the so-called Formula

Lindenbrogiana

XXXII,

but this can

easily

be

shown to be a

spurious

reference

ecause

of

the variants.19

Two

other

nstances

n

which

he so-called solidusGalliens

s

mentioned

are known from the

correspondence

of

Gregory

the Great, and

Monneret

De

Villard

also makes referenceto them.

In one

letter

Gregory

peaks

of the solidi

Galliarum,

qui

in terranostra

xpendi

non

possunt

apud

locum

proprium

tiliter

xpendanturP

n another

etter

of

Gregory

o

Dynamius,

the Patrician

of

the

Gauls,

the sum

of

four

hundred

Gallicanos

solidos is mentioned.21

These references o

the

solidi

Gallici can

easily

be

explained

on the basis

of the Frankish

coinage

which

was

truly

ight weight

n

the last decade

of

the sixth

century

nd could

not be used

within the confines

f the

Byzantine

Empire.

Monneret

De

Villard,

however,

recognized

that

his

case was all too

weak

when bolstered

only by

references o the

coinage

of Gaul

which

Luschin

von

Ebengreuth

had

already

proven

to be

of

ight weight

n

19

his

referenceas

first

iven

y

C. Du

Cange,

Glossarium

ediae t

nfimae

Latinitatis

Paris,

1733-36),

.v. Solidus

and

it

has been

repeated

y many

authors. .

Babelon,

Trait es monnaies

recques

t romaines

Paris, 1901),

I,

pt.

,

col.

540,

ites

t as

a formula rom hecollection

f

Marculfe.

ctually

this

documents

of Salic

origin

nd s

given

n de Salis'

edition

MGH.,

Leges

SectioV,p. 77)as Formula alicaLindenbrogianao.16. This sequivalento

Eugne

de Rozire.Receuil

esFormules

sites

ans

'empire

esFrancs

du

Ve

au

Xe

sicles

Paris,

1859-71),

o.

242

or

in

the

Rockinger

dition

o.

19.

In

these

ater

nd more

cholarly

ditions

he

crucial

phrase,

olidos

rancos

is

given

s

solidos

antos r valente

olidos ante.

n

the

Frankfurtdition

f

1631

of he

Codex

egum

Antiquarum

f

Lindenbrog

nd

n thatofBaluze

which s

included

n

ed.

J.

Mansi,

Amplissima

ollectio onciliorum

Paris,

1901-27),

XVIIIbis,

col.

536,

the

phrase

ppears

s solidos

rancos

antos

This

is

not

even

given

s

a variant

n the

better

ditions.

20

Gregory

,

Registrum

VI,

10

(

MGH

,

Epistolae

I,

p.

389).

The editors

ate

this etter

s

of

Sept.

595

a.d.

21

Gregory

,

Registrum

II,

33

MGH.,Epistolae

,

p.

191).

This

etters

dated

bythe editors s having eenwrittennApril 93a.d. Monnerete Villardcites hese wo ettersromhe

Migne

ditionn he

Patrologia

atina

LXXVII,

pp.

799

and

630.



25/231

State and Nature

of

the Problem

ii

the last

two decades of the

sixth

century.

This Frankish

coinage

had

been

adopted

after

Justinian

had

instituted

the

striking

of

light

weight

solidi.

As a final

bit

of

literary

proof

that

light

weight

solidi

of

approximately

i/84th

of a

Roman

pound

were issued

by

the

Byzantine

government

Monneret

De

Villard cited

a law ofValentinian

I of the

year

367.

This

law,

he

maintained,

stated

explicitely

that a

solidus

of

i/84th

of a Roman

pound

was known to

the Romans.

That

law

may

be

translated

as

follows:

On account of the

mining

tax,

forwhich

the custom

peculiar

to it

must

be

retained,

it is

determined

that fourteenounces of

gold

dust

be

brought

for each

pound

(of

metal).22

22

C

Th., V, 19,

4

(ed.

Mommsen

nd

Meyer,

odexTheodosianus

I,

pt.

II,

p.

558): "Imp.

Valentinianus

t

Valens

AA. ad Germanianum

om(item)

S(acrarum) (argitionum).

b metallicum

anonem,

n

quo proprio

onsuetudo

retinenda

st

quattuordecim

ncias ballucae

ro

singulis

ibris onstat

nferri

Dat. VI id.

an.

Rom.

Lupicinio

t

oviano onss."This s

equivalent

o

C.

Just.

XI, 7, 2 (ed. Krueger, orpusuris Civilis II, p. 430). It is a portion f the

same

aw to

which

.

TA.,XII, 6,

13,

etting

p

the tandard f

eventy-two

solidi o

the

pound

for ullion

ayments

o

the

Treasury, elongs.

ecause

of

this

A.

Soetbeer,

Beitrge

ur

Geschichte

es

Geld-

und Mnzwesens n

Deutschland/'

orschungen

ur

deutschen

eschichte

I

(1862),

.

295,

aid that

the

propria

onsuetudo entioned as the custom fthe

Fiscus

n

collections

to

take

eighty-four

olidifrom he

gold

mine

perators.

ining

s

an

industry

in

theRoman

tate,however,

as

peculiar

nto

tself.

he entire itleXIX of

Book

X

of heTheodosian

ode s headedDe Metallis tMetallariis.

law

of

365

(C.

Th.,X, 19,

3) places charge

f

ight

cruples

n those

ntering

he

mining

profession

oluntarily.

law

of

392

C.

Th.,X,

19,

12)

taxes

every

oldminer

in

Pontus and

Asia

seven

scruplesper

year. Goldmining

as

a

peculiar

industry,nd it is most ikely hatthe mine perators ereusing peculiar

pound

of

eighty-four

olidi. E.

Babelon,

Trait

des

monnaies

recques

t

romaines

Paris,

1901),

,

pt.

,

col.

539,however,

maintainedhat hetext

n

question

renferme

ussi

mplicitement

a

mentione a

taille

84.'

The text f

a law

of

325

a.D.

in

the

Theodosian

ode whichwould ndicate

ight

weight

solidihas been

preserved

n

two

eparate ragments

hich

rerecorded

n

both

the

Theodosian

nd

Justinian

odes,

and

whose order s indicated

n

the

Theodosian

ecension. .

Th.,

XII,

7,

1;

XII, 6,

2

(ed.

Mommsennd

Meyer,

Codex

Theodosianus

I,

pt.

II,

pp.

722-3;

713)

=

C.

Just.,

X,

73,

1;

X,

72,

1

(ed. Krueger,

orpus

uris

Civilis,

I,

pp.

427;

426).

n

the ater

ecension

he

important

tatement

egarding

he

weighing

f

solidi has been omitted.

Whether r not

anything

ntervenedetween he

two

fragments

s received

cannot e ascertained,ut thetext s itstands ormsn intelligiblehole. t

is

a law

concerning

he collection

f

taxes,

and

penalties

or

mproper

er-

formance

n

the

process

f

collection re

attached o the atter

ortion

f

the



26/231

12

Light Weight

Solidi

This law

clearly

does

not

mention the

striking

of solidi at

i/84th

of a Roman

pound.

It

simply

insists that

mine

operators

in

the

fulfillment f their leases

should continue an older

practice

of

remitting

o the

Treasury

fourteenounces

of

gold

for

each

pound.

This aw was

inserted

nto the

chapter

because

it

formed

art

of

longer

law which

in

another section established the fact that in

payments

made in

gold

bullion a

pound

was to be

valued

at

seventy-two

olidi.

Since

such a

regulation

would have meant that the

treasury

would

lose

money

on its

gold

leases,

a

specific xception

was made in thecase

law.

The first

art

of

the aw

gives

he

weight

f

the

solidus

s

four

cruples,

i.e.,

the exact theoretical

eight

fthenormal

olidus,

ut

t then

goes

on to

say

that

f

nyone,

resumably

taxpayer,

houldwish o

weigh

ut

solidi,

e

should

weigh

ut seven olidi

or ne ounce

nd

fourteenolidi

or

woounces.

The atter

ortion

f

thisfirst

ragment

f the aw thereforeontradicts

he

given

weight

f

the

solidus.

Mommsen,

istoire e

a

monnaie

omainetrans.

Duc

de

Blacas, II,

pp.

64-5,

says

that

the

aw

ofValentinian

C.

Th.t

XII,

6,

13)

which

pecified

hat

therewere

eventy-two

olidi

o the

pound

was

a

restatementf the Constantinianaw

of

325

a.d.

It

was

therefore

ecessary

to emend hereading fthe Constantinianaw. Since thelaw of325 a.d.

occurs

n

only

ne

manuscript,

nd thatone s

of

Frankish

rigin,

Mommsen

supposed

hat the

VII

and

XIV

were nserted

o

accord

with he Frankish

system

f

coinage

n

place

of VI

and XII.

The fact hat he solidus

was still

quoted

t four

cruples,

e

maintained,

as the

ypical

cribal rror.

ommsen,

0

Frnkische

nterpolation

m

Theodosischen

odex,"

Jahrbuch

es

gemeinen

deutschenechts

III

(i860),

pp.

454-456,

eprinted

n

Gesammelte

chriften

II,

pp.

408-409;

"Zu

Cod.

Theod.,12,

7,

1,"

Jahrbuch

es

gemeinen

eutschen

Rechts

V

(1862), p.

12

-1

1,

eprinted

n

Gesammelte

chriften

I,

pp.

410-41

"Das

theodosische

esetzbuch/'

eitschrift

er

Savigny-Stiftung

r

Rechts

geschickte

rm.

Abt.,

XII

(1900),

.

157,

eprinted

n

Gesammelte

chriften,

I,

p.

378.

Cf. G.

Hnel,

"Einige

Bedenken en Aufsatz

sc):

frnkische

nter-

polationmTheodosischenodex Bd. III, Ur.21desJahrh.) etr./' ahrbuch

des

gemeinen

eutschenechts

IV

(1861), p.

309-316.

Hnel

wrongly

hought

that

olidi

f

/84th

fa

poundmight

ave

been truck

n thefourth

entury.

He was also

wrong

n

attributing

he

manuscript

o

Italy.

See E.

A.

Lowe,

Codices

atini

Antiquiores

A

Palaeographical

uide

o

Latin

Manuscripts

rior

to theNinth

Century

Oxford:

larendon

ress,

1950),

V,

p.

21.

Pinder

nd

Friedlaender,

eitrge

ur

lteren

nzkunde

Berlin,

851),

,

p.

15,

simply

correctedhe textwithout

xplaining

ow

such

n emendation

as

possible.

Also

see A.

Soetbeer,

p.

cit

,

pp.

292-296.

O.

Seeck,

Die

Mnzpolitik

iocle-

tians

und

seiner

Nachfolger/'

eitschrift

r

Numismatik

XVII

(1890),

pp.

55-56,

ays

hat herewas a

special ound

f

ighty-four

olidi

sed

by

the

Fiscus

n

the ollectionf axes s shown

y

C.

Th

, XII,

7,

1

(325

.d.)

which

wassuppressedytheedict fValentinianC. Th.,XII, 6, 13).Also eeJosef

Wilhelm

Kubitschek,

"Beitrge

zur

frhbyzantinischen

umismatik,"

Numismatische

eitschrift

XXIX

(1897), p.

177-178.



27/231

State and Nature

of

the

Problem

13

of the

mine

operators.

In the

fulfilling

f

mine

leases a

heavy pound

of fourteen ounces

was

to be

used

as

in

the

past,

but

in

all other

cases

seventy-two

olidi

were to

be

accepted

as

equivalent

to a

full

pound

of

gold.

The

acceptance

of such a

heavy

fourteenounce

pound,

of

course,

requires

somewhat

more

proof

than has

just

been set

forth,

nd

we

must therefore

diverge

slightly

from the central theme

of

this

chapter.

A

situation

in

which

two

pounds

of different

eights,

both

recognized legally,

existed need excite no

surprise,

but

great

care

must

be taken in

citingpassages

in this

connection

to

distinguish

he

second

variety

of

pound

(i.e.

that of

fourteen

unces)

from

he mere

use

of

heavy

weights.

This

latter

practice

was common

in

the

early

mediaeval

period,

and therewas

a

good

deal

of

egislation

against

it.23

Some

passages

are

capable

of an even wider

interpretation.

On the

estates

of the

Church

n

591

A.D.,

it would

appear

as

if

73

*/2

olidi

were

exacted for

pound,

but

that

Gregory

he Great

considered

this

sinful

nd ordered that the

rustics

pay only

a

pound

of

seventy-two.In

doing

this, however,

he

states,

"and there

ought

to be exacted

neither

any

farthings

siliquae)

beyond

the

pound,

not a

greater

pound,

nor

charges

above the

greater

ound,

but

each

according

to

your

assessment there should be

an increase

of the rent n

proportion

as

the resources

suffice,

nd so

a shameful

exaction

may

never

be

made."24

23

There s no

point

o

be made

by citing

he mass of

these

aws.

They

would

of

necessity

nclude uch

exts s

Chapter

IX

of

the

Constitutio

ragmatica

(XIX.

De

Mensuris

t

Ponderibus

Ut

autem ulla

fraudis

el

aesionis

rovin

darumnascatur ccasio iubemus n Ulis mensuris elponderibuspecies el

pecunias

ari vel

uscipi quae

beatissimo

apae

vel

mplissimo

enatuinostri

Pietas n

pr

esenti ontradidit

)

That

improper

eights

were ommon

an be

shown

rom till

ther

assages.

Exigentes

ero ssem

ublicum

er

gravamina

ponderum

remere

icuntur

atrimonia

ossessorumy

t non tam x ctio

uam

praeda

sse

videatur.ed ut

totius

raudis

brogetur

ccasio

ad libram

ubiculi

nostri

uae

vobis n

praesentia

ata

est}

universas

unctionesublicas

ubemus

inferre

"

Cassiodorus,

ariarum

V, 39

MGH

, AA., XII,

p.

156)

written

n

the

period

523-526

.d.

Cf.

Mommsen,

Ostgothische

tudien,"

Neues

Archiv

XIV,

p.

464,

note

. Also ee

Cassiodorus,

ariarum

XI,

16

MGH.,

A

A.,

XII,

p. 344),

which

s an

answer

o the

Ligurians

hohave

complained

oncerning

unjustweights

nd

measures

sed

by

tax

collectors.

regory

,

Registrum

,

42

(MGH.yEpistolae I, p. 64), orders njustweights o be broken nd to be

replaced y

ust weights.

24

The

talics re

mine.

ranslated

y

William .

Lunt,

Papal

Revenues

n the



28/231

14 Light Weight

Solidi

It

is clear that the

pound

was not

eternally

the

same

weight,

and

just

as we

may speak

of the

pound

Troy

or the

pound avoirdupois

but

in common

parlance

understand

one

pound

to be

meant,

so it

must

have been

among

the Romans. A

gift

of

1,600

pounds

of

gold

forthe

Decennalia

of the

emperor

was voted

by

the Senate

in

385

A.D.,

and

that

it was to be

paid

in the urban

standard,

.e. a different

ne

from

the normal

one,

is

carefully tipulated.26

MiddleAges NewYork:Columbia niversityress, 934),I, p. 4.The text f

this

portion

f

Gregory

,

Registrum

I,

42 (

MGH

,

Epistolae,

,

pp. 62-63)

s

important.

Cognovimus

tiam,

n

aliquibus

massis cclesiae xactionem

alde

iniustissimam

ieri

ita

ut ibram

eptuagenum

ernmemis

uod

dici

nefas

st

exigantur

t adhuc

eque

hoc

ufficit

sed

nsuper

liquid

x

usu iam multorum

annorum

xigi

dicuntur.

uam

rem

mnmodoetestamur

t

amputari

e

patri-

monio

unditus

olumus

Sed tua

xperientia

ive

n

hoc

uod er

ibram

mplius,

sive

n aliis minutis

neribust

uod

ltra ationis

equitatem

rusticis

ccipitur,

pensent

t

omnia

n

summam

ensionis

edigati

t

prout

ires usticorum

ortant

pensionem

ntegram

t

pensantem

ibram

eptuagenum

inum

binum

orrigit

Mommsen,

Decret

des Commodus

r en Saltus

Burunitanus,"

ermes

XV

(1880),

dn.

2) per

olvant,

t

neque

iliquas

xtra

ibras

eque

ibrammaiorm

equeonera upra ibrammaioremxigidebeant,edperestimationemuam

prout

irtus

ufficit

n summam

ensionis

rescatt ic

turpis

xactio

equaquam

fiat

. .

Mommsen,

oc.

it.,

iews

he

dditional

y2

olidimentioneds t(der

Zuschlag

er

Hebegebhr

um teuer

uantum.'*

he

passage,

however,

peaks

f

a

greater

ound

(73% solidi?)

and additional

harges.

B.

Hilliger,

Die

Siebenteilige

nze der

Rmer/'

Bltter

r

Mnzfreunde

LXII

(1937),

pp.

1

9-131,

onnects

his

passage

with

n ounce divided

nto seven

parts

because

he believed

hat he

73

y2

olidi

represented

pound

of

1764

iliquae

whichwould

e

evenly

ivisible

y

twelve

nd

by

seven.

He

applies

his o the

light

rankish olidi.

25

Symmachus,

elaUones,

III

(MGH.,

A

A.,

VI,

p. 290):

Nunc

%n

morem

tuum

tudia ostra reverunt.

am

mille escentes

uri

ibra ecennalibus

mperii

tuifestus evotusrdo romisitrbanis onderibusonferndas id esttrutinae

largioris

xamine" Cf.

he

Acta

of

he

pseudo-council

f Sinuessa

which

peak

of libra ccidua

which

may

be either

"western

ound"

or a reference

o

the

sign

f

the zodiac known

s libra.

he libra ccidua

however,

s

given

ertain

numerical

alues

n

theActa

but

unfortunately

he values

given

n

different

parts

of

the text

do not coincide

withone another.

At one

point

the libra

occidua

eems

o be

equivalent

o

eighty-four,

nd at another

o

seventy-two,

and

n the hirdnstance

o ess

than

forty-four

nd so forth.

he text

s

found

in ed.

Mansi,

Amplissima

ollectio

oncillorum

I,

cols.

12550.

The

notes

of

Severinus

inius,

sixteenth

entury

ditor

f

he

Acta

f heChurch

ouncils,

who

grees

with

.

Baronius

Annalium

cclesiasticorum

Antwerp,

670-7),

I,

pp.

724-5,

nno

302,

no.

91-95)

n

connecting

he ibra ccidua

with

he

normal

poundofseventy-twoolidi nd distinguishingt fromn eastern oundof

eighty-four

olidi,

re also

found

n

Mansi,

d loc.The Acta f his ouncilwere

forged

n the

early

ixth

entury.

.

Caspar,

Geschichte

es

Papsttums

on

den



29/231

State and

Nature

of

the

Problem

15

MonneretDe

Villard,

on the basis of the

passages

which

have

been

discussed,

wrongly

oncluded

that he

had

demonstrated,

both

from

the texts and the

coins

themselves,

hat different

olidi

struck

on three

different

tandards

were

in

use

in

the

Byzantine Empire

during

the

sixth

and

seventh

centuries.

There was the

normal solidus

of

twenty-

four

siliquae

or

i/72nd

of a

pound,

a

lighter

olidus

of

twenty-one

siliquae

or

approximately

1

/84th

f

pound,

and the

ightest

olidus of

twentysiliquae

or

approximately /86th

of a

pound.26

He

even

went

so far as to

suggest

that there

might

be still othersolidi ofdifferent

standards and that

the

study

of

Greek

papyri

from

Egypt

revealed

the

existence

of a number

of

different

olidi.

The

very

apparent

difficulties

hat

would

have arisen in the

economic life of the

empire

as a result

of such

a

virtually

haphazard

system

of

coinage

were

ignoredby

MonneretDe Villard. Of

course,

t is

now clear as a

result

of

the work of

Johnson

nd West that

the

calculations

n the

Egyptian

papyri

do not

support

the existence of solidi

struck

on

different

standards,

but

that

they

make

use

of

a

system

of

accounting

which

s

now

comprehensible.27

In

evaluating

the work done

by

Monneret

De Villard one

might,

s

a result of the rather

oose

use

of

texts,

easily

overlook

the

significance

of the fact that

his

was the first

attempt

at

establishing

the

true

limits of the

problem

and

applying

historical

data to it.

A

substantial

catalogue

of the

ightweight

olidi

had been

prepared,

nd the

problem

of

explaining

and

interpreting

he

significance

f their

existence

was

now

clear

to

all. The

years

immediately

following

witnessed

a

growth

in

interest

in

these

strange

coins,

and even the

famed Professor

Regling spoke

of

doing

some workon them.28

Unfortunately

egling

never did

manage

to

produce

the

article

or

book,

but

it

was a

clear

sign

of

growing

nterest. Hoards of these

pieces

and

individual

coins

Anfngen

is zur

Hheder

Weltherrschaft

Tbingen,

933),

,

p.

98.

Also

see

L. Duchesn

f

iber

ontificatisi

exte,

ntroduction

tCommentaire

Paris,

886),

I, Introd., p.

lxxiff.

26

olidi

struck t

twenty iliquae

are

actually

/86.4th

fa Roman

pound.

The

eighty-sixthart

ofa

Roman

pound quals 20.093 iliquae.

27

ouis

Light weight solidi and Byzantine trade during the sixth and seventh centuries / by Howard L....

Documents

Transcript of Light weight solidi and Byzantine trade during the sixth and seventh centuries / by Howard L....