Basil

Intro ...

(867-886)

l

CONSTANTINOPLE

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1702.

Obv: + ıҺs xᴘs ʀєx ʀєςɴᴀɴᴛıчᴍ +. Christ enthroned facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, and raising right hand in benediction; in left hand, book of Gospels.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱıʟıᴏs єc ⲑєч ьᴀꜱıⳑєᴠs ьᕯ. Basil standing facing, wearing crown, divitision and loros, and holding globus cruciger and akakia.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1703.

Obv: + ьᴀꜱıʟıᴏs ᴀчςчsτ’ ь’. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding patriarchal cross on globus, and akakia.

Rev: cᴏnsτᴀnτ’ s єᴠ∂ᴏcıᴀ (or єᴠ∂ᴏsıᴀ) ᕯ. Facing busts of Constantine, beardless (left), and Eudocia (right), both crowned; Constantine wearing chlamys and holding globus cruciger; Eudocia wearing loros and holding cruciform scepter; between their heads cross.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1704.

Obv: + ıҺs xᴘs ʀєx ʀєςɴᴀɴᴛıчᴍ ᕯ. Christ enthroned facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, and raising right hand in benediction; in left hand, book of Gospels.

Rev: ьᴀꜱıʟıᴏs єᴛ cᴏnsτᴀnτ’ ᴀчςς’ ь’. Facing busts of Basil, with short beard (left), and Constantine, beardless (right), both crowned, holding between them patriarchal cross; Basil wearing loros, Constantine wearing chlamys.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Semissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1705.

Obv: ьᴀꜱıʟıᴏ’ ᴀᴠτᴏs. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent (and akakia ?).

Rev: + ʟєᴏ[n ꜱє ᴀⳑє𝓧] ᴀчςς ᕯ. Facing beardless busts of Leo (left) and Alexander (right), each wearing crown and chlamys; between their heads, cross.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Tremissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1706.

Obv: + ьᴀꜱıʟıᴏs ьᴀꜱıⳑєᴠs. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding patriarchal cross on globus, and akakia.

Rev: + cᴏnsτᴀnτın’ cє єч∂ᴏcıᴀ. Facing busts of Constantine, beardless (left), and Eudocia (right), both crowned; Constantine wearing chlamys; Eudocia wearing loros; between their heads cross.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Tremissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1707.

Obv: ьᴀꜱıʟıᴏ’ ᴀчς’. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding akakia.

Rev: + ʟєᴏn ꜱє ᴀⳑє𝓧’ ᴀчςς’. Facing beardless busts of Leo (left) and Alexander (right), each wearing crown and chlamys; between their heads, cross.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AR Miliaresion. Constantinople mint. Sear 1708.

Obv: ıҺsчs xʀısτчs nıcᴀ. Cross potent on three steps, globe beneath; triple border.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱı / ⳑıᴏꜱ cє / cᴏnsτᴀn / τın’ (or τın) ᴘısτᴠ / ьᴀꜱıⳑıꜱ / ʀᴏmєᴏ’ (or ʀᴏmєᴏ) in six lines; triple border.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1709.

Obv: + ьᴀꜱıⳑıᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱıⳑєᴠꜱ ᕯ Basil enthroned facing, wearing crown and loros, and holding labarum and akakia; throne has curved arms and ornamented back.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱıⳑ / ıᴏꜱ єn ⲑєᴏ / ьᴀꜱıⳑєᴠꜱ / ʀᴏmєᴏn in four lines.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1710.

Obv: + ьᴀꜱıⳑıᴏ ꜱ cᴏnsτ’ (or cᴏnsτᴀn) ьᴀꜱıⳑıꜱ (or similar). Basil (left) and Constantine (much shorter, right) seated facing on double throne, each wearing crown and loros, and holding between them labarum.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱıⳑıᴏ’ (or + ьᴀꜱıⳑᴏ’) / ꜱ cᴏnsτᴀn / τınᴏs єn (or єn’) ⲑō / ьᴀꜱıⳑєıꜱ ʀ / ᴏmᴀıᴏn in five lines.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1711.

Obv: + ьᴀꜱıⳑ ꜱ cᴏnsτ ᴀчςςτ’ (or similar). Basil (left) and Constantine (right) seated facing on double throne, each wearing crown and loros, and holding between them labarum.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱıⳑıᴏ’ (or + ьᴀꜱıⳑᴏ’) / ꜱ cᴏnsτᴀn / τınᴏs єn (or єn’) ⲑō / ьᴀꜱıⳑєıꜱ ʀ / ᴏmᴀıᴏn in five lines.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1712.

Obv: + ʟєᴏn ьᴀꜱıⳑ ꜱ cᴏnsτ ᴀчςς’ (or similar). Facing half-length figures of Basil, with short beard (center), Leo (left) and Constantine (right) both beardless; Basil is wearing crown and loros, and holding akakia in left hand; Leo and Constantine each wearing crown and chlamys.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱıⳑ (or + ьᴀꜱıⳑ’) / cᴏnsτᴀn / τ ꜱ ʟєᴏn єn / ⲑᴏ ьᴀꜱıⳑꜱ / ʀᴏmєᴏn in five lines, star beneath.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1713.

Obv: + ʟєᴏn ьᴀꜱıⳑ ꜱ cᴏnsτ ᴀчςς’ (or similar). Facing half-length figures of Basil, with short beard (center), Leo (left) and Constantine (right) both beardless; Basil is wearing crown and loros, and holding akakia; Leo and Constantine each wearing crown and chlamys.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱıⳑ (or + ьᴀꜱıⳑ’) / cᴏnsτᴀn / τ ꜱ ʟєᴏn єn / ⲑᴏ ьᴀꜱıⳑꜱ / ʀᴏmєᴏn in five lines; (sometimes) star or cross beneath.

…

SYRACUSE

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1714.

Obv: ьᴀꜱıʟєıᴏᴄ (sometimes preceded by star). Bust facing, wearing crown and loros, and holding globus cruciger.

Rev: cᴏɴsᴛᴀɴᴛ. Facing bust of Constantine, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger.

Notes: normally of very debased metal

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1715.

Obv: ьᴀꜱıᴧєıᴏᴄ (sometimes preceded by star). Bust facing, wearing crown and loros, and holding globus cruciger.

Rev: cᴏɴsᴛᴀɴᴛ. Facing bust of Constantine, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger.

Notes: normally of very debased metal. Note that the single difference between SB 1714 and 1715 is the ᴧ in ьᴀꜱıᴧєıᴏᴄ (SB 1715) instead of ʟ in ьᴀꜱıʟєıᴏᴄ (SB 1714).

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). AV Tremissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1716.

Obv: ьᴀꜱıʟєıᴏᴄ ь. Bust facing, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent.

Rev: cᴏnsᴛᴀnᴛ. ь. Facing bust of Constantine, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent.

Notes: normally of very debased metal

…

CHERSON

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ flat (23mm, 7.5g). Cherson mint. Sear 1717.

Obv: Large ʙ standing on exergual line; to left, ᴋ; to right, ω.

Rev: Cross floriate on three steps; in field to left and right, pellets.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ flat (21mm, 5.5g). Cherson mint. Sear 1718.

Obv: Large ʙᴀ, single pellet above, triangle of pellets beneath.

Rev: Large ᴋω, ᴛ above, triangle of pellets beneath.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ flat (18mm, 3.75g). Cherson mint. Sear 1719.

Obv: Large ʙ standing on exergual line, sometimes with pellet on either side.

Rev: Cross floriate on two steps; in field to left and right, pellets.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ flat (13mm, 1.25g). Cherson mint. Sear 1720.

Obv: Large ʙ standing on exergual line; to right, cross.

Rev: Large ⲡ̊; sometimes with cross in field to right, or with crosses to left and right.

…

UNCERTAIN PROVINCIAL MINT

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ Follis. Uncertain Provincial mint. Sear 1721.

Obv: + ьᴀꜱıⳑıᴏꜱ ꜱ cᴏnsτ ᴀчςς (or similar). Facing busts of Basil with short beard (left) and Constantine beardless (right), each wearing crown and chlamys, and holding between them labarum.

Rev: + ьᴀꜱıⳑ (or + ьᴀꜱıⳑ’) / ꜱ cᴏnsτᴀn / τınᴏs єn ⲑᴏ / ьᴀꜱıⳑєıꜱ ʀ / ᴏmᴀıᴏn in five lines.

…

Basil I the Macedonian (867-886). Æ Half follis. Uncertain Provincial mint. Sear 1722.

Obv: ьᴀꜱıⳑıᴏ’ ᴀчς’ (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent and akakia (?).

Rev: · ʟєᴏn cє ᴀⳑєzᴀ · (the z is retrograde). Facing beardless busts of Leo (left) and Alexander (right), each wearing crown and chlamys; between their heads, star or cross.

…

BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY

Basil’s independent reign began on 24 September 867, the morning of the murder of Michael III, when the Prefect of the City was charged with the delicate task of informing a startled public that Basil was now sole emperor. The dynasty which he founded endured for nearly two centuries. If Byzantine successes during this period owed much to the members of other great families—Romanus I Lecapenus, Nicephorus II Phocas, John I Zimisces—who linked themselves by marriage to the Macedonian house, Basil’s own achievements, especially in view of his background, cannot be overlooked. His usurpation was precipitated by a lively fear of being set aside through a whim of his capricious benefactor, but it coincided with the public interest, foraprolongation ofMichael I's reign could only have been disastrous for the Empire. Basil took his responsibilities seriously and proved in almost every respect an admirable sovereign. He died on 29 August 886, after a reign of nearly twenty years, as a result of a hunting accident.

Basil’s three sons Constantine, Leo (VI), and Alexander were at various times associated with him on the throne, a fourth son, Stephen, being reserved for an ecclesiastical career. His relationship to them is important for an understanding of the coinage, and indeed for an understanding of much else in his reign, for, while he detested Leo, he was devoted to Constantine. He was rendered almost inconsolable by the latter's early death, and, as Ostrogorsky has observed, passed the last years of his life in a state of deep mental depression.

Basil was married twice, first to a certain Maria and subsequently to the beautiful and attractive Eudocia Ingerina, mistress of Michael III. Constantine and Leo were born before his accession, while Michael was still alive; Alexander was born later, probably in 870. His parentage was therefore not in doubt, but it was widely believed that Leo was Eudocia’s son by Michael, a belief probably shared by Basil and Leo themselves. Constantine, who was his father’s favorite, is described by the chroniclers of the time as the son of Eudocia, but modern scholars, from Ducange onward, have usually taken the view that he must have been the offspring of Basil's first marriage. It may be doubted if this is correct. The only arguments in its favor consist of assumptions regarding the boy's age. Since he was old enough to accompany his father on a military expedition in 877, and is described as being “‘in the flower of his youth” in 879, he must, it is argued, have been born c. 859 or even earlier, before Basil can have had any relations with Eudocia. But while the identity of a man’s father, in the circumstances of the Byzantine court at that time, might well have been difficult to determine, the identity of his mother is not likely to have been in doubt. Further, even with the precedent of Martina and Heraclius Constantine, it seems unlikely that Constantine and Eudocia would have been shown side by side on one issue of Basil’s solidi if Constantine had not actually been her son. The difference in Basil's attitude to the two boys may have been in part due to the belief that Constantine was his own son and Leo was Michael's, though how he came to be satisfied on this point, whether by Constantine's likeness to himself or in some other fashion, we cannot hope to determine.

The dating of the various “reigns” of Basil's sons has for long been uncertain, but now seems in the main to have been satisfactorily settled.

(1) Constantine was crowned emperor between 5 November 867 and 12 February 868, the limiting dates being established by the date formulae of the eighth and ninth sessions of the fourth Council of Constantinople, which were held two years later on these two days respectively. There is no positive evidence for the ceremony having taken place at Epiphany (6 January), the date given by most modern authorities, though this would have provided a suitable occasion and was the date chosen subsequently for the coronation of Leo VI. The year 869, which is found in all modern works, is incorrect. Constantine died on 3 September 879. The terms of a papal letter of 16 August 879 and the emendation of its address on its arrival at Constantinople show that his death occurred between August and November, and the precise day is given by the Synaxarion of the Great Church.

(2) Leo was associated emperor on 6 January 870, between the eighth and ninth sessions of the fourth Council of Constantinople. The precise date is noted by Anastasius, who was present, in a scholion attached to his Latin version of the acts. Leo was then a child of three, having been born on 19 September 866.

(3) Alexander was born on 23 November, perhaps in 870, and was crowned in 879, but the exact day is unknown. It was before mid-November, since the acclamations which closed the first session of the Photian Council of 879/80 are addressed to Basil, Leo, and Alexander. It is usually assumed that it was later than 3 September, the date of Constantine’s death, since after this event the emperor, in doubt regarding Leo's parentage, might well have wished to associate Alexander as co-emperor and thus bestow a share in the succession on a person whom he was sure was his son. In favor of this are the imperial miniatures in the famous Paris manuscript of Gregory of Nazianzus (MS Gr. 510). These include one of Basil and another of Eudocia and her sons Leo and Alexander, qualified as δεσποτης and αδελφος respectively, but none of Constantine. Alexander, despite the absence of the title despotes, must by that time have already been made emperor, for his costume and insignia are identical with those of Leo—the fact that he is described only as “brother” is irrelevant—and the absence of Constantine is only explicable on the assumption that he was dead. Although one miniature is missing and it is clear that their present order is incorrect, they cannot be rearranged in such a fashion as to make the Basil-Constantine-Eudocia sequence one would expect if Constantine were still alive. Also in favor of a date later than 3 September is the existence of semisses and tremisses in the names of Basil, Leo, and Alexander. Since these denominations were by now purely ceremonial in character, issued in very small numbers on special occasions, it is difficult to avoid the supposition that they were struck to celebrate Alexander's coronation. Once again, since Constantine is not included, it can be taken as certain that he was dead.

Against this view there are the divergent addresses of the Latin and Greek forms of the letter of 16 August 879 from Pope John VIII to Basil which has been already referred to. The Latin version, in the form in which we have it, is addressed to the emperors Basil, Constantine, and Alexander; the Greek translation, made when it arrived in Constantinople in November, has instead Basil, Leo, and Alexander. The combination of emperors given in the Latin version is impossible, and a widely received explanation of the divergence is that it originaly read Basil-Constantine-Leo-Alexander, but that Leo's name was accidentally dropped by the Latin copyist and Constantine's was deleted from the Greek translation because he was dead when the letter arrived. It is equally possible, however, that the original was correctly addressed to Basil, Constantine, and Leo, but that a subsequent copyist, having heard of Constantine's death and Alexander's coronation, inadvertently substituted Alexander's for Leo's name instead of for Constantine’s. A dubious interpretation of a papal letter cannot outweigh the positive evidence of the coinage and the Paris miniature that Alexander was crowned after Constantine’s death.

Two other dates in the reign require discussion, since they are relevant to the coinage. One is that of the death of the Empress Eudocia. This occurred just after the marriage of Leo VI to his first wife, Theophano, in 882, for we are told that as a consequence the young empress had to take over the ceremonial duties at court which Eudocia had previously performed. The second is that of Leo’s imprisonment on the grave charge of having conspired against Basil. The sources describe this variously as having lasted three months or three years, but there can be no doubt that the latter is correct and that Leo’s disgrace lasted from 883 to 886. There is no reason to believe, however, that he was formally deprived of his imperial title.

COINAGE

Basil’s coins, which are for the most part common, saw a number of innovations. The most important, occurring on the bulk of his gold, was the use of a seated figure of Christ as the obverse type, replacing the bust of Christ of the solidi of Michael III. It was, in one form or another, to provide the predominant obverse type of the solidus for the next half century and inspire the name by which these coins came to be known (senzata). Another novelty was the standing figure of the emperor on his solidi of Class I, something that had not been seen since the time of Justinian II. No less novel are the seated figures on two classes of folles. Two figures on a square-backed throne had last been used on the hexagrams of Heraclius, while a single figure on a lyre-backed throne had no precedents at all. Such types were evidently very much to Basil’s taste, for we know that his bedroom in the palace was decorated with a gold mosaic representing “the Autocrator and his wife Eudocia on their throne, wearing imperial mantles (στολαις βασιλικαις) and adorned with crowns” while their sons, also wearing mantles and crowns, were depicted around the room “like glittering stars”. The awkward three-figure types of Classes 3 and 4 of his folles were perhaps inspired by ceremonial solidi of Theophilus. The patriarchal cross and the labarum, which figure prominently on the coinage, also look back to Theophilus. So does the use of an inscription in several lines as the regular reverse pattern of the follis, though the form of it is changed and it is now modeled on that of the miliaresion. It was probably during his reign that the loros was redesigned, the old form being supplemented by a much simpler garment that did not involve the elaborate winding around the body that the traditional one required. The spelling ROMAION (in the formula βασιλεις ‘Ρωμαιων) was during the reign replaced by ROMEON, which represented the way in which the word was pronounced and was to become normal in the future.

A peculiar feature of Class I of the solidus, for which no satisfactory explanation has yet been found, is the b or b’ which follows the word basileus after the emperor's name (bASILIOS ЄC ΘЄЧ bASILEЧS b’). The last letter is certainly a beta, not a delta inscribed forward (b), as frequently occurs on eighth- and ninth-century coins; so the last words cannot be interpreted βασιλεὐς δεσποτης. Nor is b ever the equivalent of rho—though R was a common way of writing beta—so βασιλεις ‘Ρωμαιων is inadmissible. Later coins have AVGЧST’ b’ for Basil (Class III) or AЧGG’b’ for Basil and Constantine (Class II), i.e. αυγουστος βασιλεὐς or αυγουστοι βασιλεῖς, but, while the word order is unusual, this formula equally will not fit bASILЄЧS b’. A control letter B is excluded by the occasional presence of an abbreviation stroke, besides being highly unlikely at this date. I can see no alternative to making it βασιλεὐς βασιλευοντων (or βασιλεων), adopted to match the Rex Regnantium that follows Christ's name on the obverse, despite the fact that no Byzantine sovereign seems ever to have assumed this ancient title of the Babylonian and Persian kings. It would certainly have struck many hearers as bordering on blasphemy, which may account for the brevity of its appearance on the coins.

It is not easy to relate the pattern of Basil’s coinage to the sequence of his co-emperors, and, though overstriking and muling in the copper throw light on some of the problems, there are others for which only a provisional solution can be offered. The combinations of rulers on the coins differ startlingly from one metal to another, and the later years of the reign, after the tragedy of Constantine's death, apparently saw little minting at all. Basil detested Leo, and apparently had no great affection for Alexander. The result, for the coinage, was extraordinary. The two boys were excluded from any place in what were traditionally the chief denominations, the solidus, miliaresion, and follis. Alexander never appears on them at all. Leo is shown on Classes 3 and 4 of the follis, but ranking after Constantine, and when Constantine died Basil removed Leo from the coin altogether and struck in his own name alone for the remainder of the reign. The few coins on which Basil tolerated his two younger sons were fractions in gold and copper, by now ceremonial in character, which besides being of notably poor workmanship were apparently produced for distribution at Alexander's coronation and limited to that occasion only. This marks a curious reversal of the normal practice of earlier centuries, when for dynastic reasons co-emperors were accorded a place on the higher denominations in each metal but often, whether for reasons of space or because the coins were reckoned of lesser importance, not on the fractions at all.

Wroth divided the coinage of Basil between three mints — Constantinople, a “provincial mint” now identified as Syracuse, and Cherson. These three certainly existed, though the “bronze’’ coin he describes as “provincial” (p.442, No. 33, Pl. LI. 3) must be eliminated; it is a contemporary forgery in gilded copper of a solidus of Constantine V (his Pl. XLIV. 16). Syracuse was captured by the Arabs in 878 and its history as a Byzantine mint came to an end, while Cherson now for the first time began to issue coins on a large scale. During the Italian wars of the 880's denari in the name of Basil, or of Basil, Leo, and Alexander, were struck at Naples, Capua, and Benevento, but these were little more than courtesy titles and the coins conform to the other issues of the localities in question and do not belong to the Byzantine series.

A more elaborate pattern of mints for Basil I’s folles has been proposed by Metcalf. Basing his argument upon a minute analysis of small variations in their details and style, he suggests dividing the folles here attributed to Constantinople between the five mints of Constantinople, an uncertain locality in Asia Minor and another in central Greece (Thebes ?), Corinth, and Thessalonica, the specific allocations being in the main determined by the evidence of coin finds. There is no need to repeat in this context the doubts I have expressed already regarding the validity of his reasoning. The stylistic groups between which he differentiates have no doubt a real existence, but what he interprets as the work of different mints seem to me more likely to be the varying products of different die-sinkers working at different times. It is not easy to believe that the transition from ROMAION to ROMEON, and still more the erroneous spelling ROMAON, could each occur at separate mints. I am very conscious of the fact that my summary treatment of the coinage fails to do justice to the variety of details which he has noted and which he believes justify his attributions. The reader who wishes to pursue the matter further should refer to what he has written on the subject.

A problem of some difficulty is posed by the fractional coinage of gold and copper, all of which is rare. Further gold issues may still come to light, but so far as is known this is made up as follows:

(1)Tremissis of Basil, Constantine, and Eudocia, corresponding to the solidus of Class III (below, p. 490, No. 4). It is purely Constantinopolitan in style, and raises no problems.

(2) Semissis of Basil, Leo, and Alexander (below, p. 490, No. 5). This has no solidus counterpart, and neither in style nor fabric does it resemble the normal solidi of Constantinople.

(3) Tremisses of Basil, Leo, and Alexander (below, p. 491, No. 6). I know of only four specimens. Those at Milan and Dumbarton Oaks are identical in style—they appear to share a common reverse die, though owing to the poor striking and preservation of our specimen it is difficult to be sure—but both differ somewhat from those in the British Museum and at Berlin, which themselves are markedly different from each other.

(4) Copper coins of Basil, Leo, and Alexander (below, p. 502, Nos. 13a, 13b). These formally make two groups, one with a star and the other with a cross between the heads of the two younger co-emperors, and while the styles of the reverse type are appreciably different, they share reverse dies of a single style. They are roughly half the size of normal folles, but have no corresponding follis type of Constantinople. They are very close in style to some of the semisses and tremises, and are clearly the work of the same die-sinkers.

The copper coins of this series were not known to Wroth, and he did not query the attribution of the semisses and tremisses of Groups 2 and 3 to Constantinople. Nor did Ratto propose a provincial mint for the three copper coins in his catalogue. Schindler attributed to Sicily two copper coins that were formerly in his collection and are now at Dumbarton Oaks, while in my original arrangement of those from the Swiss Collection I classed such coins as “provincial,” leaving the mint uncertain. Bellinger followed my example, and the same has been done for the copper by Mme Morrisson in her catalogue of the Byzantine coins at Paris. The gold, however, she left to Constantinople, while expressing her uncertainty about it. There seem to be no recorded find spots to help us, but in view of the rarity of the coins, which must have formed tiny issues, this is hardly surprising.

After much hesitation, I have preferred in the Catalogue to leave these rare and anomalous issues to Constantinople, treating the copper coins as half folles. The stylistic unlikeness of all of them to normal Constantinopolitan issues is undeniable, but it is difficult to envisage a provincial mint—or several provincial mints—striking fractional gold and cither light-weight folles or fractional folles with no corresponding units and no Constantinopolitan prototypes. Their rarity and their unusual style can, I suggest, be better explained on the assumption that they together form a special issue intended to be thrown to the crowd or otherwise distributed on the occasion of Alexander's coronation in 879. Such coinages had usually to be produced in haste and were often of poor fabric, One need only cite the ill-struck silver medallions of Justin II, and indeed most of the Constantinopolitan silver coinage of the sixth century, to see how the production of the less important ceremonial coinages was treated as supplementary to the main activities of the mint and left to poorly trained and incompetent workmen. The same difficulty of discordant styles between folles and fractional copper occurs, it should be said, under Leo VI. In that case the attribution of the fractions to Constantinople is supported by their being in part struck by dies for full folles, which for typological reasons does not occur here.

CONSTANTINOPLE

GOLD COINAGE. There are three types of Basil’s solidi and two known types of semisis and tremisis. The latter are of such rarity that other types may well come to light in the future.

The solidi may be dealt with first. They form three classes, characterized respectively by a standing figure of Basil, the busts of Basil and Constantine, and the busts of Basil, Constantine, and Eudocia. The one with the busts of Basil and Constantine, which is very common, must have provided the bulk of the gold coinage struck between 868 and 879. The other clauses are more difficult to date. No relevant hoard evidence is known, that of type is ambiguous, and that of style is virtually nonexistent. The dating here proposed must therefore be regarded as provisional, and may need revision in the future.

Class I (Basil alone). Jan. 868? This class has on the obverse a seated representation of Christ and on the reverse a standing figure of the emperor. Its early date is shown by the poor quality of both designs. The figure of Christ is notably cruder than that employed on the solidi of Basil and Constantine, the head being egg-shaped without any proper delineation of a beard and Christ's right hand being only slightly raised, so that it does not reach the level of the back of the throne. The head is quite out of proportion to the rest of the body, as is also the case with Basil’s head on the reverse. The coin is extremely rare—fewer than half a dozen specimens are known—and it is probable that it represents an occasional issue, not a substantive one. A possible occasion, assuming that Constantine was crowned later in the month, would have been the New Year festivities of January 868. One would have expected the emperor to mark his own accession by an abundant minting of solidi, more especially in view of his exclusion from the gold and silver coinage under Michael III, but the numismatic evidence shows that he did not do so. He was probably hampered by the extreme poverty in which he found himself after Michael’s demise, when there were reputed to have been found in the treasury only 300 pounds of gold and nine sacks of miliaresia, the former in part produced by the late emperor's melting down of the splendid gold ornaments with which Theophilus had adorned the throne room of the Palace.

Class II (Basil and Constantine). 868-879. These coins represent the main gold issue of the reign. They are distinguished from the solidi of Basil II and Constantine VIII of a century later by their having on the obverse the seated figure of Christ; by Basil II’s reign this had been replaced, as the regular solidus type, by a bust of the Savior. The seated Christ is slightly different from that of Class I, the face being better designed and the right hand held higher, but mules with obverses of Class I are known. The reverse type, with the busts of the two co-emperors side by side, was traditional. The issue should formally have lasted only during 868 and 869, before the coronation of Leo in January 870, but it is far too common to have been limited to two years and one must assume that it continued unchanged throughout Constantine’s life. Whether it was prolonged after 879 is more doubtful, since it is hard to believe that a living and a dead ruler would be shown side by side. We have the same problem with the silver, for miliaresia bearing the names of Basil and Constantine must either have continued to the end of the reign or the issue of silver coins been suspended altogether between 879 and 886. My personal feeling is that this is what occurred, and that, apart from the exceptional solidi and tremisses of Class III and the derisory issues of fractional gold in the names of Leo and Alexander, there was no minting in the precious metals during the last eight years of the reign.

Class III (Basil, Constantine, and Eudocia). 882? Coins of this class are very rare, though they do not approach the extreme rarity of those of Class I. They also survive in very fine condition, contrasting with the commonly worn state of those of Class II, a state no doubt attributable to the long circulation of these during the reign of Leo VI. Rarity and lack of wear both point to the Constantine-Eudocia coins forming some sort of special issue. The type, however, is puzzling, for it was contrary to custom for an empress to appear on coins at all. The only recent precedent was Theodora, wife of Theophilus, but during her husband’s reign she had been shown only on rare ceremonial solidi and her regency on behalf of her son explains her appearance on regular issues under Michael III. For Eudocia one has two alternatives. Either the coins of Basil, Constantine, and Eudocia represent a coronation issue of 868, despite the fact that an empress would not normally figure on such a coinage, or it may be a memorial issue, struck after the death of Eudocia in 882 and commemorating the two persons whom Basil is known to have deeply loved. It would thus be comparable to the Michael-and-Constantine solidi of Theophilus and the memorial issues of the Isaurian period, but anomalous in that none of these included empresses and that this one seems to have been a very limited issue. There is no positive evidence one way or the other, though the mules already noted between Classes I and II are slightly against interpolating the Constantine-Eudocia coins between them in 868. I would attribute the coins tentatively to 882, but new evidence may in due course show that the earlier date is really the correct one.

FRACTIONAL GOLD This has been discussed already. There is nothing corresponding to Classes I and II of the solidi, but there is a tremisis corresponding to Class I. There are also semisses and tremisses of Basil, Leo, and Alexander for which no solidus equivalent is known and none may ever have existed. Despite their stylistic peculiarities they are best attributed to Constantinople, the occasion of their issue being the coronation of Alexander in 879.

SILVER COINAGE. This requires little comment. The only miliaresia known are struck in the names of Basil and Constantine and are of the same type as Class III of Michael III’s coins, even to the way in which the innermost of the three circles of dots on the obverse is broken by four pellets. The title of megas is dropped, since the presence of Constantine’s name reduced the amount of space available, and ROMAION is now spelled ROMEOS, a feature to be quickly taken over by the copper. The pellet beneath the steps of the cross on the reverse is greatly increased in size, so that it is now a large globule, and there is a consequent rearrangement of the inscription, which now breaks XRI STЧS instead of XRIS TЧS.

These miliaresia were presumably struck over the whole period of Basil and Constantine’s joint reign, ie. 868-79, despite the absence of any reference to Leo. They may have continued down to 886, for the conjoined names of a living and a dead emperor would have been less incongruous than their conjoined busts, but I think it unlikely. We would therefore have no silver coins that can be assigned to 879-86. Nor is any silver known for the first few months of the reign, when Basil was ruling without a colleague. This is strange, since Theophilus and Michael III had already broken with the tradition that miliaresia were coins struck only during a joint reign, and coins for this period may yet be found. But it is equally possible that the nine sacks of miliaresia found in the treasury on Basil’s accession proved sufficient for his immediate needs.

COPPER COINAGE. There are five main classes of folles which may be characterized as follows:

1. Busts of Basil and Constantine (868-870)

2. Basil and Constantine seated (868-870)

3. Half-figures of Basil(l. Hand not shown), Constantine, and Leo (870-879)

4. Same figures, Basil with l. hand raised (870-879)

5. Seated figure of Basil (879-886)

No hoards are recorded which would throw light on the order of issue, but this, and some approximation to dating, can be deduced from combinations of emperors in the types, the existence of mules between the classes, occasional relationships with earlier and later coins, and minor changes in orthography and design. A detail of some importance is the spelling of ‘Ρωμαιων in the reverse inscription. The classes with Basil and Constantine, which are presumably early (868-70), use the traditional ROMAION, while those with Basil, Constantine, and Leo, which are necessarily later (870-79), as well as Class 5 with Basil alone, have the newer variant ROMЄON, which was to become customary under Leo VI and subsequently. The justification for the order followed in the catalogue may be set out as follows:

Class 1. Busts of Basil and Constantine (No. 8). The two figures hold between them a labarum usually marked with + or ⁘ . The reverse has a five-line inscription with the first line +bASIL and the last (R)OMAION, this being occasionally blundered to OMAON, or on one die to OMAIN (Metcalf 60). Coins of this class are of poorer fabric than those of later ones, with irregularly shaped flans and broken edges. A high proportion are overstruck on badly worn folles of Theophilus, but this is a feature which they share with many coins of Classes 2-4. Their manifest inferiority to the handsome folles of Michael III and Basil on the one hand, and in general to the later classes of Basil's own reign on the other, forms an obvious objection to their attribution to the mint of Constantinople.

Since Classes 1 and 2 both show only Basil and Constantine, they are best attributed to the years 868 and 869, before the accession of Leo. If one were to judge by the way in which Constantine is represented one would have to put Class 2 first, for on it he is normally shown as a small child, almost an infant, while on Class 1 he is a young man. On the other hand, the type of Class 1, with the busts of two emperors side by side, is traditional, and since all Basil’s other types in copper are novel it would seem more reasonable to put the traditional type first, before the period of experiments began. The discrepancy in the apparent ages of Constantine would thus result from the fact that the seated figures involved a completely new design, encouraging a more careful depiction of the junior emperor. Further, a number of mules have been recorded by Metcalf (Nos. 59-67) between Classes 1 and 2, on the reverse dies of which the first line of the inscription reads +bASILIO or +bASILO (not +bASIL), while we do not find obverses of Class 1, as we do those of Class 2, linked with reverses of Class 3 (rev. inscription ending OMЄON). The order of issue seems therefore secure.

Since Class 1 includes Constantine it cannot have been struck during the first months of Basil's reign. The only folles of Basil alone are those of Class 5, with the emperor seated, and both Wroth and Mme Morrisson do in fact assign this class to 867-8. In my view it belongs to 879-86, after the death of Constantine. The type is extremely uniform, contrasting with the endless variations of the earlier classes, and it continues under Leo VI with no change beyond that of the emperor's name; the bad practice of overstriking had been abandoned; it consistently reads ROMЄON, never ROMAION; and the large, bold lettering of its reverse—four lines instead of five—links it firmly with Leo's coinage. This dating, however, implies that Basil struck no folles in the first months of his reign, thus reverting to the conditions that had obtained during most of that of Michael III.

The problem of mint remains open. The coins are catalogued here under Constantinople, and my feeling, on balance, is that despite their poor workmanship it is to this mint that they belong. If Class 2 is attributable to Constantinople, then Class 1, on the evidence of muling, should be also. The poor appearance of the coins is partly a consequence of overstriking, partly of the mint having had to take on extra staff to cope with large and long overdue issues of copper coins. I would assume that Class 1 represents a hasty and short-lived issue in the winter months of 867/8, Class 2 a more considered design minted during the rest of 868 and the whole of 869. It is in any case possible that Class 3, with Leo, was not introduced immediately upon this emperor's coronation, which would allow a longer period of issue for Class 2.

Class 2. Basil and Constantine seated (No. 9). The obverse type shows two figures, Constantine much smaller than Basil, seated side by side on a high-backed throne and holding between them a labarum marked with X. There are two distinct forms of inscription, one giving the emperors the title of basileis and the other that of augustoi. There are also many small varieties of design—in the relative sizes of the figures, in the details of the imperial costume, in the decoration of the throne, and so forth—but these were an almost inevitable consequence of the relatively complicated type, and although they may help the modern scholar in classifying the dies used for the issue, they are of no importance in themselves. The reverse has a five-line inscription, like that of Class 1, but with +bASILIO or +bASILO instead of +bASIL as its first line.

Class 3. Half-figures of Basil (hand not shown), Constantine, and Leo (No.10). Classes 3 and 4 are alike in that their obverse type consists of the half-length figures of Basil (wearing loros), Constantine (wearing chlamys), and Leo (also wearing chlamys), and on the reverse a five-line inscription beginning +bASIL and ending ROMЄON. They differ in a number of particulars:

(a) Basil's gesture. On coins of Class 3 his left hand is not shown; on those of Class 4 it is raised in front of him. Some scholars have described him as holding an akakia, but this is doubtful. The hand is closed, so that the top of it seems to swell upward, but there is not the rounded projection below the wrist which always accompanies representations of the akakia. The same difficulty of interpretation occurs with Class 5, where the seated Basil has his left hand resting in his lap but without an akakia being formally shown. It may well be that in both cases one was intended—the nature of the gesture in Class 4 is otherwise hard to explain—but the die-sinkers did not know how to depict one satisfactorily.

(b) Basil's loros. On coins of Class 3 this is of the normal type, along scarf wound in a complicated fashion across the body, but as on the half folles of Theophilus it appears in two varieties, either with the outer fold running from the emperor's left hip to his right shoulder or with the directions reversed. On coins of Class 4 the “scarf” element of the loros is eliminated, so that it forms a single garment hanging straight or almost straight downward from the neck and shoulders.

(c) Inscription. On Class 3 this is either unaccompanied by any ornament or has a cross or a star beneath the bottom line. On Class 4 there is always a star. Despite their general similarity, therefore, we are justified in speaking of two separate classes, distinguished from each other by positive changes in design which must have resulted from precise instructions and not from the whims of die-sinkers. As to the order of issue, Nos. 9c and 10e.1-2 below are mules respectively between the obverses of Class 2 (two seated figures) and Class 3 (three emperors in inscription) and an obverse of Class 3 (three half-figures, Basil’s hand not shown) and a reverse of Class 2 (two emperors in inscription). It is clear that Class 3 followed Class 2 and preceded Class 4. As to the internal arrangement of Class 3, a classification based on loros arrangement would cut across one based on the presence or absence of a symbol below the reverse inscription. The former seems by this time to have depended on the care exercised by die-sinkers, and it was clearly a matter of indifference to the mint authorities whether the loros was shown correctly ornot.The addition ofacros or star, on the other hand, represents a substantial change in design which could only have been made in response to orders from above. I have therefore given precedence to this in my arrangement of the coins in the catalogue.
Class 4. Half-figures of Basil (with raised hand), Constantine, and Leo (No. 11). This class requires no further comment. The dies differ slightly between themselves in the sizes of the figures, in the design of the loros—Basil sometimes looks as if he were turned slightly to the right or the left—in the shape of Basil's face, and in the position of his hand, but in the main they are very uniform. If Classes 3 and 4 have to be fitted into the years 870-79, as is presumably the case, it is hard to decide when—or why—the changes in design which distinguished between them should have been made, but one could not be far wrong in dating Class 3 to 870-c.874 andClass 4 to c.875-9.

Class 5. Seated figure of Basil (No. 12). This shows Basil seated on a lyre-backed throne, of a type known to us from other representations of the period, and holding a labarum ornamented with X. The reverse inscription is in four instead of five lines, since the names of no co-emperors had to be inserted, and it ends ROMЄON. The reasons for placing the class at the end of the reign have been given already. Basil was evidently no more prepared to associate Leo and Alexander with him on his folles than he was on his solidi.

FRACTIONAL COPPER. The attribution of these coins, which differ from the folles in recognizing the existence of Leo and Alexander and must therefore date from 879 or later, has already been discussed. Despite their substantial differences in size and weight I believe they should all be regarded as half folles, their irregularity being explained by their being basically ceremonial in character and not intended for everyday circulation. It is possible, however, that the lighter coins were intended as quarter folles.

SYRACUSE

Basil's Sicilian coinage consists of semisses and tremisses struck in his name and that of Constantine. The semisses closely resemble those of Michael III, both in their appearance —the emaciated features of the co-emperors are characteristic—and in their being of extremely base gold, or rather of copper which usually still bears traces of gilding. The tremissis was something of a revival, since this denomination had apparently not been struck during the later years of Theophilus or under Michael III, and only a single specimen is known.

There is no identifiable copper, for Schindler's view that the anomalous half folles already discussed might be Sicilian seems to be excluded by their quite different style of portraiture. With the “gold” already so debased there would have been no place for a fiduciary coinage. The issue of semisses and tremisses probably came to an end in 878, with the capture of Syracuse by the Arabs, and no Sicilian coins are known of subsequent emperors.

CHERSON

The copper coinage ofCherson forms four classes. The coins all bear Basil's initial, either alone or in company with those of Constantine; there are none including Leo or Alexander. They begin with the purely epigraphical types introduced under Michael III, but sometime in the 870's a cross on steps was adopted for the reverse. The most reasonable arrangement of them seems to be as follows:

Class 1 (Basil alone). 867-8. B and a cross on the obverse, Π, sometimes between two crosses, on the reverse. These are uniformly small coins like those of Michael III, and similar to these in their reverse type.

Class 2 (Basil and Constantine). 868-c.876. BA on the obverse and KTω on the reverse, with pellets in the field on both sides. Coins of this class are much larger and heavier than those of Class 1, and may have had a different value. The class belongs to the decade 868-79 and probably precedes Class 3, which saw the introduction of the cross-on-steps reverse that carried on into later classes and into the reign of Leo VI. The date suggested for its ending is no more than a guess.

Class 3 (Basil and Constantine). C. 876-9. Large B between K and ω on the obverse, a cross on steps between two pellets on the reverse. Coins of this class are the largest and heaviest of the reign. It is possible that Classes 2 and 3 were issued simultaneously, coins of Class 3 having twice the value of those of Class 2, in which case both classes would have to be dated 868-79.

Class 4 (Basil alone). 879-86. Large B, sometimes between two pellets, on the obverse; same reverse as Class 3. These are much smaller than the coins of Class 3, and in size and type carry on into the reign of Leo VI. The lower loop of the B sometimes assumes a triangular form, thus becoming a delta and making a monogram of BΔ, i.e. βασιλειος δεσποτης.

(from DOC vol. lll)

Coinage