Michael

Intro ...

(820-829)

l

l

CONSTANTINOPLE

Michael II (820-829). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1639.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ ьᴀꜱıⳑє'. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia; in field to left ᕯ /

Rev: mıxᴀʜⳑ ьᴀꜱıⳑєч' (followed by є or x). Similar bust of Michael, but wearing loros, and holding globe cruciger and cruciform scepter.

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1640.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ ьᴀꜱıⳑєчꜱ (or ьᴀꜱıⳑєч' or ьᴀꜱıⳑє'). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia; in field to left ᕯ /

Rev: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏ ∂єѕᴘ' + (sometimes preceded by +, and followed by ʙ or є or x). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and loros, holding globe cruciger and cruciform scepter; sometimes with cross in field to left.

…

Michael II (820-829). AR Miliaresion. Constantinople mint. Sear 1641.

Obv: ıhsчs xʀısτчs nıcᴀ. Cross potent on 3 steps; triple border/

Rev: + mıxᴀ / ʜⳑ s ⲑєᴏꜰı / ⳑє єc ⲑєч / ьᴀꜱıⳑıꜱ ʀᴏ / mᴀıᴏn in five lines; triple border.

…

Michael II (820-829). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1642.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ s ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏs. Facing busts of Michael, with short beard (on left), and Theophilus, usually beardless (on right), both crowned, the former wearing chlamys, the latter, loros; between their heads, cross/

Rev: Large M, between XXX (to left) and NNN (to right); cross above, ⲑ below.

…

SYRACUSE

Michael II (820-829). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1643. (often struck on very small, thick flans)

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ [ьᴀꜱıⳑ?]. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent /

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ [∂є?]. Similar bust of Michael, but wearing chlamys, and holding globe cruciger (with pellet on either side of cross).

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1644.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent /

Rev: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑı ь or ьᴀ (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globe cruciger (with pellet on either side of cross).

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1645.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ or mıxᴀʜⳑ ь (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent /

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ ь or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏ ∂єѕ (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globe cruciger.

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1646.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ or mıxᴀʜⳑ ь or mıxᴀʜⳑ ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger /

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏ ьᴀ (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and loros, holding cross potent.

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Semissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1647. (often struck on very small, thick flans)

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ ь or ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger /

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏ ∂є (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding cross potent on globus.

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Semissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1648.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ or mıxᴀʜⳑ ь. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger /

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏ ь (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and loros, holding globe cruciger.

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Tremissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1649. (rarely struck on very small, thick flans)

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ ь or ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger /

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏ ∂є (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding cross potent.

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Tremissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1650.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger /

Rev: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑ' ь (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding cross potent; cross in field to right.

…

Michael II (820-829). AV Tremissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1651.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ or mıxᴀʜⳑ ь. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger /

Rev: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏ or ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏ ь (or similar). Facing bust of Theophilus, beardless, wearing crown and loros, holding cross potent.

…

Michael II (820-829). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1652.

Obv: mıxᴀʜⳑ ꜱ ⲑєᴏȽ (or similar). Facing busts of Michael, with short beard (on left), and Theophilus, usually beardless (on right), both crowned, the former wearing chlamys, the latter, loros/

Rev: Large M, cross above, ⲑ beneath.

…

Michael II’s reign dated from his coronation on Christmas Day 820. He died on 2 October 829. The first three years of his reign were almost entirely taken up with the rebellion ofThomas ofGaziura, which came near to success and involved a prolonged siege of Constantinople by the would-be emperor. The fact that there is no coinage of Thomas, who was crowned emperor by the Patriarch Job of Antioch and is said to have claimed to be the deposed Emperor Constantine VI, is striking testimony to the importance attached to the actual occupation of the capital.

The marriage of Theophilus to Theodora and his coronation took place together on a Whitsunday early in Michael's reign. It was certainly before April 824, when the names of both emperors figure in the superscription of a letter to Louis the Pious, and the dating formula of a Venetian document of the late 820’s proves that the year must have been 821 or 822. Brooks, who has been followed by all subsequent writers, opted for Whitsunday (i.e. 12 May) 821, partly because of the rarity of coins in Michael's sole name and partly because the coronation of a co-emperor in the year after his father's accession was the normal practice of the time.t These arguments are not conclusive, for Nicephorus I waited fourteen months before crowning Stauracius, and since the coins are less rare than Brooks supposed, the coronation may really have taken place on Whitsunday (i.e. 1 June) 822. Without more definite evidence, however, it is best to leave the accepted date as it is.

The gold and silver coinage of Michael II continued with little change the general pattern of the preceding decade, but the small folles of his predecessors were replaced by much larger pieces of neater fabric which prepared the way for the revolution in design carried out under Theophilus.

CONSTANTINOPLE

A. Michael II alone (Dec. 820 - May 821). The gold coinage of this period is represented by a solidus first published by Tolstoi and known in only a very few specimens. It adopts the customary practice of showing the emperor with different costumes, insignia, and titles on the two faces of the coin. On the obverse he wears a chlamys, holds a cross potent and akakia, and is styled basileus; on the reverse he wears a loros, holds a globus cruciger and cross scepter, and is styled despotes. The attribution is not in doubt, for the ob- verse inscription is preceded by the same six-pointed star found on the later solidi of the reign.

No miliaresia are known of Michael II’s sole reign. It is theoretically possible that the miliaresia of Michael III with the title of basileus Romaion (instead of megas basileus Romaion) could be attributed to Michael II, who would thus have been the first emperor to break with the century-old custom that miliaresia were not struck before a co-emperor was associated on the throne. Considerations of style and lettering do not help, since no appreciable change took place between the 820's and the 850's, but on the whole it seems likely that both types belong to Michael III. Though they are rare, too many specimens are known to make Michael II probable, and this ruler’s difficulties in the first months of his reign are unlikely to have resulted in pointless numismatic innovations. The title megas basileus is also known to have been much in favor under Michael III.

The folles of Michael II alone are those commonly attributed to Michael I. The grounds for the reattribution have already been discussed. The tall, narrow M of the reverse type, quite different from the shorter and broader M of the first decades of the century, associates them closely with the large-module two-bust folles of Michael II and Theophilus.

At a time when no copper coins were assigned to the sole reign of Michael II, Sherborn proposed to attribute to it a follis having on the obverse a single bust and the inscription MIXA I LOSbASI, on the reverse an M flanked by XXX and NNN vertically and with a Θ beneath. Although he does not say so, the coin, which is now in the British Museum, is Sicilian, not Constantinopolitan, and the unexpected pattern— Θ could not be present before the association of Theophilus on the throne—is due to its being one of Theophilus overstruck on Michael II and Theophilus. The inscription actually reads MIXA[]I LOSbASI, and most of the coin—the bust and the later part of the inscription (for ΘЄOFI LOSbASI)— represents the second striking, that of Theophilus. On the left-hand side, however, the beginning of the earlier inscription (MIXA HL SΘEOF) has survived, and since the two strikings happened to be on the same plane, it has the appearance of accompanying the single bust. Traces of the earlier striking—the Θ, parts of the XXX, and the left vertical of the M—are visible in the corresponding position on the reverse.

B. Michael II and Theophilus (821-29). The solidus has as usual a bust on each face of the coin, Michael wearing a chlamys and holding cross potent and akakia, Theophilus wearing aloros and holding globus cruciger and cross scepter. The obverse inscription is preceded by a six-pointed star. Four varieties occur, three relatively rare and the other common. Two have the obverse inscription ꘎MIX AHL bASILЄS, and are differentiated by one (rare) having a semicircular ornament beneath the crosses on the emperors’ crowns, as occurs on coins of Michael alone, while the other (also rare, but less so) does not. The other two have the star differently placed, MIXAHL unbroken, A for A in basileus, and the later word spelled out in full, with a final S instead of a mark of suspension: ꘎MIXAHL bASILЄЧS. They are differentiated by one group (rare) having a cross before the reverse inscription, while the other, the main issue of the reign, lacks one. The reverse inscription on all groups ends with a cross and a control letter, normally Є but sometimes X, the one having sometimes been altered to the other on the die.

No fractional gold has been recorded for Michael II and Theophilus, and the miliaresion of the joint reign is of the usual type and requires no comment.

Two series of folles are known. Both have on the obverse the facing busts of the two emperors, one wearing a chlamys and the other a loros, but they differ in their module and weight, in their obverse inscriptions, and in the letter beneath the M on the reverses. The first series corresponds to the general type of the preceding two decades, the coins being about 20mm in diameter and 5.5g in weight and the letter beneath the M being the immobilized officina letter A. Though the obverse inscription is ambiguous and the ΘЄOF’ with which it normally ends could refer to either Theophylact or Theophilus, the form ΘЄOFI also occurs, and its existence, coupled with the tall, narrow shape of the M, determines the attribution of the coins. The second series difers from the first in its larger module (c. 27 mm) and higher weight (c. 7.5 g/8 g), in having the name ΘЄOFILOS spelled out in full, and in having a Θ instead of an A beneath the M. The date of its introduction is unknown; it was presumably after the end of the civil war (824) and may have been close to the end of the reign, since the coins are not obviously commoner than the earlier series. One may conjecture that they were intended to be struck 42 to the Ib., though the weights of individual specimens vary so widely that it is difficult to be sure. They were probably revalued at the same time in relation to the solidus, the subsequent reckoning of 24 folles to the miliaresion and 288 to the solidus dating from this reform. The coins vary somewhat in detail, some rare specimens corresponding to group (a) of the solidi in showing Michael's crown with asemicircular ornament beneath the cross. An isolated coin, presumably very late in date, shows both emperors bearded, instead of Michael only. Metcalf has classified the folles into three groups differentiated by small details of design and style, and speculated on the possibility of their attribution to two or perhaps three mints, but without reaching any certain conclusion.

One minor innovation on the coinage, the Θ instead of A on the reverse, requires a word of comment. It is to be explained by the fondness of late Roman and Byzantine moneyers for using a symbol or letter in two senses at once. The fact that the large M could be taken indifferently as the mark of value or as the emperor's initial evidently suggested the replacement of the now meaningless A by a small Θ, the initial of the junior emperor. The change was first made in Sicily, where it was inspired by the fact that the latest Syracusan folles of Leo V and Constantine had had as their reverse type ΛK, the initials of the two co-emperors. In the new reign it would be natural to replace these by M and Θ, but instead of placing these side by side they were arranged one above the other. When the large-module “reformed” folles were introduced at Constantinople this initially provincial design seemed appropriate and was taken over for the new coins.

SICILY

1. Michael II alone (821). The solidus of Michael II’s sole reign, with a bearded bust of the emperor on both faces of the coin, raises no problems of attribution. It is distinguished from that of Michael I's sole reign by its fabric and smaller size, as well as by having a pellet on either side of the globus cruciger held by the emperor on the reverse. This links it with a similar variety of Leo V (No. 11b). No other coins of this brief period are known, but since the solidus exists—though only a single specimen is recorded—other denominations may still come to light. They must have been struck in very small numbers, for although Michael II came to the throne in December the news of the event would not have reached Sicily before April or May, while that of the accession of Theophilus (May) could well have arrived by July.

2. Michael II and Theophilus (821-29). Apart from the earliest stage of the solidus, which links up with that of Michael alone and so can be classified without difficulty, the gold coinage of the reign presents a number of complications. There was very early an improvement in general design, so that half the lettering is no longer of the flan as it had been on coins of the preceding decade, but since the module continued to contract, the inscriptions were shortened by the cutting off of the final letters of the imperial titles, til ultimately these disappeared altogether. Scholars have sometimes disagreed as to which emperor should be regarded as the senior, since the mustache, which does duty for the beard which it had become impossible to delineate clearly, itself becomes scarcely visible. The ambiguity normally affects only the solidus, since on the semissis the mark ofvalue—which characterizes the reverse—is a cross potent on globe (not a globus cruciger) and is held by the shaft, while on the tremissis it is a cross potent held from behind and not from the front. But on one group of semisses (Class IV) a globus cruciger held by the globe has been substituted for the usual mark of value, so the distinction is not an absolute one.

Three combinations of the names of Michael and Theophilus are theoretically possible: (a) Michael II (bearded) with Theophilus (beardless), (b) Theophilus (bearded) with his father Michael II (also bearded), since Theophilus had revived the Isaurian practice of associating his father with himself on his coins, and (c) Theophilus (bearded) with his son Michael III (beardless). The third possibility, however, need not be taken into consideration here, since by the end of Theophilus’ reign a marked change in the design of the emperors’ faces had occurred and there had also been an appreciable loss of fineness in the gold, neither of which features are found on coins having the joint names ofMichael and Theophilus. These must all, therefore, be attributed to either Michael II and Theophilus or Theophilus and Michael II (deceased). Since all the coins show Michael bearded and Theophilus unbearded, Wroth attributed them en bloc to the reign of Michael II. Ricotti on the other hand proposed to transfer a group which differed noticeably from the others to the early years of the reign of Theophilus. He admitted that this ran contrary to the convention that the reigning emperor should be shown with a beard, but other exceptions to this rule are known to exist, and he considered that the separation of the two groups of coins was required by the differences in style and by the fact that on the coins that he assigned to Theophilus it was this emperor who occupied the “place of honor” on the coins.

This theory has some obvious attractions, but it cannot stand up to examination. The only cases in this period where a reigning emperor is shown beardless on his coins are those in which he was still a minor under the guardianship of his mother or still strongly under her influence—Constantine VI with Irene, Michael III with Theodora—while Theophilus was the offspring of his father's first marriage and was old enough by 822 to take an active part in the defense of Constantinople. Ricotti’s statement that Theophilus occupies the “place of honor” on the coins is also incorrect. The distinction between obverse and reverse cannot be made on the evidence of the solidus alone, and on the semisis and tremissis it is Theophilus who holds the mark of value (cross potent on globe or simple cross potent) and therefore occupies the reverses. It is to the reign of Michael II that all Michael/Theophilus coins must be assigned.

Their many variations in detail and occasional vagaries of style and fabric, however, raise a real problem, even when allowance is made for the fact that the decline in module was not a completely uniform process, forTheophilus’ reign shows that when new issues were started there could sometimes be temporary reversions to coins of larger size. The explanation may lie in the temporary existence of a second mint, perhaps Catania or Palermo, on the island. The administration of Sicily was thrown into confusion in the second half of Michael II’s reign by the revolt of Euphemius (826), who proclaimed himself emperor and was for a time in occupation of Syracuse (826-7), and by the invasion of the Arabs (827), who blockaded Syracuse (827-8) and at the end of the reign were still maintaining a few garrisons in the island. Catania was for a brief moment in 826 the oficial seat of government, after Euphemius’ capture of Syracuse, while Palermo was one of the centers from which the resistance to the usurper was organized. The suggestion that one or more of these places may have served as a temporary mint is, however, no more than conjectural, and until further work has been done it seems best to leave everything provisionally to Syracuse. Coins of exceptionally careless design and fabric, which are unusually common in one series, show every appearance of having been struck at temporary mints, staffed by untrained personnel, during the civil war, but hoard evidence shows that they circulated together with regular issues and cannot be dismissed as simple counterfeits.

The main features of the three classes of the coinage of Michael and Theophilus (Classes II-IV of the reign) are set out in Table 18. Whether they can properly be termed "classes," with the implication that the designs of the several denominations in each were determined by a single mint instruction, is not clear, and their proper study requires more material than I have at my disposal. It may well be that Classes III and IV were not consecutive issues from the same mint but parallel issues from different ones. A few comments on details may be useful.

Class II. The solidi of this class are characterized by two pellets beside the globus cruciger held by Theophilus. This detail, carried over from the coins of Michael alone, points to their being early in date, a conclusion borne out by their large size (15/17 mm). Both Michael's and Theophilus’ names are in the genitive (MIXAHLI, ΘЄOFILI), and on specimens with full inscriptions that of Theophilus is followed by bA(sileus). The reverse inscription sometimes breaks ΘЄO FIL instead of ΘЄ OFIL, which is regular later. The F usually has this form, not F or F.

No corresponding semissis is known, but one may provisionally put into this class the tremissis with a cross in the right field of the reverse, a feature also found on some coins of Leo V (Nos. 12, 13). In favor of such a classification is the fact that the inscription on these coins also ends bA or b, that Theophilus’ name is in the genitive, and that the F has the same form as on the solidus.

Class IV. This class includes coins of very varying size, the solidi starting at about 16 mm and declining to 12 mm. It is characterized by Theophilus being styled despotes instead of basileus. The most complete inscriptions, as found on the larger coins, are MI XAHLbA and ΘЄOF ILOδЄSP, but the die-sinkers were uncertain about the word despotes and often assimilated it to ΘЄOFILOS in various ways (FILOSЄI, FILOSЄ, etc.) The use of despotes would suggest making these coins earlier than Class I, but their size is against it and their diversity indicates an issue extending over some space of time.

The corresponding semisses and tremisses are normally of small module (c. 10 mm), so that there is little room for anything after the emperor's name. Sometimes Theophilus has no title at all, but more often there is an Є, all that remains of δЄSP(otes), after ΘЄ OFILOS.

Class IV. The main feature of this class is the group of three pellets (instead of a single pellet) occupying the triangular space at the emperor’s neck above the loros. The solidi are occasionally large (16mm) but are normally very small and thick. The reverse inscriptions on the larger specimens end bA(sileus), but on the smaller specimens Theophilus is without title and on the tremisses he is shown holding the cross potent incorrectly, from the front, presumably under the influence of the solidus type. It is in this class that the proportion of coins of very crude workmanship is at its highest.

The Sicilian folles of Michael II and Theophilus are common. They break with Syracusan tradition in adopting the Constantinopolitan pattern of a large M—though without the accompanying XXX and NNN—on the reverse. Specimens vary in size, ranging from 24mm down to 17mm, and there may have been two distinct issues, one large and the other small, but the differences in module are unrelated to those in weight.

Sabatier illustrates a follis of another type, having on one side the facing bust of Michael II with the inscription +MIX AHL[, on the other that of Theophilus with ]ЄO FILOSbA. He attributes it to Theophilus and Michael III, but since Michael is shown bearded and Theophilus beardless it should, if it exists, belong to the reign of Michael II, and presumably to its beginning. The arrangement of the inscription, however, would be unusual for a Syracusan follis of this period, and it seems possible that Sabatier’s design is a misreading of something else.

THERE IS A TABLE 18 MISSING (PAGE 392)

(from DOC vol. lll)

Coinage