Nikephoros Basilacius

Intro ...

(1078)

THESSALONICA

Nicephorus Basilacius (1078). Æ Follis. Thessalonica mint. Sear 1890.

Obv: Bust of Christ facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, and raising right hand in benediction; in left hand, scroll; on either side ıc xc [LINES].

Rev: Jewelled patriarchal cross on two steps; at center, x; in field, c—ʙ / ɴ—ʙ.

…

Nicephorus Basilacius (1078). Æ Follis. Thessalonica mint. Sear 1890ᴀ.

Obv: Bust of Christ facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, and raising right hand in benediction; in left hand, scroll; on either side ıc xc [LINES].

Rev: Patriarchal cross on two steps; at center sometimes, x; in field, c—ʙ / ɴ—ʙ.

Notes: Philip Grierson attributes these issues to Nicephorus Bryennius.

…

The last six months of Michael VII's reign were troubled by the revolts of two generals named Nicephorus. The successful one was Nicephorus Botaniates, whose early career has already been described. The unsuccessful one was Nicephorus Bryennius, duke of Durazzo, who rebelled against Michael VII in October 1077, assumed the imperial title at Trajanopolis, and rapidly occupied most of Macedonia and Thrace For a time it looked as if he, rather than his rival Nicephorus Botaniates, would become master of Constantinople and effectively emperor, but the prize went to Botaniates (April 1078). The latter offered Bryennius the title of Caesar, which was refused, whereupon Alexius Comnenus was sent against him. Comnenus was captured and blinded (April or May), but left in possession of his family fortune, and his more famous son and namesake became in due course the husband of Anna Comnena.

Bryennius was no sooner disposed of than yet another Nicephorus, this time Nicephorus Basilacius, revolted in his turn and assumed the imperial title Basilacius had already played a considerable role in affairs in the concluding months of the preceding reign. He had been sent by Michael VII against Nicephorus Bryennius, and although he was unsuccessful in quelling the revolt, which indeed he made little effort to do, he had occupied Thessalonica and thereby prevented Bryennius from occupying this important base. No sooner had the rebellion of Bryennius collapsed than Basilacius in his turn proclaimed himself emperor at Thessalonica and was in due course besieged by Alexius. After a short siege the city surrendered, Basilacius and his treasure were captured, and on the way back to Constantinople the usurper was blinded on the emperor's orders and disappears from our records. How long his revolt lasted is hard to say, but probably not more than two or three months (May to July?).

Some rare folles exist which can be best attributed to one or other of these rebel Nicephori. They have on the obverse a bust of Christ holding a scroll and on the reverse a patriarchal cross with the letters CBNB in its angles. The general pattern goes back to the coins of Romanus IV with CRPΔ, and it is natural to interpret the first three letters in the same way as Σταυρε βοηθει Nικηφορω. But the fourth is ambiguous, for it could equally stand for βασιλει “the emperor”, Bωτανιατη “Botaniates”, Bρυεννιω “Bryennius”, or Bασιλακιω (or Bασιλακη) “Basilacius”. The extreme rarity of the coins, contrasting with the commonness of those of Botaniates himself with CRNΔ in the angles of the cross, suggest that they were not struck by Botaniates, but recorded find-spots— Sparta, Athens—leave either of the others possible. When I published specimens of the type in 1950, I attributed them conjecturally to Bryennius, without considering the possible claims of Basilacius. Hendy has since argued in favor of the later, mainly on the ground that Basilacius was for some months in possession of Thessalonica, which Bryennius never was, and that Thessalonica was certainly a mint under Alexius I and was, in his view, the mint where the signed coinage of Constantine X and Romanus IV had been struck. Since it is more reasonable to attribute the coins to a mint that we know existed than to one whose existence is conjectural, the coins can be better assigned to Basilacius than to Bryennius.

The weaknesses of this argument are two. The first is the nature of the formula CBNB. The coins are overstruck on older ones, as was normal at this period, and therefore do not represent a method of bringing bullion into circulation; the only object in issuing them would be to serve as propaganda. But coins with CBNB could have no propaganda value in the reign of Nicephorus Botaniates, when they would simply be taken for another issue of this emperor. Under Michael VII, however, they would serve such a purpose, which means that they are more likely to have been issued by Bryennius than by Basilcius. Second, an established mint is capable of producing reasonable uniformity of design, and this is something in which these rare coins, in marked contrast to other folles of the period, are conspicuously deficient. The cross is sometimes on a plain base and step, sometimes on a decorated combination of the two; the intersections and the ends of the cross-arms are sometimes ornamented and sometimes not; and the cross-arms in the nimbus of Christ are sometimes void and at others provided with either a pellet or a ⁙ in each. An issue so chaotic can scarcely be the product of a regular mint, whether Constantinople or Thessalonica, and I therefore adhere to my original attribution of them to Bryennius.

So far as the coins themselves are concerned, it would be absurd to make into separate classes, or even to treat as separate types, the varieties that occur. It seems evident that the die-sinkers at Bryennius’ hastily organized mint were left free to vary such details as they saw fit, and that in consequence each die is likely to differ somewhat from the next. The main division seems to lie in the greater or less elaboration of the patriarchal cross. I have therefore made this the basis of the rough classification which follows and which covers all the varieties—though without listing all the specimens—known to me.

(from DOC vol. lll)

Coinage

NOTE: Philip Grierson is of the opinion that these 2 types are from Nikephoros Bryennius not Nikephoros Basilacius, here is his argument: