Nikephoros

Intro ...

(802-811)

l

CONSTANTINOPLE

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1603.

Obv: nıcıꜰoʀos ьᴀsıⳑє' (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia /

Rev: ıҺsчs xʀısτчs nıᴋᴀ (followed by ⲑ or x). Cross potent on 3 steps.

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1604.

Obv: nıcıꜰoʀos ьᴀsıⳑє' (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia; sometimes with a pellet in field to left /

Rev: sτᴀᴠʀᴀcıs ∂єsᴘo' (followed by є, ⲑ, or x). Facing bust of Stauracius, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globe cruciger and akakia.

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). AV Tremissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1605.

Obv: nıcıꜰoʀos ьᴀsıⳑє' (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia; sometimes with a pellet in field to left /

Rev: ıҺsчs xʀısτчs nıᴋᴀ (followed by ⲑ or x). Cross potent on 3 steps.

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1606.

Obv: nıcıꜰoʀ' ьᴀs' (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia /

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

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1607.

Obv: No legend. Facing busts of Nicephorus, with short beard (on left), and Stauracius, beardless (on right), each wearing crown and chlamys; cross between their heads /

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

…

SYRACUSE

Nicephorus I (802-811). AV Solidus. Syracuse mint. Sear 1608.

Obv: …ꜰoʀos ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent.

Rev: sτᴀᴠʀᴀcı ьʟτs. Facing bust of Stauracius, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globe cruciger and akakia.

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1609.

Obv: nıcꜰoʀos ьᴀs'. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia /

Rev: sτᴀчʀ or sτᴀчʀᴀcı. Facing bust of Stauracius, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent on globus, and akakia.

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). AV Tremissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1610.

Obv: nııꜰoʀos ь'. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger and akakia (akakia omitted?)/

Rev: sτᴀᴠʀᴀ'. Facing bust of Stauracius, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent, and akakia (akakia also omitted?).

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). Æ Follis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1611.

Obv: Bust of Nicephorus facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent; to left, ɴ or и; to right, ɪ / ᴋ / ʜ /

Rev: Bust of Nicephorus facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger; to left, ɴ or и; to right, ɪ / ᴋ / ʜ.

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). Æ Follis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1612.

Obv: Bust of Nicephorus facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent; to left, ɴ or и; to right, ɪᴋʜ /

Rev: Facing bust of Stauracius, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger; to left, ᴄ; to right τᴀᴠ.

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). Æ Follis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1613.

Obv: Bust of Nicephorus facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent; to left, ɴ; to right, Δєᴄ /

Rev: Facing bust of Stauracius, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globe cruciger; to right ᴄτᴀ.

NAPLES (?)

…

Nicephorus I (802-811). AV solidus (debased metal). Naples mint (?). Sear 1614.

Obv: ᴧıcıoᴘoƨ ᴘ . ᴧɴє . or ᴧᴠcıƨ oєƨᴘoʜє (or similar blundered form). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia (beardless ?)/

Rev: cᴛᴧᴠʀᴧcıƨ oєƨᴘoıє or τᴧᴠcı oєƨᴘoʜє (or similar). Facing bust of Stauracius, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globe cruciger and akakia.

Nicephorus was crowned emperor on the morning after the deposition of Irene. Though his motives and policy are consistently misrepresented by Theophanes and succeeding chroniclers, who were unwavering partisans of the empress, he proved a masterful and conscientious ruler. Like Anastasius I he had been minister of finance before his accession, and his reforms in this sphere of government earned him an unenviable reputation for avarice But he was unlucky in war: defeated by the Arabs in 806 and compelled to pay an annual indemnity of 30,000 solidi and six pieces of gold as “ransom’” for himself and his son, he was killed in the terrible defeat of the Byzantines at the hands of the Bulgarian Khan Krum on 26 July 81. He was succeeded by his son Stauracius, whom he crowned co-emperor in December 803, presumably on Christmas Day.

The coinage of the reign falls into two periods, that of Nicephorus alone (802-3) and that of Nicephorus and Stauracius (803-11). It continued in all essentials that of the preceding reigns. A notable feature is the absence of any silver coinage, for one would expect miliaresia to have been struck on the occasion of Stauracius’ coronation. Possibly the explanation is to be found in Nicephorus’ penurious habits. A novel feature was the reopening of a mint on the Italian mainland, probably at Naples.

CONSTANTINOPLE

The solidus of Nicephorus’ sole reign abandons Irene’s device of using the imperial bust on both obverse and reverse, adopting instead for the reverse the type and inscription of the miliaresion. The repudiation of Irene’s precedent was probably deliberate, for on the obverse Nicephorus is shown wearing a chlamys and holding a cross potent and an akakia, departing thus in every detail from the representation of Irene and reproducing the effigy of Leo III as it appeared on the solidi of Constantine V. The control letters on the reverse are X and Θ (in the form 𐀏); Є is perhaps still to be found. No semissis is known, and only two specimens of the tremissis have been recorded, one in the Hermitage (T. 4) and the other in the Foreign Prince Sale, lot 129. The type is that of the solidus. The folis, which is rather rare, is of the same type as that of Irene, the bust of Nicephorus replacing that of the empress. A decanummium with illegible inscription which was ascribed to Nicephorus by Sabatier (Description, II. 74, No. 3, Pl. XLI. 16) and Tolstoi (No.6) may be a coin of Constantine V (above, p. 305, note to Nos. 9-10).

The solidus of the joint reign reverts to the Isaurian pattern of showing the bust of the junior emperor on the reverse, Stauracius having the title of despotes. Both emperors wear the chlamys and carry an akakia, but Nicephorus has in his right hand a cross potent and Stauracius a globus cruciger. The obverse legend is sometimes preceded by a pellet and the control letters on the reverse are X, Θ (not 𐀏), and Є.

In addition to the normal type of solidus, there exist some specimens struck with larger dies than usual (c. 20mm as against c. 18mm across the circle of beading) and on a broader flan (c. 23 mm. as against c. 20 mm.). The bust of Stauracius is exceptionally small, and so far as my records go the control mark is always Є. Wroth suggested that they might be Italian, but the style and lettering, and the use of such a control mark, make it difficult to ascribe them to any mint save Constantinople. Probably they are the earliest of the Constantinopolitan series, prepared for distribution at the coronation of Stauracius in 803, There is no known fractional gold, though some may yet come to light.

Wroth ascribed no Constantinopolitan copper coinage to the reign, but such a gap of eight years in mint activity at this particular period is most unlikely. The lacuna is best filed by a group of anonymous folles, early ninth-century in style and having on the obverse two facing busts, which are commonly assigned to Leo V and Constantine. The absence of inscription is to be explained by the presence of two busts on a flan of this size, which made the insertion of an inscription rather difficult, and since there were no similar coins in circulation at the time, there was no need to label them specifically in any way.

SICILY

No Sicilian gold coins of the sole reign of Nicephorus have so far been recorded, but they may well exist. A follis in Naples Museum (below, No.9) has ИIKH on both obverse and reverse, and Ricotti attributes it to Nicephorus alone. The figure on the reverse is beardless, however, when one would expect it to be bearded, and since it corresponds in every detail to that of Stauracius on the coinage of 803-11 it could conceivably be a coin of the later period on which a die-sinker has carelessly engraved the wrong inscription. But the same combination of a bearded and a beardless bust of the same person occurs on the Sicilian folles of Michael I’s sole reign (below, p.369, No.9), so we are probably justified in accepting this coin as one of 802-3.

No solidi of the joint reign were listed by Ricotti, who presumably rejected a specimen doubtfully recorded by Wroth (No. 1), but several specimens came on the market in 1960, evidently from a hoard. The inscriptions are usually in part of flan and not very legible; Nicephorus has his title shortened to b while the name of Stauracius is normally misspelled and the title confused (e.g. STAV RACIbLSd, SATЧ RAC). Semisses and tremisses have long been known, though they are rare and not always easy to recognize, since even when the letters are not on the flan they are badly formed and difficult to decipher.

There are two types of follis. The first presents no problems, since NIKH is legible on the obverse and CTAЧ on the reverse. The second is a rather smaller coin, as those of the next reign were to be, and has on the obverse [N ?] ΔЄC and on the reverse CTA. A specimen was attributed by Ratto (No. 1763) to Constantine V and Leo IV, by Ricotti to Leo IV and Constantine VI. The type and style, however, belong to the early ninth century rather than to the eighth, and despite the unusual use at this period of despotes for the senior emperor and the illegibility of any letter preceding ΔЄC on such specimens as are known to me, it is to Nicephorus and Stauracius that it is best provisionally assigned.

NAPLES

Wroth and Tolstoi agree in attributing to Italy a group of base gold solidi which copy the Constantinopolitan issues of Nicephorus and Stauracius but are of very crude design and have badly blundered inscriptions. The interpretation of these inscriptions is something of a problem. The reverse normally reads something like TAV IOЄƧPOHE, and the presence of the T leaves no doubt that it comes from the STAVRA CISδЄSPO’ of the Constantinopolitan coins. The obverse is usually ΛVC IOЄƧPOHE (or IƧOЄƧPOHE), which would seem to be the same with the T omitted—it is never present—but two specimens in the British Museum start ΛIC, which Wroth assumed to be a corruption of NIC(iforos), as one would expect it to be. On the other hand, the terminal IOЄƧPOHE can scarcely be derived from the bASILЄ’ that followed Nicephorus’ name on Eastern solidi; the elements of δЄSPO are clearly present. It looks as if the die-sinker, while taking as his model a coin of Nicephorus and Stauracius—this is evident from the types—has tried to reproduce the name of Stauracius on both sides of the coin, as if Nicephorus were no longer alive. In any case, neither inscription will account for the HЄ which follows the PO (of the Constantinopolitan δЄSPO’), and I have suggested in the Introduction (p.86) that they may stand for NЄ(apolis). The coins would thus have been struck by the duke of Naples, an official still more or less subject to Byzantine authority, who perhaps felt the need for making good a shortage of “gold” coin on the mainland caused by the action of Grimoald IV of Benevento (806-17) in abandoning his predecessors’ coinage in this metal and minting only silver denari.

(from DOC vol. lll)

Coinage