Romanos

Intro ...

(959-963)

l

l

CONSTANTINOPLE

Romanus II (959-963). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1773.

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

Rev: ʀᴏmᴀn’ ᴀᴠτᴏcʀᴀτ’ ʀᴏm’ (letters very carelessly engraved). Bust facing, bearded, wearing crown and richly ornamented robe, and holding globus surmounted by long cross in left hand.

Note: SB 1773 and SB 1774 are essentially the same, the only difference is that in SB 1774 Christ’s right hand is held before him, beside the book of Gospels.

…

Romanus II (959-963). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1774.

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

Rev: ʀᴏmᴀn’ ᴀᴠτᴏcʀᴀτ’ ʀᴏm’ (letters very carelessly engraved). Bust facing, bearded, wearing crown and richly ornamented robe, and holding globus surmounted by long cross in left hand.

Note: SB 1773 and SB 1774 are essentially the same, the only difference is that in SB 1774 Christ’s right hand is held before him, beside the book of Gospels.

…

CHERSON

Romanus II (959-963). Æ Flat (16-18mm, 2.5-4.25g). Cherson mint. Sear 1775.

Obv: Monogram, sometimes with pellets to left and right in upper field.

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

…

Romanus II was born in 939 and made co-emperor by his father at the age of six, after the downfall of the Lecapeni. He succeeded Constantine VII as sole emperor in November 959. The chroniclers praise him for his good looks and kindly disposition, but he in fact seems to have been weak-willed and frivolous, inheriting a family tendency to overindulgence in the pleasures of the table. He also inherited his father's poor health, which brought him to an early death on 15 March 963. He played no part in the great achievements of his reign, the reconquest of Crete and a series of resounding military successes in south eastern Asia Minor and Syria, which were due entirely to the abilities and good fortune of his commander-in-chief, Nicephorus Phocas. He was twice married. His first marriage as a child to Bertha of Provence, who was renamed Eudoxia, has left its memorial in one of the most beautiful of surviving Byzantine ivories, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale. His second marriage was to Anastasia, the daughter of a tavern keeper, who on becoming empress took the name of Theophano. By her he had two sons, Basil and Constantine, born in 958 and 961 respectively. Basil was crowned co-emperor at Easter 960 (22 April) and Constantine two years later, probably at Easter 962 (30 March).

Romanus II's coinage, or rather its almost complete absence, is difficult to explain. Only three specimens of his solidi are known, two of them being at Dumbarton Oaks; their tiny lettering shows that they must belong to Romanus II, not Romanus I. They continue the tradition of characterized portraiture begun under Leo VI and carried on by Romanus I’s projected solidus and miliaresion of 931 and Constantine VII's solidi of 945. No. 2 has an exceptionally interesting obverse type, since its representation of Christ is rare in Byzantine art and it never reappears in the coinage. Sabatier attributed to Romanus a solidus having on the obverse a representation of the Virgin crowning the emperor, but Wroth rightly regards this as a misread coin of John I.

No Constantinopolitan coins of Romanus II in silver or copper are known at all. I was for a time disposed to attribute to him the pattern miliaresion of Romanus I (above, p.555, No, 19), but the portraiture is identical with that of the pattern solidus of 931 (No. 9), on which the emperor is associated with a younger Constantine; so its attribution to Romanus I is beyond doubt. Sabatier gave to Romanus II the folles here assigned to Romanus I. There are several features of the coin favoring such an attribution, notably a portrait differing from that of the coins of 931 and the spelling RωMAIωN on the reverse, for this recurs under Nicephorus I and contrasts with the ROMЄON of other coins of Constantine VII's reign. But the difference in portraiture is to be explained by a difference in date, and the evidence of overstriking, as Wroth pointed out, shows conclusively that the “Romanus” folles frequently served as undertypes for coins of the later years of Constantine VII's reign, and must therefore belong to Romanus I. It is possible that silver and copper types of Romanus I may turn up in the future, but even if they do, they can never have represented substantial issues. One would have expected the great military activity of the reign to have involved a large output of small change, but in fact economy and government alike must have managed to get along with the very considerable coinages of Constantine VII’s reign.

There was, however, a copper coinage at Cherson. Sabatier, followed by Oreshnikov, attributed to Romanus II three types of coin: (1) ones having a cruciform monogram of PωMA and a cross on steps, (2) ones having a bust and a bar monogram of PωM, and (3) ones having an ill-shaped monogram of PωM and another with the letters BA, which he interpreted as a reference to Romanus’ co-emperor Basil. Miss Sokolova, I think rightly, has transferred the second (above, p. 570, No. 30) to Romanus I, when bust types were in favor, and I would give the third to the same ruler, interpreting the BA as basileus. The first, on the other hand, I would leave to Romanus II, since cruciform monograms had come into fashion by the mid-century, when they occur on the last issue of Constantine VII (with Romanus II) and on those of Nicephorus II, John Zimisces, and Basil II. Wroth, on the other hand, prefers to give this type to Romanus I.

(from DOC vol. lll)

Coinage