Theophilos

Intro ...

(829-842)

CONSTANTINOPLE

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1653.

Obv: ꘎ ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏѕ ьᴀꜱıⳑє or ьᴀꜱıⳑє' (sometimes followed by ⲑ or x or ᴧ). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross and akakia/

Rev: + mıxᴀʜⳑ ѕ cᴏnsτᴀnτın' (sometimes followed by ᴧ). Facing busts of Michael II (the emperor’s deceased father), with short beard (on left) and Constantine (his deceased son), beardless (on right), each wearing crown and chlamys; between their heads, cross.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1654.

Obv: ꘎ ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏѕ ьᴀꜱıⳑ' or ьᴀꜱıⳑє (sometimes followed by ⲑ or x or ᴧ). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross and akakia/

Rev: + cᴏnsτᴀnτ' ∂єѕᴘᴏ' ∂єѕᴘᴏτı' (followed by ᴧ). Facing bust of Constantine, beardless, wearing crown and loros; holding patriarchal cross on globus, and cruciform scepter.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1655.

Obv: ꘎ ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏѕ ьᴀꜱıⳑє'. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger and cruciform scepter/

Rev: cᴠʀıє ьᴏʜⲑʜ τᴏ ꜱᴏ ∂ᴏᴠⳑᴏ ꘎ (followed by є or x or ᴧ). Patriarchal cross on 3 steps.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1656.

Obv: ⲑєᴋ'ⲑєᴏꜰ'ⲑєᴏ'. Facing half-length figures of Theophilus (in center), Thecla (on left), and Theodora (on right); the emperor wears a crown and chlamys, whilst the empresses each wear crown and loros; crosses between their heads/

Rev: ꘎ ᴀnnᴀ ꜱ ᴀnᴀꜱτᴀꜱıᴀ. Facing busts of Anna (on left), and Anastasia (on right), each wearing crown and loros; between their heads, cross.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Constantinople mint. Sear 1657.

Obv: ꘎ ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏѕ ьᴀꜱıⳑє' (followed by ⲑ). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross and akakia/

Rev: + mıxᴀʜⳑ ∂єѕᴘᴏτıѕ (followed by ᴧ). Facing bust of Michael III, beardless, wearing crown and loros; holding globe cruciger, and cruciform scepter.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Semissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1658.

Obv: ꘎ ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏѕ ьᴀꜱı'. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger and cruciform scepter/

Rev: cᴠʀıє ьᴏʜⲑʜ τᴏ ꜱᴏ ∂ᴏᴠⳑᴏ (or ∂ᴏᴠⳑ'). Patriarchal cross on 3 steps.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Semissis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1659.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏѕ ьᴀꜱıⳑє. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger and akakia/

Rev: mıxᴀʜⳑ ∂єѕᴘᴏτıѕ. Facing bust of Michael III, beardless, wearing crown and loros; holding patriarchal cross on globus.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AR Miliaresion. Constantinople mint. Sear 1660.

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

Rev: + ⲑєᴏꜰı / ⳑᴏѕ s cᴏnsτ / ᴀnτınᴏѕ ∂ч / ⳑч xʀısτч ѕ / ᴘıѕτч ьᴀꜱıⳑ' / ʀᴏmᴀıᴏ' in six lines; triple border.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AR Miliaresion. Constantinople mint. Sear 1661.

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

Rev: + ⲑєᴏꜰı / ⳑᴏѕ ∂чⳑᴏs / xʀısτч s ᴘıѕ / τᴏѕ єn ᴀᴠτᴏ / ьᴀꜱıⳑєч' ʀᴏ / mᴀıᴏn in six lines; triple border.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AR Miliaresion. Constantinople mint. Sear 1662.

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

Rev: + ⲑєᴏꜰı / ⳑᴏѕ єc ⲑєч / ᴘıѕτᴏѕ ьᴀ / ꜱıⳑєчѕ ʀᴏ / mᴀıᴏn in five lines; triple border.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AR Miliaresion. Constantinople mint. Sear 1663.

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

Rev: + ⲑєᴏꜰı / ⳑᴏѕ єc / ⲑєч ьᴀꜱı / ⳑєчѕ ʀᴏ / mᴀıᴏn in five lines; triple border.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AR Miliaresion. Constantinople mint. Sear 1664.

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

Rev: + ⲑєᴏ / ꜰıⳑᴏѕ ѕ mı / xᴀʜⳑ єc ⲑє (or ⲑє')/ ьᴀꜱıⳑıꜱ ʀᴏ / mᴀıᴏn in five lines; triple border.

…

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1665.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏѕ s cᴏnsτᴀnτ'. Facing half-length figures of Theophilus (on left) and Constantine (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.

…

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1666.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑ ьᴀꜱıⳑ'. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross and akakia; usually in field to left, ꘎ /

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

…

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1667.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑ' ьᴀꜱıⳑ' (or very similar). Three-quarter length figure facing, wearing loros and crown surmounted by tufa (which is ornamented with varying numbers of pellets); he holds labarum in right hand and globus cruciger in left /

Rev: + ⲑєᴏ / ꜰıⳑє ᴀᴠҁ / ᴏᴠꜱτє ꜱᴠ / nıcᴀꜱ in four lines.

…

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Half follis. Constantinople mint. Sear 1668.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑ' ьᴀꜱıⳑ' (or very similar). Three-quarter length figure facing, wearing loros and crown surmounted by tufa (which is ornamented with varying numbers of pellets); he holds labarum in right hand and globus cruciger in left; sometimes with a small cross in field to right/

Rev: + ⲑєᴏ / ꜰıⳑє ᴀᴠҁ / ᴏᴠꜱτє ꜱᴠ / nıcᴀꜱ in four lines.

[Notes: c. 20-24 mm and 4-5 g. This half follis is the same type as the follis Sear 1667, only smaller and lighter]

…

SYRACUSE

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Syracuse mint. Sear 1669. (normally struck on small, thick flans)

Obv: + ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱıⳑє. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross and akakia.

Rev: + mıxᴀʜⳑ ѕ cᴏnsτᴀnτ. Facing busts of Michael II (the emperor’s deceased father), with short beard (on left) and Constantine (his deceased son), beardless (on right), each wearing crown and chlamys; between their heads, cross.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Syracuse mint. Sear 1670.

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

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger.

[Notes: Crude contemporary imitations of this type have been recorded, usually with blundered legends]

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus. Syracuse mint. Sear 1671.

Obv: ✳ ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱıⳑ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent;

Rev: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱıⳑ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding globus cruciger.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1672. (normally struck on small, thick flans; sometimes of debased metal)

Obv: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ ɢє. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross on globus;

Rev: cᴏnsτᴀnτ'. Facing bust of Constantine, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger (with pellet on either side of cross).

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1673.

Obv: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger;

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding globus cruciger.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1674.

Obv: ⲑєᴏȽıᴧᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger;

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıᴧᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding globus cruciger.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1675.

Obv: ⲑєᴏȽıᴧᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger;

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıᴧᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Semissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1676.

Obv: ꘎ ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger;

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding globus cruciger.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Tremissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1677.

Obv: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ ɢє. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross on globus;

Rev: cᴏnsτᴀnτın. Facing bust of Constantine, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys; in field to left, cross.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Tremissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1678.

Obv: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger;

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Tremissis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1679.

Obv: ꘎ ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger;

Rev: ⲑєᴏȽıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent.

…

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Follis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1680.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱ. Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding cross potent;

Rev: + mıxᴀʜⳑ ѕ cᴏnsτ. Facing busts of Michael II (the emperor’s deceased father), with short beard (on left) and Constantine (his deceased son), beardless (on right), each wearing crown and chlamys; between their heads, star.

…

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Follis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1681.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱ' (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger;

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

…

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Follis. Syracuse mint. Sear 1682.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱ' (or similar). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding patriarchal cross;

Rev: Large M, between xⲑx (to left) and ɴⲑɴ (to right); star above, cross below.

…

NAPLES (?)

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus (debased metal). Naples mint (?). Sear 1683.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏƨ ьᴧƨıⳑєᴏ (or similar). Bust facing, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger and akakia.

Rev: mıxᴧʜⳑ s cᴏnƨτᴧʜτıʜ (or similar). Bust facing (of Michael II or Constantine), wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia.

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus (debased metal). Naples mint (?). Sear 1683ᴀ.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏƨ ьᴧƨıⳑєᴏ (or similar). Bust facing, wearing crown and chlamys, and holding globus cruciger and akakia.

Rev: ᴧıcıᴏєƨ ᴘᴏʜє (or similar). Bust facing (of Nicephorus I), wearing crown and chlamys, and holding cross potent and akakia.

[Notes: this type is a hybrid, utilizing for the reverse an old die from the reign of Nicephorus I (Sear 1614)]

…

Theophilus (829-842). AV Solidus (debased metal). Naples mint (?). Sear 1684.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑᴏꜱ ьᴀꜱıⳑє (usually preceded by ꘎ or ·꘎ or — ). Bust facing, with short beard, wearing crown and loros, and holding globus cruciger (sometimes with pellet or pellets on globus) and cruciform scepter.

Rev: cᴠʀıє ьᴏʜⲑʜ τᴏ ꜱᴏ ∂ᴏᴠⳑᴏ (followes by ꘎x or ꘎c or ꘎є or ·є or є). Patriarchal cross on 3 steps; sometimes with star in field to left; sometimes with star or pellet on either side in upper field.

…

UNCERTAIN PROVINCIAL MINT

Theophilus (829-842). Æ Follis. Uncertain Provincial mint. Sear 1685.

Obv: ⲑєᴏꜰıⳑ' ьᴀꜱıⳑ' (or very similar). Three-quarter length figure facing, wearing loros and crown surmounted by tufa (which is ornamented with varying numbers of pellets); he holds labarum in right hand and globus cruciger in left/

Rev: + ⲑєᴏ / ꜰıⳑє ᴀᴠҁ / ᴏᴠꜱτє ꜱᴠ / nıcᴀꜱ in four lines.

[Notes: This one is the same type as the Constantinopolitan follis Sear 1667 (and half-follis Sear 1668), but of coarser style and rougher workmanship]

…

BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY

The transition from Michael II to Theophilus, as Bury pointed out, resembles in many respects that from Justin I to Justinian. In each case the founder of the new dynasty was a soldier, provincial, coarse, and illiterate, and each had a successor who was a remarkable contrast to himself. “After the rude Justin, came his learned and intellectual nephew Justinian; after the rude Michael, his polished son Theophilus.” In both cases the second member of the dynasty was effective ruler during much of the nominal reign of his predecessor, but while Justin I formally created Justinian co-emperor only four months before his own death, Michael II promoted Theophilus to the same dignity not many months after his accession. Theophilus was crowned emperor and married to Theodora on Whitsunday 821 or 822.

The reign of Theophilus forms a landmark in the history of Byzantine coinage. He was the first for many centuries to issue ceremonial coins, and though the extent to which he did so has probably been exaggerated, the practice was carried on by his successors, making the coinage of the Macedonian period much more interesting iconographically than that of the Isaurians had been. He revived the Isaurian custom of placing the effigy of his predecessor on the coins, though he did so in a manner which departed from theirs in a number of respects. In silver he temporarily increased the weight of the miliaresion and made it a more regular element in the currency by striking it in his name alone and not merely in association with a colleague. In the copper he carried out a major reform, abolishing the old follis type with M, a mark of value now totally without meaning, and replacing it by an inscription in several lines across the field. He thus created a type which was to dominate Byzantine coinage for the next century and a half.

The chronology of Theophilus’ reign and coinage involves a number of difficulties, and although it has been extensively discussed—Theophilus’ reign is one of the few in which Byzantine historians have made serious use of the numismatic evidence—there are many points that still remain uncertain. We know, with a high degree of probability, the date of Theophilus’ accession, and, with certainty, that of his death (20 January 842). A monogram on one of the doors of Saint Sophia, when taken in conjunction with a scholion in a manuscript of Genesius, enables us to fix the date of Michael III's birth as 9 January 840, and he was crowned later in the same year, probably on Whitsunday (16 May), while still “in his cradle.” We know from the coins and from a reference in the Book of Ceremonies to the boy’s “small coffin" that Theophilus had another son Constantine who died in infancy. We know from the Logothete and the Continuator of Theophanes that the emperor had five daughters, Thecla, Anna, Anastasia, Pulcheria, and Maria; that Maria, who is—probably wrongly—described as the youngest, was married or at least betrothed to a certain Alexius Musele with the object of ensuring the succession; and that Alexius was promoted first to the rank of magister and then to that of Caesar, but that under circumstances on which our authorities differ he fell into disgrace, and, his wife being dead, retired into a monastery. We can deduce from an official account of the triumph celebrated by Theophilus on his return to Constantinople from a Cilician campaign—this can be dated 831 from the Arab sources—that at that time Constantine was not alive, for the emperor was received by the Augusta Theodora, no mention being made of any colleague, and that he was accompanied by an unnamed Caesar, who can only be Alexius Musele, on his state ride through the capital. One rare issue of solidi confirms the existence of three of Theophilus’ daughters, Thecla, Anna, and Anastasia, who are shown as crowned and so presumably, like their mother, had the rank of Augusta. The coin does not show either Pulcheria or Maria. The absence of the later is only explicable on the supposition that she was already dead; the coin’s very existence, indeed, implies that Alexius Musele was no longer heir presumptive. Pulcheria, whom we know to have been only a child late in the reign, was either still unborn or had not been given the rank of Augusta.

An unusual number of coin types were struck during the reign—five in gold, five in silver, and three in copper—and they have been variously arranged by scholars. The order of issue is obvious for the copper, though not the precise dating; for both the gold and the silver even the order is uncertain. The problems can best be discussed in the context of the Constantinopolitan mint, and what I believe to be the correct sequence of issues is set out in the accompanying table. Since it agrees neither with Wroth’s arrangement, which is that usually followed, nor with that of Dikigoropoulos, on whom Mme Morrisson in her Bibliothéque Nationale catalogue largely relied, it is necessary to justify it in some detail. Two errors, I would suggest, have to be overcome before we can properly understand the coinage. One is the view, for which I have been in part responsible, that most of the issues of solidi were ceremonial in character. The other is the belief that the solidi with Michael II and Constantine were minted while Constantine was still alive. Once these errors are eliminated, the coinage of Theophilus will be found to conform much more closely to that of other emperors of the early ninth century than at first sight appears.

There are five classes of solidi. Class III is extremely common, and represents the main issue of the reign. Class I is moderately common, but was rare up to about fifty years ago. Classes II, IV, and V are of extreme rarity, less than half a dozen specimens being known of each. As long as it was believed that Michael III was born in 838 or 839, or according to another tradition as early as 836, and crowned shortly afterward, coins of the rarity of Class V could not possibly be regarded as a regular issue lasting several years, and the natural conclusion was that they were struck simply for distribution at his coronation. The same would be the obvious explanation for the very rare coins of Class II if Constantine's co-rulership with his father extended over as many years as the commonness of Clas III implied. Class IV, because of its rarity and unusual design, would fall into the same category, and to these Metcalf suggested adding Class I on the grounds of its former rarity.

An alternative hypothesis and a much more satisfactory one, fitting in with the immediate precedents provided by other emperors, is to treat none of these, with the exception of Class IV, as ceremonial issues, but as regular issues whose rarity is due to their each having been struck for an extremely short space of time. This cannot be completely true of the solidi of Theophilus and Michael III, whose co-rulership may have lasted for as long as eighteen months, but the rarity of the coin would have been enhanced by the unusual overstriking of solidi which marked the early months of the reign of Michael III and would have affected the last issues of Theophilus. It must, however, be true for Class II. It is certain, from the silence of the literary sources, that Constantine cannot have been alive during most of Theophilus’ reign, and, if he had been, the normal coinage for such a joint reign would have been that of Class II or, if Michael II had to be included, one showing the busts of Theophilus and Constantine together on the obverse and that of Michael II alone on the reverse. Class III must in fact represent a memorial coinage, analogous to that struck under the Isaurians, and Constantine must have been dead when it began. Since in recent years no junior emperor had died before his father, there was no obvious precedent for what to do on his death. Constantine could have been dropped from the coinage altogether, as was indeed done with the silver and copper, but his bust alone could not be left on the reverse of the gold, for this would imply that he was still alive. The obvious solution was to add the bust of Michael II, so that the coins would show the two deceased members of the new dynasty. This possibility has been generally ignored by numismatists because they have thought of Isaurian coins as commemorating the ancestors of the ruling emperors, not as forming a picture gallery of all male members of the family, living and dead, who had held the imperial title. To have shown a living and a dead emperor side by side would surely have come up against ordinary human prejudice—might it not have been considered unlucky?—as well as running contrary to Isaurian precedent, where from ConstantineV onward the senior emperor had always had his junior colleague at his own side, not elsewhere.

This leaves Classes I and IV. Class IV is so rare, and so unusual in type, that it may well be a ceremonial issue, since it is hardly likely to have been a substantive one cut short by the birth of Michael III. As for Class I, Metcalf is correct in insisting on its essential rarity, though the successive explanations he proposed for this—that the coin was intended for circulation in the East, while Class III was for the West, or alternatively that it was a ceremonial issue—seem to me unacceptable. The regional circulation of gold is possible only where the coins concerned are differentiated in weight or module, variations in design being not enough, and these solidi exhibit none of the peculiarities in type or inscription that a special issue implies. It is more natural to suppose that they represent the first issue of the reign, when Theophilus ruled alone, and that they are rare for the same reason that the solidi of Michael II alone, and of Leo V alone, are rare, because the period during which they were minted was very short. That they belong to the opening months of the reign, preceding Class III in date instead of following it,as Dikigoropoulos argued and as I once supposed, can be taken as certain. All previous discussion failed to take account of the control marks on the various classes, the evidence of which is decisive. During the three reigns of Michael I, Leo V, and Michael II only two letters, Є and X, had been in normal use, with Є predominating under Leo V and Michael II. The only other letters found are Λ, lambda rather than alpha, and B, but both are of extreme rarity. This pattern—Є predominant, X fairly common, A (but not B) very occasionally found—continued unchanged under Class I of Theophilus. The few known solidi of Class II all have Λ. With Class III a new pattern appears: a predominant Θ, an occasional X, Λ, or nothing at all, but never Є. This places Class I firmly at the start of the reign, as common sense requires—it is the order found under Theophilus’ pre- decessors—and as Wroth and most earlier scholars assumed. Its correctness is confirmed by the evidence of the Lagbe hoard from Asia Minor, which included thirty-five coins of Class I as against one of Class III, the hoard having evidently been buried just after the minting of the latter had begun. The absence of any specimens of Class II is presumably due to the meager quantities of this that had gone into circulation.

With these considerations in mind, the issues can be discussed in greater detail.

CONSTANTINOPLE

Class I. The solidi have on the obverse a facing bust of Theophilus, wearing crown and loros and holding globus cruciger and cross scepter. The type continues the representation of Theophilus from the solidus reverse of the preceding reign, but the emperor is now shown bearded and more mature in age. The inscription is preceded by ꘎, as had now become customary. The reverse type is a patriarchal cross on base and steps, with the inscription CVRIЄ bOHΘH TO SO δOVLO (κυριε βοηθει τω σω δουλω) followed by ꘎ and a control letter (Є, X, or rarely Λ). This is essentially a reversion to the type of Nicephorus I alone, but with a patriarchal cross replacing a Latin one. The role of the emperor as servant of God and the symbol of the patriarchal cross were to figure constantly on Theophilus’ coinage.

A corresponding semissis was struck, having the same design as the solidus but with shortened inscription and no control mark. It is of extreme rarity.

The miliaresion of this group follows directly on that of Michael II and Theophilus, the emperor having the same qualification ЄC ΘЄЧ (i.e. without the PISTOS which occurs later), but since Michael’s name is no longer there the singular bASILЄЧS is substituted for the plural bASILIS. The only remarkable feature of the coin is its existence. It is the earliest miliaresion to be struck in the name of one emperor alone, before the association ofajunior colleague, so that its issue marks the formal adoption of this denomination as a regular feature of the coinage and the abandonment of its theoretically ceremonial status.

The follis carry on directly from the large-module coin of Michael II, on which specimens are sometimes found to be overstruck (eg. BNC, II. 527/02). Theophilus is shown wearing a chlamys and holding a patriarchal cross and akakia, the type being basically that of the gold of Michael II, save that the form of the cross is different. The design of the cross is usually incomplete, the lower part of the shaft being omitted, so that it gives the impression of an object balanced uncomfortably on the emperor's forefinger. This strangely incompetent design was to be taken over for the gold and persist throughout the reign. The reverse carries on that of Michael II without change, the M reverting to its role as a simple mark of value insofar as it was still thought of as having any significance at all. The issue has been briefly discussed by Metcalf, who publishes a variant with inscription break ΘЄO-FIL instead of the normal ΘЄ-OFIL.

The duration of Class I is difficult to determine. The account of Theophilus’ triumphal procession in 831 shows that the young Constantine was not alive in that year, and the relative rarity of all Theophilus’ issues of Class I would indicate that his son’s brief reign should be dated before rather than after this occasion. On the assumption that the boy was born before Theophilus’ accession on 2 October 829, scholars have generally assumed that, in accordance with precedent, he would have been crowned on the next suitable festival of the Church, Ostrogorsky and Stein proposing 25 December 829 and Dikigoropoulos preferring the following Whitsunday (5 June 830). Such precision seems to me unjustified, since we are ignorant of the date of Constantine's birth; moreover, the three-month period Oct.-Dec. 829, and perhaps even the eight-month period Oct. 829- June 830, seems to me to short to allow for the issue of Class I.In the present state of our knowledge we can do no more than say that Constantine was co-emperor for a very brief period, probably not more than a few weeks, in 830 or 831

Class II. The solidi of this class are of the same pattern as the association issues of Theophilus’ immediate predecessors, with a bust of the senior emperor on the obverse wearing the chlamys and that of the junior emperor on the reverse wearing the loros. Some specimens show the crown of either Theophilus or Constantine with a circular ornament below the cross, evidently in consequence of their using a coin of Michael II and Theophilus as a model. Theophilus has in his hand a patriarchal cross, since this can no longer form the reverse type. The only recorded control letter is Λ. Two varieties of the coin exist, one with reverse inscription broken and the other with it unbroken. No fractional gold is known for Constantinople, but since a semissis exists for Sicily, a corresponding eastern issue may yet be found.

The rare miliaresion of Theophilus and Constantine abandoned the conventional ЄC ΘЄЧ formula in favor of a more elaborate one embodying the “servant of God” theme used on Class I of the solidus and adding the epithet “faithful” (ΘЄOFILOS S CONSTANTINOS δЧLЧ XRISTЧ S PISTЧ bASIL’ ROMAIO’). It also saw an increase in the diameter and the weight of the coin, which went up from c. 2 g (probably 144 to the Ib., theoretical wt. 2.27g) to over 3g, perhaps 96 to the Ib. (theoretical weight 3.41 g), though the number of specimens is too small and their condition too varied for one to be sure. The reason for the increase is unknown. A possibility is that since the issue of miliaresia was now on a more regular basis, it was felt that their intrinsic and their legal value should be closer to each other. The higher weight pattern, however, lasted only for Classes II and III.

The rare folles of Theophilus and Constantine reproduce exactly the type used for Michael II and Theophilus, and require no comment.

Class III. After the death of Constantine the close relationship between the coinages in the three metals begins to break down, for while the immediate issues of the new types probably began more or less simultaneously, Class IV in the gold is unrelated to Class IV in the silver and neither of them have any counterpart in the copper. There are also no folles of Theophilus and Michael III corresponding to the solidi and miliaresia of Class V.

Class III in the gold is that which saw the bust of Constantine on the reverse joined by that of Michael II. The obverse continued that of Class II, the emperor's bust being sometimes shown larger and his head correspondingly smaller. Owing to the length of the reverse inscription the control letter was moved to the obverse, though there are a few rare specimens on which it is still on the reverse. The great majority of coins have the new control letter Θ, though X and Λ are recorded and a few specimens have no control letter at all. The coin is occasionally found struck on a large flan, as had occurred under Nicephorus I and Michael I. No fractional gold is known.

Class III of the miliaresion continues the module and weight of Class II, but drops the name of Constantine and fills up the space by inserting ЄN AVTO before bASILEЧ’ ROMAION. A small hoard of twenty-nine miliaresia of this class was discovered during the German excavations on Thera in 1900, in company with a solidus of Michael III alone (i.e. post 856). The absence of any miliaresia of normal weight in a hoard dating from a time when they were in regular circulation is a good illustration of how a heavier variety, even if some years old, might be withdrawn for hoarding.

Class 3 of the follis raises a number of major problems. It ended the long tradition by which the copper bore a mark of value and inaugurated a phase in which, like the silver, the foles were normally to bear an inscription in several lines across the field. That on the follis of Theophilus takes the form of one of the customary coronation acclamations: “Theophilus Augustus, thou conquerest.” The obverse has a half-figure of the emperor, instead of the traditional bust, holding a labarum and globus cruciger and wearing a loros and the curious form of headgear known as a tufa. The new design was so striking that it was quickly copied at Naples by Duke Sergius I (840-64), though the duke modestly wears an ordinary crown (with cross) instead of a tufa and avoids the difficulty of finding a suitable adaptation of the reverse inscription by substituting the bust of San Gennaro in its place. Although the acclamation on the Byzantine coins, despite its military form, was not specifically military in usage, and although the emperor does not wear any specific military accoutrements (spear, armor, etc.), the labarum and tufa suggest that the coin was initially struck to celebrate the triumph of 831, as Dikigoropoulos has suggested. Such a date is in any case acceptable on numismatic grounds. The basic problems presented by Class 3 are two in number: one is that of the mint or mints involved; the other is that created by the existence of two series of coins, one weighing about 8 g and the other half this figure.

The main series of coins shows considerable variety in weight, style, and fabric. One large group is of very rough style and workmanship, and can without hesitation be attributed to a provincial mint. The others form two major groups, one of good but by no means uniform style and the other of inferior and even less uniform style. There are also smaller groups which exhibit specific divergences in detail: lines instead of panels for the hanging end of the loros, the loros running from Theophilus’ left side to his right shoulder instead of vice versa, the presence or absence of streamers hanging from the labarum, the arrangement of dots on the tufa, and so on. Many of these have been studied in detail by Metcalf, who proposed the division of the whole coinage (including the “small-module” and “‘rough-fabric” coins) into seven groups, which he tentatively assigns to various mints throughout the empire (Constantinople, two mints near the capital or in Asia Minor, Thessalonica, a mint perhaps in northern Greece, and two mints in central or southern Greece). His first publication on the subject was studied, in relation to the Dumbarton Oaks material, by Dikigoropoulos and Bellinger, who were impressed by its appreciation of style and detail but unconvinced by its conclusions. Dikigoropoulos, whose notes were available to Bellinger, argued that the differences on which Metcalf relied to establish the existence of separate mints were sometimes less than those that can be found on sixth-century coins that we know to have been struck in the same officina, mint, and year. Bellinger felt that they were of such a kind as to be incapable of serving any useful purpose, and thought it more likely that they represented no more than the idiosyncrasies of different die-sinkers. If Metcalf had picked other sets of criteria, different groupings would probably have emerged, more particularly since he attached little importance to variations in design, such as the presence or absence of a cross in the field, that in some cases must have resulted from definite mint instructions. The amount of material on which the study was based was in any case too small. Unless there is strong support from other evidence—for instance, a strongly marked localization of find- spots—one cannot predicate the existence of a mint on the basis of half a dozen coins.

Metcalf restated his position in a further article, using substantially more material, and successfully disposed of one of Bellinger’s objections. The criteria on which he based his argument are those which seemed best to characterize and identify the products of individual die-sinkers; he had never supposed that they were intended by contemporaries to differentiate between mints or to serve as elements of control, as had been the case with the earlier mint and officina marks. Metcalf’s main arguments, however, I still find unconvincing. It is reasonable to assume the activity of more than one mint, since this is a common feature of recoinages—the opening of temporary provincial mints facilitates the withdrawal of old coins and the issue of new ones—but I do not think that we are yet in a position to identify them or even to separate their products in any satisfactory fashion. Considerations of style do not form an adequate basis for mint identification under such circumstances. A recoinage normally means the temporary recruiting of workmen, often relatively unskilled, for making dies, and even within a single mint one can expect to find distinctive groups of dies made by different workmen, especially when their products are spread over several years and cannot be precisely dated. In view of the present state of uncertainty I have therefore preferred, in the catalogue, to attribute everything to Constantinople, apart from the quite distinctive group of rough fabric which is obviously provincial, while recognizing that future research may well make it possible to distinguish some groups of these coins as the products of mints other than that of the capital.

There remain the small-module coins. Wroth and most scholars regard them as half folles, as I do myself. Metcalf has argued that they represent an issue of provincial folles attributable to Thessalonica. There is a third possibility, that they are “reduced” folles, Theophilus’ issue of “reformed” folles having enjoyed as short a life as Justinian’s heaviest folles of years 12-15. On this hypothesis the weight of the follis would have been reduced in the late 830’s in much the same fashion as was the weight of the miliaresion in the transition from Class III to Class IV. Against this is the fact that the weights of the next series of folles, those of Michael III and Basil struck in 866/7, conform to the weight pattern of Theophilus’ heavier coins, which they would scarcely have done if a weight reduction had taken place in the interval, and I prefer to regard them as half folles.

The chronology of Class III is necessarily very indeterminate. The solidi evidently went on being struck til the coronation of Michael III, i.e. til 840 or possibly 841. The silver must have ended in the 830’s, probably later rather than earlier to judge by the comparative rarity of Classes III and IV, but since we do not know why Class IV was introduced it is impossible even to guess at the date. The copper probably continued til the end of the reign, since no folles bearing the names of Theophilus and Michael IL are known. Such coins may still come to light, but in view of the relative commonness of the miliaresia of the joint reign it seems unlikely. There is even something to be said for the view that the issue of Theophilan folles was immobilized and continued under Michael I, since we have no Constantinopolitan copper for the first twenty-five years of this ruler’s reign. It would be contrary to Byzantine tradition for a ruler to strike coins in the name of his predecessor, but a twenty-five year gap in the minting of copper is equally strange and one has to balance one improbability against another. If this continued issue under Michael I were the case, however, it would put out of court the possibility of the small-module coins being the counterparts of Theophilus’ lighter miliaresia.

Class IV. Class IV of the solidi consists of those having three busts on the obverse (Theophilus, his wife Theodora, and his eldest daughter Thecla) and two on the reverse (Anna and Anastasia). The coin is of exceptional rarity, the only three recorded specimens being those in Paris, Turin, and Dumbarton Oaks. Apparently all three daughters had been raised to the rank of Augusta, since they all wear imperial crowns with pinnacles and prependulia, though only Theodora and Thecla were to figure on the issues of Michael III's minority. It is impossible to determine when or why they were struck. It must have been after the death of Theophilus’ other daughter Maria, the wife of Alexius Musele, since she is not shown on it, and before the birth of Michael III in January 840, but we can give no date more exact than the 830's. Owing to lack of space the rulers are given no titles, and the name of each is placed above his or her head as a mark of identification, so that the order of seniority is preserved in the effigies but not in the inscriptions. There are no control letters.

Class IV of the miliaresion reverts to the traditional module and weight of this coin, and both shortens and modifies the inscription from that of Class III, restoring the ЄC ΘЄЧ of Class I but retaining PISTOS from Classes II and III. The position of the class in the sequence of miliaresia cannot be taken as certain—it could conceivably have followed Class I—but it seems more likely that it marked the abandonment of the heavy standard. Hoard evidence may eventually allow for a satisfactory dating.

Class V. The solidus of this class is of extreme rarity, only three specimens having been recorded. The design follows closely that of Theophilus and Constantine, though the obverse inscription is preceded by a cross instead of a star and the reverse one by a pellet instead of a cross. The only anomaly is the A following the reverse inscription. One would not expect it to be a control mark, since a Θ on the obverse already fulfils this role. It might be a revival of the Λ which had served as a control mark on the coins of Theophilus and Constantine and which was misunderstood and modified by the die-sinker. On the other hand, an A is used on some early coins of Class I of Michael III (below, p.457), so an A at this period is not impossible. Its function must be regarded as uncertain.

There is at Turin a unique semissis of this class. It corresponds to the solidus, but shows Michael holding a globus surmounted by a patriarchal instead of a normal cross. The traditional symbol of the semisis, a cross potent on globus held where necessary by the shaft, had by now been evidently forgotten.

The miliaresion of Theophilus and Michael III carried on from that of Class IV, the epithet PISTOS being dropped in order to leave room for Michael’s name. The coin is surprisingly common for what must have been a quite short period of issue, and the absence of die-links amongst the specimens I have examined shows that they must have been minted in large quantities. No corresponding folles are known, and probably none were struck.

Class V must have been minted over the period between Michael III’s coronation and Theophilus’ death. It has been suggested above that the coronation probably took place on 16 May 840. An issue extending over a year and eight months would be quite reasonable for the miliaresia of Class V, but is surprising in the light of the extreme rarity of the gold. The evidence of the later, if taken by itself, would point to a coronation sometime in 841, perhaps even as late as Christmas Day. Historical probability, when joined to the positive evidence of the miliaresion, must be held to outweigh this, and since it is scarcely likely that Class III would have been continued after the coronation of Michael it would seem that Theophilus at the end of his reign was content to mint very little gold—the issues of earlier years had been enormous—and did not feel any need for making plain to the public in this way the identity of his successor.

SICILY

Theophilus’ Sicilian coinage consisted of the usual three denominations of gold, no silver, and copper folles and half folles. The coins are for the most part common, no doubt as a result of the dispersal of hoards buried during the Arab war and found in recent years. There was a strong tendency for the module of the coins to diminish, like that of the globular solidi of seventh-century Carthage, although the edges, instead of being smooth and rounded as those of the Carthaginian coins had been, are rough and broken. The contraction in size, however, was not a regular process, so module is not a good guide to dating. Nor is it a good guide to denomination; users must have depended on type and weight. A complicating factor is the existence of contemporary imitations with blundered inscriptions and crude designs. On the assumption that they may have been semi-official— e.g. coins issued by the authorities in localities besieged by the Saracens or for some other reason deprived of their regular supply of coin—the specimens at Dumbarton Oaks have been catalogued below. One cannot, however, exclude the possibility of their having been struck by the Arabs, since they are very markedly “globular.” Invaders from North Africa would no doubt have occasionally seen seventh-century solidi of Carthage, and might well have thought this fabric appropriate for “imperial” coins.

The classification of the gold coinage has been discussed by Mr. Bellinger, but beyond making clear the main groups he has not pushed the analysis very far. There are two classes struck in the name of Theophilus alone and one in that of Theophilus, Michael, and Constantine, or, in the case of the semisses and tremisses, of Theophilus and Constantine only. The coins of Theophilus alone may be subdivided into two further groups according to whether or not the emperor is accompanied by his title (bASIL, or bA on the fractions). In attempting to establish the chronology there are several further factors to be taken into account. One is the change in the design of the emperor’s head on the coins, which is much greater than one would expect in so short a reign. The earliest coins resemble those of Michael II in that the face is more or less egg- or cup-shaped, broader above than below and curving regularly downward, while on later coins it is narrow and emaciated in appearance, with pinched cheeks, as we find it on coins of Michael III and Basil I. The fact of this type being reproduced on coins of the infant Michael III shows that it results from the die-sinker’s artistic preconceptions, not from an attempt to delineate ‘Theophilus’ increasing age. The tops of the crowns on these later coins are also rounded and dome-like in form. The second factor is the rather complicated relationship between the Sicilian coinage of the reign and that of Constantinople. Minor types (Theophilus and his daughters, Theophilus and Michael III) are not reproduced, but solidi of Theophilus, Michael, and Constantine, which in the East form the main issue of the reign, are very rare for Sicily and can have been only very briefly struck. This is in a way not surprising, since the Isaurian concept of dynastic coinages had never found much favor in the West, but in this case there is the unexpected complication that Theophilus’ new follis type was not introduced at all and there are instead quite common folles of Theophilus, Michael, and Constantine, a combination never used on the copper of Constantinople. A final consideration that has to be kept in mind is the existence of debasement. The Sicilian gold of the reign is in the main of good quality, but some coins are heavily alloyed with copper, as all those of Michael III were to be. There is therefore good reason to put any issue in which debasement occurs late in the reign.

The denominations of the gold and the features that characterize them are set out in Table 20, but they require a little more detailed study. The types are in each case the bust of the emperor, or of two emperors in the solidi of Class II. A peculiar feature which occurs almost throughout is the deformation of F, in ΘЄOFILOS, to F or F, as if the die-sinker had no idea where to place the horizontal strokes. It should be noted that it is very easy to confuse the obverses and the reverses of these coins, on account of their small size, and several apparent anomalies in catalogues appear on examination to be only two obverses or two reverses inadvertently paired (e.g. T. 12, two obverses; Vinchon 25. iv. 60, lot 704, two reverses).

Class I. 829-c. 830. Coins of this class are linked by use of the initial ꘎ on all denominations, by the presence of an imperial title, and by a small detail of no consequence which also differentiates them from Class III—one crescent and a dot, instead of two crescents and a dot, at the emperor's neck on the reverse. The ꘎ and the inscription are taken from Class I of the solidi of Constantinople, though the details of the type are different and the patriarchal cross type of the reverse is for some reason not adopted. The face is usually somewhat rounded, though very elongated ones, like that of our No. 18.2, also occur. Coins of Class I are rare, although a small number were included in a hoard of Theophilus’ coins that came on the European market some twenty years ago. This class is almost certainly the first issue of the reign, belonging to the period before the accession of Constantine. A case could be made for placing it immediately after the coins with Constantine, since there are features which link some of the coins of Class III with the coinage of Michael II; the semissis and tremissis also sometimes have the high domed crown characteristic of the semisses of the last years of the reign. But most of Class I is certainly late, and it does not seem reasonable to divide it into two issues, one struck at the very beginning of the reign and the other, separated from it by two different classes, some few years later.

Class II. c.830-c. 831. It is not clear whether this class, specimens of which are extremely rare, is one class or two, though even if they are two they would be very close to each other in date. The semissis and tremisis, on which Constantine is shown as an infant, are obviously inspired by Class II of Constantinople, only solidi of which are known, though the lower denominations probably once existed. The two pellets beside the cross of the globus cruciger on the semissis was a motif already known at Syracuse (above, pp. 373, 392). The childish bust suggests that Constantine was still alive when the coins were struck, and the portrait is notably different from that of the solidus with Michael and Constantine, but there is sometimes inconsistency in such matters and it may be that Michael was omitted from the fractional gold because of the small size of the coins. The solidus is copied from that of Constantinople, but in contrast to this coin it is of extreme rarity and its issue must have been very brief. All the rulers shown on it have rather broad, square heads, the details being an amalgam of Constantinopolitan and Sicilian traditions.

Class III. c. 831-842. This is the chief class of the reign, and it is in it that the main evolution of the imperial head occurred. The coins most obviously differ from those of Class I in having no initial ꘎ and in giving the emperor no title. They form three sub-classes.
(a) Solidi, semisses, and tremisses inspired by the coinage of Michael II’s reign and apparently marking a conscious reversion to it. The derivation is most evident in the design of the chlamys on the obverse and in the shape of the emperor's face, as can be seen by comparing Pl. XXI. 14a.1 with Pl. XXVI. 24.1. The solidi have always been fairly common and now are extremely so. In 1961 there was on the market a hoard containing at least forty-five specimens, together with a few solidi of Class I but none of the very rare ones of Class II.
It is to this class that the many contemporary imitations alluded to above belong. They are smaller and thicker than the originals, and normally somewhat lighter in weight. There were apparently none in the hoard of which I was shown part in 1961, but another hoard, on the market a year earlier, from which the specimens described below as Nos. 25.1-4 are derived, contained them in large numbers.
Wroth catalogues a strange variant of this class on which the globus of the obverse type lacks a cross, which is replaced by a large eight-rayed star in the field (W.33). There are coins of the same type, but from different dies, at Milan and Turin. Although the inscriptions are correct there are anomalies in the designs—the folds of the loros have hatched lines, which are usually limited to the pendants of the fibulae, and the form of the loros was not understood by the die-sinker—so that I am inclined to regard them as contemporary imitations, though quite different in type from that forming our Nos. 25.1-4.
(b) Semisses and tremisses on which the emperor is shown with emaciated face and high domed crown, and with Theophilus’ name spelled ΘЄOFILOS. These are of relatively good metal, and can be dated to the middle 830's. I know of no solidi of this group or of the next, or any of later emperors; so it seems that this denomination was now discontinued.
(c) Semisses of very poor metal, heavily alloyed with copper, having the same type of face and crown as those of Group (b) but with Λ for L in ΘЄOFILOS. I know of no tremisses of this group, which passes on directly into the semisses—the only denomination struck— of Michael III’s reign. The latter coins, it is true, spelt the emperor's name with an L (MIXAHL) and only later pass to a Λ, but Sicily was so strongly Hellenized that the die-sinkers at this period seem to have been thinking in their own language and adopted Greek letter forms naturally whenever they had the opportunity to do so.
There are three classes of copper coins corresponding to those of the gold, though their relationship presents some unusual features and the issues were not quite in phase with each other.

Class 1 has as obverse type the emperor wearing a loros and holding a patriarchal cross, of which the reverse type is an M flanked by XΘX and NΘN, both vertical, with ꘎ above and a cross beneath. It is known only in a unique specimen now in the British Museum. The type is surprising, since the folles of Michael II had already dispensed with the meaningless XXX NNN; this revives the old design, but in order to make room for a star, which, as we have seen, is a distinguishing feature of Class I of the gold, the Θ has had to be transferred from its previous central position to the vertical columns beside the M. The design in itself is quite meaningless.

The other two classes are both common, and each must have seen a fairly prolonged period of issue. One consists of folles of Theophilus, Michael II, and Constantine, the design and style being the same as those of Class II of the solidus, though with a star instead of a cross above the emperors’ heads on the reverse. The other issue shows the bust of Theophilus alone, wearing a chlamys, and has a reverse identical with that used under Michael II: a large M between XXX and NNN, with a cross above and a Θ below.

If the order of issue was parallel to that of the gold, one would have to treat the coins with Theophilus, Michael, and Constantine as Class 2, but assume that it lasted for a rather longer period—say c. 831- c.835 — and have it followed by Class 3, which reverted to the type of Michael II. This would not be inconceivable; we have already seen that a reversion of this sort apparently did occur in the gold. The difficulty is that, while with the gold it is in ClasIII that the late type of “emaciated face” occurs, in the copper this is in Class 2. Most of the coins in this class have what may be termed a “normal” head ofTheophilus, broad and square like that on Class II of the solidus; although some busts are thinner and narrower, no sharp line of demarcation can be drawn between them and the broader ones. There are, however, coins of smaller flan where the busts of all three emperors are small and that of Theophilus has a high domed crown, and still others where all the crowns are domed and the faces of all three emperors are “emaciated.” Something like a domed crown, as we have seen, does occur on the fractional gold of Class II,and so is not necessarily late,but emaciated faces ought to mean an issue toward the end of the reign.

How these contradictory indications should be reconciled I am unable to explain, and their existence leaves the order of issue of Theophilus’ Sicilian folles an open question. Overstriking was unfortunately not common in Sicily at this particular time, so we have no evidence of this type, and no relevant hoards have been published. In default of any satisfactory solution I have thought it best to number the classes on the pattern of the gold, while recognizing that the order of issue which this implies may in due course be reversed.

NAPLES (?)

There remains one small but quite distinctive group of Theophilan solidi, for the most part of seriously debased gold, which all scholars agree should be attributed to southern Italy. They form two classes. One is copied from the Constantinopolitan solidi of Class I, with a facing bust of Theophilus and a patriarchal cross. The other takes its inscription from the coins of Class III, with the names of Michael and Constantine, but the design reproduces that of the South Italian solidi of Nicephorus and Stauracius (above, p. 361). The result is highly anomalous, since the reverse inscription refers to two emperors while only one bust is shown.

Class 1 imitates the type and inscription of its model with reasonable accuracy, but the workmanship is coarse and the letters ill-formed. Most coins have the terminal reverse letter Є, but X also occurs. Occasionally there are objects in the upper reverse field: star, two stars, two pellets. There are sometimes two or three pellets on the emperor's globus, these being due to the miscopying of the emperor's fingertips, as one can see by comparing them with the design of the globus on coins of Nicephorus I. The initial ꘎ of the obverse inscription is sometimes replaced by a bar, the terminal one of the reverse (before the Є or X)by an X or a pellet. The list of varieties given below (Nos. 31a-31g) is by no means exhaustive, though it covers the main ones known to me.

What one may call the “normal” type of Class I is apparently preceded by two transitional pieces of rather better—if odder—style, represented by Nos. 31a and 31b below. I have catalogued No. 31a only with considerable hesitation, since I had long taken it to be an eighteenth-century forgery. Against it are its peculiar style, its excessive weight (4.58 g), and its provenance, since it comes from one of the Basel sales in which, between 1935 and 1937, the Prince of Waldeck’s collection from Arolsen was dispersed. This very important coin cabinet, formed largely in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, included the collection of Tanini, the continuator of Banduri, and Tanini’s more unusual coins are often false. On the other hand, debased coins—though this one is not badly debased—are frequently overweight, and the surface of this has been cut and damaged in a way that often occurs when such an object is dug up. More decisive, and perhaps indeed the only cogent evidence, is the existence of No. 31b, which was acquired by E. T. Newell at a Schulman (Amsterdam) sale of 17 June 1924, lot 1030, and is now in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society. It is clearly related to the Dumbarton Oaks coin but is from different dies, rather closer in appearance to the main series, and since its existence affords the best guarantee of our piece, I have illustrated it on Pl. XXVII.

Class II of these Italian imitations is copied from the earlier Italian solidi of Nicephorus and Stauracius. It begins (No. 32) with what seems to be actually a mule with an obverse of one of these, having the name of Nicephorus or Stauracius blundered. ‘Theophilus’ own bust on the other side, with its sloping shoulders, is also copied from these earlier coins. An inscription more relevant to Theophilus’ reign was subsequently substituted for the blundered Nicephoran one and the busts were redesigned, with square shoulders quite different from those of No. 32. In the new variety there are only trivial variations in the inscription from one die to another.

The attribution of these coins to Naples is, as explained in the Introduction (pp. 85-7), only conjectural. They are certainly South Italian, and were struck in some quantity, for they are fairly common today. Their issue coincided with a gap in the minting of gold by the dukes of Benevento, and the dukes of Naples, who still professed a vague allegiance to the emperors in the East, are the most likely individuals to have taken action to make good a shortage. The coins would thus have been a kind of mainland equivalent to the unofficial imitative Sicilian coins already alluded to which were apparently struck in the 830’s, after official issues of solidi in the island came to an end.

THERE IS A TABLE 19 MISSING (PAGE 408)

THERE IS A TABLE 20 MISSING (PAGE 419)

(from DOC vol. lll)

Coinage