Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5#
/. Abteilung
peared in 195 7,* and it is this work that will inevitably form the basis of
future exploration.
The facts of the matter seem to be s follows. The series was commenced
by the Emperor Justinian I (527-65), probably subsequent to 538/39.2
There are three main sequences. The two most persistent consist of solidi
bearing the reverse exergual marks OBXX and OB*+* or OB +* in
place of the traditional CONOB.3 The first denotes a solidus weighing
20 siliquae (or keratia) rather than the normal 24, the second a solidus of
21% or more probably of 22 siliquae. The third, and least persistent sequence, involves solidi of 23 siliquae which are denoted by the double use
of a star - one in the obverse field, one in the reverse - and which went
unrecognised by Adelson.4 During the reign of Constans II (641-68), the
exergual mark (i. e. K ) succeeds the double star. These three
sequences occur in the following pattern:
Justinian I (527-65)
Justin II (565-78)
Justin II with Tiberius II (578)
Tiberius II (578-82)
Maurice Tiberius (582-602)
Phocas (602-10)
Heraclius (610-41)
Constans II (641-68)
20 sil.
22 sil.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23 sil.
X
X
X
X
1
H. L. Adelson, "Light Weight Solidi and Byzantine Trade During the Sixth and
Seventh Centimes", American Numism. Soc., Numism. Notes and Monographs, 138
(New York, 1957). The following works, published subsequently, should also be consulted: V. V. Kropotkin,"Kladyvizantiiskikh monet naterritoriiSSSR"(Moscow, 1962)
p. 36, pls. 15,16 - for the Maloe Pereshchepino hoard; T. Ya. Abramishvili, "Pokalakevskii klad", Viz. Vrem2. 23 (1963), pp. 158-65; J. Lallemand, "Sous d'or byzantins
de poids taible au Cabinet des Medailles de Bruxelles", Dona Numismatica Walter
H vernick zum 23. Januar 1965 dargebracht (Hamburg 1965), pp. 37-41; the various
entries in Catalogue of Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the
Whittemore Collection, i (by A. R. Bellinger), 2 (by P. Grierson), Washington, D. C.
1966, 1968; M. D. O'Hara, "A Light-weight Solidus of Justinian II?", D. J.Crowther
Ltd., London, Sales List no. 4 (1969). See also note 4.
2
On the assumption that the change from a three-quarter facing bust of the Emperor
to a fully facing one on the gold paralleled that from a profile bust to a full-face one
on the copper. This latter occurred during the twelfth regnal year (538/39).
3
Several rare varieties of the exergual inscription, largely confined to the reign of
Justinian, seem to have formed experimental distinctions that were dropped once a
successful formula had been achieved. See, for instance, Bellinger, op. cit., p. 73, where
they are classified s being of 21 siliquae - their weights are however more suited to a
20 siliqua series.
4
E. Leuthold, "Solidi leggieri da XXIII silique degli imperatori Maurizio Tiberio,
Foca ed Eraclio", Riv. ital. di numism. 62 (1960), pp. 146-54.
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
Constantine IV (668-85)
Justinian II (first reign: 685-95)
20 sil.
X
22 sil.
59
23 sil.
The Information offered by Adelson (op. cit., pp. 76-77), has since been modified
by P. Grierson: "Notes on the Fineness of the Byzantine Solidus", BZ 54 (1961), pp.
91-92.
6
Adelson, op. cit., pp. 60-61; J. P. C. Kent in Num. Chron. 196 (1959), p. 238.
7
Adelson, op. cit., pp. 98-102; Kent, art. cit., p. 239.
8
Adelson, op. cit., pp. 104-08.
9
D. M. Metcalf, "The Metrology of Justinian's Follis", Num. Chron. 2O6 (1960),
pp. 210-11, 215-16. The incident in question clearly involves an adjustment of the
value of the solidus in terms of the follis and is of the type that might well have accompanied an increase in the weight of the latter, such s actually occurred in 538/39.
/. Abteilung
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
6l
62
/. Abteilung
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
63
64
I> Abteilung
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
65
66
I. Abteilung
relatively little problem. It provided the first hints of the great crisis of
the bezant, the result of increasing economic strains, which he considered
to be the predominant feature of the Byzantine coinage from the eleventh
Century onwards. This position was subsequently contested by Grierson,
who pointed out that there was an important difference between the debasement of the gold coinage an undeniable feature of the second half
of the eleventh Century - and the inception of a light weight coinage such
s the tetarteron. The latter did not involve a debasement at all, since the
actual quality of the metal remained the sarne. The explanation that he
then proceeded to put forward was that the creation of the tetarteron represented an attempt by Nicephorus to provide provinces recently reconquered from the Arabs with a gold coin equivalent in weight and value
to the Fatimid dinar - on which their inhabitants' accounts would have
hitherto been based. The great merit of this ingenious idea was that it
effectively drew attention away from the Suggestion of monetary crisis put
about by Lopez: a Suggestion which should be met with a good deal of
reserve. It is in itself however unfortunately heavily compromised for,
although sanctioned by Ahrweiler, the basis of the whole idea - the coincidence of weight and value between tetarteron and Fatimid dinar h s
been effectively contradicted by Ehrenkreutz.33
The latter has shown that the Fatimids only achieved control of Egypt
and Syria during the course of the year 969/70 or, in other words, only six
years after the accession of Nicephorus II which is the date also forming
the terminus post quem for the creation of the tetarteron. The inhabitants of the reconquered provinces would therefore hardly have had time
to become accustomed to the presence of the Fatimid dinar, let alone to
have based their accounts on it. Furthermore, the dinars struck by the
Tulunid, post-Tulunid and Ikhshidid predecessors of the Fatimids in Syria
weighed significantly less than 4.00 gm., the approximate weight of the
tetarteron. It is therefore either improbable or impossible that any of
these dinars should have inspired the creation of the tetarteron.34
Despite the negative aspect of these observations, it is clear that the
approach adopted by Ahrweiler - the close examination of contemporary
or near contemporary sources - is that which is the most likely to yield
positive results. A number of such sources do at least exist, which is not
the case for the light weight solidi.
The chronicler Zonaras reports the creation of the tetarteron in the
following terms: "Up until his [Nicephorus'] time every nomisma was of
a weight equal to a hexagion; he invented the tetarteron in diminishing
the weight, and he effected the collection of revenues in heavy nomismata,
33
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
67
and payments and all expenses in mutilated nomismata. Moreover although according to an old custom every nomisma bearing the imperial
portrait had the same value s that which h ad just been struck by the
reigning emperor, he ordered his own nomisma to be preferred; and
why? so that merchants would ask for his nomisma only, and so that, in
this way, he would draw a profit from all the exchanges of nomisma that
he effected."35
Cedrenus describes the event in a similar fashion: "He [Nicephorus]
diminished the nomisma by inventing the nomisma called tetarteron.
There were henceforth two kinds of nomismata, and the collection of taxes
was effected in heavy nomismata while, for expenses, small ones were
used. Moreover although, according to law and custom, every nomisma
bearing the imperial portrait, without diminution of weight, was of equal
value, he ordained his own to be preferred in diminishing the value of
the others and thus caused the citizenry no little difficulty in what are
called exchanges."36
Both Zonaras and Cedrenus seem to agree on the main facts of the case,
which were that Nicephorus II created the tetarteron nomisma; that it was
a light weight gold coin; that it was used in state expenses while revenues
were collected in coins of f ll weight; that the tetarteron was formally
given some sort of preferential tariffing in exchanges. Both accounts
either specify or infer that the affair involved some kind of monetary experiment resulting in the state making a profit. Neither mentions any
relationship between tetarteron and dinar, although this is admittedly
by no means necessarily significant.
Before any conclusions are drawn, further documentary evidence should
also be examined. For there are two contemporary references to the tetarteron s used in monetary exchanges which are quite s interesting and
significant s the literary references quoted above. This evidence is furthermore confirmed and amplified by that of the composition of certain coin
hoards.
An act of the year 1065, that is of the Emperor Constantine X Ducas
(1059-67), belonging to the Athonite monastery of Iviron, mentions a sum
85
Zonaras, Bonn ed., 3, p. 507: . . .
, ,
, . '
,
-8- , ; '
.
36
Cedrenus, Bonn ed., 2, . 369* ,
. ,
, . &
, , , 6
& , ,
.
5*
68
7. Abteilung
of money to be paid from the office of the Phylax to the office of the
Genikon (the government finance department), in quittance of land taxes
to the value of sixty nomismata. The sum was to be paid: "Sixty nomismata . . . thirty in histamena, the other thirty in tetartera." The act was in
confirmation of a right going back through Constantine IX Monomachus
(1042-55) to Romanus III Argyrus (1O28-34).37
A typikon drawn up on the orders of Michael Attaleiates for the monastery that he founded at Rodosto, in 1077, mentions that the monks
were to receive a yearly donation of six nomismata: "Half in trachea, half
in tetarta [tetartera]."38
Since the trachy of the second document is also to be identified with the
f ll weight coin (the histamenon), being in fact merely the term for the
scyphate nomisma (which was always of f ll weight),39 both documents
therefore refer to the payment of sums of nomismata half in f ll weight,
half in light weight coin.
In 1903, at Vella in Estonia, there was discovered a large hoard of
German, Byzantine and Arabic silver coins of the tenth and early eleventh
centuries. The part that was recovered included 117 Byzantine miliaresia,
of which 114 were of a single general type of the co-Emperors Basil II
and Constantine VIII. In Publishing them, Sokolova40 pointed out that
the type broke down into two major varieties depending upon the form of
the reverse inscription, one - consisting of 6l examples - reading:
H-bASIL'
nOPFVPOr'
niStOlbAS'
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetariera, and the Book of the Prefect
69
yo
I. Abteilung
Certainly the governmental clipping of coin and perhaps the simultaneous issue
of coins of the same denomination, but different Standards, by the various officinae of
the metropolitan mint, can be paralleled in the coinage of the twelfth Century. See:
Hendy, op. cit., pp. 177-81.
43
This rather makeshift method was perhaps adopted on the grounds that the manufacture of smaller flans and dies for the light weight series - with all the implied duplication of processes - would have been disproportionally troublesome and expensive in
the case of a thin silver coin. To anticipate the argument, for the moment, it is tempting to suppose that these clipped miliaresia were the equivalent of the light weight
silver hexagrams of Constantine IV bearing the exergual inscription XX. See: Grierson, Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue, 2, pp. 117, 536.
44
P. Grierson, "Harold Hardrada and Byzantine Coin Types in Denmark", Byzantinische Forschungen l (1966), p. 130.
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
Jl
privileged cases (for instance that of Iviron), the state was in effect operating a tax of x/24 on i*s payments, and doubtless using the proceeds for the
manufacture of yet more coin. The theoretical, and essentially long-term
result of such a process, would be to increase the total supply of nomismata
by the same fraction. This is probably to be identified with the profit
mentioned by Zonaras. A logical extension of this move would be to attempt to enforce the circulation of light weight pieces at par with those of
fll weight, thus completing the manoeuvre and incidentally ensuring
that the light weight became something in the nature of a token coin - at
least to the extent of 2 keratia. Such measures were no doubt unpopulr:
the merchant offered a tetarteron of 22 keratia might well feel himself
cheated of 2 keratia despite the fact that the coin was legally worth 24 except in payments to the government. For this reason he would refuse it
if he dared and would not hoard it if such could be avoided. As Cedrenus
puts it, great difficulties would be caused in exchanges.45
The same practice appears to have been adopted for the silver coinage,
if not permanently then at least occasionally. In this case public prejudice
might not have been so strongly negative since the miliaresion had been
a coin of token nature since the disappearance of the Heraclian hexagram.
The preferential rate accorded the tetarteron and the consequent low
esteem in which it would have been held by the public also provides an
explanation of the incident described in the Life of St. Lazarus the Galesiot and quoted by Ahrweiler.46 The tale describes how a monk, having
found a tetarteron nomisma, attempts to buy a psalter from a colleague
who instead demands a histamenon nomisma. The Intervention of a third
party is neccessary before the exchange takes place. According to Ahrweiler the episode illustrates the minimal difference between the weights
of the tetarteron and the histamenon, apparently on the assumption that
the owner of the psalter was holding out for a slightly larger sum. In fact,
the wording being insufficiently precise to allow of a defmite Interpretation,
the story may well rather indicate that the owner was unwilling to accept
the tetarteron at its exaggerated rate, preferring a full-bodied coin of the
same legal value. The difference is merely one of detail.
The Suggestion that the tetarteron had this fiscal and monetary rle
from its very inception entails both the vindication of the Statement by
45
It should be pointed out, to anticipate once more, that it is precisely this kind of
attitude that the Book of the Prefect attempts to forestall (see infra, p. 74, and note 53),
and that the incident in the Life of St. Lazarus the Galesiot seems to record (see infra,
and note 46). Were the light weight coins (whether solidi or tetartera) to have been
officially accounted at their correct bullion value, populr prejudice against them would
surely not have been so great: it is the exaggerated tariff that is crucial to the problem.
Even so, it may be suspected that informal or illegal (but more realistic) rates of exchange would eventually have come into existence on the free market.
46
Acta Sanctorum, November, 3 (Brssels, 1910), p. 536.
47
Ahrweiler, art. cit., p. 5.
72
/. Abteilung
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
7J
Much more recently, Coma and Bichir have published a second and
smaller hoard from the same site.50 This consisted of four miliaresia and
a further seven specimens of variety C (2). These latter weighed: 4.18
(2), 4.19 (2), 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 gm. The approximate Standard is confirmed by the holdings of museums and by the occasional examples that
have appeared on the market.
It is clear that the weight of the "normal" eleventh Century tetarteron
series concentrates at about 4.0 gm. This acts s an exact parallel to that
of the 22 siliqua series of light weight solidi. But what then of C (2), which
appears to concentrate at about 4.2 gm. ?
It might be assumed that it should represent Dworschak's suggested
Standard of a nomisma light by a quarter of a scruple and therefore
weighing 22% keratia. The very existence of a Standard based on the
scruple is however in itself unlikely, for the contemporary Byzantine seems
rather to have worked in whole keratia when dealing with gold coinage.
In fact, comparison of the known weights of the C (2) variety with those
given by Leuthold for his 23 siliqua sequence of light weight solidi immediately suggests an identity of Standards. The 45 specimens published
by Leuthold clearly concentrate at just over 4.2 gm., although a still appreciable number of pieces weigh a little less. This is precisely the rnge
achieved by the C (2) series, and it therefore seems reasonable to conclude
that it was similarly struck on a weight Standard of 23 keratia. On the
other hand, C (l) - although probably issued contemporaneously with
C (2) - seems to maintain the normal tetarteron Standard of 22 keratia
(c. 4.0 gm.).51
The issue of nomismata of 23 keratia during the eleventh Century seems
to have been short-lived: the Standard was not employed by Constantine
VIII, or by his successors. Nevertheless, the fact that it was employed at
all serves to underline the extraordinary nature of the coincidence that
would have to be assumed were the light weight solidus and the tetarteron
to be considered unconnected.
The Book of the Prefect^ a collection of regulations for the main Constantinopolitan guilds, includes qualifications for membership; ceremonies
for entry; the duties of members, and punishments for infringement of
its rules. It has been traditionally associated with the reign of Leo VI
(886-912), and in particular with the years 911 and 912. The approximate
50
74
I- Abteilung
date of its original promulgation has not been seriously called in question,
merely that of the text s it Stands.
The Book itself, being merely a set of regulations, contains very little
material that is independently closely datable. Reference is made once to
the forty titles of the Procheiros Nomos, which, since it was promulgated
by the Emperors Basil I, Constantine and Leo, is datable to the period
870-79. Reference is, however, also made to the tetarteron.
Lopez came to the conclusion that, since it mentions the tetarteron attributed by the chroniclers to Nicephorus II - the Book of the Prefect
s it Stands must post-date the accession of that Emperor in 963. He in
fact attributed it to the reign of Nicephorus' successor John I Tzimiskes
(969-76).
This attribution was based on the appearence beside the tetarteron, on
the four occasions of its mention, of a coin termed the nomisma "of two
quarters" ( ). Merchants were forbidden, under penalty, to
refuse genuine specimens of either.53 Having found, in a private collection
in America, a nomisma of John which weighed only 3.79 gm., Lopez
assumed that it was to be identified with the nomisma "of two quarters'',
and dated the present text of the Book of the Prefect accordingly. The
position, however, seems more complicated than that.
The nomisma "of two quarters" must be a gold coin. It is clearly related
by its nomenclature to the nomisma tetarteron. If the tetarteron is light
by two keratia, then the nomisma "of two quarters" should, on the face
of it, be light by four. It should, in other words, be a coin of twenty
keratia.
Once its precise nature is known, the identification of a sequence of
pieces struck to a Standard of 20 keratia ought to be a relatively easy matter. A small proportion of blatantly sub-standard coins exist for all periods
of Byzantine coinage and is no doubt to be accounted for by inattention
on the part of the mint. But the consistently light weight character of the
sequence of coins later identified s tetartera was known long before the
formal connection was made.54 On the other hand, examination completely
fails to reveal the existence of three distinct sequences within the light
weight series of the tenth and eleventh centuries which would be the first
step in the identification of the nomisma "of two quarters". For the period
c. 1020 onwards this failure must be regarded s decisive. Since the
sequences of coins of 24, 23 and 22 keratia weight are distinct by type,
module or iconographical detail, it is only logical to expect that, were a
third light weight sequence of 20 keratia to have existed, it should also
have been distinct. For the period c. 963 - c. 1020 the problem is admittedly complicated by the fact that the 24 and 22 keration sequences are
identical in all respects save weight. However, whereas two sequences
53
54
Ed. cit., 9, v (p. 381); 10, iv (p. 383); 11, ix (p. 384); 13, " (p- 385)
E. g. Wroth, British Museum Catalogue, i (London, 1908), p. LV.
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
75
weighing about 4.4 gm. and 4.0 gm. respectively are indeed recognisable,
there is no evidence for a light weight sequence of about 3.6 gm. Were
such a sequence to have existed it is most unlikely that examples should
not have turned up in recognisable numbers. Occasional surprises like
the solidi of the joint reigns of Justin II with Tiberius, Zoe with Theodora,
and John V with John VI do admittedly turn up, s have the long sought
nomismata of Romanus II. 11 may be considered s fairly certain nevertheless, that all major denominations are represented among the coins
that survive. The nomisma "of two quarters" is not only represented by
references in the Book of the Prefect but also explicitly by a coinweight.55
There is, in fact, only one period for which sequences of light weight
solidi of both 22 and 20 keratia can be identified, and that is the sixth
and seventh centuries, during which they were marked by the exergual
inscriptions OB * +* or OB +* and OBXX respectively.
This raises the intriguing possibility of the monetary references of the
Book of the Prefect having been regarded in fundamentally the wrong
light. In other words, whereas it has generally been customary to assume
that, whatever the date of the original promulgation, it might contain
later material (to explain its references to the nomisma tetarteron and
that "of two quarters"), would it not now be more in conformity with the
present state of the evidence to assume that it contains much earlier and
even outdated material, just s the contemporary Basilika and novels
(of Leo VI) certainly do?
Something approaching this view has been adopted at various times by
Christophilopoulos, by Dlger and by Ahrweiler. Christophilopoulos attempted - unsuccessfully according to Dlger, with whom the present
author concurs on the point - to attribute the creation of the tetarteron to
the fiscal machinations of Nicephorus I (802-10) rather than to the second
emperor of that name s claimed by documentary sources. Dlger himself
preferred Justinian I, but only on the basis of general literary texts referring to that Emperor's monetary manoeuverings - in fact quoting the
three instances used equally unsuccessfully by Adelson in his search for
references to light weight solidi. Ahrweiler merely dismissed the nomisma
tetarteron of the Book of the Prefect s having nothing in common with
that of the tenth and eleventh centuries, which is always mentioned alongside of the histamenon rather than the nomisma "of two quarters".
The problem remains. Scholars such s Christophilopoulos, Dlger and
Ahrweiler, approaching the problem from a mainly historical angle, would
clearly like to dissociate the nomisma tetarteron and that "of two quarters"
of the Book of the Prefect from the tetarteron of Nicephorus II and his
successors, thus allowing an early dating for the Book. Those such s
Lopez and Grierson, approaching the same problem from a mainly nu55
7#
/. Abteilung
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Prefect
77
light weight solidus could have been used. Although the factor of coincidence cannot be entirely excluded in situations of this kind, the complexity
necessary for that sufficing to invalidate the obvious, if only implicit, connection in this particular Situation, renders it unacceptable in default
of decisive evidence to the contrary.
As to the relative merits of the alternatives outlined above, the attractions of the first are immediate and obvious. But so are its weaknesses. The
most fundamental of these is that there are no definite examples of the
use of the term "tetarteron" in a monetary and denominational sense
that are datable to the period preceding the reign of Nicephorus II. Those
in the Book of the Prefect itself will not suffice, for it is the date of precisely
these that is in question. There are, on the other hand, many examples
of the use of the term from the period succeeding the reign of Nicephorus.
Very considerable stress should also be placed upon the evidence of Zonaras and Cedrenus who, while they might not have been aware that the
introduction of a light weight nomisma was in fact only a reintroduction
after a lapse of three centuries, should have been rather better informed
about the populr name that it acquired on the later occasion.
The claims of the second alternative are less dramatic but its weaknesses are also less formidable. The tetarteron of Nicephorus and his successors indisputably exists, seems to have been employed in a manner
consistent with near-contemporary literary sources, and had a similarly
attested weight of 22 keratia. The identity of the nomisma "of two quarters" is therefore crucial. Despite the Suggestion of Lopez, a class of
nomisma at double the lightness of the tetarteron proper (i. e. of 20
keratia) cannot be identified for this period. A recognisable class at half
its lightness (i. e. of 23 keratia) was however struck late in the joint reign
of Basil II and Constantine VIII. The appropriate coin weight is indeed
heavier than that of the tetarteron itself, although it is admitted that
neither weight is accurate in any absolute sense.
There is no viable third major possibility. The point that the tetarteron
of the Book of the Prefect always appears there with the nomisma "of
two quarters", but never in eleventh-century texts, where it instead accompanies the histamenon, is a valid one certainly. It cannot however be
considered s justifying Ahrweiler's conclusion that two entirely separate
phenomena are therefore involved: that the tetarteron and nomisma "of
two quarters" of the Book of the Prefect are to be found in some unspecified
fractional denomination of the period preceding the reign of Leo VI.56
Such denominations simply do not exist. On the contrary, the tetarteron
and nomisma "of two quarters" have everything in common with the
56
Ahrweiler, art. cit., p. 2. The conclusion is a curious one. Neither term could refer
to the only gold fractions - semisia and trimisia. Billon, which seems to be suggested,
was unknown s a Byzantine monetary alloy prior to the late eleventh Century. The
silver and copper coinage have no such System of fractions. It also ignores the evidence
of coin weights.
?8
7. Abteilung
tetarteron of late tenth and eleventh Century sources: weight, metal, and
the distrust in which they were held by the populace. The explanation
of the discrepancy must surely lie in the quality of the two groups of
sources. The Book of the Prefect is essentially a collection of regulations.
There was no reason why a member of one of the guilds should refuse a
genuine gold coin of Standard weight (histamenon), and therefore no
need to issue a regulation on the subject. There was every reason why he
should refuse a light weight one (tetarteron etc.) which it was part of the
government's programme to circulate at an exaggerated tariff. Legislation
would have been absolutely necessary s both Zonaras and Cedrenus
testify. Nevertheless, if the nomisma "of two quarters" were a prolific but
short-lived issue struck alongside of the normal tetarteron (s were the 23
keration pieces of Basil and Constantine) it might well have failed to
achieve a reference in surviving sources that are other than public and
legal. This of course leaves aside the consideration that in general usage
both light weight denominations might have gone under the collective
description "tetarteron".
Despite the attractions of the first alternative it therefore seems inevitable that, on the basis of presently available evidence, it is the second
that must be considered the correct one. The one factor that might justify
a reassessment of the whole problem would be the discovery of the term
"tetarteron" in a monetary and denominational sense and a context undoubtedly pre-dating the accession of Nicephorus II.
Both the light weight solidus (of 20, 22 or 23 siliquae) of the sixth and
seventh centuries, and the tetarteron and nomisma "of two quarters" (of
22 and 23 keratia) of the late tenth and eleventh, were then essentially
internal and fiscal phenomena which might equally well have a similar
external application. Neither series was primarily designed for the convenience of those who, perforce, had to use them - native Byzantine,
German, Russian or Arab. The degree of similarity between their Standards, the existence of parallel series in the silver coinage on both occasions, and the way in which all seem to have been employed, strongly argue
for the existence of a conscious connection, whether by numbers of the
coins themselves having later come to light or whether by means of documentary sources. The relevant passages in the Book of the Prefect are
to be treated s examples of the kind of legislation mentioned by Zonaras
and Cedrenus in their account of the introduction of the tetarteron by
Nicephorus II. Since these passages not only refer to the tetarteron but
also to the nomisma "of two quarters" which can be identified only with
a light weight issue from the later part of the joint reign of Basil II and
Constantine VIII (c. 1020-25), they should be dated accordingly.
There are, nevertheless, three minor differences discernible between
light weight solidus and tetarteron. The latter seems, eventually at least,
M. F. Hendy, Light weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of ihe Prefect
79
to have been issued in larger quantities vis a vis the fll weight coin than
its earlier counterpart. More often than not, light weight solidi turn up
in contexts from outside the imperial frontiers, tetartera from inside - but
this may merely be a reflection of the relative scale of coin leaving the
Empire in the form of payments or even loot. The light weight solidus
was always formally distinct from the fll weight coin owing to its highly
individual and even explicit exergual inscription: the tetarteron only
became so distinct after some years of existence, and then s much by
alteration of its module and fabric - although there was by then admittedly no possibility of such a simple means of distinction.
In perspective, the economic or fiscal significance of neither series of
light weights seems to have been very great. Their creation and maintenance indicate that emperors in the sixth and seventh centuries, and in
the tenth and eleventh, were seeking ways of augmenting their revenues and that they were eventually willing to employ methods other than the
traditional. There is certainly no convincing evidence for supposing that
the later series formed an imperial response to some such general economic
phenomenon s a declining revenue, although factors such s foreign
invasion and demographic losses caused by plague render the point less
certain for the earlier. The Emperors primarily responsible - Justinian I
and Nicephorus II - were both embarked upon ambitious military and
political projects which must have necessitated extraordinary expenditure:
the practice of issuing the series under discussion would have resulted in
a useful, even appreciable, increase in revenue - but not a fundamental
one. Even if the government of Nicephorus II were to have made all its
payments half in fll weight, half in light weight coin, the profit would
still have amounted to only one twenty-fourth of the total. The overall
inflationary effect would have been relatively slight. To postulate monetary
"crises" is therefore, in both cases, to exaggerate.
Finally, it has been thought useful to append a list of extant copper
coin weights ref erring to the light weight series.
1
TAP /
+
O
XON
PON
/TAP
TlUN
. Abteilung
j
j
j
\
58
Ibid. (18 mm., 4.40 gm.). For the documentary sources see: Akty Monastirya
Panteleimona (Kiev, 1873), no. i; L. Petit, "Actes d'Esphigmenou", Byzantina
Chronika, i, Actes de TAthos, III (Viz. Vrem 12 [1906]), pp. i, 2, no. .