CATALOGUE OF ENGLISH COINS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM A CATALOGUE OF ENGLISH COINS IX THE BRITISH MUSEUM THE NORMAN KINGS BY GEORGE CYEIL BROOKE, B.A. IN TWO VOLUMES WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND 62 PLATES VOLUME I (INTRODUCTION, TABLES AND PLATES) LONDON FEINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES SOLD AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AND BY LoNGMAKS & Co., 39 Paternoster Row Bernard Quaritch, 11 Grafton Street, New Bond Street, W. AsHER & Co., 13 Bedford Street, Covent Garden Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, Amen Corner, E.C. And RoLLiN & Feuardent, 69 Great Russell Street, W.C, and 4 Rue de Louvois, Paris 1916 [_All rights reservedl PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 6J' PREFACE V. I The second volume of the Catalogue of English Coins in the British Museum, completing the Anglo-Saxon Series, was pub- lished in 1893. The retirement of Mr, Keary from the service of the Trustees, and the employment of Mr. Grueber on other parts of the Collection, explain the delay of twenty-three years between that publication and the appearance of the present two volumes. These are entirely the work of Mr. George Cyril Brooke, B.A., Assistant in the Department. They cover the period of the Norman Kings. Comparison with earlier volumes will show that considerable modifications have been made iu the methods of arranging and describing the coins. Special attention has been paid to the epigraphical details of the inscriptions, the importance of which will be manifest upon a glance at the Epigraphical Table which accompanies the woj'k. Special founts have been prepared for the inscriptions. Descriptions and illustrations of important coins which are not represented in the National Collection have been included from other collections, public or private, making the volume for practical purposes a fairly complete work of reference on Anglo-Norman coins. In order to add to the clearness of the descriptions all extraneous information, relating to provenance and similar matters, has been relegated to foot-notes. Most important of all is the subordination of the mints to the types in the classification ; an arrangement which is justified by the great advance which has been made of recent years in fixing the chronology of the types. The woik has been printed by the Clarendon Press, and the collotype plates executed by the London Stereoscopic Company. I have read the proofs of the whole, and compared the descriptions with the coins. PREFACE English coins were represented in the collections of Sir Robert Cotton and Sir Hans Sloane, which formed the nucleus of the British Museum at its foundation in 1753. For half a century little addition seems to have been made to the collection. The coins from the Tyssen collection purchased in 1802 did not include his Norman pieces, but many of these found their way into the Museum through the hands of Earrd Charles Roberts. The magnificent series of English coins belonging to this collector was purchased in 1810 for 4,000 guineas. No other acquisition approaching this in importance as regards the English series was made for more than a century. The collection of King George III, acquired in 1825, contained a few Norman coins, and purchases were made from time to time at the sales of collections such as those of the Duke of Devonshire (1844), the Earl of Pembroke (1848), James Dodsley Cuff (1854), Hyman Montagu (1896-7), E. W. Rashleigh (1900), and P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton (1913). At the last moment it has fortunately been possible to include in an Appendix fifty-six coins from the cabinet of the late Sir John Evans, although the Norman series was not strongly represented in that collection. Hoards acquired in part or in their entirety under the law of Treasure Trove have also contributed to the Collection. As these are fully discussed in the Introduction, it suffices to mention here the hoard of many thousand coins found at Beaworth in 1833 ; nearly seven hundred of these appear in this Catalogue. The present volumes will, it is hoped, be followed in a few ye&vs by a Catalogue of the early Plantagenet series. G. F. HILL, Kee'per of Coins and Medals. COIN TENTS VOLUME I Peeface . List of Plates Eeeata . INTRODUCTION :- The coinage at the time of the Conquest Types of coins and their periodical change Finds of coins ..... Overstruck coins ..... Mules ....... Epigraphy Order of types ..... Table showing evidence for arrangement of types Irregular issues : — Llewellyn, sou of Cadwgan ? . Of the reign of Stephen : — I. Coins struck from erased obyerse dies II. Coins with inscription Peeeeic III. Issues bearing the king's name, of uncertain attribution . lY. Varieties grouped geographically : — A. Midland Counties B. Eastern Counties C. Scottish or Border Counties D. York and District . v. Coins not bearing the king's title :— Eustace FitzJohn Robert de Stuteville Henry, Bishop of \\"inchester Empress Matilda . Henry of Anjou . PAGE V IX X XI xii XTi xxxii xxxvi xlii IxTi Ixvii Ixxii Ixxvi Ixxxii Ixxxix XCY xcvi xcviii cvi cxi cxvi cxvii cxviii cxxi VUl CONTENTS Irregular issues of the reign of Stephen {continued) : — Robert (of Gloucester ?) . William (of Gloucester?) Brian FitzCount? Uncertain Baronial coins Organization and Control of the Mint : — Officers of the ]Mint ...... Engraving of dies at London .... Dies transferred from one mint to another Moneyers, their status, liberties, penalties, &c. Forgery by moneyers ..... Weight of coins ...... Table showing comparative weights of coins of different types ...... Moneyers' names ....... Moneys of Account ...... Mints ......... Abbreviations used, collections cj^uoted, &c. Table of Finds ......... Table of Mints, Moneyers, and Types cxcvi Table of Inches and Millimetres, and Mionnet's scale . . ccliii Table of Relative Weights of Grains and Grammes . . . ccliv Epigraphical Table facing p. cclvi Plates. PAGE exxix cxxix cxxxi cxxxii cxxxiii ex XXV cxxxix cxli cxlix cli cliii clv clix clx clxxxix VOLUME II CATALOGUE OF COINS:— William I 1 William II 214 Henry I 266 . Stephen ......... 334 Irregular issues : — I. Coins struck from erased obverse dies . . 377 II. Coins with inscription Pekeeic . . . 378 III. Issues bearing the king's name, of uncertain attribution . . . . . . . 379 CONTENTS IV. Varieties grouiDed geographically :- A. Midland Counties . B. Eastern Counties C. Scottish or Border Counties D. York and District . V. Coins not bearing the king's title :- Eustace Fitz John . Kobert de Stuteville Henry, Bishop of "Winchester Empress Matilda . Henry of Anjou . Robert (of Gloucester y) William (of Gloucester ?) Brian FitzCount ? Henry, Earl of Northumberland Uncertain Baronial coins Appendix of coins recently acquired PAGE 383 384 385 386 389 390 391 391 392 395 395 39(5 397 398 400 INDEXES :— I. Mints II. Moneyers III. General 413 429 453 LIST OF PLATES I_XXVIL XXVIII— XXXVII. XXXVIII— XLVIII. XLIX— LVI. LVII. LVIII, , LIX. LX. LXI. LXII. William I. William II. Henry I. Stephen. Coins from Erased Dies; coins with inscription Perekic. Irregular Issues bearing Stephen's name. Double-figure type; Eustace Fitz John ; Robert de Stuteville; Henry, Bishop of Winchester. Empress Matilda; Henry of Anjou. Henry of Anjou ; Robert (of Gloucester?) ; William (of Gloucester?); Brian Fitzcount? and uncertain Baronial coins. ERRATA p. 22, no. 114 ; p. 36, no. 1S7 ; p. 41, no. 219 ; p. 67, no. 359 {not Sir Hans Sloane coll.) ; p. 86, no. 464 ; insert as provenance 'Cotton Collection, 1758'. p. 38, no. 200, insert as moneyer's name * Godvvi '. p. 52, no. 274, insert as moneyer's name ' Saewi (Sfewine ?) '. p. 59, no. 307, for ' Druman ' read * Dirman'. pp. 64, 65, nos. 340-2, for moneyer's name read ' Eadwi '. p. 66, no. 349, insert as moneyer's name ' Godwi'. p. 68, no. 362, for '(^lfh[en?)' read ' (^lfh[eli] ?)'. p. 71, no. 384, remove to WIJ^fCHCOMBE (cf. coin from same obv. die in T. Bliss coll. on vp-hich mint reads I'lEI.,). p. 72, no. 385, for ' S8ewi[ne] ' read ' Ssewi (Ssewine ?) '. p. 130, no. 693, for ' Ciwincc ' read ' Cipincc '. p. 162, no. 868, for '^Ifhen' read '^Ifheh'. p. 170, no. 912, for 'iElfen ' read '^Ifeh'. p. 221, no. 41, for ' l""^ ' in reverse inscription read ' MTk ', and for ' .^Ifhen' read '^Ifheh'. p. 228, no. 79, for moneyer's name read 'Ji;[l]fsi'. p. 230, no. 96, for '►©XDRII:! ' read ' •©IDKII ' (cf. p. 403, no. 96 a). p. 232, no. 104, insert in provenance ' W. Allen sale, 1S98, lot 821 \ p. 233, no. Ill, for 'Edwine' read 'Edwi'. p. 235, no. 125, insert in ^jrovenance ' W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 327'. p. 237, no. 138, insert as moneyer's name ' Sewi (Sewine ?) '. p. 246, no. 190, for 'Swirlinc' read 'Spirlinc'. p. 253, no. 227, for ' Saewine or Sewi ' read ' Sewi (Sewine ?) '. p. 256, no. 237, for ' Swerlinc ' read * Sperlinc '. p. 279, no. 40, for ' Swerlig?' read ' Sperlig'. p. 351, no. 104, for ' t^ DB ' read ' t^\/'DB '. Plate LX, for ' Queen Matilda and Eustace ' read ' Stephen and Queen Matilda ', and dele ' Eustace, son of Stephen (?) ; '. INTEODUCTION The coinage of the Norman kings of England ^ follows in unbroken sequence that of the Anglo-Saxon kings ; no change is introduced in denomination, standard, weight, or form, and even officials who held office in the mints of the Confessor continued to be responsible for the coinage of the Conqueror. In Normandy William had been alive to the distress caused by the continual debasement of the feudal coinages, but his attempts to remedy the evil— by substituting a triennial tax for the revenue which accrued to him from lowering the standard of the coinage — were a failure owing to the heavy loss consequent upon the natural outflow of his own better coinage and inflow into his dukedom of the baser deniers of neighbouring lords, a loss so serious that it quickly led to the closing of his mints. Finding in England a currency of high standard, long established and well accepted, he had good reason to adopt this, as he did most Anglo-Saxon institutions. The only denomination - still struck for currency was the penny weighing 22-| grains Troy of silver of the standard of 11 oz. 2 dw^t. of fine silver to 18 dwt. of alloy," and fractions of this were still obtained by the elementary method of cutting the coin into halves and quarters. The type remained as in Anglo-Saxon times : on the obverse was the bust, or sometimes the figure, of the king, variously rendered on different ^ The coinage of the first two, or four, years of Henry II, if any was struck, is included, as it seems that Stephen's name continued in use on the coins until the reforms of the year 1156 (or 8 ?). ^ For other monetary denominations in use as moneys of account see below, p. clix. ^ There is some doubt about the standard weight and fineness of the penny of this and earlier periods ; see belovr, pp. cli fi". Mr. H. Symonds kindly informs me that a double assay of a penny of William I (from same dies as no. 815 below) has produced the results (1) 10 oz. 19 dwt. 18grs., and (2) 10 oz. 18 dwt. 22 grs. For this double result from the same coin cf. Num. Chron., 1915, pp. 201-2. XH INTRODUCTION types, with his name and title round it ; on the reverse was one of the many designs, usually with some form of cross as their main feature, which seem to have been used without any particular meaning and to have been selected at random from the regular trade stock of the engraver ; round the design were the name of the official called ononetarius or 'moneyer',^ who was responsible for the good weight and purity of the coin, and the name of the mint at which he worked, the word on {i. e. at) eoujDling the two names. These obverse and reverse designs form together what is technically known as a ' type ' ; that is to say, one particular form of obverse is always found, except on irregular coins known as ' mules ',^ with one particular reverse design. These ' types ' used to be considered by some authorities as contemporaneous issues," but it is clear, not only from the evidence of finds of the coins, but also from the passages in Domesday^ relating that payments were made by moneyers on receipt of their dies qiiando onoaeta vertebatur, quando r}iOiieta reaovcdur or moneta vertente, that the types were successively issued. The object of this change of types is not known. From the passages in Domesday mentioned above we know that the change of type was made the occasion of a payment to the king by his moneyers and to bishops by their moneyers, but to suppose that a scheme of taxation was the origin of the changes of type is to confound cause and effect. To change the types in order to make moneyers pay the purchase-money of new dies and a tax at the same time would be an extremely expensive form of ^ See below, pp. cxli ff. - See below, pp. xxxvi fF. ' See, for example, Num. Cliron., 1893, pp. 129 tf. A statement made ih'ul., p. 131, is worth mentioning as it involves a very common and very misleading form of error. Packe there says, ' The argument for a successive issue of each type requires that those similar to each other should be near together in point of time '. As changes of type are quite clearly due not, as in Continental coinages, to mere development or degradation of design, but to intentional changes for some specific purpose, it is quite evident that the contrary is the case ; the intention being to distinguish one type from another, we must expect closely similar designs to be separate in point of time. This error is pointed out in yum. Chron., 1901, p. 35, but on a theory of legal tender. * Domesday, I, ff. 172, 179, 252. See below, p. cxxxv. COIN-TYPES XUl tax-collecting, nor could there be any necessity for changing the type in order to mark a period of taxation ; on the other hand, given a periodical change of types necessary for some other purpose, then the purchase of the new dies was a natural and convenient opportunity at which to collect the moneyers' fees. It seems possible to explain these successive types as marking periods of control of the output of the mint, that is to sa^y, to find a parallel in the change of mint-marks of a later date, and to assume a periodical Mint Assay, similar to the Trial of the Pyx, which would necessitate some mark on the coinage, if not a complete change of tj'pe, for the purpose of certifying to the Assayers that the coins they assayed were those of the latest issue and not of an issue already tested. This was the purpose of the mint-marks which were changed at the Trials of the Pyx.^ The date of the institution of the Trial of the Pyx is not known, the earliest recorded trial being of the fifth year of Edward I ; - a similar trial, though not actually called a Trial of the Pyx, is described of the thirty-second year of Henry III, which shows that an assay of this sort was in existence, while it was still the practice to put the moneyers' names on the coins. Some such trial seems to have been necessary to complete the control of the mint. The issue of dies from London to the moneyers guarded against the cutting of false inscriptions on the dies though it did not prevent some moneyers from changing or erasing inscriptions on their dies,^ ^ Cf., in Ruding, Annals, vol. ii, p. 262, the indenture of Edward IV showing' the object of the mint-marks. In the period intervening between the regular change of type and the issue of mint-marks, the reigns of Henry II to Henry VI inclusive, it is possible that small privy marks were used. Thus on the gold coinage of Edward III (see Kuin. Cliron., 1911, pp. 313-9) annulet or saltire stops, a barred or unbarred A and similar small differences were evidently used as definite marks to distinguish issues of different periods, and may perhaps have had the same significance as the types of the Norman period and the mint-marks of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries ; similarly in the short-cross coinage of King John Mr. Lawrence has shown, in a paper to be j)ublished shortly in the British Numismatic Joiinud, that the letter S was reversed on all coins of a certain period (Mr. Lawrence's classes IV and Va), evidently with some deliberate j)urpose on the part of the mint authorities. ^ See H. Symonds, Mint-muyls, SjC, of James I (Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ix), p. 209. ^ See below, pp. cxlix ff. XIV INTRODUCTION and the engraving of the reverse die with the moneyer's name must have led to the conviction of the moneyer on the discovery of a coin of impure standard or low weight ; but that would be no safe- guard without some method of finding untrue coins. Legislation against striking coins outside a town ^ probably served the double purpose of defence against an enemy and control over the coinage. The supposition of a periodical Mint Assay would explain a periodical change of types ; but this is mere supposition, and the organization of the mint at this early period must remain obscure. It is not possible to see in the change of types any connexion with legal tender.^ It would only be possible for the types to mark legal tender if one type only were allowed in currency. But this was clearly not the case, for in hoards large numbers of coins of more than one type are very frequently found : in the Tamworth find, for example, coins were found of three con- secutive types to the number of 30, 97, and 164 respectively, that is to say, if one type only were legal tender, the owner of the hoard while collecting his 164 current pennies was impoverishing himself by keeping in his possession 127 coins which were no longer legal tender. If a definite number of types, more than one, were allowed in currency and previous types declared false tender, the public would be assumed to have the almost impossible knowledge of the order in which the types had been issued.^ Similarly, the •^ Greatley Synod, Liebermann, Gesefze, vol. i, pp. 158-9 (14). ^ Num. Chron., 1901, pp. 35-6, and Bn't. Num. Journ., vol. viii, pp. 113-4. On Mr. Andrew's showing the Shillington find would prove that the tender, having been limited by the first type of William II and again by the second of Henry I, was later thrown open, and types as far back as the last of William I ■ — types, that is, which had already been withdrawn and had therefore, presumably, ceased to exist- — were restored to circulation. The fact that no two profile types occur in finds of Norman coins may be explained by the rarity of profile types in periods of which finds are common (e. g. William I), and the rarity of finds of periods in which profile types are common (e. g. Henry I). ^ For example, assume that at the end of the reign of William I types V, VI, VII and VIII of his reign were legal tender, then the man in the street receiving a penny of type IV would have to know by instinct that it was struck before the last four types of the reign, for there is nothing on the coin to show it. COIN-TYPES XV suggestion that the issue of a type with the bust in profile marked a limit of legal tender is untenable for the same reason. A profile type, for example, is the second (or possibly third) of the reign of Henry I, and the next profile issue is his sixth type ; on the issue of type VI, therefore, type I would be no longer legal tender, yeb a man receiving a coin of type I could not be expected to know whether it was issued before or after type II ; there is nothing on the coin to show the period of its issue, and man's memory can hardly cover a period of ten years or more in a subject of the technicalities of which he is quite ignorant, to say nothing of the difficulty arising on the issue of a type in three-quarter face such as the second and fifth types of Stephen. Finds of coins seem to show that there was no limit of tender at this period, or, if any, a very long one ; the St. Mary Hill Church find, for example, contained no fewer than eleven types, and the Shillington find covered an even longer period (see pp. lii-liii). Nor could there be any reason for limiting the legal tender at a period when the purity and good weight of the coinage was maintained, unless it were to stop the circulation of worn and clipped coins ; but these would probably find their way automatically to the melting- pot even if measures were not taken, as they may have been, to get them returned. At periods when we know the legal tender to have been limited, we also find that the frequent changes of type were abandoned ; thus, on the issue of the ' short-cross ' coinage by Henry II all previous issues were put out of currency, and this ' short- cross ' type continued until it was in its turn put out of currency at the introduction of the ' long-cross ' type by Henry III. The approximate arrangement of the types in the order in which they were struck is possible by means of the combined evidence to be obtained from Finds of coins, ' Overstruck ' coins, ' Mules ', and Epigraphical data. In the following pages the types are described by the numbers in the plates of Hawkins's Silver Coins (Hks. 233, &c.) and by descriptive names (' Profile — Cross fleury ' type, &c.). XVI INTRODUCTION Finds of Coins. (See Table of Finds.) The importance of finds lies in the grouping of types which occur in the same find ; but for the evidence thus obtained to be of primary value it is necessary for the hoard to contain a considerable number of coins and for the whole hoard to have been adequately described at the time of its discovery. A glance at the Table of Finds will show that the Malmesbury find of 1828 is an example of a thoroughly unsatisfactory find ; we do not know of how many coins it consisted, but thirteen only are described, twelve of which belong to one type and one to another ; similar is the Shillington hoard, of which we have the most meagre information. A contrast is seen in the Beaworth, Tamworth, and Watford finds, in which there is no doubt that the vast majority, probably all, of the coins discovered belong to the types described ; in these examples, therefore, one cannot lightly abandon the evidence of the grouping of types which they afford, whereas in the former examples the evidence of the finds can only be accepted in confirmation of evidence from other sources or at least in the absence of any conflicting evidence. Again, if a hoard contains a large number of coins, and every coin discovered in it is known to have been described, the evidence, though very strong, is not absolutely conclusive that the types of the hoard form a group ; a stray coin or two of an earlier period than the rest is quite likely to be present, as was the case in the Colchester find of 1902, which contained two pennies of Henry I and one of Stephen, with about 11,000 of the 'short-cross' issue (Henry II to Henry III); but such stray coins are not usually very apt to mislead. The more dangerous form of hoard, which is fortunately rare, is a hoard which has lain dormant for a time and been increased at a later period. There are obvious reasons why such a hoard may be made : a man may bury his savings before going away for military service or on any other business, recover his hoard on his return, add to it and bury it again on leaving home a second time ; or a portion FINDS OF COINS XVII of a dowry may be kept and additions made to it after a lapse of years, when the financial position of the owner has improved. An instance of some such find as this is doubtless seen in the Shillington find of 1871, which contained coins of William II and four or five coins of Henry I's seventh tj^pe and at the most one coin of tJie intervening tj'pes ; it is unlikely that the portion not seen by the recorder of the hoard included all the missing types. Though as many as two dozen finds have been recorded which contain coins of the Norman period, the evidence to be obtained from them is hardly so satisfactory as might be expected. This is chiefly due to the fact that the finds are very unevenly distributed : of the types between the third of William II and the fourteenth of Henrj- I there have been very few coins found and no satisfactory hoards recorded, and similarly of the types between the second and last of Stephen's reign ; on the other hand, finds of the early types of William I and of the last two types of Henry and the first two of Stephen have been comparatively numerous, though mostly small, and good corroborative evidence is thus obtained. Some finds have contained but few coins, and in many cases hoards have been quickly dispersed and their description consequently incomplete. The recorded finds which contained coins of Edward Confessor or Harold II with coins of William are six in number: Soberton, 1851 ; York, 1845; York, 1882; Whitchurch (Oxfordshire ?), date uncertain ; St. Mary Hill Church, London, 1774 ; City of London, 1872. The Soberton [Hampsliire) Fiiid'^ (1851) consisted of 259 coins and two gold rings, which were found in a vessel of dingy red ware in a field near Wickham Lodge, Soberton. The coins were : ^ Xum. Chron., 1852, Proceedings, p. 17. Several of the coins from this find are in the British Museum ; an account of the find in Arch. Joiirn., viii (1851), p. 100, is wrong in describing all the 78 coins of the Confessor as Hks. 223 and all the 159 of Harold as Hks. 231. h INTRODUCTION Edward Confessor, Hks. 219, P. C. B.^ VI 1 77 152 Hks. 223, P. C. B. XI Harold, Hks. 230 „ Hks. 231 William I, Hks. 233, ' Profile— Cross Fleury ' type . 22 Total 259 The complete hoard seems to have been described. York Find (1845).^ Discovered in digging out the foundation of a house near Jubbergate. About 600 coins were said to have been found, of which Hawkins saw 167 ; these were : Edward Confessor, type not described ... 1 William I, Hks. 234, ' Bonnet ' type . . . 1G5 „ ' with profile head ' .... 1 Total 167 He says that there was one penny of William with a profile head, but he did not see it and was not able to say what was its type ; from a comparison with all the other finds in which coins of William were discovered with coins of the Confessor we may fairly conclude that this coin was of Hks. 233, the ' Profile — Cross Fleury' type. York Find (1882).^ No description of this find was made at the time of its discovery. Coins of uncertain number of Edward Confessor and William were found in Bishophill ; the types of William represented in the hoard were Hks. 233, ' Profile — Cross Fleury' type, and 234, 'Bonnet' type, and the mule of these two types, Hks. 235. The bulk of the hoard seems to have been of the ' Bonnet ' type. Whitchurch {Oxfordshire?) Find^ (date unknown). Not described at time of discovery. It is said to have contained many coins of Edward Confessor, Hks. 225 and 223 (P. C. B. X and XI), possibly some of Harold, and coins of William I, ' Profile — Cross Fleury ', ^ Major Carlyon-Britton's classification in Num. Chron., 1905, pp. 179 ft'. 2 Num. Chron., 1846, pp. 123-5. ^ Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, p. 115. ^ Num. Chron., 1902, p. 219, and Brit. Num. Journ., vol, ii, pp. 115-6. FINDS OF COINS XIX ' Bonnet', and ' Canopy ' types (Hks. 233, 234, 236) : Hks. 234 and 236 predominating. >S'^. Mary Hill Church Find ^ (1774). Near the church of St. Mary Hill, London, was found at about fourteen or fifteen feet below the level of the street an earthen vessel containing coins, and within the vessel was another smaller one of crucible shape which also contained coins and a gold brooch. The number of the coins that were found is not known ; between 300 and 400 were examined, and of these the majority were of Edward Confessor (P. C. B. VI to XI inclusive and a mule of VII x VIII) ; of Harold II thirty-one moneyers and twenty-two mints were represented, some coins having the sceptre and others not ; of William I the ' Profile — Cross Fleury ', ' Bonnet ', ' Canopy ' and ' Two Sceptres ' t^^pes (Hks. 233, 234, 236, 237) were present, and also a curious mule with obverse of an unusual variety of the ' Canopy ' type and reverse of the ' Two Sceptres ' type ; - there were many cut half- pennies and farthings. City of London Find'^ (1872). Said to have contained about 7,000 coins, of which over 2,800 were examined and described by E. H. Willett in Num. Cliron., 1876, and nearly 500 were described later in Num. Gliron., 1885, by Sir John Evans. The hoard contained a few coins of u^thelred II, Cnut, Harold I, and Harthacnut; a \Q>Yy large majority of the coins described (2,788 out of 2,829 in Willett's and about 450 in Evans's list) were of Edward Confessor, including all the types of his reign except the rare so-called ' Harthacnut ' type ; * the few remaining English coins of the find were of Harold II and William I ; two foreign coins, both figured in Num. Chron., 1876, PI. X. 8, 9, are described, one as a coin of Magnus, which should be attributed to Svend Estridsen (1047- 1075),^ the other as an uncertain eleventh-century German coin, ^ Archaeologia, vol. iv, pp. 356 ff. "^ Now in the Hunterian Collection. See below, pp. xxxix, 43, and PL VIII. 11. ^ Num. Citron., 1876, pp. 323 ff., and op. cit., 1885, pp. 254 ff. * Num. Chron., 1905, PI. VII. 1. ^ Cf. Hauberg, MyniforhoM og Udmyntninger i Danmarl-, PI. VIII. 6. b 2 XX INTRODUCTION which maj^ probably be identified as a coin of Celle of Heinrich III (1039-56).^ The coins of William I represent three types : ' Profile —Cross rieury', 'Bonnet', and ' Two Sceptres' (Hks. 233, 234, and 237). Two other finds which may be mentioned here are those of York in 1704 and Dyns Marsh in 1739. The former- contained 250 coins, of which Thoresby saw fifty or sixty, and describes them as mostly, if not all, of William ; fifteen of these, in Thoresby's collection, were : two of the ' Profile — Cross Fleur}^^ ' type (Hks. 233), and thirteen of the 'Bonnet' type (Hks. 234). The find in 1739 at Dyns Marsh," between Dungeness and Lydd. receives a passing mention in Archaeologia as having contained above 200 pennies of Edward Confessor, Harold II, and William. To summarize, the Soberton find, of which all the coins were examined, shows the ' Profile — Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 233) to be the first type of William I, and this is confirmed by the appearance of this type in all the other finds * which contain coins of the Confessor and Harold. The York finds show that the * Bonnet ' type (Hks. 234) follows this as the second type. From the St. Maiy Hill Church find it is clear that the ' Canopy ' and 'Two Sceptres' types (Hks. 236, 237) must immediately follow the ' Bonnet ' type, but the evidence of the Whitchurch and City of London finds is conflicting as regards the question which is the earlier of these two types, and our knowledge of these finds is very scanty. MalTYiesbury Find^ (1828) contained some coins, the number of which is uncertain. They were found under the foundations ^ Cf. Dannenberg, Deutsche Munsen, PI. VIII. 185. ^ Thoresby, Dumtus Leodiensis, p. 349. ' ArchoeoJogia, vol. iv. p. 358. Described as ' Dymchurch ' in Brit. Num. Joum., vol. ii, p. 97. * Except the York find, 1845, in which, however, a profile coin is said to have been seen but not described. ^ Akerman, Num. Joum.. vol. ii, 1837, p. 106; Sainthill, Olhi Podrkla, vol. i, p. 189. FINDS OF COINS XXI of the chapel built at Malinesbury by William the Couqueror. A few coins of the ' Two Sceptres ' type (Hks. 237) are described and one of the ' Bonnet ' type (Hks. 234) is said to have been present. The incomplete account, which states that ' many pennies were found' and describes only about a dozen, makes the find useless as evidence of the order of the types. York Minder Find. In the York Museum are eleven coins which are there described as having been found together in York Minster ; of these coins six belong to the ' Two Stars ' type (Hks. 238), and five to the 'Sword' type (Hks. 243).^ Though the coins are too few to supply any definite conclusion, this find creates a probability of these two types being consecutive. Beaworth Find ^ {1S33). More than 6,500 coins were found in a leaden box,^ under the surface of a wagon track, in pasture land attached to the Manor House, Beaworth (Hampshire). Hawkins, in his account of the find, says that most, if not all, of the coins were examined and described, but later withdraws the statement. There was a general scramble for the coins at the time of the discovery and, though at the request of the owner of the land very many were returned, a large number seem to have escaped description. Four types only, and one mule, were represented in the hoard : 'Two Stars' type (Hks. 238) .... 31 pennies 'Sword' type (Hks. 243) 34 ' Profile— Cross and Trefoils ' type (Hks. 239) . 11 Mules of preceding and following types (Hks. 240) 6 'Paxs' type (Hks. 241, 242) .... 6,439 Total 6,521 There were also eighteen cut halfpennies of the ' Paxs ' type. Hawkins gives the definite number of coins which he examined ^ The coins are described in Brit. Num. Jourii., vol. ii, p. 115. The informa- tion of the find was given me at the York Museum. ^ Archaeologia, vol. xxvi, pp. 1-25, Reprinted in Ruding, Annals, vol. i, pp. 151-61. ^ The box is illustrated in Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, p. 102. Xxii INTRODUCTION of the ' Paxs ' type only ; of the other types he gives the varieties of readings on the coins, from which it appears that he only saw- one coin of each variety ; the numbers given above are based on this supposition, which is confirmed by his statement that tlie total number of coins was about 6,500. Mr. Andrew,^ following Major Carlyon-Britton's local information that the box contained from 8,000 to 9,000 pennies, conjectures from this and other arguments that the hoard was originally one of the donations of six marks of gold,^ which, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us, William II in 1087 distributed to monasteries for his father's soul. The condition of the coins and the unusually high proportion of coins of the latest of the types (the type presumably in issue at the date of the burial of the hoard) seem to show that the hoard came straight from a mint or treasury. But Hawkins, in his Silver Coins, p. 168, says that some thousands more coins from this hoard found their way to London and were examined by him and his friends later, and he there estimates the total number at scarcely less than 12,000. Thougli the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us of the donations to monasteries we do not anywhere hear of the loss of any one of them, nor is there any reason for con- necting this hoard with these donations even were the amount of the find equivalent. There is no reason to suppose the sum so exceptional that a cause must be found for it being amassed. Tamivorth Flncl^ (1877). Discovered during work in connexion with the Board Schools at Tamworth. In a leaden box of triangular shape were found about 300 coins. Four or five only are said to have been dispersed, the remainder are described as : 'Paxs' type (Ilks. 241) 30 coins ' Profile ' type (Hks. 244) 97 „ Mules of preceding and following types (Hks. 245) 3 ,, 'Cross In Quatrefoir type (Hks. 246) . . 164 „ Total 294 „ ^ Brit. Num. Joitni., vol. i, pp. 26 ft'. ^ A mark of gold = .£6 ; six marks would therefore contain 8,640 pennies. » Num. Chron., 1877, pp. 340 ft; FINDS OF COINS XXIU The two following finds contain coins of William with coins of Henry : Shillington FiiuP (ISri). Discovered by workmen in the neighbourhood of Shilling-ton (Bedfordshire). Probably upwards of 250 coins were found, contained in a small jar with herring- bone ornament. About one-third of them were examined ; the types represented were, of William : ' Paxs ' (Hks. 241) one coin only, ' Profile' (Hks. 244), ' Cross in Quatrefoil' (Hks. 246), 'Cross voided' (Hks. 250), and 'Crosses Patt^e and Fleury' (Hks. 247) ;2 and of Henry : ' Quatrefoil and Piles ' (Hks. 252) and one other type undescribed. Bennondsey Fiud^ (c. 1820). Thirteen pennies found by work- men sinking for the foundation of a house : William, ' Cross in Quatrefoil ' type (Hks. 246) . . . 3 coins 'Cross Voided' type (Hks. 250 and 249). . . 5 „ Henry I, 'Annulets' type (Hks. 251, one omitting the annulets) 5 „ Total 13 „ This set of finds, which comprises discoveries of coins of William alone and of coins of William with coins of Henry, contains two hoards of considerable importance found at Beaworth and Taraworth. These two hoards overlap each other in the ' Paxs ' type, which represents a very large proportion of the Beaworth and a small proportion of the Tamworth, As this is the only overlapping type, it must be considered as the latest type represented in one hoard and the earliest in the other; from the proportionate number of coins of the type in the two finds, it should probably be placed as the last type of the Beaworth and as the first of the Tamworth find. The ' Two Stars ' (Hks. 238) and ' Sword ' (Hks. 243) types ^ Num. Chron., 1871, pp. 227-8. See above, p. xvii, and below, pp. xxiv, Hi. "^ Not described in Num. Chron., 1871, but this type is represented among the coins of this find -which were presented to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. See Brit. Num. Joiirii., vol. ii, pp. 108-9. ^ Xiou. Chrou., 1846, p. 170. XXiv INTRODUCTION tlierefore precede the ' Paxs ' type, and from the evidence of the York Minster find these two types should probably be placed together, but there is no evidence to show whether the ' Profile — Cross and Trefoils ' type ^ (Hks. 239), the remaining type found at Beaworth, should precede or follow them. The remaining two types of the Tamworth Find, ' Profile ' type (Hks. 244) and ' Cross in Quatrefoil ' (Hks. 246), are therefore concluded to be later than the 'Paxs' type ; this conclusion is confirmed by the Shillington and Bermondsey finds, where one or both of these types are found with coins of Henry. With regard to these two finds it is necessary to anticipate evidence from other sources so far as to say that the evidence of the Shillington find concerning coins of Henry I is untrustworthy ; 2 as mentioned above, this find is of a complicated nature and evidently represents an owner's savings of two distinct periods. In further anticipation, it may be noted that the Ber- mondsey find, of which all the coins are said to have been examined and described, omits the last two types of William II, and therefore shows with what caution so small a find must be treated. Bari (Italy) Find ^ (c. 1891). In a large hoard of continental •coins mostly of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which are not further described, were found upwards of twenty-five pennies of Henry I. These coins are of two types only ; twenty-seven coins are described : 'Annulets and Piles' type (Hks. 257) . . 3 coins 'Voided Cross and Fleurs' type (Hks. 267) . . 24 „ Total 27 „ ^ From the numbers, one would suppose that Hks. 239 was the earliest type of the find, but it must be remembered that the total find numbers over 6,500 coins, and that therefore thirty coins must, equally with ten, be treated as stray specimens. Hawkins, in his account of the find, shows reason for sup- posing that it came straight from the mint, owing to the fact that in so large a hoard almost all the coins are of one type only. ^ See pp. lii, liii. ^ Num. Chron., 1892, pp. 83 if. FINDS OF COINS XXV This seems to show that these two types were issued consecutively, but the evidence of so small a number of coins, as mentioned above, is by no means conclusive^ especially in a large hoard of continental coins. Canterbury Find ^ (c. 1901 ?). No record of this find has been published ; the coins were said to have come from Bournemouth, but there is reason to suppose that they were discovered at Canter- bury during work at the Archbishop's Palace, and conveyed to Bournemouth before distribution. Many of the coins were seen by Major Carlyon-Britton and notes were made by him, but it is impossible to say how many coins were in the hoard ; all seem to have been of Henry I, and the following have been noted : ' Full face— Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. iv) . . 3 coins 'Lozenge Fleury enclosing Star' type (Hks. 265) 1 ,, Mule of preceding and following types . . 1 •, ' Pellets in Quatrefoir type (Hks. 262) . . 353 „ Total 358 „ Lmuestoft Find ^ (1905). Twelve pennies of Henry I are described as having been found together on the beach at Lowestoft, probably carried down by a fall of the clilF. Whether these constituted the whole hoard is not known. They are of two types : 'Pellets in Quatrefoir type (Hks. 262) . . 6 coins ' Quadrilateral on Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 255) 6 „ Total 12 „ Battle (Sussex) Find ^ (1860 1). Twelve coins of Henry I, found near Battle, were of the following types : 'Full face — Cross Fleury' type (Hks. iv) . .1 coin ' Double Inscription ' type (Hks. 258) . . 1 „ ' Quadrilateral on Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 255) . 10 ,, Total 12 „ ^ I am indebted to Major Carlyon-Britton for the loan of his private notes on this find ; also to Mr. Baldwin for further information of the provenance. « Num. Chron., 1905, p. 112. 3 Ibid, 1878, p. 175. XXVI INTRODUCTION The following hoards contained coins of* Henry I and Stephen together : Watford Finds'^ (1818). Some labourers digging in a field near Watford found a few silver coins, and, on further search being made, a rude clay jar was discovered, broken, about ten or twelve inches below the surface of the ground, containing a large hoard of coins. Rashleigh, in his account of the hoard in Num. Chron., 1850, states that the total number of coins was 1,094 pennies and 33 halves of pennies. These coins were kept together in the possession of the original owner until at his death they passed into the hands of Rashleigh, who wrote a full account of them. He says that he thinks this number is nearly all that were found, a few probably having been picked up and sold by the workmen. The following- coins are described: ,, _ Ilalf- Pennies i William, 'Two Stars' type (Hks. 238) Henry I, ' Pellets in Quatrefoil ' type (Hks. 2G2) „ ' Quadrilateral on Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 255) Steplien, ' Watford ' type (Hks. 270) . ., Variety II, with obverse inscription PER ERIE (PI. LVII. 9-15) .... Empress Matilda (MATILDI EOI) . Uncertain coins (Baronial ?).... Total 1,094 33 This long survival of a halfpenny of the middle of William I's reign (about 60 years) is remarkable. In the Appendix to Archaeologia, vol. xxi, pp. 539 ff., is an account laid before the Society of Antiquaries by Taylor Combe, in January 1822, of a find in April 1818 of a quantity of silver coins, in number above a hundred. They were found by labourers hoeing in a field of beans near the site of the ancient manor-house of Oxhey Place, in the parish of Watford ; the coins were lying scattered upon the surface of the ground, together with a fragment of an earthen 1 Xt(m. Chron., 1850, pp. 138 ff. Pennies pennies 1 58 398 21 632 11 2 1 3 — — FINDS OF COINS vessel in which the}' had probably been deposited. Clutterbuck, on inquiry in the neighbourhood, could only procure nine specimens, but on further digging found thirty more coins. The types repre- sented by the coins are the same three as were found in the Watford hoard above described, Hks. 262, 255, and 270, with the addition of the coin described below as variety III 6, p. xci, PL LVIII. 6 (Hks. 273), Whether this small find should be considered as part of the largei" hoard it is impossible to say. The discovery of these coins, with a fragment of an earthen vessel, on the surface of the ground points rather to this Ijeing a residue not found in the search which resulted in the discovery of the large hoard and broken vessel. But, on the other hand, were this find later than the larger one, Clutterbuck could hardly have failed to obtain information of it when he made inquiries in the neighbourhood ; nor do w^e know that both finds w^ere in the same field, though both occurred in or near Watford and both in the year 1818, There would be nothing surprising in two separate hoards being buried at the same time and in the same neighbourhood, for the same cause might well induce two neighbours to take similar action. These two finds are distinguished in the Catalogue as ' Watford Find ' and ' Smaller Watford Find '. Nottimjhain Flnd'^ (1880), This hoard was discovered on Jan. 5, 1880, at the back of old property in Bridlesmith Gate, Nottingham, The coins were quickly dispersed, the original number being more than three hundred ; '^ comparatively few are described ; they consist of : Henry I, 'Annulets ' type (liks. 251) .... 1 coin „ 'Full face — Cross Fleury' type (Hks. iv) , , 1 „ „ 'Quadrilateral on Cross Fleury' type (Hks. 255) at least 7 „ Stephen, 'Watford' type (Hks, 270) . . upwards of 150 „ „ Variety I, with erased obverse die (see below, pp. Ixxvi ff,) . .... uncertain number 1 Num. Chron., 1881, pp, 36 ff. ^ I am indebted to Mr. Andrew for this information. 4 coins 44 j> 1 j> 3 5J 5 3 1 XXVlll INTRODUCTION Stephen, Variety II, with inscription PERERIE (see below, p^D. Ixxxii ff.) . . 1 coin described „ Variety IV A («) (see below, p. xcv) . 1 coin described Empress Matilda (see below, pp. cxviii ff.) . at least 1 coin Mr. Andrew connects the burial of this hoard with the fire at Nottingham on Sept. 8, 1141.^ Dartford Find" (1825). Found at Dartford in Kent; said to have contained about 65 pennies, of which the following are described : Henry I, 'Quadrilateral on Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 255). Stephen, 'Watford' type (Hks. 270) .... „ Variety I, with erased obverse die (see below, pp. Ixxvi ff.) . „ Variety IV B («) (see below, p. xcvi) . Empress Matilda (see below, pp. cxviii ff.) Scottish, David I (?), of Carlisle (?) Sheldon Flad'^ (1867). A hoard of 95 pennies and 7 halfpennies found at Sheldon in Derbyshire. The following are the types described: ,, ,, Half- pennies pennies Henry I, 'Quadrilateral on Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 255) 3 — Stephen, 'Watford' type (Hks. 270)5 .... 73 3 „ Mule, Hks. 270x269 {Brit. Sicm. Jouru., vol. vii, p. 44, nos. 69-70) .... 1 1 „ Hks. 269, contemporary forgeries?'' {ibid., p. 85, nos. 101, 102) 2 — ^ Brit. Num. Joiirn., vol. i, pp. 30 ff. ' JSium. Chron., 1851, pp. 186 fF. ^ One of these is described as an Oxford coin of Stephen, in Num. Chron., 1851, p. 188; the coin was in Rashleigh sale, lot 630, and later in Mr. H. M. Reynolds's collection. * Brit. Num. Journ., vol. vii, pp. 27 ff. 5 These are the coins in Mr. Andrew's list numbered 4-68, 73, 77 (from same dies as coin described below, p. 356, no. 137), 78, 79-83, 96, 97, 99. " There seems to me insufficient reason for the attribution of the coins to Matilda ; even the letters IMP on no. 101 are extremely doubtful. Their very rough work and light weight incline me to consider them contemporary forgeries of Hks. 269. FINDS OF COINS XXIX Half- Pennies i^ennies Steplien, Variety I, with erased obverse die^ {ibid., p. 55, no. 76, pp. GO ff., nos. 84-95, 98) .11 3 ,, Variety II, witli inscription PERERIE- {ibid., p. 81, no. 100) 1 — „ Variety III 8(&)» {ibid., p. 51, no. 74) . . 1 — ,, Variety IV B(«)* (?6k7., p. 53, no. 75) . . 1 — Scottish, David I {ibid., p. 46, nos. 71, 72) . . .2 — Linton {Maiddone) Find '' (1883). The total number of coins in this find is said to have been about 180 ; they were found in an earthen jar, about fifteen inches below the surface of the ground; nearly a hundred of the coins are described : Half- pennies pennies Farthings Henry I, ' Quadrilateral on Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 255) 6 1 — Stephen, 'Watford' type (Hks. 270) . . 32 4 4 ,, 'Cross Voided and Mullets' type (Hks. 269) 24 14 1 „ Vai'iety II, with inscription PERERIE (see below, pp. Ixxxii ff.) . . 2 — — „ Variety III 7 (see below, pp. xci ff.) 4 2 — Total described 68 21 5 Of these finds, in which coins of Henry I are found mixed with coins of Stephen, the Dartford and Sheldon hoards contained only one true type of each reign ; in each case these two types are Hks. 255 and 270, which may therefore be placed as the last of Henry and the first of Stephen. The Nottingham find confirms this, but has also two stray coins of Henry (Hlvs. 251 and iv) in addition. The Watford finds have coins of Hks. 262 with coins of Hks. 255 and 270, and therefore confirm the slight evidence of the Lowestoft find in placing the two types, Hks. 262 and 255, together. The ^ See below, pp. Ixxvi ff. ^ See below, pp. Ixxxii fF. ^ See below, p. xcv. * See below, p. xcvi. 5 Num. Chron., 1883, pp. 108 ff. XXX INTRODUCTION Linton find is the latest of this group of finds, and gives us as the second type of Stephen's reign Hks. 269, which is confirmed in the Sheldon hoard by the mules of 270 x 269 and also by the two contemporary forgeries, or whatever they may be, of this type. These finds are of further importance as containing various irregular issues, such as coins of Matilda, coins with obverse inscrip- tion PERERIE, coins with obverse type erased, and other varieties ; all of which are thus shown to have been issued before the issue of the second regular type of the reign (Hks. 269) ; these coins are treated separately below (pp. Ixxi fi"). Bute Fiiid'^ (1863). At the south end of the island, about 300 yards from the ancient Chapel of Saint Blane, were found 27 silver coins (some in fragments) with two gold rings, three gold bands, and one silver bar. The following coins are described : Stephen, 'Watford' type (Hks. 270) . Scottish, David I . . . . . „ Earl Henry (see below, p. xcviii) Uncertain (type as Hks. 270) .... Winterslovj FinrP (c. 1804). In Gentleman's Magazine, vol.lxxiv {1804), p. 15, is a notice of a coin (the Dimsdale specimen) ' lately found, with several of Stephen, in the vicinity of Salisbury '. In the MS. Catalogue of the B. C. Roberts collection some coins are noted as having been found in a chalk pit at Winterslow, near Salisbury; many halfpennies are there said to have been found. The coins so noted in the Roberts Catalogue and elsewhere ^ are : ' Xiini. ChroH., 1863, p. 216 ; ibid., 1865, pp. 57 ff. - In his Introduction to Domesday Book, Sir Henry Ellis mentions this iind as containing 'a large assemblage of pennies from the Saxon times to the reign of Stephen ' ; this improbable statement may be partly explained by the attribution at that time of coins of Henry of Anjou to Henry I, and of coins of William (of Gloucester?) to William I and William II. ^ Catalogue of T. Dimsdale sale, 1824, lot 228. Hawkins {SiJrer Coins, p. 185) also mentions the find without giving any additional information. . 3 coins 14 „ 1 „ Total 9 „ 27 „ FINDS OF COINS Stephen, 'Watford' type (Hks. 270) ' Cross Voided and Mullets ' type (Hks. 269) ' Cross and Fleurs ' type (Hks. 276) . „ Variety III 4 (see below, p. xc) . ,, Variety IV D (6) (see below, p. cvi) , Henry of Anjou, type I {b) (see below, p. cxxi) „ „ type I (c) (see below, p. cxxii) ,, „ type II («) (see below, pp. cxxii f.) „ ,, type 11(6) (see below, p. cxxiii) William (of Gloucester?), type II(i)(see below, p. cxxx) Uncertain baronial, no. 1 (see below, p. cxxxii) ,, „ no. 3 {see below, p. cxxxiii) Total Pennies 1 2 1 1 1 1 .3 1 1 1 1 1-1 Ilalf- jiennies 2 At Catal,^ near Wetherby, were found a few silver coins in 1684, including one of Stephen, variety IV D {d) (see below, p. cvi), one of Eustace FitzJohn, type B (see below, p. cxiv), one of Robert de Stuteville (see below, p. cxvi), and another coin of Stephen (type not described). Aiubridge Find- {c. 1902). About 180 coins of Stephen and Henry II were found at Awbridge, near Romsey, Hampshire, all close together at about 2| feet below the surface of the ground. The followino- are described : Stephen, ' Awbridge ' type (Hks. 268) „ Variety III 7 (see below, pp. xci ft'.) Henry II, ' Tealby ' type (Hks. 285) Total 31 coins 3 „ 110 „ H4 „ This find shows Hks. 2C8 to have been the last type issued by Stephen. The finds give no evidence of the order, or even existence as definite types, of any types between the second and the last of this reign ; one coin of Hks. 276 occurred in the Winterslow find, ^ Thoresby, Ducatus Leodiensis, pp. 350, 351 ; Proc. of Yorkshire riiilosophical Soc, 1855, p. 216. ^ Num. Chron., 1905, pp. 354 if. XXXii INTRODUCTION with a few coins of the first two types of the reign and several coins of irregular issues. To summarize the evidence obtained from finds, the following groups may be made with some probability (the numbers of Hawkins's figures are here used alone to denote the types) : William I and II. 233 (first type) — 234 (second type) — I'^^j Heney I. 251 or 252 (first type) (257 1267 262 — 255 (last type). Stephen. 270 (first type) — 269 (second type) 268 (last type). OVEESTRUCK COINS. Coins are commonly found in this, as in almost every series, on which the impression of the dies is superimposed upon an underlying impression of a different pair of dies ; that is to say, coins having been struck, and, perhaps, passed into circulation, return to the mint and are re-struck without the previous impres- sion having been removed. The two impressions on a coin may be from dies of the same type or from dies of different types ; in the latter case it follows that, as the types were not struck con- temporarily, the earlier, or obliterated, impression on the coin is that of the earlier of the two types ; coins of the former class, where the two impressions belong to the same type, cannot easily be distinguished from double-struck coins, and are, in any case, unimportant. The coins re-struck with dies of a different type are commonly known as ' Overstrikes ' and are very important OVERSTRUCK COINS XXXlll as giving quite definite evidence that one type precedes another.^ It cannot be concluded, though it frequently happens, that the later type immediately follows the earlier ; in fact, in some cases, e. g. no. 10 on p. xxxiv, a considerable period intervenes before the re-striking of the coin. It has been suggested that the coins known as ' Overstrikes ' represent not re-struck coins, but coins struck from re-engraved dies from which the original design was not completely erased ; ^ but it is clear from an examination of such coins that this is not the case. On these coins it will be found that the parts in high relief in the original have been flattened down by the second striking to the level of the field, and are marked out by an incuse outline which represents the part of the field of the original coin that has failed to rise into the later dies, owing to its protection by the original high relief beside it ; this effect can only he produced by a blow which has hammered the high relief flat and sunk part of tiie flat surface into incuse. The reason for re-striking coins in this way is quite uncertain. It cannot have been done with the object of restoring to currency coins that were no longer current, for we have seen above ^ that one type cannot have gone out of currency on the issue of another. Nor, again, can it have been due to the coins being clipped or eflfaced by circulation ; clipped coins would have to be returned to the melting-pot, as their weight would be untrue, and in some of the cases here quoted the original impression still stands out so clearly through the overstruck type that it is impossible to suppose the coins to have been much worn. It is possible, though there is no documentary support for the assumption, that officials of the exchange were prohibited from circulating coins of any type but that actually in issue at the mint;^ in which case, re-striking might ^ As overstriking might be supposed to guarantee the genuineness of a coin, it should perhaps be mentioned that some ingenious modern forgeries are struck on genuine mediaeval coins (see Brif. Num. Jouni., vol. iii, pp. 282 ff.). - Xum. Chron., 1905, pp. 110-1. ^ p. siv. ^ Brit. Kit)!). Jouni., vol. viii, p. 123. Such a prohibition would presumably c XXXIV INTRODUCTION be due to the necessity of circulating coins which remained in, or ■came into, the mint or exchange after the issue of a new type. The following are the overstrikes that have been noted in the coinage of this period : (1) William, 'Bonnet' type (Hks. 234) over type of Harold II (Hks, 230). A coin of Huntingdon in P. W. P, Carlyon-Britton collection. (2) William, ' J3onnet ' type (Hks. 234) over ' Profile— Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 233). Coin of Wallingford, p. 29, no. 154; also Malmesbury (H. W. Morrieson collection) and Hereford (W. Sharp Ogden collection). (3) William, Mule (Hks. 237 X 238) over ' Two Sceptres' type (Hks. 237). Coin of Hereford in P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton collection (see below, p. 56). (4) William, 'Two Stars' type (Hks. 238) over 'Two Sceptres' type (Hks. 237). Coin of Cricklade, p. 60, no. 308; one of same mint (Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 706) and another of Winchester in P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton collection. (5) William, 'Sword' type (Hks. 243) over 'Two Sceptres' type (Hks. 237). Coin of London (Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 712). (6) William, ' Profile— Cross and Trefoils' type (Hks. 239) over 'Sword' type (Hks. 243). Coin of uncertain mint (Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 717). (7) William, 'Paxs' type (Hks. 241) over ' Profile— Cross and Trefoils' type (Hks. 239). Coin of Southampton in P. W. P. Carlyon- Britton collection. (8) William, 'Profile' type (Hks. 244) over 'Paxs' type (Hks. 241). Coin of London (Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 747). (9) William, Mule (Hks. 245) over 'Profile' type (Hks. 244). Coin of Leicester in Evans collection (see below, p. 403, no. 67 a). (10) William, 'Cross in Quatrefoil ' type (Hks. 24G) over 'Canopy' type (Hks. 236). Coin of Chichester, p. 227, no. 76. (11) William, 'Cross in Quatrefoil' type (Hks. 246) over 'Profile' type (Hks. 244). Coins of Hereford, p. 230, no. 93, and Worcester, be intended to prevent the moneyers from evading the cost of new dies by continuing to use dies of an old type. Perhaps such an evasion is meant by the Jorisfactuvde, reterifi monetae charged to Gilpatric in the Pipe Roll (see below, p. cxlvi) OVERSTRUCK COINS XXXV p. 242, no. 171 ; also of Oxford in P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton collection. (12) William, 'Crosses Patt^e and Fleury' type (FTks. 247) over 'Cross in (^uatrefoil ' type (Ilks. 246). Coin of Rocliester, p. 258, no. 247. (13) William, ' Crosses Pattee and Fleury ' type (Hks. 247) over 'Cross Voided ' type (Hks. 250). Coin of Tlietford, p. 258, no. 252. No overstrikes are known of the reigns of Henrj^ I or Stephen ; this is perhaps due partly to more careful striking of the coins, partly to the greater rarity of coins of these reigns, and partly to the obverse and reverse designs tilling more completely the surface of the field, so that any former impression is more thoroughly obliterated.^ As regards the evidence afforded by the overstrikes towards placing the coin-types, much confirmatory, and some additional, evidence is thus given to the groups of the types that were formed after examining the finds of the coins. No. 2 confirms the placing of the ' Profile — Cross Fleury ' type before the ' Bonnet ' tyjDe. Nos. 4 and 5 show that the group 238, 243, and 239 is correctly placed later than the group 236 and 237. No. 6 places 239 later than 243, and thus, combined with the evidence of the York INIinster find, in which 238 and 243 were found together, makes 239 immediately precede the ' Paxs ' type (241). ' In Brit. Xiim. Jouni., vol. viii, pp. 125-6, too much stress is laid on the rarity of both overstrikes and mules of these two later reigns. Overstrikes are of course most common in periods of which the coins are most frequent — for example, Hks. 284, 244, and 246 ; but it must also be remembered that over- struck coins have an unpleasing appearance, and therefore used not to be preserved by collectors, which perhaps accounts for the rarity of overstrikes of the ' Paxs ' type (type Vlll) of William in spite of the Beaworth hoard having made this issue so common in the present day. They have probably frequently been thrown out among the refuse of a find, which was certainly in some cases (e.g. the Watford find) consigned to the melting-pot. Mules, too, are naturallj' most common of the types of Hks. 240 and 245, owing to the Beaworth and Tamworth finds. Rarity of coins at the present day is not a safe reason for assuming few to have been in currency ; it is usually due to scarcity of finds of certain periods : the ' Paxs ' type of William, for example, was, before the Beaworth find, the rarest of his types. c 2 XXXVl INTRODUCTION Nos. 7 and 8 support the evidence of the Bea-svorth and Tamworth finds in making the ' Paxs ' type the latest of the Beaworth and earliest of the Tamworth types. No. 11 places the 'Cross in Quatrefoil' (Hks. 24G) as the last of the three Tamworth types, -which are therefore 241 — 244 — 246. Ko. 13 makes Hks. 247 later than Ilks. 250. The groups of types of William I and II on page xxxii may therefore be extended, bj- adding the evidence of overstrikes, to the following : ;3° — 243[— 239— 241— 244 — 246 — 250—247. But the position of Hks. 248 is still left in complete uncertainty. The groups of the two later reigns remain as before. Mules. The term ' Mule ' is strictly applicable to all coins which are struck from an incorrect combination of dies, that is to say, when an obverse die is used with a reverse for which it was not originally made, or vice versa ; for example, on pp. 205-6, nos. 1107-13 are all struck from the same obverse die, and therefore, though one of these may be made with a true combination of dies, the remaining six, although of the same type, must be, strictly speaking, 'mules'.^ But as ' mules ' of this sort are very common and of minor importance, the term ' mule ' is here limited to the technical sense in which it is commonly used in this coinage, to denote only those coins on which are combined an obverse of one type and a reverse of another. That these mules were authorized issues of the Crown introducing a new type seems hardly possible. The so-called ' artificial mule ' - of the Confessor, connecting the last two tyj)es of his reign, is quoted in support of this theory on the ground that the obverse die must have been made specially for the mule issue. But the ^ Unless, of course, it was the practice so early as this to issue two reverse dies with one obverse, in which case five of these coins are ' mules '. 2 Num. Chron., 1905, PI. VIII. 24; and B.M. Catalogue, Ang.-Sax. Series, vol. ii, p. 352, no. 157, and PL XXIII. 8. treatment of this coin as a mule is, I think, incorrect ; the reverse is indeed identical with the reverse of the later type, but the obverse differs very widely from that of the earlier type (the ends of the diadem hang straight down on either side of the head, the draping of the bust is quite different, a sceptre is added, the bust is continued to the edge of the coin and the inner circle omitted). It seems more likely that this so-called ' mule ' bears the obverse originally designed for the last type of the reign, and that its superficial resemblance to that of the preceding type led to its withdrawal and the substitution of the more common profile obverse ; the comparative frequency of this ' mule ' (see 2imn. Chroii., 1905, pp. 196-7) seems to point to the same conclusion. The improbability of the Crown confusing its issues by such a coinage of mules is a serious obstacle to the theory that they are regular issues, and presumptive evidence to the contrary is found in the rarity of mules of the London mint. Of the Norman period no London mules are at present known ; ^ of the Confessor's reign I know three only: jShivi. Chroa., 1905, p. 189 (= Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 601), Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 590, and Montagu sale, part I, lot 850. If mules were regularly issued for a short period prior to the introduction of the new" type^ they, like the ordinary issues, would probably be most frequently found of the London mint, where the supply of bullion and the output of coins may reasonably be assumed to have been most regular ; that they more frequently bear the names of lesser mints may perhaps be due to money ers at the smaller mints being more frequently left, at the change of type, in possession of dies so little worn as to tempt them, for the saving of the purchase-money of new dies, to risk the penalties for the fraudulent retention of dies and the issue of an unauthorized coinage. This aspect of the ' mule ' as an irregular issue, of which the object must have been the saving of expense in the purchase of new dies, is substantiated by the two mules which are described below as nos. 3 and 4 (p. xxxix). Each of these mules has had the obverse ' Except the coin described in catalogue of H. H. Allan sale, 1908, lot 36. XXXviii INTRODUCTION die worked over in such a way as to make it approximately- similar to that of the true obverse corresponding to the reverse type ; on the ' Bonnet ' obverse pillars have been placed beside the head to resemble those of the ' Canopy ' type, and on the ' Canopy ' obverse an inner circle has been drawn, cutting through the bust, and the pillars have been turned into the sceptres botonne and patte which are found beside the bust on the ' Two Sceptres ' issue. The object of these alterations must surely have been to circulate the coins with less likelihood of detection. The issue of mules ^ must therefore have been fraudulent, but at the same time the risk of the fraud being exposed would in any case be slight, as the two sides of a coin cannot be seen at the same time and the inconsistency of obverse and reverse, either of which is with its proper fellow true currency, is not easily detected. Mules are usually, as one would expect, made from dies of two consecutive types, but occasional examples occur (see no. 1, below) of a mule made from a die which has survived a longer period. As a general rule, therefore, a mule may be considered, in the absence of conflicting evidence, to connect two consecutive types. Also, as a general rule, the obverse of a mule will represent the earlier of the two types.- But this is not an absolute rule : two mules occur, for example, with the reverse of Henry I's 'Full face — Cross Fleury' type (Hks. iv), nos. 10 and 11 below, having different obverses. It is natural, therefore, to suppose that the reverse of Hks. iv is muled with both the preceding and subsequent obverses, and this supposition is confirmed by an examination of the later of these two mules, no. 11, the reverse of which is struck from the same die as a coin of the true type (Hks. iv) in Major Carlyon-Britton's collection. Tliat the mule is the later of the two strikings is, I think, almost certain, for the roughness in the field of the reverse in the third quarter of the cross (see PI. XLII. 5) is not corrosion, ^ Using ' mule ' here and throughout in the strictly limited sense of a coin combining two types. - Because the obverse, or standard, die naturally outlives the reverse, or trussel, and is therefore the more likely to be left in good condition at the change of type. MULES XXXIX but a roughness of the metal caused, no doubt, by rust on the die, and this is not visible on the true coin ; the true coin was therefore struck earlier than the mule, and we may conclude that the obverse of the mule belongs to a type later than Hks. iv. The following are the mules at present known of the Norman period : (1) Ohv. Edward Confessor, type XI [Num. Chron., 1905). Jiev. William, 'Bonnet' type (Hks. 234). Coin of Sliaftesbury (?), p. 13, no. 71 ; another of uncertain mint in York Museum. PI. III. 11, 12. (2) Ohv. William, ' Profile— Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. 233). liev, „ 'Bonnet' type (Hks. 234). Coins of Huntingdon and Stamford, p. 14, nos. 72, 73; others of Lincoln (P. 'W. P. Carlyon-Eritton and H. M. Reynolds collections), Salisbury (Fitzwilliam Museum), Stamford (W. C. Wells collection), and Taunton (R. C. Lockett collection). PI. III. 13-15. (3) Ohv. William, ' Bonnet' type (Hks. 234). Hev. „ 'Canopy' type (Hks. 236). Coin of Ipswich, p. 33, no. 180. The obverse die from which this coin has been struck is altered evidently with a view to making it resemble the ' Canopy ' obverse ; a pillar has been cut on the die on each side of the bust ; possibly the double-striking is also intentional. See above, pp. xxxvii-xxxviii. PI. VI. 15. Another of London (H. H. Allan sale, 1908, lot 3G). (4) Ohv. William, 'Canopy' type (Hks. 236). Eev. „ 'Two Sceptres' type (Hks. 237). Coin of Exeter in Hunterian collection. The obverse die of this coin is, similarly to the preceding, altered in order approximately to resemble the ' Two Sceptres ' obverse ; the inner circle has been continued through the bust, the pillars of the ' Canopy ' have been turned into the sceptres of the later type, though an ignorance of die-engraving has caused them to be reversed, the sceptre botonne being placed to left instead of right. This coin came from the St. Mary Hill Church find. See above, pp. xxxvii— xxxviii. PI. VIII. 11. (5) Obv. William, 'Two Sceptres' type (Hks. 237). Eev. „ ' Two Stars ' type (Hks. 238). Xl IKTRODUCTION Coin of Hereford in P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton collection ; two of Dorchester and one of Ij^swich have also been published.^ PI. XI. 1. (6) Ohv. William, ' Profile— Cross and Trefoils' type (Hks. 239). liev. „ ' Paxs ' type (Hks. 241). Coins of Maldon, Malmesbury, Nottingham, Taunton, Thetford, Winchester. See pp. 91-3. PI. XVII. 11-16. (7) Ohv. William, 'Profile' type (Hks. 244). ]iev. „ ' Cross in Quatrefoil ' type (Hks. 246). Coins of Dover and Gloucester, p. 225, uos. 66, 67 ; also of Chester and Leicester (Evans collection ; see below, p. 403, nos. 65 a, 67 a), Oxford (Royal Mint Museum) and Winchester (H. M. Reynolds collection). PL XXX. 13-15. (8) Obv. William, 'Crosses Pattee and Fleury' type (Hks. 247). Eev. „ ' Cross Fleury and Piles ' type (Hks. 248). Coin of Canterbury (?) in L. E. Bruun collection. PL XXXVI. 15. In Whitbourn sale, 1869, lot 148, is described a coin bearing obverse with bust to 1., and reverse of Hks. 251. This may possibly be, as described in Num. Chron., 1901, p. 48, a mule of Hks. 254 and 251, but is perhaps an error of the sale catalogue. A coin described in Num. Citron., 1901, pp. 59-60, as a mule of Hks. 257 and 267, is a contemporary forgery of a coin of Hks. 267; it is very base, weighs only 10-7 grs., and is of very rough work.^ Fig. H on p. 60 (o2). cit.) does not reproduce the very bad condition a,nd rough work of the coin. (9) Ohv. Henry I, ' Voided Cross and Fleurs ' type (Hks. 267). Rev. „ ' Pointing Bust and Stars' type (Hks. 266). Coin of Warwick in P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton collection. PL XL. 5. (10) Ohv. Henry I, 'Cross in Quatrefoil' type (Hks. 263). Hev. „ ' Full face — Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. iv). Coin of Gloucester in Hunterian collection. PL XLI. 9. (11) Ohv. Henry I, 'Double Inscription' type (Hks. 258). Eev. „ ' Full face — Cross Fleury ' type (Hks. iv). Coin of Thetford in Hunterian collection. PL XLII. 5. ^ Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, p. 151. ^ I am indebted to Sheriff Mackenzie for kindly sending me the coin. MULES Xli This coin is from the same reverse die as a coin of the true type (Hks. iv) in the Carlyon-Britton collection. Rust-marks in the field of the mule show it to be later than the true coin. Hks. .258 may therefore be assumed to be the later of the two types. (12) Ohv. Henry I, 'Lozenge Fleuvy enclosing Star' type (Hks. 2G5). Rev. „ ' Pellets in Quatrefoil ' type (Hks. 2G2). Coin of Romney in P. W. P. Carlyon-T3ritton collection. PI. XLIII. 15. (13) Obv. Stephen, 'Watford' type (Hks. 270). Eev. „ ' Cross Voided and ^lullets ' type (Hks. 269). Penny and Halfpenny of Canterbury (?) from the Sheldon find {Brit. Num. Journ., vol. vii, \). 44); another halfpenny (same dies as Sheldon penny) in B. Roth collection. PI. LIII. 1, 2. These mules not only confirm the evidence obtained from finds and overstrikes, but also complete the series of types of the reigns of the two Williams ; the regular chain of mules, nos. 2-5, Hks. 233 X 234, 234 x 236, 236 x 237, 237 x 238, forms a convincing proof that these five types, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, form in that order the first five types of the William coins ; the sequence 239 — 241—244—246 is also confirmed by the mules 239 x 241 and 244 x 246 (nos. 6 and 7). The eighth mule of this list brings Hks. 248 for the first time into the scheme and places it at the end of the William series. Of Henry I, mule 9, combined with the evidence of the Bari find, forms a series 257 — 267 — 266 ; mules 10 and 11 form another series 263 — iv — 258, and mule 12 shows that 265 is the type immediately preceding 262. The mule of Stephen only confirms the position of his first two types. The additional evidence of mules, therefore, results in a very probable sequence of the types of the two Williams, and further groups of Henry I : William I and IT. 233—234-230—237—238-243—239—241—244-246—250—24 7 —248. xlii INTRODUCTION Heney I. 251 01-252 (first type) 257—267—266 263— iv— 258 265—262—255 (last type). Stephen. 270 (first type)— 269 (second type) 268 (last type). Epigraphy. (See Epigraphical Table.) The form of the obverse and reverse inscriptions, which was in use on Anglo-Saxon coins of the eleventh century, continued in use throughout the Norman period ; on the obverse was the king's name with or without the royal title,^ on the reverse the names of the moneyer and the mint connected by the word ON ; ^ nor is there any reason to believe that any change took place in the means by which the inscriptions were cut on the dies. In B. M. Catalogue, ' Anglo-Saxon Coins ', vol. ii, p. xcix, it is said that the letters are not cut with a graving tool, but punclied into the die with tools of different shapes, a punch like a small blunt chisel forming the vertical strokes of such letters as B, E, M, &c., a small wedge- shaped punch forming the horizontal bars of E, F, L, the tail of R, &c., and crescent- shaped punches of larger and smaller size forming the curves of D, 0, and P, B, &c. The disjointed forms of the letters, the strange character of some of them (notably A and C ^), ^ Exception must be made of the irregular issues (see below, pp. IxxifF.). The varieties of obverse inscription used on the diiferent types of the reigns of William I may be seen in Major Carlyon-Britton's description of the types in B)-it. Num. Journ., vol. ii, pp. 130 ft'., and those of the reign of Henry I in Mr. Andrew's description of the types of that reign in Num. Chron., 1901, pp. 38 ff. ^ The Launceston coins of the fifth type of William I, described on p. 62, nos. 325-6, omit the moneyer's name. (regularly on Norwich coins), N (p. 17, no. 81), and ONN (on Oxford and Thetford coins of William 1, type II, in York Museum) occur for ON; on p. 75, no. 402, OF is used probably in error. ^ See Epigraphical Table, Series I. EPIGRAPHY xliih the close resemblance of the uprij^ht strokes and the strange mistakes that connnonly occur ^ seem onl}^ explicable as the result of punch-work of this nature ; this explanation has therefore been accepted without question and without serious investigation as regards, at least, the later Anglo-Saxon and Norman periods. A recent paper read by Mr. Hocking before the Royal Numismatic Society ^ has made it necessar}^ to inquire more critically into the subject. This explanation of the engraving of dies by means of punches during the Norman period was there condemned on the grounds of the impossibility of hammering such broad blunt punches so close to the edge of a die without splitting it,^ and of the great variety of shape, notably in breadth and in the finish of the fish- tail ends, that is usually exhibited in the upright strokes on the same coin and the same side of it — facts incongruous with the previously accepted theory. A close examination of the lettering on the coins described in this catalogue results in the conclusion that (1) the inscriptions were cut on the dies by means of punches ; (2) the punches, though similar in shape to those above described, were in most cases narrower and less blunt, and do not correspond exactly with the lettering seen on the coins ; that is to say, after the engraver had hammered the punch into the die, he usually broadened the incision thus made and finished it off by means of a tool, pre- sumably a graver's cutting tool ; (3) the irregularity of shape and thickness exhibited by the lettering is explained partly by the finishing touches added with the graver's tool after punching, but partly also by unsuccessful striking of the coins themselves, the metal in many cases having failed to fill sufiiciently the hollows of the die. These conclusions are based on the following points : 1 See Epigraphical Table, Series I, letters C (2), F (2), L (2), S (6), and TH (5). ^ Num. Chrou., 1913, Proceedings, p. 10. " The turning up of the edge of the coins shows that the dies were not larger in diameter than the coins they struck ; but this does not prove that the dies were not made of larger size and filed down after they were engraved. Xliv INTBODUCTION (1) A certain flaw repeating itself in precisely the same position on difterent letters of a coin shows that these letters must have been made by punching the die with an instrument which itself contained tliis flaw. Instances of this are fairly numerous and in many cases easily visible. In the vertical strokes of the letters the following flaws have been noted : ((/) On tlie obverse of William II, no. 69, the letter M has a small flaw at the bottom of the left-hand corner of each vertical stroke, a small semicircular piece being broken off the corner of the punch from which these strokes were made : the same flaw may be seen, less clearly, on most, if not all, of the other letters on the obverse of this coin, notably on the three letters immediately preceding the n (b) A similar, slightly smaller, flaw appears in the same position on the vertical strokes of the obverse of William II, no. 81 (PL XXXI. 7). (c) A similar flaw, in similar position, but rather smaller and less round in shape, on the letters MRE of the obverse of William II, no. 104 (PI. XXXI. 16). (d) A small hole in the left-hand cornei" of the bottom edge of the vertical strokes of L-EX-M and E on the obverse of William II, no. 155 (PI. XXXIII. 7). (e) A small flaw in the lower left-hand fish-tail of the two strokes of /\ in the mint-name on the reverse of William II, no. 160 (PI. XXXIII. 9); the V-shaped form of tliis flaw is noticeable in both strokes of the letter. (/') On the reverse of Stephen, no. 157 (PI. LIII. 14), a crack across the lower left-hand corner, just above the serif, of the second vertical stroke of the N of ON and of the N of the mint-name. ((j) A small hole in the centre of the top edge, just below the serif, of both vertical strokes of the letter N on the obverse of Stephen, no. 170 (PI. LIV. 8). EPIGRAPHY xlv [li) The obverse and reverse of a coin of William II, Hks. 250, of Salisbury (P. C. B. coll.), and of one of the same type of Wilton (H. W. M. coll.), and the reverse of one of the same type of Worcester (P. C. B. coll.), show a break across the centre of the \ertical strokes : it stretches rio-ht through the verticals from side to side, and slopes slightly downwards from left to right ; on the reverse of the Wilton coin the punch is sometimes inverted, on NE, for example, at the end of the mint-name. This grouj) is important, not only as showing that the vertical strokes were made with one punch and not, as has been suggested, from piece- punches (one punch forming the upper half, and another, or the same punch again, forming the lower half of the stroke), but also as evidence of the dies having been -made at London (see below, pp. cxxxv ff.). The close resemblance of the shape of the break in these strokes in all three coins leaves little room for doubt that the dies for the three coins were all made with the same punch. In the horizontal wedge-shaped strokes forming the bars of E, F, &c., the following flaws have been noted : [i) On the reverse of William II, no. 16 (PI. XXVIII. 12), the wedge-shaped bars forming the tail of \K, the lower bar of F and the three bars of E in the mint-name, show two holes, one near each end of the bar : it may be noted that the top bar of E is punched closer in to the vertical stroke than the other two bars, and on this bar the two holes are closer to the vertical, showing clearly that these two flaws were in the punch from which all these bars were made. (/t) On the reverse of William II, no. 94 (PI. XXXI. 11), there is a similar flaw on the bars of E and F in the mint-name near the broad end of the bars. (2) An examination of the strokes containing the flaws above mentioned, and shown therefore to be made from the same punch, reveals considerable variety of shape and breadth in the strokes which were themselves the work of the same punch ; for example, on the coin mentioned above as flaw d (PI. XXXIII. 7) the Xlvi INTRODUCTION strokes X-EL. on the obverse vary in breadth, the first I, being narrower and more waisted than the other two letters : they vary also in the shape and length of their fish-tail ends. As these letters show the same flaw and are therefore made with the same 3)unch, we must conclude that, after hammering the punch into the die, the engraver broadened the incision and finished off" the •ends with a tool. But the point is better shown by instances which have been noted of a portion of a letter being double- punched : (a) On the reverse of William I, no. 292 (PI. X. 16), the letter | in the moneyer's name shows a shaped piece protruding beyond its lower end, corresponding to it in shape but much •smaller in size ; also, near the top of the letter a fish-tail protrudes on either side corresponding to the fish-tails at the top of the letter. (h) On a coin of London (moneyer Wulfword) of William II, type IV, in the York Museum, a similar projection may be seen above the vertical of \} on the obverse, and a similar fish-tail protruding from the left side near the bottom of the letter. These show clearly that the punch has been struck twice into the •die and the marks of the mis-strike not obliterated ; the narrower form of the projecting piece is no doubt partly due to the punch not being hammered so deeply as in the true impression, but also is pro- bably in part due to the broadening of the true impression after punching. Many instances may be found of a similar protrusion .above or below a letter ; for example, on the obverse of William I, no. 167, below the R, and on William I, no. 137 (PI. V. 12), above the vertical of the initial cross of the reverse ; in these and similar cases the protrusion is invariably shaped similarly to the true strike of the vertical stroke, though thinner and smaller; it cannot therefore be due to the slipping of a graver's tool. An example of similar double-punching of a horizontal bar may be seen on the obverse of William II, no. 262 (PI. XXXVII. 4), •where the bar of the third X^ has a wedge-shaped protrusion EPIGRAPHY Xlvii fceyoucl its broad end. I'liere are also cases wliere more than tliree bars are visible on an JE, — on William II, no. 83 (PI. XXXI. 8), the second E of the obverse inscription has the horizontal bar punched no fewer than five times. Similarly, on the reverse of William II, no. 202, the I) of the moneyer's name has four instead of two crescent-shaped punch-marks ; in these cases, again, the narrowness of the punch-marks^ as compared with corresponding strokes of other letters, seems to imply that the usual practice was to broaden the letters after they were punched. That a cuttino- tool was used for finishino^ off the fish-tail ends after punching is also shown by William I, no. 1029, on which the first stroke of ^\ in the mint-name has the lower fish-tail on the left running right out to the vertical of the preceding letter P ; this must have been due to a slip of the graver's tool. The original form of the punches may probably be gathered from William I, no. 186 (PI. VII. 5), on the reverse of which the letters 1,1 of the moneyer's name present a somewhat unusual appearance. The upper surface of these letters is narrow and is sloped sharply ofi" to the field of the die, forming a steep slope instead of the usual perpendicular setting of the letters to the field of the coin;^ probably the engraver, after punching the strokes of the letters, cut the metal of the die in a sharp slope down to the deepest point of the punched impression, instead of cutting down perpendicularly and so broadening the impression. In section, the sides of the vertical strokes of these letters are of the shape —*-, instead of the usual -—-; the shape of the vertical strokes, showing in dotted lines their point of contact with the field, is thus: It is possible that the punches themselves sloped ofi' in this way, and that these letters show^ the untouched punch-work. Frequent varieties of the letter T, on which the horizontal bar has been so punched as to leave the top of the vertical visible ^ Cf. also the lettering of the obverse of the coin of William I, no. 84 (PI. IV. 6), where, however, it may be clue to faulty striking; see below, p. xlviii. Xlviii INTRODUCTION above it, show similarly the shape of one end of the stroke. See Epigraphical Table, Series I, T (2). "We may therefore conclude that the punches were all narrower than the lettering seen on the coins, but probably of the same length,^ and that the engraver, after hammering the punch into the die, broadened with a tool the incision thus made and finished off the corners, increasing the slope of the fish-tail ends of the uprights. (3) The very thin lettering which is seen occasionally on coins is probably due in some cases to the omission of the engraver to broaden the punch-marks ; but duplicates show that it is some- times due to faulty striking of the coins, the flan failing to take the full impression of the die.^ It is not, therefore^ possible to conclude with certainty that the thin lettering gives us the un- touched work of the punch. How nearly the lettering of the later coins, when serifs are added and the verticals are convex instead of concave, resembles the shape and breadth of the punches, it is impossible to say ; in this later period the serifs are added with separate punches and are sometimes omitted.*^ Two coins, William I, no. 329 (PI. XII. 5) and WiUiam II, no. 184 (PI. XXXIV. 4), have upright strokes in the obverse inscription without the horizontal strokes to complete the letters ; on the former coin, between P and JM, the inscription consists of nothing but vertical strokes, on the other coin the initial cross and P alone are complete, the remainder of the inscription being vertical strokes only. On both these coins the uprights seem to be carefully spaced out in such a way as to leave room for the horizontal strokes to be inserted ; and they seem to show that, in making these two dies at least, the engravers punched first ^ See below, p. 1. ^ Compare, for example, William I, nos. 1113, 1114, two coins struck from the same reverse die ; the J^ of the mint-name has on no. 1113 this very thin appearance and on the other the normal thickness. ^ See Henry I, no. 58 (PL XLI. 11), on the obverse of which some of the letters are without serifs. EPIGRAPHY xlix the uprights and finished them off with the graving tool before punching the horizontal strokes. It seems natural to suppose that this was the regular practice, as it would be quicker in working with a punch to hammer into the die the strokes that one punch would make, rather than to keep changing tools in order to finish oft' one letter before beginning another. Having arrived at the conclusion that punches were used in making the inscriptions on the dies, it is possible to find varieties of lettering which may be traced to a change in height or shape of the punches used at different times by engravers, and thereby to obtain further evidence of the chronological sequence of the coin-types of this period.^ With the evidence that has been drawn from Finds, Overstrikcs, and Mules, a considerable number of the types of these four reigns have already been placed in chronological sequence, and this order, which is shown on pp. xli-xlii, connects the various series of epigraphical groups which serve to allocate most of the types at present unplaced. The most important epigraphical change of this period takes place in the reign of Henry I ; on the coins of the two Williams, as on Anglo-Saxon coins, the uprights of the letters have concave sides and more or less fish-tailed ends without serifs ; so, too, on four of the types of Henry I. The remainder of Henry's coins and those of Stephen belong to quite a new epigraphical class, having uprights with convex sides and serifs added by means of separate punches at both ends, serifs being also sometimes present at the ends of the horizontal strokes of C, E, &c. ; improved (l. e. less rudimentary) forms of lettering, notably /V, I^, \^, are found on coins of this new class, and also on coins of one type^ only of the old class, a type which may therefore safely be regarded as the last of the types which bear the old form of lettering. The Epigraphical Table shows clearly the distinction between these two classes, Series I-IV comprising the earlier class, and 1 See Num. Chron., 1913, pp. 399 ft'. 2 ' Annulets and Piles ' type of Henry I (Hks. 257). 1 INTRODUCTION Series V-IX the later. The nine series into which the epigraphical groups are there divided reflect the use of different forms of punches in the cutting of the dies; in each series the normal forms of all the letters and the most important varieties are figured. The drawings are to the scale of 2 to 1. Of the four series of the old class, two are found on types of Henry I, the later of which must be that in which occur the new forms of /V, l^, \r, i- e. Series IV ; Series III will therefore be the other series of the old class which is found on coins of Henry I. Series I covers all the types of the two Williams with the exception of some coins of the ' Voided Cross ' type (Hks. 250) and all of the ' Crosses Pattde and Fleury ' type (Hks. 247), which have lettering of a larger type, Series II, and the coins of the * Cross Fleury and Piles ' (Hks. 248), which have lettering of Series III. The new class of lettering forms five series, of which two contain types of Henry I, and two contain types of Stephen ; the remaining one contains types of both Henry I and Stephen, and may therefore be placed between the two series of Henry types and the two series of Stephen types ; this middle series groups together, as would be expected, Hks. 262, 255, 270, and 269, which were found on other evidence to be the last two types of Henry and the first two of Stephen. Immediately preceding this series (no. VII) must be placed the series containing Hks. 265, the type that has been found to precede Hks. 262 ; this is therefore Series VI, and the other series of Henry types is Series V. Of the two series of Stephen types, the one containing Hks. 268, the last type of the reign, must be the later, and these series can therefore be numbered IX and VIII respectively. The nine series are differentiated, after the main division of the old and new classes of lettering, chiefly by the height of the uprights ; measurement shows so minute a variation in the height of lettering on coins of the same series that it is safe to assume that the engraver, in finishing off the letters with the tool, kept within the upper and lower limits of the punch -mark, broadening the strokes without increasing their height. The measurement EPIGRAPHY is taken to the centre of the top and bottom of the uprights. There is also marked difference in finish and breadth of lettering in the different series. Probably the engravers copied a model set them by the chief engraver, so that the finish of the letter is not the original effort of the individual workman based on the traditions of the mint, but a close copy of the chief engraver's original design ; otherwise it would be impossible to account for the very close resemblance of the finished lettering on the coins ; presumably the workmen were usually unable to read or write, and ignorantly copied the model set them.^ The variety of form and height of these uprights may be seen on the following diagram, on which the uprights are drawn to scale (three times the original size) upon a ground ruled with horizontal lines which mark halves of millimetres in the original : ^ SERIES I SERIES II SERIES SERIES III IV SERIES V SERIES VI SERIES VIE SERIES SERIES VIII IX — ^^^r— ^^ IM , . -^1^— —^^F— — -Jt— 'M' — ^HF-^ — — ^f-— _ "~"^^B "^ ^^■"~~" ^H ^^B ^^m ___^^^___ ^^V* ^^M ^^V ^^^ —■■—J U_a«^ . Series I is the lettering in use at the beginning of the reign of William I, and continues through ten types bearing the name of William ; it includes also some of the coins of the eleventh William type (Hks. 250, ' Cross Voided ' type). It is not, however, a strictly homogeneous series, but is comprised of three groups which differ slightly in finish but hardly enough to necessitate the creation of three separate series. The earliest of the three groups is seen on coins of the first four types of William I, and occasionally on coins of his fifth (' Two Stars '), and sixth (' Sword ') types, and is of the form represented in the table ; it is usually narrower and slightly smaller (2 •2 mm.) than that which follows it (2-4 mm.). The second group with thicker up- rights appears first on the fourth (' Two Sceptres ') type and continues to the eighth ('Paxs') type. On Hks. 244 the third ^ For intelligent attempts to copy a blundered model see below, p. cxxxvi. ^ This block is rei^roduced from Num. Chron., 1913, p. 404, by kind permission of the Council of the Royal Numismatic Society. d 2 lii INTRODUCTION group appears — a lettering of the same height as the preceding, but having as its characteristic more marked fish-tail ends to the uprights ; this continues on Hks. 246 and some coins of Hks. 250. Thus, with the exception of these slight varieties within the series (it must be remembered that the drawings of Series I represent rather the earlier than the later style of this series), Series I continues throughout the first ten types bearing the name of William and on some coins of the ' Cross Voided ' type (Hks. 250). The finish of the lettering of the first eight types is very good, and carefully worked, especially in types III to VIII, but after the ' Paxs ' type there is a very marked decline both in the striking of the coins and in the finish of the dies. Series II represents a much larger lettering (2'8 mm.) with coarser finish and more careless striking. It is used on some coins of the ' Cross Voided ' type (Hks. 250) and all the coins of the ' Crosses Patte'e and Fleury ' type (Hks. 247 ^). The fact that Hks. 250 forms a transitional type containing lettering of both Series I and II confirms the previous evidence of its position between Hks. 246 and Hks. 247. Series III (2'5 mm.) is of a narrower and less clumsy form ; the lettering shows better finish and greater neatness, the uprights broaden at the top more than at the lower end. It is used on the coins of the ' Cross Fleury and Piles ' type (Hks. 248) with the name of William, and on those of the 'Annulets' type (Hks. 251) with the name of Henry. An epigraphical connexion is thus formed between the William and Henry coins, confirming the placing of Hks. 248 as the last type of William II, and defining the first type of Henry I. The evidence of Finds left a doubt whether Hks. 252, which occurs in the Shillington find, or Hks. 251, which occurs in the Bermondsey find (see above, pp. xxiii-xxiv), was the first type of the reign of Henry I. The evidence of the Bermondsey find is therefore correct ; in fact, the type of the Shillington find, Hks. 252, has ^ The few exceptions mentioned in I\um. Chron., 1913, p. 404, are very doubtful. EPIGRAPHY liii lettering of the new class with serifs and convex uprights, and must therefore at the earliest come later than the four Henry types with lettering of the old class. Series IV (1-8 mm.) is the last of the old concave style. The uprights are usually disproportionately broad, giving an ugly squat appearance to the letters. It covers three types of Henry I — the ' Profile and Cross Fleury ' (Hks. 254), ' Pax ' (Hks. 253), and ' Annulets and Piles ' (Hks. 257) types ; of the first two of these three types we have at present found no evidence of position, but the third (Hks. 257) has already been shown, from the forms /V, I'*, and \f,^ to be the last type with lettering of the old class. In the word PAX in the field of Hks. 253 occurs the form of /V found in the inscriptions of Hks. 257, sometimes with and sometimes without the upper bar. This first appearance of a true A form ^ may perhaps be taken as evidence that the ' Pax ' type immediately precedes Hks. 257, but this conclusion is by no means a certain one, for the use of the letter in the word PAX may be conventional, as we find a similar true A form in PAXS on coins of Hks. 241 and also on the coins of Harold. The ' Profile and Cross Fleury ' (Hks. 254) and ' Pax ' (Hks. 253) types may therefore be placed provisionally as second and third types, with the 'Annulets and Piles' (Hks. 257) type as the fourth type of the reign. On the last of these three types there appears a slight tendency to make the lettering narrower and more legible, but the height is only very slightly increased, and the execution remains careless and ill finished. Series V (2-5 mm.). This is the first series of the new class with serifs and convex uprights. It includes all the coins of : 'Voided Cross and Fleurs' type (Hks. 267), ' Pointing Bust and Stars ' type (Hks. 266), ' Quatrefoil and Piles' type (Hks. 252), * Larger Profile and Cross and Annulets ' type (Hks. 256) ; ^ See also notes on letter G below, p. Iviii. •^ Witti the exception of occasional forms on William coins ; see Epigraphical Table, Series I, A. 4, 5, 6. liv INTRODUCTION and some coins of : ' Cross in Quatrefoil ' type (Hks. 263), ' Full Face and Cross Fleury' type (Hks. iv), ' Double Inscription ' type (Hks. 258). Of these types, Hks. 267 is connected by the Bari find with Hks. 257, which has been placed as the fourth of the reign, and Hks. 266 is connected by a mule with Hks. 267. The other two types, Hks. 252 and 256, which have this series of lettering only, must be placed as the seventh and eighth types, but there is no evidence to show which of the two is the earlier. The order of the three remaining types, which form transitional types from Series V to Series VI, is already fixed by the mules in the Hunterian collection (see above, pp. xl-xli). The earliest form of lettering of this series, at the introduction of the serifs and convex uprights with type V (Hks. 267), differs slightly from the later forms; it is somewhat higher (2-7 mm.), rather less convex, and very much finer in execution,^ The lettering assumes its more usual form on some coins of type VI and so continues throughout the series ; this form is less neat in appearance and the finish less careful. The introduction of pellets to divide the words of the legends begins in this series,^ — on the fifth, sixth, and seventh types of Henry they are used occasionally, and on the eighth and later types almost invariably. Series VI (2 mm.) is a smaller and more neatly finished lettering. It covers the remaining coins of types IX, X, XI (Hks. 263, iv, 258), and all the coins of the ' Smaller Profile and Cross and Annulets ' (Hks. 264) and ' Star in Lozenge Fleury ' (Hks. 265) types, the latter of which is connected by a mule with the ' Pellets in Quatrefoil ' ' It was pointed out above, p.xxv, that the evidence of the Bari find was not by any means conclusive ; but I am content to accept it in placing Hks. 267 as the first type of the new class of lettering, as I think that this different and much more finely executed form of lettering is likely to be the earliest work after the change. ^ There are a few isolated instances on earlier coins. EPIGRAPHY hr type (Hks. 262) ; some coins also of Hks. 262 have lettering of this series. Hks. 264 is thus fixed as the twelfth type of the reign. Series VII (2-3 mm.) includes coins of the last two types of Henry I and of the first two types of Stephen (Hks. 262, 255, 270, 269). It is a larger lettering and has uprights with less curved sides ; the dies appear for the most part to have been carefully finished. A still larger style of lettering seems to have come into occasional use for obverse inscriptions during this series ; this larger lettering (2'7 mm.) is found on the obverse of some coins of Stephen's first type (Hks. 270) which read STIEFNE, and also on a few coins of his second type (Hks. 269); examples of it may be seen on PI. L. 11, LI. 11, LIII. 4. Series VIII (2 mm.) is a small lettering with straighter sides to the uprights, their convexity being now scarcely visible. Some coins of Stephen's second type (Hks. 269) fall into this series,^ which includes also the coins of the ' Cross and Fleurs ' (Hks. 276) and ' Lozenge Fleury and Annulets ' (Hks. xix) types, and some coins apparently of the type figured on PI. LV. 1. Of this last type only two specimens are known to me ; on one (see below, p. 367, no. 179, PI. LV. 1) the lettering is of Series IX, on the other '^ the obverse is illegible and the reverse has lettering of Series VIII ; this therefore seems to be the transitional type of Series VIII and IX, and Hks. 276 and xix may be placed immediately after Hks. 269 as the third and fourth types of the reign, though there is no evidence to show which is the earlier of the two. Series IX (2-6 mm.) returns to a much larger lettering. The types falling into this series are, besides the transitional type just mentioned as the fifth of the reign, the remaining two types of Stephen, Hks. xviiib and 268, of which Hks. 268 is already placed as the last type by the Awbridge find. On this series there seems to be some irregularity of height, some of the uprights ^ Also perhaps a few, but very few, of Stephen's first type (Hks. 270). See Num. Chron., 1913, p. 409. - B. Roth collection (the reverse is illustrated in Num. Chron., 1913, n. XIX. 7 b). Ivi INTEODUCTION measuring as much as 2-8 and others only 2-4 mm. ; it may be that here again a larger lettering was sometimes used for obverse inscriptions, as on some coins of Stephen's first type.^ The coins have for the most part a coarse and unpleasing appearance, due partly to the clumsiness of the lettering and partly to the roughness in execution of the dies. This large lettering is also seen on some coins of the first issue of Henry II (the so-called ' Tealby ' type). The results thus obtained from epigraphical evidence, and the association of this evidence with that of Finds and Mules, may be seen below, pp. Ixvi-lxvii. In the Epigraphical Table the ordinary forms of letters in use in each series are figured, and also the chief varieties ; from these are omitted the forms on coins of very coarse and irregular work which are mentioned below.^ A. The first two forms in the table are those in regular use^ the former being the earlier and more common on the early types of William I ; the inclination of the two strokes tends quickly to diminish, and the form of the letter is reduced to the two parallel strokes of the second form, which remains in use throughout the reigns of William I and II, and the first three types of Henry I. The third form, similar to form 1 but with a cross-bar added, occurs rarely: p. 7, no. 31 ; p. 10, no. 55; p. 22, no. 114; p. 46, no. 234 (PI. III. 4 ; V. 3 ; IX. 1). Similarly, with parallel uprights, the letter H is substituted for /\ on p. 22, no. 117. Form 4 : p. 3, no. 9 (PI. I, 8). Form 5 : p. 75, no. 402 (PI. XIV. 8) ; p. 82, no. 445 ; a Stamford coin of the second type of William I (York Museum) ; in the word PW^S on all coins of the eighth type of William I. Form 6 : p. 37, no. 196 (PI. VII. 11). Series III, form 2, occurs on the obverse of a Winchester coin of Henry I, type I, in Mr. Lockett's collection ; this is a roughly- formed letter engraved somewhat carelessly ; the finish at the ^ See above, p. Iv. ^ p. cxxxviii. EPIGRAPHY Ivii upper end is uncertain, nor is it quite clear whether there is a central cross-bar (see PI. XXXVIII. 16). In Series IV, forms 2 and 3 are found in the word PJtK on type III of Henry I,^ and are both in regular use on type IV, the old form being now abandoned. The forms of this letter in the new class of lettering, Series V-IX, call for no comment ; a large top bar with serifs is introduced in Series VII and continues to the end of the period. In Series IX both barred and unbarred forms are found on types VI and VII of Stephen. B shows no varieties of importance. An interesting ease of double-punching of this letter is seen on the coin of William II, p. 249, no. 202, and has already been mentioned.^ In Series II the crescents tend to be thinner and less curved ; in Series III the second form, which occurs on p. 264, no. 273 (PI. XXXVII. 15), is due to the limited space in which the engraver had to cut the letter. C is regularly of the square form throughout the whole of this period ; the second figure of Series I shows a very natural punch- worker's error which occurs occasionally. The round forms (Series I, form 3, Series V, form 3, and Series VII, form 2) occur on William I, p. 75, no. 402 (PI. XIV. 8), Henry I, p. 288, no. 70, and pp. 323-4, nos. 231-4 (PI. XLVII. 16). D. The very straight form of loop which is figured in Series V, form 1, occurs on the earlier coins of the series which have the finer lettering.^ Cf. p. 276, no. 33 (PI. XL. 1). E. The round form of Series I, form 2, is found on William I, p. 25, no. 132 (PI. V. 10); the similar form, Series V, form 3, is on a London (Sigar) coin of Henry I, type VI, in the Hunterian col- lection. In Series V and VI the horizontal bars of E, as also of E SLud F, are sometimes with, sometimes without, serifs ; in Series VII they are more common without serifs, but are still ^ See above, p. liii. ^ p. xlvii. '■' See above, p. liv. Iviii INTRODUCTION sometimes found with them ; in Series VIII and IX the serifs are usually present. F. Series I, form 2, shows a not uncommon error and one natural to punch-work ; cf. William I, p. 28, no. 148 (PL VI. 3). Similar errors are fc, cf. William I, p. 117, no. 624 (PI. XIX. 11), and E for F, and F for E. G. The first two forms of Series I are both in regular use ; form 3 shows a different shape of the top stroke, probably this is worked with a tool and not due to a punch of different shape. In Series II both forms are again commonly used, and in Series III and IV the form with the complete circle — O with a wedge-shaped bar at the top — is alone used, except on a Hunterian coin (Winchester) of type IV, where the new form of this letter, Series IV, form 2, is already introduced. Probably the letter was not made in the ordinary way with a punch, but, like 0,^ marked out on the die with a turning instrument like a pair of compasses, in some cases the ch'cle not being completed and in others a complete circle being formed, and at the top of this circle or semicircle an incision was made with a wedge-shaped punch such as is used for the bars of E, &c. In the centre of the letter may sometimes be seen a raised pellet, cf. William I, p. 47, no. 239 (Pl, IX. 4) ; a similar pellet is commonly seen in the centre of the letter 0, also fre- quently in the centre of the reverse of coins, notably in William I's first type. This pellet is probably due to the fixed foot of the compasses cutting a small hole in the die. The unevenness of the outline would be due to the engraver finishing oft' the letter free- hand after marking it out in this way. Series IV, form 2, is mentioned above ; it is the earliest appearance of the form of G which is in use on the serifed classes (Series V-VIII) and supplies additional evidence of this type being the fourth of the reign. - H. As already mentioned, the Roman form of this letter is invariable down to the third type of Henry I's reign ; on his fourth ^ See below, p. Ix. ^ See above, p. liii. EPIGRAPHY lix t}-pe the English form appears and is ahvaj'S used to the end of the period. The importance of this letter in determining the position of type IV of Henry I (Hks. 257) has already been noticed. I. The only point with regard to this letter that need be mentioned is its frequent use instead of ^\, N, &c.. at the end of an inscription where there is not room for the whole letter ; thus PILLEM X\E^ I (for /\) is of frequent occurrence, similarly LVI for LVM. K. This letter is found on two coins in the York Museum of William I's first type (var. inscription beginning above head) which read VLFHEEEL on EOFOK (same dies?). Also on Winchester coins of Henry I, type XV, and Stephen, type I, with the raoneyer's name Kippig or Chippig ; see p. 332, nos. 296, 297, and pp. 353-4, nos. 120-3. L. The second form in Series I is figured as one of the many examples of errors that are essentially due to working with punches. William I, p. 58, no. 297. M. The intersecting lines of the letter seem to have been usually engraved with a tool; this, however, was not always the case, as some coins show clearly that wedge-shaped punches were used for this purpose, e. g. W' illiam I, p. 159, no. 856 (reverse), W^illiam II, p. 264, no. 271 (obverse). The varieties in Series I need no special comment; for form 3 see William I, p. 30, no. 162 (PI. VI. 11) ; for form 4, William I, p. 12, no. 69 (PI. III. 9). In Series V, form 2 occurs on Henry I, p. 280, no. 42 (PL XL. 12), and a similar spread form on Henry I, p. 291, no. 78 (PI. XLII. 9). Series VI, form 2, is found on Henry I, p. 286, no. 62. N. There are no varieties of particular interest. In Series I the reversely barred form, form 3, occurs on W^illiam I, p. 12, no. 67, and p. 117, no. 624 (PI. III. 7 ; XIX. 11) ; for form 4 see W' illiam II, p. 219, nos. 29-31 (PI. XXIX. 5). In Series IV the regular form, form 1, is alone in use on coins at present known of types II and III ; on type IV is introduced a fashion of the reversely barred letter. Ix INTRODUCTION form 2 ; all the known coins of type IV, with one exception/ having form 2, or, rarely, form 3. On some coins of type V which have the earlier style of Series V, the reversely barred form (form 1 of Series V) is still retained in use, but it disappears before the introduction of type VI. O. Form 1 of Series I is that in regular use in the reign of William I; it seems not to have been punched into the die, but to have been marked out with compasses, and afterwards, like punched letters, thickened and finished with a tool ; ^ as in the letter G, a pellet is frequently visible in the centre. The size varies considerably, a very small form (Series I, form 2) being sometimes seen.^ The letter is not uncommonly found in the form of a large pellet, that is to say, the centre of the letter has been accidentally cut away on the die."* A double form sometimes occurs (Series I, form 3 ■^), which might be due either to double-punching or to marking out the circle in the wrong position and re-marking it, or by marking it doubly by swinging the compasses round on the wrong foot. During the reign of William I is introduced a different form of the letter (Series I, form 4), which is made by two crescent-shaped punches ; it occurs as early as type IV,*^ but is very rarely found before type VIII ; on type VIII the two forms are equally common ; on William II's first type the form made by two crescent punches is the one in regular use, the other form being not frequent on this type and rare on type II; on the introduction of Series II the round form returns into regular use, and is not uncommonly of small size (Series II, form 2) ; Series II, form 3, occurs occasionally on type III and rarely on type IV. In Series III a small round type is regular, form 2 occurring on William II, p. 264, no. 271, ^ A coin in the Hunterian collection reading »i«CrOI)PXNIOM*X)NC e: ^ See on G above, p. Iviii. » William I, p. 97, no. 511 (PI. XVIII. 6). " William I, p. 16, no. 78. ^ William I, p. 55, no. 289 (PI. X. 14) ; William II, pp. 229-30, nos. 89, 90. <> See p. 54, no. 281 (PI. X. 8). EPIGRAPHY Ixi and p. 265, no. 280 (PI. XXXVII. 11, 16). The round type alone is found in Series IV, but with the introduction of the new style in Series V the form made with crescent punches is re-introduced, and the round form does not appear again. Some strange forms of this letter have occasionally been noted, e.g. Xum. Chron., 1901, p. 288 (British Museum coin, p. 273, no. 27), due in this and some other cases to a flaw in the die, or, more frequentl}', to the letter Ijeing engraved over the impression of a vertical punch (see Pi. XVI. 5 ; XIX. 14). P. There are no varieties of this letter, except such slight varieties as are due to the careless punching of the loop ; an instance is shown in Series I, form 2 (cf. on William I, p. 137, no. 728, the last letter of the reverse inscription).^ R. This letter, similarly, has only varieties due to careless punch- work ; a strange instance is shown in the Table (Series I, form 2), on which the loop has been punched away from the vertical stroke at the end of the tail, which is itself placed nearly at right angles to the vertical: see William II, p. 246, no. 187, the R in the moneyer's name (PI. XXXIV. 7). A coin of Henry I, p. 329, no. 276 (PL XLVIII. 6), has in the mint-name an instance of this letter with a true-formed tail with doulile curve (R), instead of the usual small crescent ; traces of double-punching within the letter incline one to think that this must be made with a new tail-punch, but I have not met with this form elsewhere in this period. S. How much of this letter was made by punches is not always quite clear; it shows considerable variety in form, due partly to difference in the finish of the central part of the letter, the usual practice being to form the letter of two small crescent and two small wedge punches. For lesser varieties see William I, nos. 11, 15, 45, 70 (PL I. 10, 13; II. 16; III. lO), also the S in PK^S throughout type YIII, where the crescent punch-marks overlap 1 The fourth form of W should also be classed as P; see below, p. 246, no. 190, and Errata. Ixii INTRODUCTION considerably owing to the small space within which the letter is enclosed. The following are the varieties figured in the Table : Series I, form 2 : not uncommon, e.g. \Mlliam I, p. 16, no. 77, and p. 32, no. 175 (PI. IV. 3; VI. 14). form 3 : William I, p. 136, no. 722 (a contemporary forgery). form 4 : William I, p. 18, no. 90 (PI. IV. 11). form 5 : William I, p. 20, nos. 100, 101. form 6 : William II, p. 246, no. 190, a variety showing extreme carelessness of punch-work. Series V, form 2 : Henry I, type VII, London, Spirling (P. C. B. coll.). form 3 : Henry I, type IX, Sandwich, Wulf wart (W. C. W. coll.), PI. XLI. 8. Series VI, form 2 : Henry I, p. 285, no. 58 (PI. XLI. 11). T. The upright of this letter appears as either a thin vertical punch, such as is used also for making initial crosses (Series I, forms 1, 2), or an ordinary thick vertical (Series I, form 3), or wedge-shaped (Series I, form 4) ; the cross-bar is commonly made by an ordinary vertical punch thickened and finished off' in the usual way ; sometimes by two wedge-shaped punches (Series I, form 4 ; Series II, form 2), a form which is in regular use in and after Series III. Series I, form 2, shows the way in which the top of the vertical is frequently left visible,^ cf. William I, nos. 540, 559, 852 (Pl. XVIII. 15) ; form 4 may be seen on p. 4, no. 11 (PI. 1. 10) ; form 5 on p. 49, no. 251 (PI. IX. 8), and William II, p. 222, no. 46 (PI. XXX. 2). The varieties of later series are due mostly to presence or absence of serifs to the upper Ijar, and the use of wedge punches for the bar •or the engraving of a line. In Series V, form 3 shows again the top of the vertical punch, Henry I, p. 277, no. 36 (PI. XL. 4). V. At the beginning of the reign of William I the two strokes forming this letter are usually sloped towards each other at the lower end, but this letter soon becomes, like A, two parallel strokes, and therefore not distinguishable from A. The true V form (Series I, form 3) made w^ith two long wedge-shaped punches ^ See above, p. xlvii. EPIGRAPHY Ixiii occurs on William I, p. 11, no. 62; p. 162, no. 869 (PI. XXIII. 8), and a few other coins. In Series IV form 1 is used throughout types II and III, and form 2, we have seen above,^ is the true form which appears first on type IV, and continues (in variety with or witliout serifs) to the end of the period. W. The Anglo-Saxon form, Wen, is used to express this letter throughout the whole period : for a short period in Series VI and VII the later English form, W, is introduced on the last two types of Henry I and the first type of Stephen, but the Anglo-Saxon form continues with it and survives it ; the form W occurs only rarely on Stephen's first type, and apparently not at all on the remaining types of his reign.- The form used for Wen is not different from that of P except on a few coins of the first two types of William I, on which a wedge punch is used instead of the crescent punch (Series I, form 2). See p. 9, nos. 45, 46 (PL II. 16) ; examples of this are rare, and are probably accidental rather than intentional. Form 3 shows the large crescent punch used by mistake for the small crescent, see William I, p. 2, no. 3 (PI. I. 3), and p. 52, no. 273 ; in form 4 the loop has been punched too close to the vertical, and ^ives the appearance of a swelling on the side of the vertical, see William II, p. 246, no. 190.^ X. The regular form of this letter is made with wedge-shaped punches ; occasionally a cross is used in its place, as on p. 10, no. 53 (PI. III. 3), a form figured in Series I, form 2 ; this form made with an ordinary upright and two wedge punches is always used on the three types of Series IV. In the new class of lettering the form varies considerably ; the limbs are usually straight, sometimes thick, sometimes thin, either with or without serifs. ^ p. xlix. ^ Except in irregular issues (see below, pp. xcii ff.). ^ This letter should have been read as P, and not W ; the name is evidently :Sperling. Ixiv INTRODUCTIOK DH, TH. The Anglo-Saxon form, D, remains in use on coins nearly to the end of the reign of Henry I ; its last appearance is on the Bath coin of Henry I, type XIII, p. 295, no. 87 (PL XLIII. 2). The earliest appearance of TH as separate letters is on the Bristol coin of Henry I, type X, p. 285, no. 57 (PI. XLI. 10). In the name of the mint, Thetford, the form D is earlier abandoned for the letter T ; on Henry I's third type the D form is used, but on the fifth ^ and later types the name of the mint appears as TETFO, &e. The regular form of the letter is form 1, Series I ; it is made as D with the addition of a wedge-shaped stroke on either side of the vertical, each pointed towards the vertical ; form 2 shows a variety with the wedges punched with broad ends towards the vertical, p. 25, no. 133 ; in form 3 a longer wedge has been punched through the loop instead of two small wedges through the vertical, William I, nos. 80, 96-8, 150, 166, 167, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178 (PL IV. 14; VI. 13). Form 4 is made with a small instead of a large crescent punch, p. 28, no. 148 (PL VI. 3). Form 5 is a tj'pical punch-worker's error ; the engraver has used the straight punch instead of the large crescent punch: it occurs on p. 27, nos. 144-6" (PL VI. 2), and p. 220, no. 37 (PL XXIX. 10). In Series II the regular form is as that of Series I ; on p. 257, no. 245 (shown more clearly on a Hunterian coin from the same dies) form 2 of this series is used; instead of two wedge-shaped impressions one only is made, that within the letter, the outer one being omitted. This becomes the regular form of Series III and IV ; on the introduction of the new class of lettering in Series V, the cross-bar is carried right through the vertical. JE. On the first three types of William I the diphthong form figured in Series I, form 1, is frequently used, e.g. p. 42, no. 224 (PL VIII. 10) : this is made by attaching a long wedge-shaped stroke to the letter E ; a similar diphthong form, but made with a short, instead of a long, wedge punch, is also used, Series I, form 2, e. g. p. 16, no. 78.^ Series I, form 3, which occurs on some coins of * Of his fourth type I know no Thetford coins. * See below, p. cxxxvi. ' These two forms are not distinguished in the text of the Catalogue. EPIGRAPHY IXV the earliest types of William I, becomes the only form in use at the end of the reign ; it consists of the bars of an E attached to the second vertical of an A, the verticals of A being little or not at all inclined towards each other at their upper end; in appearance, therefore, it does not differ from IE. This form con- tinues to the end of the old class of lettering; it is found on Henry I's third type, and on a coin of his fourth type in Major Carlyon-Britton's collection,^ if the moneyer's name on this coin reads, as I think, SIEPINE. In Series VII the diphthong appears in the natural form, the bars of an E being attached to the second stroke of an A. I have found no instance of the use of the diphthong during Series V and VI,^ but as in every form that occurs, except the first two forms of Series I and that of Henry I, type IV (when a new A form had just been introduced), the bars of an E are added to the form of A at the time in use, it is reason- able to suppose that in Series V and VI the form would be similar to that of Series VII ; the change of form (which is in reality dependent on the form of A) comes most probably with the change from the old to the new class of lettering. •i". The custom of placing a cross at the beginning of both obverse and reverse legends is continued throughout this period with few exceptions.^ This initial cross is formed of a vertical, usually thinner than that of the ordinary letters, with a wedge- shaped stroke on either side of it. Sometimes the cross-bar is formed by a single stroke similar to the vertical, Series I, form 2. Form 3 shows a common variety with broad vertical like that of other letters ; this form is always used in Series IV instead of that with a thin vertical. In the new class of letterino; the forms 1 Xum. Chron., 1901, PL III. 10. ^ In Num. Chi-071., 1901, p. 53, it is stated that IE represents M on type VII (Hks. 252 ; W. J. A. IV), but I can find no instance of the diphthong occurring on this type in this or any other form except the one quoted {ibid., p. 288) from a sale catalogue. 3 "William I, p. 27, nos. 144-6 (reverse) ; p. 150, no. 805 (obverse) ; William II, p. 222, no. 46 (obverse) ; Henry I, obverse of all coins of type XI ; also p. 313, no. 177 (obverse), and p. 314, no. 181 (obverse). e Ixvi INTRODUCTION vary with or without serifs, and with straight or wedge-shaped limbs. The use of compound, or ligatured, letters seems to begin in the fifth type of William I ; the only earlier instance that I have met in this reign is N^ in type I (p. 8, no. 38, and p. 11, no. 59); in types V to VII they are not common, but in type VIII they are frequent, and continue in common use in the later reigns. They have no significance, and are evidently used merely for the saving of space or, sometimes, are due to an error of the die engraver. Occasionally as many as three letters are run together, e.g. KR on p. 223, no. 52, &c., HI, on p. 153, no. 823. Order of Types. The following Table summarizes the evidence for the arrangement of the types. On the left, the types are bracketed by the Epigraphical Series, and on the right by Mules (with references to numbers on pp. xxxix ff.) and Finds. The numbers of Hawkins's plates are inserted between the brackets of Mules and Finds in order to render the table more clear. The Nottingham, Bute, Winterslow, and Colchester finds are omitted from this table (see pp. xxvii ff. and Table of Finds). The brackets of Finds are dotted to show types absent from the finds. For the following notes see refei-ences on p. Ixvii. ^ Classification of types of William I and II in Num. Chron., 1902, pp. 211 &., and Brit. Num. Joitrn., vol. ii, pp. 130 ff. ; and classification of types of Henry I in Num. CJiron., 1901, pp. 42 ff., and of Steplien in Brit. Num. Journ., vol. viii, p. 386. ^ Overstruck on type I and on coin of Harold II (p. xxxiv, nos. 1, 2). ^ Overstruck on type IV (p. xxxiv, no. 4). * 0%'erstruck on type IV (p. xxxiv, no. 5). ^ Overstruck on type VI (p. xxxiv, no. 6). 6 Overstruck on tj'pe VII i p. xxxiv, no. 7). ■^ Overstruck on William I, type VIII (p. xxxiv, no. S). ^ Overstruck on "William I, type III, and on William II, type I (p. xxxiv, nos. 10, 11). ^ Overstruck on William II. types II and III (p. xxxv, nos. 12, 13), 10 Order of types II and III doubtful, see p. liii. 11 Evidence of letters (^^^ J/^^ '\^ &c.), see p. xlix. 1- Order of types VII and VIII doubtful, see p. liv. 1^ Order of types III and IV doubtful, see p. Iv. ORDER OF TYPES Ixvii Series IV Series V Confessor William I Series ] I William II Series J \ •' II 1 Series J " III (Henry I Series VI i Series VII Series VIII Series IX Stephen Type I . IP . III . IV . V^ . VP . VIP , vin« , p , IP III , IV « V I II 10 IIPO IV" V VI VIP2 VIIP2 IX X XI XII XIII XIV . XV I II . Ill" . IV ^3 V . VI . VII P.C.B. OR W.J.A.i Mules Hks. I . II . III . IV . V . VI . VII . Yin . 1 2 . 4 . 3 . 5 . I . II . III . VI . VII , VIII , IV , V . X , XI , XII IX . XIII . XIV . XV 1 . 2 . 3, or 4 4, or 3 ... 5 ... Finds S--8 1 1 "1. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ■5 J" Henry II ...First (' Tealby ') Issue For notes see preceding page. / 233 ^2) \ (234 '^' ^^^ ( 1236 t|237 I 1238 243 (239 (241 (244 1246" 250 (247 1248 251 254 253 257" J267_ (266 252 256 (263 t ivi 258 ib 264 i| j265 I (262j" 255 (270 1269. 276 xix xviiib -J to 268~|| 285JI J" : w r-i Si's 3 ' ID : 3 .11 1 J •73 O •a 11 Ixviii INTRODUCTION For this attribution of eight types to William I and five to William II there seems considerable probability, though there is no definite evidence. It rests mainly on the proportion of types to the years of the reign and a comparison with that of other reigns.^ Many other arguments have been and might be produced in favour of this division, but they are all conjectural and open to serious objection. That the first type issued after the accession of a Norman king would necessarily be in profile ^ cannot be main- tained in the face of the strong evidence in favour of placing the full-face type (Hks. 251) at the beginning of the reign of Henry I. It might be considered satisfactory to divide the types at a point where no mule exists, in Avhich case the only variants to the present attribution are to draw the line before or after Hks. 243, or before or after Hks. 250, and none of these divi- sions gives so satisfactory a proportion ; but, on the other hand, mules exist not only with an obverse of Edward Confessor and reverse of Harold 11,^ but even with an obverse of Edward Confessor and the reverse of William I's second type (see below, p. 13). The ' Paxs ' type has been assigned to a date within the period 1082-7 on the evidence of the Durham coinage (Num. Ghron., 1901, p. 183), but the charter by which the Durham coins were dated is spurious (see Davis, Regesta, vol. i, no. 148). If the use of the word Fax in the design of the coinage could be supposed to have any reference to the condition of the country, the only period in which the issue of the ' Pass ' type by either William could reasonably be placed would be during the last two years of the reign of William I, that is to say, after the Danes abandoned their scheme of invasion in the autumn of 1085. But no such meaning can be attached to the use of Pax as a design for the coinage when that design was the only one issued by the ' See Num. Chron., 1912, pp. 103-4, where it is shown that there seems to be an average duration of between two and three years for each type. ^ Biit. Num. Joiirn., vol. ii, p. 137. 3 Nu7n. Chron., 1905, PI. VII i. 81. ORDER OF TYPES Ixix unfortunate Harold 11,^ whose succession was so hazardous as to require indecent haste in the burial of the late king and in his own coronation ceremony ; who came to the throne with an inva- sion already preparing in Norway, and in face of the certainty of armed opposition from Normandy and the probability of risings in Northumbria, if not in other parts of the country ; who was no sooner crowned than he made ready for war, and defeated one enemy only to meet his death immediately after at the hands of another. The dating of the types is also conjectural and can only be based on the proportion of types to the number of years of the reign. It is certainly noteworthy that these and other reigns seem to show an average duration of two to three years for each type,^ and perhaps two or three years was the usual period for a type to run ; but it is difficult to put so short a limit to the first type of Stephen, which there is good reason to suppose was in issue at the time of his captivity in 1141." A theory of the triennial issue of types has been based on the evidence of a tax called Monetagium or Monedagium, which is mentioned in Domesday* and in the Charter of Liberties of Henry I^ (1100); a parallel has been found between this tax and the Monetagium of Normandy,*^ a triennial hearth-tax granted to the people by Duke William, probably in or shortly before 1080, as a concession in exchange for the ducal privilege of debasing ^ See Ramsay, Foundations of England, vol. ii, pp. 2-3. But this type was not originated by the Confessor, for the coins with his obverse which bear this reverse type are clearly ' mules ' struck in the reign of Harold. The tj'pe must have been issued by Harold. 2 See Num. Chron., 1912, pp. 103-4. ^ See below, p. Ixxv. * ' Aluredus nepos Turoldi habet 3 toftes de terra Sybi, quam rex sibi dedit, in quibus habet omnes consuetudines pi-aeter geldum regis de Monedagio ' {Domesday, fol. 336 b (Lincoln)). "" ' Monetagium commune quod capiebatur per ciuitates et comitatus, quod non fuit tempore regis Eadwardi, hoc ne amodo sit, omnino defendo ' {ChaHer of Liberties of Henry I, 1100). " Num. Chron., 1893, p. 131; 1901, p. 14; 1902, pp. 209 ff. ; Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, p. 92 (from Ruding, vol. i, p. 163, note 2j ; vol. viii, pp. 114-9. IXX INTRODUCTION the coinage ; and from this it is concluded that the English coin- types were issued triennially. But no parallel exists;^ the Norman tax was viewed as a concession from Duke William to the people, the English tax was evidently one of King William's impositions, as its removal by Henry I was one of this king's concessions to the people ; the Norman tax was levied in exchange for the debasement of the coinage, a baronial privilege not exercised by the English kings ; the Norman tax was triennial and we have no reason to assume the same of the English tax ; the tax could not possibly be referred to the change of types of the coins, nor, if it could, would it make the change triennial, but, if a parallel with the Norman tax existed, it would stop the change of types altogether. The tax was, as Sir H. Ellis ^ says, probably identical with the payments de Moneta which are mentioned in Domesday at several mint-towns. Coincidences of types with current events are also misleading, as has been shown above with reference to the 'Paxs' type ; similar!}^, the ' Cross voided ' type of William II, which usually has two stars on the obverse, has been connected with the appearance of a comet in the year 1097,^ a date at which the fourth type was probably in issue, but this ' Two Stars ' type has now been shown to be the third type of the reign,'* and was therefore certainly out of issue before the comet appeared. The coinage, or absence of coinage, of any mints is quite untrustworthy as a means of dating the coins ; at Bath, for example, no coins are known of the reign of William II, and it might naturally be supposed that the de- struction of the city by fire in 1088 put an end to the working of its mint ; but a notification of William II, which is assigned to the period 1089 to January 1091, grants to St. Peter of Bath, Bishop John and his successors, in alms for the augmentation of the see, the whole city of Bath, ' with all customs and a mint and 1 See Nxim. Chron., 1912, pp. 98 ff. ^ Introduction to Domesday Boole, p. Iv (folio ed.), note 9. ^ Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, p. 179. * See Num. Chron., 1913, pp. 402 and 411. An arrangement since adopted by Major Carlyon-Britton in Brit. Num. Journ. (see vol. viii, p. 62). ORDER OF TYPES Ixxi toll ' ; ^ clearly the mint was still in existence, probably too in operation. The dating of the types must therefore be left in uncertainty, admitting that an approximate period of two to three years is the probable duration of eaeli type. The monetary inquiries of 1108 and 1125 and the possibility of assigning certain types to these periods are discussed below, pp. cliv f. ; there seems to be some support in these dates for the attribution of a period of about two and a half years to each type. Some additional evidence of the order of the types ma}' be found in the statement of William of Malmesbury with regard to the incising of coins (see below, p. cxlviii). Irregular Issues. The coins above described represent the regular issues of currency from 1066 to 1156 or 8 ; - such coins as can be shown to be forgeries of these regular issues, struck by the moneyers in base metal or of light weight for their own profit, are reserved for consideration in connexion with the control and organization of the mint (see below, pp. cxlix ff.). The coins here described as ' Irregular Issues ' comprise special issues of particular mints which differ, for some known or unknown reason, from the regular types of the reign ; they may belong to the ordinary currency of the period or they may have been issued by some authority other than the king, whether privileged by royal grant or usurping the privilege un- lawfully.^ They differ from the regular issues in having the usual obverse or reverse design altered or vitiated in some way, or, while conforming to a regular type, bear an obverse inscription other than the name and title of the king. With one exception these all belong to the reign of Stephen.* ^ Davis, Regesta, vol. i, no. 326. '^ See above, p. xi, note 1. ^ The privileged ecclesiastical issues of Canterbury, York, Bury St. Kdmunds, &c., are not differentiated from royal issues, and have therefore not been reserved for separate treatment. ^ The type used for inscriptions of irregular coinages does not always accurately represent the original. Ixxii INTKODITCTION One coin of the reign of William II needs special mention. It is published and illustrated in Bi^it. Num. Journ., vol. viii, pp. 83 ff. In obverse and reverse design it conforms to the second type of William II (' Cross in Quatrefoil ' type) but bears the following inscriptions : obv. iiEPirrEnK-i- K as in op. cit, ^LEPirrEnu Eev. »i.HnVEOVOMKV*)i:o It weighs 18 grains and is apparently of good silver. Major Carlyon-Britton shows reason for attributing this coin to Llewellyn son of Cadwgan ; the obverse inscription, though the first letter is not clearly legible, seems to be intended for Lewillen, or Lewelin, as the name is written in the Annales Camhriae, and there is likelihood in the reading of the mint-name R"VHE)KO as Rhyd y Gors, or Ryt Cors, as it appears in Brut y Tywysogion. From the Chroniclers we learn that in the reign of Stephen the barons had mints in their castles and issued their own money ; ^ and that forgery produced a coinage so light and debased that in ten or more shillings the value of twelve pence could scarcely be found :^ also, that in 1149 Henry of Anjou, when he invaded England, struck a new coin which obtained the name of the Duke's money, and that not only he but all the magnates, bishops, earls, and barons, made their own money, but when ^ ' Castella quippe per singulas provincias studio partium crebra surrexerant, erantque in Anglia quodammodo tot reges, vel potius tyianni, quot domini castellorum, habentes singuli percussurara proprii numismatis, et potestatem subditis, regio more, dicendi juris ' (William of Newburgli, Rolls Series, no, 82, vol. i, p. 69 ; sub anno 1149). "The statement in W. Malm, is: 'Jamque caritas annonae paulatim crescebat ; et pro falsitate difficultas monetee tanta erat ut interdum ex decem et eo amplius solidis vix duodecim denarii reciperentur. Ferebatur ipse rex pondus denariorum, quod fuerat tempore Henrici regis, alleviari jussisse ; quia, exhausto prsedecessoris sui immenso illo tliesauro, tot militum expensis nequiret sufficere ' (a. 1140 ; Stubbs (Rolls Series, no. 90), vol. ii, p. 562). IRREGULAR ISSUES Ixxiii the Duke came (on which occasion it is not quite clear), he put down the coins of the greater part of them.^ There are many coins which vary in legend or design from the regular issues of the reign, and which from their occurrence in finds of the normal coinage or for other reasons must be assigned to this period. It is therefore natural to suppose that some of these represent the baronial issues above referred to, but there is great difficulty in so assigning them, owing partly to the indefinite information that is given us by the Chroniclers of the nature of this irregular coinage. In the first place it is evident from the passage in William of Newburgh quoted above that some barons usur2)ed the privilege of coining and presumably made profit by issuing light and base coins ; in this case we should expect their coins to imitate the types and inscriptions of the current coinage of the realm, and to differ from it only in quality and weight and perhaps in roughness of execution ; for by altering the design they would defeat their object of passing their base issues into currency. It is therefore natural to look for baronial coins of this class among the coarse and light coins described under the regular issues of the reign, and perhaps they may be illustrated by such coins as nos. 142, 143, 144 of the Catalogue, pp. 356-7, and others (e.g. the coin attributed to Watchet, p. 352, no. 113) which combine with lightness of weight a coarseness of fabric and an irregularity of lettering which seem to show that the die-engravers were not in possession of the punches which were used by the officials of the royal mint. But from the coins themselves it is evident that not only did Duke Henry and his mother, the Empress Matilda, strike coins, as we should expect, bearing their own names, but others — bishops, barons, &c. — issued a named coinage ; such, for example, are Bishop Henry (presumably of Winchester), Eustace FitzJohn, Ilobert(?), William (1), and others. As these coins bear the names of their issuers and usually differ in type from the regular currency, it is possible that the privilege of coining was actually bestowed by tlie King or the Empress on some of their followers ; for a usurp- ^ Roger of Hoveden (Rolls Series, no. 51), vol. i, p. 211. Ixxiv INTRODUCTION ing authority would be likely to imitate the currency of the realm in order to command a wide currency for the imitations it issued. Further, the circumstances of the Civil War, and especially the events of the year 1141, make it probable that the authority of the royal mint was to some extent impaired, and that the control of some of the more distant provincial mints, especially in the North and West, lapsed during part of this reign. The identification of the coins is very uncertain, and it seems therefore desirable, having determined, so far as possible, which coins belong to the regular currency and in what order they may be placed, to deal separately with all the coins that differ from these types, and arrange them so far as possible in groups, for the purpose of deciding the locality and authority that issued them. The order in which the varieties are described is one of con- venience ; it is impossible to make any scientific classification in our present lack of knowledge of the time and place of issue of the majority of them. They are grouped in the following classes : I. Coins struck from erased obverse dies. II. Coins with inscription PERERIE. III. Issues bearing the king's name, of uncertain attribution. IV. Issues bearing the king's name, of certain, or probable, localities : A. Midland Counties ; B. Eastern Counties ; C. Scottish or Border Counties ; D. York and district. V. Coins not issued under the king's name. It has been assumed above that the currency of Stephen's reign may be divided into seven types, the order of which has been determined on the evidence of Finds, Mules, and Epigraphy (see p. Ixvii), but some of these types, notably III, IV, V, are known to us by so few specimens that it is not possible to be certain that each one represents a distinct type rather than a variety of another. Of the first two types there can scarcely be any doubt, the evidence of finds and mules being sufficiently strong to define them as the first two types of the reign, and similarly the last type is assured IRREGULAR ISSUES IxXV by its occurrence with Henry II's coins in the Awbridge find ; tlie intervening types are very uncertain. There is reason to suppose that the duration of the first type of this reign was longer than usual. It was shown above that it was not unlikely that the types were changed on the occasion of some assay or examination corresponding to the Trial of the Pyx, and that this took place at more or less regular intervals of two or three j^ears (see pp. xii fF.), but, though the imitation of the first type of Stephen by the Empress Matilda in her own coinage does not necessarily show that the issue of this type continued till 1139,^ the fact that the majority of the irregular coinages of the reign copy the obverse or reverse design of the first type makes it probable that this type was still in issue, or at least prevalent in currency, as late as 1141, the time of the king's imprisonment and the greatest confusion in the country.- Nor is it unlikely that the civil wars threw the mint organization out of gear, and that an examination of the coinage was thus impossible, and the first type therefore issued for a longer period than usual. Nevertheless, the reg-ular coinage of the reign retained its standard weight and fineness, and light or base coins are not more frequent in this than in the preceding reigns ; such as there are may be explained as the fraudulent work of the mint officials, or in some cases as the imitations of baronial mints. The tradition quoted by William of Malmesbury (see p. Ixxii, note 2), that Stephen reduced the standard of the coinage, is therefore not supported by the evidence of the coins. ^ If the issue of the second type had commenced in the i^receding year, coins of the first type would probably still be the prevailing currency, and would therefore be more likely to be imitated by Matilda than the type which was actually being issued at the time of her landing. The use of this type again by Henry of Anjou might be due to his continuing the type adopted by his mother. ^ Cf. Brit. Num. Jouni., vol. vii, p. 42. Ixxvi INTRODUCTION I. Coins of Type I struck with Erased Obverse Dies. The following coins are known : ' Mint. Bristol Norwich Reverse Inscription. Form of Erasure on Obverse. Series of cuts, yer- tical and horizon- tal. d:om:nor d:on[ *OTiA:0 *EDS[ ] n:mok *OTiBl:i:0 n:nori Plain cross from edge to edge. Wt. Provenance, &c., and Notes. 23-2 20-2 Plain cross from edge to edge, and additional small cross in second and fourth angles. From same obverse die (with erasure) as preceding. Plain cross from edge to edge. B. Roth (Rashleigh sale, lot 602, from Dartford find, 1825). PI. LVII. 1. W. C. Wells (from same reverse, and perhaps obverse, die as preceding). B. Roth and P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton (for- merly Capt. Douglas). These two coins are from the same dies. Nottingham Museum (from Nottingham find, 1880). frag- ment 17-5 H. M. Reynolds (from Nottingham find, 1880). P. W. P. Carlyon- Britton (formerly Hilton-Price). ^ This and subsequent lists omit coins of which the readings are quite uncertain. IRREGULAR ISSUES Ixxvii Mint. Norwich Norwich? Notting- ham Reverse Insci'iption. R:ofi:fio e:on:iioi *spein:o m:snot: Stamford j *L,EFSI*0 Pellet on each limb of reverse cross. Form of Erasure on Obverse. Wt. Plain cross from edge to edge. Plain cross from edge to edge, and additional small cross in second (?) and fourth angles. Small cross on king's face. The cross varies in form and position, but usually has limbs more or less patte ; sometimes a pellet is added in one angle. Small cross on king's shoulder and stroke through shaft of sceptre. 21.1 15-0 14-17 Provenance, &e., and Notes. 14-8 British Museum, no. 229. PL LVII. 2. Another from same dies in P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton col- lection. Others (from different dies) in Not- tingham Museum (from Nottingham find, 1880) and B. Roth collection. H. M. Reynolds (from Nottingham find, 1880). Several specimens. Some from Notting- ham and Sheldon finds. British Museum fragment, no. 229 A, and coin from Evans coll., p. 410, no. 229b. PI. LVII. 3, 4. B. Roth (Rashleigh sale, lot 605). PI. LVII. 5. Another from same dies (a fragment, 13-8 grs.) in W. C. Wells collection. Mr. ^Y. C. Wells has also a coin (17-7 grs.) struck from the same dies before the erasure of the obverse die and another from same obverse and a re- verse of ordin ary type (15-2 grs.). Ixxviii INTRODUCTION Form of Erasure on Provenance, &c., and Mint. Reverse Inscription. Obverse. Wt. Notes. Thetford *B[ l^W^I Plain cross from 15-7 British Museum, no. :om:tef edge to edge. 230 ; and, from same reverse (and perhaps obverse) die, Sotheby sale, July 26, 1911, lot 553. PI. LVII. 6. York *MARTIH Two parallel cuts B. Roth. :oh:eve from upper to PL LVII. 7. Coin of very rough lower edge. work ; bust to 1. without sceptre. Uncertain *11BE111 Cross on king's 20-6 British Museum, no. Mint 11! All E shoulder. The 231 (Montagu sale, (Canter- shaft of the scep- lot 335 ; from Toplis bury ?) tre is ornamented with two fleur-de- lys set end to end. collection and Not- tingham find, 1880). PI. LVII. 8. Coins of this type were in the following iinds : Nottingham (uncertain number). Dartford (1 penny). Sheldon (10 pennies, 3 halfpennies). It was suggested by Archdeacon Pownall (Hum. Chron., 1862, pp. 189-90), when publishing a coin of Stephen struck with a defaced or erased obverse die, that it might be assigned to the Empress Matilda, assuming that for the purpose of saving time and expense in making new dies she made use of Stephen's dies that fell into her hands during the captivity of Stephen in 1141. Though we now know that coins were struck bearing the Empress's own name, this attribution might still be tenable except for the mints at which these defaced coins were issued ; coins are described above of Norwich, Thetford, and York, places which did not fall into the hands of the Empress. IRREGULAR ISSUES Ixxix In jSfum. Chron., 1881, pp. 42 ff., the same writer comments on a large number of these coins whicli were pubHshed by Toplis in his account of the Nottingham find (ibid., pp. 37 fF.) and, abandoning his former attribution to the Empress, he finds in them the ' Duke's Money ' ^ of the Chroniclers, that is, money struck by Henry of Anjou during one of his visits to England. This theory is open to the same objection as the previous one, namely, that they were issued from mints over which the Duke never had control. In Hawkins's Silver Coins (p. 178) it is said that 'they were probabl}^ struck by a partisan of Matilda, who wished to use Stephen's dies, but not to acknowledge Stephen's title ' ; this is the view that has since been generally held, and in his account of the Sheldon find (Brit. Num. Jour a., vol. vii, pp. 59 fi".) Mr. Andrew adopts this view and attributes them to various barons, those of Nottingham to William Peverel, those of Thetford to Hugh Bigod, &c. It is noteworthy, and is elsewhere observed, that the obliterat- ing cross or lines are cut or punched on the die ; ^ in pioof of which several duplicates exist, and of the Stamford mint coins are known struck from the same obverse die both before and after the erasure was made upon it. It is not therefore a method of stamping coins of light weight or base metal in order to pass them for currency or reject them from it. That the object was to erase the king's figure from the die is not so clear; on the Nottingham and Stamford coins the erasing cross falls not on the king's face, but on his shoulder, and on the York coin the die is cut on either side of the king's bust. One may reasonably doubt whether any of the barons who usurped the privilege of coining would have hazarded the possibility of passing his coins into currency by deliberately obliterating the obverse die for the sake of marking his independence ^ See above, p. Ixxii. ^ From the regular form of the cross on some coins, notably those of Nottingham and Thetford and some of Norwich, I am inclined to believe that a punch was used ; on others the erasure has evidently been made with a cutting instrument. Ixxx INTRODUCTION of the king ; ^ if he succeeded in capturing coining dies he would be glad to make profit by issuing coins which could be easily- passed into currency. There seems more reason to suppose that the object of obliterating the dies was to prevent their use in case of their falling into unscrupulous hands, in just the same way as dies at the present day, if kept, are obliterated by some mark upon their surface in order to prevent their use for forgery.^ I am inclined to believe that it was by royal authority that the dies were obliterated ; the erasure of the obverse or standard dies would be sufficient to put both obverse and reverse dies out of action, and this may have been done at times when the mints were in danger of falling into the enemy's hands. Nottingham, for example, was in 1138 held by Peverel for the Empress, but he seems to have come over to Stephen in 1139, at the time that Stephen ratified Queen Matilda's treaty with Henry of Northumberland at Not- tingham, for from this time until he surrendered his castle to the Empress in 1141 as the price of his personal freedom, he is found on the King's side.^ The sacking of the town by Robert of Gloucester in 1140 or 1141 miofht have caused the authorities of the mint to obliterate their standard dies in fear of their falling into the Earl's hands. Assuming the dies to have been obliterated for this purpose, the question remains, — by whom were they put into use after the obliteration ? The majority of the coins are of low weight, 14-17 grains, and many certainly have the appearance of being of base silver ; but some are undoubtedly of good weight : a Bristol coin, if the Rashleigh Sale Catalogue is correct, weighs 23-2 grs., the Norwich coin in the British Museum weighs 21-1 grs.,. and the British Museum coin of uncertain mint weighs 20 -6 grs.; some, too, are certainly of excellent silver, as, for example, the Norwich ^ Mr. Andrew sees in the Nottingham crosses a personal badge ; I think that, even if this is not too early a date for such a use of heraldic devices, a baron would not impose his badge upon a die in such a way as to deface the coins which he hoped to pass into currency. ^ See Num. Chron., 1915, pp. 105 fF. ^ Ramsay, Foundations of England, vol. ii, p. 394. But Peverel's position is very difficult to follow (see Brit. Num. Journ., vol. vii, pp. 61 ff.). The date of the sacking of Nottingham is also uncertain ; 1141 seems the more probable. IRREGULAR ISSUES Ixxxi coin mentioned above, which weighs 21'1 grs. While one would naturally suppose that the dies fell into the hands of the king's enemies, and were turned to good account by the issue of light and base coins, in spite of the erasure of the standard dies, one can hardly believe that so good a coin as the British Museum piece of Norwich was issued by a usurping authority. It is not im- possible that, the king's enemies having succeeded in passing into circulation the light coins in spite of their defaced obverses, the king's own moneyers at other mints which had not been captured, or on the recapture of their implements, saved themselves expense by following the example of their enemies and bringing back into use dies which they had themselves erased.^ The uneven quality of the coins of this series increases the difficulty of its solution, which is at present merely conjectural. In Brit. Xiirii. Journ., vol. vii, p. 66, Mr. Andrew describes coins of Nottingham which have the obverse inscription curiously stamped out. As he points out, the marks are not uniform on coins from the same die ; the obliteration was therefore not on the die itself. It occurs occasionally on the reverse instead of the obverse, and may perhaps be attributed to uneven flans or faulty striking rather than a deliberate obliteration of the king's name on the coins. I have inserted here a coin of York in Mr. Roth's collection (PI. LVII. 7) ; this differs from the other coins in being struck from dies of extremely rough workmanship, and perhaps is the work of a forger's dies, which had been obliterated by the two lines cut on the obverse, and again used for striking false coins. ^ Or the contrary may have been the case, i.e. the king having ordered his own obliterated dies to be used in spite of the obliteration, barons were able, on getting possession of obliterated dies, to issue coins struck from them. But this is obviously less likely. Ixxxii INTRODUCTION 11. Coins of Type I with Obverse Inscription PEI^EKIE etc. The following coins are known : Mint. Obverse. Reverse. wt. Pi-ovenance, &c. Bristol *PEKER11 *TVREil Montagu sale, lot 361. Bristol ? *PERE[ *TVREW[ B. Roth. Canterbury *PEREW e: *pillem: on:eanp: 21-4 Brit.Mus.,no.232. PL LVII. 9. )> From same dies as preceding. B. Roth. PL LVII. 10. Lincoln *PERERI e: :oii:iiiEo: 20-8 Brit.Mus.,no.233. PL LVII. 11. ?7 From same dies as preceding. B. Roth. 75 From same dies as preceding. 19-2 Rashleigh sale^ lot 633. 7' *PEREm em: *sipard: ONINIEO: 20-8 (Rasbleigh specimen) 19-0 (Sheldon specimen) B. Roth (2 coins), Rashleigh sale, lot 634, Sheldon find (these coins are all from the same dies). PL LVII. 12. London *PERE[RI e:] *AL Ed: om:la/'m B.Roth,fromsame obverse die as following coins of Godricus. IKREGULAR ISSUES Ixxxiii Mint. Obverse. Reverse. wt. Provenance, kc. London *PERERI e: *GODRIE 22-4, 22-7 22-0, 22-G Brit.Mus.,no.234, Evans collection (below, p. 4 10, no. 234 a), H.M.Rey- nolds, Rashleigh sale, lot 635 (all from tbe same dies). PI. L VII. 13,14. Stamford *PERERI *LEFSi:o n:stah[ B. Roth. PI. LVII. 15. Winches- ter ? *PE[ *GEFREi: B. Roth. Mr. Andrew^ also mentions coins of Bedford, Oxford, and Wareham. Coins of this type were in tl\e following finds : A\' atford (2 coins) ; Nottingham (1 coin described) ; Sheldon (1 coin) ; Linton (2 coins). This series of coins was first described by Rashleigh in his account of the Watford find [Rum. Chroii., 1850, pp. 165 ff.), and from the resemblance of the name to ' Werewic ', or Warwick, they were attributed by him to the Earl of Warwick ; Packe {Num. Chroii., 1896, p. 64) pointed out the anachronism of this use of a territorial title by itself, and suggested that the final E might represent ' Comes ', and supposed ' PERERI ' to be a blundered inscription that might perhaps be appropriated to Robert Ferrers, Earl of Derby. But it is no less impossible to attribute to the ^ Brit. Num. Journ., vol. vii, p. 8L Mr. Andrew informs me that he was mistaken in attributing PERERIE coins to these mints. f 2 IxXXiv INTRODUCTION Earl of Derby than to the Earl of Warwick coins struck at so many mints, including London and Canterbury. In Brit. Hum. Journ., vol. vii, pp. 81 fF., Mr. Andrew says : * Obviously the only person in whose name money could have been issued at mints spread nearly all over the country — and the list would probably be extended if we had not to rely for our informa- tion on the mere accident of discovery — was either Stephen himself or the Empress Matilda. Stephen is ruled out as impossible, for his name and title have no break in their sequence, and so Matilda remains.' In the inscriptions PERERIE and PERERIEM^ he reads a lopped form of the word IMPERATRIEIS, commencing in front of the king's face with a cross inserted by the shoulder in imitation of the current coins of Stephen. Apart from the difficulty that I find in the evolution, ingenious though it is, of this puzzling inscription from the title 'Imperatricis', I am unable to agree with Mr. Andrew's original proposition that coins struck at all these mints can be attri- buted to the Empress. Her career in England was, in brief, this : she landed at Arundel in 1139 (Sept. 30) and was given by Stephen a safe-conduct to Bristol. On Oct. 15 she moved to Gloucester. Her movement from the west dates from the battle of Lincoln (Feb. 2, 1141) ; Robert of Gloucester brought Stephen a prisoner to her at Gloucester, she sent him on to Bristol ; she then advanced to Cirencester (Feb. 13), where she negotiated with Henry, Bishop of Winchester, the Legate (Feb. 16). On March 2 she met the Legate again at Wherwell, near Andover, and made terms for securing the throne ; the following day she arrived at Winchester and was there blessed, the crown was handed to her, and she had lierself jDro- claimed ' Lady and Queen ' of England. For Easter (March 30) she went to Oxford, where Robert d'Oilly surrendered the castle to her. On April 7-8 a Synod at Winchester declared her ' Lady of England and Normandy'. On April 9-10 the deputation of Londoners arrived at Winchester and demanded the release of their ^ He also gives the reading PERERIEI. It appears to be a misreading of a Lincoln coin, on Avhich the final letter of the obverse inscrij^tion is shown to be M by another specimen from the same dies. IRREGULAR ISSUES IXXXV king without actually opposing the decision in favour of* Matilda ; Matilda proceeded to Reading and St. Albans, and in the meantime efforts were made to win the Londoners ; in May she was joined by King David of Scotland (presumably to assist at her coronation). A few days before June 24, the Londoners at last gave in and were induced to receive her ; they conducted her to Westminster. She demanded a subsidy from the Londoners, refused a request to grant the good laws of the Confessor, and by her general demeanour roused hostility ; in the meantime, Queen Matilda and William of Ypres had been raising an army in Kent, and on their approach to the city the Londoners, now thoroughly hostile to the Empress, opened the gates to them on June 24. The Empress escaped to Oxford, having already alienated the Legate by refusing to secure Stephen's sons in their father's continental possessions. Earl Robert failed to reconcile the Legate, and the Empress entered Winchester with an armed force (July 31) and besieging the Bishop was herself besieged in turn by Queen Matilda and William of Ypres : the Empress escaped (Sept. 14) through Ludgershall and Devizes to Gloucester; Earl Robert w^as taken prisoner and ex- changed for Stephen. Stephen, set free at Bristol on Nov. 1, went to Winchester and London (Dec), and held the Christmas crown-wearing at Canterbury ; in March-April, 1 142, he made a royal progress to York via Ipswich and Stamford. The Empress spent the winter, 1141-2, at Oxford, going at the end of March, 1142, to Devizes, whence she sent an embassy to her husband, urging him to come over ; he sent over the young Duke Henry, who landed at Bristol in the late autumn. From September to December, 1142, the Empress was besieged by Stephen at Oxford, and at Christmas escaped by night to Abingdon and thence to Wallingford. After this she returned to her old quarters at Bristol and Gloucester, and ceased to play a prominent part in the war, which dragged on for the next five years ; it was carried on by Robert of Gloucester on behalf of Henry of Anjou.^ In February, 1148, she left England for ever. ^ See below, pp. cxxvi f. IxXXVi INTRODUCTION This bald statement of the movements of the Empress is sufficient to show the difficulty of attributing this series to her. It is noteworthy that these coins seem all to be of good weight and of good metal, thus differing from most of the irregular issues of the period and notably from the coins bearing the title of the Empress ; also, they are struck from dies evidently made in the regular way with the official coining-irons. These points, together with the issue of the coins from the London mint, show that, if issued by the Empress, they were issued after March 3, 1141, when she proclaimed herself ' Lady and Queen of England ' and received the crown at Winchester. Though she was only admitted to London for a very few days, it is not beyond the bounds of possi- bility that in that time the mint officials had come over to her and accepted her orders for her title to be placed on the coins ; Bristol was her own stronghold, and though there is evidence that coins were struck there for Stephen (Catalogue, p. 335, no. 2), the mint is likely to have fallen into her hands. At Winchester, too, coins might conceivably have been struck in her name after her acceptance as ' Lady of England '. At Canterbury, Lincoln, and Stamford the case is otherwise. Though the castle at Canterbury was in 1135 in the hands of Robert of Gloucester's men and they refused admittance to Stephen on his arrival in England, the mint of Canterbury was evidently in his hands at this period (Catalogue, pp. 336-7, nos. 9-16), and there is no reason to suppose that it ever fell into the hands of the Empress ; she never went there, and it was this part of the country that was most loj^al to Stephen's Queen and raised the troops which she led into London on June 24, 1141. Lincoln Castle was apparently seized by Ealph of Chester in 1140; the town was sacked and burnt after the battle of Lincoln, but the castle seems to have remained intact and was surrendered by Ralph to Stephen in 1146; Matilda never held Lincoln, and there is no reason to suppose that she could ever have struck coins there. Finally, so far as we know, Stamford was always in the King's hands, and only surrendered to Henry in 1153. The quality and the extent of the issue of PERERIE coins seem IBKEGULAR ISSUES Ixxxvii to sliow that they must for a period have constituted the true coinage of the realm, though it is difficult to explain the unintelli- giV)le title on coins which are of good quality and no worse executed than any other of the reign. During Stephen's captivity there was much confusion and uncertainty throughout the country; the barons secured their position by supporting the side which fortune seemed to favour or which offered them the highest price for their support, and some at least of the ecclesiastics, if we can accept William of Malmesbury's statement, attached themselves to the Empress after obtaining Stephen's permission to temporize. The position of a moneyer was as difficult as anyone's ; the coins them- selves which he issued constituted a public declaration of the side wliich he supported ; and as soon as the King's imprisonment and the Empress's recognition by the clergy made it clear that, for a time at least, she would be on the throne, the issue of coins with Stephen's name on the obverse and the moneyer 's name on the reverse was irrefutable evidence of his disloyalty to the Empress. If, on the other hand, Stephen should later obtain his freedom and regain the throne, to have struck coins in the name of the Empress would equally convict a moneyer of disloyalty to the King. I am therefore inclined to believe that the moneyers temporized as the clergy did, and that the inscription PERERIE was deliberately substituted for the King's name and was intended to be unintelligible then as it is to us. 'The coins are well struck, of good weight and of good metal, their circulation among an illiterate public would therefore not be deterred by the change of the obverse inscription, whereas, on examination of the coins, either party could be satisfied that they were not struck in the name of the other. Loudon would probably still impose the form of die adopted in some, at least, of the provinces ; and that fact would account for the uniformity of this meaningless title, a thing very difficult to explain on the theory that it is merely a blundered form of Tmperatrlcis. It is curious that in the Danish coins with the inscription lOANSTREX, issued apparently during the struggle between Magnus and Swein for the throne of Denmark IxXXViii INTRODUCTION in 1044-7, we have a possible parallel to this use of a meaningless inscription^ (see Hauberg, Myntforliold og Udmyntninger i Dan- marl; p. 49, and PL VIII, 1-7) .^ ^ Sir Arthur Evans, in his presidential address to the Royal Numismatic Society (Nhdi. Chroii., 1915, Proceed in/js, p. 37), threw some light on the origins of the PERERIE and lOANSTREX inscriptions. ^ See also Num. Chruii., 1915, pp. 109 ff. I have recently had an opportunity of obtaining a clearer view of Mr. Andrew's opinion and argument. He argues that the Archbishop of Canterbury, after declaring himself on the side of the Empress, would have issued his coins under her name, and that Lincoln under Ralph of Chester, then her partisan, was also likely to issue her coins ; further, that no less difficulty lies in assuming, for example, that a Bristol moneyer of this date was time-serving than in assigning a coinage of the Empress to such mints as Cantei'bury, Lincoln, and Stamford. He does not, however, attach much importance to the mints and thinks that the issue may prove more extensive than is at present known. It seems that we are agreed as to the date of the issue and in considering it the regular coinage of the realm for a few months in 1141. Mr. Andrew holds that Matilda's i^osition was at this time considered so strong and her attainment of the throne so certain that she was generally accepted throughout the country and her coinage therefore issued by most of the principal mints ; he sees in the obverse legend a cor- ruption due to a misunderstanding by the die-engraver of an original order in which the title was written in abbreviated script. Though perhaps I should modify the conclusion that I have drawn above from the mints of this issue, I have left unaltered what I had written before I fully understood Mr. Andrew's argument or appreciated how nearly we were in agreement in some respects ; for I feel that the attribution to Stephen or to the Empress must at present be left an open question, and that the decision depends mainly on the historical evidence. From the numismatic point of view I cannot i^ersuade mj'self to accej)t Mr. Andrew's interpretation of the inscription, but my own suggestion is not free from difficulty. On the historical side I doubt whether Matilda was even at this time so universally accepted or her power so extensive as this coinage would imply if assigned to her authority. That all hope of the King's release was never abandoned is shown most clearly by the obstinacy of the Londoners and by the attitude of the men of Kent who, even when the Londoners accepted the Empress, were enrolling themselves under Stephen's Queen. I do not agree with Mr. Andrew that the 'temporizing' of the clergy was merely a question of obtaining release from their oath for conscience sake. I think that they and many of the barons were safeguarding themselves for the future in view of a possible return of the King to power. IRREGULAR ISSUES Ixxxix III. Issues beaeixg the King's Name, of uncertain ATTEIBUTION. 1. Similar to type I, but very large bead eitber to 1. or r., and of very coarse work. Obverse. Reverse. Provenance, &c. Bast 1. liiNE 11.1 llunterian collection. PL LVIII. 1. II1«FENE Bust 1. Illegible. B. Rotb. ]ST[ Bust r. JOBERTX/'ta- ON[ P. AV. P. Carlyon-Britton. The only reason for separating these coins from the other coins of type I, among which specimens of rough work and low weight or standard have been included, is that they approach each other in style, and therefore come perhaps from the same localitj^. The direction of the bust to right or left is unimportant, it merely marks the hand of an ignorant engraver who omitted to reverse his model in copying it upon the die. Their very coarse work suggests forgery, and it is not unlikely that they represent some of the many imitations issued during the period of anarch}'. 2. As type I, but tbe sbaft of tbe sceptre terminates in an annulet from wbicb issue seven rays or spikes and wbicb bas a pellet in tbe centre. ohv. *STiEFN ^er *ro:bert:oh:ca Wt. 20-1 grs. British Museum, no. 235. PI. LVIII. 2. The object that replaces the sceptre has usually been described as a horseman's mace ; it certainly has that appearance, supposing the pellet in the centre to represent a spike foreshortened. On the other hand, we do not know that a spiked mace of this sort was in use at so early a date ; it certainly does not appear on the Ba^'eux Tapestry, where horsemen are armed with lances, spears, XC INTRODUCTION swords, or truncheon-shaped clubs. Mr. Andrew has suggested that it represents the Host, radiate, elevated on a monstrance, and this is perhaps a more probable interpretation. The coin, which I believe is unique, is of good weight, and apparently of good metal ; one is at a loss to account for so strange a variety in place of the usual sceptre. As regards the lettering and style there is nothing unusual about the coin except the rounded form of the letter C on the reverse. 3. As type I, but witli a large rosette of pellets at the end of the obverse inscription. Obv. II'T'IEFN AV.. *BRIHTPII1[ Wt. 16-6 grs. British Museum, no. 236. PI. LVIII. 3. The style and lettering of this coin are similar to those of the ordinary issues, but the weight rather points to the coin being a forgery, perhaps made by a mint official. One can give no reason foi" the stamping of the rosette of pellets on the die ; cf. following coin and p. xcv, no. Ill 8 (b), also p. cxxi, Henry of Anjou, type I (h). 4. Obv. Bust to r., rosette of pellets in front of forehead; inscription, beginning above crown : 1 Q^TEPf Jiev. Cross pattee, three pellets at end of each liinb, in each angle a mullet of six points; beaded inner circle ; inscription lA/'BEKTIONr Wt. 16-3 grs. (good metal?). British Museum, no. 237. PL LVIII. 4. This coin seems to be a contemporary imitation, with its obverse type copied from the first type and the reverse from the second type of the reign. The lettering is somewhat coarsely worked. It was found in a chalk pit at Winterslow, near Salisbury, with a few coins of Stephen, types I (1), II (2 pennies, 2 halves), III (1), and some baronial and irregular issues (see above, pp. xxx-xxxi). It therefore probably belongs to a later period than most of the irregular coins here described. 5. As type I, but with an annulet enclosing a pellet in place of each ileur-de-lys on the reverse, and an annulet at the end of each limb of the cross. The obverse has an annulet on the shoulder. ►1'Q|5TIE[ Reverse inscription blundered and uncertain. Wt. 15-9 grs. British Museum, no. 238. PI. LVIII. 5. IRREGULAR ISSUES XCl This coin is of veiy coarse work (more especially the reverse), and is no doubt a contemporary forgery of some sort, perhaps one of the many that are said to have been struck by the barons at their castles. G. Ohv. As type I, but Avitli plain domed oroAvu without lleurs ; au annulet on the shoulder. *i> 22-0 II. M. Reynolds. JJ )) 20-5 Rashleigh sale, lot 618. >> 5> 21-3 P.W.P.Carlyon- Britton. PI. LVIII. 12. B. Roth. All from same dies. Base metal? Walkelin, the moneyer of Derby, is referred to in con- temporary deeds.^ ^ See Brit. Ntim. Journ., vol. v, p. 439, and Rashleigh sale catalogue, note on lot 618. XCVl INTRODUCTION (c) Obv. Rude head r., sceptre in front (very similar to preceding variety). J^ev. Short cross voided, over it a saltire fleury. Obv. ^tSTEPHANVSRex Rev. *.R/VINALD-ONBTO- Wt. 14-9 grs. British Museum, no. 246. PI. LVIII. 13. The reading of the mint is uncertain ; it may be either t^TO (Nottingham) or tST"\/' (Stutesbery or Tutbury?), see Brit. Num. Journ., vol. V, p. 440. Of the three varieties above described and attributed to the Midland Counties, the first bears the same type as a variety, III 8 (rt), of the indeterminate issues, but it difiers from it in the very coarse fabric and poor weight of tlie coins. The lettering is very similar in style to that of the other two Midland varieties. These other two varieties are even more closely connected, for they are identical in style of design and lettering on obverse and reverse, the only difference being the placing of a bird in each angle of the cross in the Derby coins, and a fleured saltire over the cross on the Nottingham or Tutbury coin ; the attribution of this coin to Nottingham or Tutbury must be left uncertain. B. Eastern Counties. [a) As type I, but of very coai'se work, and having on the reverse a broad cross with a pellet at the end of each limb and in each angle, superimposed on the cross moline. Obverse. Reverse, wt. Provenance, &c. *STEPHAH VSREX ]EPHnH[ ] ONLIN GLADEVINL 22-1 22-0 British Museum, no. 247, and B. Roth (same dies). PI. LVIII. 14. Sheldon find. IRREGULAR ISSUES XCVII Obverse. Reverse. wt. Provenance, &c. *STEPHA[ ] KEX •ROGE[ ]N 21-5 H. M. Reynolds, from Rashleigh sale, lot 616, and Dartford find, 1825. PEX NIH[ 21-7 British Museum, no. 248. PI. LVIII. 15. ]REX ]*OHL[ 22-0 Rashleigh sale, lot 615, from Dartford find, 1825. These coins seem to be of good silver and good weight ; they may probably all be attributed to the Lincoln mint ; for their close resemblance necessitates the attribution of them all to the same mint, which the reading of the first coin and the moneyer of the second show to be Lincoln. (b) As type I, but with a small broad cross superimposed on the cross moline of the reverse. obv. *stiefhe:r Bev. *balde^^^i:oh:t: wt. 17-2 and 17-0 grs. British Museum, no. 249, and H. M. Reynolds (same dies). PI. LVIII. 16. These coins seem to be of base metal ; the style is rather less coarse than that of the Lincoln coins above described, with which it is only connected by the imposition of the broad cross on the reverse type. It is presumably of Thetford, where the same moneyer's name occurs on regular issues of this reign. XCVlll INTRODUCTION C. Scottish or Border Counties (?). {a) Obi\ As obyerse of type I of Stephen, bearing title of Earl Henry. Rev. Cross crosslet, in each angle a cross pattee suspended from a crescent resting on the inner circle. See Catalogue, p. 397. Obverse. *H-EMCi:CO Same die as preceding. ]EHCi:SOM *MEMCi:CO! *h:K[ ]h Reverse. 01111:1 *:^w^ilel:m: ohci:b (or f) ?): *:>^ilel:m: oici:i *[ ]El:m:o iici:B (01 © *^W^ILEL:f[l f (or©?): Wt. 22-8 20-5 Provenance, &c. British jMuseum, no. 287. 11. M. Reynolds. PI. LIX. 1. 23-0 British Museum, pierced' nos. 288, 289, 17-6 from same rev. clipped (and obv. ?) die. 15'6 British Museum, broken no. 290. 14-8 clipped British Museum, no. 291. A coin of the type of Stephen's first issue of distinct Scottish style (thus differing from similar coins of Henry of Anjou) may also be attributed to the Earl ; it is illustrated in Burns, Coinage of Scotland, PI. III. 24 a. The inscriptions seem to be "iiHEN FICVS and *EREB[ ]©: It should probably be attributed to Carlisle, and was presumably struck by Earl Henrj'- in virtue of his possession of the town between 1136 and 1139. The coin was found in the Bute hoard. IRREGULAR ISSUES XCIX (b) Same type as («) above. jiev. *:^vyAixELM:oH:oD(orBoci AVt. 21-0 and 19-3 grs. IT. ^I. Reynolds and Rashleigh sale, lot G13 (same dies). PL LIX. 2. Atti-ibuted by Mr. Lawrence to Outchester (2| miles south-east of Belford), where the find of the Earl Henry coins occurred. (c) As type I of Stephen, but on the reverse a long cross voided is superimposed on the cross moline. Obverse. Reverse. wt. Provenance, &c. *stifei1ei'v» e: *vi: Lto: M :oa CAIT 19-9 British Museum, no. 250. PI. LIX. 3. *stieehei^ e: :oh: cast: 21-5 British Museum, no. 251. PI. LIX. 4. ]HE€H-oo. ]I^AN 000. E 21-5 II. M. Reynolds. (^d) Obv. As type I of Stephen, with star in field to r. of sceptre. Jiev. As type I, with annulet at point of each fleur and at end of each limb of cross. Obverse. Reverse. wt. Provenance, &c. *t^TIFEHEI'v» Same die as preceding. *FOBlli:OH DVNi.e: *fobnd:on: DVMi: 15-5 British Museum, no. 252. PL LIX. 5. B. Roth. C INTRODUCTION A coin of the ordinary type of Stephen's first issue, but resembling these in style, reads : ohv. ^BTetHeii: Rev. *FOBlIlD:OIl.D\/'NI.Dm AVt. 15-2 grs. S. M. Spink (Rashleigh sale, lot 608). Another, similar, in Nottingham Museum, reads : Eev. ]nd:oh:d\/'H[ (e) Similar to preceding (var. d), but the annulets on reverse take the place of the spikes of the fleurs, and an annulet occurs at the base of each fleur as well as at the end of each limb of cross. No star on obverse. Ohv. Illegible. Rev. >iilIHDIHEDON:El \7i. 18-6 grs. British Museum, no. 253, and Nottingham Museum (same rev. (and obv. ?) die). PI. LIX. 6. The bulk of Earl Henry's coins (variety a) were found in Outchester. There is an obvious temptation to see in all these mint-readings of the first three varieties (CI:TH, OTHCI, OCCAIT, CAST) different forms of the name of this same place, Outchester, near Belford. At least one may confidently attribute them to this neighbourhood. There seems no reason to doubt the attribution of variety (a) to Henry, the son of King David of Scotland, who was created Earl of Northumberland by Stephen in 1139. The obverse resembles in style the Scottish coinage, and the irregular broad flans correspond more to the Scottish than the English fabric ; but their probable issue in the north of England brings them within the scope of the English coinage, and they are here described among varieties bearing Stephen's name in order to show their connexion with the other varieties. Variety (6) has the appearance of a mule from a reverse die of Henry of Northumberland and an obverse die with name of Stephen which belongs to the coinage of either variety (c) or variety {d). Apart from the more general resem- IRREGULAR ISSUES CI blance of the inscription and type of this obverse to that of the two later varieties, the peculiarity of the form used for the letter R (!>>>), which I have not found on any but these coins, shows an intimate connexion between them. Varieties (c) and (d) are closely connected by the style and lettering of the obverse and, as above mentioned, more especially by the peculiar form of the letter R. The mint-readings of variety (c) are suggestive of Outchester; all the coins of variety (d), including the coin described above which differs only in style from Stephen's first type, bear a mint-name DVNI , which seems likely to be Durham ; var. (e) is closely similar to var. (d) ; the mint reads EI, which is quite uncertain. The curious feature about these coins is the connexion of the coins of the varieties (c), (d), (e), which bear the name of Stephen, with those of variety (a) which bear the name of Henry, son of David, by means of the intermediate issue described as variety {b). In January, 1136, King David crossed the border and took Carlisle, Wark, Norham, Alnwick, and Newcastle, but failed to capture Bamborough. Stephen, arriving at Durham on Feb. 5, saved this city from falling into David's hands^ and by large concessions made peace, conferring on Henry the earldom of Huntingdon with Doncaster and Carlisle, the rest of David's conquests being restored. Henry did homage to Stephen at York, presumably on behalf of his English estates ; he then followed Stephen to London to assist at Queen Matilda's coronation, where the precedence which was assigned to him caused great indignation, and the Earl of Chester was so offensive that it was some time before David allowed his son to return to the English court. In 1138 Henry was with his father's army, which invaded England and was defeated at the Battle of the Standard, when Henry was cut off after a successful advance on the wing and had to make his way independently to Carlisle. In 1139 a peace was arranged at Durham by Queen Matilda and ratified at Nottingham by Stephen, and Henry received from Stephen the earldom of Northumberland, with the exception of Bamborough and Newcastle, he withdrawing Cll INTKODUCTION his authority from the lands of St. Cuthbert and of St. Andrew's, Hexham. Henry remained for Easter with Stephen and accompanied him in an expedition against Ludlow, when the King saved his life. In the following year we hear on his return to Scotland of an attempt on his life by the Earl of Chester, which was frustrated by the escort given him by Stephen. In 1147 we are told that the only district of England in the enjoyment of peace was that beyond the Tees, which was under the sway of Earl Henry. He was with his father at Carlisle, at Whitsun, 1149,^ at the knighting of Henry of Anjou. He died in 1153. The intermediate issue (var. 6) must have been struck either by Stephen or by the Earl Henry. If it was struck by Stephen, his adoption of the type of the Earl's coinage must imply the capture by Stephen of some place in which the Earl's coinage was previously issued or current.- This presents two difficulties : (1) What object would Stephen have in using the type of the Earl's coinage ? In the event of one of the King's mints falling into the hands of one of the barons, one would naturally suppose that the baron would turn it to his profit by striking base coin with the King's die ; the King, on the other hand, could not have any reason for using the Earl's die or copying his type, unless the people of that district were more familiar with the Earl's coinage and would more readily accept it than the current coin of Stephen. (2) Did Stephen at any time capture a town in which Henry of Northumberland had his mint or issued his currency ? The first invasion, that of 1136, was met by the arrival of Stephen at Durham, which saved the fall of the city — peace was immediately concluded without any advance of Stephen into the country held by the Scottish. The second, at the beginning of 1138, was a plundering raid which advanced as far as the Tyne, but with- ^ See below, p. cxxv. '^ The opposite case (that the coinage was originally Stephen's, and that Henry captured a reverse die and made an obverse of his own to pair with it) does not seem possible, because the coinage is more akin to the Scottish than the English, and is therefore supposed to have been originated by the Earl. IRREGULAR ISSUES CUl drew to Wark on Stephen's approach ; Stephen, instead of attacking the invading army, made a counter-raid into Berwick- shire, and hostilities were abandoned at Lent. The third invasion, in July of the same year, pushed through Durham into Yorkshire and ended in the defeat of the Scots at Northallerton ; the Scots- retreated, some being cut off on the way, but there was no serious- pursuit. Thus it is clear that Stephen did not on any of these occasions, push a serious attack into the territory of the Scottish king or his- son ; his raid into Berwickshire in reply to the second Scottisli invasion seems to have been a mere raid and not to have involved the capture of any towns. At the truce of 1136 David, in retura for Stephen's concessions^ gave up the country conquered by him in- the North of England ; but the coinage of Earl Henry is almost certain to have been struck by him after the grant of the earldom of Northumberland in 1139. I am inclined to believe that Earl Henry in the first place issued a coinage in the name of Stephen. We know that after he received his earldom of Huntingdon in 1136 he paid homage to Stephen at York, and again in 1139, as Earl of Northumberland, he was attached to Stephen's court and fought for him at Ludlow. It is impossible to say by what right he issued coins — perhaps in view of his earldom of Northumberland ; but the occurrence of his reverse type with an obverse bearing Stephen's name and title seems to me, for the reasons given above, to indicate that he began his issue in the name of Stephen and later replaced that name by his own. In consideration of the very close connexion which exists between the five varieties of Class C, I am inclined to attribute all the coins of this class to the Earl of Northumberland, though such an attribution is of course of a conjectural and tentative nature. In this case the first issue of the Earl will probably be the coins of varieties {d) and {e), which imitate the coinage of Stephen both in type and inscriptions ; the second issue will be variety {c), which shows a variety of the type and style of lettering CIV INTRODUCTION which approximates more nearly to that of his named coins ; the third issue will be the variety (b), where an original reverse type is first used and his dependency on the English king still acknow- ledged ; and the fourth and last the variety («), on which the Earl's name is substituted for that of Stephen. The greatest difficulty lies in the obscurity of the mint-names upon all these coins ; even the attribution to Durham of the coins which I have suggested may be the earliest struck by the Earl is not by anj'^ means certain ; though he may possibly have struck coins at Durham about the year 1141, when his presence there is proved by his charter to the monks of Coldingham (Lawrie, Early Scottish Charters, cxxxiii) and his influence by the part he played during William Cumyn's attempt to seize the bishopric (cf. o^;. cit.^ pp. 366-70). But too much importance must not be placed on the inscriptions of the two varieties {d) and (e). The coins are all of light weight and appa- rently of base metal ; this coinage therefore, by whomsoever it was issued, seems to have been a usurped privilege akin to forgery, and, as I showed above (p. xciv), a baron who was issuing a base coinage would have no reason to put the names of his mint and moneyer upon the coins, and the reverse inscription of his model would be as likely to be copied as that of the obverse. In the present instance, some coins of variety {d) have what seem to be either ornaments or meaningless letters at the end of the reverse inscription, and this may perhaps be explained as an attempt to fill up a space where the coin that served as a model could not be read. With the other issues the case is different : the coins of the second, third, and fourth issues of the Earl, varieties (c), (b), (a), are of good weight and apparently of good metal; the issuer had therefore established a mint or mints upon a proper basis, presumably by grant of the king. Whether these coins may all be assigned to one mint is not certain ; but they must all presumably have been struck in the same neighbourhood, probably in Northumberland. This theory then assumes that Earl Henry usurped the privilege of coining and thus issued varieties [d) and (e), that he later received recognition of the privilege and IRREGULAR ISSUES CV acknowledged the suzerainty of Stephen by placing his name on his next issues (c) and (h), and that finally he issued coins of variety (a), bearing his own name and title. The coin figured in Burns, Coinage of Scotland, PI. III. 24 A, which I mentioned above (p. xcviii), is not included in this series which I have tentatively assigned to the Earl. I regard it as belonging to the earlier period, 1136-9, and assume that he copied the type not directly from Stephen but from the issues of David, which are identical with this in style (cf. op.cit., pi. III. 24). The series of Earl Henry coins and the cognate issues with which I am here concerned were presumably struck after 1139. The possibility of the attribvition of so many of the series to Outchester, the place where the find of the named Henry coins took place, is of some importance. It seems to me that the coins of the three issues («, 6, and c) are all liable to this interpretation. It is necessary to emphasize the fact that the attribution of these coinages to the Earl is conjectural, and based upon the close con- nexion of varieties bearing the name of Stephen with the issue which bears the Earl's own name {VK/iCl CON = HENRICYS : COMES ?). Failing this attribution, it seems necessary to assume that a central authority in the North of England controlled or supplied the dies for the coinages issued in Scottish border counties by Stephen and the Earl of Northumberland, in order to account for the unity of style and of peculiarity in detail which appears in the coinages of the King and Earl ; or we must abandon the accepted attribution of the t<[EMCI CON coins to Henry of Northumberland. In Num. Chron., 1895, pp. 110 if., Mr. Lawrence^ gave reasons for attri- buting them to Henry of Anjou, but one can hardly assign a series which seems to be of northern origin to the Duke, nor does it in any way fit into the series which can with little doubt be attributed to him ; nor, even so, would there be less difiiculty in the close connexion of an issue of the Duke with issues bearing the name of Stephen. ^ He has since abandoned this theory. CVl INTRODUCTION D. York and District. (a) As type I of Stephen, but of curious workmanship similar to that of the following varieties ; the beaded inner circle of the obverse runs through the king's bust. obv. *HSEPEFETl5i A'ev. *>^IM|S0-GHET0dA wt. 20 grs. II. M. Reynolds. PL LIX. 7. Obv. *STIEFHEP1 B. Roth. (b) As type I of Stephen, but having a representation of the Standard or a horseman's lance (?) in place of the sceptre in the king's hand. A star in field to r. Obv. *STIEFI1ER- nev. ^VliDMESlOMEA/': ^Yt. 19-5 grs. H. :\I. Reynolds. PI. LIX. 8. ^'arious inscriptions and ornaments. Wt. 14-5-19 grs. See Catalogue, pp. 386-7, nos. 254-9. PI. LIX. 9-14. (c) Obv. As type I of Stephen, but voided lozenge containing pellet in place of spike of lys on sceptre. ♦t^TlEM ^^itl ornaments. liev. Saltire fleury on cross pattee. Ornaments in place of inscription. Wt. 17-2 and lo-5 grs. (chipped). British Museum, no. 260, and P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. PI. LIX. 15, 16. (d) Obv. Two figures, male and female, facing each other, supporting between them a long sceptre fleury. liev. Cross fleury over thin saltire pommee; annulets in field. Obverse. Reverse. Wt. Provenance, &c. *STE qia® Ornaments (annulets omitted in field). 17-8 British Museum, no. 261. PI. LX. 1. *ETIE ENER Ornaments. 17-3- 20-5 British Museum, nos. 262, 263; II. M. Reynolds; P. W. P. Carlyon- Britton; B.Roth, &c. PI. LX. 2-4. IRREGULAR ISSUES Variety (a) seems to form a step from the ordinary first type of Stephen to variet}- (/>), which is commonly known as the ' Flag t3'pe'. The object held in the king's hand on coins of variety (b) has been supposed to represent the Standard which was borne into the battle at Northallerton. The Standard was a heavy mast bearing- the three flags of St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley and St. Wilfrith of Ripon, crowned by a silver p3-x containing the Host, and was borne on a four-wheeled waggon. Possibly this represents the standard in miniature, or it maj' be merely a horseman's lance (cf. Deniay, Le Costume au Moyen Age iVa.prh let< Sceaux, p. 158. fig. 179). The reverse inscriptions on these ' Flag ' coins appear to be more or less degraded copies of some common original, and, from Mr. Reynolds's coin above described, it appears that the original bore the mint-name of York ; the attribution of these coins to York or its neighbourhood is confirmed bj' their resemblance in style, and in the ornaments employed, to named coins of Eustace and of Robei't de Stuteville, which seem certainly to have been struck in or near York. Ingenious attempts have been made (b}- Packe in Xuni. Chroii., 1896, pp. 59 ft'., and others) to decipher these reverse inscriptions, but such attempts do not seem likelj' to prove suc- cessful. During the civil wars, and especially in the period immediately preceding and during the captivit}- of Stephen, com- munication between London and the North must have been difficult, and probably the central control from London of the northern mint organizations was temporarily suspended. This would lead not only to variation of the usual type but to laxity in local mint administration, affording easy opportunity for the i.ssue of light or base coins without risk of detection ; the dies must have been engraved locally, and the reverse inscription seems to have been not accidentally but intentionally blundered and rendered illegible, so that the moneyer responsible could not be convicted by the presence of his name on the coins. If the object in the king's hand is the Standard, the coins were presumably issued in 1138, or shortly after, but it is not possible to be certain of this or to CVlll INTRODUCTION explain the appearance of the strange ornaments in the reverse inscription ; but I am inclined to think that the latter was a device of the issuer for satisfying an illiterate public with the appearance of the coin without incriminating his moneyer by engraving the usual legend on the die. Mr. Andrew {Num. Clrc, 1914, pp. 627-8) attributes this coinage to the Archiepiscopal mint, and interprets the legend : MANuJ (ON EVerwic Variety (c) is probably a similar local production which is more curious in that the reverse type, instead of following the usual type of Stephen's first issue, is that which appears on the coins of Robert de Stuteville (see below, p. cxvi), and the ornaments in the obverse and reverse legends are also similar. Variety (cZ) is one of the most curious issues of this reign ; to the left of a tall sceptre is represented a male figure in chain- armour, wearing a peaked helmet and long trousers ; to the right is a female figure, her hair long and tied with ribbons, wearing a bodice of mail and a stift* triangular skirt ; both figures have long manches ; between them they support, each with one hand, a tall fleured sceptre. The reason for the attribution of this issue to the York district is the style of lettering and ornaments. The design appears to be the original work of a northern engraver, fancifully representing Queen Matilda assisting the king to support the sceptre of the kingdom during the period of his captivity. The male figure can hardly be Eustace, who was not knighted till 1147 or 1149.^ The figure is a knight in full armour and may reasonably represent the king, whose name forms the obverse legend. Various suggestions have been made for the interpretation of these two figures ; ^ The coins of this York series are all placed about the year 1141, or slightly earlier, owing to their close connexion with each other and, through the 'Flag type' coins, with the first issue of Stephen, which presumably did not continue after 1141. An interpretation of the 'Flag type ' coins as commemorative of the Battle of the Standard would place that issue in, or shortly after, 1138; the ' Double-figure ' type, if attributed to the period of Stephen's captivity, would be issued in the year 1141. On PI. LX the coins are assigned to 'Queen Matilda and Eustace ' ; this should be corrected to ' Stephen and Queen Matilda'. IRREGULAR ISSUES CIX some have even held that both figures are male, but this is clearly wrong — the different representation of the trousers of the male figure and the triangular skirt of the female figure can easily be seen by an examination of various specimens,^ and the figure to the left wears a peaked helmet, while the female figure has the head bare, showing the long hair bound with ribbons or ornaments after the feminine fashion of the time. Packe's theory (Num. Chron., 1896, pp. 69-70-) that the figures are Queen Matilda and Prince Henry, and the occasion the con- vention of Durham in 1139, is most unconvincing; that a peace should be an occasion for putting one's former enemy side by side with the queen in place of the king's head upon the coins is liardly possible. The probable Yorkshire provenance of the issue renders the interpretation of the type as Duke Henry and his mother the Empress improbable, as also does the inscrip- tion, the name of Stephen. The issue belongs clearly, as Packe pointed out {Num. Chron., 1896, pp. 65 ft'.), to a large series of coins the provenance of which must be Yorkshire, if not the city of York itself. As well as the varieties above described, the series includes coins with the name of Eustace which re- present a full figure in armour on the obverse, others bearing the same name with an animal as obverse design, and also coins of Robert with horseman type. The connexion of all these issues is not merely a superficial similarity in style, but a detailed identity both of lettering and of ornaments. This identity may best be seen by a comparison of the catalogue descriptions of the coins, where the ornamental borders and some inscriptions have been reproduced from drawings made as accurately as possible to scale ; the form of lettering is not only connnon to all these issues but peculiar to this series — it is punched work of a neat though disjointed and rather meagre form, the length of serifs and horizontal strokes dwarfing the uprights ; the ornaments are ^ But it is curious that Eustace, on the full-figure coins which bear his name, is clad in just such a skirt as the female figure is wearing on these coins. 2 Mr. Andrew {Num. Circ, 1914, p. 628) also takes this view, and supposes the coins to have been struck at York in honour of this peace. ex INTRODUCTION most curious and unintelligible, but it is important to notice how the same ornaments reproduce themselves on all the issues of this series with the exception of some of the ' Lion type ' Eustace coins. It is therefore impossible to believe that the coins do not all come from the same mint, or, at least, the dies from the same local centre. That this mint is York, or some place in the neighbourhood, is shown by the ' Flag type ' coin in Mr. Reynolds's collection (VIDNESI ON EV), by the reverse inscriptions of the Eustace coins, and by the obverse legend of the Robert coins, which seems certainly to denote Robert de Stuteville, the Yorkshire magnate. The issues seem to me to represent the efforts of the mint of York in the hands of local administration thrown upon its own resources, and upon the ingenuity of local engravers, owing to the severing of control from the central authority at Loudon. It appears that the control of the mint or mints of Yorkshire was taken over at some period in the reign (presumably about 1141, or perhaps slightly earlier) by the Constable of York and other magnates, either on the king's behalf or for their own profit ; and most probably those who were friends of the king, or the moneyers who acted for them, were not above making some profit for themselves by issuing coins of low weight, as most of these issues seem to be. To attempt any further explanation of these strange types and inexplicable inscriptions than as the original work of local genius must bring one into the region of fanciful speculation. It has already been suggested that the ' Flag type ' perhaps represents the Standard that was taken into battle at Northallerton, and the confused reverse inscriptions perhaps show attempts to obscure the moneyer's identity ; the ' Double-figure ' type probably represents the Queen assisting the King to support the royal power in his captivity ; but whether the coins were made by officers of the King or by independent Vtarons is mere conjecture. IRREGULAR ISSUES CXI y. CofNS NOT BEARINTt THE KiNG's TiTLE. Eustace FitzJohn (?) Type A. ' Full-figure ' type. 'Ohv. 'Full figure in armour, liolding sword. Rev. Cross pattee in quatrefoil. OUverse. 1 EV2T AEI Reverse. *EBORACIoE D®T2 Fi. liX. 5, 6. ■2. Same die as preceding .coin in Br,itish Mu- seum. *EBORACIoT DEFr jPI. LX. 7. :3. Similar to preceding; | ^TjOMHt^FI ! l^-O but no annulets in field. ¥,HXt^\/'LF ^^'^ PL LX. 8. Wt. Provenance, &c. 18-5 British Museum, 19-0 no. 264andHun- terian coll. (same dies); II. M.Rey- nolds and B. Roth (same dies). All from same reverse die. 18-3 Britisli Museum, no. 2G5. 4 EVSTA EI Ornaments. Type as preceding. | PL LX. 9. 16-1 British [Museum, nos. 266, 267 and B. Roth (all from same dies). British ]\Iuseuni, no. 268. Coins of the full-figure type of Eustace are not recorded in any published finds ; but their approximate date of issue is shown by their close as.sociation in style with issues, such as the Double-figure type and others, wfhioh have been found at Catal and elsewhere in , company with coins of Stephen, They have usuall}' been attributed to Eustace, son of Stephen. Ruding, Annals of the Coinage, vol. i, ^p. 169,. states ;th^t .Eustcice probably struck these coins 'during his Cxii INTRODUCTION residence at York as governor V he gives no authority for conferring this title on Eustace. Packe's reference to Stubbs's Constitutional History (see Num. C'Arou., 1896, p.67) is unintelligible ; Stubbs has no such statement. I gather that it arises somehow from the account of Eustace's arrival at York and order for Divine Service to be held in spite of the Papal Interdict, in 1149. I can find in the Chronicles no reason for the conclusion that Eustace was Governor of York at the time; William of Newburgh (under the year 1147) says, ' adveniens Eustachius regis filius sacra officia celebrari prseeepit ' ; John of Hexham (Symeon, H.R., Cont.) says, 'post regis abscessum venit filius ejus Eustachius Eboracum, divinaque ofRcia in eo cessare reperiens, clericos de divinis ministeriis nil omittere coegit ' ; these expressions rather give the impression that Eustace was not in any ofiicial position at York, but coming there on his father's departure took very strong action on finding that the Papal Interdict was being observed. Nor do I know any reason to believe that such an ofiice as ' Governor ' of York existed in the twelfth century. The connexion of Eustace, Stephen's son, with the city of York seems to have been exaggerated. The passages quoted above tend rather to show that his arrival in 1149 was not in the capacity of an official of York ; but, however that may be, there is no trace of his having had any connexion with the city at an earlier period. On the contrary, his age, which, though not definitely known, can be approximately deduced, is sufficient guarantee that he held no independent authority at the time that this coinage must have been issued. The coins bear a close resemblance in style and lettering to the irregular issues of York above described, which is strongly suggestive of work contemporaneous, or approximately contemporaneous, with those issues ; and this connexion is greatly strengthened by a comparison of the ornaments of the Eustace coin, no. 268, on p. 390, with those of 'Flag type' coins on pp. 386-7 and of the ' Double-figure ' coins on p. 388 ; some of these ornaments may even have been made with the same punches. The probabiHty ^ A similar statement occurs in Withy and Ryall (1756) ; I have not suc- ceeded in tracing it further. IRREGULAR ISSUES CXIU of the issue of all these coinages of York at an early date, hardly later than 1141, and in particular those of the 'Flag ' and ' Doulile-figure ' types, has been shown above (p. cviii, note 1). The Eustace coins of the ' Full-figure ' type must therefore l)e assigned to a date hardly later, perhaps even earlier, than 1141. Eustace, son of Stephen, was knighted in 1147 or 1149;^ hence he may be assumed to have been born about 1130 and to have been, at the most, very little more than ten years old when these coins were struck. The representation of a knight in full armour cannot depict the son of Stephen before 1147 or 1149, The coins '^ should, I think, be assigned to Eustace FitzJohn, to whom the ' Lion ' issues, described below, are attributed on the evidence of the fragment in Mr. Lawrence's collection published by him in Num. Chron., 1890, pp. 42 ff"., where Mr. Lawrence also advocated the attribution of all the Eustace coins to FitzJohn. As Packe pointed out, the full-figure types are clearly struck at York city, for some bear an inscription which identifies the town name, though part of the inscription is unintelligible, and others bear the name of Thomas FitzUlf, whom he identified as ' Thomas FitzUlviet' of Pqje Roll, Henry I, ed. Hunter, p. 34, an alderman of York. FitzJohn was certainly a Yorkshire magnate, and lord of Malton and Knaresborough, but we cannot at present trace his connexion with the city of York. He was fighting for David at the Battle of the Standard in 1138, and seems from his signature to a charter to have been, at least temporarily, reconciled to Stephen by 1141-2," That he issued coins in his own name somewhere in the neighbourhood of York is made certain by Mr. Lawrence's fragment described below. In our present scanty knowledge of 1 Ramsay (Foundations, vol. ii, p. 437, note 4) follows Hewlett's argument— the signature of charters of 1147-8 by Eustace with title Conies— ior accepting 1147 of the Gesta against 1149 of Huntingdon and Hexham. Round (Feudal EiKjland,'^. 495) denies that knighthood need precede the use of the title Conies, and places it in 1149. 2 On Plate LX they are described as coins of ' Eustace, son of Stephen (?)' ; but since the plate was printed I have felt more strongly the necessity of abandoning this attribution. ^ See below, p. cxv. h CXIV INTRODUCTION this period it is impossible to say how he came to do so in York itself. It is important to note that the fragment which identifies the ' Lion ' issues as a coinage of FitzJohn, though resembling the other ' Lion ' coins in type, is in style more closely allied to the ' Full-figure ' coins ; this is most noticeable in the form of lettering and punctuation, but it is also noteworthy that what remains of its reverse inscription bears at least a superficial resemblance to the unintelligible part of the reverse inscription of the British Museum coin of Full-figure type, no. 265. Eustace FitzJohn. Type B. ' Lion ' type. Ohv. A lion(?) passant to r., ornaments in tielcl. Rev. Cross fleury over salth-e, each limb of which ends in small crosses pattees ; annulets in field. Obverse. Keverse. Wt. Provenance, &c. *[ ]CIIoEIIo «T@riD^BE[Ur PI. LX. 10. PI. Ornaments in place of legend (each limb of saltire ends in two crescents from which a chain issiies to the edge of the coin(. LX. 11. L. A. LaAvrence. 18-8 British Museum, 16-6 nos. 269, 270, chipped and other speci- 18-0 I mens from the 18-9 1 same pair of dies. 21-3 1 Very little is known of Eustace FitzJohn during the reign of Stephen ; his close intimacy with the court of Henry I naturally led him to favour the cause of the Empress, and in February, 1138, we hear of Stephen depriving him of the custody of Bamborough Castle, on the ground that he was plotting with Matilda ; in July of the same year he joined David of Scotland, surrendering to him his castle of Alnwick, and, as we have seen, fought on his side at the Battle of the Standard. Between Christmas, 1141, and Easter, IRREGULAR ISSUES CXV 1142,^ lie witnessed at Stamford a charter of Stephen to William, Earl of Lincoln. In the later part of the reign we only hear of liini founding- and endowing religious houses. His signature to the charter at Stamford seems to point to a reconciliation with Stephen between 1138 and 1142 ; but the witnesses of this charter are mostly local magnates or relations of the grantee, some (such as Randulf of Chester and Roger of Warwick) certainly in revolt both before and after this date, and perhaps the signatures only denote a temporary truce and not a definite transfer of allegiance. He witnessed Scottish charters at Scone in 1124, at York (?) in 1128, at place unknown circa 1136, at Carlisle circa 1139, at Durham circa 1141, at Huntingdon circa 1145 (perhaps earlier), at Corbridge in 1150-2 (Lawrie, Early Scottish Charters, liv, Ixxv and Ixxvi, cxv, cxxiii, cxxxiii, clxxvii, ccxlvii). The fragment in Mr. Lawrence's collection must clearly be attributed to this Eustace, and the other coins naturally follow it. Mr. Andrew,^ however, prefers to separate the ordinary Lion-type issue from that bearing the full name of FitzJohn, attributing the former to the son of Stephen, and assuming FitzJohn to have issued in his own name an imitation of this issue of Eustace, son of Stephen. But finding an issue in currency which would even in name serve as his own, he would surely not expose his abuse by adding to the name Eustace the additional ' Filius lohannis ' ; nor is there any reason to suppose that the FitzJohn fragment is lighter or baser, or in any other way more like an imitation, than the ordinary Lion-type issue. The reason for the divorce of these two closely related issues seems to be the connexion with the issues of York, and the lack of any authority for assigning to FitzJohn power in the city of York. This difficulty is not, however, solved by this means, for of the two Lion-type issues the one bearing the name ' Filius lohannis ' is most certainly the nearer in style to the other Eustace coins of York, the style of lettering and of ornaments and design being ^ Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 157-9. 2 Num. Circ, 1914, pp. 629-30. h 2 INTRODUCTION of the good workmanship of the York coins, whereas the more common Lion-type coins, which bear the name ' Eistaohius ', though still similar in style, especially of lettering, differ from any other of the York issues in the form of the ornaments in the reverse inscription. If either, therefore, is to be regarded as an imitation of the other, it should surely be the ' Eistaohius ' issue. Robert de Stuteville. Ohv. Armed figure on horseback to r. ►jRODBeRTLHSDe Rev. Cross pattee over saltire fleury. Ornaments. British Museum, no. 271; Hunterian coll.; H. M. Reynolds; P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton ; B. Roth. The British Museum, Hunterian, and Reynolds specimens are from the same dies. PI. LX. 12, 13. All the specimens at present known of this coinage, except that in the Hunterian collection, are in a more or less fragmentary condition which renders the last part of the obverse inscription illegible ; this has made possible the traditional attribution to Robert of Gloucester, an attribution which was, however, ques- tioned by Packe in Num. Citron.^ 1896, p. 70, on grounds of style and identity of reverse type with the coin of Stephen de- scribed above as variety IV D (c). Packe's suggestion of Robert de Stuteville as the issuer of this coinage is made almost certain Ijy the Hunterian coin, on which the whole obverse inscription is clearly legible with the exception of the letters D€; these are read by comparison with the Reynolds specimen. Of this Roliert de Stuteville we know nothing except that he was one of the Yorkshire magnates who met at York in 1138 to consider measures of defence against David of Scotland ; he is supposed to have been the father of the sheriff of Yorkshire of 1170-5. The similarity of the style of his coins to that of the other irregular issues of York points to an early date of issue, apparently within the period 1138-41. IRREGULAR ISSUES Henry, Bishop or Winchester. Ohv. Bust r., crowned, holding crozier ; star in field to r. liev. Cross pattee over cross fleury. Obverse. Reverse. wt. Provenance, &c. PL LX. 14. 15-9 frag- ment British Museum, no. 272. *D€HRIC\/'2 €PC: BllPPAHV BRex 18-0 P.W.P.Carlyon- Britton. PL LX. 15. There seem to have been only two bishops of the name of Henry in English sees during the reign of Stephen — the Bishop of Win- chester and Henry Murdac, Archbishop of York (1147-53). Murdac, who was not recognized by Stephen till their reconciliation in 1150, is hardl}' a possible candidate for this coinage, and would doubtless have used the title archieinscoims instead of episcoims. The coinage is a very curious one and is a remarkable illustration of the extraordinary power of Henry of Blois. Like the late eighth- century coins of Canterbury, these coins couple the royal title on the reverse with the episcopal title on the obverse, showing probably that the coinage was issued by grant of, and not in defiance of, the King. Whether the story is true or false that Bishop Henry was actually elected to the archbishopric of Canterbury in 1136 but refused translation by the Pope, his legatine commission in 1139 gave him a position superior to the Primate ; in 1142 he even urged the Pope to raise Winchester to metropolitan rank, and according to Ralph de Diceto the pall was actually sent him by the Pope ; in 1143 he consecrated William as Archbishop of York, Theobald of Canterbury dissenting. One is naturally inclined to place his coinage in the period of his greatest ecclesiastical power, that is, between his appointment as Legate in March, 1139, and the CXVlll INTRODUCTION expiry of his legatine commission with the death of Innocent in September, 1143 ; from this period may be deducted nearly tlie whole of the year 1141 (February to December), the period of Stephen's captivity, which leaves the alternative of the two periods March, 1139 — February, 1141, and December, 1141 — September, 1143. The later of these two periods is not a likely date for a coinage which adopts for the portrait that of the King's first issue. We may therefore take as a conjectural date of the issue the period March, 1139 — February, 1141. This date is confirmed by the resemblance in style to the York issues, a resemblance so close as to suggest that the dies were made at York or even the coins struck there (Major Carlyon-Britton's specimen was found at York), but I cannot accept Mr. Andrew's theory^ that they were issued by William Fitzherbert shortly after June, 1141, in honour of his uncle, the Legate. Fitzherbert was not consecrated till 1143, and an unconsecrated Archbishop of York is not likely to have issued a coinage bearing the names of the Bishop of Winchester and the Kins. Empress Matilda. Type as first issue of Stephen. Obverse. Reverse. wt. Provenance, &c. :imperatr: PI. LX E-BRlii I. 1, 2. 16-6 15-8 P.W.P.Carlyon- Britton (two coins from same die). ]ILDIEOi: *ALFRED[ ] 18-5 Raslileigh sale, lot 631. ihper: *ARFEMi:il BRUT B. Roth. PI. LXI. 3. 1 Num. Circ, 1914, pp. 628-9. IRREGULAR ISSUES Obverse. flATILDi:i Reverse. IIID/VH-DE" ]Er:ea[ :matillis:i Pl. LXI. 4 lATILDi:iMi*S\/'Ellli:0 i: |h:ox: PI. LXI. 5. IILDMMP *I^A111«DE- PI. LXI. 6. AVt. 17-0 Provenance, &c. 17-2 16-5 IlleKible. li\TILDi:iM ]e:imp[ s^ s.-iwrs.?s$ =s$ .^ =^ EMVHl ]\/'We:in[ Raslileigh sale, lot 632. B. Roth (two coins from same dies). British Museum, no. 273, and H. M. Reynolds. B. Roth (two coins). B. Roth (very similar to pre- ceding). B. Roth. A brief description of the Empress's movements in England is given above in the account of the coins inscribed PERERIE (see pp. Ixxxiv f.). Her coins are all of the type of Stephen's lirst issue and bear as obverse inscriptions forms, more or less abbreviated, of Iniperatrix, Mat'ddis Comitissa, and Matildls Imperatrix. The •lies were of rough work and were hand-engraved with the ex- ception of the reverse of the Oxford coin, which is made with the usual punching-irons ; ^ they all seem to be of low weight but of good metal. The only mints that can be ascertained with any ^ The coin in Rashleigh sale, lot 631, is perhaps also from a punch-worked die, but has rather the appearance of being engraved in imitation of punched lettering. CXX INTRODUCTION certainty are Bristol, Oxford, and Wareham ; ^ I^/\. is presumably not Canterbury (see above, p. Ixxxvi) , possibly Calne.^ The coins were most probably all struck between 1139 and 1142 ; those of Bristol, which was probably always her chief base, ma,y have l)een issued at any time between these dates ; perhaps the coins with the inscription Iin2Jeratrix preceded those that have the name MatilcUs in addition to the title. The Oxford coins were perhaps struck at, or shortly after, Easter, 1141, when the castle was surrendered to the Empress by Robert d'Oilly ; it seems likely that dies then fell into her hands, for the reverses of these coins are struck from dies made apparently from the regular punching-irons, and have all the appearance of the coinage of Stephen.^ They might have been struck in June, 1141, after the flight from London, or in September-December, 1142, when she was besieged at Oxford by Stephen ; but the occasion of her entry to Oxford in the course of her triumphal progress to London in March, 1141, seems the more probable date. Wareham, one of Robert of Gloucester's strongholds, seems to have surrendered to Stephen in 1138, but was certainly in rebellion in the following year when Baldwin de Redvers landed there ; it was not recovered by Stephen till June, 1142, when he took it from William of Gloucester, who was put in charge in his father's absence ; it was retaken by Robert, after a siege of three weeks, in November. Stephen's attempt to recover it in the following year was unsuccessful. Other coins that have been attributed to Matilda are the variety of Stephen's first issue which bears the inscription PERERIE, &c. (see above, pp. Ixxxii fF.), and two coins of Stephen's second type {British Numismatic Journal, vol. vii, p. 85, and PI. II, 35, 36), but these are ill-struck and illegible, and I see no reason for the attribution. ^ The former attribution of these and other coins (see below, p. cxxxi) to Warwick was, as Mr. Andrew has pointed out, most improbable. '^ See below, pp. clxivf., and Nh»}. Chron., 1915, p. 115. 2 See Num. Chron., 1915, p. 114. irregular issues IIexry of Anjou. Type I. (a) As first issue of Stephen. Obverse. Reverse. Wt. Provenance, &c. *I^€I1RICA/'S 11 1I-.EPEFORD B. Roth. PI. LXI. 8. ]inn:hioi From same die as pre- ceding. 17-6 pierced British Museum, no. 275. PI. L XI. 7. The mint on these two coins might possibly read BEDEFORD ; both coins are clipped through the mint name. *picoRic:oN i^er: PI. LXI. 9. :\\ Ex- an: *^5tA[ ]Ri:d E:MALil!: 15-9 ' British Museum, no. 274. B. Roth. From its style and fabric this coin seems to belong to this series. A coin of this type, but of Scottish style, which must be attributed to Earl Henry, son of David, was found at Bute (see above, p. xcviii). (6) As variety III 7 of Stephen (see above, pp. xci ff.). ^I^ENRIE::-: *R/VDE^W^Li- :oiioLo PL LXI. 10. 16-7 Britisl) Museum, no. 276 (from the Winterslow find). CXXil INTRODUCTION (c) Ohv. As first issue of Stephen. Rev. As last issue (type XV) of Henry I. Obverse. Reverse. |[ ]: PI. LXI. 12. Wt. 12-4 Provenance, &c. British Museum, no. 277 (from the WintersloAV find). Two coins similar to preceding, illegible, in P. W. P. Carlyon- Britton and H. M. Reynolds collections. *[ ]LEMO Square crown without ornaments ; inscription begins to r. of sceptre and is not divided by bust. PI. LXI. 11. ]N[ MLFRE[ Ornament between face /\.* and sceptre. PL LXI. 13. REX Broad double diadem in place of crown. Illegible. 16-5 16-4 clipped B. Roth. British Museum, no. 278 (from AVinterslow find). British Museum, no. 279 (Win- terslow find), and W. T. Ready (same dies). PL LXI. 14. Another similar, illegible, in P. W. P. Carlyou-Britton collection. Type 11. («) Ohv. Bust facing, crowned, between two stars. Rev. Cross botonnce over quadrilateral with pellet at each angle. ^EHRIEA/'[ *arefim:o MBRI PL LXI. 15. 16-6 British Museum, no. 280. IKREGULAK ISSUES cxxni Obverse. PI. LXI. 16. Reverse. Wt. From same die as pre- ceding. ]mEV[ PI. LXII. 1 From same die as pre- cedinft-. *om:si[ ]\r lO'O 16.1 *DIIlIHaA/'[ |*ADi\ lOIl^W^ 160 ]N JIVELOE PI. LXII. 3. *PNOA/'0EM OI HIA/'OVNIN OHIH- 14-4 Provenance, &c. PI. LXII. 4. Copenhagen Museum. H. M. Reynolds. British Museum, no. 281 (Win- tersLow find). British Museum, no. 282. British Museum, no. 283. The last two coins are perliaps contemporary imitations of tlie Duke's coins (b) As preceding issue, but the cross hotonne e on the reverse is voided. »i>I^EN[ 1 *ELF[ ]:A PI. LXII. 2. 7-6 cut half- penny British Museum, no. 284 (Win- tcrslow lind). ]N[ *[ ]LDEV 15-4 Eashleigh sale, lot 027. *E111II«EXII una: (retrograde) *^W^AlTEil s:om: 16-0 P.AV.P.Carlyon- Britton. Annulet enclosing pellet above each star. PI. LXII. 9. CXXIV INTRODUCTION Mr. Andrew^ reads the obverse of this coin — not retroo-rade — + :bVWFREI- DE BVhuN. It seems to me to be a blundered coin of Henry or possibly William. ' Anno gratins MCXLIX, qui est XIIII i-egni regis Stephani, Henricus dux Normannorum venit in Angliam cum magno exercitu, et reddita sunt ei castella multa et munitiones cjuamplures; et fecit monetam novam, quam vocabant monetam ducis ; et non tantum ipse, sed omnes potentes, tarn episcopi quam comites et barones, suani faciebant monetam. Sed ex quo dux ille venit, phu-imorum monetam cassavit.' ^ The above passage occurs in Roger of Hoveden's Chronicle under the year 1149, and seems to be an original statement of his own, and not, like the great part of his history of this period (1148-69), taken from the Chronicle of Melrose. In his introduction to Roger of Hoveden's Chronicle, Stubbs says: 'The notices of the years 1148 to 1169 which are neither taken directl}^ from the Chronicle of Melrose, nor connected closely with the Becket contest, are very few, and some of them, I think, of very questionable authenticity. ... Of the striking of money by Henry in 1149 called " the duke's mone}'", and of the appointment of Henry as justiciar to Stephen in 1153, it is impossible to say that they are false, but equally impossible to say that they are in the least degree probable.' There were four (or three 1) occasions on which Heniy came to England during Stephen's reign : (1) In late autumn, 1142, then nine years old, he was sent over to Bristol and lived there four 3'ears, returning to Normandy towards the end of 1146. [(2) In the spring of 1147, in order to create a diversion on behalf of Gilbert of Clare, who was attacked in Pevensey by Stephen, he brought a small band of adventurers and was joined on landing by Robert of Leicester ; he made an attack on Cricklade and on Bourton (Gloucestershire ?) ; Ijoth attacks failed, his men 1 Num. Circ, 1914, p. 632. ^ Roger of Hoveden (Rolls Series, no. 51), vol. i, p. 211. IRREGULAR ISSUES CXXV began to desert, and at the end of 3Iay he returned to Normandy from Wareliam. Perhaps l«/VREFIMIOM BRI with *iVRFElli:iiBRIlT on a coin of Empress Matilda, and *PIC0RIC:ON her: with coins of Stephen, pp. 340-1, nos. 38 and 39, leaves no doubt that, whoever this Henry was, he coined at Bristol and Hereford. The Scottish prince cannot have coined in the West, nor would he have put on his coins the title REX, which is likely to be adopted only by a claimant to the throne.- Further, in connexion with these coins must be considered the coins similar to the later issue (described as type II aliove), but bearing other obverse titles, which seem only explicable as a baronial coinage imitating the coinage of Henry, such as Hoveden tells us was suppressed by the Duke on his arrival. There is much difficulty in determining when this coinage can have been issued by Henry ; the earliest type, presumably, is the direct imitation of the first issue of Stephen, which can hardly have been the type in issue at the royal mints in the late autumn of 1142, when Henry first landed in England. Matilda had on, or shortly after, her arrival issued a coinage which imitated the first issue of Stephen, the coinage at that time (1139) presumably still in issue, or at least the most frequent type in currency ; " this type she continued to issue without change until perhaps her flight from Oxford in December, 1142, from which date her claim was practically altandoned, and her 1 See above, p. xxx. "^ At the same time it must be remembered that a coin is known of the type of Stephen's first issue having on the obverse the name Henricits (without title), which must be attributed to Earl Henry, owing to its Scottish style and very close resemblance to coins of David of the same type, and also on account of its Scottish provenance (Bute find) and its probable attribution to Carlisle and the moneyer Erebald (see above, p. xcviii). ' See p. Ixxv. IRREGULAR ISSUES CXXVll part}' were held together by Robert of Gloucester in the name of Henry. Henry's confirmation of his mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere, attributed to July-November, 114.2,^ and indeed the guarantee given l:)y the Empress in her original charter (not later than June in the same year), that she would obtain her son's ratification, show that in this year (1142) she was fighting for the cause of her son as rightful heir to the throne, and had abandoned her own claim. It is to this period, c. 1142-3, that I should attribute the substitu- tion of the name of Henry for that of Matilda on the coinage of the Angevin party in England, the original type being con- tinued for a timer In October, 1147, Robert of Gloucester died, and the Angevin cause in England practically ceased to exist, the Empress herself leaving the country in the following Februar^^ ; it revived with the third (second?) visit of Henry in 1149. The profile types I have above assigned to the period immediately following the change in the Empress's position from claimant in her own right to claimant in the right of her son, that is to say, c. 1142, I (c) being presumably somewhat later than I («) and (h). The later, or full-face, types, the obverse of which is presumably based on that of type III of Stephen, must, I think, at least have commenced their currency before Robert's death in 1147. Of this I find confirmation in the finds of coins of this reign. In the Awbridp-e find the absence of coins of Henry struck before his accession might possibly be explained by assuming that he recalled his coins from circulation at the same time as he put down the baronial issues, though that seems hardly possible if the later type of his coinage was not brought into circulation before 1153. The Winterslow find seems more definite. No account exists of this find, but B. C. Roberts seems to have had a representative selection from it, and to judge from his coins the hoard contained specimens ^ Round, Geoffrey de MandeinUe, pp. 184 ff. ^ See Num. Chron., 1915, p. 118. I was tliei-e mistaken in saying that Mr. Andrew assigned all the profile types of Henry to 1149 ; Hks. 259 he places in 1142, and with it I understand him to include all those with the reverse of Stephen's first type (except the coin of Scottish style from the Bute find; see Brit. Num. Joto'n., \ol. ix, p. 414), the re)iiaiiu'ii.g profile coins (described above as type I (c)) in 1149 and the full-face issues in 1153. eXXVlll INTKODUCTION of all the varieties of Henry of Anjou excepting type I (a); and of the true coinage of Stephen, types I, II, and III were represented. The later issue of Henry of Anjou was therefore most probably introduced during the issue of the third or fourth type of Stephen, that is to say, probably not many years after 1145. The mints that can be identified with likelihood are : of type I (a) Hereford and Malmesbury, of type I (b) Gloucester, of type I (c) ' Crst' ^ (Cirencester in Gloucestershire 1), the others being uncertain; of type II (a) Bristol (the same moneyer, Arefin, seems to have struck coins of the Empress, see above, p. cxviii), Sherborne ?, Wiveliscombe ? ; of type II (b) none are certain. Even if the mints could be interpreted with certainty, it is not likely that a consideration of them in connexion with such evidence as we have of Henry's movements would assist towards dating the coinage ; for these issues of Henry represent, I think, rather the coinage of his party than his own private issues. At this time, after 1142, the West of England was Angevin, and at the Angevin strongholds, such as Bristol, Gloucester, Wareham, &c., there was probably a more or less continuous output of coins in the name first of Matilda, and later of Henry, and these coinages are likely to have been the main currency of the West.^ Type I [b) is of some interest as it varies from the regular type of Stephen, and is identical in type with a variety described above, variety III 7 (see above, pp. xci ft'.) ; that variety was shown to have occurred in finds of late coins of the reign, and not in finds containing coins of the first issue (except one specimen in the Linton find), and therefore was apparently first issued at the end of the period when type I was being minted, and continued in circulation to the beginning of Henry II's reign. Why there should be this curious connexion it is impossible to say ; one cannot suppose that Henry issued coins bearing Stephen's name ; it may be that they were issued in the same locality, and perhaps the dies made ^ The usual interpretation of CRST as Chvistchurch seems to me very doubtful. The town was called Twynham. Christchurch was the name of the monastery only. I suggest Cirencester conjeetu rally. ^ See Brit. Xiim. Joio-n., vol. ix, p. 414. IRREGULAR ISSUES CXXIX by the same engravers, though the difference of style is against this ; perhaps the variety of uncertain attribution is the work of some baron in the West of England, where Henry's coins were mostly in circulation, but if so, the use of Stephen's title on an imitation of Henry's coin is not easily explained. Robert (of Gloucester ?). Type of Stephen's second issue. Obverse inscriptions: ^ilUETA/" (penny. B. Roth). ]ROBETA/'[ (halfpenny. B. Roth). PI. LXII. 5. 6. Reverse inscriptions quite uncertain ; the penny reads VND : ON : — , the mint-name has some appearance of being hERE or LERE, or possibly LIISC. The attribution is quite uncertain ; the coins may represent a baronial issue, or money of necessity. One would not expect Robert of Gloucester to issue coins except in the name of the Empress or Henrj^ Another Robert may be the issuer. If LERE is the reading of the mint-name on the penny (but this is very doubtful), Robert de Beaumont, the favourite of Stephen, who went over to Henry on his arrival in 1147 (?), is more probable (see Brit. Num. Journ., vol. vi, p. 366, and vol. vii, p. 88). William (of Gloucester?). T'>/pe I. As type of Henry of Anjou, I (c). See p. cxxii. Obverse, Reverse. wt. 14-0 Provenance, &c. ILELCO Square crown Avith ball ornaments ; inscrii:)tion begins to r. of sceptre. ]LEL[ n, M. Reynolds. cxxx INTRODUCTION Tyije II. (a) As type of Henry of Anjou, II (a). See p. cxxii. Obverse. Two rows of pellets take the place of the crown. PI. LXII. 10 Reverse. :cRwT wt. 15-0 Provenance, &c. H. M. Reynolds. (b) As type of Henry of Anjou, II (b). See p. cxxiii. PI. LXII. 8. *[ ]ANDO MDOB *^W^ILLELCT) PI. LXII. 11, 12. *ro0iero:d PI. LXII. 7. From same die as pre- ceding. ]AV3.om:[ 15-0 14-5 15-4 broken 16-0 P.W.P.Carlyon- Britton. P.W.P.Carlyon- Britton and H. M. Reynolds (same dies). British Museum, no. 285. British Museum, no. 286. These coins are evidently struck in direct imitation of the issues of Henry, not only of the later but also of the earlier, or profile, class.^ In one case, type II (a), there seems to be an attempt to express some title as well as the name on the obverse ; this difficult inscrip- tion may perhaps be read WILLEM DVO (for DVX ?) or WILLem EoMes DVO(?). Mr. Andrew^ reads WILLelmus EoMes DVrOtrigum and attributes the coin to William de Mohun, Earl of Dorset and Somerset ; but the letter of Brian FitzCount to the Legate, published ^ I am very doubtful whether this coin, described as type I, should be classed with the other William coins. 2 Num. Circ, 1914, p. 631. IRREGULAR ISSUES CXXXl by Mr. Round in Eng. Hist. Rev., 1910, pp. 297 fF., shows that William de Moyon deserted the Empress before the end of 1143, and there seems no reason to suppose that he returned to her side. The coin certainly belongs to the latter half of the reign. It is noteworthy that not only the types but also the mint-names (so far as they can be interpreted) are identical with those on coins of Henry or the Empress. The name CRST occurs again (possibly Cirencester? see above, p. cxxviii), also at WAR (doubtless Wareham) the same moneyer, Roger, coined under the Empress ; DOB or DOR (Dorchester?) and WIS (Wiveliscombe ?) are quite uncertain. The weight of the coinage is low. These considerations and the extent of this coinage, if it may be attributed to one person (which is doubtful), suggest that the magnate who issued it was at some time leader of the Angevin party in England ; this position may have fallen to William of Gloucester between his father's death in 1147 and the arrival of Henry in 1149, a period of which historical records are very meagre; but any attribution of the coins must be a matter of considerable doubt. The coin of type II (6), with mint-reading WIS, came from the Winterslow find. Brian FitzCount? Type of Henry of Anjou, II («), and William (of Gloucester ?), II (a). Ohv. *B-R-C-IT-[ Rev. *BRIITililI-TO: Wt. 15-9 grs. r. AV. P. Carlyon-Britton. PI. LXII. 13. Mr. Andrew {Num. Circ, 1914, p. 632) reads these inscriptions : B- R- ComlTIS DEVonlse and BRILTDPI • TO (a blundered copy of an Exeter reverse of the last issue of the reign of Henry I) ; he thus follows Montagu {Num. Chron., 1890, Proceedings, p. 5) in attributing the coin to Baldwin de Redvers. I am not by any means satisfied that the latter part of the obverse inscription can be read as Mr. Andrew has read it. I prefer to remain content with the proposal of Packe {Nuon. Chron., i 2 CXXXU INTRODUCTION 1896, pp. 63 f.), reading the inscription as Brianus Comitis Filius; the reverse inscription seems to me likely to be a copy of that on the obverse, Brian FitzCount declared for Matilda in 1139 and concerted with Robert of Gloucester in plans of campaign ; he was blockaded in Wallingford by Stephen, but relieved by Milo in the same year. He was with the Empress at London in June, and at Oxford in July, 1141, and after the siege of Winchester fled with her to Devizes; he was with her at Bristol^ at the close of 1141, and at Oxford in the spring of 1142; to his castle at Wallingford Matilda fled at Christmas, 1142. He was besieged by Stephen at Wallingford in 1146, and again in 1153, when Henry relieved him on his fourth (third?) arrival in England. Perhaps this coin might be attributed to the siege of Wallingford in 1146. Baldwin de Red vers was created Earl of Devon by the Empress before June, 1141.^ He revolted from Stephen in 1136, was besieged, capitulated and fled to the Isle of Wight, and surrendered on hearing of Stephen's approach from Southampton ; he was banished and took refuge with Geoffrey of Anjou. In 1139 he landed at Wareham and took Corfe Castle ; he joined the Empress and was present at the siege of Winchester in 1141. After that we hear little of him except as a benefactor of religious houses. He died in 1155. Unceetain Baeonial Coins. (1) Obv. II^OCD Bust in armour r., holding sword. Rev. >l»50[ ]ONI^./\. Quadrilateral, fleured at angles, over cross fleury. Wt. 1 5-8 grs. (clipped). British Museum, no. 292. PI. LXII.14. From the Winterslow find. Mr. Andrew ^ attributes this coin to Patrick, Earl of Salisbury. ^ Dugdale, Monasticon, vol. vi, p. 137. ^ Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 271-2. 3 Num. Circ, 1914, p. 632. IRREGULAR ISSUES CXXXlll (2) Obv. >J»TOD(oi' Tj^OEFN Bust facing, crowned, holding sceptre, star to r. Rev. »l«/VL,PI^DONTOMI Cross pattee, annulet enclosing pellet in each angle, Wt. 15-2 grs. British Museum, no. 293. PI. LXII. 15. Perhaps the obverse inscription represents a blundered form of STIEFNE. The resemblance of the reverse type to that of the following piece is noteworthy. (3) Ohv. iNEPrH* Bust to r., holding sceptre (as on first issue of Stephen). Rev. HB^^^t^l^liEHLONr Cross pattee, annulet enclosing pellet in each angle. Wt. 16 grs. British Museum, no. 294. PI. LXII. 16. Organization and Conthol of the Mint. The only officials of the mints of whose existence we have any literary evidence during the Norman period are the Tnoiietarii, or money ers, whose names appear on the coins.^ An aurifaher, or goldsmith, was probably employed for the designs of the coinage and perhaps controlled the engraving of dies ; a function which seems to have been hereditary in the family of the goldsmith Otto from the time of Domesday, and apparently developed at a later date into the post of Cuneator or Engraver of the Dies, which was held in definite tenure of the king. Otto the Goldsmith appears in Domesday - in possession of lands in Essex and Suffolk ; a charter of Henry I directed to Maurice, Bishop of London, who died in 1107, confirmed to William FitzOtto (presumably son of Otto of Domesday) lands held by his father and ^ See below, pp. cxli ff. ^ II. 97 b, 106 b, 286 b. Other goldsmiths mentioned in Domesday are : Grimbaldus (I. 74), Alwardus (I. 63 b), Leawinus (I. 58 b), Nicholaus (aurifaber comitis Hugonis, II. 279j, Rainbaldus (11.273), Teodricus (I. 36 b, 63, 160 b). A pedigree of the Otho family, with citations from records, is published in Num. Chron., 1893, p. 145. CXXXIV INTRODUCTION the craft of the dies ; m the sixth year of John, May 16, 1205, a writ to Wilham FitzOtho ordered him to make dies for the Royal and Episcopal mints of Chichester, and in the forty-first year of the following reign an inquiry was held into the conditions of tenure under which Otto FitzWilliam, then dead, had held the custody of the king's die in England. From this it appears that the hereditary office of Aurifaber of the time of William I developed in, or before, the reign of John into an office definitely attached to the Mint. Of any other officers of the Mint we find no evidence at all, nor can any conclusion be drawn from an inquiry into the ore:anization of the Mint in later times. The administration was not at this early period divided into separate Government depart- ments ; the first sign of breaking away from the old centralization of financial, judicial, and administrative authority in a single executive board first appears in the reign of Henry II. Under the Norman kings, at least, the Mint was no doubt treated as an inseparable part of the king's treasury or exchequer,^ and I think one may assume that the same executive officers controlled the work of the moneyers at the royal mints throughout the country as audited the accounts of the king's sheriffs ; at the same time the moneyers were probably more independent than at a later period. Some reference has already been made to the means at the disposal of the king or his officers for controlling the moneyers. The most obvious method was the engraving of the moneyer's name and of his mint on his reverse dies; this would seem inadequate without some periodical trial of the money, and it has been suggested above ^ that the periodical change of the coin-types was made with the object of marking a periodical assay which might be the origin of the Trial of the Pyx; assaying was certainly known and employed at this time, for payments in Domesday are sometimes 'blanched', i.e. assayed and compensated. * That a financial department existed at this time and earlier, there seems no doubt (see Hughes, Crump and Johnson, Dialogus de Scaccario, introduction, p. 13, and references in foot-note). ''■ p. xiii. ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF THE MINT CXXXV Whether the dies for provincial mints were all made in London has long been under dispute ; but the evidence of Domesday on the question seems so strong that I think it may be accepted with slight reservation. The Domesday passages Mdiich bear on the subject are the following statements of fees paid by moneyers on receipt of dies after the introduction of a new type : ^ In civitate AVirecestre habebat Rex Echvardus banc consuetudinem. Quando moneta yertebatur quisque monetarius dabat xx solidos ad Londoniam pro cuneis monette accipiendis (I. 172). Septem monetarii erant ibi (in Hereford). Unus ex his erat mone- tarius episcopi. Quando moneta renovatur dabat quisque eorum xviii solidos pro cuneis recipiendis : et ex eo die quo redibant usque ad unum mensem dabat quisque eorum regi xx solidos. Et similiter babebat episcopus de suo monetario xx solidos (I. 1 79). Tres monetarios habebat ibi (in Sciropesberie) rex. Qui, postquam coemissent cuneos monetae ut alii monetarii patrifp, xv die dabant regi XX solidos unusquisque. Et hoc fiebat moneta vertente (I. 252). A certain amount of evidence on tliis subject may be adduced from the coins themselves, but not sufficient to afford any definite conclusion. In favour of the engraving of all dies at London, emphasis has always been laid on the very close similarity of coins struck at mints in all parts of the country ; the similarity of style is indeed striking, and it is impossible, with the exception of a few coins which are mentioned below, to attribute a coin to its mint by examining the style of the obverse. But this does not take into account the method of engraving dies, which was apparently ^ The payment of fees is also mentioned, but without notice of the receipt of dies, in the following passages : In burgo de Lewes, cum moneta renovatur dat XX solidos unusquisque monetarius (I, 26). Ibi (in burgo Dore Cestre) erant ii monetarii, quisque eorum reddens regi unam markam ai'genti, et xx solidos quando moneta vertebatur (I. 75). Ibi (in Brideport) erat unus monetarius, reddens regi unam markam argenti et xx solidos quando moneta vertebatur (I. 75). Ibi (in Warham) ii monetarii, quisque reddens unam markam argenti regi, et xx solidos quando moneta vertebatur (1. 75). Ibi (in burgo Sceptesberie) erant iii monetarii, quisque reddebat i markam argenti, et xx solidos quando moneta vertebatur (I. 75). CXXXVl INTRODUCTION a system of reproducing a set model with mathematical precision and with the assistance of punching tools and did not leave much scope for individuality. The use of a model or pattern die, or rather, the copying of one die from another, seems to be the only possible explanation of a curious reproduction of errors on Thetford coins of the second type of William I.^ These are the three coins described below, p. 27, nos, 144-6 ; they are all struck from different reverse dies, on each of which appears the very rare omission of the initial cross ; on each the inscription begins a little to the right of the limb of the voided cross of the design instead of beginning in the usual place exactly above the limb, and the readings are : riMUlrOM^IEO^MF KIMUlrOMD-i-IEOlPMF rmuiroMD'i'XEo^MF The first reading contains a very natural punch- worker's error, >^X for HE>j the use of a straight instead of a crescent-shaped punch ; the other two both reproduce this error, but, apparently with the intention of correcting it and on the supposition that the misgraven letter represented H, the letter D is inserted before it. This is a very curious and, I think, quite certain proof of the copying of die from die, for there is no doubt whatever that the coins nos. 145 and 146 are struck from two different reverse dies, though each reproduces the extraordinary mistaken attempt to correct the error of no. 144. The engraving of dies was therefore a matter of copying, the original being presumably made by the chief engraver and supplied to the workmen to copj^ This does not decide the question whether the copying of the original die and the recopying of die from die were done at London or locally ; it does show, however, that, if the dies were all made at London, either a model was kept by the cuneator at London, or a number of dies, and not a single pair, were delivered to the ^ Num. Chron., 1911, pp. 283-4. I there held the view that this proved that dies were engraved locally, but it may equally be explained as the work of engravers at London working from a set model. ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF THE MINT CXXXVll moneyer at the introduction of the new issue ; ^ for we know from specimens of dies of hammered coinage, though later in date, which still survive, that the dies when returned after use were not in a condition to be copied by the engraver. A coin which affords some, though rather conjectural, evidence that the dies were made in London, is described on p. 11 4, no. 608 : it is a Chichester coin on the reverse of which the outline of H is visible below the second and third letters (IK) of the mint ; the coin is in very good condition and there is no trace of overstriking. The letter ^ was evidently wrongly engraved on the die ; if, as seems likely, the engraver began to engrave the mint as Exeter instead of Chichester, the die must have been made at London and not at Chichester for such confusion to arise.^ Perhaps the strongest support for a literal interpretation of the passage above quoted from Domesday is to be found in the consideration of the meaning of the reverse inscriptions, and of occasional efforts of the moneyers to make them illegible by tampering with their dies. There can be no doubt that the moneyer's name and that of his mint were placed on the coins of this period for the purpose of identification of the person responsible for any coin that might be found of low weight or base standard. Certain coins have been found, and are described below (pp. cxlixff.), which were struck, usually of low weight, from reverse dies on which some ingenuity has been spent in changing the names in the legend or in making them illegible ; ^ these are clearly attempts on the part of the moneyers to make profit by the usual fraudulent practice of coining at low weight, while minimizing the risk of conviction by tampering with the mark ^ To Bury St. Edmunds one set of dies only was supplied at a time, and that only on return of the old set. But Stei^hen granted the Abbot as many as three sets (see below, p. clxiv). ^ Note also, on p. xlv, the possible evidence of the use of identical punches in making the dies of different mints. ^ See Num. Chron., 1911, pp. 285 ff. I am not now of opinion, as I then was, that these coins are evidence of the moneyers being in possession of official graving punches. CXXXVlll INTRODUCTION of identification which the coins bear. If the engraving of the dies had been done locally, it would presumably have been done by, or under direction of, the moneyers, who seem to have been important officials responsible for the operations of the mints at which they worked ; in this case, the altering of the inscription on reverse dies would be an unnecessary labour, as it would be in the moneyer's power to have his dies originally engraved with a false inscription. The chief argument to be opposed to the theory that the dies were made at London, is that certain coins of a certain locality, while differing from the coins of the other mints, bear a very close resemblance in style to each other. Most noteworthy of these are the coins of William I which are attributed to the mints of St. Davids and Cardiff (see PI. XIX. 1-3, and PI. XXIII. 13-16) ; and I think it must be conceded that, even if the evidence of Domesday is right, exception must be made of the Welsh mints,^ for they, unlike other so-called coarse or barbarous issues, were evidently not made with the usual punches that were used for the rest of the coinage. Other coins of the reign of William I ^ have a peculiarity of style (see Nwm. Chron., 1911, p. 283) ; the most important instance is the coins of type IV of Lincoln, Stamford, and York, which are all of very rough work and all closely similar in style. Similar also are some of the Lincoln coins of type II (see PI. IV. 13, 14). The coarseness of these coins seems to be due not to the use of punches of irregular form, but to the careless handling of the punches and clumsy engraving of the dies. This might well be explained by the assumption that the dies were cut locally or at a separate centre for the Yorkshire and Lincoln- shire mints ; but this explanation is not a necessary one ; it may equally be explained by the assumption that the work was distributed to the engravers at London by localities, and that inexperienced workmen were at this period given the dies ^ Coins of Rhuddlan, however, are not of 'barbarous' work (see PI. XXIII. 8). ^ I purposely avoid making mention here of coins of Stephen, as peculiarities of that reign might be attributed to baronial work. ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF THE MINT CXXXIX to engrave for the northern and north-eastern part of the country. We may, therefore, conelucle that one of the methods by which the authorities controlled the work of the moneyers was the engraving of their dies at London; but this statement requires some modification. Not only does it seem necessary to attribute the engraving of dies of the Welsh mints to local workmen using locally made tools, but it is also necessary to concede that in some circumstances it was allowed, or at least possible, for an obverse die to be borrowed by a moneyer of one mint from a moneyer of another.^ The following instances, all of the ' Paxs ' type of William I, occur of a die being sent from one mint to another (traces on the coins of rust-marks or cracks on the dies usually furnish evidence at which mint the die was first used) : -^ From Barnstaple (Seword, nos. 498, 499) to Exeter (Seniser, no. 668). From Canterbury (Godric, no. 554) to Hythe (Edred, no. 712). From Guildford (Seric, nos. 690-2) to Chichester (Bruman, nos. 600-2). From Marlborough (Cild, no. 827) to Salisbury (Esbern or Osbern, nos. 897-8). From Salisbury (Esbern, nos. 899, 900) to Marlborough (Cild, no. 828). (These two Marlborough coins are from the same reverse die, no. 828 being the later.) From [ Salisbury (Esbern or Osbern. nos. 895-6) to ^yilto^ (Sewine, no. 1062). From Wilton (Sefaroi and Sewine, nos. 1058-9, 1063) to Salisbury (Osbern, nos. 901-2). From Cricklade (^Ifwine, no. 625) to Wilton (^Ifwine, no. 1057). From Shrewsbury (Godesbrand, no. 938) to St. Davids (Turri, no. 883).^ From London (Alfred, nos. 763-4) to Southwark (Osmund, nos. 976-7). ^ The use of an obverse die by two or more moneyers at the same mint is very frequent. ^ See Num. Chron., 1911, pp. 274 ff. The London and Ipswich die mentioned on p. 278 {op. cit.) is omitted, as the coin that purports to be of Ipswich is certainly a forgery (see below, p. 186, no. 722). ^ The close resemblance of both obverse and reverse of the Shrewsbury coin to the coarse work of St. Davids causes some doubt whether its attribution to Shrewsbury is correct ; see below, p. clxxx. Cxl INTRODUCTION In type II of William I, the same die was used (there is no evidence at which mint it was first used) at : London (Godwine?, no. 128) and Thetford (Cinric, no. 145); the reverse die of the London coia had heen tampered with, see below, p. cl. Thetford (Cinric, no. 146) and MAINT . . . (Brihtwi, no. 130). In type III of William I, a die was sent from London (Sibode, no. 201) to Exeter (.Elfwine, no. 184). It will be noticed that, disregarding the Shrewsbury — St. Davids die (and indeed Shrewsbury was probably the most accessible, if not the nearest, mint to St. Davids), the two mints using the same die are almost invariably in close proximity. The only exceptions are London — Thetford, and London— Exeter ; whether the London — Thetford die was used first at London or Thetford is uncertain, but the Loudon — Exeter die is shown with certainty, from rust-marks in the crown, to have been sent from London to Exeter. We have, then, two distinct phenomena : in the first place that of a die being sent from one mint to another in the vicinity, and secondly, a die being sent from London all the way to Exeter, and another either from London to Thetford or from Thetford to London (presumably, by analogy, from London to Thetford). The former case is no doubt simply the borrowing or purchase of a die from a neighbour as an emergency measure ; whether it was an authorized measure or illegal, one cannot say. The second case is very different ; it seems to be a definite illus- tration of the theory that dies were delivered from London to the provincial mints, as I think one can only explain the transfer of a die from London to a mint so far distant as Exeter as a stop-gap measure, an old die being sent when the need at Exeter was urgent, in order to save the time of engraving the new die. The large number of irregular issues in the north of England during the reign of Stephen may perhaps be attributed to a tem- porary collapse of the direct control from the London mint. cxli MONEYERS. The position of the moneyer in Anglo-Saxon times is obscure ; in the reign of -cEthelred II, he had workmen under him for whom he was personally responsible ; ^ in the laws of Cnut the moneyers seem themselves to have been under the authority of the reeve, for if they affirmed that they made false coin with his permission the reeve was to undergo the triple ordeal, and, if guilty, to suffer the same penalty as a guilty moneyer.^ In the laws of ^thelstan, iEthelred II, and Cnut the same penalty — amputation of the hand, and its exposure over the mint — was fixed for false coining.^ The number of mone3^ers was reduced by ^thelred II : ■* for every chief town three, for every other town one (to judge by the names appearing on consecutive issues of the coins of this reign, this law was repealed or modified). In the Winton Domesday (fol. 2) Godwine Socche is described as having been ' master moneyer ' in the time of the Confessor. In Domesday, more information is given on this subject ; we have already (p. cxxxv) quoted passages which show that the moneyers, when the type was changed, purchased their new dies at London and then paid their fees — the king's moneyers to the king, the bishop's to the bishop. At Oxford, the moneyer Suetman has a free house (domus) rated at forty pence. Suetman has two mansioiies muri and pays three shillings (I. 154). At Wallingford, a monej^er has a house (haga) free^ so long as he works at the mint (I. 56). At York, Nigellus de Monneville has one onansio of a moneyer (I. 298). ^ Liebermann, Gesetze, p. 236 (IV. jEthelred, 9, 1). 2 Op. cit., p. 314 (II. Cnut, 8, 2). s Op. cit., pp. 158, 234, 314 (II. ^thelstan, 14, 1 ; IV. yEtheh-ed, 5, 3 ; II. Cnut, 8,1). * Op. cit., p. 236 (IV. .Ethelred, 9). ^ Not necessarily, as Ruding translates it, ' rent-free ' ; the word liber may- carry further privileges or immunities (cf. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 89, &c.) Cxlii INTRODUCTION At Hereford, in the time of the Confessor, when the king came to the city, the moneyers made for him as many pennies as he required from the king's silver {i.e., presumably, as opposed to the bishop's) ; the seven moneyers had sac and soc ; if one of the king's moneyers died, the king had twenty shillings in relief, and, if he died intestate, his whole property; if the reeve went to Wales with an army, they (the moneyers) went with him under penalty of forty shillings (I. 179). Under the Confessor, Walter, Bishop of Hereford, had one moneyer in Hereford (I. 181 b). At Leicester, the moneyers paid twenty pounds (at the rate of twenty pennies to the ounce) yearly ; of this, Hugh de Grantmesnil received the tertius denarius (I. 230). At Huntingdon there were, in the time of the Confessor, but not at the time of the Survey, three moneyers paying forty shillings between the king and the earl (I. 203). At Colchester, both in the time of the Confessor and at the time of the Survey, the moneyers paid four pounds (II. 107). At Norwich, the bishop, if he wished, had the privilege of one moneyer (11. 117 b). The following payments monetae, de moaeta, &c., are noted: Pevensey, twenty shillings (I. 20 b) ; Malmesbury, 100 shillings (I. 64 b) ; Gloucester, twenty pounds (I. 162) ; Colchester and Maldon, twenty pounds, apparently reduced by William to ten pounds (11. 107 b);^ Thetford, forty pounds (II. 119); Hunting- don — Rex W. geldum monete posuit in burgo — (I. 203); Lincoln — Geldum regis de monedagio ^ — (I. 336 1)). In the reign of Henry I there is some legislation with regard to the coinage, and some reference to moneyers, forgers, &c. In his Coronation Charter (Aug. 5, 1100) i^ Monetagium commune quod capiebatur per ciuitates et comitatus, quod non fuit tempore regis Eadwardi, hoc ne amodo sit, omniuo defendo (§ 5). ^ The passage seems coirupt ; see translation by J. H. Round in Victoria County History of Essex. ^ See above, pp. Ixix-lxx. ^ Liebermaun, vol. i, p. 522. MONEYERS Cxlui Si quis cai")tus fuerit, sine monetarius siue alius, cum falsa moneta, iusticia recta inde fiat (§ 5, 1). The following charter de moneta falsa et camhiatoribus is attributed to the date 1100-1 or 1103:^ Henricus rex Anglorum Sanisoni episcopo et Ursoni de Abetotet omnibus baronibus, Francis et Anglis, de Wirecestrescira sahitem. Sciatis quod uolo et precipio, ut omnes burgenses et omnes illi qui in burgis morantur, tarn Franci quam Angli, iurent tenere et seruare monetam meam in Anglia. ut non consentiant falsitatem nionete mee. Et si quis cum falso denario inuentus fuerit, si warant inde reuocauerit, ad eum ducatur ; et si ilium inde conprobare poterit, fiat iusticia mea de ipso warant. Si uero non poterit ilium probare, de ipso falsonario fiat iusticia mea, scilicet de dextro pugno et testiculis. Si autem nullum Avarant inde reuocauerit, portet inde indicium, se nescire nominare uel cognoscere aliquem a quo acceperit. Praeterea defendo, ne aliquis monetarius denarios mutet nisi in comitatu suo, et hoc coram duobus legittimis testibus de ipso comitatu. Et si in alio comitatu mutando denarios captus fuerit, captus sit ut falsonarius. Et nuUus sit ausus cambire denarios nisi monetarius. Teste Willelmo cancellario et Roberto comite de Mellent et R[odberto] filio Hamonis et R[icardo] de Retuers. Apud ^\^estmonasterium in natale Domini. In the Chronicles of Roger of Hoveden, Eadmer, Florence of Worcester, and Symeon of Durham, the following is recorded under the year llOS:^ Monetam quoque corruptam et falsam ^ sub tanta animadversione corrigi statuit, ut quicunque falsos denarios facere depreliensus fuisset, oculos et inferiores corporis partes sine ulla redemptione amitteret;* et quoniam ssepissime dum denarii eligebantur, flectebantur, rumpebantur, ^ Liebevmann, p. 523. Cf. Kiim. Chron., 1901, p. 475. ^ The text followed is that of Hoveden (Rolls Series, no. 51, vol. i, p. 165); variants of the other chroniclers are given in the notes. ^ Item moneta comtpta et falsa muJtis modi's midtos affligehat. Quam rex . . . Eadmer. * Ut nulliis qui i^osset deprehendl falsos denarios facere aliqaa redemptione qtiin oculos et inferiores corporis partes perderet iuvari valeret. Eadmer, Florence of Worcester, Symeon of Durham. Cxliv INTRODUCTION respuebantur, statuit, ut nullus denarius vel obelus, quos et rotundos esse iussit, aut etiam quadrans,^ [si] integer esset, respueretur.^ Ex quo facto magnum bonum' toti regno provisum* est, quia ipse rex® hsec in ssecu- laribus ad relevandas terrse jerumnas^ agebat. William of Malmesbuiy, in his brief: epitome of the reign of Henry I, states after a mention of Henry's return from Normandy (Spring, 1107): 7 Contra trapezetas, quos vulgo monetarios vocant, prrecipuam sui dili- gentiam exhibuit ; nullum falsarium, quin puguum perderet, impune abire permittens, qui fuisset intellectus falsitatis sure commercio fatuos irrisisse. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the years 1124-5 occur the following passages : ^ 1124. That (the high price of food, &c.) Avas because there was little corn, and the penny was so bad, that the man who had at a market a pound could by no means buy there\Yith twelve pennyworths. 1125. In this year, before Christmas, King Henry sent from Normandy to England, and commanded that all the moneyers that were in England should be deprived of their members ; that was the right hand of each, and their testicles beneath. That was because the man that had a pound could not buy for a penny at a market {sic). And the Bishop Roger of Salisbury sent over all England, and commanded them all that they should come to Winchester at Christmas. When they came thither they were taken one by one, and each deprived of the right hand and the testicles beneath. All this was done Avithin the twelve nights ; and that was all with great ^ quos . . . quadrans omitted by Eadmer. insUtuit for iussit Florence, Symeon. ^ For [si] . . . resjmeretur Eadmer, Florence, and Symeon read integer esset, which is not intelligible. ^ Eadmer inserts ad tempus. * creatum Eadmer, Florence, Symeon. ® quia ipse rex omitted by Eadmer. ® Eadmer inserts interim rex. ' W. Malm., G. R. v. 399 (Rolls Series, no. 90, vol. ii, p. 476). « The translation is that of Thorpe in the Rolls Series (no. 23). Ruding says that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions the punishment of six" forgers in 1124, but there is no reason to suppose that the six men there mentioned were forgers. MONEYERS Cxlv justice, because they had fordone all the land with their great quantity of false money which they all bought. The same event is related by most of the Chroniclers ; ^ the Margam Annals place it in the year 1124, and Symeon of Durham in 1126. In the Margaui Annals the number of moneyers is given as ninety-four ; according to the Winton Annals all the moneyers of England were mutilated except three of Winchester. The height of food prices in 1125 is attributed in the Margam Annals to rain- storms in the summer, by Florence of Worcester to the reform of the coinage which followed this punishment of moneyers. Wykes adds to the penalty of mutilation that of banishment. In the Pipe Roll of Henry I (1130) two men at London owe a fine for forfeitures for false coining : Algarus et Sprachelingus debent x marcas ai'genti pro forisfacturis falsorum denariorum. But there is no reason to suppose that these are moneyers ; the name Algar occurs on coins of London of this period but not that of Spracheling, unless, as Mr. Andrew suggests, the name Sperling on the coins is identical. Similarly, in the following entry, we have no reason to suppose the debtor to be a moneyer,^ nor can we conjecture what the offence was : Godwinus Quachehand debet iiii marcas auri ut haberet pacem de placito Monetae. Definite references to moneyers occur : under Hampshire (Hamtona) : Saietus monetarius debet cclxxviii marcas argenti pro placito ii cuneorum. ^ "W. Malm., Roger of Hovedeii, Margam Annals, H. Hunt., Waverley Ann., Winton Ann., Cont. Floi*. Wore, Sym. Dur., Matt. Paris, Wykes. 2 A coin of Henry I, type XV (T. Bliss collection) reads GODPINE GA^I OI^ "^^^ identification of this reading with Godwine Quachehand of the Pipe Roll {Num. Chron., 1901, p. 283) is possible, but doubtful. k Cxlvi INTRODUCTION under Honor de Arundel : Brand Monetarius reddit compotum de xx libris ne esset disfactus cum aliis monetariis. Et idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de i marca argenti de hominibus monetariorum Cicestrise. under Norfolk : Eadstanus debet c solidos de pecunia Ulcbetelli monetarii. under Pembroke : Gillopatric monetarius reddit compotum de iiii libris pro forisfacturis veteris Monetae.^ In his summary of the character of Henry I, William of Malmesbury (Rolls Series, no. 90, vol. ii, p. 487) says : - Fures et falsarios latentes maxima diligentia perscrutans, inventos puniens : parvarum quoque rerum non negligens. Cum nummos fractos, licet boni argenti, a venditoribus non recipi audisset, omnes vel frangi vel incidi pra^cepit. In the reign of Stephen we have no reference to the coinage and mint officials, except the brief allusions to baronial issues which have been quoted above (p. Ixxii). The information to be obtained with regard to the status of the moneyers is very scanty. At the time of the Domesday Survey, if we maj'' argue from particular cases to the general (which is very doubtful), we find that they were free tenants of the king, having sake and soke, i.e. presumably the ' lower justice' (Maitland, op. cit., p. 81), or limited jurisdiction over their own men and their property; they were subject (in Hereford at least) to military service ; in some cases they held an official residence, mansio or haga, during their term of office, and the king did not have the consuetudo of the moneyer's haga at Wallingford. The property of moneyers (at Hereford) was not free from the king's relief at their death, nor from reversion to the king in case of intestacy. The Pipe Roll of Henry I (Honor de Arundel) shows that the moneyers had workmen under them, and we have already seen ^ See above, p. xx.xiii, note 4. - See below, pp. cxlviii f. MONEYERS Cxlvii that in the reig-n of ^Etheh-ed II the moneyers were personally responsible for their workmen. They were, therefore, of burgess rank, and that they were men of some property may perhaps be concluded from the amounts of payments made or owed by them in the Pipe Roll ; Brand of Chichester, for instance, has the penalty of mutilation commuted to payment of twenty pounds (probably the fine is still owing from the Christmas of 1125, when so many moneyers suffered the penalty). Saiet of Southampton owes the large sum of 278 marks of silver. It is true that these sums are owed and not paid, but it is unlikely that Brand could have had his sentence commuted to a fine unless he could give some security or at least show himself likely to clear the debt within a reasonable time ; nor is it probable that Brand or Saiet would be continued in their office of moneyer if they were unlikely ever to clear themselves of their fines. The sums they owe are large ; Saiet owes as much as £185 6s. 8f/., which at least gives an impression that moneyers were in Norman times men of no small means. We know that in the time of Henry III moneyers were burgesses of good position who not infrequently held tlie office of sheriff or reeve,^ and that they were sometimes men of wealth.^ So early as the reign of Stephen, if (as there seems little doubt) Thomas FitzUlf is correctly identified with the alderman of York mentioned in the Pipe Roll,^ an alderman is acting as moneyer ; that he is coining under a baron and not directly under the king is, for the present purpose, unimportant. There is certainly nothing in Domesday to prove that the moneyers of William I were men of equal status to their successors, but Domesday Book does tell us that they were burgesses with certain privileges, and it hardly justifies us in assuming that their position underwent any material change during the eleventh century. 1 Num. Chron., 1885, pj?. 209 ff. • In 1242 Nicholas de Sancto Albano farmed the cambium of London and Canterbury (Calendar of Close Rolls). Thomas de Weseham was the king's Burgeon {Brit. Num. Journ., vol. is, p. 159). * See above, p. cxiii. k2 CXlviii INTRODUCTION The passage quoted above (p. cxlvi) from William of Malmesbury's character of Henry I (Rolls Series, no. 90, vol. ii, p. 487 — Cum iiumTnos frados, licet honi argenti, a venditoribus non recipi audisset, omnes velfrangivelincidi prxcepityiB of considerable interest, as Mr. Andrew has shown in Num. Ghron., 1901, pp. 55, 492 ; ^ the meaning of the passage is undoubtedly that the king, finding that cracked coins, although of good silver, were not accepted by traders, ordered all coins to be cracked or incised ; that is to say, by ordering all coins to be issued from the mint with a crack or incision in their edge the king compelled the acceptance of cracked coins. This clearly refers, as Mr. Andrew pointed out, to a sharp cut which appears on coins of this reign ; the most clear instance is seen on PI. XLI. 4, but on this coin the cut has penetrated much further into the coin than usual ; nos. 14 and 15 on the same plate, and 7, 9, 13 on PI. XLII, are perhaps better examples. This incision occurs on all the coins that I have seen of types VII to XII inclusive,^ and also on a very few coins of types XIII, XIV, and XV (PL XLIII. 3,=^ 15 ; XL VI. 8 ; XL VII. 13), but not on any coins of types I to VI. This is an interesting confirmation of the order in which the types of this reign have been placed ; * types I to VI clearly precede the introduction of this measure, and XIII to XV, of which incised, or snicked, coins are unusual, must have been issued after the withdrawal of the measure. Unfortunately, we are given no date of either its introduction or withdrawal ; Mr. Andrew supposes that it was given up when the coinage was reformed after the punishment of moneyers at Christmas, 1125 ; if he is right, type XII is earlier than 1125 and does not, as I conclude ^ See also Brit. Num. Journ., vol. viii, pp. 132-3, where Mr. Andrew connects the passage with the issue of cut halfpennies and farthings. '^ I cannot be quite certain of all the coins of type XII ; the incision cannot be seen on the coin of Lincoln (no. 82), perhaps because the coin is clipped. ' The coin has cracked towards the centre from the end of the incision after the incision was made ; the incision can be distinguished from an accidental crack by its regular shape. * Mr. Andrew comments on this, but fails to observe that the incisions are not found on coins of types IV, V, and VI, which in his grouping of the types fall between the types which I have numbered VII and XII. MONEYERS AND FORGERY CxHx below (p. cliv), follow the reform ; but it is quite possible that the practice continued for a time after 1125, and was later found unnecessary. Legislation against debasing the currency is severe and continually reiterated, and also against secret coining and all kinds of forgery. Yet at this period, as throughout the mediaeval English coinage, forgery and the frauduleuce of moneyers were, or were reputed to be, the cause of much distress in the country. In 1108, and again in 1125, this feature is noted by the Chroniclers, and on the latter occasion it led to the mutilation, and, according to Wykes, the banishment, of an enormous number of moneyers. The coins give evidence of continual debasement and forgery of this sort ; not only are there several coins evidently struck in the regular mints of light weight and base metal, but also some pieces which show attempts to evade the penalties by falsification of the reverse dies.^ A series of these coins seems to have been issued by the moneyer iElfsi, or iEolfsi, of London, during the first three issues of the reign of William I. A coin of type I in Major Carlyon-Britton's collection is struck from a reverse die on which the orisrinal inscription •I'EI-FSIOMLIINDE has been changed to •X"ELPPlOnE^EESI)E. The following drawing shows by shaded lines the alterations made in the original inscription : •J-ELPSIONEi^ErDE the weight of this coin is 16-3 grains (PI. II. 6). Some coins of type II, which are not uncommon, bear an in- scription which has been changed, I think, from •i'lEI-FSON UinDEMI' to IDEFIOMC/MHEMI thus: •WBCFSONCnHDENI Three of these coins, weighing 18-1, 17, and 15-9 grains, are ^ See Num. Chron., 1911, pp. 285 ff. The blocks are reproduced by kind per- uiission of the Council of the Royal Numismatic Society. ^ For this reading of the moneyer's name cf. Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 645. Cl INTRODUCTION described in this Catalogue, nos. 109-11 (PI. V. 2), two of which are struck from the same obverse die as a coin reading »i«IEOl.F SIOnUIMDEN A coin of type III in Major Carlyon-Britton's collection has the reverse inscription, *iEnEN, partly defaced by cuts: *Pi£fiH&IOHGrniBENEN the coin weighs 17-5 grains. These coins are evidently forgeries of the same money er, ^^Elfsi or .^olfsi, of whom we know at present no coins later than the third type of William I. The coins are all of appreciably low weight, and the most noteworthy feature is that in each case the alteration on the die is evidently done with the object of obscuring the moneyer's name and that of his mint, the unimportant parts of the inscription — the word ON and the last letters of the mint— being untouched. Similarly, a coin of William I, type II, in the York Museum, is struck from a reverse die which was altered from •J«IEI,PI NEOnUINDHE to •i-IDLPIMEOnUl^NCOME (pi IV. 16). A coin of Godwine of London, also of the second type of William I (Catalogue, p. 24, no. 128), is similarly altered : it weighs 16-4 grains. The reverse inscription is more clearly seen on a duplicate coin in Mr. L. E. Bruun's collection (PI. V. 6). The obverse die was (previously, I think) used at Thetford by the moneyer Cinric. Another die of this same moneyer and of the same type was used to strike a coin in the York Museum with the inscription changed from -i-CTODPIMEOnLVDI to -X-IELFPIME OMKVFI The coin of type VII of this reign described in this Catalogue, p. 86, no. 462, is another instance of this, but the original in- scription of the reverse die cannot be deciphered with certainty , MONEYERS AND FORGERY cli perhaps it was •X-inLFPINEONLlI, the altered inscription beginning half-way through the moneyer's name of the original. Another attempt to obscure the reverse inscription may be found on p. 38, no. 199.^ That these coins are all of the London mint and of the reign of William I is perhaps a coincidence ; I have seen similar coins of Anglo-Saxon and ' Short-cross ' (Henry II — Henry IH) times. Perhaps the same God wine of London, who struck the coins mentioned above with altered reverse dies, forged the reverse die reading •X^IIUPIMEOnCPlWH (see Catalogue, p. 136, no. 722), as the coin struck from this forged die is struck from an obverse die which is used with a genuine reverse, reading •i-coDPinEOMUino (p. isi, no. sn). With regard to coins that are struck of low weight or base metal from good dies, it is of course not possible to draw any fixed line, and say that coins below a certain weight were necessarily struck light ; the decision must depend on the allowance made for loss of weight, and this is again dependent on the length of time for which a coin was in currency, the extent of corrosion which it has suffered, the amount of cleaning which it has undergone, and other unascertainable data. Further, though we assume the standard weight of the penny during this period to have been 22^ grains, this is not a matter of certain knowledge, nor even that the standard remained the same throughout the period with which we are dealing. In his account of the Bea worth find, Mr. Hawkins gave the average weight of coins of the various types, both of coins in the find and of coins in the British Museum before the discovery ; the contrast of these figures is sufficient to condemn any attempt to discover a standard weight by an average of existing coins ; nor is the average weight of coins in a find of any practical value, for it will obviously include coins that were fraudulently struck light, and coins that have suffered severely from clipping or wear ; and even ^ It need hardly be said that the alteration of a die need not always have been the work of a forger (cf. pp. 19.3-4, nos. 1043-5, which are quite good coins and of good weight). clii INTBODUCTION in the Beaworth find, which was remarkable for the fine condition of the coins, there were some forgeries (e.g. p. 136, no. 722), and some coins in worn condition (some of the Lewes coins of type VIII are instances). The standard weight must be left to conjecture, which may perhaps best be based upon a table showing the number of coins of different weights of each type. In the following table the highest number of coins of each type is printed in heavy fount, in order to emphasize the extent of variation of weight of the most numerous set of coins of each type. Types represented by less than twenty coins in all should be disregarded : they are only inserted here for the sake of completeness. These numbers omit pierced and clipped coins, and coins which for any definite reason can be declared false, such, for example, as the forgeries mentioned above. The figures in this table are not incompatible with the standard weight of common tradition, viz. 22-5 grains, if we except the first five types of William I (those types where no figure is shown in italics are of course also excepted, because through their scarcity their evidence is valueless) ; on the other hand, these first five types, or at least the first three, render figures which certainly give an impression that the coins were in the early part of the reign struck on a lower standard. But the figures of type II are instructive ; it is obvious that, however low the standard weight is conjectured to be at this period, there must be a long tail of coins struck very considerably below it. Place the standard as low as 20 grains, then at least the twenty-three coins which weigh less than 17 grains must be considered as having been struck light. The significance of these figures is, I think, that the lower weight of the early types of William I denotes not a lower standard of the coinage, but a laxity in the control of the moneyers ; perhaps a slight drop or slight rise in the general weight of coins may, as a rule, be taken to signify a relaxing or tightening of the king's authority. Throughout the whole Norman period there are evidently many coins which were struck below the standard weight, and this is most prominent in the second type of William I, and the fourteenth WEIGHT OF COINS cliii '-'-' l-^.S?t^'^'>"-' 1'-^'* ^ _ ^-, '- "ti "* O S "* « CO Tj( rH O r-l Tt< CO ,-( CO "5 »n' ■* ? |c3§^N^^Sl22j?2oor^ca^ I I |^^o.c.oco^og5S2^' M 1^- ^ N oa c- oo(M ^ (M N T-< rH ,-1 ,-H ^ I— 1 CO 00 1 rH 04 ^ I-H 1-1 (N 1 c 1—1 ' lO 1-1 Kl 1 oo(m;i^ oa 1 1 i l>- L"^ 2 ^ C~ '''^ '^ '-' '^i rH iC 1 (N - CO C-1 1 Ca 1 1 1 1 |co 1 I— 1 1 1 I— 1 1- 1 CO r- .^ - 1 1 1 1—1 ^ o ^ 1 rH 1—1 C<1 1 11 1 I— 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1—1 1 , ^ 1 fM I— 1 1 1 1 -- C<1 -^ 1 \^ [r-i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 M M M- 1 ; 1 I-l I 1 1 '-^ )) of the reign of Stephen see above, p. xcv. Devizes (Domesday: Theodulveside). For a coin of the reign of Stephen attributed to this town see Rashleigh sale, 1909, lot 603 (now in the Fox collection). Also in the same sale, lot 627, a coin of Henry of Anjou. But the form ' Vises ' is not used in contemporary^ documents. Dorchester (Domesday: Dorecestre). In the Greatley laws one moneyer is allowed to Dorchester. In Domesday Book (I. 75) two moneyers are mentioned as paying each a mark of silver, and twenty shillings qiiando moneta vertebcUiir, in the time of the Confessor. From the coins we may conclude that the two moneyers in the Con- fessor's reign were Godwine, followed by Hwateman, and Blacaman.^ Coins of the Norman period justify the assumption that two moneyers continued to work at this mint after the Conquest. No coins are yet known of the first three types of the Conqueror; ^ The coin described in B. M. Cafal, Anglo-Saxon Coins, vol. ii, p. 355, no. 194, I should attribute to Warminster (cf. coin of Harold I, Brit. Num. Joinii., vol. vi, p. 41). C-lxX INTRODUCTION possibly none were struck at Dorchester so soon after the ravages followino; the rising- in the South-west in 1068. A coin of William (of Gloucester ?) may possibly be attributed to this mint, see above, p. cxxxi. Dover (Domesday: Dovre). In the reign of the Confessor as many as four moneyers overlap in the last two types, and four also appear to be contemporaneous in the early part of his reign. After the Conquest three run from the reign of William I to that of William II (this calculation omits both Goldwine and Manwine owing to the possibility that each of these names may denote two moneyers striking the earlier and later issues on which the name appears) : in the ' Paxs ' type five names occur, Durham. Xo coins are known of this mint earlier than the ' Paxs ' type of William I : but no definite evidence can be obtained from this concerning the date of that type, as the charter of William I, which was supposed to confer the right of coinage among other privileges upon the bishops, is certainly spurious (see Davns, Ee(jesta, vol. i, no. 148). Erami . . . See Brit. I^um. Journ., vol. ix, pp. 138-9, for a coin of the fifth type of William 1 which is attributed to Great Yarmouth. Exeter (Domesday: Execestre, Exonia). The Greatley Synod mentions Exeter as having two moneyers under iEthelstan. In the reign of the Confessor there appear to be five moneyers working at the same time, and after the Conquest the same number seems to be required by the coins at 'present known of the earlier part of the Conqueror's reign, or four if we assume that two different moneyers of the name of Lifwine struck in the first and last types of the reign. Only three names occur on coins of the ' Paxs ' type. Perhaps the number was reduced in the middle of the reign of William I. Possibly the ravages of 1068 are reflected in the rarity of Exeter coins of the Conqueror's second type; if so, the mint quickly recovered its former activity. Gloucester (Domesday : Glotvecesire). At the time of the Domesday Survey (I. 162) the mint of Gloucester paid twenty MINTS Clxxi pounds to the King. Under the Confessor there appear to he no fewer than six moneyers employed, but perhaps the number was reduced by William I, in whose reign four moneyers only overlap in successive types, and four names only occur on coins of the * Paxs ' type. For a coin of Henry of Anjou attributed to Gloucester see above, p. cxxi. Gromhes ... A coin of the second type of William I in the York Museum reads -i-EUPIOMCrUOMKES. The moneyers name (Earnwi ?) suggests Shrewsl )ury, and the confusion of G and S is not uncommon on coins. But Grimsby (Domesday : Grline>i(//iam (Domesday : Siwtiugeham,Snotingham). Domesday (I. 280) mentions two moneyers here in the time of the Confessor. Coins of the Confessor's reign are rare and show no satisfactory sequences, but they confirm the number of moneyers mentioned in Domesday as being, at least, the lowest number possible. The coins of the reign of William I show that there were two moneyers at least after the Conquest, and two names occur in the ' Paxs ' type. For varieties of Stephen's reign, I and IV A (c) (Nottingham or Tutbury ?), see above, pp. Ixxvii, xcvi. Outchester, where most of the coins of Henry, Earl of Northum- m Clxxviii INTRODUCTION berland, have been found, is suggested as the possible place of mintage of the varieties IV C (a), (6), (c). See above, pp. xcviii fF. Oxford (Domesday: Oxeneford). In the reign of the Confessor seven seems to be the lowest number of moneyers that can have worked together, and seven is the largest number of names occurring in any one type. Immediately after the Conquest at least six seem to be contemporaneous, but in the ' Paxs ' type only three names occur. For Oxford coins of the Empress Matilda see above, p. cxix. Pembroke. Coins of tliis mint of the fourteenth type of Henry I have been identified by Major Carlyon-Britton [Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, pp. 54-6) from an entry on the Pipe Roll of 1130^ in which a payment is made by Gillopatric the moneyer. A coin of Stephen's first type was recently acquired by the British Museum (see below, p. 348, no. 88 a) on which the same mint and moneyer are identified. P (or W1)ene ... A coin of the ninth type of Henry I (Hks. 263) in Copenhagen Museum reads ^iVI.X^REDION^PEUE^ The mint is quite uncertain ; possibly Winchester ? Peterborough (Domesday: Burg). In 1067 William I confirmed in a charter to Peterborough Abbey (Davis, Regesta, vol. i, no. 8) the privileges granted by Edgar and other kings. The grant of Edgar (Birch, Cartularium Saxoaicum, vol. iii, pp. 543 and 582) included one moneyer in Stamford, but the moneyer is not mentioned in the charter of William I. The bull of Eugenius III, published in Dugdale's Jlfonasticoa, vol. i, p. 390, grants the Abbey the privileges it formerly held, and makes specific mention of the coining-die in Stamford. If one of the Stamford moneyers, of whom there were not less than four in the Conqueror's reign, was working for the Abbot of Peterborough through the Norman period, I do not think that he can now be identified. Pevensey (Domesday : Pevenesel). No coins of Pevensey are known before the Conquest. In the reigns of the two Williams, MINTS Clxxix iElfheh was the Pevensey moneyei-, and in Stephen's reign Alwine. Pevensey was presumably one of the boroughs that were allowed one moneyer only. Reading. In the foundation charter of Henry I (1125) a grant was conferred upon the Abbey of a mint and moneyer at Reading (' donavi Radingiam . . . cum moneta et uno monetario apud Radingiam ').^ This privilege seems to have been soon exchanged for the use of a moneyer at London, and Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, probably not many years later, at the king's order granted to the Abbot and monks one moneyer in London, namely Edgar.- The privilege of one moneyer at London was confirmed by Stephen.^ We may therefore assume that some, at least, of the London coins bearing the name iEdgar, which are of the last type of Henry's reign, were struck for the Abbot of Reading, We do not at present know any coins of this moneyer of the reign of Stephen ; he may still have been working for the Abbot or have already been replaced by another moneyer. Rhuddlan (Domesday : Roelend, Roelent). There can be no doubt of the attribution of 'Paxs' type coins of William I to Rhuddlan, where Domesday says (I. 269) that Robert de Roelent held ' medietatem . . . monetse ' (see Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, pp. 41 fF.). Only one moneyer, Elfwine, is known. Rhyd y Gore'. See p. Ixxii. Rochester (Domesday : Rovecestre). In the laws of ^thelstan Rochester had three moneyers, two for the king and one for the bishop. Whether the bishop's privilege continued to the time of the Conquest and after, we have no knowledge. Coins of this mint are not common at any period, but in the reign of the Confessor the coins are sufficient to show that not fewer than three moneyers worked together. After the Conquest two moneyers only are necessary. Two names only occur in the ' Paxs ' type, but of 1 Brit. Mus., Harley MS. 1708, fol. 16. ' Ibid., fol. 113. Printed in full in Dugdale's Monasticon, vol. iv, p. 41, and in Num. Chron., 1901, pp. 373^. 3 Brit. Mus., Harley MS. 1708, fol. 28. m 2 CIXXX INTRODUCTION this mint only nine ' Paxs ' coins were described in the account of the Beaworth hoard. Two moneyers, or perhaps three as in ^thelstan's time, may be assumed to have been employed in Norman times. No coins of this period are yet known later than the first type of Henry I. Romney (Domesday : Romenel). Two moneyers at least were employed by the Confessor (Wulfm?er and Brungar — Estin — Leofric). As many as three seem to have been working after the Conquest, though two only occur in the ' Paxs ' type ; for Coc appears in the first issue of William II, and both Winedi and Wulfmser continue from the reign of William I to the second type of William II. Rye. On the proposed attribution of some coins of Stephen to this mint see above, p. clxvi (Castle Rising). St. Davids. For the attribution of coins reading ' Devitun ' to St. Davids, or Dewi-town, see Brit. Num. Journ., vol. ii, pp. 47 ff. The identity of the obverse die of a coin attributed to Shrewsbury (p. 175, no. 938) with that of a St. Davids coin is curious ; but the coarse work of both obverse and reverse of that coin suggests that possibly it should itself also be attributed to the mint of St. Davids. Salisbury (Domesday : Sarisberie). Three moneyers at least seem to have worked here in the reign of the Confessor, and after the Conquest the same number is likely ; for, though two are, from the coins at present known, not impossible in the reign of William I, three moneyers are required by the coins of William II. Sandiuich (Domesday : Sandiuic, Sanwic). The confusion between this mint and Bury St. Edmunds, both in the Norman period and in the reign of the Confessor, is at present hopeless. In the Confessor's reign some coins of the moneyer Leof wine, reading Sand and Sandu), are no doubt correctly attributed to Sandwich, but a coin of the same moneyer of type (Hildebrand) G which reads Sance (B. M. CataL, no. 1161) might, one would think, be MINTS clxXXi assigned with equal certainty to Bury ; ^ in whicli case there was more than one moneyer allowed to Bury at this period, for Morcere was coining there in this issue, as well as in earlier and later types. In the Conqueror's reign, u^Elfheh, ^Ifgset, and GodM'ine are clearly Sandwich nioneyers, and show that at least two nioneyers were employed together. Of the later moneyers ^Ifgar and Godhese must be of Sandwich, but the remainder are quite uncertain. Shaftesbury (Domesday : Sceptesherie). By the laws of ^Ethelstan this mint was allowed two moneyers. In the reign of the Confessor there were three moneyers paying each a mark of silver and twenty shillings quando moneta vertehatur (Domesday, I. 75). This number agrees with the figure deduced from the coins now known of the Confessor's reign, if we assume that the ^Ifward of type (Hildebrand) A was a different moneyer from that of type G ; but if the same /Elfward worked continuously through the reign there would appear to be not fewer than four moneyers employed. In the Conqueror's reign also, there appear to have been three moneyers, and three occur on coins of the ' Paxs ' type. There is some confusion between this mint and Shrewsbury, as both mints seem to have had a moneyer of the name of Godesbrand in the reign of William I (see Xum. Chroii., 1911, p. 273). Sherborne. For a coin of Henry of Aujou attributed to Sherborne see above, p. cxxviii. Shreiusbury (Domesday: Sciropesberie). The city of Shrewsbury had, in the time of the Confessor, three moneyers who paid twenty shillings apiece within fifteen days of the receipt of their dies, et hoc jiebat moneta vertente (Domesday, I. 252). From the coins of his reign one would have supposed that as many as four moneyers were working under the Confessor, for .^Ifheh, Leofstan, and Wulfmser run from types (Hildebrand) A to F, and Leofwine ^ This lends some colour to Major Carlyon-Britton's attribution to Bury of coins of William Fs second type vea^ding Leofwine on Bur; see above on Bury St. Edmunds, p. clxiv. Clxxxii INTRODUCTION occurs in type E, which certainly precedes F ; but it may be that the coins of type E and F were not struck by the same iElfheh as struck those of type A/ as the intervening types (C, B, D) are, I believe, not known of this moneyer. In the reign of William I three moneyers were evidently contemporaneous and three names occur in the ' Paxs ' type. The attribution of coins of Hathebrand is uncertain (see below, p. 264). On the coin described on p. 175, no. 938, see St. Davids, p. clxxx, and on the difficulty of the identification of the Shaftesbury and Shrewsbury mints on coins of Godesbrand see Shaftesbury, p. clxxxi. Soidha'niiyton (Domesday: Maiitoiie, Hantune, Hanitiine). On the confusion between Northampton and Southampton see North- ampton, p. clxxvii. Under ^thelstan, 'Hamtune' ( = Southampton) had two moneyers. Assuming the present attribution of coins to Southampton to be correct, there seem to have been not fewer than two moneyers at this mint both in the Confessor's reign and after the Conquest. One name only occurs on ' Paxs ' coins. It may be noted that, in the Gesta Eegum, William of Malmesbury always, with one exception only (in the partition of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, a part of his work which is probably not original, where the form Suthamtunensis is used : Rolls Series, no. 90, vol. i, p. 100), uses the forms Hmntona or Hamhina for Southampton, and invariably uses Northantotia or Isorthantiina for Northampton. For an issue of the reign of Stephen (variety III 7), which may possibly be attributed to this mint, see above, pp. xci fF. Southiuark (Domesday: Sudwerca, Siidwerche). The similarity of the abbreviated forms of the names Southwark and Sudbury makes the attribution of the coins difficult. In the Table of Mints, Moneyers, and Types the forms found on coins of these two mints are inserted in foot-notes. In the reign of the Confessor the only moneyer that can be assigned with any certainty to Sudbury is Folcwine; if the doubtful moneyers are all to be attributed to Southwark, there are still only three contemporaneous moneyers 1 Hildebrand, no, 645. MINTS clxxxiii necessitated by the coins now known. After the Conquest also, three must have worked together, and four names occur on ' Paxs ' coins. Stafford (Domesday: Stadford, Statford). From the few coins known of the Confessor's reign, there is no reason to assume the existence of more than one moueyer at Stafford, but in the reign of William II the coin of ^Ifward of the second tj^pe shows this moneyer to have been working with Godric, of whom we have a sequence of coins through the whole reign. In the second and last types of the Conqueror, two moneyers' names occur. Stamford (Domesday : Stanford). The coins at present known show as many as eight moneyers to have been working at Stamford in the early part of the Confessor's reign ; in the latter half of the reign there seem to be only five. Immediately after the Conquest there were not fewer than three, or perhaps four, moneyers, and three only are at present known in the Conqueror's last issue. This great reduction in the staff of the Stamford mint is similar to that at the neighbouring mint of Lincoln, but seems to have taken place at an earlier period. Coins of the first two varieties of Stephen's reign occur of this mint (see above, pp. Ixxvii, Ixxxiii). Stey Thing, Sussex, (Domesday : Staiiinges). One moneyer only seems to have been employed here both before ^ and after the Conquest. Two, however, appear to have been employed by William II. No coins are yet known later than the reign of William II. Sudbury (Domesday : Sutberie). The phrase of Domesday (II. 286 b), 'ibi sunt monetarii ', suggests the existence of more than one moneyer at Sudbury, but one only is apparent from the coins both before and after the Conquest. In the Abbey Register of Westminster (Brit. Mus., Cotton MS., Faustina A. Ill, fol. 79) ^ The coin of Godwine of the Confessor's last type (B. M. Catalogue, no. 121! I should assiffu to Stafford. Clxxxiv INTRODUCTION Henry I confirms the dedication by Wulfric. his moneyer, of the church of St. Bartholomew at Sudbury to the use of the monks of Westminster. This confirms the attribution to Sudbury of the coins struck by Wulfric in the reigns of William I, William II, and Henry I. On the confusion of Sudbury and Southwark see above, p. clxxxii. Tamworth (Domesday : Tameworde). Two moneyers seem to have been employed at Tamworth in the Confessor's reign and in the reigns of the two Williams. TaitTito it (Domesday : Tantoue). Only one moneyer may have been employed at this mint both in the reign of the Confessor and after the Conquest. Coins of variety III 7 of Stephen's reign have been attributed to Taunton (see above, p. xcii). Thetford (Domesday : Tetford, Tedfort). At the time of the Domesday Survey (II. 119) Thetford paid 40 pounds a year to the king for the mint. In the Confessor's reign at least five, or perhaps six, moneyers seem to have worked together, and seven is the highest number of moneyers in any one type of the reign ; in the reign of William I, six ' is the lowest number possible of contemporaneous moneyers, and six occur in the ' Paxs ' type. Coins of this mint of varieties I and IV B (6), of Stephen's reign, are described above, pp. Ixxviii, xcvii. Totnes (Domesday : Toteiiais, I'othenels). No coins of Totnes are known of the Confessor's reign. The second issue of William II was the only post-Conquest type known of this mint until a coin of the first type of Henry, struck by the same moneyer, Dunic, was recently found in the Old Sarum excavations. Tutbury. For a variety of Stephen's reign, IV A (r), attributed to this mint, see above, p. xcvi. Twynham. See Christchurch, p. clxviii. ^ Assuming Folcserd, who coined for the Confessor, to have been at work in the early issues of the Conqueror. MINTS CIXXXV Wallingford (Domesdaiy : Walengeford, Walingeford). Domesday mentions a money er here having a house free (I. 56). Under the Confessor as many as five moneyers seem to have been employed, and in the early part of the Conqueror's reign three ; two names only appear in the ' Paxs ' type. A coin of the sixth t^^De of William I, struck by a moneyer Swartbrand, on which the mint is represented by the letter P (for W ?), has been tentatively assigned to Wallingford (see Brit. JS^um. Journ., vol. iv, pp. 54 and 56). Wareham (Domesday: Warham). In the laws of ^Ethelstan, Wareham had two moneyers. There were also two monej^ers in the time of the Confessor, who paid one mark of silver to the king, and twenty shillings qua ado moneta vertehatur (Domesday, I. 75). The coins of the Confessor confirm the existence of two, at least. In the reign of William I there seem to be not fewer than three employed, and four names are known in the ' Paxs ■" type. There is sometimes difficulty in distinguishing coins of Wareham and Warwick ; the mint-readings are inserted in the notes of the Table of Mints, Moneyers, and Types. For Wareham coins of the Empress Matilda and of William (of Gloucester?) see above, pp. cxix, cxxx. Warwick (Domesday: Wartuic). Under the Confessor there seem to have been not fewer than three moneyers employed at Warwick ; probably the same number ^^'ere working in the reigns of the two Williams, though two might just suffice for the coins known at present ; four names occur in the ' Paxs ' type, and three in the first and second types of William II. On the possibility of confusion with Wareham see above. Watchet (Domesday : Wacet). One moneyer only seems to have been employed at Watchet, both in the Confessor's reign and after the Conquest. Wilton (Domesday: Wiltone, Wiltune). In the Pipe Roll of Henry I, Tomas, a moneyer, is mentioned under Wiltshire as having had liis fine reduced on account of poverty ; perhaps this is the clxXXvi INTRODUCTION Tomas of the first type of Stephen, but we do not yet know any coins struclv by him in the reign of Henry I. In a grant in Wilton to the church of Salisbury {c. 1.200), William of Wilton, the organist, is mentioned as son of William, the moneyer;^ this moneyer is probably the William who struck coins of the last type of Stephen and of the first issue of Henr}^ II. There seem to have been not fewer than five moneyers employed at Wilton in the latter half of the reign of the Confessor, and as many as six names occur in one type (Hildebrand H). In the early part of the Conqueror's reign, as many as four, or five (if ^Ifwine of William I is identical with the -^Ifwine of the Confessor), seem to be contemporaneous ; at the end of the reign not more than three are necessary from the coins now known, and three names occur in the ' Paxs ' type. Winchcombe (Domesday: Wlncelcumhe). For the attribution of coins to the borough of Winchcombe see Brit. Num. Jourii., vol. vi, pp. 49 ff. One moneyer seems to have worked here both before and after the Conquest. No coins are yet known later than the reign of William I. Winchester (Domesday : Wlncestre, Wintonla). In ^thelstan's laws Winchester was allowed six moneyers. In the Winton Domesday, Alwinus Aitardessone (fol. 1), Godwinus Socche {magi- ster monetariorum, fol. 2), Andrebodus (fol. 3), Alwardus filius Etardii (fol. 7), Alestan (fol. 8 b) are mentioned as moneyers of the reign of the Confessor, and Odo (fol. 8), Sanson (foil. 15, 16), Siward (foil. 16, 23 b) as moneyers at the time of the Survey (between 1107 and 1128) ; and the wife of Wimund the moneyer had a house at the time of the Survey (fol. 2 b). On fol. 4 b occurs the phrase ' Et in mercato fuerunt v monete, que fuerunt difFacte pre- eepto regis ' (see Brit. Ntiin. Journ., vol. vi, pp. 164-5). In the reign of the Confessor not less than nine moneyers seem to have worked at the same time ; in the Conqueror's reign, though six would suffice for the coins at present known, eight names appear in the ' Paxs ' type. ^ Charters, &c., of Salisbury (Rolls Series, no. 97), no. Ixxv. MINTS clxxxvii For a coin of variety II of Stephen's reign, attributed to Winchester, see above, p, Ixxxiii. Wiveliscombe. For coins of Henry of Anjou and William (of Gloucester'?) which may have been struck at Wiveliscombe see above, pp. cxxiii, cxxxi. Worcester (Domesday : Wirecestre). Money ers of Worcester are mentioned in Domesday (I. 172) as having paid, in the time of the Confessor, twenty shillings each at London on receipt of dies qua/ndo inoneta vertebatur. This city seems to have had not fewer than five, or perhaps six, moneyers in the reign of the Confessoi- ; as many as six moneyers appear to overlap from the Confessor's to the Conqueror's reign, but later in the reign of William I and in that of William II not more than four are necessary ; four occur in the ' Paxs ' type. Yarmouth. See above, p. clxx, Erami . . . York (Domesday : Eboracum). In the early part of the Con- fessor's reign as many as seventeen moneyers seem to have been employed, and in the latter half at least ten appear from the coins to have been contemporaneous. On coins of the second type of William I as many as eleven distinct names occur, all of which are found on coins of the Confessor or Harold, or of the Conqueror's first type ; but in the second half of the reign only four moneyers appear, from the coins at present known, to have been working at the same time, and four names only are found on ' Paxs ' coins. This great decrease in the staff of the York mint was perhaps the result of the ravages of 1069. We do not know how many moneyers were allowed to the Archbishops, but in a suit of 1279 the Archbishop, William, pleaded that they had had two dies (which perhaps imply two moneyers) from time immemorial, and also, at one time, a third die which was then in the king's hands ; and his claim was allowed. The form EBO occurs on a coin of the seventh type of Henry I (B. Roth collection). For irregular coinages of Stephen's reign which were struck at clxxxviii INTRODUCTION York see varieties I, IV D, Eustace FitzJohn and Robert de Stute- ville (pp. Ixxviii, cvi fF.). The comparative importance of the mints in the second half of the eleventh century may be summarized by the following classification in groups, the number of moneyers being, as pre- viously remarked, only an approximate estimate from the coins now available, and probably in many cases below the actual number employed.^ The mints which occur in two groups, showing a decrease during the Conqueror's reign, are in italics ; and an asterisk marks those which show a reduction during the reign of the Confessor. 6 moneyers and over 5 moneyers 4 moneyers 3 moneyers 2 moneyers 1 moneyer *London, 9 Exeter *Chester Bristol Bath Barnstaple or 10 (early) * Colchester Exeter (late) *Bedford Bedwin *Fo?i' (early), Norwich Dover Hastings * Cambridge Bridport 11 Wilton * Gloucester *Lewes *Chichester Bury ? *Winchester, (early) "Hereford? (see Oxford (late) Cricklade Cardiff 7 or 8 pp. clxxi f.) Romney (or *Derby Christchurch Canterbury, Ipswich 2?) Dorchesier Durham 7 Worcester Salisbury * Hertford Guildford ^Lincoln (late) Shaftesbury '■Huntingdon Hythe (early), 7 York (late) Shrewsbury Ilchester Launceston * Oxford Southwark * Leicester Malmesbury (early), 6 * Stamford Lincoln Marlborough Thetford 6 * Wallimjford (late) Northampton Worcester (early) Maid on Pevensey (early), 6 Wareham ? Nottingham Rhuddlan (seep.clxxxv) * Rochester St. Davids Warwick Sandwich Steyning (see Wilton (late) Southampton Stafford Tamworth Walliiigford (late)' L p. clxxxiii) Sudbury Taunton Totnes Watchet Winchcombe ^ Hereford, where seven moneyers are said in Domesday to have been employed in the time of the Confessor, though only five are apparent from his coins, is a probable instance of too low an estimate. Shrewsbury, where three moneyers are mentioned in Domesday and four appear from the coins to have been working togethei", shows the possibility of error in the opposite direction, owing probably to one name denoting two moneyers working successively. The classification of one-moneyer mints is likely to be correct in most cases. clxxxix Abbreviations lted, Collections quoted, etc. The numismatic publications which arc f[Uoted in this Catalogue have for the most part appeared in either the Numismatic Chronicle or the British Numisruatic Journal, which are quoted as Nii^m. Chron. and Brit. Num. Journ} Spink's Numismatic Circular (referred to as Num. Circ.) contains in the issue of 1902 Major Carlyon-Britton's original list of coins of the reigns of William I and William II ; as these lists are now in course of revision in the British Numismatic Journal, reference has not been made to them except in the Table of Mints, Moneyers, and Types. The ordinary handbooks have been used and are quoted under their authors' names, Hawkins, Grueber, &c. Historical matter has been introduced only so far as is necessary for the elucidation of the coinage. The operations of the mints seem to have been very little influenced by the political and military history of the period except during the reign of Stephen. The irregular coinages during the period of civil war have necessitated more historical detail, for which pui-pose Sir William Ramsay's Foundations of England and Mr. J. H. Round's Geoffrey de Mande- ville have been extensively used. References are given in full to such historical works as have been consulted. In compiling the Catalogue much difficulty has been experienced owino- to the laro-e number of collections which contain coins of this period. But the kindness of many owners of collections and curators of museums has enabled me to see a very large number of coins and to obtain impressions of many for comparison, by which means several readings of coins in the British Museum have been verified or ascertained and gaps in this collection supple- mented in the tables of the coins ; many coins in other collections are also figured in the Plates of the Catalogue, and are there marked with the initials or name of the collection to which they » The date which appears on each volume of the British Numistnatic Journal is that of the Proceedings which are described in it, and not the date of publication. cxc INTRODUCTION belong. The following abbreviations have been used for the collections quoted: A.H.B. A.M. . Asbm. Bodl. . B.R. . Brln. . Cpnhn. F.A.W. F.Mus. H.L.F. H.M.R. Hntr. . H.S. . II.W.M. J.B.M. J.E.C. J.H.D. J.W.P. J.Y. . L.A.L. L.E.B. Lewis Mint . Nott. . Old Sarum Paris . P.C.B. R.C.L. R.T. . S.M. . S.M.S. Stkm. T.B. . T.C.C. T.Mus. W.C.W. W.E.II. Mr. A. H. Baldwin. Mr. Alexander Mann. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Bodleian Library, Oxford. The late Mr. Bernard Roth. Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin. National Museum, Copenhagen. Mr. F. A. Walters. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Miss Helen Farquhar. Mr. H. M. Reynolds. Hunterian collection, Glasgow. Mr. Henry Symonds. Col. H. W. Morrieson. Mr. J. B. S. Mcllwaine. Mr. J. E. Cree. Mr. J. H. Daniels. Mr. J. W. Parkes. Mr. J. Young. Mr. L. A. Lawrence. Mr. L. E. Bruun. Lewis collection, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Royal Mint, London. Castle Museum, Nottingham. Old Sarum excavations. Bibliotheque Natiouale, Paris. Major P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton. Mr. R. C. Lockett. The Hon. R. Talbot. Sheriff Mackenzie. Mr. S. M. Spink (Messrs. Spink and Son). Royal Museum, Stockholm. The late Mr. T. Bliss. Trinity College, Cambridge. Castle Museum, Taunton. Mr. W. C. Wells. Mr. W. K Hidden. ABBREVIATIOXS USED, COLLECTIONS QUOTED, ETC. CXCl ^y.,T.R. . . . Mr. M'. J. E. Ryan. W.S.L. . . . Mr. V. W. Lincoln (Messrs. W. S. Lincoln and Son). W.S.O. . . . Mr. W. Sharp Ogden. W.T.R. . . . The late Mr. W. T. Ready. York .... York Museum. To the owners and curators of the above collections I am greatly indebted for the facilities which they have given me for seeing and for publishing their coins ; the difficulty of the subject has been materially lessened by the large number of coins thus put at my disposal. I have obtained much help from Major P. W. P. Carlyon- Britton, F.S.A., not only by free access to his large collection of coins, but also bj^ the use of manuscript notes which he has kindly lent me. To Dr. George Macdonald, F.B.A., Hon. Curator of the Hunterian collection, I owe special obligations for time and trouble most generously given both in showing me the Hunterian coins and in making impressions of several of them for my use. My sincere acknowledgements are due to Mr. H. A. Grueber, F.S.A., formerly Keeper of Coins, who has read proofs of the introduction and also gave me much assistance in the early stages of the work ; also to Mr. L. A. Lawrence, F.S.A., and Mr. W. J. Andrew, F.S.A., who have read proofs of the introduction and helped me with many suggestions and corrections ; and especially to Mr. G. F. Hill, Keeper of Coins, who has read proofs of the whole work, and whose help and encouragement have done much to lighten the sometimes arduous work of preparing the Catalogue. Nor must I forget to express my indebtedness to the helpful care of the Reader of the Clarendon Press. TABLE OF FINDS TABLE The numbers in this table include both pennies and cut halfpennies and farthings, + implies that one or more coins of the type occurred, but the number is not This table contains only the regular English issues. For the irregular issues and AVILLIAM [ AVILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V Soberton, 1851 22 York, 1845 York, 1882 1? Imu + 1 4 165 leI - 1 + Whitchurch St. Mary Hill Church, 1774 + + + + + ML + LE] 1 + City of Londoi), 1872 1 2 5 Malmesbury, 1828 1 12 York Min.stcr Beaworth, 18a3 Tamworth, 1877 6 31 5 34 MCI 11 6 E 1 |6457 30 1 MU 97 1 3 LE 1 |l64 Shillington, 1871 1 + + + + Bermondsey, 1820 3 5 Bari, 1891 ? Canterbury, 1901 ? Lowestoft, 1905 Battle, 1860? Watford, 1818 1 .Smaller Watford, 1818 Nottingham, 1880 .. Dartford, 1825 Sheldon, 1867 Linton, 188.3 •■ Bute, 1863 Wint Kdu-ine T.C.C. + T.B. Godhese _, Godric + '-{- Gregori Manna (Mann, tCr.) + + + + + • • Peril! Rodbert (Rodberd, &c.) Rogier Simser + f Brln IT.C.C. Willem Winedi (Windi. &C.1 + + + Hntr [ MULK 1^ "^ |L.E.B.! "*■ + Wulbold (\Vulbod> + + JViilfred + «'ulfric (Wiilvric) + + + + M'ulfwinc P.C.B.? (Clark I 50 Wulsi .. P.C.B Abelin (Stephen, type I). Num. Chron. 1850, p. loo = Catalogue, p. 335, no. 3 (Bury St. Edmunds, Ace—?). ^Idwien (William II, type V). H. Clark sale. 1898, lot 60 = T. Bliss coll. (^Idrted) ; Num. Chron., 1904, p. 257 (^^illdwinen) = same coin? Mlfrxd (William II, type I). W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 303 = Catalogue, p. 218, no. 23 (London). ^Ifvord (William II, type III). Rev. H. Christmas sale, 1864, lot 225. Athebrand „ „ Num. Circ, 1902, p. 5468. Probably = Catalogue, p. 252, no. 219 (Shrewsbury). Brihtred (William II, type I). Num. Circ., 1902, p. 5467. from Num. Chron.. 1877, p. 342. Probably = Brihtwold. Brihtwod (William II, type IV). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. vii, p. 9. Xot in Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge ; perhaps = coin of type I ? Eadwine (William I, type IV). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. vii. p. 7 = Evans coll. = Catalogue. Appendix, p. 401, no. 258 a (London). Kdmund (Henry I, type XIII). L. A. Lawrence sale, 190}. lot 107 = B. Roth coll. (Ed wine). Everard rstephen, type I). J. B. Bergne sale. 1873, lot a33 = H. Webb sale, 1894, lot 36 = T. Bliss coll. (Warwick). Gcfrei (Stephen, type I). Xum. Chron., 1850, p. 156. Probably Winchester. MONEYERS, AND TYPES CClll HENRY I STEPHEN III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII xrv XV I 11 ni-vi VII CANTER- BURY ^4<>l%vaid. sec Eadweard .. yl<;glrii- A'Afrcd P.C.B. •• ^:ired Aghemund Hntr + B.R. P.C.B. + + + + .. (Ahemund, &c.) Aldred (.M\- drted, &c.) Algar Algod Brihtwold. (Brihtwod, &c.) Bnrnoth Eadweard (.^jdward, &C.) Ed wine Godhese Godric Gregori Manna (Mann, &c.) 'C '01 1 p. 13(i i XC-9S) + + + + + + + H.M.R.1 L. E.B.J + P.C.B.1 (VI) / W.J.R. 1 (VI) J + + Perin Rodbcrt (Rod herd, &c.) Rogier Simser Willem Winedi 85? i (Windi, &c.) ^Vulbold (Wulbod) Wulfred B.R. Stkm H.M.R.1 P.C.B.J + ? ) P.C.B.J Wulfric (Wulvric) Wulfwine + .. Wulsi Gclira . . . (Stephen, type I). G. J. Bascom sale, 1914, lot 85 = Catalogue, p. 348, no. 88 a (Pembroke. Gilpatric). Godu-inc (William I, type III). J. L. Henderson sale, 1888, lot 34. Possibly London ? Grim (Henry I, type XIV). Xum. Chron., 1901, p. 1.36, from Withy and Ryall. Oulrold (William II, type III). Xum. Circ, 1902, p. 5468 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 244, no. 179 (Wulbold). Lesis (William II. type IV). Xum. Circ, 1902, p. 5467 = Catalogue, p. 259, no. 256 (York). Segrim (William II, type I). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. vii, p. 8. Probably misreading of Catalogue, p. 221, no. 42 (Shrewsbury). Sigehrine (William I, type IV). Akerman, Xum. .lourn., vol. ii, p. 106. Probably = Miss Helen Farquhar coll. (London, JEgelwine). Siitiep (William II, type III). Rev. T. F. Dymock sale, 1858, lot 179 = J. B. Bergnc sale, 1873, lot 317 (Simser). M'agemund (Henry I, type I). F. A. Walters sale, 1913, lot 61. Same dies as T. Bliss coin (Ahgemund). Wiltutie (William I, type III). Archaeologia, vol. iv, p. 356. Tri/?/i(v/ic (William II, type IV). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 258. Perhaps = Catalogue, p. 257, no. 246 (London, Walcin), misread in Roberts MS. Catalogue as Wulfwine on Lii. (Henry I, type VI). Sotheby sale. March 7, 1894, lot 73. CCIV TABLE OF MINTS, AVILLIAM I W^ILLIAM II I 11 Ill IV V VI VII VIJI I TT TV V • • CARDIFF? .^-:ifsi^e !.¥AM Turi.' CARLISLE Duiant Ei-ebald Willeni CASTLE RISING Hiun (lull) Rawulf (see above, p. clxvii) Rodbert iRodbret) Uncertain (.^Ber. . .) CHESTER j^illf weard 2 ^-Elf wine "' Ailniar (Ailmer) ■» Airic-^ Andreu ' Bruninc « Cristret!* Frithegisti" Gillemorii Levenod ^- Lifinc (Liflc, &c.)i« Lifnoth^i Lifioine is Raveiiswert 16 Sunoulfi7 Thurberni'^ Unnulfi" Hntr + + + + (Rush. \ 341 P.C.B. + + + + + + + ( Mint -P.C.B. i 744 MULI + r + ((app f J.Y. (P.C.B. r sh'nn (P.C.B. + R.C.L. .) + f +? "(P.C.B. ■■ > co./e.w LEirES^, LEirE, LECEKES, LECEEE; H',wa,./,typeiL LECTEEE, LECEEI; VIII, lekes^u, lehe ^ LEHI ^ LEIEE, LEIE ^ EESTRE ^ Confessor, LE Harold II, LLECTEE ; William I, LECEEl 8 Confessor, LEiEE, LElE, LECEEE, 3 EEt^ 1 LEI " EES 13 William I, LEHEE, LEHEES^; Wmiamll, LEIEE^, LEIEEES ^' LEEEE, LEE '' confessor, LECTEEESU, LEIEE, LEI, LEU; wnuami, LEEEI, LEEE, EJc (with the same obv. die). ^ EESTR, EES CEEE, LEIEEE EEBT LECT; WiUiumI, LECT EESTE MONEYERS, AND TYPES CCV HENRY I STEPHEN II IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-A'I VII C.B. +'? + P.C.B. P.C.B. + + + ? + + + + + + + ■'' ) B.R. . H.M.R.) H.M.R. + (VI) + CARDIFF? ?.Klfsi 'I'lii-i.'' CARLISLE Duiaiil Ki-cbald initcm CASTLE RISING Hiiui (lull) Kiiwulf (sec above, p. c-lx\ii) Itodbeit (l{o(lbret» Uncertain {HU'V . . .) CHESTER ^;ifsi 1 yl'llfwine" Ailniar (Ailiuci-) ^ Airic"' Alcsi'' Bnniinc^ Crist ret •' l'"rithctcisti'i (iilleiuorii Luvenod'- Liflnc (Lifif, &c.)i^ Lifnoth'^ Lifwinci-'' RaAonswcrt i" Sunoulfi' Thurbcrn '■« Unnulfii' LEHrl, LEHt!; wuncnn ii, LEirn^, LEirt', LEirE i« EE 1^ irm-am/.typeii, LECTEK ; VIII, LEKES, LErS, LErl, LEHK ; iniHam II, type I, LEKS^R ; II. LEIEE ^« EEB ^ EES^KE See also Leicester. ASlfric (William II, type I). H. O. O'Hagan gale, 1907. lot 415. Perhaps Lewes I IJunic (William I, type I). J. Loveday sale, 1897, lot 620. Perhaps Hastings ? Lifinnc (William I, type III). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. iv, p. 65. Lifnoth (William II, type IV). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 259. Probably = Capt. Murchison sale. 18t Goclwhu: Lifric Osbern Oter Svveen Uncertain 1 * H.S. 1 jB ■ ■ ULE N.J. + .1.51 + H.S. + f H.'S. (Lewis + + + r + ((app.) Lifwinc (William I, type VIII). W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 306. Possibly Lifric ? Oter (William II, type V). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 261 = Catalogue, p. 75, no. 403 (William I, type VI). I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I II Ill IV V I II DOVER Adam Cinstan + Kdword .. + Goduiinv + + Gold wine (Goldwie) + + IJfwine P.C.B. + + + + Lulfric(Lufric, + 1 MULr ; (Wrhb &c.) 1 + \(. 57 Manwinc + R.C.L. P.C.B. Hntr .. + A7-CC- (William I, type II). W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 307. Probably York, Arcetl. FJfivinr (William II, mule IxII). Sir R. Abdy sale, 1841, lot 89 = Catalogue, p. 229, no. 85 (Lifwine. type II). (lodivinc (William I, type V). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 261. DURHAM (Uitthbrht Henri Ordwi IV VI VII VIII III IV Colbran (William I, type II). Num. Chron., 1846, p. 123 = Catalogue, p. 17, no. 84 (Derby). MONEYERS. AND TYPES CCIX HENRY I STEPHEN III IV V VI VII vin IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII _ + ? 1 P.C.BJ B.R. DERBY Bruii Colbein Fiona (Froina, Froain) Godwiiie (Gdwine) Leofwine (Lifwine) Uncertain Gudnic (William II, type II). Num. Cliron., 1877, p. 342 = Catalogue, p. 228, no. 80 (Godwine). I Lifric. (William I, type VIII). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 260. Probably Warwick. Liftvine (William II, type III). S. Rostron sale, 1892, lot 25 = H. M. Reynolds coll. (Dover). Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIIl! XIV t XV I II III-VI VII DORCHES- TER •• .VAtgxt Godwine + P.C'.B. Lifric Osbern .. Oter + + Sween Uncertain Walter (Henry I, type XV). E. W. Rashleigh sale, 1909, lot 406 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coU. Mint uncertain. Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI Wl .. ■■ P.C.B. •' + DOVER Adam ( 'install Ed word Godwine Goldwine (Goldwie) Lifwine Lulfric (Lufric, &c.) ]Maiiwiiie Lifstan (William I, type VIII). Archaeologia, vol. xxvi, p. 9 (Beaworth find) = Catalogue, p. 163, no. 873 (Rochester). Lifwine (William II, mule I x II). Num. Circ, 1902, p. 5470 = J. G. Murdoch sale, 1903, lot 201 (Dover, type I). Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII " + B.R. DURHAM Cutthbrht Henri Ordwi Orthbeorn (William II, type III). H. Webb .sale, 1894, lot 21. Perhaps a York coin of William I, type V ? O TABLE OF MINTS, W^ILLIAM I W^ILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I EXETER JElfwine + S.M. + Ailric Algar Brihtric P.C.B. Brihtwi (Bricdwi. &c.) Goda P.C.B. Hlud Lifirine (Lfunne) + + (Allen \ 309 H.M.R.? Livinc + Seniser R.C.L. + + Saewinc. iSeifine) + + + / S,>fl (/?■. 15S + + + rP.C.B. 1 774? Seword fLsche (MntQit I 198 + (Sseward) UIW Swottinc (Sweotinc, &c.) 1 MULE 1 + 1 Hntr 1 + Wulfwine Bodl. [P.C.B.' + + P.C.B.? Uncertain ^gclu-ine (William I, type V). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 261. Probably from Roberts MS. Catalogue reading (^Iwine) of B.M. Catalogue, p. 60, no. .31.3 (^:ifwine). Mgwi (William I, type II). Sotheby, March 7, 1894, lot 69. ^Ifioine (William I, type VIII). Sotheby, Dec. 19, 1911, lot 221. Brand (Henry I, type XIV). E. W. Rashleigh sale, 1909, lot 409 = Sainthill, 011a Podvida, ii, p. 154 = Num. Chron., 1850, p, 151, and 1901, p. 195 = Catalogue, p. 30.3, no. 120 (Chichester). Brihtwine (William II, type III). J. B. Bergne .sale, 1873, lot 318, and Sainthill, 011a Podrida, ii, p. 158. Colsiregen (William I, type I). Sotheby, July 10, 1890, lot 14. Probably Hastings. Edwine (William II, type IV), P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton sale, 1913, lot 774. Moneyer's name doubtful, perhaps Sewwine ? Elwni (William I, type I). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. v, p. 101. See above, p. cxlix. I II Ill 1 IV V VI VII VIII I II Ill IV V I GLOU- CESTER Alfwinc (Ahvine) Brihtnoth {Brihtoth, &c.) + Imul 1 + ^ j Mint Gillebert Godioin {Gowinc) Liofwine {Lifwinc) Ordric + + + • ■ P.C.B. Ralf Rodbert Sawine (Sewine) Sawold (Scwold) i P.C.B. H.M R. + Silac + ? J. B.M. .. i .. (S.xi'oT t SO + Silacwinc (Silcwinc) Thur Wiberd (Wibert) Wvlfpyt iUff/xt, drr.) Wulfwi {=WuIfwipn rHntr (P.C.B. + P.C.B. Stkm + + Edwold (William II, type II). Brit. Xum, Journ., vol. vi, p, 157. (William II, type III). W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 353. Perhaps Sewold ? MONEYERS, AND TYPES HENRY I STEPHEN II Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII P.C.B. •■ __ + 1 (app.)J + + + + B.R. , H.M.R.J + ? 1 + EXETER .T-;ifwine Ailric { = Aliiric?) Algar l^rihtric Brihtwi (Biicdwi, &c.) Goda Hlud Lifwinc (Lfwine) Livinc Semter Ssewine (Sewine) Seword (Sseward) Swottinc (Sweotinc, &c.) Wulfwine Uncertain Esbcrii ("William I, tji^e V). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 262. Perhaps Salisbury? Godsbrand (William I, type Til). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. v, p. 102 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 87, no. 47.3 (Shaftesbiiry). Lifxoine (William II, type IV). Brit. Xum, Journ., vol. v, p. 103 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Wulfwine ?). Manna (William I, type I). L. A. Lawrence sale, 1903, lot 35 = H. [Montagu sale, 1897, lot 62 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Canterbury). Simun (Stephen, type I). J. G. JIurdoch sale, 1903, lot 247 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. ]\Iint doubtful, possibly Canterbury. Wulfwine (Henry I, type II). H, Montagu sale, 1896, lot 282 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Saewine ?). Ill IV Wl VI II IX i X MULE Hntr XI XII XIII p. SOS) XV T.B. -f P.C.B. B.B. 1 S. M.S.J B.R. 1 II III-VI VII Elfwine. (Henry I, mule IX xX). Xum. Chron., 1901, p. 202 = Huntcrian coll. (Sawold). Scffrim (William II, type II). Xum. Chron., 1877, p. 343 = Catalogue, p. 236, no. i:)6 (Shrewsbury) GLOU- CESTER -Vlfwine ( Alwiiic) Brihlnoth (Brihtoth, &c.) Gillebert Godwin (Gowinc) Liofwine (Lifwinc) Ordric Half { = Radulfi) RodbcH Sawine (Sewine) Sawold (Sewold) Silac Silacwine (Silcwine) Thur Wiherd (NVibert) Wulfiiitt (L'fg!et,&c.) Wulfwi o 2 CCXll TABLE OF MINTS, W^ILLIAM I W^ILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II Ill IV V I II III GUILD- FORD Seric P.C.B. + ,. + + ^Ifi-ic (William II, type III). W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 352. Perhaps Ipswich ? I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III HAS- TINGS Boniface Cipincc Colsiveyen Dirman (Dorman, &c.) Dunninc (Ditnic, &c.) Godric + + P.C.B. + + A.M. T.C.C. + + + + + / + i;app.) + + + Rodbei't Sawine Sperlinc (Spirlic, &c.) Thiotlred \Venst[an ?] + ■■ + + Barluit (Henry I, type II). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 209 = Catalogue, p. 270, no. 18 (Bristol, Barcuit). Oodsi (William I, type VIII). Sotheby, March 7, 1891, lot 71. I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III HERE- FORD Adebrant i^^gelrie ^^gehviiie iS.ri:ri5 1 MULE 1 + + (Allen \ 354 (^]gel\vi) \ 49 1 P.C.B. 1 ^:ifwi + + {^JElfxma?) j'^'.stan + Brihtric + Edric Edwine(Ed\vi) w.s.o. Godric + Hethewi + Lifstan + + (Lifsan, &c.) Ordwi + + L.E.B. Hntr rP.C.B. 1 783 Revenswcrt .. Saric (Sseric) Siber Witric (Wicric, &e.) Wulfwine, P.C.B. y'Egelric (William I, type III). Brit. Num. Journ., vol. vi. p. 173. False? See Brit. Num. Jourii., vol. iii, p. 285, no. 39. (William I, type VIII). Num. Circ, 1902, p. 5472 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 191, no. 1032 (Warcham), ^Iwi (William I, type IV). Num. Chron., 1840, p. 45. Eadri ., ,, Akerman, Num. Journ., vol. ii, p. 106. MONEYERS, AND TYPES HENRY I STEPHEN IV V YI VII [VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-Vll VII 1 GUILD- FORD .■>;ifric Seric Eric (William II, type III). H. Montagu .sale, 1896, lot 26*). Probably Seric. IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II 1 III-VI 1 VII P.C.B. + Mntqu) 281 i + + + ? 1 P.C.B.; F.Mus. 1 H.M.RJ + L.A.L. S.M.S. B.R. S.M.S.1 (VI) 1 L.E.B. HAS- TINGS Aldied Boniface Cipincc Colswegen Dirnian (Donnan, &c.) Duniiinc (Dunic, &c. Godric Rodbert Sawine Sperlinc (Spirlic, &c.) Thiodred Wenst(an ?] Sefwie (William II. type II). Xum. Circ, 1902, p. 5172 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B.M. Catalogue, p. 241, no. 166 (Wilton, Sefare). IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV XV III-VI VII F.Mus. P.C.B. P.C.B. + A.M. + Rash ) 412 i P.C.B.) S.M.S.J" HERE- FORD Adebrant -•^I'-gelric ^li^gelwine (.■t'.gehvi) .^.Ifwi .''^:stan Hrihtric Kdric Ed wine (Ed wi) Godric Hethewi Lifstan (Lifsan,&c. Ordwi Ravenswert Saric (Saeric) Siber Witric (Wicric, &c.) Wulfwine Godard (William II, type III). S. Rostron sale, 1892, lot 27 = G. Deakin sale, 1905, lot 5 (false). Cf. Brit. Num. Journ., vol. iii, p. 283, no. 37. Hei-icus (Henry I, type XIV). E. W. Rashleigh .sale, 1909, lot 413 = Xum. Cliron., 1901, p. 218. Probably Saricus. Lifxohie (William II, type V). W. A. Cotton sale, 1889, lot 60, and J. J. Xunn sale, 1896, lot 214. Probably = H. M. Reynolds coll. (Exeter). Wulfric (Stephen, type I). W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 381. Perhaps Wihtric ? TABLE OF MINTS, W^ILLIAM I AVILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I HERTFORD Sseman (Semeen) Thidric (Thedric) P.C.B. •■ + + f + Uapp.) P.C.B. + fHntr (P.C.B. / + Uapp.) Mlfric (William I, type V). T. B. Kirby sale, 1888, lot 11 = W. A. Cotton sale, 1889, lot 55. Perhaps HUNTING- DON JElfwinc Derlig Godmer Goclric Godivine Siwate (Siwat) MULE I + I III York W.E.H. VI fH.W.M, t P.C.B. VII VIII + + III IV F.Mus u^glwine (Williain I, type VIII). Brit. Num. Journ., vol, vii, p. 4. ^Ifric „ „ Num. Chron., 1904, p. 264. Mlfrvine (William II, type III). H. Clark sale, 1898, lot 62. Perhaps London ? GodHc (William II, type II). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 264 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 230, no. 91 (Hastings). Godwine (William II, type IV). Sotheby, Jan. 25, 1860, lot 110. Perhaps mistake for William I, type VI? (Stephen, type VII). H. Montagu sale, 1896, lot 307 = Catalogue, p. 371, no. 194 (Godmer?). ^rf/iM?/ (William I, type IV). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 264 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 55, no. 291 (York). I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I HYTHE Edred (Edreed) ■■ + ( Allen 1. 315 + + ILCHESTER ^gclvnne (Weegelwine, &c.) .^Iword (^hlf ward, &c.) Elwi lAfwine Weegelwine, .see j^gelwinc Wixie (Wichxsi, &c.) fCirc. '02 ( 557/ York m IV V VI + + fP.C.B. \ 711 + + + VII Stkm 1 VIII .p. 1.35, .^no.717, i note rP.C.B. L 768 Hntr IV Baldii'ine (William II, type III). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 265. Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 251, no. 217 (Shaftesbury). MONEYEKS, AND TYPES CCXV HENRY I STEPHEN II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV 1 II UI-VI VII HERTFORD Sieiuan (Sema?n) Thidric (Thcdric) Thctford, Cinric .' II III IV V VI VII VIII IX i X XI XII XIII { XIV XV I II III-VI VII ■• + + HUNTING- DON ^]lf\vinc Derlig Godmer Godric God wine Siwate (Sivvat) Gypat (William II, type II). Rev. H. Christmas sale, 1861, lot 209; W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 314 = Catalogue, p. 2.S1, no. 97 (Siwat). Sxwi, Sxwinc (William I, type IV). Num. Circ., 1902, p. 5571. Probably Southampton. (William II, type I). Sotheby, May 28, 1891, lot 17; J. J. Nunn sale, 1896, lot 209. Probably Southampton. Sefvnnc (Henry I, type II). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 227 = Hunterian coll. Reading doubtful, probably Southampton (perhaps an altered die). Sweatlinc (William I, type IV). Col. Durrant sale, 1847, lot 136 = Catalogue, p. 54, no. 281 (Wallingford). II III IV V VI VII VII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII HYTHE Edred (Edrsed) Didman (William II, type III). Num. Circ., 1902, p. 5571 = Catalogue, p. 246, nos. 187-8 (Hastings. Dirman). Godric (William II, typo II). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 264 = Roberts MS. Catalogue alternative attribution of B.M. Catalogue, p. 2.30, no. 91 (Hastings). II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II lU-VI VII + ILCHESTER yt^gelwine (Wsegehvine, &e.) il<]lword (^:hlfward,&c.) Elwi Lifwine Wn'gehvine, see yK^elwine Wixie (Wichxsi, &c.) Brihtnoth (William II, mule IxII and type II). Num. Chron., 1877, p. 343 (? = Num. Chron., 1904, p. 265) = Catalogue, p. 225, no. 67 (Gloucester). Goldwine (William II, type III). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 265. CCXVl TABLE OF MINTS, -WILLIAM I AVILLIAM II I II III IV V \ VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II IPSW^ICH ^dgar ^gelbriht iP^gelwine ^Ifric Ml f wine (Alfvrine) Edmund Germane Gilleber Lifstan (Liofstan) Lifwine (Leo- wine, &c.) O.sbern (Osebern) Paieu Rod land (Rolland) Swegen (Swegn) Wulfwine + + 1 MUI .E 1 + iB [ULE N.J p.l6 1 f + -f -f + + + + -f K.C.L. P.C.B. Mgelwinc. See also Ilchester. Mglric (William I, type V). Sir R. Abdy sale, 1841, lot 93 = Catalogue, p. 67, no. 357 (Norwich). Alfwine (Stephen, type I). E. W. Rashleigh sale, 1909, lot 515 = B. Roth coll. (Gloucester, same dies as coin in S. M. Spink coll.) Brumic (William II, type III). Num. Chron., 1904. p. 265. Godicine ,, ,, Sotheby, June 16, 1915, lot 53. Lifstan (William I, type VII). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 265. I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II LAUN- CESTON iF:gl[m?j8er /Allen ( 337 Godric Willem ' Sasgti Stefanii ' + Hntr Bodl + Mglxr (William II, type I). Brit. Num. Journ., vol. iv, p. 72. Perhaps from Num. Chron., 1871, p. 228 (Declir), see below. I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II LEI- CESTER ASgelwine > + -f -f + Chiteia Fulcred "• Godric ^ fli.N.J. 1 lii. S6 + MULE -fir + .+ Mapp-), Lieric •'' + ( = Lifric) Owthinfi .. Paris Samar^ Sewinc ** Hntr Walter a Warmund 'f' Wulfwine" /Hntr (P.C.R Uncertain 12 .. '-12 See notes on pages ccxviii, ccxix. MONEYERS, AND TYPES C'CXVn HENRY I STEPHEN III IV V ' VI VII 1 VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II m-vi VII 1 IPSW^ICH Ast.'Ofii 219? J .. P.C.B. .. 1 .. 1 .. i .Kdgar j*:gelbriht 1 1 -l^^lfwino (Alfwiiic) P.C.B. NC'50\ , p.loTi "^ Kdmuiul " + + ? + Germane Gilleber Lifstan (Liofstan) P.C.B. Lifwino (Leo- wine. &c.) + + j P.C.B. ( )sbern (Osebern) P.C.B. 1 . . Paien M'Ewn) 103 ] Itodland 1 (Piolland) 1 Sweden .. (.Swegn) .. .. Wulfwine Liofstan (William I, type II). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 265. Perhaps = Catalogue, p. :«, no. 180 (mule IxII)? Oswald (Henry I, type XIV). E. W. Rashleigh sale, 1909, lot 415 = Xum. Chron., 1850, p. 151, and 1901, p. 238 = Catalogue, p. 30 i Paen Seffarlh (.Sih- feortli, &.C.) Segwawai'd (Wigurcrith) Jit t 3 mn o7 f fPash I 357 + Budl + + MONEYERS, AND TYPES CCXIX See also Chester. ^(iclu-inc CSMlIiam I, tj-pe VIII). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. vii, p. 2.5, = Xum. Circ, 1902, p. 5573, whence it appears to be a misreading of a British Mu.seuiu coin. Edmund (Henry I, type XII). L. A. Lawrence sale, 1903, lot 106 = P. W. P. Carl.\ on-Brittoii coll. (see Lewes). Gifrie (William I, type II). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 26(). Probably Lieric. Godard (William II, type III). Sotheby, May 3, 1811, lot 355. False? Cf. Bril. Xum. Journ., vol. iii, p. 283, no. 37. Godric (William II, type IV). Xum. Chron., 19(U, p. 266, Lificin (William II, mule IxII and type III). Various sale catalogues, &c. False, cf. Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. iii, p. 283, nos. 33, 31. HENRY I STKPHEN II IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV [ XV I II III VI VII P.C.B. P.C.B. ? + •• Rash. 1 523,525/ + ? + '? (app.) B.R. J.H.D.) T.B. ; + H.M.R.?) (VI) i + ? ^ B.R.?J LEAVES .Klfric .1^;ifwine (.4-;iwinc) Almar Brihtman- (Brihmar, &c.) Edmund Herrevi Hunfrei Osebern (Jswold Willcm Winrsed (W'iii- ered, &c.) Osivold (William I, type III). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 266. [irul]m3er (Stephen, type II). Sotheby, July 25, 1910, lot 95. Probably Alnuu II IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II II I- VI VII LINCOLN Acil (Ascil) .mfnot S.M.? .T-.lnier (.I';!mar,&c.) Agcmund(Ahe- mund, &c.) P.C.B. Arnwi I 4- P.C.B. 1 S.M.S.J + Aslac ((Jslac) Folca'rd (;ar\iM CJifcl (Givd) (iladewin _ + + XC'Ol] 371 / P.C.B. B.R.?) (IV) y H.M.R.i (IV) / B.K. 67-pc IV ? Rcnoulf (Henry I, type XII). Xum. Chron., 1901, p. 305 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Win- chester, Sawulf). iJo&OYMHenry I, type XV). „ ,, p. 307. Perhaps Canterbury ? Snotr (Henry I, type XII). Sotheby, Dec. 9, 1891, lot 394. Probably = Catalogue, PI. XLII. 13 (Sigar). S-wir - ■ c (William II, type IV). E. W. Rashleigh sale, 1909, lot 398 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Hastings). Swirtic (Henry I, type X). Num. Chron., 1873, p. 175. Probably Sperlig. Tierrei (Stephen, type VII). Num. Chron., 1905, p. 355 = Catalogue, p. 372, no. 200 (Geffrei). Willem, JVillclmus (Henry I, type XV). D. F. Kennard .sale, 1892, lot 124, and E. W. Rashleigh .sale, 1909, lot 433; Num. Chron., 1901, p. 312. Probably Canterbury. Winfrxd, Winrxd (William II, type II). W. Allen sale, 1898, lot 321. (? =Num. Circ, 1902, p. 5649) = Catalogue, p. 232, no. 104 (Lewes). Wulfmxr (Henry I, type XV). Sotheby, July 29, 1915, lot 53. Wulfric (William II, type II). Num. Chron., 1877, p. 344 = Catalogue, p. 239, no. 150 (Sudbury). Wulfivi (William II, type III). Brit. Num. Journ., vol. viii, p. 81. Wulfwinc (William II, type II). Num. Chron., 1877. p. 344 = Catalogue, p. 234, no. 120 (Maldon). (William II, type IV). Num. Circ, 1902, p. 5ftl9 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 257, no. 246 ("Walcin). ' „ (Henry I, mule IVxV). Num. Chron., 1901,p. 314 = Sheriff Mackenzie coll. (contemporary forgery of type V). (Henry I, type XI). J. D. Cuff sale, 1854, lot 737 = Hon. R. Marsham sale, 1888, lot 252 = S. Rostron sale, 1892, lot a3=H. Montagu sale, 1896, lot 289 = J. G. Murdoch sale, 1903, lot 216 = H. M. Reynolds coll. ( Alf wine .?). Wulfu-old (William II, tj'pe III). A. B. Richardson sale, 1895, lot 68 = H. Clark sale, 1S98, lot 61. Probably Wulfword. Wulfivord (William I, type IV). Brit. Num. Journ., vol. viii, p. 74. (William II, type II). „ „ p. 79 = Catalogue, p. 238, no. 148 (Stamford ?). Wulsi (Henry I, type II). Sotheby, July 14, 1899, lot 141. Probably Canterbury. Wunric (William II, type II). Num. Clu'on., 1877, p. 344 = Catalogue, p. 232, no. 107 (Bruninc). TABLE OF MINTS, tVILIilAM I AVILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II 111 MALDON ^Iford (Alf wod ?) Lifesun (Liofesunu, &c.) Wiilfwine Stkm + + ImuleI , ! + r .. 1 .. + + fP.C.B. t 770 _ Outhgj-im (William I, type IV). H, O. O'Hagan sale, 1907, I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II Ill MALMES- BURY Brihtwine {Brihtxui) Godsbrand + + + ■■ |Ml JLE 1 , .. Seword ., + + + 1 Seword (William II, type III). Various sale catalogues, &c. i MARL- BOROUGH Cild I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II + + + J^ Hntr + U'i-Uen I 326 III Seword (William II, type III). Hon. R. Marsham sale, 1888, lot 243 = I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III NORTH- AMPTON GcflFrei Gbahan Gosfrei •• Paien Ssewine Stcfne (Stifue, &c.) f P.C.B. (W.C.W. Wulln?]od __ •• •• Stefne, Stiefne, Stephan (William I, type II). M. H. Bobart sale, 1894, lot 5. Probably Ssewine. MONEYERS, AND TYPES CCXXVll HENRY I STEPHEN IV V U9. VI 1 VII ! VIII IX X XI XII XIII 1 xrv XV I II III-VI VII lot J Prob ably York (IVF E; cf . Catalogue, p. 5(5, no. 294). :: MALDON MUovd (Alfwocl.?) Lifesun (Liofcsunu. &c.) Wulfwine IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII ;: MALMES- BURY nrihtwiiie (Brihtwi) Godsbrand Seword Probably false, cf. Brit. Num. Journ., vol. iii, p. 283, nos. 35, : IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV XV II III-VI VII MARL- BOROUGH Clld H. Montagu sale, 1896, lot 269 (Malmesbury ; probably false ; sec above). IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII [\ + + + + ? 1 P.C.B. ?/ w.c.w. + s.m'.s. ? 1 w.c.w.?; " B.R.) (III)J- + ? ■■ T.B. P.C.B. 1 W.C.W.i + ? ) w.c.w. J NORTH- AMPTON Gi'inci (ihahaii Gosfi'ci Paien Srewine Stcfne (Stifno, &c.) Wu[ln ?]od Stefm, Stiefne, Stephan (Henry I, typo XV). E. W. Rashlcigh sale, 1909, lots 441 and 443, both in W. C. Wells coll. (mints illegible) ; J. G. Murdoch sale, 1903, lot 212 = W. C. Wells coll. (Ghahan ; same dies as another coin in same collection). P 2 TABLE OF MINTS, W^ILHAM I AVILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II Ill IV V I II Ill IV NOR- AVICH ^dstan (Etstan, \S.xi '4 &c.) I 70 jEdwine, sec Eadwine ^gelric + + + Ailwi Alfri (^:ifric (?), + &c.) Alfward (Aihvard) Baldwine? Chitel(Chetel) Eadu-inc {ASdioinc, + + :ifwig B.R. 1 S.M.S./ + ?1 ( ,p.)i Gahan God wine Hargod (Heregod. &c.) Man + S.M.S.? Kawulf(Raulf) + Sagrim P.C.B. + Sawi Swctig Swetman Wulfwi Brln Uncertain Godwinc (William II, type III). Brit. Num. Journ., vol. x, p. 41 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton sale. 1913, lot 771 (mint doubtful, probably Salisbury). Hxrgod (William I, type III). F. G. Lawrence sale, 1900, lot 24 = H. W. Morrieson coll. (type VII ; 236 misprint for 239). Hcrepod (William I. type II). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 273. Lifwinc (William I, type VIII). W. A. Cotton sale, 1889, lot 64. Perhaps Exeter ? Walter (Stephen, type VII). Num. Chron., 1903, p. 118 = Catalogue, p. 371. no. 193 (Gloucester. Ralf). Wulmxr (William II, types II and III). W. A. Cotton sale. 1889, lot 61, and Num. Chron., 1904, p. 273. TABLE OF MINTS, W^ILLIAM I WILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III PEM- BROKE Gillepatric PEVEN- SEY ^Ifheh (^Ifhe, &c.) ■■ + ? + (Allen / + Uapp.) Alwine RHUDD- LAN ^Ifwine + ROCHES- TER ^Ifstaii (^Istan) Guthreed (Guthred) Lifstan (Liftan) Lifwine Horn Wulfwine York P.C.B. + + Hntr + + + B.R. + + + ^gehoinc (William I, type VIII). Sotheby. May 18. 1855, lot 198. Godfrxd (William I, type IV, and William II, type II). Xum. Chroii., 1904, p. 274. Gnthman (William II, tjT)e II). Num. Chron., 1877, p. 344 = Catalogue, p. 235, no. 127 (Guthrsed). I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II Ill IV V I II Ill ROMNEY ^Imser Coc + + P.C.B. .. Godricus Gold Windei (Winedi,&c.) + P.C.B. Hntr B.R. + Wulfmaer Wulfred + .. + f +? IJ.W.P. P.C.B. Brihtmar (William T, type I). Sotheby, Feb. 1, 1900, lot 185. Probably Wulmaer. Cilnrxd (William II, type II). Sotheby, May 27, 1850, lot 31. Gondinr (William I, type II). Sotheby, July 18, 1888, lot 2. I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II in ST. DAVIDS Turri .. + SALIS- BURY Aldwine Ealla Ed word f + Uapp.) + j(L.A.I ^ cast) Esbern (Osbern,&c.) + r Brln i P.C.B. + P.C.B. Hntr Godric f Cpnhn (H.W.M. •• + + MONEYEES, AND TYPES ccxxxni HENRY I V V VI YII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV P.C.B. XV STEPHEN III-VI VII B.R. F.A.AV. (lot 71) Lifstan (William II, type III). Num. Circ, 1902, p. 5653. Perhaps ^Istaii? Wulfmaer (William I, type I). Sotheby, Aug. 5, 1815, lot -tl. Probably Romncy. Wnlficine (William I, type III). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 271. See Hereford. PEM- BROKE GilkpaUir PEVEN- SEY ^:ifheh (.4^;ifhe, &c'.) -Vlwiiie RHUDD- LAN .Klfwi IK- ROCHES- TER /J<:ifsta» (^;istaii) Guthnwl (Gut hied) Lifstan (Liftaii) Lifwine Horn Wiilfwine V V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII •• ROMNEY y^^lmaer Coc 1 MULE Ip.c.b { P.C.B. ■■ 1 Godricus Gold Windei (Winedi.&c.) Widfmser + + .. 1 Wulfred rv r-,rUiP IWU TT t,v np V> Ni in. ( hrnn.. 190 1. n. 271. Windei (William I, type VII). Wulfmxr ,, p. 275. Probably type VIII. V V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII ST. DAVIDS Turri ■■ + P.C.B. SALIS- BURY .Vldwinc Ealla Edword Esbcrii (Osbern,&c.) Godric- CCXXXIV TABLE OF MIN TS, WILLIAM I V/^ILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III SALIS- BURY {C07lt.) Godicine {Godwinnj) Osbern. see Esbern Safara Stanning ML FJ P.C.B. I.E 1 VI. 1 :: + + + A.M.? Mrneiri (William II, type II). Xum. Chron., 1877, p. 344 = Catalogue, p. 236, no. laS (Shrewsbury). Cihtwine (William I, type VII). H. Clark sale, 1898, lot 44. Probably Shaftesbury. Eadwold (William II, type III). H. Montagu sale, 1897, lot 93. Probably Eadword. Esbern (William I, type VII). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 275. Probably type VIII. (William II, type III). Xum. Circ., 1902, p. 5654 = P. W. P, Carlyon-Britton coll. (moneyer doubtful, probably Edword). Godric (Henry I, tjTie I). Xum. Chron., 1901, p. 401 = W. Rusher Davies sale, 1893, lot 59 = E. H. Evans sale, 1894, lot 30. SAND- W^ICH Adalbot 1 (^>lfgte,&c.) ^Ifheh 3 (^:ifeh, &c.) Alf gfer ^ (Alfgar) Oodhese ° God wine 6 Osbern " Wulfrics AVulfwarta (Wulfwor) III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II /B'N.J. tvii. 22 Hntr r S. xii C9o 143 Sikm + ? + + (Alien \ SSI + + Hntr + + + III SAN «S/\m), S/\M -' Henry L^BiXy-, Stephen, SANPI « SAM « BAN I 1 II III IV 1 V VI VII VIII I 1 II III 1 IV V I II in SHAFTES- BURY ^Inoth (Alnoth) Aid red __ + H.S. + + P.C.B. ? Aid wine Baldwine + t'nihtwine (Citwine, &c.) Godcsbrand (Godsbrand) Osmund Ricard + /Hntr IK.C.L. + ■+ + + + P.C.B.? Sagrim Saric Wulfgaed + P.C.B. ^scword (William II, type III). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. v, p. 110. Perhaps Salisbury, Edword. Cnihtwin ,, ,, Xum. Circ., 1902, p. 5653. MONEYERS, AND TYPES HENRY I STEPHEN IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII + SALIS- BURY U-viit.) Goflwiiic (Godwinnc) Osbcrn, .see Ksbern Safaia SlaiuiiiiK Godiviiie (William I, type VII). Xuni. Chron., 1901, p. 275. Probably type VIII. (Henry I, typo XIV). J. G. Murdoch sale, 1903, lot 227. Perhaps Aldwinc ? Lifivord (William II, type II). Xum. Chron., 1877, p. 344 = Catalogxie, p. 2.37, no. 139 (Southwark). (Henry I, type I). J. B. Bergne sale, 1873, lot 320. Segrim (William II, types I and II). Xum. Chron., 1877, p. 344. Tj-pc II = Catalogue, p. 2.3(5, no. 13a (Shrewsbury). JVulfric (William II, type IV), Sotheby, July 4, 1891. lot 280. Probably Sudbury. VI VII VIII H.M.R. IX W.C.W. X XI XII XIII XIV 1 XV I P.C.B.? I II III-VI VII SAND- AVICH Adalbot 1 .Klfgicf- (.Klfgte,&c.) .'I<;ifheh:f (.Mfch, &c.) Alfgier-* (Alfgar) Godhesc-'i (iodwineS + Osbcrn ' + S.M.S. WulfricS ^^■ulfwart» (Wulfwor) . Perhaps Shaftesbury ? = = Ca talogue , p. 2c )8, no. 218 ^■Eldraed (William II, type III). Brit. Num. .Journ., vol. vii, p. 23. Alfgad (Williani II, type IV). (Alfgar). Ricard (Stephen, type I). Xum. Chron., 1883, p. 115 = H. Montagu sale, 1896, lot 323 = H. O. O'Hagan sale, 1907, lot 423 = S. M. Spink coll. (Shaftesbury ?). Robert (Stephen, type I). Sotheby, June 16, 1915, lot 55. Probably Canterbury. Sagr. „ „ X^um. Chron., 1850, p. 159= E. W. Rashleigh sale. 1909, lot 557 = Catalogue, p. 348, no. 91 (Shaftesbury?). Ulff/in (William II, type IV). Xum. Circ. 1902, p. .5654 = Catalogue, p. 258, no. 248 (Alfgar). IVulfrcd (Stephen, type II). D. F. Kennard sale, 1892, lot 151. Probably Wulfric. Wulfwold (Stephen, type I). Xum. Chron., 1850, p. 159. IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII P.C.B. XIV XV ir iii-vi VII SHAFTES- BURY .Klnolh I.Vlnoth) A Id red Aldwinc Haldwine Criih twine (( 'itwine, &c.) Godesbrand (Godsbrand) Osmund Kicard Sigrim Saric Wulfgted Shelic (William II, type HI). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 276. Probably = Catalogue, p. 246. no. 190 (Hastings, Spirlic ). Swgcn (William II, type II). Sotheby, Feb. 18, 1881, lot 32S. TABLE OF MINTS, -WILLIAM I W^ILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II SHREWS- BURY Mrnwi {Earnivi, P.C.B. + + + + F.A.W. + + Eglric Godesbra ml + + Hathebraiid + + + ? Revensart Rodbert Segrim (Cutrer \ 04 + + + Wulfvixr Wulfric (Wulflc) + Hiitr T.C.C. Sar/rim, Sccjrim (William I, type II). Num. Chroii., 1901, p. 276. (William I, tj'pe VII). Niim. Circ, 1902, p. 5655 (not in Brit. Mus. : perhaps inserted from William II, type II, where same reading occurs). SOUTH- AMPTON Dort ? God wine Sxrvinc (Sxwi, (£y.) Stvetnian Ulf Wulwi I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V ' i + f York "(P.C.B. ;Hntr tT.B. + + + + + Hntr '.'. + L.A.L. Hntr? Dilman (William II, type III). C'apt. Murchison sale, 1864, lot 17 = Catalogue, p. 216, no. 187 (Hastings, Dirman). Godrir (William I, type II). Xuni. Chron., 1846, p. 123. Probably Huntingdon. I ir III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II SOUTH- W^ARK y^^:idonlf 1 + (Aldolf,&c.) Alfwiiie- Algar 3 + Edward ^ Qodric^^ + + Godwine(?)'' Leofwinc "^ (Lifwine, . 303 OsmumV^ P.C.B. + + P.C.B. .Sigar I'J 1 Sprot" 1 .. + + + + Turchil 12 .. [ .. Wulfwold 1" Wulgari-i .. i .. .. + + SV*)IE, SV*)E, SV*>I, SVHE>EP, SI*) ^ SVD ■•' n7«,am//, SV*)EP, SV*); //'■-r.'//,S\/'DPER, t^VDPE, t^A/'T^W'E, S\/'T^W^ •• ta^/'D ' Confessor, SVDP ; "'///.». /, For remaining notes see pages ce.xxxviii, ccxxxix. MONEYEKS. AND TYPES HENRY I STEPHEN I IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII SHREWS- BURY (Karnwi,&c.) • • • • B.R. 1 S.M.S.; + __ Kglric (4o(U'sbraiid Hathobiaiid Kcvcnsait Rodbert Scgrim + ■■ Wulfma'r Wulfric (Wultii) Sagrim, Scgrim (Henry I, type XIV). E. W. Rashlelgh sale, 1909, lot 160. Probably Shaftosbuiy. Wilmxr (William I, type II). Lake Price sale, 1880, lot 18. VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV XV II III-VI VII SOUTH- AMPTON Dort .' God wine !Sa'\vitie (Sa>\vi. &c.) Swetiiiaii rif Wulwi Spcrlig (Henry I, type VII). Hon. R. Marsham sale, 1888, lot 217 = S. Rostron sale, 1892, lot 29 = H. Clark sale, 1898, lot 63 = J. Dudman sale, 1913, lot 291 = Catalogue, p. 279, no. 40 (Hastings). I IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII SOUTH- WARK .r.idouif 1 (Aldolf, &c.) + .. Alfwine- + Mnti/in sub i + _ P.C.B. Algars Edward ^ Godric^ P.C.B. God wine ?'i Hntr + + H.M.R. Hnfr + + Lcofwinc" (Lifwinc.&c.) Lif word "* Osmund " H.M.K. Sigar ''^ Sprot n B.H. ) K.C.L.J Turchil ''- 4- Wulfwold'" .. Wulgar" SV*>EPI, SV*)EP, SV*>EI taVDPE '> confessor. SV*); WiUicnnI, SV*)I, SH), SU*)E; IVllUam II. SV*). SU : Hcnrv I, type II, S V*>E ; IV, SV/I); VI, SVT : VIII. S\/'T : X. cexxxvin TABLE OF MINTS, SOUTHWARK {continued). tSVTP ; XI SA/'TPVK ; XII t^VD XIV SVDPER, tav DPE, SA/^DP^r, svD, ^\rr^^ « sv*>ep, sv HB>EI SV*>E SV*)I, SVHE>, SVI ' confessor, SV^BC, SV*)IE SV'*)E SlHG)I;i?aroW7/SV*©EP; William I, S'l&Vm, S*)EP, SU-BE, SV*)I, SVHE>; wnuamii, SVHG>E, SV»© SVT ^^ SV*)EI, SVHE)EPR, SV^BEPI ^ SA/'D, "WILLIAM [ ■WILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII ^^II I II III IV V I II STAF- FORD ^Ifnoth Godric (Gdric) Godivine Wulfnoth P.C.B. + /York 1 P.C.B. + + + + + Sikm J.W.P. H.W.M. " .^Ifnoth (William II, type I). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 277. I II III IV V VI VII \^II I 11 Ill IV V I II STAM- FORD Arcil (Arntl) Bruristan •■ + + + Hntr Brunirine + + + (Bunivine) Diric Elfiiwine Godelef Godric York + Heirman (XC'69 Iji. 3.J5 > + Lefsi (Lcvsi) Leftein Liofric York 4, lot 215. Perhaps Liof wine ? Bavcnsart (Stephen, type I). Num. Chron., 1851, p. 188, and 1869, p. 357. See Shrewsbury. Sudward „ „ E. W. Rashleigh sale, 1909, lot 566 = B. Roth coll. (Siward ; from same dies as other coins). Thurbcn (William I, type VIII). Num. Chron., 1869, p. 355 = Steyning. A halfpenny of this mint in H. Montagu sale, 1896, lot 327, described as Stephen, type II, is of type I = Catalogue, p. 350, no. 103. ccxl TABLE OF MINTS, •WILLIAM I ■WILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II STEY- NING Dermon (Drman) Llfsi Thurbein (Thurben, &c.) + Bodl? H.W.M. + + + + H.W.M. D^inan (WiUiani II, type IV). A. W. Hankin sale, 1900, lot 409 = H. W. Morrieson coll. (William I, type VI). Dnrben (William I, type II). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 278. I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I II III 1 IV V I " SUDBURY Folcivinr^ God---?2 Osbern 3 Wulf ric ^ - - ebert 5 P.C.B. + " + + fF.Mus. (P.C.B. + ? 1 Confessor, S VPIi VC ; JVilUam T, SV*> ^ tSVDB Tf'.7/,V.„ //, SV*)IU, SVHE), SVI; Henry I, SUD, SVTB I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II TAM- WORTH Alfred Brunine {Brioiic) Colinc {Colic, <£-c.) Hermer Lefwine + + + + + + + + jEldred (Henry I, type II). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 420. See Christchurch. JElfwinc (William I, type V). C. Plumley sale, 1869, lot 436; W. J. Davis sale, 1901, lot 460 ^ H. W. IMorrieson coll. (Taunton). TAUNTON ^'^>lf^vine (il']l\vine) Alfred Brihtric (Brfhtric) Elfric I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I + + Imui 1 + 1+ .S7A-H) fP.C.B. ■(R.C.L. 1 Ml) |r.c LE 1 XL. 1 .. + + •• j^lfwine (William II, type II). H. Montagu MONEYERS, AND TYPES ccxli HENRY I STEPHEN III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII STEY- NING Derniou (Driuan) Lifsi Thuibern (Tluirben, &c.) Godric (Henry 1, type III). H. Montagu sale, 1896, lot 278 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (mint uncertain). Oshcrn (^VilIianl I, type VIII). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 278. m IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I 11 III VI Y\l •• + SUDBURY Folcwine i (;od---?a :i73 ) P.C.B. (XsbernS + + .. + Wulfric'* - - - ebert 5 See also South wark. Cltioiiie (William I, type VI). F. W. Longbottoni .sale, 1892, lot 8. Probably Shaftesbury. Hathbrand (William II, type V). See Shrewsbury. Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII + TAM- WORTH Alfred Bruninc (linuiic) Colinc (Colic, &c.) + Hermer Hiitr .. Lefwino Brichmxr (Heiu-y I, type XIV). Xuni. Chron., 1901, p. 120. Probably = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Hermer). Erun (William I, type II). Xum. Chron., 1816, p. 121 ^- Catalogue, p. 27, no. 112 (Bruninc). Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV P.C.B. XV I II III-VI VII ■ • + TAUNTON .Klfwinc (.Khvine) Alfred Hrilitric (Brfhtric) Elfric sale, 1896, lot 251 = Catalogue, p. 210, no. 159 (Wallingford). ccxlii TABLE OF MINTS, THET- FORD Acus Ailnot Alfward Aschetil Baldewin (Baldwine) Brhtoth Bundi (Bundnd, &c.) Burchart (B^irhrd) Cinric (Cenric) Driv Esbearn (Osbearn, &c.) Folcxrd (Folchred, ;ifwine Ailnot Alfward + + P.C.B. ? + F.A.W.t lot 7:i J Aschetil Baldcwin (Baldwine) Brhtoth Bundi (Bundnd, &c.) p p -R ImcleI Burchart (Burhrd) Cinric (Cenric) + Driv Esbearn (Osbearn, &c.) Folcserd P.C.B. ? .. + + (Folchred, &c.) Gefrei (Geffrei) God Godelcf (Godlcf, &o.) Godinc Godrsed (Godred) Godric + 1 (arp.)' Hiitr? + God wine Xcigel ( N egclus) P.C.B. + 1 P.C.B.J + Norman Odde (Ode) Osbearn (Otbearn), see Esbearn + Stan - - - Thurtan ( = Turstan ?) Elfwi (William I, type II). C. E. Simpson sale, 190.3, lot 1. Perhaps Oxford ? Engelram (Henry I, type XII). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 428 = Catalogue, Appendix, p. 407, no. 85 a (Winchester). Folerd (William I, type IV). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 279. Perhaps William I, type VI? Gipat (William II, type II). C. McEwen sale, 1854, lot 102. Probably Huntingdon, Siwat. Godrxd (William II", type I). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 280. Godwinc (Henry I, type II). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 428 = Catalogue, Appendix, p. 406, no. 23 a (Winchester). Halun (Stephen, type II). Sotheby, Jan. 25, 1860, lot 127, and E. Burns sale, 1869, lot 49. Lifnoth (Henry I, type III). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 429 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Chester). Nccoll (William II, type I). H. Montagu sale, 1897, lot &3 = B. Roth coll. (Neigel). Swirtinc (William I, typo VII). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 280. IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV 1 II III- VI ; VII TOTNES Dunic TW^YN- HAM, see CHRIST- CHURCH q 2 ccxliv TABLE OP MINTS, W^ILLIAM I -WILLIAM II I 11 III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III W^ALLING- FORD ^gelwine + (^glwine) ^Ifwiiie + + Brmul + + + + + Brihtic + {=Brihtric't) Brihtmxr + + + {MntfjU {Brlhtmar) i SOU Colbeni + P.C.B. Ed word + Godwine ■■ / + I (app. Osulf Rodberd Sweartlinc r + '(app.) {Sivertic, &c.) + + + + + + + Swetlind + Wideman + Anderhode (William I, type I). Col. Diirrant sale, 1847. lot 102. Probably Winchester. Leofxfold (William I, type IV). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 280. Probably Winchester. I II III IV V VI Vll VIII I II III IV V I II III WARE- HAM ^gelric 1 (^:glric) Bcrn'^ {Brum) Derlinc-' (Derlig) Godwine ^ SidelocS (Sidloc) Sidvman^ Tnrchil ^ + + + P.C.B. f Bodl. Ih.w.m. + + fHntr ^P.C.B. I 714 P.C.B. + H.S. + + • ■■ T.B. ' Type I PEUH/\ IV PEUHI VI PEUrei PERHE; VII. PEUH ; VIII, PEUEI, I>EHE, PER, PRE ^ confcs.or, PEUH/MM; in///«m/,typev, PEUHEI, PEU/\; VIII, PEUHM =^ Type V, P iVRI'>A ; VI, PARA ; XIV, P ARI-^A ' Type V, PER; VI PERH; VIII PERE, PERI ^ m/ «,„ / PEUIiE, PEUE: WiUia^n IL PEUH « Confc.sor, PEHH/M. PEUH/\, I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I n III IV V I II III W^AR- W^ICK ^.Iric 1 + Ed red 2 (Edredus) Essuwi^ ,• Everard ^ .. .. Forna'' ,, Godwine" ., Goldiiic' + + P.C.B. ,. lAfrir^ [Lrfric, &r.) + + •• '-3 For notes see pp. ccxlvi, ccxlvii. MONEYERS, AND TYPES ccxlv HENRY I STEPHEN IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII I XIV XV I II III-VI VII p. So ) + + P.C.B. ? + •• W^ALLING- FORD ^I'^j.johvine .•T<;ifvvine Brand Brihtic Brihtmser (Ilrihtmar) ( olbern Ed word God wine Osulf Rodberd Sweartliiic (Swei-tic, &c.) Svvetlind Wideman IVulfwinc (William I, type VII). Rev. H. Christmas sale, ISW, lot 207. [V V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII NC'92> p. 85 J + •• ■ • P.C.B. + ■ ) (app.) - P.C.B.?) ■WARE- HAM j4<;gclric 1 (.*:glric) Bern 2 (Brum) DerlincS (Derlig) Godvvinc * Sideloc s (Sidloc) Sidcman ^ Turchil ^ PEUI, PER, P/\RM; naroM. PEHH JKm\ ^ PARK PIPE William I. PEHH, PE See also ^N'arwick. Oodwine (William I, type VII). Brit. Num. Journ., vol. v, p. 112. (William II, types III and V). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 281. Leo/wold (William I, type IV). Col. Durrant sale, 1847, lot V.io. Probably Winchester. JA/wine (William I, type III). Brit. Xum. Journ., vol. v, p. 111. Osmxr (Henry I, type III). C. Warne sale, 1889, lot l,^7. Seoif-inan (William I, type IV). L. A. Lawrence sale, 1903, lot 52 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Britlon 1913, lot 702 (a double-struck coin, possibly Sideman?). >ale. IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV 1 II III-VI VII + AVAR- WICK M\v\c 1 Edred--; (P>dre(lus) P.C.B. + Kssuwi-' Kverard ■• P.C.B. Forna'' P.C.B. + Nott. 1 P.C.B. ; .. (Jodwines Goldinc "^ Lifric* (Lefric, &c.) ccxlvi TABLE OF MINTS, AVILLIAM I V/ILLIAM II I II III IV j V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III W^AR- AVICK {cont.) Lvfinc 9 (Lvflc, &c.) Sperhaf uc lo (Sperhavoc) Thidrsed n (Thidred) Thurcil 12 (Thrcil) P.C.B. P.C.B. + + + + + + + •• ^ PAR ' P ARPI ' Type XIII, P ARPIE ; XIV, P ARPI ' PGUP, PEUI « Confessor, PER^ ; William I, PEKPIE, PEUPI, PEUEP ; William 11, PKPIEE : Stephen, ^Jt/'AR ''' Confessor, VfB VSn, Harold 11, PE/tUP; William I, type IV, PyERI ; VIII, PEUPIi:, PERII!, PERI ^" William II, PRP; Henry I, type I, PR: Mule VxVI. I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III ■WAT- CHET Fo---? H---? Sigolf (Siwolf, &;c.) WILTON ^gelward (Ailward) ^Ifivine Brunig Falche (Falci) Godric Owi Ricard Sefara (Sefar, &c.) Scioine (Sxioi) Tomas Turchil Willem + rS. via V45,46 + P.C.B. + H.W.M. P.C'.B. + {Witfe i. 116 + P.C.B. P.C.B. -f + + + Stkm 4- -f + + + P.C.B. + + + + -t- .. H.M.R. Brihtmxr (William I, type III). M. H. Bobart sale, 1894, lot 5. Probably Wallingford. Dill[ma]n (Stephen, type VII). Sotheby, Dec. 20, 1911, lot 230. Probably Willem. Ooldwine (William I, type V). Removed to Winchcombe ; see Errata. AVINCH- COMBE Goldwlnc^ III VI VII VIII III IV III Confessor, PINEELE, PIMEEL, PIM, V\; Harold II, PIMEEU; MONEYERS, AND TYPES ccxlvii HENRY I STEPHEN IV V VI VII VIII IX ^ XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII WAR- -WICK {(■out.) Lufinc'-' (Lurtc, &c.) MULE P.C.B. + Sjierhiifuc '" (.Spcrhavoc) ThidrRHlii (Thidred) Tlmn-ilia (Tlircil) PAR ; type X PA 1^ PUnr E, VJKIV ME; V PEKIE: VIII PEUPIC, PEUPI l^TypcI.PIEUI See also Wareham. Ardulf (William I, type IV). W. A. Cotton sale, 1889, lot 53. Probably York. Lifwine (William I, type VIII). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 281. Wimond (William I, type VIII). W. A. Cotton sale, 1889, lot 63. Probably Winchester. IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII + .. + + + P.C.B. 1 &M.S.; + .. P.C.B. + WAT- CHET Fo - - - ? H---? Sigolf (Siwolf, &c.) W^ILTON ^■Ktlflwanl (Aihvaid) .Dlfwinc lirnnif^ Falclic (Falci) Godric ()\vi Uicard Sefara (Sefar, &c.) Scwinc (Soevvi) Tomas Turchil Willcm Leoftvold (William I, type IV). Li/wold (William I, type VII). H. Montagu sale, 189(5, lot 208. Probably Winchester. Num. Chron., 1901, p. 282. Probably Winchester. VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV XV III-VI ^VINCH- COMBE Goldwiiiei II7/«am7,typcV, PlKL, VllT., PIM, PIL; VIII. PIIEL, PltC ccxlviii TABLE OF MINTS, AVILLIAM I ■WILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II Ill IV V I II AVIN- CHESTER (Ail wine, &c.) ^stan &c.) + (L.A.L. I 43 + + 1 + 1 + SB.N.J. Ivi. 170 Mint ■■ Ailward Aldwinc Hntr Alfric Ahvold Anderboda (Andrbod, d'C.) + ,H. 'h. -\Allan ( 37 {,a 3p.) + + + Briinic Ckippig, see Kippig Edwinc Engelram (Hengeliani) Gefrei Godnoth + f + + + P.C.B. ? + Godwine (Ooicine, d:c.) fB.K.J. hi. 167 + + + + , MULE 1 , "*" H.M.K.r P.C.B. + S.M.S. E.C.L. / + Mapp.) Goldinc Hengeli-am, sec Engelram Hue Kippig (Ckippig) Lefwine + (S.vii'09 (. 114 Leoficold {Lifwold, etc.) Lifinc {Livi)ic, d-c.) + + + + + + + + /H.L.F. tP.C.B. + + + + LE . + + + Rogier (Rogir, &c.) Saiet (Saiod) Sawulf Siword (Si\vard,&c.) Sprseclinc {Spraclinc) Stigant [TJovi ? W.S.O. + + + + + + Stkm Bodl. ? Wiuiund + fSC'77 lp.346? P.C.B. P.C.B. jEaelwinc (William I, type VIII). C. Simpson sale, 1903, lot 2. Perhaps Wallingford? Mlf(jxrd (William I, type VIII). Num. Chron., 1877, p. 316, and J. D. Cuff sale, 1851, lot 709 ; probably Worcester. (William II, type II). Num. Chron., 1877, p. 316 = Catalogue, p. 212, nos. 170, 171 (Worcester). ^Ifwine (William II, type III). W. Allen sale, 1898. lot 361. AinulfCRcmy I, type VII). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 165. Brihtmxr (William I, type I). Col. Tobin Bush sale, 1902, lot 7. Probably Wallingford. Colbern (William II, type II). H. Montagu sale, 1896, lot 256 = B. Roth coll. (Wallingford). Colbrac „ ,, „ Num. Chron., 1877, p. 346; probably Bristol, Colblac. Edric (^^'illianl II, type I). „ „ „ „ = Catalogue, p. 219, no. 29 (London). Edvnne (WiUiam I, type I). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 283. „ (William II, tj-pe IV). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 283 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading of B. M. Catalogue, p. 259, no. 251 (Godwine). Godard (William I, type V). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 283; presumably a mistake for William II, type III, see below. (William II, type III). p. 2a3, no. 37. Godricus (Henry I, type XIV). Godwine (Henry I, type III). (Wallingford). Various sale catalogues, &c. False, cf. Brit. Num. Journ., vol. iii, J. G. Murdoch sale, 1903, lot 232 ; probably London. Num. Chron., 1901, p. 467 = Catalogue, Appendix, p. 406, no. 30 .\ MONEYEKS, AND TYPES ccxlix HENRY I STEPHEN II IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I + + + + + + II III-VI VII • Hntr P.C.B. (app.)/ P.C.B. + 1 (app.)J + L.A.L. NC'Ol) p. 469/ P.C.B. P.C.B. (app.)/ + 1 (app.)J P.C.B. B.K. Bscmi 83 / + P.C.B.? XC'Ol) p. 4651 + ?1 P.C.B./ + + liaxli I 470 J + + + + + + .. + -WIN- CHESTER -Klfwiiio (Ailwiiic, &c.) ,4<^ritan (.Kgstan, &c.) Aihvard Aldwine Alfric Alwold Aiulcrboda (Andrbod, &c.) Hruiiic Ckippig, see Kippig Edwme Eiigelram (Hongclrani) Ciefrci (Jodnoth Godwine (Gowine, &c.) Goldinc HOngclram, see Engelraui Hue Kippig (Ckippig) Lefwinc Leofwold (Lifwold, &c.) Liflnc (Livinc, &c.) Kogicr (Kogir, &c.) Saict (Saied) Sawnlf .Si word (Siward,&c.) Spra><'linc (Spraclinc) Stigant lT]ovi? Winuind Harold (Stephen, tjT)c I). J. K. Ford sale, 188L lot 258 ; perhaps Ahvold? nUpif/ ., „ E. W. Rashlcigh sale, 19(»9, lot 578 = Catalogue, p. 35:5, no. 120 (Kippig). Leofinnc (William I, typo VIII). Num. Chron., IttOl, p. 284. i^ifword (William I, mule VII x VIII). G. Wakeford sale, 1879, lot 6 = P. W. P. Carlyon-Bntton sale, 1913, lot 721 (Lef wold). Lufi-ic (William I, type I). Sotheby, Jan. 25, 1860, lot 105; probably Luflnc. Siword (Williiim I, mule VII x VIII). Various .sale catalogues, &c. False, of. Brit. Xuni. Journ., vol. iii, p. 283, no. 31. Spraclinc (William I, type IV). Xuni. Chron., 1901, p: 284. SwartUuc (William I, type I). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 284 ; probably Wallingford. SweatUnc (William I, type IV). Rev. E. J. Shepherd sale, 18S5, lot 117 = H. Montivgu sale, 1896, lot 211 = .J. G. Murdoch sale, 1903, lot IW! ; probably Wallingford. Swirtiiui (William I, type VI). Sotheby, June 4, 1855, lot 26, and S. Rostron sale, 1892, lot 13; probably Wallingford. Thurstan (William II, type I). F. G. Lawrence sale, 1900, lot 32 ; probably Lincoln. Willem (Stephen, type VII). Num. Chron., 190,5, p. 35.5 = Catalogue, p. 375, nos. 217-9 (Wilton). Wimunt (Henry I, type XV). Xum. Chron., 1901, p. 471 = Catalogue, p. 332, no. 296 (Kippig). IVuf/irine (William II, type II). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 284. Wuluord (William I, type V). ccl TABLE OF MINTS, W^ILLIAM I W^ILLIAM II I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II Ill IV V I II III "WORCES- TER ^Ifgferd (^Ifgffit, &c.) Api or Awi ? Baldric Eastmxr {Estmxr, &c.) Edwine Garulf Godric Heatheioulf Liofric Refwine Sewine Wiginc Wulfric + P.C.B. + Cpnhn + + + + H.L.F. Hntr L.E.B. + / + l(app.) + + + + + Mint + + P.C.B. + SNC'77 lp.346? P.C.B. + + Baldric Brihtric (William I, type VI). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 285. (William I, type IV). Sotheby, Jan. 25, 1860, lot 107. I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V I II III YORK Aleif Althur ( = Althurolf?) Althurolf Arcetel Arthulf, see Harthoulf Autgrim, see Outhgrim Autholf, see Outholf Coc, Toe Forn Harthoulf (Arthulf, &c.) Lxsing {Leigsinc, <&c.) Martin Outhbcom ( Uwthbern, d:c.) Outhgrim {Autgrim, &c.) Outholf {Autholf) Ra---? lioscetil Swcartcol Thorr { Thour) Turstan Ulf Ulfcctcl (Ulfketcl) Uncertain York + + York + + + + + + + + + + Sikm + + /LE.B. IP.C.B. + York + York Hntr -f + + + + + + -f P.C.B. + P.C.B. ^iet/ (William I, type I). Xum. Chron., 1904, p. 285. ./I ii(/io;/ (William I, type IV). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 286. Brihtnoth, Brihtred (Henry I, type I). Sotheby, April 16, 1874, lot 42, and T. W. U. Robinson sale, 1891, lot 49. Probably = S. M. Spink coll. (Lewes, Brihtmr). Brirnrth (Henry I, type III). Num. Chron., 1901, p. 489 = P. W.;P. Carlyon-Britton coll. (Thetford, Burhrd). Godrcwi (William II, type ITT). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 286 = Roberts MS. Catalogue reading, probably of B. M. Catalogue, p. 253, no. 225 (Thetford, Godric). MONEYEKS, AND TYPES ccli HENRY I VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XC '01) P.4T8S XV STEPHEN B.E.? II III-VI VII W^ORCES- TER ^•Klfgserd (vKlfgeet, &c.) Api or Awi? Baldric Eastiuaer (Estmser, &c.) Edwine Garulf Godric Heathewulf Liofric Kefwinc Sewine Wiginc JVulfric Godwine (William II, type II). Xum. Chron., 1877, p. 346 = Catalogue, p. 241, no. 169 (Winchester). Leo/wine „ „ „ Archd. Pownall sale, 1887, lot 65. IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV I II III-VI VII YORK Aleif Althur ( = Althurolf ?) Allhurolf Arcctel Aithulf, sec Harthoulf Autgrim, .see Outhgi'iiii Aulholf, .see Outholf + Coc, Toe ■■ P.C.B. Forn Harthoulf (Arthulf, &c.) La\-iing + + B.R. (Leigsinc, &c.) Martin Outhbeorn (L'wthbern, &c.) Outligrim (Aulgrim, cSCC.) Outholf (Autholf) B.li. H.M.R. T.B. ? P.C.B. Mint? + + + ■■ + Ra - - - ? Roscctcl Sweartcol Thorr (Thour) Tur.-^tan Ulf Ulfcetcl (Ulfketel) Uncertain Godwine (William I, type II). J. D. Cuff sale, 1851, lot 663 ; probably = J. B. Bergne sale, 1873, lot 291 (Stafford). Lcofxoine (William I, type III). Archaeologia, vol. iv, p. 286. Li/wine (William II, type II). Num. Chron., 1877, p. 346, probably Dover. J. D. Cuff sale, 1854, lot 723 = Catalogue, p. 229, no. 86 (Dover). W. C. Hazlitt sale, 1909, lot 1048 = R. C. Lockett coll. (Dover). Outhbeorn (William I, t}T)e I). Num. Chron., 1904, p. 286. Sibern (Stephen, type I). Num. Chron., 1850, p. 161 ; probably Hereford. ccli TABLE FOR CONVERTING ENGLISH INCHES INTO MILLIMETRES AND THE MEASURES OF MIONNET'S SCALE EnCLiSH Inches Fren CH Millimetres 3 5 2o 1-5 1- ■0 •s 7 •6 •5 •J. •3 •J 05 90 S5 Iionnet's Scale ^^ 18 75 70 C5 CO 55 50 45 40 35 SO 25 20 15 10 35 11 II 1 1 * ' 1 ccliv TABLE OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF ENGLISH GRAINS AND FRENCH GRAMMES Grains. Grammes. Grains. Grammes. Grains. Grammes. Grains. Grammes. 1 •064 41 2-656 81 5-248 121 7-840 2 •129 42 2-720 82 5-312 122 7-905 3 •194 43 2-785 83 5-378 123 7-970 4 •259 44 2-850 84 5-442 124 8035 5 •324 45 2-915 85 5-508 125 8^100 6 •388 46 2-980 86 5-572 126 8164 7 •453 47 3-045 87 5-637 127 8^229 8 •518 48 3-110 88 5-702 128 8^294 9 •583 49 3-175 89 5-767 129 8359 10 •648 50 3-240 90 5-832 130 8-424 11 •712 51 3-304 91 5-896 131 8-488 12 •777 52 3-368 92 5-961 132 8-553 13 •842 53 3-434 93 6026 133 8-618 14 •907 54 3-498 94 6091 134 8-682 15 •972 55 3-564 95 6-156 135 8-747 16 1036 56 3-628 96 6-220 136 8-812 17 1101 57 3-693 97 6-285 137 8-877 18 1166 58 3-758 98 6-350 138 8-942 19 1-231 59 3-823 99 6-415 139 9-007 20 1-296 60 3-888 100 6-480 140 9-072 21 1-360 61 3-952 101 6-544 141 9-136 22 1-425 62 4-017 102 6-609 142 9-200 23 1490 63 4-082 103 6-674 143 9-265 24 1-555 64 4146 104 6-739 144 9-330 9-395 25 1-620 65 4-211 105 6-804 145 26 1-684 66 4-276 106 6-868 146 9-460 27 1-749 67 4-341 107 6-933 147 9-525 28 1-814 68 4-406 108 6-998 7-063 148 9-590 29 1-879 69 4-471 109 149 9-655 30 1-944 70 4-536 110 7-128 150 9-720 31 2-008 71 4-600 111 7-192 151 9-784 32 2-073 72 4-665 112 7-257 152 9-848 33 2-138 73 4-729 113 7322 153 9-914 34 2-202 74 4-794 114 7^387 154 9-978 35 2-267 75 4^859 115 7452 155 10044 36 2-332 76 4-924 116 7-516 156 10-108 37 2-397 77 4-989 117 7-581 157 10-173 38 2-462 78 5054 118 7-646 158 10-238 39 2-527 79 5-119 119 7-711 159 10-303 40 2-592 80 5184 120 7-77G 160 10-368 cclv TABLE OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF ENGLISH GRAINS AND FRENCH GRAMMES Grains. Grammes. Grains. Grammes. Grains. Grammes. Grains. Grammes. 161 10-432 201 13-024 241 15-616 290 18-79 162 10-497 202 13089 242 15-680 300 19-44 163 10-562 203 13154 243 15-745 310 20-08 164 10-626 204 13-219 244 15-810 320 20-73 165 10-691 205 13-284 245 15-875 330 21-38 166 10-756 206 13-348 246 15-940 340 22-02 167 10-821 207 13-413 247 16-005 350 22-67 168 10-886 208 13.478 248 16-070 360 23-32 169 10-951 209 13-543 249 16-135 370 23-97 170 11-016 210 13-608 250 16-200 380 24-62 171 11-080 211 13-672 251 16-264 390 25-27 172 11-145 212 13-737 252 16-328 400 25-92 173 11-209 213 13-802 253 16-394 410 26-56 174 11-274 214 13-867 254 16-458 420 27-20 175 11-339 215 13-932 255 16-524 430 27-85 176 11-404 216 13-996 256 16-588 440 28-50 177 11-469 217 14.061 257 16-653 450 29-15 178 11-534 218 14-126 258 16-718 460 29-80 179 11-599 219 14-191 259 16-783 470 30-45 180 11-664 220 14-256 260 16-848 480 31-10 181 11-728 221 14-320 261 16-912 490 31-75 182 11-792 222 14-385 262 16-977 500 32-40 183 11-858 223 14-450 263 17-042 510 33-04 184 11-922 224 14-515 264 17-106 520 33-68 185 11-988 225 14-580 265 17-171 530 34-34 186 12-052 226 14-644 266 17-236 540 34-98 187 12117 227 14-709 267 17-301 550 35-64 188 12-182 228 14-774 268 17-366 560 36-28 189 12-247 229 14-839 269 17-431 570 36-93 190 12-312 230 14-904 270 17-496 580 37-58 191 12-376 231 14-968 271 17-560 590 38-23 192 12-441 232 15-033 272 17-625 600 38-88 193 12-506 233 15-098 273 17-689 700 45-36 194 12-571 234 15-162 274 17-754 800 51-84 195 12-636 235 15-227 275 17-819 900 58-32 196 12-700 236 15-292 276 17-884 1000 . 64-80 197 12-765 237 15-357 277 17-949 2000 129-60 198 12-830 238 15-422 278 18-014 3000 194-40 199 12-895 239 15-487 279 18-079 4000 259-20 200 12-960 240 15-552 280 18-144 5000 324-00 IE SERl HENRY I Types XIV, XV B Ci D E F G U I H M n o p T \; P X o EPIGRAPHIOAL TABLE (.ee pp. xm-n,,) SERIES I SERIES II SERIES III SERIES IV SERIES V SERIES VI SERIES VII SERIES VIII SERIES IX WILLI4M I WILLIAM II WILLIAM II WILLIAM II 1 HENBY I HENEY I HENRY I HEHRY I HENRY I STEPHEN STEPHEN STEPHEN Types I VIII Types I, II, III Types III, IV Type V 1 Type I Types II, III, IV Types V-XI Types IX-XIV Types Types XIV, XV I, II Types II, III. Types V, VI, VII 11 M ^ n H II II A II ^V -^ A A K A ^ « "Ft 3t t\ 1} t It B B B B I^ B E I) r C r E c E E c E C E C n C x> I) l> D I) D D D D E F e K E c E E e E E E E E r F F f: F F F F F p pi 0" c 0^ Cv c cr o- or €" e< ©- C o G o C H H H H ■> F» 1-% I-t Y^ I-. I I I 1 I I I I I L r L L 1- L L L I, K L T-. L M H u H M M M iNf M on M M M M H 11 8 N I^I N »■ H H M N H N N N N O O o O o C) O O O O O () P I> P ■» P P P P I> u U R R It, R R « V> B s 2 /v "h S- f, S S s S S xjrv » T * T T i. T T T T T T T T T T T T T u II V XX TI II -M- V V V *^ \r V V p r D > x> P ■» P p \w- p ^3e^ P P y. 4- X. * K -f- ►♦- X X * ^ >f X ^ HB HB »• -^ HH •» » » ■^ « « TI-» TI^ yE 'E IE IE IE IE iE "i" * + T •I- * * -F Hh * + + ♦ * « >i< 3 O NORMAN KINGS. PLATE I. ^^>-- '*^^??V ^ •^ 14 .i^^J WILLIAM I. TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE II 4 i^X^ P.C.B. sale, 1913. Lot 677. >;7«^rT5: ~r 14 i^ 16 WILLIAM I. TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE III. WILLIAM I. TYPE I; MULES: CONFESSOR x ||, | x | NORMAN KINGS. PLATE IV. --z^r^'^i ^A,x^ r.7,: 13 WILLIAM I. TYPE II. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE VI. '^^^^ 1T S-V-i-l . .' XrC=7j WILLIAM I. TYPE 11; MULE II x III. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE VII. I. TYPE III. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE VIII. XL/r HUN I'tK. W ILLIAM I. TYPE 111; MULE III x IV; TYPE IV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE IX. -'i>-^-6<> WILLIAM I. TYPE IV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE X. -'^f^bs v^-^v 16 WILLIAM I. TYPE IV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XI. WILLIAM I. MULE IV x V ; TYPE V. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XII. PK^' /'^^A^c^ WILLIAM I. TYPE V. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XIII. WILLIAM I. TYPE V. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XIV. WILLIAM I. TYPES V AND VI. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XV. WILLIAM I. TYPE VI. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XVI. ,^_y^- .r-:s:5s. 4^?^. WILLIAM I. TYPES VI AND VII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XVII. Cr. ^ X,''i- ^r^.>\ ,.-^r^<:; ^i^^&^. .^^9t 9 ^ • r=7^- /M^ 3i.f WILLIAM I. TYPE VIII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XX. ('' f-^s*^^ r^ WILLIAM I. TYPE VIM. -•-T^^. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXI. -/vv' / i6 WILLIAM I. TYPE VIII. ^^/ NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXII, i^^y <3;li^ t-ii£ ^'1 §« WILLIAM I. TYPE VIII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXIII. s>>v Mmi. /m^ ^%«Q EPi"-/j'/-',i'j / '" .i^.: t> -. WILLIAM I. TYPE VIII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXIV. f-/^ \^. WILLIAM I. TYPE VIII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXV. WILLIAM I. TYPE Vlil. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXVI. .<-> .^m>. 0M^ WILLIAM I. TYPE VIII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXVII. .^:sm.:. >a^ WILLIAM I. TYPE VIII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXVIll. WILLIAM TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXIX ~'\o Mt"' ■-''— ---I" '■^ /- •>=i«^- ///-' WILLIAM II. TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXX. r-^*^-/ ,<>Jji^ WILLIAM IL TYPE I; MULE 1 x M. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXI. l?^^' /^r 'r\ WILLIAM II. TYPE II. jcm: NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXII. WILLIAM II. TYPE II. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXIII. -^^ WILLIAM II. TYPE II. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXIV. h. 'i'^'L ^ .y^' i6 WILLIAM II. TYPE III. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXV. v.i>-ii: .i77- ^^^.■'/■4^y 11 > ' ^ ■- - X, ;-^, r I- f..'- ;^^'-'X #r, COPENHAOrN. WILLIAM II. TYPE III. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXVI ^ ^ - '/; ,-/ .r^i ■ j#^- "■ • - WILLIAM II. TYPE IV; MULE IV x V. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXVII. ';&- NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXVlll. 2 sr'J?7^-'> ' , ,- 'v "^. HENRY I. TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XXXIX. /f^J?' :tJ^i.. -i"-.-/- HENRY I. TYPES II, III, IV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XL. -*-S. /" jy. <^' j0f -~ --v /^^rM'\ EVANS. HENRY I. TYPE V; MULE V x VI; TYPES VI, VII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLI HENRY I. TYPES VIII, IX; MULE IX x X; TYPE X. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLll. y^f-v- :^. ss N '®i HENRY I. TYPE X; MULE XI x X; TYPES XI, XII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLIIl. ^^■ Ulffex ^;^. HENRY I. TYPE XIII; MULE Xlll x XIV, NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLIV. '^■^•^:^^>^/ HENRY I. TYPE XIV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLV. ^1U> -^-ly>' -vfn I -- - :t HENRY I. TYPE XIV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLVI. ^-."^^y:^ ■-^■f-t^. 0§^ A&J^k HENRY I. TYPE XIV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLVII. ''^3^ Vi,. .*>_!^, HENRY 1. TYPE XV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLVIII. .'-:>.^^-. ^ w.c.w. i- '-. HENRY I. TYPE XV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE XLIX. rr^ STEPHEN. TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE L. Y' 'JM. '/•^7.^ •■ V. STEPHEN. TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE LI. '. V / ^ - --2::::' ■ ^ STEPHEN. TYPE I. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE Lll. -.1^ ^l^-^ ^ ( ?^ / " <- ^ r*- ■-'-^J-, ■A /, ^-^y^:;.. <<:^i^ / /^^fev ^:^f STEPHEN. TYPE NORMAN KINGS. PLATE Llll. . i&^ ■^\JJ' ?i' ■ " I -./•'!?,1 ll?.\/^ ^ y^^^^^-'i i6 W*!^'" ■^u STEPHEN. MULE I x ||, TYPE II. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE LIV. .#^ I :rj:- ■'■■{is:. J . -I i ' V,* • r »J ^ * '"^ ♦rue' 'P^M^- ^^y. W^^'^' I ■''%5^&^ -^-r- J" ^'r STEPHEN. TYPES II, III, IV. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE LV. ^ J^\^ ( ^^S '^^ "Z>^/ lo ^>Ci ^^^^ ./^_ 'J -i.v/^V '?:-;;.rr--'' STEPHEN. TYPES V, VI, VII. NORMAN KINGS. PLATE LVI. STEPHEN. TYPE VII. * '0 ■ -^ /'^v;^\ /-,> NORMAN KINGS. PLATE LVII. ^^,i^ Sotheby, 26. vii. 19 n I /■ *■■ -^ '^'. V ''''*i-i'- ^ ^^fC^^ 6 '-.^^^M' 6 B.R. yr^^/V ^i- ^%=^! v^i HENRY OF ANJOU; ROBERT OF GLOUCESTER ('»; WILLIAM OF GLOUCESTER (0; BRIAN FITZCOUNT (?> AND UNCERTAIN BARONIAL. ■6 ' ifc^* A Unwflfsily 01 CaWomu. Los -wioma. Los Angeles IPI||||I||II|II|||I|I| L 006 346 118 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY EACILITY AA 001 199 239 3