XV.

THE STATUS OF THE ANGLO-NORMAN MONEYER.

1

WHAT was the rank of the old moneyers, whose "Christian names are preserved on the coins which they struck, is a question which, as Ruding says, is by no means of easy solution, and a ray of light upon it may therefore not be unacceptable. After summing up the evidence, which it is unnecessary to recapitulate here, Ruding comes to the conclusion that they were men of neither very high nor very low degree. This, it must be confessed, is rather vague, and leaves ample scope for conjecture as to what position among the "great middle classes" of those times they did actually occupy.

In an Appendix to John of Oxenede's Chronicle, published in the Rolls Series, will be found a list of the names of the moneyers who were summoned to attend a Trial of the Pyx at Westminster in 1248, the year of Henry III.'s great recoinage, every town being represented by four moneyers. Having been lately engaged in studying the work of the Gloucester Mint, I naturally referred to this list, and found the representatives of the town to have been

1

Johannes filius Simonis,

Ricardus le François,

Rogerius de Emcp'se,

Lucas Cornubiæ.

[On the subject of the "Custodes Cuneorum," see a Paper by the late Mr. Fairholt ("Num. Chon." N.S., vol. v. p. 361).—ED.]

That these men were the actual "moneyers" is proved by the occurrence of Long-cross pennies bearing the names of ION, RICARD, ROGER, and LVαAS.

Now at this period Gloucester was governed by two Bailiffs, chosen annually, and these moneyers at one time or another all filled this high office. The dates are not always ascertainable, but it appears that they served in the following years, at any rate:-Roger Lenveyse, Danveise, or le Wyse, in 1245; Richard Franceys in 1249; John Simon, Simund, or FitzSimon, and Roger Lenveyse in 1252; Lucas Cornubiensis in 1254; and John FitzSimon again in 1255.

So much for their rank as public men. The Registers of the Abbey of Gloucester, now preserved in the Cathedral Library, throw some further light on their social position in private life. These registers consist of collections of deeds relating to the transfer of land and property to the Abbey; and at this particular period the names in question occur as witnesses in almost every document; but there are also a few in which they occur as principals.

From these it appears that Alexander Durand of Gloucester held land and houses in the Zonaria or Mercers' Row, which he sold to Richard Franceys, "Burgensis Gloucestriæ," for 22 merks, and which Franceys then transferred to Nicholas de Hatherley, who was brother of Alexander Durand, for 28 merks, Nicholas then making a deed of gift of the property to the Abbey. These Durands were sons of Maurice Durand, sometime Bailiff of Gloucester, and of Dionysia Lenveyse; and they were doubtless descendants of Durandus of Gloucester, who was Vicecomes or Sheriff when Domesday was compiled, and who held four mansions in the borough and considerable lands in the county.

The whole of the transactions above alluded to would seem to have taken place in one year, for all the documents are attested by Roger le Enveyse and William de Chiltenham-"tunc Ballivis Gloucestria "-John FitzSimon, Lucas Cornubiensis, and others.

In another deed, apparently of the same year, a grant is made of "Unam shoppam in vico draperiæ de Gloucestria"-(the Mercers' Row)-" ex opposito shoppæ Rogeri Lenveyse." From this it would therefore appear that Lenveyse was a mercer.

The Cornish family was also an important one in Gloucester. In 1252 Emma Dorilot sells her land in Berlone (now Bearland), to Stephen Cornubiensis for "iii merks and xl pence;" and in a deed dated 1302, Luke Cornubiensis is mentioned as having formerly held land in the great street of Gloucester (Westgate Street), near Trinity Church.

I have not been able to ascertain much about FitzSimon, apart from his being Bailiff for more than one year, except that in a deed of 1254 he is styled "Dominus," a title which was not bestowed on the Town Clerk in the same deed.

There are numbers of deeds of this period in the possession of the Corporation which I hope to investigate, and which may throw further light on the subject; but enough has, I think, been said to show that all these men were Burgesses of considerable importance, well-to-do merchants, men of property, well connected, and holding the highest position in the borough. The natural inference, therefore, is that the office of moneyer was, at any rate in Gloucester, bestowed on the most responsible citizens.

It would be interesting to know what tale the archives of the other cities, enumerated in Henry III.'s summons to

Westminster, have to tell; and I hope that other members may think it worth their while to investigate the matter.

There is just one question I should like to raise before leaving this subject. Is it not possible that the condition of the moneyer was modified by French influence? Mons. Dumas 2 tells us that, so far back as 864, no one could be received as a master moneyer unless he were descended from the old coiners, who were men of gentle blood, and privileged to dine at the king's table. So strongly recognised was this privilege of birth, that Henry V. of England, in 1420, finding it necessary to increase the work of the Rouen mint, had search made for descendants of the old moneyers to the fourth and fifth generation, and not finding sufficient he created twelve new ones. Louis XI., on his accession in 1462, was only able to create one new moneyer at the Paris mint. The moneyers enjoyed exemption from all manner of taxes, aids, imposts, and subsidies.

Perhaps Henry II., in summoning the aid of the French artist, Philip Aymary, to reorganize his coinage in 1180, had recourse to a better class of moneyers on the French model, granting them privileges which grew afterwards into the same freedom from taxation enjoyed by their French brethren. This would account for our finding a superior rank of men holding the office in Henry III.'s time than the references in Domesday quoted by Ruding would betoken. Philip Aymary himself would not have been likely to place his name on the coin if the other moneyers of the time had not been his equals in rank, and we may fairly presume that he was a man of some social position. J. DRUMMOND ROBERTSON.

2

Notes sur l'Emission en France des monnaies décimales de bronze," p. 39, note. (Paris, 1868.)

XVI.

ON SOME RARE AND UNPUBLISHED COINS OF THE PATHAN AND MOGUL

DYNASTIES OF DEHLI.

SINCE the publication of Marsden's "Numismata Orientalia," and the subsequent work by Thomas on the "Pathan Kings of Dehli," many new specimens of the Pathan and Mogul series have been discovered; but save one paper in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society by Mr. Thomas, notices of the Pathan coins have only appeared in the Journals of the Asiatic Societies of Bengal and Bombay; while, as regards the illustrations, they have been chiefly confined to outline lithographs. Of the Moguls I know only of two or three notices in the Bengal Asiatic Society's Proceedings by Mr. Delmerick, the rupees of Akbar's Ilahi years, by Mr. C. J. Rodgers, and a paper on the Zodiacal coins of Jehangir by myself in the Bombay Society's Journal.

As the circulation of these journals is limited and does not extend to the same class of readers as the NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE, it occurred to me that from my own collection, aided by those of General Cunningham,

VOL. V. THIRD SERIES.

FF