Chapter CXXIX: Appendix: K.—Values of certain Moneys, Weights, and Measures,

occurring in this Book_.

FRENCH MONEY.

The +Livre Tournois+ of the period may be taken, on the mean of five valuations cited in a footnote at p. 87 of vol. i., as equal in _modern silver value_ to ... 18·04 _francs._

Say English money ... 14_s._ 3·8_d._

The +Livre Parisis+ was worth one-fourth more than the _Tournois_,[1] and therefore equivalent in silver value to ... 22·55 _francs._

Say English money ... 17_s._ 10·8_d._

(Gold being then to silver in relative value about 12:1 instead of about 15:1 as now, one-fourth has to be added to the values based on silver in equations with the gold coin of the period, and one-fifth to be deducted in values based on gold value. By oversight, in vol. i. p. 87, I took 16:1 as the present gold value, and so exaggerated the value of the livre Tournois as compared with gold.)

M. Natalis de Wailly, in his recent fine edition of Joinville, determines the valuation of these _livres_, in the reign of St. Lewis, by taking a mean between a value calculated on the present value of silver, and a value calculated on the present value of gold,[2] and his result is:

+Livre Tournois+ = ... 20·26 _francs._
+Livre Parisis+ = ... 25·33 „

Though there is something arbitrary in this mode of valuation, it is, perhaps, on the whole the best; and its result is extremely handy for the memory (as somebody has pointed out) for we thus have

One +Livre Tournois+ = One Napoleon.
„ „ +Parisis+ = One Sovereign.

VENETIAN MONEY.

The +Mark+ of Silver all over Europe may be taken fairly at 2_l._ 4_s._ of our money in modern value; the Venetian mark being a fraction more, and the marks of England, Germany and France fractions less.[3]

The Venice +Gold Ducat+ or +Zecchin+, first coined in accordance with a Law of 31st October 1283, was, _in our gold value_, worth ... 11·82 _francs._[4] or English ... 9_s._ 4·284_d._

The Zecchin when first coined was fixed as equivalent to 18 _grossi_, and on this calculation the +Grosso+ should be a little less than 5_d._ sterling.[5] But from what follows it looks as if there must have been another _grosso_, perhaps only of account, which was only ¾ of the former, therefore equivalent to 3¾_d._ only. This would be a clue to difficulties which I do not find dealt with by anybody in a precise or thorough manner; but I can find no evidence for it.

Accounts were kept at Venice not in ducats and grossi, but in _Lire_, of which there were several denominations, _viz._:

1. +Lira dei Grossi+, called in Latin Documents _Libra denariorum
Venetorum grosorum_.[6] Like every _Lira_ or Pound, this
consisted of 20 _soldi_, and each _soldo_ of 12 _denari_ or
_deniers_.[7] In this case the Lira was equivalent to 10 golden
ducats; and its Denier, as the name implies, was the _Grosso_.
The Grosso therefore here was ¹⁄₂₄₀ of 10 ducats or ¹⁄₂₄ of a
ducat, instead of ¹⁄₁₈.

2. +Lira ai Grossi+ (_L. den. Ven. ad grossos_). This by decree of
2nd June, 1285, went two to the ducat. In fact it is the _soldo_
of the preceding _Lira_, and as such the _Grosso_ was, as we have
just seen, its denier; which is perhaps the reason of the name.

3. +Lira dei Piccoli+ (_L. den. Ven. parvulorum_). The ducat is
alleged to have been at first equal to three of these _Lire_
(_Romanin_, I. 321); but the calculations of Marino Sanudo
(1300–1320) in the _Secreta Fidelium Crucis_ show that he reckons
the Ducat equivalent to 3·2 _lire_ of _piccoli_.[8]

In estimating these _Lire_ in modern English money, on the basis of their relation to the ducat, we must reduce the apparent value by ⅕. We then have:

1. +Lira dei Grossi+ equivalent to nearly 3_l._ 15_s._ 0_d._
(therefore exceeding by nearly 10_s._ the value of the Pound
sterling of the period, or _Lira di Sterlini_, as it was called
in the appropriate Italian phrase).[9]

2. +Lira ai Grossi+ ... 3_s._ 9_d._

3. +Lira dei Piccoli+ ... 2_s._ 4_d._

The +Tornese+ or +Tornesel+ at Venice was, according to Romanin (III. 343) = 4 Venice deniers: and if these are the _deniers_ of the _Lira ai Grossi_, the coin would be worth a little less than ¾_d._, and nearly the equivalent of the denier Tournois, from which it took its name.[10]

* * * * *

The term +Bezant+ is used by Polo always (I believe) as it is by Joinville, by Marino Sanudo, and by Pegolotti, for the Egyptian gold dínár, the intrinsic value of which varied somewhat, but can scarcely be taken at less than 10_s._ 6_d._ or 11_s._ (See _Cathay_, pp. 440–441; and see also _J. As._ sér. VI. tom. xi. pp. 506–507.) The exchange of Venice money for the Bezant or Dinar in the Levant varied a good deal (as is shown by examples in the passage in _Cathay_ just cited), but is always in these examples a large fraction (⅙ up to ⅓) more than the Zecchin. Hence, when Joinville gives the equation of St. Lewis’s ransom as 1,000,000 _bezants_ or 500,000 _livres_, I should have supposed these to be _livres Parisis_ rather than _Tournois_, as M. de Wailly prefers.

There were a variety of coins of lower value in the Levant called Bezants,[11] but these do not occur in our Book.

* * * * *

The Venice +Saggio+, a weight for precious substances was ⅙ of an ounce, corresponding to the weight of the Roman gold _solidus_, from which was originally derived the Arab +Misḳál+. And Polo appears to use _saggio_ habitually as the equivalent of _Misḳál_. His +pois+ or +peso+, applied to gold and silver, seems to have the same sense, and is indeed a literal translation of _Misḳál_. (See vol. ii. p. 41.)

* * * * *

For measures Polo uses the _palm_ rather than the foot. I do not find a value of the Venice palm, but over Italy that measure varies from 9½ inches to something over 10. The Genoa Palm is stated at 9·725 inches.

_Jal_ (_Archéologie Nav._ I. 271) cites the following Table of

_Old Venice Measures of Length_.

4 fingers = 1 handbreadth.
4 handbreadths = 1 foot.
5 feet = 1 pace.
1000 paces = 1 mile.
4 miles = 1 league.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] See (_Dupré de St. Maur_) _Essai sur les Monnoies, &c._ Paris, 1746, p. xv; and _Douet d’Arcq_, pp. 5, 15, &c.

[2] He takes the _silver value_ of the gros Tournois (the _sol_ of the
system) at 0·8924 _fr._, whence the Livre = 17·849 _fr._ And the
_gold value_ of the golden _Agnel_, which passed for 12½ _sols
Tournois_, is 14·1743 _fr._ Whence the Livre = 22·6789 _fr._ Mean =
20·2639 _fr._

[3] The Mark was ⅔ of a pound. The English +Pound Sterling+ of the
period was in silver value = 3_l._ 5_s._ 2_d._ Hence the +Mark+
= 2_l._ 3_s._ 5·44_d._ The Cologne Mark, according to Pegolotti,
was the same, and the Venice Mark of silver was = 1 English Tower
Mark + 3½ sterlings (_i.e._ pence of the period), = therefore to
2_l._ 4_s._ 4·84_d._ The French Mark of Silver, according to Dupré
de St. Maur, was about 3 Livres, presumably Tournois, and therefore
2_l._ 2_s._ 11½_d._

[4] _Cibrario, Pol. Ec. del Med. Evo._ III. 228. The +Gold Florin+ of
Florence was worth a fraction more = 9_s._ 4·85_d._

Sign. Desimoni, of Genoa, obligingly points out that the changed
relation of Gold ducat and silver _grosso_ was due to a general
rise in price of gold between 1284 and 1302, shown by notices of
other Italian mints which raise the equation of the gold florin in
the same ratio, viz. from 9 _sols tournois_ to 12.

[5] For ¹⁄₁₈ of the florin will be 6·23_d._, and deducting ⅕, as
pointed out above, we have 4·99_d._ as the value of the _grosso_.

I have a note that the _grosso_ contained 42⁶⁸⁄₁₄₄ Venice grains of
pure silver. If the Venice grain be the same as the old Milan grain
(·051 _grammes_) this will give exactly the same value of 5_d._

[6] Also called, according to Romanin, _Lira d’imprestidi_. See Introd.
Essay in vol. i. p. _66_.

[7] It is not too universally known to be worth noting that our £. s.
d. represents _Livres, sois, deniers_.

[8] He also states the grosso to have been worth 32 _piccoli_, which
is consistent with this and the two preceding statements. For at
3·2 _lire_ to the ducat the latter would = 768 piccoli, and ¹⁄₂₄ of
this = 32 piccoli. Pegolotti also assigns 24 grossi to the ducat
(p. 151).

The tendency of these _Lire_, as of pounds generally, was to
degenerate in value. In Uzzano (1440) we find the Ducat equivalent
to 100 _soldi_, _i.e._ to 5 _lire_.

Everybody seems to be tickled at the notion that the Scotch Pound
or Livre was only 20 Pence. Nobody finds it funny that the French
or Italian Pound is only 20 halfpence, or less!

[9] _Uzzano_ in _Della Decima_, IV. 124.

[10] According to Gallicciolli (II. 53) _piccoli_ (probably in the vague
sense of small copper coin) were called in the Levant τορνέσια.

[11] Thus in the document containing the autograph of King Hayton,
presented at p. _13_ of Introductory Essay, the King gives with
his daughter, “Damoiselle Femie,” a dowry of 25,000 _besans
sarrazinas_, and in payment 4 of his own bezants _staurats_
(presumably so called from bearing a _cross_) are to count as one
Saracen Bezant. (_Cod. Diplomat. del S. Mil. Ord. Gerosolim_. I.
134.)