The Travels of Marco Polo Volume II Part 108

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 extremedy 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 3/4 of the former, therefore equivalent to 3-3/4_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 Doc.u.ments _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 1/5. 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 3/4_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 dinar, 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._ ser. 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 pa.s.sage in _Cathay_ just cited), but is always in these examples a large fraction (1/6 up to 1/3) 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 1/6 of an ounce, corresponding to the weight of the Roman gold _solidus_, from which was originally derived the Arab MISKaL And Polo appears to use _saggio_ habitually as the equivalent of _Miskal_. His POIS or PESO, applied to gold and silver, seems to have the same sense, and is indeed a literal translation of _Miskal_. (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 9-1/2 inches to something over 10. The Genoa Palm is stated at 9.725 inches.

_Jal_ (_Archeologie 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 (_Dupre 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 pa.s.sed for 12-1/2 _sols Tournois_, is 14.1743 _fr._ Whence the Livre = 22.6789 _fr._ Mean = 20.2639 _fr._

[3] The Mark was 2/3 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 + 3-1/2 sterlings (i.e. pence of the period), = therefore to 2_l._ 4_s._ 4.84_d._ The French Mark of Silver, according to Dupre de St. Maur, was about 3 Livres, presumably Tournois, and therefore 2_l._ 2_s._ 11-1/2_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 1/6, as pointed out above, we have 4.99_d._ as the value of the _grosso_.

I have a note that the _grosso_ contained 42-88/144 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 a.s.signs 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. n.o.body finds it funny that the French or Italian Pound is only 20 halfpence, or less!

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

[10] According to Galliccioli (II. 53) _piccoli_ (probably in the vague sense of small copper coin) were called in the Levant [Greek: tornesia].

[11] Thus in the doc.u.ment 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.)