HKB
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 2l. 4s. 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 ... 9s. 4·284d.
The Zecchin when first coined was fixed as equivalent to 18 grossi, and on this calculation the +Grosso+ should be a little less than 5d. 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 3¾d. 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.:
+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.
+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.
+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:
+Lira dei Grossi+ equivalent to nearly 3l. 15s. 0d. (therefore exceeding by nearly 10s. the value of the Pound sterling of the period, or Lira di Sterlini, as it was called in the appropriate Italian phrase).[9]
+Lira ai Grossi+ ... 3s. 9d.
+Lira dei Piccoli+ ... 2s. 4d.
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 10s. 6d. or 11s. (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.