HKB
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 = 3l. 5s. 2d. Hence the +Mark+ = 2l. 3s. 5·44d. 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 2l. 4s. 4·84d. The French Mark of Silver, according to Dupré de St. Maur, was about 3 Livres, presumably Tournois, and therefore 2l. 2s. 11½d.
[4] Cibrario, Pol. Ec. del Med. Evo. III. 228. The +Gold Florin+ of Florence was worth a fraction more = 9s. 4·85d.
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 6·23d., and deducting ⅕, as pointed out above, we have 4·99d. 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 5d.
[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!