MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL
MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL
6 MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL mint and one moneyer at Reading. But by a writ of Roger of Salisbury, acting as viceroy in the king's absence, addressed to Alberic (Aubrey) de Vere as sheriff of London, this was varied to the grant of a moneyer at London, the first holder of the office to be Edgar. The date of the writ has been put between 1125 and 1128 or 1129. Aubrey seems to have ceased to be sheriff by Michaelmas 1128, but Henry was abroad from July 1123 to September 1126 and August 1127 to July 1129 so it cannot belong to the period Sept. 1126 - Aug. 1127. 35 Coins of London with the name Aedgar are known only of type XV, but he minted at Ipswich in types XIII and XIV and again under Stephen. If the date of the writ could be established more closely, therefore, it might offer a useful clue to when Edgar ceased to coin at Ipswich and took up office at London (although there may have been an interval between the two). None of the foregoing is at all conclusive as to the date when type XV, with its attendant reform of the mint network, was introduced, but it does throw some light on the process. Strangely, none of the persons described in the 1130 Pipe Roll as moneyers or as owing fines related to monetary offences appears, on the evidence of surviving coins, to have gone out of office permanently at the end, or during the course, of type XIV. The only moneyer of this kind who is unknown on coins later than type XIV is Spracheling, if the same as Sperling, but his coins end with type XIII. If we can take the individual Pipe Roll entries as representative, some of those punished did not operate in type XV although their mints remained active, e.g. Algar of London, but in the case of others, e.g. Brand of Chichester, their mints were closed anyway, so they were not necessarily debarred from office. Some were punished but continued in office in type XV, e.g. Gillopatric at Pembroke and Alvric at Winchester. In the light of this, I find it difficult to see the reduction in the number, and change in the identity, of moneyers between types XIV and XV as solely a response to the dishonest practices punished at the Winchester assize. For instance, Aedgar of Ipswich would presumably not have been given such a respectable post soon afterwards if he had been suspended from office at Ipswich for misbehaviour. Three of the five Ipswich moneyers of type XIV reappear under Stephen, including Aedgar, yet it was the Sudbury moneyer Osbern who was drafted to Ipswich as sole moneyer in type XV, while he in turn was replaced at Sudbury by one Godimer, not previously recorded on the coinage. It is not obvious why such a complex reshuffle should have been due to the Winchester purge. Mr Blackburn has drawn attention to the administrative reforms, concentrated in the years 1128-31, relating to the functions of the sheriffs in connection with the royal revenue, 36 and one wonders whether the role of the moneyer may have changed in type XV sufficiently to need a different type of person in many cases. The ending of coinage in several counties and the concentration of minting in (mostly) larger centres imply a fundamental change in the way that the recoinage system was operated and the king's revenue collected; and when the pre-XV system was, apparently, restored after 1135, quite a number of the pre-XV moneyers reappeared with it. My impression - and I emphasize that it is no more than that - is that the type XV reform, although no doubt stimulated in part by the circumstances that led to the Winchester assize, was not a simple consequence of it, and went substantially beyond what was necessary to achieve the punishment or replacement of dishonest moneyers. More work is needed on this remarkable monetary reform, but any assessment of what it involved must take account of the moneyer entries in the 1130 Pipe Roll. 35 Andrew, pp. 372-6. For the dating see B.R. Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies I (Camden 4th series, 31, 1986), no. 177, pp. 145-6 (1125x9) and E.J. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England (Berkeley, 1972), pp. 243-4 (c. 1125-8); cf. C.N.L. Brooke and G. Keir, London 800-1216: The Shaping of a City (1975), pp. 206 and 372, and J.A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154 (PRO Handbook no. 24, 1990), p. 58. I am indebted to Prof. Brooke for these references. 36 Blackburn, 'Review', p. 75 citing Green, pp. 215-16.
MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL Finally, two general observations about personal names are perhaps worth making. First, the ratio of Norman names, Radulfs, Ricards, Rodberts, Walters and Willelms, to English names is much higher in the roll than on the coinage of Henry I, even than in the last two types of the reign, when moneyers with Norman names begin to be found at many mints. Men with pre-Conquest names seem therefore to have held their ground in the role of moneyers more effectively than in the central financial administration of the land. But it is noteworthy that the major replacement of moneyers between types XIV and XV was the first occasion when Norman names occur in reasonable abundance on the coinage. The second point is the persistence of some particular names in certain places or areas. Glancing at the text of the roll, I have, for instance, noticed a Leovric Locc under Hampshire, 37 and an Outi at Lincoln. 38 There had been a moneyer called Aestan Loc at Winchester in the late Saxon period, and one called Auti or Outi at Lincoln for Edward the Confessor. 39 Moneyer Aedgar Alfric Algar Boniface Brand Driu Edric Edstan Edward Folcard Gillepatric Godwine GV 37 PR p. 40. 38 PR p. 111. Mint Ipswich London Winchester London Southwark Hastings Chichester Hereford Stafford Bristol Hereford Norwich Colchester Sudbury Thetford Pembroke London Pre-XIII III I-V, VII, X-XII VII, X, XI X VI, VII, X, XII X X, XII III-V, VII, X-XII Henry I XIII XIV x x X X X X X X X X XV X X Stephen I Later x II Mr Mark Blackburn, Prof. Christopher Brooke, Dr William Conte, Dr ludith Green, and Prof. Philip Grierson, with 39 I am grateful for comments to Miss Marion Archibald, whom I have discussed the subject of this article.
- Page 1 and 2: MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL SIR
- Page 3 and 4: MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL mone
- Page 5: MONEYERS IN THE 1130 PIPE ROLL Spra
6 <strong>MONEYERS</strong> <strong>IN</strong> <strong>THE</strong> <strong>1130</strong> <strong>PIPE</strong> <strong>ROLL</strong><br />
mint and one moneyer at Reading. But by a writ of Roger of Salisbury, acting as viceroy in<br />
the king's absence, addressed to Alberic (Aubrey) de Vere as sheriff of London, this was<br />
varied to the grant of a moneyer at London, the first holder of the office to be Edgar. The<br />
date of the writ has been put between 1125 and 1128 or 1129. Aubrey seems to have ceased<br />
to be sheriff by Michaelmas 1128, but Henry was abroad from July 1123 to September 1126<br />
and August 1127 to July 1129 so it cannot belong to the period Sept. 1126 - Aug. 1127. 35<br />
Coins of London with the name Aedgar are known only of type XV, but he minted at<br />
Ipswich in types XIII and XIV and again under Stephen. If the date of the writ could be<br />
established more closely, therefore, it might offer a useful clue to when Edgar ceased to<br />
coin at Ipswich and took up office at London (although there may have been an interval<br />
between the two).<br />
None of the foregoing is at all conclusive as to the date when type XV, with its attendant<br />
reform of the mint network, was introduced, but it does throw some light on the process.<br />
Strangely, none of the persons described in the <strong>1130</strong> Pipe Roll as moneyers or as owing<br />
fines related to monetary offences appears, on the evidence of surviving coins, to have<br />
gone out of office permanently at the end, or during the course, of type XIV. The only<br />
moneyer of this kind who is unknown on coins later than type XIV is Spracheling, if the<br />
same as Sperling, but his coins end with type XIII. If we can take the individual Pipe Roll<br />
entries as representative, some of those punished did not operate in type XV although<br />
their mints remained active, e.g. Algar of London, but in the case of others, e.g. Brand of<br />
Chichester, their mints were closed anyway, so they were not necessarily debarred from<br />
office. Some were punished but continued in office in type XV, e.g. Gillopatric at<br />
Pembroke and Alvric at Winchester. In the light of this, I find it difficult to see the<br />
reduction in the number, and change in the identity, of moneyers between types XIV and<br />
XV as solely a response to the dishonest practices punished at the Winchester assize. For<br />
instance, Aedgar of Ipswich would presumably not have been given such a respectable post<br />
soon afterwards if he had been suspended from office at Ipswich for misbehaviour. Three<br />
of the five Ipswich moneyers of type XIV reappear under Stephen, including Aedgar, yet it<br />
was the Sudbury moneyer Osbern who was drafted to Ipswich as sole moneyer in type XV,<br />
while he in turn was replaced at Sudbury by one Godimer, not previously recorded on the<br />
coinage. It is not obvious why such a complex reshuffle should have been due to the<br />
Winchester purge. Mr Blackburn has drawn attention to the administrative reforms,<br />
concentrated in the years 1128-31, relating to the functions of the sheriffs in connection<br />
with the royal revenue, 36 and one wonders whether the role of the moneyer may have<br />
changed in type XV sufficiently to need a different type of person in many cases. The<br />
ending of coinage in several counties and the concentration of minting in (mostly) larger<br />
centres imply a fundamental change in the way that the recoinage system was operated and<br />
the king's revenue collected; and when the pre-XV system was, apparently, restored after<br />
1135, quite a number of the pre-XV moneyers reappeared with it. My impression - and I<br />
emphasize that it is no more than that - is that the type XV reform, although no doubt<br />
stimulated in part by the circumstances that led to the Winchester assize, was not a simple<br />
consequence of it, and went substantially beyond what was necessary to achieve the<br />
punishment or replacement of dishonest moneyers. More work is needed on this<br />
remarkable monetary reform, but any assessment of what it involved must take account of<br />
the moneyer entries in the <strong>1130</strong> Pipe Roll.<br />
35 Andrew, pp. 372-6. For the dating see B.R. Kemp,<br />
Reading Abbey Cartularies I (Camden 4th series, 31, 1986),<br />
no. 177, pp. 145-6 (1125x9) and E.J. Kealey, Roger of<br />
Salisbury, Viceroy of England (Berkeley, 1972), pp. 243-4<br />
(c. 1125-8); cf. C.N.L. Brooke and G. Keir, London<br />
800-1216: The Shaping of a City (1975), pp. 206 and 372, and<br />
J.A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154 (PRO Handbook no.<br />
24, 1990), p. 58. I am indebted to Prof. Brooke for these<br />
references.<br />
36 Blackburn, 'Review', p. 75 citing Green, pp. 215-16.
Change language