The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society

DEFACED COINS OF STEPHEN. 45
Folkcs's Table. No such coin, however, has yet been
discovered."
Here it must be at once noticed that Leake speaks of
"
for of course it may
the Duke's money as " a new coin ;
be argued in answer to my question
that the defaced
money of Stephen is not new coin at all, but only old coin
newly stamped. That is true. Yet Leake evidently
took his expression from the chroniclers, and with them it
should be remembered how the term moneta nova stood for
less than it stands for with us. With us the great re-coin-
ages of 1696 97, of 1817, the issue of the bronze money
in the present reign, constitute " new money " in our view,
without demur; but the coinages of 1156 and 1180 were
moneta nova in the eyes of the old writers, and who does
not know that one of the puzzles for inquirers of our own
day has arisen from the difficulty of determining the
respective coins of that new money ? We believe we know
them now, but it requires training of the eye to distin-
guish one sort from another. This being so, I do not
myself expect that " the Duke's money," whenever or
wherever it may appear, will be "new money " in our
sense of the word, or differ in any marked way from the
ordinary currency of Stephen's reign. 4
4
I learn from the late Mr. Sainthill's
"
Olla Podrida,"
vol. ii. p. 178, that Hoveden is the authority for this statement
of Leake's. Sub anno 1149.
" Et fecit ruonetam novam quam
vocabant monetam duels, et non tantum ipse sed omnes potentes
tarn episcopi quam comites et barones, suam faciebant monetain.
Sed ex quo dux ille venit, plurimorum monetam cassavit."
(Vol. i. p. 11, edit. 1868.) After quoting Hoveden's words,
Mr. Saintbill added, " If it can be ascertained what towns were
in the possession of the Duke of Normandy at this time, and if
there are coins of these towns inscribed on the obverse with
only '
Henricus,' such coins, at present appropriated to Henry
"
'
I., may be the Duke's money.'