233

Grain Prices at Antioch again

In a recent paper, R. Burgess drew attention to the fact that, writing c. AD 814, the Byzantine chronicler

Theophanes preserved an account of a famine in Antioch in AD 333 when a modius of wheat cost 400

arguria} Burgess argues that these arguria cannot have been either gold solidi or silver siliquae, as they

are now called, and proceeds to identify them with the small bronze coins of the late Constantinian

period known to the ancients themselves as nummi and to modern numismatists as AE 4. He then

calculates that wheat must have cost about three modii per solidus during this famine, 'between five and

eight and a half times higher than the normal Egyptian prices of a slightly later period'. The absurdity of

having Theophanes, or his source, describe what Burgess himself admits was a small bronze coin with a

minimal silver content of about 1.1% as an argurion, i.e. a silver unit, must raise immediate doubts as to

the validity of these calculations.2 More importantly, however, Burgess has overlooked a source which

preserves an alternative reading to Theophanes in this matter.3 The anonymous Vita Constantini known

either as the Opitz- Vita, after its editor,4 or as BHG 365, in accordance with its ennumeration in the

standard catalogue of hagiographical texts,5 preserves an account of this famine very similar to that of

Theophanes, as follows (Opitz 66):

T 5' abxco XP?vco A-i|i?? |isyioxo? sysvsxo, sv 5? xo?? scooi? (ispsoi oqxr?poxspov erceicp?

xr|G8v, ? sv 'Avxioxsia Kal Kimpco xou? ox^ou? Kax' ?AAr^cov s7isp%so9ai Kal ^rpxiK ?

Xcops?v sv xa?? ?7ro0f|Kai? Kal ?cpaprca?siv x? sv?ov, x?v 5? |ioSiov (paol vo|iio(iax v xpicov

s^ vsloGai xo?) o?xoo. ? 5s (isya? Kcovoxavx?vo? oixojisxpiov Kax? n?Xiv xa?? SKK^rjoiai?

rcaps?xsv sic ?7ioxpo(pf|v 5iapKf| K^r]piKcav Kal 7isvf|xc?v. f| y?p sv 'Avxioxsia feKK?,r|oia o?xod (ioS?ou? xpio|ii)pioi)? si;aKiGxiAiou? sMji?avsv.

At the same time a very great famine occurred which was particularly severe in the eastern

provinces. In fact, the mobs in Antioch and Cyprus attacked each other; they raided the granaries

like bandits and looted the contents. They say that a modius of wheat cost three nomismata. But

Constantine the Great provided the churches with a measured wheat allowance on a city by city

basis, sufficient for the nourishment of the clergy and the poor. The church in Antioch received

36,000 modii of wheat.6

1 R. W. Burgess, Overlooked Evidence for Grain Prices in Antioch, A.D. 333, ZPE 120, 1998, 295-98. The key passage at Theophanes AM 5824 runs: Touxco xco sxsi, jisMouorj? xf|? s?oo|ir|c 'iv?ikxic?vo? S7uXa|i?avso8ai, \i\ioq

?ysvsxo sv xf| ?vaxoXfi s7UKpaxfjoa? ocpo?poxspov, cboxs Kco^ia? Kaxd x? abx? sv o%X(? noXXdo

ouvayojisva? S7ii xrj? x^pa? 'Avxioxscov Kai xf|? Kupou srcspxsoGai Kax' ?XXr\kcdv Kai ?prc?Csiv jisv co? sv

vukxI xa?? scpo?oi?, so^axov ?? sv f||aspa srcsioisvai sic xo?? oixo?o^covac Kal sv xa?? ?TioQfJKai? Kai

rc?vxa rcpai?suovxa? ?prc?Csiv Kai ?vaxcops?v, ysvsoBai ?s x?v p?oiov xo?) o?xod u' apy?p?cov. ? ?s jisya?

Kcovoxavx?vo? oixojasxpiov xa?? SKK>-r|oiai? Kax? n?Xiv sxap?oaxo sic ?iaxpotpr|v ?irjvsKco? xr}Pal? Kai

?svo?oxsioi? 7isvr|G? xs Kal xo?? KXipiKo??. f| ?s sv 'Avxioxsicx SKKXrjoia sM^i?avs o?xod po?iou? xpiopu

piou? s^aKioxiMou?. 2 It is noteworthy that Burgess (n. 1), 295, merely transliterates the term argurion in his English translation: 'and that a

modius of wheat cost 400 arguria.' In contrast, C. Mango and R. Scott (eds.), The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor:

Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, Oxford 1997, 48, translate more explicitly: 'A modius of corn cost 400

pieces of silver.'

3 This is true both of Burgess himself when he reprints the 'final version' (p. 11) of his paper in his Studies in Eusebian

and Post-Eusebian Chronography, Stuttgart 1999, 211-14, and of Mango and Scott (n. 2), 48, who follow Burgess's calculations.

4 H.-G. Opitz, Die Vita Constantini des Codex Angelicus 22, Byzantion 9, 1934, 535-93.1 will refer to this text by the

chapter divisions in this edition. 5 F. Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, Brussels 1957, 122.

6 This is based on the forthcoming translation of this text by F. Beetham and M. Vermes.

234 D. Woods

The point of interest to us here is that this text states that a modius of wheat cost three nomismata rather

than the 400 arguria cited by Theophanes.7 So how do we account for these different readings, and

which of these texts most likely preserves the original 4th-century figures in this matter ? Although it

has proven impossible to date the composition o? BUG 365 to within the correct century even,8 the key

point here is that the author of BHG 365 does not seem to have used Theophanes' Chronographia as a

source for his work. Their descriptions of several key events are strikingly similar, but never identical, so that it is clear that their similarities are due to their dependence on a common source rather than

borrowings from one another.9 In particular, the fact that the author of BHG 365 dates several events by the specific regnal year of Constantine in which they occurred proves that he had access to a chronicle

of some sort, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this was much the same text, a close relation at

least, as that which Theophanes uses for the same period.10 To draw attention to but one of the

distinctions between these texts - perhaps the most important

- the author of BHG 365 dates the

dedication of Constantinople to Constantine's 27th regnal year, i.e. AD 332, while Theophanes dates it,

correctly, to his 25th, i.e. AD 330.n In this, the author of BHG 365 has better preserved evidence of the

error which saw their ultimate common source systematically postdate a whole series of events during the period c. AD 322-36 by exactly 2 years in each case.12 It is clear, therefore, that one cannot

7 The only other significant difference between their accounts of the famine is that Theophanes refers to mobs in Antioch and Cyrrhus while BHG 365 refers to mobs in Antioch and Cyprus. The contents of the passage itself reveals that

Theophanes preserves the better reading in this instance, that K?pcp has been corrupted to read Ki)7ipcp, but one cannot make wider judgements concerning the relative merits of these texts based on this one error alone.

8 BHG 365 has been preserved by 2 manuscripts, Cod. Angelicus gr. 22 (10th/l 1th century) and Cod. Sabbaiticus gr. 366 (13th century), although neither has preserved the heading to or beginning of this text. Some sections from the earlier

part of the text preserved only in the latter manuscript were published by J. Bidez, Fragments nouveaux de Philostorge sur la

vie de Constantin, Byzantion 10, 1935, 403-37, while the remaining sections unique to this manuscript were published by F.

Halkin, L'empereur Constantin converti par Euphratas, Analecta Bollandiana 78, 1960, 5-17, who also noted the principal

variants between the two manuscripts where they do preserve the same portions of the text. On the various Byzantine lives of

Constantine, see S. N. C. Lieu, Constantine Byzantinus, in S. N. C. Lieu and D. Montserrat (eds.), From Constantine to

Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History, London 1996, 97-106, who dates BHG 365 between the end of the 9th and the 11th century, and S. N. C. Lieu, From history to legend and legend to history: The medieval and Byzantine transformation of Constantine's Vita, in S. N. C. Lieu and D. Montserrat (eds.), Constantine: History, Historiography, and

Legend, London 1998, 136-76. In so far as it is agreed that that section of BHG 365 which tells how the eunuch Euphratas converted Constantine to Christianity represents a late interpolation into a pre-existing Vita from another tradition, then this

pre-existing Vita may have been composed as early as the mid-6th century even. Two facts suggest that it could not have

been composed any earlier. First, it makes substantial use of the Actus Sylvestri (Opitz 3-7) which only became known at

Constantinople c. AD 526. See G. Fowden, Constantine, Silvester, and the Church of S. Polyeuctus in Constantinople, JRA 1,

1994, 274-84. Secondly, both Theophanes (AM 5827) and BHG 365 (Opitz 70) seem to borrow material from a work

entitled: On the Discovery of the True Cross, by one Alexander the Monk, and while the exact date of this work is disputed,

it does postdate AD 543. See Mango and Scott (n. 2), pp. lxxvi-lxxviii.

9 The similarities are concentrated in the latter part of the text, Opitz 64-67, 70.

10 BHG 365 dates Constantine's erection of a statue to himself at Rome following his defeat of Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge to his 7th regnal year (AD 312), his promotion of Constantine II as Caesar to his 12th regnal year (AD 317), his promotion of Constantius II as Caesar to his 19th regnal year (AD 324), his desire to found Constantinople to his 25th

regnal year (AD 330), his dedication of the city to his 27th regnal year (AD 332), his promotion of Constans as Caesar to his 28th regnal year (AD 333), the dedication of the Martyrium at Jerusalem to his 30th year (AD 335), and his death to his 32nd

year (AD 337). 11 Other distinctions include the fact that BHG 365 correctly dates the promotion of Constans as Caesar to Constantine's

28th regnal year (AD 333) whereas Theophanes dates it to his 17th regnal year (AD 322). 12 The same source, an early chronicle, led Jerome to date the death of Constantine's wife Fausta to AD 328 rather than

AD 326, for example, and both Jerome and the Chronicon Paschale to date the ordination of Athanasius as bishop of

Alexandria to AD 330 rather than to AD 328. It is arguable that this chronicle had continued the Chronici Ca?ones of Eusebius of Caesarea from c. AD 325 until the death of Constantine in AD 337, and that Burgess's (n. 3), 113-305,

attempted reconstruction of a chronicle which he describes as the Continuatio Antiochiensis represents but a continuation of

the same. Unfortunately, a full exploration of the relationship between these various texts would take us too far from the

immediate subject of the present note. I add only that I believe that the famine of AD 333 has been postdated by 2 years also,

Grain Prices at Antioch again 235

necessarily prefer the evidence of Theophanes in the present matter either on the grounds that his is the

earlier of the two texts or that he best preserves the readings of their common source.

It is important at this point to emphasize the fact that the term nomisma means simply 'coin'. While

it is true to say that it did become, in time, almost a synonym for the gold solidus,13 much because this

became the standard unit of currency under the Byzantine empire, it does not have to denote this coin in

every instance. Therefore, one has to pay due care to the particular circumstances of each use of this

term. For example, writing c. AD 338, bishop Eusebius of Caesarea sometimes specified that certain

nomismata were made of gold, so proving that this was not something implicit within this term itself,14

while on another occasion he uses the same term to describe a type of coin which was only issued in

bronze.15 Strictly speaking, therefore, BHG 365 records simply that a modius of grain cost three coins. It

does not necessarily contradict Theophanes' description of these coins as arguria, i.e. silver units.

However, a passage from an anonymous eighth-century source, the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai

attests a belief that the gold solidus, or nomisma as it was commonly known by then, had originally

been minted in silver in the 4th century, and this explains why the author of BHG 365, or a subsequent

copyist or editor, would have felt justified in converting a reading from arguria to nomismata. The

passage describes the construction at Constantinople of the so-called Modion, the granary associated

with the official standard measure, the modius (PSC 12):16

To 5s M?Siov 5?ov soil ^f| 7tapa5pa|is?v f||ia? on S7ii Oba?,svuviavo?) STU7icoGr|. T?ts yap

Kai apxi|i?8iov nap? ia>v fev Kc?voTavTivou7io?,si o'ikodvtcov ?vr|psuvr|0r| SsKaS?o xofjio xo?)

?pyopou TvjTc oavxo?: ?pyopobv <?s> an ?px?|? siimcbGri x? v?(iio|ia.

As for the Modion, we must not omit the fact that it was put up in the time of Valentinian (364-75). For at that time an official measure was established among the people of Constantinople, and he

although I will continue to speak of the famine of AD 333 in the main body of this note in order not to distract from my main

point upon which this matter has no direct bearing.

13 A. Kazhdan (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford 1991, 1490. 14

E.g. he claims that Constantine honoured his mother Helena by striking gold nomismata with her portrait (Vita Constantini 3.47.2-3): ouxco 5s ?^icbjiaxi ?aGi>aKC? xsxijar|K?xa, co? sv ?rcaoiv sGvsoi rcap' auxo?? is xo??

oxpaxuoxiKo?? x?yjiaoiv abyo?oxav ?aoiMSa avayops?soGai, xpuoo?? xs vo|i?o|iaoi Kai xr|v at>xf|? skxu

7io?)oGai s'iK?va. See also Vita Constantini 4.15.1.

15 His description of the coins issued to mark the death of Constantine in AD 337 (Vita Constantini 4.73): "HSrj 8s Kai

vojiiGjiaoiv svsxap?xxovxo x?ttoi, rcp?oBsv (isv fcKximofjvxs? x?v jiaK?ptov syKSKaA,?|?|asvou xf|v Kscpa^r|v

Gxf|jiaxi, Gaxspou 8s jispou? scp' dpjiaxi xsOp?TUTXCO fjvioxoi) xp?7iov, bno ?s?ia? ?vcoGsv SKxsivojisvrj? abxco

XSip?? ava^a|i?avojisvov. See P. Bruun, The Consecration Coins of Constantine the Great, Arctos 1, 1954, 19-31. 16 Text and translation are from A. Cameron, J. Herrin et al, Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The

Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, Leiden 1984, 73-75. The fact that 'Valentinian' set the price of grain at a maximum of 12 modii per argurion suggests that he picked this limit for ease of calculation using the Roman duodecimal numerical system as much as for genuine market reasons, and that he was concerned to ensure that people could easily check the true values of

their transactions. It is a minor point that Valentinian I only ruled Constantinople directly for the short period from 26

February AD 364 until August ofthat year when he headed to the West and left his brother Valens as his imperial colleague in the East. The monument and accompanying inscription were probably erected during their joint-rule when they co

operated closely together and each issued laws in both their names. Late sources tend to prefer Valentinian, however, and

omit any mention of Valens, because of the latter's reputation as a heretical, so-called Arian, emperor. Strictly speaking,

therefore, one should probably refer the building of the Modion and the accompanying price-regulation to Valens rather than Valentinian. However, this activity at Constantinople was probably related to similar reforms which Valentinian did order

carried out at Rome, since the Theodosian Code preserves abundant evidence that he took a serious interest in matters

relating to the grain supply there from the earliest years of his reign (C Th. 14.15.1-2, 14.17.1-7). See A. Alfoldi, A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire: The Clash Between the Senate and Valentinian I, Oxford 1952, 60-64. Finally, one notes

that Ammianus' claim (28.1.18) that Valentinian fined the proconsul Africae Hymetius because he believed that he had been

cheated of some of the profits which the latter made on one occasion during the mid-AD 360s when he sold wheat from

public stocks at 10 modii per solidus only to replace it with wheat bought at 30 modii per solidus is consistent with his

characterization of this emperor as flawed by greed (30.8.8), and is not to be trusted, therefore. The real reason for Hymefius'

punishment may be that by selling wheat at 10 modii per solidus, he had exceeded the maximum grain-price if not of 12

modii per argurion, then at whatever level Valentinian had set it in the West.

236 D. Woods

fixed it at twelve <measures> to the silver coin (argurion), for the nomisma was originally struck of

silver.

This passage is also important because it constitutes further evidence that the price of wheat really was

calculated in arguria, whatever they were, in the 4th century, and by the state itself even. In this it

reinforces the testimony of the emperor Julian, as we shall see below.

A second point to which to draw attention here is that Theophanes uses a numeral to denote the

number of arguria. However, Greek numerals are notoriously susceptible to corruption during the

transmission of a text. The numeral 3 (y) could easily have been corrupted to read 400 (d). This would

bring the price of grain as reported by Theophanes down to the same order of magnitude as reported by the Parastaseis and the emperor Julian, as we will see next. The obvious suggestion, therefore, is that

ultimate source for both BHG 365 and Theophanes had originally claimed that a modius of grain cost

three silver units during this famine, i.e. that BHG 365 best preserves the number of units while

Theophanes correctly preserves the actual term used to describe these units, arguria. At this point I wish to turn to a key passage in any debate concerning the price of grain in the 4th

century, but one which has often suffered severe misrepresentation. The emperor Julian describes his

efforts at famine relief in Antioch during the winter of AD 362/63 as follows (Misopogon 369A-C):

sSo^s |ioi 7is|i7rsiv sic Xa>uK?5a Kai'Ispdv 7io?av Kai n?Xeiq x?? Tispi^, svGsv sioiiyayov

b|i?v (isxpoov xsxxap?Kovxa (lupiaSa?/Q? Ss ?va^coxo Kai xo?)xo, rcp?xspov \i?v 7rsvxaKi?

XiMou?, sjcxdKi? x^iou? Ss ?oxspov, s?xa V?)V iiupioo?, o?c S7iixc?)pi?v soxi XoinOV

ovo|ia?siv jioS?ou?, ?vaX,iOKOv oixou, rcavxa? o?koGsv sxcov. ' Arco xfj? A'iy?Ttxou KojiioGsvxa

(loi o?xov sScoKa xf| 7i?A,si, 7rpaxxo|isvo? ?pyupiov ob Kax? SsKa (isxpa, ?XX? rcsvxsKaiSsKa

xogo&xov, ?oov S7ii x v SsKa Tip?xspov. E'i 8s xooaoxa (isxpa Gsporj? fjv 7iap' b\x?v xoB

vo(iio|iaxo?, xi irpooSoKav sSsi xrrviKa?)xa, f|v?Ka cpr|G?v ? Boubxio? 7ioir|xr|? xaXznov

ysvsoGai x?v >Li|i?v ski x 8p?y(iaxi; ap' ou rcsvxs |aoyi? Kai ?ya7ir|X(5?, ?XXcoq xs Kai

xr|>aKorjxoi) x^^?vo? S7riysvo(isvou;

I decided to send to Chalcis and Hierapolis and the cities round about, and from them I imported for

you four hundred thousand metra of corn. And when this too had been used, I first expended five

thousand, then later seven thousand, and now again ten thousand modii as they are called in my

country, all of which was my very own property; moreover I gave to the city corn which had been

brought for me from Egypt; and the price which I set on it was an argurion, not for ten metra but for

fifteen, that is to say, the same amount that had formerly been paid for ten metra. And if in summer,

in your city, that same number of metra is sold for that sum, what could you reasonably have

expected at the season when, as the Boeotian poet says, "It is a cruel thing for famine to be in the

house." Would you not have been thankful to get five metra for that sum, especially when the winter

had set in so severe ?17

The first point of note here is that Julian values the wheat at Antioch in terms of arguria, i.e. that he

uses the same term in this matter as does Theophanes and the Parastaseis. Burgess obscures this fact

when he misrepresents this passage to claim that Julian 'gives a price range of five, ten and fifteen modii

per solidus'.1^ In fact, he gives a price range of five, ten and fifteen modii per argurion. However,

Burgess is correct to identify Julian's metron as the equivalent of the standard Roman modius, even if he

does not explain why this is the case. It is simply a matter of literary style.19 Julian affected a

17 Tr. by W. C. Wright, Julian II, Cambridge MA 1913, 505-07, slightly revised. 18

Burgess (n. 1), 297. 19 K. W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy 300 BC to AD 700, Baltimore 1996, 316-17, states that the term metron

was used to translate an unfamiliar unit of measurement, and refers to Julian, Misopogon 369A, as an example, claiming that

Julian employed this term to translate the cab of Syria. While I accept that what he says may be true in many other cases, the

choice of Julian as example is unfortunate. Julian uses the term metron to denote the modius for the same reason, for

Grain Prices at Antioch again 237

classicizing Greek style in his literary works which entailed the rejection of all Latinisms. Hence he

prefers to use the Greek term metron to translate the Latin term modius rather than a simple transliteration of the latter from Latin into Greek as can be found in many less elevated texts, with the

exception of the apologetic clarification - 'modii as they are called in my country'. Hence the common

source of BHG 365 and Theophanes quoted a grain-price of one modius for three arguria while Julian

sold his grain at fifteen modii per argurion. If this is correct, then one can at least compare our two

grain-prices directly, so that, in absolute terms at least, the price of grain at Antioch in AD 333 was 45

times higher then than it would reach there in AD 362. This sounds alarmingly high, but this is exactly the point that our sources for the famine in AD 333 are trying to make. In AD 362, people criticized Julian's management of the grain-supply, but that was all. In AD 333, however, the situation had been

so bad that serious inter-communal strife had ensued.

So what was an argurion ? During his latter years, Constantine I issued two main denominations of

fine silver coin, the so-called siliqua at the rate of 96 to a Roman pound of silver and the miliarensis at

the rate of 72 to a pound.20 His successor Constantius II reformed the coinage once more so that the two

main denominations of fine silver coin were the miliarensis again, issued at the rate of 72 to a pound and sometimes called the 'light miliarensis' to distinguish it from the so-called 'heavy miliarensis', a

rarer issue of silver coin at the rate of 60 to the pound, better regarded as a medallion than a genuine unit

of currency, and the so-called 'reduced siliqua', issued at the rate of 144 to the pound.21 These remained

the standard units of silver currency until the last decade of the 4th century. Now, if we accept the

probability that our three independent texts referring to the reigns of Constantine I, Julian, and

'Valentinian', all use the same term - argurion

- to refer to the same unit, and that this was a unit of

currency, then this term must refer to the silver coin issued at the rate of 72 to the pound of silver, the

miliarensis, the only unit of silver curency issued continually throughout this period. The problem with

this interpretation, however, is that when we convert the prices furnished by the common source of BHG

365 and Theophanes, Julian, and the Parastaseis from silver into gold in this understanding, using, for

want of a more exact rate, the official exchange rate of AD 397 when the government allowed 5 solidi to

be substituted for each pound of silver due in taxes, so giving a ratio of 1:14.4,22 the results are totally at

odds with our other papyrological and literary sources for the price of grain at this period. For example, if Julian sold 15 modii of grain per miliarensis, then he sold it at a rate of 216 (= 15 x 14.4) modii per solidus. Similarly, if Valentinian set a maximum price of 12 modii per miliarensis, then he set a price of

172.8 (= 12 x 14.4) modii per solidus. Yet the papyrological evidence reveals that the average price of

wheat in Egypt during the 4th century was actually about eight artabae per solidus, i.e. 36 modii

(Italici) per solidus.23 Furthermore, Ammianus reveals that, during the mid-AD 360s, the price of wheat

only went as low as about 30 modii per solidus even during harvest time in a major area of production,

proconsular Africa.24 The figures are even worse if we interpret the argurion as the reduced siliqua of

144 to the pound. For in that case Julian sold wheat at 432 (= 15 x 14.4 x 2) modii per solidus, and

Valentinian set a maximum price of 345.6 (= 12 x 14.4 x 2) modii per solidus.25 In summary, it is

example, that he consistently uses other infuriatingly vague but good classicizing terms, such as strategos and chiliarch, to

denote various military grades with which both he and his audience would have been all too familiar.

20 P. Bruun, Roman Imperial Coinage VII: Constantine and Licinius AD 313-337, London 1966, 4-8. The official terms used to describe the various denominations of fine silver coinage issued throughout the 4th century have been lost to us

for the most part. Hence modern commentators do not always agree in the terminology which they use.

21 J. P. Kent, Roman Imperial Coinage VIII: The Family of Constantine IAD 337-364, London 1981, 57-58. 22 C. Th. 13.2.1 (19 February AD 397). 23 R. S. Bagnall, Currency and Inflation in Fourth Century Egypt, Atlanta 1985, 6. 24 Amm. 28.1.18.

25 While Harl (n. 19), 284, 461-62, does identify Julian's argurion with what he calls an argenteus, others a siliqua, the silver coin issued at the rate of 144 to the pound after c. AD 355, the fact that he then identifies Julian's metron as the Syrian cab rather than the Roman modius, renders his final figures a little less absurd. He calculates the prices of 5, 10, and 15 metra

238 D. Woods

impossible to reconcile our various sources for the price of wheat in the 4th century, if we identify the

argurion with one of the main units of silver currency in circulation at the time.

The alternative is to identify the argurion not as a unit of currency, but as a unit of weight. Given

both the complicated recent history of silver coinage during the first half of the 4th century, when the

weights and purity of the coins had fluctuated wildly,26 and the fact that the value of a Roman coin

depended on the value of the precious metal within the coin itself, there is no reason why the price of

commodities such as grain should not have been quoted in terms of a standard unit of weight of silver

rather than in terms of any particular denomination of silver coin. So what was the argurion if it was a

standard weight of silver ? Ammianus reveals that the proconsul Africae Hymetius sold grain from

government warehouses to the starving people of Carthage sometime during the mid-AD 360s at ten

modii per gold solidus.21 A solidus weighed 1/72 of a Roman pound (libra), or 1/6 of a Roman ounce

(uncia), or 4 scripula, or 8 oboli, or 24 siliquae. If one can assume once more that the official exchange ratio between gold and silver was roughly similar to that existing in AD 397, then a gold solidus ought to have been worth about 1/5 of a pound of silver, or 2.4 ounces, or 57.6 scripula. Now, to what among the range of prices quoted by Julian should we compare this price ? I will assume that Hymetius charged as much as he thought that he could for the grain that he released, that he was not so much interested in

alleviating the starvation of the poor as profiting from their misfortunes. In contrast, Julian would have

sold his grain cheaply, because he really was concerned to relieve the poor and to force speculators to

release their hoards of grain by stabilizing, if not collapsing, existing prices. Hence one should not

compare the price at which Hymetius sold grain to that at which Julian sold grain, since their intentions

were so different, but to the price at which Julian thought grain would probably have sold otherwise had

he not intervened, i.e. at five metra or modii per argurion. So Julian implies a price often modii for 2

arguria, while Hymetius sold ten modii for the equivalent of 2.4 ounces of silver. These can only be

rough figures, of course, since, apart from anything else, we do not know the exact exchange ratio of

gold and silver that would have applied under Julian. However, they provide circumstantial evidence at

least that, in this instance, Julian used the term argurion to mean an ounce of silver. Applying the

official exchange rate of AD 397 once more, this means that when 'Valentinian' set a maximum price of

12 modii per argurion, i.e. per ounce of silver, he really set a price of about 28.8 (= (12 x 14.4) -*-

6) modii per solidus, that when Julian sold wheat at 15 modii per argurion, he really sold it at about 36 (=

(15 x 14.4) *

6) modii per solidus, and that price of grain had reached about 0.8 (= (.333 x 14.4) +

6) modii per solidus in AD 333, about that reached during a famine at Constantinople under Anastasius

(AD 491-518) when grain sold for one modius per solidus.2%

In conclusion, therefore, an unnoticed passage from an anonymous life of Constantine, BHG 365,

suggests that Theophanes' text is corrupt where he notes the price of grain at Antioch in AD 333. The

grain sold at the rate of one modius for three arguria, rather than at one modius for 400 arguria, where

the term argurion was probably used to denote one Roman ounce of silver.

University College of Cork David Woods

per argurion quoted by Julian as the equivalent of 1.25, 2.25, and 3.75 modii per argenteus, i.e as 36, 64.8 and 108 modii per

solidus, assuming a gold-silver ratio of 1:14.4 once more.

26SeeHarl(n. 19), 158-75. 27 Amm. 28.1.18: Verum quoniam denis modiis singulis solidis indigentibus venundatis, emerat ipse tr?cenos, interpreta

compendium adprincipis aerarium misit.

2^ T. Preger (ed.), Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum 2, Leipzig 1907, 245-46.