British Kings "Bullet Book", Henry II, 1154 – 1189
BillJones
Posts: 33,481 ✭✭✭✭✭
NOTE: Yes, some old time collector punched in “H II” to keep the Henrys straight in his attribution of this piece.
Henry II Penny, S-1344
• Henry II was the son of Geoffrey Plantagenet and the Empress Matilda, the daughter of King Henry I, who was denied her crown as queen of England.
• The Plantagenet kings brought a greater sense of style an elegance to the British crown than their Norman predecessors. There was also a distinct improvement in the quality of the coinage.
• Henry’s great accomplishment was to claim control of England, Wales, Ireland , Scotland and Brittany, plus Normandy, Anjou, Maine and Aquitaine. He held more of France than the French king did at that time.
• Henry’s greatest disappointment was his sons who plotted to displace him. His wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine was also involved in taking his lands from him. He died greatly disappointed with the way his family treated him.
• Henry’s greatest sin was his role in the execution of Archbishop Thomas Becket. Henry, who was known for his rages and bad temper, was said to have exclaimed, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” A couple his knights took him at his word and killed Becket. Henry was very penitent after the deed was done. He walked barefoot to Canterbury where the monks scourged him at the tomb of Becket who had become a saint.
Comments
More effort is being put into the lettering, though Henry still has beady eyes.
But at least you get "a whole coin" for a change that was not struck off-center.
Still, when you compare the quality of these coins up until the time of Henry VII to the “Twelve Caesars” denarii, with which I am currently dabbling as a collector, you see what “medieval” really means. The Roman coins have real portraits on them, not cartoon characters.
I actively collected Roman coins in years past (and wish I hadn't sold them). The portrait quality was very high, especially during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The decline in the quality of portraiture was evident by the time of Constantine and then seems to have really gone downhill after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The issue of "graven images" was apparently taken very seriously at this time and was a major contributor to the decline in portrait quality or the use of portraits at all.
I really believe that the decline in Roman portraiture after 250 AD had very little to do with any wider knowledge of the Old Testament or any Biblical prohibition against 'graven images'.
By the middle of the third century, the Roman mints were processing such a huge quantity of small bronze that the quality of die production necessarily went into the tank.
The Romans couldn't issue paper money, so they were forced to issue huge quantities of small bronze. That was hard work and required shortcuts.
BillDugan may be right when it comes to the "graven images" (iconoclastic) not being of importance. The Iconoclastic controversy was apparently limited to the Byzantine Empire and started about 726AD. The iconoclastic controversy may not have had much effect in Britain which was far removed from the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) was under pressure from Islam and Islamic thought regarding "graven images" was apparently having an effect
in portions of the empire that were feeling Islamic pressure.