1. Lira dei Grossi, called in Latin Documents Libra denariorum Venetorum grosorum.[6] Like every Lira or Pound, this consisted of 20 soldi, and each soldo of 12 denari or deniers.[7] In this case the Lira was equivalent to 10 golden ducats; and its Denier, as the name implies, was the Grosso. The Grosso therefore here was ¹⁄₂₄₀ of 10 ducats or ¹⁄₂₄ of a ducat, instead of ¹⁄₁₈.
2. Lira ai Grossi (L. den. Ven. ad grossos). This by decree of 2nd June, 1285, went two to the ducat. In fact it is the soldo of the preceding Lira, and as such the Grosso was, as we have just seen, its denier; which is perhaps the reason of the name.
3. Lira dei Piccoli (L. den. Ven. parvulorum). The ducat is alleged to have been at first equal to three of these Lire (Romanin, I. 321); but the calculations of Marino Sanudo (1300–1320) in the Secreta Fidelium Crucis show that he reckons the Ducat equivalent to 3·2 lire of piccoli.[8]
In estimating these Lire in modern English money, on the basis of their relation to the ducat, we must reduce the apparent value by ⅕. We then have:
1. Lira dei Grossi equivalent to nearly 3l. 15s. 0d. (therefore exceeding by nearly 10s. the value of the Pound sterling of the period, or Lira di Sterlini, as it was called in the appropriate Italian phrase).[9]
2. Lira ai Grossi ... 3s. 9d.
3. Lira dei Piccoli ... 2s. 4d.
The Tornese or Tornesel at Venice was, according to Romanin (III. 343) = 4 Venice deniers: and if these are the deniers of the Lira ai Grossi, the coin would be worth a little less than ¾d., and nearly the equivalent of the denier Tournois, from which it took its name.[10]
The term Bezant is used by Polo always (I believe) as it is by Joinville, by Marino Sanudo, and by Pegolotti, for the Egyptian gold dínár, the intrinsic value of which varied somewhat, but can scarcely be taken at less than 10s. 6d. or 11s. (See Cathay, pp. 440–441; and see also J. As. sér. VI. tom. xi. pp. 506–507.) The exchange of Venice money for the Bezant or Dinar in the Levant varied a good deal (as is shown by examples in the passage in Cathay just cited), but is always in these examples a large fraction (⅙ up to ⅓) more than the Zecchin. Hence, when Joinville 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.