Proculus (?), vir clarissimus, circa 360-early 5th century. Weight (Bronze, 16x16 mm, 3.47 g, 12 h). Monogram of V, P, L and C within linear square; all inlaid in silver. Rev. V C inlaid in silver. BM 1995,0601.3. Extremely rare, apparently the second and by far the finest known example. With original silver plug. Some corrosion and traces of cleaning, otherwise, good very fine.
While the interpretation of V C on the reverse as vir clarissimus is clear, the monogram on the obverse is considerably more difficult to resolve. The letters R, L, V, and C can be recognized, and possibly also P. The British Museum proposes the reading Ursinicus, but this is not convincing: an N can be identified only tentatively, while no S is represented. A plausible alternative would be Proculus. The absence of an S, which would be problematic in the nominative form Proculus, could be explained by reading the name in the genitive, as Proculi. The complete inscription could therefore be expanded as PROCVLI V(IRI) C(LARISSIMI), '[weight] of Proculus, vir clarissimus.' This interpretation must nevertheless remain tentative. Of particular interest is the substantial silver plug inserted into the object. Comparable silver-filled cavities are known on exagia solidi of the second half of the fourth century; cf., for Julian II, Leu Web Auction 42 (2026), 2957, and Leu 11 (2022), 300; and, for Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II, among others, Leu Web Auction 36 (2025), 1448. The plug was presumably inserted to adjust the object to its intended weight. At the same time, the technically elaborate use of a silver insert may also have served as an official control or authentication feature. At 3.47 g, the present piece may have served as a weight for a miliarense. Although somewhat heavier, at 3.82 g, the comparable specimen in the British Museum likewise falls within the attested weight range of late Roman miliarensia. Interestingly, the British Museum specimen has no similarly substantial silver plug; only two very small silver dots are visible on the reverse. It may therefore already have met the intended weight at the time of manufacture, in which case the small silver inserts could have served primarily as official control or authentication marks rather than as significant weight adjustments. Lot 1906 below, however, weighs more than 4 g, making its identification as a weight for the same denomination less straightforward and suggesting that not all weights of this type necessarily corresponded to a single monetary standard. The masses of surviving exagia solidi can themselves vary considerably. Some of this variation may be due to post-depositional alteration, including corrosion, metal loss, damage, or the loss of inlays; corrosion products may in some cases also have increased an object’s present mass. At the same time, these discrepancies raise the question of how closely individual weights conformed to the nominal standards, whether local standards were employed, and whether some anomalous specimens may reflect deliberate manipulation or fraud