Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy (6 page)

Pirenne cites evidence which convinced him that the cities of the West during this period remained as large as they had been during the later Empire: “The cities had, of course, suffered from the invasions. Bridges had broken down and had been replaced by bridges of boats. But all the cities still existed; moreover, the bishops had restored them. And there is no doubt that just as they were the centres of civil and religious administration, they were also the permanent commercial centres of the country. Here again the ancient economy was continued. We find nothing resembling the great fairs of the Middle Ages – such as those of Champagne.”
[59]
Again, “On reading Gregory of Tours … we obtain the impression of a period of urban commerce. The
conventus
of the merchants were held in the cities. We hear nothing of the countryside. It is certainly an error, as Waitz has already pointed out, to regard the innumerable localities whose names were impressed by the
monetarii
on the Merovingian coins as the sites of markets. What we do find existing in the Merovingian period, as in antiquity, are
portus
– that is to say,
étapes
and wharves or landing-places, but not markets. The king levied market-tolls (
tonlieux
) in the cities and in the
portus
. These were the ancient Roman market-tolls, payable in the same places.”
[60]

* * *

One of the defining characteristics of the medieval age was its relative poverty. The money-based system that had prevailed under the Roman Empire disappeared, along with international trade; and this was replaced by local, barter-based economies. There was very little money in circulation, and whatever there was, tended to be silver, rather than gold, as under the Empire. What, then, was the state of the monetary system under the Germanic kings? Did it display any of the characteristics of the feudal age? According to Pirenne, it most certainly did not. As a matter of fact, he claimed, the monetary system in western Europe seems to have been affected little or not at all by the Germanic invasions. The Germanic kings continued to use the Roman gold solidus, and continued to strike coins bearing the effigies of the Emperors.
[61]
“Nothing attests more clearly to the persistence of the economic unity of the Empire. It was impossible to deprive it of the benefit of monetary unity. … [in the fifth and sixth centuries] The Syrian navigators, on disembarking in the ports of the Tyrrhenian Sea, found there the currency to which they had been accustomed in the ports of the Aegean Sea. What is more, the new Barbarian kingdoms adopted, in their coinage, the changes introduced in the Byzantine currency.”
[62]
All during these centuries, and right up until the middle of the seventh century, the central currency was the gold solidus.

Gold alone was the official currency during the fifth and sixth centuries, a point that Pirenne stresses again and again. “The monetary system of the Barbarians was that of Rome.”
[63]
This was in stark contrast to that of the Middle Ages which, beginning in the Carolingian period, was based on silver, and silver alone. “Silver monometallism” is the term used by Pirenne to describe it.

The Anglo-Saxons constituted the only exception to the rule: Among them silver was the principal metal employed.
[64]
We note however that in Britain, and only there, the Barbarian Invasions effectively terminated Roman civilization – or, at the very least, produced a far more definitive break with the past than occurred in Gaul, Italy and Spain. Latin was replaced by a Germanic language, and Christianity was – apart from in the far west – extinguished. Yet even in Britain a few gold coins were struck in the southern part of the country; that is to say, as Pirenne remarks, “in those parts which maintained commercial relations with Gaul.”
[65]
There is also reason to believe that these coins were the work of Merovingian minters.
[66]

The Merovingian kings themselves struck pseudo-Imperial coins, the series of which closes with the reign of Heraclius (610-641), the first Emperor to come into hostile contact with the Arabs.
[67]
The significance of this cannot be overstressed, and we shall return to the topic when we come to examine the re-establishment of the Western Empire under the Ottonian kings of the mid-tenth century – a full three centuries after the Germanic rulers of the West had symbolically terminated their allegiance to Constantinople by ceasing to place the Emperor’s image on their coins. This western Roman currency can, as a rule, be distinguished at a glance from the Imperial currency. Yet while differing from the coinage struck in the East, they bear a close resemblance to one another; and it is rarely possible to say whether they were struck by the Visigoths, the Burgundians, or the Franks. Only rarely before the early seventh century did the name of a Germanic king appear on a coin, and the first instance of this occurred (to the horror of Procopius) when Theodebert I was making war in Italy against Justinian, in 539-540. These coins are in fact so much finer than any other Frankish issues that experts believe Theodebert had them struck in Italy. It was only in the reign of Chlothar II (584 – 630) that the name of the king replaced that of the Emperor in the mints of Gaul. The formula
Victoria Augustorum
was replaced by
Victoria Chlotarii
.
[68]

Throughout the fifth and sixth centuries large amounts of gold coins were minted, in numerous locations, throughout Gaul, Spain and Italy. “These constant mintages,” says Pirenne, “and what we know from other sources concerning the kings’ wealth in gold, and the wealth of the Church and of private individuals, proves that there was a very considerable stock of gold in the West; and yet there were no gold mines, and we cannot suppose that much gold can have been derived from auriferous sands and gravels. How then can we speak of ‘natural economy’ in the presence of these large amounts of liquid treasure?
[69]

An idea of the amount of gold in circulation can be had not only from the archaeological finds, but from documentary evidence. Thus we hear that Bishop Baldwin of Tours distributed 20,000 gold
solidi
to the poor, whilst gold is mentioned as used profusely in the decoration of garments. There was, as might be expected, a great deal of gold in the possession of private individuals, as is proved by the continual confiscations of gold by the king.
[70]

The Gothic and Frankish kings put their treasure to good use. It provided opulent dowries for their daughters, gifts to friends, and lavish alms to the poor. They also lent money at interest, as one Frankish king is on record as doing with the Bishop of Verdun. Pensions were paid to needy ecclesiastics, and lavish churches were raised and decorated. Mention here should be made of the apse of Saint Denis, which was covered in silver. There were in fact great quantities of currency in circulation, and people sought to invest it to their advantage. This was in fact a proto-capitalist economy. Pirenne quotes a case illustrating what he describes as “the trade in money.” A Jewish man named Armentarius, together with a co-religionist and two Christians, came to Tours to demand the securities they had advanced to the
vicarius
Injuriosus and Count Eonomius, who had promised to repay the amounts with interest (
cum usuris
). These “tax-farmers” had also lent money to the
tribunus
Medard, who was also requested to make payment. The three powerful debtors invited their creditors to a banquet, in course of which they were set upon and assassinated. Pirenne emphasizes the striking feature that these businessmen lent their money at interest:
cum usuries
. “This is a proof, and a proof of great importance, of the fact that under the Merovingians interest was regarded as lawful. Everybody lent money at interest, even the king, who authorized a loan, at interest, to the city of Verdun.”
[71]

Here again we see a situation quite different to that which pertained in the Middle Ages, when the Church forbade the practice of usury. It is true, of course, that even during the period in question, the sixth century, the Church forbade the taking of interest; but it is equally evident that as yet it lacked the authority to enforce the ban. Prelates might berate kings and private citizens who took interest, but they could do little more than berate. The Church’s influence was of course important; and it is true that most Christians did heed the warnings of the priests. Even at this time most bankers and money-lenders were Jews. But not everyone involved in this kind of activity was; and this tells us a great deal about the time.

It was a time of wealth; it was a time of opulence. Cities, or at least towns, flourished, as they had under the Caesars, and life continued remarkably unchanged from the latter epoch. It was a money and not a barter economy; and the fundamental unit was the gold
solidus
. With this wealth luxury items were imported into the west in great quantities: fabrics, jewelry, spices, wines, and very many other of the things which made life pleasant for the urban elite.

Where then, Pirenne asked, did all this wealth originate? Some at least came from Byzantium, and we know that on occasion the Emperor sent subsidies of up to 50,000
solidi
to individual rulers in the West. Some also must have been booty taken in wars. Yet we must agree with Pirenne that, such was the opulence of the western kingdoms, that “commerce alone could have brought this continual stream of gold into the West.”
[72]

And here we must stress another point: The wealth of the Germanic kingdoms, by the end of the sixth century, showed no signs whatever of exhaustion. On the contrary, if anything, these states were becoming ever more wealthy and powerful; a wealth and power which, as we shall see, brought with it a flowering of literature and the arts. This did not seem to be an age of decadence, in any way whatsoever; but an age which showed every sign of being the start of a new flowering of civilization.

This was an epoch that could scarcely have been more different from the Middle Ages. Nothing marks it as an age of barter: “All the features of the old economic life were there: the preponderance of Oriental navigation, the importation of Oriental products, the organization of the ports, of the
tonlieu
and the impost, the circulation and the minting of money, the lending of money at interest, the absence of small markets, and the persistence of a constant commercial activity in the cities, where there were merchants by profession. There was, no doubt, in the commercial domain as in other departments of life, a certain retrogression due to the ‘barbarization’ of manners, but there was no definite break with what had been the economic life of the Empire. The commercial activities of the Mediterranean continued with singular persistence. And the same may be said of agriculture, which, no doubt, was still the basis of the economic life, but beside which commerce continued to play an essential part, both in daily life – by the sale of spices, clothing, etc – and in the life of the State – by virtue of the resources which the
tonlieu
procured for it – and in social life, owing to the presence of merchants and the existence of credit.”
[73]

[1]
Henri Pirenne,
Mohammed and Charlemagne
(English ed., London, 1938), p. 31

[2]
Ibid.

[3]
Trevor-Roper, op cit., p. 71

[4]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 32

[5]
Ibid., p. 40

[6]
H. Brunner,
Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte
, Vol. 1 (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1906), p. 504

[7]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 42

[8]
L. Hartmann,
Das Italienische Königreich
, Vol. 1, p. 64 (in
Geschichte Italiens
in Mittelalter, Vol. 1)

[9]
Pirenne, op cit., pp. 43-4

[10]
Hartmann, op cit, Vol. 1, p. 261

[11]
Ibid. p. 233

[12]
Procopius, ed. Dewing (The Loeb Classical Library), vol. III, pp. 22-24

[13]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 44

[14]
Ibid. pp. 46-7

[15]
Ibid. p. 48

[16]
Albertini, “Ostrakon byzantin de Négrine (Numidie),” in
Cinquantenaire de la Faculte des Letteres d’Alger
, (1932), pp. 53-62

[17]
Pirenne, op cit., pp. 48-9

[18]
Ibid. p. 49

[19]
Ibid. p. 50

[20]
Ibid. p. 51

[21]
Ibid.

[22]
Ibid. p. 52

[23]
Hartmann, op cit, Vol. 1, pp. 218-9

[24]
Ibid. p. 53

[25]
Ibid. p. 55

[26]
Ferdinand Lot, Christian Pfister and Francois L. Ganshof,
Histoire du Moyen Age
, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1929), p. 271

[27]
Pirenne, op cit, pp. 56-7

[28]
Ibid. p. 59

[29]
Ibid.

[30]
Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, vi, 42

[31]
Ibid. vi, 45

[32]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 60

[33]
Ibid. p. 61

[34]
Ibid. p. 63

[35]
Ibid. p. 73

[36]
Ibid. pp. 73-4

[37]
Ibid. p. 75

[38]
Gregory of Tours, vi, 20

[39]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 77

[40]
R. Buchner,
Die Provence in Merowingischer Zeit
(Stuttgart, 1933), p. 30, n.1

[41]
Cassiodorus,
Variae
, xii, 22. M.G.H. SS. Antiq., Vol. XII, p. 378

[42]
Pirenne, op cit. p. 78

[43]
Ibid., p. 79

[44]
Ibid., p. 80

[45]
Gregory of Tours, viii, 1

[46]
Edmond Leblant,
Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures au VIIIe siecle
, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1856), pp. 207 and 328

[47]
Ibid. p. 205, no. 125

[48]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 81

[49]
Gregory of Tours, vii, 31

[50]
Ibid., x, 26

[51]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 81

[52]
Procopius, v, 8, 21

[53]
Pirenne, op cit., pp. 82-3

[54]
Ibid., p. 83

[55]
Ibid., p. 103

[56]
Ibid., p. 95

[57]
Ibid., p. 92

[58]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 103

[59]
Ibid., p. 104

[60]
Ibid., p. 105

[61]
Gunnar Mickwitz, Geld und Wirtschaft im
Romischen Reich des IV. Jahrhunderts nach Christi
(Helsingfors, 1932), p. 190

[62]
Ibid., p. 107

[63]
Ibid., p. 108

[64]
Ibid.

[65]
Ibid.

[66]
Arthur Engel and Raymond Serrure,
Traité de numismatique du Moyen Age
, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1891), p. 177

[67]
Maurice Prou,
Catalogue des monnaies mérovingiennes d’Autun
, (Paris, 1888), pp. xxvii and xxviii

[68]
Ibid. p. xxxix

[69]
Pirenne, op cit., p. 111

[70]
Ibid.

[71]
Ibid., p. 115

[72]
Ibid., p. 112

[73]
Ibid. pp. 116-7