^{page 123 note 1} RBPH, i (1922), 77–86Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 1} It is not possible here to attempt a bibliography. Pirenne's own views were embodied in his posthumously published Mahomet et Charlemagne (Paris-Brussels, 1937)Google Scholar. Two valuable critical studies, concentrating on certain aspects and including much bibliographical material, are Lopez, R. S., ‘Mohammed and Charlemagne: a revision’, Speculum, xviii (1943), 14–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and D. C. Dennett, ‘Pirenne and Muhammad’, ibid., xxiii (1948), 165–90. A résumé of the views of Alfons Dopsch will befound in his Naturalwirtschaft und Geldwirtschaft in die Weltgeschichte (Vienna, 1930), pp. 110 seq.Google Scholar Many works on specific topics are referred to below. The most recent general survey is Latouche, R., Les Origines de l'économie occidentale (Paris, 1956)Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 1} Cf. Sabbe, E., ‘Quelques types de marchands des IXe et Xe siècles’, RBPH, xiii (1934), 176–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 126 note 1} Capitulare de Villis, cc. 39, 65 (in Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. Boretius, A., i (Hanover, 1883), pp. 86, 89)Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 2} Southern, R. W., The making of the Middle Ages (London, 1953), p. 42Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note 1} See particularly Bugge, A., ‘Die nordeuropäischen Verkehrswege im frühen Mittelalter und die Bedeutung der Wikinger für die Entwickelung des europäischen Handels und der europäischen Schiffahrt’, Vierteljahrschrift f. Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, iv (1906), 227–77Google Scholar; Kletler, P, Nordwesteuropas Verkehr, Handel und Gewerbe im frühen Mittelalter (Vienna, 1924)Google Scholar; Arbman, H., Schweden und das karolingische Reich. Studien zu den Handelverbindungen der 9. Jahrhunderts (Stockholm, 1937)Google Scholar; and the work of Jankuhn referred to below, p. 136, n. For a very sceptical approach, see Himly, F. J., ‘Y a-t-il emprise musulmane sur l'économie des états européens du VIIIe au Xe siècle?’, Revue suisse d'histoire, v (1955), 35–48Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note 2} Aethelweard, , Chronicon, iii. 1Google Scholar (in Petrie, H., Monumenta Historica Britannica, i (1848), p. 509)Google Scholar. The king's reeve ordered them to come to Dorchester, putans eos magis negotiatores esse quam hostes. The text does not imply that he believed them to be Scandinavian traders, and the terms of Alcuin's letter to King Aethelred on the sack of Lindisfarne, in which he expresses his amazement that Scandinavians should have made such a voyage (nee eiusmodi navigium fieri posse putabatur), sufficiently shows that they cannot have been regarded as such (Mon. Germ. Hist., Epist. Karolini Aevi, ii. 42).

^{page 127 note 3} Edictum Pistense, c. 25 (in Capitularia, ii. 321).

^{page 128 note 1} E.g. Annales Bertiniani, a. 866 (ed. Waitz, G., Hanover, 1883, p. 81)Google Scholar.

^{page 128 note 2} Annales Fuldenses, a. 882 (ed. Kurze, F., Hanover, 1891, pp. 98–99)Google Scholar. Kurze's identification of Ascloha with Elsloo is incorrect.

^{page 128 note 3} Van Werveke, H., ‘Comment les établissements religieux beiges se procuraient-ils du vin au haut moyen âge’, RBPH, ii (1923), 643–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Les propriétés excentriques des églises au haut moyen-âge’, ibid., iv (1925), 136–41.

^{page 128 note 4} Van Werveke's views were criticized by Dennett, , op. cit. (above, p. 124, n. 1), pp. 188–9Google Scholar, who points out that the grants of vineyards cited date from anywhere between 650 and 1180. He himself regards it as a form of investment. It seems to me that Van Werveke is correct in treating it as an urge towards greater self-sufficiency, since the grouping together of estates with products complementary to one another is found elsewhere, but that difficulties over purchasing the commodities had nothing to do with it.

^{page 129 note 1} Epistolae, no. 36 (Epist. Karolini aevi, iii. 128). See Van Werveke, H., ‘Note sur le commerce du plomb au moyen âge’, in Mélanges d'histoire offerts à Henri Pirenne (Brussels, 1926), pp. 653–62Google Scholar.

^{page 129 note 2} Ferrières, Loup de, Correspondence, ed. Levillain, L., ii (Paris, 1935), 70–74Google Scholar. Cf. also below, p. 139, n. 3.

^{page 129 note 3} Codex Carolinus, no. 78 (Epist. Karol. aevi, i. 670).

^{page 130 note 1} ‘Die Anfänge der karolingische Goldprägung in Nordwesteuropa’;, Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik, ii/vi (1954), 55–60Google Scholar.

^{page 130 note 2} Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘Post-Roman coins found at Brighton’, Numismatic Chronicle, 6th ser., i (1941), 87Google Scholar.

^{page 130 note 3} Princeton, 1958. This book is frequently unreliable over details, quite apart from the deductions based upon them: e.g. on pp. 208 and 305 the Delgany hoard is cited as having contained Frankish coins and consequently providing evidence of commercial relations between Ireland and Gaul. Not only is its commercial character unproven and unlikely—Evans, who described the hoard, believed that it came from a Viking raid on Kent—but it contained no Frankish coins at all.

^{page 130 note 4} The titles of many books on the subject testify to the interpretation placed upon the evidence by their authors. Cf. Nordman, C. A., ‘Schatzfunde und Handelsverbindungen in Finnlands Wikingerzeit’;, Acta Archaeologica, xiii (1942), 272–93Google Scholar; Adelson, H. L., Light weight solidi and Byzantine trade during the sixth and seventh centuries (American Numismatic Society, Notes and Monographs, No. 138. New York, 1957)Google Scholar.

^{page 131 note 1} Cap. 12, § 1.

^{page 131 note 2} Cf. Annales regni Francorum, a. 796 (ed. Kurze, F., Hanover, 1895, p. 98)Google Scholar; Alcuin, , Epist., no. 100 (Epist. Karol. aevi, ii. 146)Google Scholar. Offa received a sword-belt, a gladium Huniscum and two pallia sirica.

^{page 132 note 1} Thompson, E. A., A History of Attila and the Huns (Oxford, 1948), p. 161Google Scholar.

^{page 132 note 2} Gregory, of Tours, Historia Francorum, vi. 42 (Script, rer. Merov., i. 282)Google Scholar.

^{page 132 note 3} Fredegarius, , iv. 69 (Script, rer. Merov., ii. 155)Google Scholar.

^{page 132 note 4} Procopius, , De bello Gothico, i. 13Google Scholar. 14, 27 (Loeb edn., vol. iii. 136, 140). The Byzantines had earlier tried to buy Frankish support (ibid., i. 5.10; iii. 44).

^{page 132 note 5} Fredegarius, iv. 45 (pp. 143–4). Fredegarius mentions the bribing of three Frankish nobles with 1,000 solidi apiece.

^{page 133 note 1} Grierson, P., ‘The gold solidus of Louis the Pious and its imitations’;, Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde, xxxviii (1951), 3–5Google Scholar.

^{page 133 note 2} Cf. Babelon, E., ‘La trouvaille de Helleville (Manche) en 1780’, Revue numismatique, 4th ser., x (1906), 185–9Google Scholar.

^{page 133 note 3} Hist. Franc., vi. 2 (pp. 245–6).

^{page 133 note 4} Fredegarius, iv. 73 (pp. 157–8). The last figure must be an exaggeration, for the bullion value of a gold object weighing 500 lbs. would only come to 36,000 solidi.

^{page 133 note 5} Procopius, De bell. Pers., ii. 28.44 (Loeb edn., i. 526). We know from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De ceremoniis, i. 89–90 (Bonn edn., i. 398–410), that foreign envoys were regarded as imperial guests from the moment that they crossed the frontier and not merely while they were in Constantinople. This is also apparent from Liutprand of Cremona's account of his embassies.

^{page 134 note 1} De ceremoniis, ii. 15 (Bonn edn., i. 594–8). Cf. also the gifts to Saracen ambassadors detailed in the preceding section, e.g. on pp. 584, 592. The miliaresion was probably reckoned 24 to the nomisma at this period.

^{page 134 note 2} Cf. the purchase of cloaks by Liutprand of Cremona on his embassies to Constantinople and his consequent difficulties with customs officials (De legatione, cc. 53–55; Opera, ed. Becker, J. (3rd edn., Hanover, 1915), pp. 203–6)Google Scholar.

^{page 134 note 3} Procopius, De bello Pers., ii. 6.24; 7.5–8; 8.4; 11.3, 24; 12.2, 34; 27.46 (Loeb edn., i. 312, 314, 325, 352, 356, 362, 372, 514). The 1000 lbs. of gold at Antioch was not actually paid, and the city was captured and sacked instead, while at Edessa, when Chosroes believed himself on the point of capturing the city, he had demanded that it should hand over either 50,000 lbs. of gold or all the gold and silver it contained (ibid., ii. 26.39; p 498).

^{page 135 note 1} Cedrenus, Historia, a. 19 Mauricii (Bonn edn., i. 700). His totals do not agree with one another, and it is clear that the number of prisoners was above 12,000, but it is not apparent how the two demonstrable errors in his text should be corrected.

^{page 135 note 2} Bryennius, Nicephorus, Commentarii, ii. 29 (Bonn edn., p. 99)Google Scholar.

^{page 135 note 3} Cod. Just., 1.2.21. Cf. Nov. Just., 7.8; 65.1; 120.10.

^{page 135 note 4} Matzulewitsch, L., Byzantinische Antike (Berlin, 1929), no. 6, pp. 101 seqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 135 note 5} Priscus, , Excerpta de legatiorubus (Bonn edn., pp. 186–7)Google Scholar.

^{page 135 note 6} This particular point has been much discussed. T. J. Arne was firmly of the opinion that the coins left the empire as payment for mercenaries (‘Solidusfynden pa Öland och Gotland’, Fornvännen xiv (1919), 107–111Google Scholar; ‘Deux nouvelles découvertes de solidi en Gotland’, Acta Archaeologica, ii (1931), 1–28)Google Scholar, a view supported by J. Werner for the Öland but not for the Gotland series (‘Zu den auf Öland und Gotland gefundenen byzantinischen Goldmünzen’, Fornvännen, xliv (1949), 257–86)Google Scholar. A non-commercial origin seems to me indicated by the uncirculated condition of many of the coins and by the dating of the hoards, notably by the coincidence between the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom and the ending of the Gotland series in the 550's. Jankuhn, H. in his capital study ‘Der fränkisch-friesische Handel zur Ostsee im fruhen Mittelalter’ (Vierteljahrschrift f. Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, xl (1953), 193–243)Google Scholar regards them as commercial imports.

^{page 136 note 1} Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, iii. 51, Schol. 84 (Mon. Germ. Hist., Script., vii. 356). The scribe believed that Harold still had at least the bulk of it in his possession at the time of his death, and that it fell to William the Conqueror, which is certainly incorrect.

^{page 136 note 2} Cf. Hauberg, P., ‘De l'influence byzantine sur les monnaies de Danemark au Xle siècle’;, Congrès international de numismatique (Paris, 1900), pp.335–45Google Scholar.

^{page 136 note 3} Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Parker MS.), a. 694; Bede, Hist, eccles., iv. 19.

^{page 136 note 4} Gregory, of Tours, Hist. Franc., vi. 45 (p. 284)Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 1} The classic study is Mauss, M., Essai sur le don (1935Google Scholar; Eng. transl. by Cunnison, I., The Gift; forms and junctions of exchange in archaic societies, 1954)Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 2} Germania, c. 15, ad fin.

^{page 138 note 1} LI. 1859–63. The translation is that of D. H. Crawford.

^{page 138 note 2} Hecht, H., Bischofs Waerferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen, i (Leipzig, 1900), 2Google Scholar. On the identity of the bishop—Wulfsige, not Wulfstan, as it stands in the text—see Sisam, K., Studies in the history of Old English literature (Oxford, 1953), pp. 201–2, 225–31Google Scholar. Gold rings were the chief form in which wealth was displayed in the early Germanic period, hence the general use of the word for ‘riches’.

^{page 138 note 3} Ed. Langebek, J., Scriptores rerum Danicarum, i (Copenhagen, 1772), 5Google Scholar, cited in Whitelock, Dorothy, The Audience of Beowulf (Oxford, 1951), p. 36, n. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 138 note 4} Cf. Doehaerd, R., ‘La richesse des Mérovingiens’, in Studi in onore di Gino Luzzatto (Milan, 1949), i. 30–46Google Scholar. The urge to accumulate treasure was common to all Germanic rulers. Amalasuntha's treasure, sent for safety to Epidamnus, was reputed to include 40,000 lbs. of gold, the equivalent of nearly three million solidi (Procopius, , De bello Goth., 2. 26–28Google Scholar: Loeb edn., iii. 22).

^{page 139 note 1} Boniface, , Epistolae, no. 69 (ed. Tangl, M., 1916, p. 142)Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 2} Ibid. no. 105 (pp. 230–1).

^{page 139 note 3} Cf. also Alcuin's gift of 100 lbs. of tin—presumably lead is meant—to Archbishop Eanbald II of York for covering the bell-tower of the cathedral (Epist. Karol. aevi, ii. 370).

^{page 140 note 1} Above, p. 130 n. 4.

^{page 140 note 2} Cod. Just., 4.63.2; Basilics, 56.1.20. I hope to deal with this question in a forthcoming article in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift.