Barkley

We are a little at cross purposes here.  My contention is merely that for
(the greater part of) the 15th century, Europe hit a low point, but not
however, its lowest point.  So it seems we do not disagree.  And yes, the
printing press surely was a very important contributor to Europe’s
subsequent rise 

I am pleased to take the opportunity to explain how I think that point I
made impinges upon European affairs.  I claim Braudel’s comment on early
modern India reveals a general bullionist bias in his thought.  The return
of India to coining in a big way around 1540 was surely driven by government
policy.  One of its chief architects, Akbar, had the matter thus: "Able and
trustworthy men were appointed to survey the spacious territories of India
and to determine the amount of production and to substitute payments in cash
so that the market of the embezzlers might fall flat".  This contradicts
Braudel's impossible metallic supply side suggestion

I further claim that a similar bullionist bias runs through the great
majority of modern texts concerning medieval Europe, but that these are
presented, by and large, in a much more skilful and erudite manner.  Andrew
Murrey Watson brilliantly attacked the European bullionist Braudellian
edifice in 1967 (most specifically Lopez).  But he abruptly ceased to
publish on monetary matters early in his career, rather leaving the field
free to such as Day, Spufford and Cipola to continue to roll out a very
scholarly but never the less rather bullionist agenda, tending to belittle
the role or abilities of past government agencies.

These comments are I think particularly pertinent today, because the broadly
bullionist arguments, especially those of Cipola, have recently
metamorphosed in the hands of such as Sargent and Velde. Even regarding the
medieval European sphere, they have now become rather crude misrepresentations.

Back in the 1980’s I hoped to use what I saw, and see, as clear evidence of
bias in Braudel to prompt a re-evaluation of early monetary history in its
entirety, building on foundations laid by Watson.  I think clear
misrepresentations in works appearing in the early 21st century might offer
that opportunity again.

Rob Tye, York, UK

PS  On Charlemagne’s monetary metrology, I believe you are making the same
mistake as Sargent and Velde, but those are arcane, controversial and rather
technical matters that might best be discussed off group, if anyone so wishes.