Captivity and Imprisonment in Medieval Europe 1000–1300 by Jean Dunbabin (review)

REVIEWS 213 study of the French and Austrian courts, centered around the late seventeenth century. Duindam is so self-reflective and tentative that the reader is hard-put to find faults other than those already pointed out by the author. Louis XIV’s Versailles is the obvious choice for any court study, but the comparison with Vienna (Duindam generously admits) is not unproblematic: there was no court in Europe comparable with Versailles, and Duindam has eliminated any Catholic /Protestant contrast. Despite the book’s title, this study focuses on the late seventeenth century, and treats the earlier and later periods as background and epilogue — attempting to push the comparison back into the sixteenth century or to carry it forward to the end of the eighteenth century wander outside the focus of the study. In short, Vienna and Versailles is as useful as an introduction to the study of the early modern court as it is indispensable as an analytical and methodological model for specialists in the field. BENJAMIN MARSCHKE, History, UCLA Jean Dunbabin, Captivity and Imprisonment in Medieval Europe 1000–1300 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2002) v + 207 pp. Jean Dunbabin offers a thorough overview of Captivity and Imprisonment in Medieval Europe, despite the relative brevity of the text. Among other things, Dunbabin covers how the reasons for captivity changed over these three centuries . Dunbabin points out that nowadays sociologists commonly differentiate between three types of imprisonment, coercive, custodial, and punitive, but circa 1000 the most common objective for imprisonment was coercion. Nobles would be captured and held for ransom, or they might be held in order to pressure family members into raising money to pay off a debt. Also, hostages were taken to secure treaties. The treatment one received while imprisoned was generally based on the rank of the prisoner, not the reason for the imprisonment. By 1300, however, Dunbabin asserts that there was a clear change, and even though there were still examples of captivity for the purpose of coercion, custodial and punitive types of imprisonment were beginning to occur more frequently than the coercive kind. Imprisonment was increasingly seen as a fit punishment for crimes. Dunbabin examines the influence of Rome on captivity in Western Europe and argues that it was “comatose” (8) circa 1000, but it became increasingly important thereafter. As Dunbabin describes the means of captivity during this time period, she notes that there are more references to captivity in the eleventh century than in the immediately preceding centuries, not just because we have more sources, but because sturdier castles were being built so keeping captives was more feasible. Captives might be held in dungeons or high towers, and they were sometimes required to wear shackles or neck collars. Starvation was another common problem faced by captives. But when the sources described imprisonment, it was not just in reference to individuals locked away in dark rooms. Dunbabin tells the story of French King Philip IV sending a number of individuals away from their homes in Reims to the city of Laon until Reims paid its share of his coronation expenses. These individuals were free to move about Laon, but they could not return home until Philip was satisfied. Dunbabin devotes an entire chapter to who could hold REVIEWS 214 prisoners (it was not just kings and the most powerful lords) and who was responsible for guarding prisoners (no real surprises here). In the chapter on leaving captivity, Dunbabin points out that many did not survive their prison experience due to disease, bad treatment, and suicide. Prisoners could be released for a variety of reasons that might have little to do with legality. Prisoners were frequently released as a result of a violent, outside action, such as when an army liberated its comrades after storming an enemy castle, or when a mob rose up against an oppressive ruler. Dunbabin also notes that sometimes prisons were forced open to free a beloved individual and not to undermine the local legal system in general. Sometimes prisoners were released to help swell the ranks of a captor wanting help in a military campaign. Dunbabin has some illuminating things to say regarding the church and imprisonment. The church initially pursued...