Regalian Right in Medieval England by Margaret Howell (review)

BEVmWS 59 ratherthana freshcausal reconstruction whichmarks themainscholarly contribution ofthisnewgeneration. This generalization is borneout in the ten essays whichfollowHigham's Introduction. With a few notableexceptions, the continuing contxoversy over basiccausal forces stillfocuses on issues inherited fromoldergenerations. As Professor DonE. Fehrenbacher suggests inhisessay onCivilWarhistoriography, the currentrevoltagainst "revisionism" hasled to a revivalof the evenearlier "nationalist" emphasis on slavery. Professor WesleyFrankCraven, whoassesses the historiography of the Revolutionary era,findsthe ideasof George Bancroft re-echoed in the contemporary nee-conservative school. In sharp contrast to this dearthof newcausal interpretations,stwarresearch in cultural andintellectual history hasopened newvistas ontheAmerican past.Professor RichardSehlatter credi(s recer/tstudies of Puritanthought with overttuning the harshand distortedindictments of VernonParrington. The historiography of the American West,discussed by Professor Earl Pomeroy, hasbeenmarkedly enriched by Henry Nash Smith's Virgin Land: T, heAmerican West asSymbol andMyth. In a similarfashion, M•arvin MeyersThe lacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belie[hasprovided a newapproach to whatProfessor WilliamWardtermsthe ageof the common man Althouh lesspronounced in somefields,the main ß g patternis clear.SinceWorld War II the inventory of basiccausal explanations hasremained relatively staticß Butin the realmof culturalandintellectual hisø tory,Higham's eneration hasmadesubstantial andoftenoriginal contributions g ß As evidence of thesemaintrendsin contemporary American historiography, The Reconstruction o• American Historyis a briefbut filuminating collection. Highamandhis collaborators, moreover, havenot ignored the important interpretativecontributions of othergenerations. Thus,in additionto its genuine scholarly merit,TheReconstruction o•American History issuitable forcollateral reading inundergraduate history courses. CHRISTOPHER LINDLEY University of Rochester British RegalJan Rightin MedievalEngland.By MARGARET HOWELL. London:University of London, The Athlone Press [Toronto: OxfordUniversity l•ress]. 1962.Pp.xvi,264.$6.00. Dmu•c • MmDL•. XCES Englishkingsclaimedthe right to appropriate part or all of therevenue of vacant bishoprics. In addition theyclaimed therightto present sedevacante to those ecclesiastical benefices whichsedeplenawerein thegiftofthebisho To etherthese claims constitute whatweknowasregaljan P. g , right MissMargaretHowells bookis the firsts stematic studyof the manner ß y in whichEnglish kings fi:om theeleventh tothefourteenth century enforced this lucrative butcontested right. Beforethe twelfthcenturythe histo of regalJan rightis obscureEvidence ry ß comes almost exclusively from monastic writers whose ,feelings onthesubject may easilybe surmised. For thisreason MissHowellssurveyof the period before 1100 isbrief. She shows, however,, that regalJan right was not theinvention of RanulfFlarebard, William Rufus renegade churchman. Mostlikely it wasoneo• the nefarious foreignetastoms brought to Englandby Williamthe Conqueror. 6O THE CANADIA2q I-IISTORICAL REVIEW With thecreation of effective central government in thetwelfthcentury came the firstsystematic exercise of all the claims we associate with thetermregaltan fight.Eventhereignof Stephen produced noabsolute breakin thedevelopment. Asonewouldexpect it wasHenryII whoclearly defined thepractice. The bulk of MissHowell'sbookis devoted to the thirteenth century where the sources makepossible a moredetailed study.Johnemerges asthe era[ W, meticulous, andinventiveadministrator sofamiliarin modemscholarship. More surprising is.thefact thatHenryIII, piousthough he undoubtedly was,wasno lessanxious than his father to utilize to the full the possibilities for casual revenue foundin keepingbishopties vacant.If Rufusis to be exeoriated for keein Canterb vacant fouryears whatshall wemake ofHenryIII whokept p g ury Winchester vacant morethansixyears? Of particular interest is MissHoweIFs detailed studyof the machinery and personnel by whichvacantbishopfies were administered in the th/rteenth century. Here the authorhasthrownmuchlightupona little knownbranch of the mediaeval civilservice. Evena quickglance through the listof keepers will reveal manynames familiar in much higher circles of thirteenthandfour teenth -century royaladministration. Thanks to the excellent Indexthe bookis aneasy aswellasindispensable source forinvestigators in thisfield. Bythemid-fourteenth century theimportance o•regalion r/ghtwasclearly on the wane.As a source of revenue its importance declined dueto the generally shorter episcopal vacancies, whileatthesame timemore luerat/ve public imposts were replacing seigniofial fightsas the mainstay of royalfinance. ThusMiss Howellhasended hers•dy intheearlyfourteenth century. Accepting the limitations withinwhichthe bookis written,MissHowellhas produced an admirable study,thoroughly documented and well wriSen.She approaches the subieet •romthepointof viewof the monarch .andhisinterest in regaltan ri ht Thismeans thatecelesiast/cal ob'ections areskirted overli htly; g . ] g it is notthe theorybut the practice of regaltan rightthatinterests the author. Fairenough; ff thebookisprimarily administrative wewill behappy to accept it assuch andrefrainfromasking whatthecanon lawyers thought onthesubject. On theotherhandadministratively regalion rightwasa means to anend.The kingwantedto fill hiscoffers. How successful washe?DespiteMissHowell's detailed analysis o.•receipts fromvacantbishoprics nowhere hasshea•empted to calculate eithertheto•aloraverage yearly revenue English kings received from thissource. Morethanthiswe should likemosto• all to knowwhatpercentage of crownrevenuewasobtained from vacantbishoprics. Theseare largequestionsandeveryone will...