Restoration and Reform 1153-1165: Recovery from Civil War in England (review)

Restoration and Reform 1153-1165: Recovery from Civil War in England. By Graeme J. White (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000) 248 pp. $64.95

It is simple, if simplistic, to summarize the thesis of White's book: King Stephen's concern with continuity of royal administration, finance, and justice speaks against the older view of civil war "anarchy," in the sense of "absence of government" (75). However, Stephen's inability completely to maintain that continuity forced Henry II to devote his early years to "restoration" of royal properties, incomes, and rights, even though Realpolitik often dominated principle. Success in this enterprise made possible "reforms" going beyond that "restoration"; the years from 1163 to 1165 marked a transition in government as crucial as the more frequently cited measures in and after 1166. Vital to "the timing of reform" was "the impact of the king's itinerary," especially Henry's return in 1163 after his necessary absence due to Continental problems during the early years of his reign (xiii, 218).

What is not simple is the author's brilliantly complex and exhaustive combination of disciplines and sources to support his thesis, including narrative chronicles (and analysis of their political bias), the economic data of the pipe rolls (the annual exchequer accounts), numismatics, royal and private charters, ecclesiastical history, and legal cases. For examples, chronicles as a source are sometimes corrected by analysis of pipe rolls. Continuity of types and weights of coins under Stephen are compared with those under Henry, and coins are used, inter alia, to demonstrate both the geographical extent and limitations of Stephen's control. Chronicles and charters are cited in agreement about the recognition of hereditary property rights. At the same time, insoluble weaknesses in the sources--important narrative chronicles end by the mid-1150s, and exchequer accounts reveal receipts more than expenses--are always recognized. Tribute is paid to other scholars, but White's own sometimes controversial contributions--among them, the transfer of cases to royal courts only as a last resort, his critique of the role of "writ of right" as central policy, and, above all, the great importance of the years 1163-1165 in Henry's reign--are well supported and convincing.

Scholars not at home with purprestures, seisin and disseisin, reckonings "blanch" or "numero," or free alms and lay fees will find rough going--and if it is true that God lives in the detail, much of this book is divine. However, those same rich details will serve well specialists in twelfth-century English history. This book must be taken into account.

William A. Chaney
Lawrence University

...