Welsh Journals

A description of this book in these terms, however, is in no way intended as a criticism of Professor Nicholson. His synthesis of late-medieval Scottish history is a major achievement, for it not only brings together the work of several generations of Scottish historians, but it also points to those areas where work is yet to be done. Indeed, the balance and the biases of the book reflect the gaps in the source material and in secondary work on the period. Until the relevant volumes of the Regesta are available, it will be difficult to give a fuller account of the reigns of David II, Robert II and Robert III. Until much more work has been done on Gaelic society, both in the Highlands and in Ireland, it will be difficult to follow up Professor Nicholson's suggestive remarks on the significance of the battle of Harlaw and on the relationship between the Highlands and the Lowlands. And in view of the sparseness of the source material, it is unlikely that the development of the late-medieval economy in Scotland will ever be as well known as the development of its English and Welsh counterparts. Within these limits, therefore, Professor Nicholson's book is most valuable. His narrative is densely packed with information, but he also offers stimulating generalizations, such as his suggestion that in their political activity the Scots were much less concerned than the English with theoretical justifications for what they did. The book concludes with an excellent analytical bibliography which shows us how much has already been accomplished in late-medieval Scottish history; the book as a whole also reminds us of how much has yet to be done. ANTHONY TUCK Lancaster. CHARLES VII. By M. G. A. Vale. Eyre Methuen, London, 1974. Pp. xiii, 267; illust. 14, map, chart. £ 7.25. In this interesting and, in many respects, valuable study of Charles VII of France, whose regnal years coincided exactly with those of his young nephew and rival, Henry VI of England, Dr. Vale has chosen to concentrate upon the personality of the king. Is such an emphasis justifiable? There can be little doubt that the unprepossessing figure of Fouquet's portrait has always been an enigma: how could a man with a face in which intelligence is seemingly so conspicuously lacking become 'le tresvictorieux roi' of reality? There are strong reasons for trying to sort out this fundamental problem, and the case, in personal terms, is well and interestingly presented. Charles is shown as a man of wide interests, a hard worker (surprising, perhaps) and a king possessed of considerable political talents. Appreciating the basic fact that power depended upon the exercise of patronage, he made the most of his royal position and of his Court to achieve power. Thus, he drew men to himself, made use of their services, and then discarded them (as Jacques Coeur found to his cost) when he no longer needed them. We must be grateful to Dr. Vale for emphasizing this, for, granted this fact, we can now understand why Charles did nothing about Joan of Arc once she had fallen into English hands. The king also knew (as is demonstrated in an