Welsh Journals

BASTARD Feudalism. By Michael Hicks. Longman, 1995. Pp. xii, 243. £ 34 hardback; £ 1 1.99 paperback. This book promises 'the most radical re-interpretation of the subject for fifty years', a reference to the late K. B. McFarlane's work. Bastard feudalism is defined not as the practice of indentured retaining, which was ubiquitous in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but as a system of social relations which characterized the period between 1150 and 1650. Even in the eighteenth century, the author confidently asserts, although 'the label was obsolete; the phenomenon remained'. There are two claims here, that a narrow focus on extraordinary retaining has misled historians and that much is to be learned from a consideration of bastard feudalism within a much greater time-scale than has been customary. There is much to commend in this approach and the book works well as an exploration of the ways in which medieval lordship, local, regional and national, worked in practice after the profound changes of the twelfth century. This is not a lordship of peasants but the subtle and shifting ways in which great and small lords, gentry, nobles and the Crown managed their own affairs. For its intended undergraduate audience, discussions of retaining, of political control of the locality, of noble display and the overarching claims of royal lordship work well. There is little here that is genuinely novel, nor need there be in a work of synthesis of recent work to which Hicks has made his own powerful contribution. Ultimately, it is the style of the book which renders it less useful. Many historians are cited only to be told that their work is mistaken, that they have not understood important issues, are now superseded, not always posthumously, or just plain wrong. One or two are 'wise', even 'brilliant', but it is the author, with a 'major re-interpretation' already to his credit, who will undertake the 'more thoroughgoing assessment' which is required. Seventy-six historians are indexed. The author modestly omits his own name, though Cecil's secretary, Sir Michael Hickes, does figure. Much of this historiographical review surely does not help the reader and it often takes up the space which might have been devoted to important issues. The thesis that bastard feudalism continued until the mid-seventeenth century remains an assertion in the text since recent work on the nature of lordship after 1550 is summarily treated. The Englishness of bastard feudalism remains implicit. There are references to regional and chronological variations and to the difference between north and south, but Wales, Scotland and Ireland figure not at all. The origins of bastard feudalism in the mid-twelfth century are hardly discussed. PHILIP MORGAN Keele