|
|
|
Book Review
| Alan Cooper, Bridges, Law and Power in Medieval England, 700–1400, Rochester: Boydell Press, 2006. Pp. 185. $80 (ISBN 978-1-84383-275-5).
|
| The ordinary person rarely gives much thought to bridges until a tragedy such as the recent collapse in Minnesota occurs. Since then, much concern has been expressed about infrastructure in general and aging bridges in particular. Squabbles have broken out among governmental bodies over the question of responsibility for maintenance. These concerns are not new, of course. As Alan Cooper, in his compact and cogent book, Bridges, Law and Power in Medieval England, 700–1400, argues such difficulties and conflicting interests have existed as long as there has been infrastructure to maintain. In the course of discussing the building and upkeep of bridges in the medieval period, Cooper reaches some large conclusions concerning changing notions of medieval kingship and governmental power. That he does so through a careful reading of the documentary evidence combined with an eye for legal theory and political and economic reality makes this a satisfying and enlightening book. |
1
|
|
On his way to making conclusions about conceptions of power and how those concepts changed, Cooper follows some fascinating paths—several leading to the Continent. In discussing the odd fact that bridges are mentioned in charters long before there were, in fact, many bridges to mention, the section of the chapter on the Synod and Charter of Gumley (the text of which he provides in an appendix) is of particular interest, demonstrating as it does the influence of St. Boniface on that early Charter and his probable role in stressing the importance of bridges well before the reality in England required it. Later on, in discussing the use of the theory of the Via Regio to rationalize pontage tolls, he examines the fascination of twelfth-century legal scholars with Roman law and argues convincingly that while Roman law never had the grip on England that it did on the Continent, it was, nevertheless, an influence on English legal theory concerning royal power. |
2
|
|
One of the more satisfying aspects of this book is Cooper's willingness to challenge assumptions held by earlier historians, whether from the sixteenth or the twentieth century. On such matters as "The Three Necessities," or the authenticity of early charters, he marshals his evidence effectively and is convincing. Likewise, his question concerning such a fundamental subject as the origin of obligations is not only interesting in terms of feudal theory, but also has a direct impact on his argument concerning theories of royal power and the practical problems of maintaining infrastructure in the medieval period. |
3
|
|
Another welcome aspect of this book is Cooper's melding of natural history and economic development with legal and political theory. The discussions of physical reality add a welcome perspective to his discussions of case law and concepts of royal power. For instance, he traces the natural development of rivers in order to set up the background for the growing need for bridges by the ninth century. His discussions of the changing nature of trade in the period offers a practical basis for his discussion of the legal struggles over the upkeep and repair of bridges and roads. |
4
|
|
All of these discussions lead to one of the deeper matters he explores here—the link between bridge maintenance and royal power. Cooper uses the records concerning bridge maintenance to illustrate a stark contrast between Anglo-Saxon concepts of royal power and the Norman approach to the same subject. The Anglo-Saxon rulers following Alfred held to the theory that responsibility for bridge upkeep was communal and inescapable, even by the king. He argues that they expressed their power in their ability to enforce this common burden. |
5
|
|
The Normans, according to Cooper, either did not understand or chose to ignore the concept of inescapable common burdens. Their conception of royal power was much more individual in nature: power lay not in enforcing such burdens, but in being personally free of such responsibility and having the right to free others, as well. By the mid-twelfth century the concept of common burdens was gone, and no satisfactory solution was found in the medieval period to take its place in terms of maintaining crucial infrastructure, though Cooper does a fine job of discussing the attempts to find an answer. |
6
|
|
This book combines solid documentary evidence, a sense of geography, and social/political/economic reality. The seemingly straightforward matter of bridges falling down involves a complex mix of changing concepts of royal power, feudal relationships, the evolving need for communication and transportation, and the selfish urges of human nature. Though the book concerns a subject as seemingly mundane as infrastructure, the reader never forgets that the author is talking about real people and real problems in the medieval landscape. |
7
|
| Victoria D. List
|
| Washington & Jefferson College |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|