The term maintenance has perturbed historians of late medieval English political society. As Jonathan Rose makes clear in Maintenance in Medieval England, it was recognized by royal government, who introduced statutory measures and legal procedures to combat it. It was also highlighted both by litigants using the judicial system and by contemporary social commentators, who articulated, often with biting satire, the system's shortcomings. But from the historian's perspective, it is difficult to discern what was legitimate and acceptable and what was frowned upon and intended to influence proceedings unduly. As a phenomenon “maintenance” is difficult to pin down, with multiple definitions appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary, the Middle English Dictionary, and the Anglo-Norman Dictionary. Broadly, it was used by contemporaries to mean support or assistance with another person's litigation. It sprang from accepted social and religious norms of kinship, community, and charity, where provision of protection to those less fortunate was a duty and notions of “good lordship” held sway. Masquerading as a social concept, “maintenance” in its generic form was closely linked to “bastard feudalism.” Firmly embedded within medieval society, it seems to have proliferated almost uncontrollably. As a specific legal term it embodied both a criminal and a civil wrong, and it spawned other similar offenses, namely “champerty” and “conspiracy.” A failure to address the full implications of the term, together with a reluctance to trawl systematically through the plea rolls, has left many studies of political society, particularly those focusing on the patronage and ambitions of aristocratic families, lacking a fully rounded perspective.

Rose is overstating the book's credentials in claiming it is the first study covering those who abused and misused the legal system in medieval England. Earlier studies, such as P. H. Winfield's The Origin of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure (1921) and J. G. Bellamy's Bastard Feudalism and the Law (1989) were influential. Nevertheless, the present volume is certainly an important and long overdue contribution to that field. He addresses not only the legislation and gradual conceptual distinctions emerging between different subspecies of “maintenance” but also the way in which these developed into a fully fledged law of “maintenance” that could in turn be used and abused. Indeed, Rose has dared to tread where no legal or social historians have gone before in undertaking a meticulous analysis of cases of “maintenance” in the legal records courtesy of the Anglo-American Legal Tradition project's digitized images of the original plea rolls. His systematic examination has revealed the extent to which actions of “maintenance” and enforcement of the legislation by the crown achieved the desired purpose of “controlling corruption of the system by powerful individuals and officials” (324). His findings, based on 3193 plea roll entries (1327–1485) and 252 cases reported in the Year Books for the same period, indicate that, contrary to legislative intention, only a small proportion of gentry (12 percent) were targeted; husbandmen, yeomen, and persons of various occupations and trade were by far the majority (77 percent) of those who ended up in court.

This work most obviously highlights the considerable legislative and law-enforcement activity that arose in response to governmental concern about “maintenance,” as well as the corresponding litigation that increased exponentially in response to individuals’ real, imagined, or feared abuse of the legal system. Significantly, it reveals that, in spite of the extensive illegality alleged by contemporaries and averred by modern historians, some forms of support for parties to litigation was deemed lawful, and the courts entertained a raft of justifications. In spite of being the target of many “maintenance” actions, being retained as a lawyer, for example, was not surprisingly accepted as legitimate conduct, and judges were sympathetic to claims that defendants in such cases were professionally advising or assisting in litigation. It therefore sheds some light on the work and behavior of those men of law, particularly common attorneys and stewards of landowners, acting for their clients in the local courts who are otherwise obscure—men such as Little Michael of Layton (69), John Lightfoot (71), and Hugh Tyrel (78). Other justifications or conduct making “maintenance” lawful included a master assisting a servant (where the defendant had a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation), anyone assisting family, friends, and the poor, or legitimately participating in the litigation process either as a pledge or by providing evidential proof. Rose devotes a chapter to the close association between “maintenance” and the practice of retaining (marked by the distribution of identifiable livery), which is examined primarily through the various statutes of livery issued from 1390 onward and their broader legal and social contexts.

While the quantification of “maintenance” cases yields impressive statistics, the detail in which they are presented is occasionally overwhelming for the reader. This is compounded by the fact that Rose rarely allows himself the opportunity for further explanation. One petition where adversaries are both alleging “maintenance” is deemed “particularly interesting”; there are noticeable differences in language between the original version in the SC 8 files and that eventually enrolled on the parliament rolls (60–61), yet tantalizing as it is, Rose offers no speculation on the differences. This is a problem, too, in the section on “maintenance” in contemporary literature. Other than confirming it was a recurring theme, analysis of its context or engagement with the thoughts of modern literary scholars is sparse. The footnotes are voluminous and very discursive, but again not always enlightening. When elaborating on references to civil champerty actions under Articuli super cartas c.11, we are informed that “One appeared in a British Library manuscript” (87n108). Yet Rose provides no indication as to who or what this involved, and the reference itself is elusive.

These are perhaps minor quibbles given the plethora of material uncovered. Indeed, Rose's study not only confirms the benefits of a thorough examination of the substantive legal records, but also underlines the insight they afford into the paradoxes and ambiguities of the medieval legal system, even if some burning questions remain. An insightful modern perspective, however, is provided in “A Retrospective,” which considers the authorization of third-party funding under English law through Conditional Fee Arrangements and Damages Based Agreements. The examination of the law on champerty and maintenance in the twenty-first century by leading English judges as impediments to access to justice for litigants is a stark reminder of the prevalence and ineradicable nature of abuse of the legal system.