In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the ideas and practices of justice in Europe underwent significant change as procedures were transformed and criminal and civil caseloads grew apace. Drawing on the rich judicial records of Marseille from the years 1264 to 1423, especially records of civil litigation, this book approaches the courts of law from the perspective of the users of the courts (the consumers of justice) and explains why men and women chose to invest resources in the law.
Daniel Lord Smail shows that the courts were quickly adopted as a public stage on which litigants could take revenge on their enemies. Even as the new legal system served the interest of royal or communal authority, it also provided the consumers of justice with a way to broadcast their hatreds and social sanctions to a wider audience and negotiate their own community standing in the process. The emotions that had driven bloodfeuds and other forms of customary vengeance thus never went away, and instead were fully incorporated into the new procedures.
I actually don't know what to say about this book other than that it made me want to curl up inside Dan Smail's brain and live there forever. Examines the demand-side of the economy of justice in the later middle ages, arguing that the state managed to establish a monopoly on the exercise of violence only through the active collaboration of its subjects, and not through the repressive cooptation of private justice.
Fiona Somerset recommended this book to me to provide food for thought as I revise my dissertation, and I'm so happy she did. It was a fascinating read, and Smail's arguments are thoughtful and eloquently constructed. It's rare to find a "required" reading that is also enjoyable and thought-provoking—but this one nails it.