Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/463

 1920 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 455 in his choice of authorities. He cites the worthless Redmayne, stating that he wrote about 1540, though Miss R. R. Reid demonstrated in this Review^ that the work was written in 1574—8, and is entirely without value. He recognizes that ' Elmham ' is a late source, and nevertheless accepts his authority when he contradicts earlier writers ; thus it is stated that in 1420 Queens Isabel and Katherine were left at Villeneuve during the siege of Sens, though a contemporary letter-writer {Foedera, ix. 911) tells us how many ladies ' of lying at sieges there began first '. The account of Agincourt is on the whole satisfactory. But the story that some archers were posted in the woods is expressly denied by St. Remy, who was present ; probably it arose from the wings of archers on either flank resting on the woods. It is a pity that in the plan the archers are represented as though much less numerous than the men-at-arms, instead of four or five times as many. One error of a different character I am bound to notice. On p. 48 it is stated that the Coldharbour was in Eastcheap, that it came to Henry IV from his wife's father, and that the site is now occupied by the Heralds' College. If it had been in Eastcheap it could not have been on the site of the Heralds' College (which it was not) ; neither did it descend to Henry IV from his wife's father, who never had any right in it. Tyler, whom Mr. Mowat cites as his authority, in spite of a variety of other errors, places the Coldharbour correctly in AUhallows Haywharf. Humphrey de Bohun, who died in 1361, had only a life interest in the Coldharbour, which came to Henry JV through the forfeiture of John Holland in 1400.^ Mr. Mowat closes his book with aa itinerary which should be useful. But since Henry only reached Rouen on 1 January 1420, and spent some days there, he cannot have been at Calais on 8 January ; moreover, Monstrelet states that he was at Amiens on 21 January, and we know that Henry crossed to Dover on 1 February. C. L. Kingsfobd. India at the Death of Akbar: An Economic Study. By W. H. Morel and, C.S.I., CLE. (London : Macmillan, 1920.) Historical inquiry presents few tasks of greater difficulty than the comparison of the economic condition of a country or a people at two widely different dates. How can we gauge the relative prosperity of two different centuries when every normal criterion — ^prices, the standard of life, the value of gold and silver — has, as far as we can discover, been radically affected by the passing of time ? Anything like certainty would seem to elude the most dispassionate research, the most meticulous weighing of carefully sifted evidence. Yet such comparisons and contrasts are worth attempting. The problem may be insoluble, but in the effort to solve it much ground may be cleared, unprofitable paths of investigation marked down, and the unstable foundations of facile generalizations exposed. Certainly no one could accuse Mr. Moreland of forcing from the facts a too confident conclusion. His judgement is so cautious, so balanced, so hesitating, that if the one object of his book had been a definite com- parison in material wealth and prosperity between 1605 and 1914, a captious ^ Ante, XXX. 691. ' See London Topographical Record, x. 94-100.