Byng begins the conclusion to this volume asking “[h]ow was it that, in late medieval England, which was so often beset by severe economic and social pressures, it was possible to carry out so much building work on so many parish churches” (278)? An answer soon follows: “The development of a part-contracting system was critical in a time of increased risk but so too was a belief in the necessity of good works for the passage of the soul through purgatory and a desire among wealthier parishioners to be associated with architectural patronage, not least as it helped define their social position in an age of rapid change and geographic mobility” (278). Perhaps both the question and answer (essentially the thesis of the book) should appear earlier in the study, but the author writes clearly, and the book's structure leads the reader to its main points. In chapter 6, Byng explains that “[h]istorians of parish, indeed of much Gothic construction, have often assumed that its execution was short-termist, slow and haphazard” (246). Byng proves that this was not the case, not just in this chapter but more generally throughout the book, as the “managerial and financial strategies” of numerous parish construction projects are laid bare. While most recent scholarship tends to assume that a parish elite directed operations, Byng employs a comparative methodology to provide evidence of how this was so. As such, this study does not really overturn previous work; rather, it builds on previous scholarship to add significant information concerning process. The result is impressive.

Since the leadership role of the local elite is one object of study, the introduction offers the contention that “the financing of parish church construction was closely tied to the social fabric of the parishes” (2). Byng aims to move away from vague representations of parish operations and most certainly any assumptions of homogenized parish communities; instead, he asserts that “the financing of parish church construction was . . . run and financed by comparatively wealthy groups of peasants or townsfolks, smaller and more distant in some places, larger and less polarized elsewhere” (2). Here he would be in agreement with many who do parish studies, but it is what follows that offers a different perspective.

In chapter 2, evidence of parish construction projects is based on sources such as fabric accounts and churchwardens’ accounts. Byng identifies six basic models of parish organization to raise the requisite funds for their building projects, which range from widespread parish participation to a single wealthy patron who funds the work (64–65). Most examples fall somewhere in the middle. Churchwardens utilized numerous methods to raise revenue for building projects. Byng's analysis of economic and social trends in the sections on “Affordability” and “Corporate Patronage and Social Change” identifies approaches that gauge the ability of specific social segments to participate in such expensive parish activities and the inability of the lower sectors to participate except in minor ways.

The participation of gentry and clergy is examined first via the sources of tombs, arms, and inscriptions. Building projects were parish-wide undertakings, but gentry leadership “was essential to a project's success” (135) and typically shaped the image of elite patronage in the local church and society. Throughout the book, the author supports his analysis with case studies, bolstering the interpretations drawn from his comparative methods.

Three chapters look at organizing parish construction projects, each focused on different groups within the parish. “Churchwardens,” chapter 3, begins with an examination of recent debates regarding the nature of the office. After reviewing definitions by Beat Kümin, Clive Burges, Katherine French, and others, Byng elects to organize his analysis informed by French's argument that churchwardens could exercise roles that ranged from “strong” to “weak” positions within their communities as reflected in their accounts. There follows a section that explores numerous parish building projects, presumably with stronger, more active churchwardens “from across twenty-nine counties,” followed by a section analyzing the projects connected with weaker, less involved churchwardens.

In “Contracting Committees and Fabric Wardens,” Byng mentions a building project at the London church of St. Mary at Hill, which the churchwardens placed under the direction of two parishioners (174); we learn more of the details at the end of the chapter (210–211). Byng offers impressive insight into how the parish functioned. As already hinted, little things can be bothersome in this book, followed by remarkable analysis. Byng writes, “[t]emporary bodies rarely merited naming and so, in this book, the anachronistic terms ‘fabric committee,’ ‘contracting committee,’ and ‘fabric wardens’ will be used respectively” (174). He then provides detailed evidence into the process of building projects, from establishing contracts, to forming committees, and, finally, accounting for the money spent.

The final “organizing” chapter examines the role of “Aristocracy, Clergy, and Institutions” in parish construction. When aristocrats appear to get involved in such projects “personal interest in design and financing may be assumed,” but seldom do nobles demonstrate interest in much else (215). Examples of gentry involvement may be found in the village of Bolney in Sussex and elsewhere. Priests could also be involved with committees overseeing construction. But it is the social nexus that matters (242), and Byng successfully demonstrates the role of these groups in such projects. However, sometimes his conclusions are questionable. Does a lord providing money for a construction project without sitting on a construction panel really demonstrate “self-assertion, and tough negotiating, by the parish” (242)?

This book explains how late medieval parishes could afford to produce their building projects. Essential aspects included “efficient and well-planned managerial and financial strategies . . . [that] . . . take their place next to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few peasants and townsfolk, as well as members of the aristocracy and institutions, who were willing to work collaboratively to patronize construction” (278). These strategies for conducting construction projects worked well and promoted parish cohesiveness.