By examining a wide range of primary sources, Gerald P. Dyson does much to contextualize pre-Conquest secular priests who, unlike their monastic counterparts, left less obvious traces in the surviving documents. Analyzing tenth- and eleventh-century manuscripts, Dyson pieces together aspects of the liturgical life of secular priests and presents a “more holistic understanding of the practice of pastoral care” through the consideration of priestly books and contextual factors such as clerical literacy (1). Overall, the book is well written and easily accessible. Both the contextualizing and manuscript analysis remain clear and succinct. Dyson explains the topic, provides analysis of both the relevant primary and secondary sources, and puts forward his own arguments while expanding the knowledge of secular priests in new directions—all before proceeding to the next discussion point.

The first section, chapters 1–3, provides context for the clergymen and their books. Dyson provides a good overview of early English clergy, both monastic and secular, and the books they likely needed and owned. Chapter 1 focuses on the components of pastoral care and which books were expected to be in a priest's “toolkit” (34). Dyson draws on primary sources across the pre-Conquest period and several from the twelfth century. While at times the chronological gaps between the sources feel like a stretch, he weaves them together well and demonstrates a careful tracing of topics that extant documents often do not directly touch upon. Chapter 2 examines the thorny issue of clerical literacy, including how secular clerics may have received an education. Dyson makes a persuasive argument that secular clergy were more literate and involved in manuscript production than indicated by monastic accounts of the period. He explores the production of manuscripts at secular minsters more thoroughly in chapter 3 where he traces both the making and provision of priestly books. He contextualizes some of the provision of books through discussions of episcopal, royal, and aristocratic patronage. Particularly, he discusses how many tenth- and eleventh-century nobles endowed both monastic and secular communities; this fact undermines the impression given by many monastic accounts that monasteries were the favored or even the only recipients. Dyson's point is well explained, but a bit more nuance on the author's part of acknowledging that some of these may have been family endowments and others may have been patronized for local political reasons would not have ruined the succinct nature of his book and would have helped provide more context for the sociopolitical environment of secular priests.

Chapters 4 and 5, in the second section, are the heart of the book, providing an analysis of several manuscripts which may well have been used by clergy for pastoral care. Chapter 4 discusses the homiletic tradition in pre-Conquest England and the preaching secular clerics undertook as part of pastoral care. It also demonstrates how various clues (e.g., annotations) indicate that manuscripts were actually put to practical use and not merely in a scholarly manner. This chapter includes an analysis of the layouts and homilies found in the Taunton Fragment; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 85 and 86; and the Blickling Homilies. The analysis of these manuscripts remains clear and on point to Dyson's discussion of homilies and preaching. Chapter 5 concerns books necessary for Mass and the Divine Office in secular communities or churches staffed by one priest. Dyson's voice comes through clearest here with his analysis of the Red Book of Darley; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41; the Warsaw Lectionary; and the Junius Psalter, encouraging a reconsideration of early English priests. Specifically, his discussion of the Warsaw Lectionary's two sections and how they complement each other with necessary information for saying different Masses throughout the year is convincing and calls for a reassessment of the manuscript. The appendix at the end of the book provides a clear layout of this lectionary in support of his argument.

Dyson's final chapter pieces together information about priestly texts (penitentials, manuals, and computi) which were generally not created as separate books and may have often been bound together in small booklets. These types of documents were portable but also easily lost or destroyed if they became obsolete thus making their survival rate very low. Dyson's discussion of what he terms “occasional offices” (200–204) such as baptism and prayers for the dying, highlights different aspects of pastoral care. Using evidence from extant manuscripts, he points out that both secular and monastic clergy performed these offices; he then argues that the texts likely used by secular clerics have more additions—including feminine forms—for the liturgy of baptism in their scribal annotations. Dyson moves on to a discussion of the rituals for the sick and dying, offering an explanation for why monastic houses were perhaps sought out or entered into by elderly elite nobles at the end of their lives. A similar, more in-depth discussion of the slightly different baptismal forms between monastic and secular clergy or a clearer voicing of Dyson's thoughts on the differences would not have been out of place and actually would have served to balance this particular discussion better.

Dyson's work expands our knowledge of secular priests in tenth- and eleventh-century England. While his manuscript analysis is informative to experts, his approach is clear and illuminating enough to introduce the topic to novices as well. This monograph would be a good edition to any library and is accessible enough for advanced undergraduates. It serves as a good example of how to approach an early medieval topic that must be carefully pieced together; it also represents a way to incorporate manuscript analysis into a book where these documents are not the only focus. Dyson has provided a thought-provoking look at pre-Conquest priests through the books they would have used in pastoral care and pressed for a reevaluation of how early English secular priests should be considered within their wider social and religious milieus.