John S. Lee's The Medieval Clothier is the first in a new series, ‘Working in the Middle Ages’, from leading medieval studies publisher Boydell. While the title ‘clothier’ might be unfamiliar to many, it refers to the distinct group of late medieval (and early modern) merchants who organized the manufacture of woollen cloth using a sophisticated division of labour in which piece-work was conducted in workers’ homes, or in at least one case, in very early factories. They were, arguably, proto-capitalists. The story of the clothier, and the system of proto-industrialization that they created, is of particular significance for the urban history of the period, as most operated in small towns, reversing the medieval growth of textile manufacture in larger cities. Whether this semi-rural economic phenomenon was a symptom, or cause, of the decline of some cities such as Coventry in the late medieval period is one of continued debate. The series aims to offer ‘accessible guides to medieval trades’, and as such this book sits somewhere between a research monograph and a textbook: Lee draws upon both his own research on the economy of Cambridge and its hinterland, as well as offering a broad survey of the wider literature.

Lee's introduction situates his argument primarily within the economic debates around entrepreneurship and capitalism by way of a thorough survey of previous interpretations by both historians and economists. It is notable that Lee highlights the contrast between the more positive interpretations of early twentieth-century historians, perhaps most notably Eileen Power, who had a more qualitative approach and social focus, and the generally more negative impression formed by later twentieth-century economic historians who tended to ‘focus more on quantifying growth and less on human agency’ (p. 26), and saw limited evidence of clothiers’ impact on the wider economy. The apparent contradictions between the evidence offered by statistical and qualitative sources for the medieval economy are an enduring puzzle, so this approach, which integrates all aspects of the economic life of a significant occupational group, can be seen as representing an important shift towards valuing ‘human agency’ once again, and a move beyond the often singular focus upon the use of often questionable statistical sources for the medieval period to quantify growth or GDP.

The majority of the book follows a clear thematic structure, first addressing the processes of making and selling cloth in chapters 1 and 2. These chapters offer accessible and useful summaries of the technicalities of the actual processes of cloth making, and the intricacies of the organization of the English domestic and export trade. Frequent use is made of tables and diagrams to illustrate many of the more technical concepts. This approach is particularly useful as the literature around these topics tends to be both highly technical and fragmented, although the (understandable) cost of such a broad synthesis is that some references are made to other works of synthesis, rather than always to original research or primary sources.

Chapter 3, which considers the distinctive geography of the late medieval cloth trade, has most interest for urban historians. Lee employs a diverse range of tax and legal records to demonstrate that while cloth working occurred across a broad swathe of England, clothiers were overwhelmingly concentrated in Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Suffolk, Essex and the Kentish Weald. While one fifth of spinners, weavers and fullers lived in the largest 24 English medieval towns, only one in 12 clothiers did so (p. 120). Lee offers detailed case-studies of all the regions of significant cloth production but rejects most of the seemingly obvious explanations for the concentration of entrepreneurial clothiers into just three ‘silicon valleys’ of medieval England. Notably, Lee rejects Joan Thirsk's arguments that cloth production flourished most in regions of pastoral agriculture (the most prosperous were in arable regions, often far from sources of wool), and that it favoured settlements with weak lordship. Instead, Lee argues, a successful cloth industry depended upon strong institutions, which were often well provided by stronger, entrepreneurial lords. However, Lee is more sympathetic to Tawney's argument that clothiers favoured unincorporated towns to avoid regulation and guild controls. Lee argues that while structural factors might have created the conditions in which the emergence of clothiers was possible, it was the availability of credit and agency of individuals that caused it. Once established in an area, these factors became self-reciprocating, leading to the growth of the so called ‘wool towns’.

The political and social impact of the clothiers, including their successful attempts to block parliamentary legislation forcing them into towns, is discussed in chapters 4 and 5. Finally, chapter 6 offers detailed case-studies of famous clothiers, and the small towns that they shaped, such as the Winchcombes of Newbury, Berkshire, and the Springs of Lavenham, Suffolk. The latter is now just a village, but in early sixteenth century it was the fifteenth largest town England, and 21 out of its 23 richest inhabitants were clothiers. Overall, Lee's argument is that the impact of the clothiers was far greater than the economically focused revisionists of the later twentieth century had seen it. Whether or not we accept that the putting out system used by the clothiers was a form of capitalism, returning to the level of the individuals and the impact that they had on their localities certainly restores them to their central place in the history of English economic and urban history. Lee's book is an excellent example of clear and accessible research and synthesis and informs a key aspect of the debate on the role of small towns in early modern Europe.