The current interest on the part of literary scholars in the Book of Common Prayer is a welcome trend for ecclesiastical historians and Timothy Rosendale's intelligently sophisticated account of the influence of the English liturgy on English literature and society is an important contribution to the subject. At the heart of his argument is the claim that the Book of Common Prayer, even more than the English Bible, was ‘a pivotal text in the development of early modern English nationalism and subjectivity, and a deeply pervasive presence in subsequent English language and literature’ (p. 8). It was the Prayer Book that enabled England ‘to navigate the cultural crisis of the Reformation by enfranchising the evangelical subject, and establishing a permanent dialectic in which the authority, and thus the identity, of nation and individual are mutually constituting’ (p. 19). As this quotation shows, Rosendale is first and foremost a literary scholar, captured by the structure and language of Cranmer's work but concerned above all with questions of representation which he follows in his treatment of works by Sidney and Shakespeare, Milton and Hobbes. Historians will perhaps find the first half of this study most rewarding, dealing, as it does, with the knotty questions of national and individual identity in the Book of Common Prayer. Rosendale is an astute reader and interpreter of texts, and his arguments are subtle, stimulating and provocative. Yet in making a case for the centrality of the Book of Common Prayer, a number of difficulties attend his analysis of this text, not least the fact that both Edwardian and Elizabethan reformers conceived a group of texts as setting forth the Gospel and directing subjects in the public and uniform worship of God. These were the English Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the Homilies, the Catechism, and the English translation of the Paraphrases of Erasmus. Their purchase and use was a consistent feature of both reigns. How these texts related to each other and the part they played as complementary texts in the making of Protestant England is an important question. Moreover, especially during Elizabeth's reign, the English Church issued a steady stream of occasional services of prayer that responded to a variety of international, national and regional events, a reminder that liturgical use was anything but static. To be sure, the crown and English bishops insisted upon uniformity of practice, but the Book of Common Prayer was a text that was often adapted to local situations, most commonly pared down to make way for hour-long sermons or pruned in wintry weather. Finally, if Rosendale wishes to give historical grounding to the debates about individual and national identity, subjectivity and authority, he might find a special place for householders. ‘Especially householders’ is a phrase repeatedly invoked by the crown and bishops in the articles and injunctions that required attendance in parish churches at times of divine service; as a representative group, they cry out for recognition.