William Laud was one of the most controversial figures of seventeenth-century England, a man who stood at the center of political, religious, and cultural spheres during a convulsive period in British history. He and his allies pressed an agenda for uniformity of practice, the “beauty of holiness,” in the Church of England that veered from the recognized and accepted modus vivendi of earlier conformists, the positioning of the communion table as an altar and the building of altar rails being an oft-cited example. Laud was a close advisor, if not the closest, to Charles I through the so-called Personal Rule, a stretch of years in which the king, likewise, broke with accepted practice with momentous consequences. When Laud fell from power, ultimately being found guilty of treason and beheaded in 1645 by parliament, he had been at the center of several overlapping storms; from his example we should learn how fallacious it is, therefore, to isolate or hypostatize “religion” from other spheres of life in the early modern world. Analysis of Laud, however, in various treatments, including biographies, have often been based on his diary, speeches, letters, theological-polemical pieces like his Conference with Fisher the Jesuit and formal acts in the church under his leadership like the 1640 canons. Yet Laud was not simply a clerical leader, for he was also—again note this issue with roles and overlapping spheres—the master of an elite household functioning within a network of elite households. Laud, this man at the center of so many concerns at a moment of disruption, has not been studied from this domestic angle. With The Household Accounts of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1635–1642, Leonie James shows us that much good fruit can come from such an approach. In this well-produced publication of Laud's household accounts, both her argument and the invaluable resource produced here are worthy of attention; and thanks are due to both James and the Church of England Record Society for providing scholars with this edited transcription.

In the first instance, some excuse for not studying this manuscript until now is that the account book, which spans 1635 to 1642, was lost between its final entry and 1912, when it turned up in the old Public Record Office. The best theory is that it was among the twenty-one bundles of paper seized by William Prynne, who was operating under parliamentary orders in May 1643. Secondly, another explanation is that only in the past generation or so have historians taken seriously the importance of studying the workings of early modern elite households to expose networks of people in overlapping social, political, and religious spheres. This document, with its accounts in multiple standard secretary hands, brings into relief the range of Laud's influence and his associations with the gentry, courtiers, councilors, and members of the royal household. It also shows us how the archbishop ordered both Lambeth and Croydon palaces; for example, all sixty-nine of his male servants wore livery, and he made sure they had access to health care. Obviously, no scholar will be surprised to find Laud spending money on the chapel at Lambeth—a renovated organ, improved stained glass, and a new altar. But, as James highlights in her very helpful introduction to the transcribed manuscript, it is Laud's participation in the phenomenon of gift-giving that is telling. Since the Conquest, the new year ritual of giving the monarch a gift was a sign of fealty; nobles, then, mimicked the ritual, and Laud was himself the recipient of many gifts each new year. This was, as James explains, part of the rhetoric of service and implied a mutual political relationship. The gifts were often foodstuff, especially deer, but sometimes they were things like candlesticks or plate for the chapel. The account book allows us to track the gifts. Here we see who was giving to Laud—they were not always the usual suspects, his co-religionists—and then how the gifts quickly dried up when Laud fell from power. Laud was, in short, abandoned by both the king and many others.

This volume shows, in a way that the other sources do not always demonstrate, Laud's role as master of a noble house, and, again, it highlights that we have to put Laud in his context not simply as a churchman but as an aristocrat embedded in a network of authority, one that was crafted and maintained by personal links. Laud certainly kept up appearances: we have evidence here of the fine clothes he wore, down to the gloves, and how he kept both the archiepiscopal barge moored in the Thames and his carriage in high style. Music was part of Lambeth's atmosphere, as were festive celebrations. And we also see that Laud was not stingy: he regularly and spontaneously gave to the poor. All of this demonstrates that Laud, born to humble parents, adopted the trappings and ceremonial behaviors of a noble life, and that he approached his role as householder with the same attention to detail which we have long observed in his work in the church. But, as James points out and the document reveals, this was not simply about enjoying the high life, but playing a role in government, church, and society when personal relationships, not institutions or bureaucracies, were key. In other words, power was relational, and that comes into view when we see Laud more fully in his role as householder.

The account itself does not show every financial exchange, nor were the stewards of the book contemporary accountants. But the household account nevertheless gives us a remarkable picture of the composition and activities of an elite house, and not just any elite house but that of a man at the center of multiple storms. This text, moreover, is not simply a transcription. The apparatus is rich: James provides running footnotes to better navigate the primary source material; there is a thorough yet concise introduction; and, arguably most impressive, she includes a sixty-page glossary of names that appear in the text, giving us short biographies and their relevance to Laud. The editorial conventions are sound: James has retained original spellings while providing bracketed expansions of the many abbreviations. James has succeeded admirably in offering a printed document that both resembles the manuscript and is clear for a modern reader. This volume is a most welcome resource for scholars working in the overlapping spheres of religion, politics, society, and culture in early modern England.