Although the author calls her work a re-edition (the first edition was published in 1914), this edition is based on a completely new reading of the manuscripts of the rolls, preserved in Lincoln. The entries are usually calendared, but sometimes the author chooses to give the full Latin text as in the case when a formulaic document appears in the first instance, and also when a document deviates considerably from the usual form. For all entries the complete witness lists are given. This is an elegant solution, as most of the entries are institutions of vicars and rectors and, therefore, follow the same pattern, except for the list of witnesses, which is different in each case. Where the complete Latin text is given, it is preceded by a summary in English, which makes the edition more accessible to users whose Latin is somewhat shaky. This edition is indispensable for everyone who wants to gain access to this important witness to the history of the diocese of Lincoln in Grosseteste's reign.

The edition proper is preceded by a long introduction in which the author gives an excellent description of the historical context in which the rolls played their part. The author distinguishes between two kinds of bishops: the royal administrators, who had been taught at court how to organise an efficient central administration with corresponding well-organised archives, and pastoral bishops, who cared more for the well-being of priests and parishes than for the storage of their documents. Grosseteste belonged to the latter type of bishop and the way the rolls were kept testified to his priorities: ‘the rolls are not examples of well-maintained, highly efficient administration’, in other words they were in a bit of a mess, as becomes immediately obvious from the fact that repeatedly all entries for the whole year were made by one scribe at the end of the year. But nevertheless the rolls clearly testify to what Grosseteste's priorities were. He wanted all parishes in his huge diocese to have well-educated and celibate priests, who actually lived in their parishes. From the rolls it is obvious that he did everything in his power to restrict pluralism and non-residence and he encouraged priests, who had obtained a papal dispensation, not to use it. He could not do this alone, as the diocese of Lincoln was much too big to control from one central point. Grosseteste chose to share his authority with his archdeacons, who could keep a much closer eye on the clergy and could inform him when things went wrong. The author mentions the striking example of John of Basingstoke, a very capable administrator, whom one would expect to serve as the right hand of the bishop in Lincoln, but who remained, in fact, archdeacon of Leicester all his life. Grosseteste saw a decentralised administration as the best guarantee for proper pastoral care and for the prosperity of the parishes. Personal visitation was another means that he used to supervise his priests and parishes. Accompanied by Franciscan friars he travelled from one archdeaconry to another and everywhere he organised what have been called ‘revivalist rallies’, where he addressed and judged the clergy, while the friars preached to the laity and heard their confessions. That he could be a very strict judge is apparent from the high number of resignations, often for violation of the vow of celibacy, that are mentioned in the rolls in connection with these visitations.

One thing keeps puzzling me about this book. In one short sentence the author explains why a re-edition of the rolls is necessary: ‘It corrects errors of name, place, date and detail from the earlier edition silently.’ But is this enough, I wonder, to justify the huge amount of work that must have gone into the completion of this exemplary edition? There is so much material that is still unedited. Should we not be concentrating on that, instead of perfecting existing editions? Many of them are sloppy and defective, as I have learned from frequent use of Migne's Patres latini. But in most cases they serve their purpose just fine. And in an emergency one can always consult a reliable manuscript, or, in this case, travel to Lincoln to have a look at the original. I do not want to sound ungrateful, but it is a serious question of policy, whether in these days when there is so little money for editing manuscripts, we should not prefer to work on unedited texts instead of re-editing texts that are available in print already.