The genesis of Mark Bailey's After the Black Death: Economy, Society, and the Law in Fourteenth-Century England was in the Ford Lectures at Oxford in 2019, when Bailey reasserted that the Black Death and its socioeconomic effects were of great significance for enabling lasting structural change. Recurrent epidemiological and environmental shocks in the tumultuous late fourteenth century led to new, often irreversible, patterns of demand and supply within factor and commodity markets. In After the Black Death, Bailey charts these developments in detail. In particular, he shifts attention to the two decades immediately after the plague rather than the traditional focus on the period from the 1370s. The substantive impact of Bailey's study lies in his detailed dissection of the complexities of the late fourteenth century to unravel the chronology of change and thus present an alternative explanatory framework.

As always in Bailey's work, there is an enviable lucidity on display that makes complex arguments accessible. His scholarly handling of developments in tenure, lordship, labor, and markets is impressive, drawing upon a range of existing studies as well as his own original research. Three substantive themes stand out: (1) the state of manorial lordship and serfdom around the time of the plague; (2) the growing reach of factor markets and associated tenurial changes; (3) and the importance of a distinctive legal culture within late medieval England.

Historians have long debated the apparent resilience of the English economy in the two decades after the plague struck, with many arguing that the main effects were not felt until the last quarter of the century. This delayed impact included growing peasant resistance and the decline of villeinage. However, Bailey convincingly asserts that serfdom was already in full retreat from the 1350s due to changes wrought by the plague and the competition for scarce labor. Indeed, he questions the extent to which English manorial lordship had been a significant constraint on markets and economic performance. Seigniorial authority was variable in its potency and effect even before the plague, and local custom often diluted the practical experience of villeinage. Bailey aptly demonstrates the extent of free action for many English peasants, alongside the notable pre-Black Death development of relatively open factor and commodity markets. By highlighting weaknesses within late medieval lordship, Bailey also reinforces his previous thesis that the post-plague seigniorial reaction has been overemphasized, certainly its pervasiveness and success. Concessions became the default position for most lords, such as the permanent commutation of remaining labor services.

Much of the evidence presented is from southern and eastern England, and perhaps a little more attention could have been paid to regional disparities in the north and west, as is briefly recognized regarding factor and commodity markets (44). However, what is clear is that after the 1350s, alongside the increased mobility of land and people, there was a widespread move away from servile tenure and toward monetized and commercial rents. In Bailey's words, the “Black Death finally released society from choking congestion” of high population, limited or fragmented market demand, and low investment (52). A new equilibrium was being established that reduced inequalities of wealth, and after the mid-1370s, there was more consistency in the land market and rent values. Tenurial changes, away from associations with personal status, thus enabled increased agricultural efficiency and further commercialization of the land market.

There is recognition that the maturity and size of factor markets in early fourteenth-century England lagged behind European comparators in the Low Countries and Italy. Bailey looks to address how and why England began to catch up in the centuries that followed, and he argues that after 1400 the economy was better balanced than in 1300 in terms of both wealth and people, and with more pastoral and nonagricultural employment. Whether all these changes established the preconditions for the so-called Little Divergence (283–86) is an interesting and important debate, and Bailey undoubtedly provides more contextual evidence. However, the study remains a firmly English perspective, and, as Bailey recognizes, more detailed comparative studies of mainland Europe are needed.

The role of law and the “emergence of a pervasive English legal culture” (45) is core of many of Bailey's arguments. There was undoubtedly a growing trust and respect for written documentation and standardized court processes, and much recent research has shown how manorial courts handled not only seigniorial business but also the communal and private interests of the peasantry. As Bailey notes, there are no evident continental parallels, and in England this could be due to the influence of the common law from a strong central government that formalized procedure and consistency of practice. These systems permeated local courts and were to have broader implications for property rights, rents, services, and dispute resolution, and thus the reduction of risks for market participation by tempering the arbitrary actions of lords. The predominant legal cultural was thus as beneficial for the peasantry as it was for the elite.

However, there is another side to this legal context, and not just the governmental attempts to regulate labor and mobility in innovative ways. Bailey also highlights the problematic actions of lesser officials and the increased leasing of hundredal justice that heightened concerns within local communities about the quality of justice. This connects to the political and legal context to the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt, with anger directed at misgovernment, corruption, and the inconsistencies of expanding royal justice. However, Bailey still agrees that residual “serfdom was one element within a wider crisis of authority” (189). Even the remnants of servile institutions had the potential to be frustrating and a source of conflict, perhaps because so much had otherwise dissipated.

The Black Death continues to hold a totemic allure, and the consequences of a major pandemic are unsurprisingly of great interest during current circumstances. Bailey's achievement here is to remind historians that understanding the details and chronology of change is vital before we can attempt to interpret the broader structural impact of such a catastrophe.