LAUSR

amended. The carefully collected evidence upholds most of what we know about the early modern landed family. The organization by relationship rather than theme makes for some repetition and confusion and prevents more wide ranging interpretations. O’Day sticks closely to the archive, paying meticulous attention to the welter of detail contained there. Her conclusions are brief, often perfunctory, and resolutely non-speculative. Thus, notwithstanding the length of the book and the extensive appendices, we are left wanting more: more engagement with recent scholarship, more nuanced discussion of the copious quotations, more of an overall argument, more probing of the issues, and more pushing the boundaries. Take court cases, for example. These seem to testify to the existence of frayed relationships. Yet, even during court proceedings, Peter and his father enjoyed a close relationship. There were very few periods of time when the Temples were not involved in lawsuits. They spent their lives worrying about money. Everyone apparently had a deep knowledge of their rights and were alert to any diminution of these. Lawsuits may be less evidence of discord but a routine—even if time-consuming and expensive—method of settling matters so as to prevent a family falling apart.