writing style, which will appeal. It is narrative-led rather than thematic or discursive in approach, largely seen through the lens of military campaigns. Discussion often prompts speculation but some important questions, such as the course and character of the Danelaw frontier, or the significance of the Worcester charter of c. 889–899, deserve more attention. There are many points with which one might take issue such as some place-name explanations. For example, leah is better interpreted as ‘woodland pasture’, and worthig is generally taken to mean an enclosure, not meadow. Clarkson’s interpretation of the Alfredian burhs as a programme of urbanisation is questionable, as is the presumption of large garrisons. Much Wenlock Priory was a foundation of the eleventh century, not the twelfth, and there is no evidence that Æthelred refounded the community. The term ‘minster’ deserves better explanation than ‘an important church’ (p. 83), while claims that traces of Offa’s hall have been found in Tamworth are suspect, as are assertions that Æthelflæd recovered Tamworth from the Vikings. Archaeological evidence is referred to at various points but is not always well-deployed. More use might have been made of it to enliven the account of military movements, while in the case of Stafford the author seems to be unaware of the implications of archaeological work there since the 1970s and 1980s, or that the term ‘Stafford ware’ has generally been replaced with ‘Stafford-type ware’. However the reader is provided with ample endnotes and an extensive bibliography, while many clear and unfussy monochromatic maps and plans accompany and support the text. This book introduces a fascinating but challenging subject.

中文翻译：

---

赫里福德大教堂学校：800 多年的历史

写作风格，这将吸引人。它是叙事主导的，而不是主题或话语的方法，主要是通过军事行动的镜头来看的。讨论往往会引发猜测，但也有一些重要的问题，例如丹麦法边境的路线和特征，或约 1 世纪伍斯特宪章的重要性。889-899，值得更多关注。人们可能会提出许多问题，例如一些地名解释。例如，leah 更好地解释为“林地牧场”，而值得一提的通常是指围栏，而不是草地。克拉克森将 Alfredian burhs 解释为城市化计划是有问题的，大型驻军的假设也是如此。许多文洛克修道院是 11 世纪的基础，而不是 12 世纪，并且没有证据表明 Æthelred 重建了社区。“大教堂”一词比“一座重要的教堂”更值得解释（第 83 页），而声称在塔姆沃思发现了奥法大厅的痕迹是可疑的，还有关于 Æthelflæd 从维京人那里恢复塔姆沃思的断言。考古证据在各个方面都被提及，但并不总是得到很好的部署。可能更多地使用它来活跃对军事运动的描述，而在斯塔福德的案例中，作者似乎没有意识到自 1970 年代和 1980 年代以来考古工作的影响，或者“斯塔福德商品”一词已经通常被“斯塔福德式器皿”所取代。然而，为读者提供了充足的尾注和广泛的参考书目，许多清晰而简洁的单色地图和计划伴随并支持文本。本书介绍了一个引人入胜但具有挑战性的主题。