expression, her great advantage has been to draw on the wealth of correspondence and legal papers, along with many other categories of documents, that form the Stowe Temple collection at the Huntington Library. As a result, and through her work in many other archives, she is able to present a detailed account of family relations over nearly a century, often focused on Sir Thomas (1567–1637) and his wife Lady Hester Temple (1570–1656), but insightfully concentrating on the couple’s relationships with their own families of origin, their offspring, their grandchildren and their in-laws. The result, as with Edwards, requires attentive reading: the index of proper names alone includes over 120 individuals, many of whom recur frequently in O’Day’s examination of the Temple family. Yet precisely because O’Day extends her work well beyond the marital couple and the households they ostensibly governed, these other individuals enable her to display the way in which varied forms of reciprocal patronage lay at the heart of the kin relations that operated within both the nuclear and wider family. One key premise of O’Day’s work is that ‘more attention . . . should be paid to the interplay between control over objects and over household and estate business’ (152), especially insofar as the former has been attributed to women and the latter to men. O’Day makes the case that while Lady Hester’s involvement in ‘household and estate business’ (my emphasis) depended in part on authority delegated by her husband, it also derived ‘from her own strong personality and considerable abilities’ (186). Documenting as she does an effective partnership between Lady Hester and Sir Thomas, and tacitly encouraging us to assume that Lady Hester was not the only early modern wife possessed of ability and personality, she argues that ‘it was entirely possible for a wife to seize opportunities to exercise a meaningful role in life without threatening patriarchal authority’ (187, n. 12). That O’Day convincingly shows how deeply the Temples’ partnership ramified into others’ lives (and vice-versa) is a great strength of this book. So too are her selfreflexive observations – even cautions – about the nature of her source material. Whether observing the impossibility of using legal papers to offer a single, determinate version of contested matters or warning against fully trusting conclusions about parent/child bonds that are drawn from surviving correspondence, she leads her reader to bear in mind how little of the immediacy of personal interactions the historian can ever uncover. Yet in doing so, she provides a fruitful anatomization of a rich and dense archive – and, as far as possible, of an early modern elite family.

中文翻译：

---

日本的帝国黑社会：帝国边界的亲密接触

表达，她的巨大优势是利用了大量的信件和法律文件，以及许多其他类别的文​​件，这些文件构成了亨廷顿图书馆的斯托神庙收藏。因此，通过她在许多其他档案中的工作，她能够详细描述近一个世纪以来的家庭关系，通常侧重于托马斯爵士（1567-1637）和他的妻子海丝特·坦普尔夫人（1570-1656） ，但深刻地关注这对夫妇与他们自己的原生家庭、他们的后代、他们的孙子和他们的姻亲的关系。结果，与爱德华兹一样，需要仔细阅读：仅专有名称索引就包括 120 多个人，其中许多人经常出现在奥戴对坦普尔家族的检查中。然而，正是因为 O'Day 将她的工作远远扩展到了夫妻和他们表面上管理的家庭之外，这些其他人使她能够展示各种形式的互惠赞助是在两个家庭中运作的亲属关系的核心的方式。核心和更广泛的家庭。O'Day 工作的一个关键前提是“更多的关注”。. . 应该重视对物品的控制与对家庭和房地产业务的控制之间的相互作用”（152），尤其是在前者归于女性而后者归于男性的情况下。奥戴认为，虽然海丝特夫人参与“家庭和房地产业务”（我的重点）部分取决于她丈夫授予的权力，但这也源于“她自己坚强的个性和相当大的能力”（186）。记录海丝特夫人和托马斯爵士之间的有效伙伴关系，并默许我们假设海丝特夫人并不是唯一拥有能力和个性的早期现代妻子，她认为“妻子完全有可能抓住机会在不威胁父权权威的情况下在生活中发挥有意义的作用”（187, n. 12）。O'Day 令人信服地表明，圣殿的伙伴关系对他人生活的影响有多深（反之亦然）是本书的一大优势。她对原始材料性质的自我反思——甚至是警告——也是如此。是否观察到不可能使用法律文件提供单一，有争议的问题的确定版本或警告不要完全信任从幸存的通信中得出的关于父母/子女关系的结论，她引导她的读者记住历史学家无法发现的个人互动的即时性是多么的少。然而，在这样做的过程中，她对丰富而密集的档案进行了富有成效的剖析——并且尽可能地剖析了一个早期的现代精英家庭。