104 ESTADO DE LA NACION EQUIDAD E INTEGRACIÓN SOCIAL CAPÍTULO

In keeping with arguments put forth by Maureen Bell, Helen Smith, and Paula McDowell regarding women participants in the book trade as a group, my network shows that women as a community separate from men did not exist.69 _{Whether this community} of women was existent in the social sphere or not is irrelevant for the purposes of the working book trade. Women did not see themselves as a gendered group, separate from men in their participation in the trade, but rather along religious and political lines which, besides the incidental factor of geographical proximity, often formed the main basis for their working communities. Indeed, Smith’s example of Elizabeth Purslowe illustrates this point: she is criticized and noticed for her activity as a vendor or printer and not as a woman.70 _{The business relationships mapped by the network further solidify this}

assertion. Furthermore, some women who became prominent after their husbands died, such as Ellen Cotes and Eleanor Brewster, continued to work along preexisting

relationships established by their husbands even while they created networks and communities of their own, as is most evident in the network of Gertrude Dawson. Considering the speed with which these women took over their husbands’ businesses, (often, it seems, in the first few weeks or months following), we must agree with Bell and Kastan that women were active in the business with their husbands long before their sudden appearance in the historical record.71 _{And yet, it is equally true to say that women} in the book trade occupied liminal spaces while their husbands were alive. Indeed, there were gendered spaces which Coker writes of, women connected and active in the book trade in a very limited way. And, even then, these women were generally connected through their husbands.72 _{However, these three particular women seem to have been} influential members of their respective communities, having high eigenvector and betweenness centrality scores on par with the men. Ellen Cotes and Gertrude Dawson also seem to have served as important bridging nodes for the disparate communities that make up the central unit of the book trade, connecting communities that had a

multiplicity of religious and political ties.

To carry on with the project, it will be necessary to continue adding relationships to the network by analyzing the imprints in EEBO. While I do not think that these new edges will affect the larger network in too great a way, it may lead to the identification of new influential and bridge figures in the London book trade, as well as new communities or strengthening existing ones. A future iteration of this network may go one step further and make a greater deal of edge weights, increasing the edge weight of relationships with

each instance of the partnership rather than a one-off, thereby identifying potential shop partner and providing more concrete evidence for community existence. Additionally, it would be interesting to extend the network to include those figures active in the

provincial trade. We may see new important figures to the total network, including those that may not provide heavy influence on the London book trade but that are highly connected to the provincial trade.

One goal of this exploratory study was to identify areas in the book trade for further research, specifically among women. In consideration of the conclusions above, it is important to factor in time in the development of the book trade network. While this may entail pushing the temporal scope 10 years either side in order to get the full effect of the changing network during Revolutionary England, creating a dynamic graph will allow greater insight into the formation of individual node networks, important for continuing research into Gertrude Dawson, Eleanor Brewster, and Ellen Cotes, and how women, once their husbands died, became such prominent and active participants in the book trade. Because there is no specific community of women apparent in the network, it would also be interesting to compare the growth of women’s network to that of new male figures and determine if they do indeed grow and form in a similar way. Along these same lines, extending the network past the first few decades immediately after the Restoration would allow for comparison with women in this later time period.

Specifically, do they exhibit similar behavior in the formation of their networks and their rise to prominence or not in the larger book trade? Do they also continue with their husbands preexisting partnerships, or do they, like Gertrude Dawson, mainly form their own communities? Though extensive research has been conducted on figures after the

Restoration, it would be interesting to see how earlier women compare to these later ones, and if the former can be said to be anomalous.

Additionally, having identified three women with high influence in the overall network, prominent in their respective communities, it is important to conduct further research into their individual lives. Eleanor Brewster in particular deserves the same treatment as Elizabeth Calvert and Hannah Allen have received of late, especially having no information about her in the BBTI and very little in the LBT. Finally, it is important when using large-scale data methods in combination with more traditional methods such as archival research to craft a careful balance between the two. Social network analysis is a tool, just like any other, and “historians…need to let their research questions and empirical datasets guide the use of such measures.”73 _{Large datasets may show, as this} study has, larger trends that cannot easily be seen by studying individual entities and is intended to point to areas for further research and more individual investigation. Archival research may illuminate plausible explanations for what we see by offering a much narrower and more specific lens through which to view the past. Each is suitable to answer its own types of questions, though, in tandem, one may easily check the other and both can lean on one another for support.

Notes

1. See D. F. McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

2. Gardner, Victoria. “Introduction: Practices, Perceptions and Connections” in John Hinks and Victoria Gardner (eds.), The Book Trade in Early Modern England

(Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 2014), xi; Smith, ‘Grossly Material Things’: Women and Book Production in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 111-114.

3. Bell, Maureen. “Women and the Production of Texts: The Impact of the History of the Book” in John Hinks and Victoria Gardner (eds.), The Book Trade in Early Modern England (Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 2014), 108. The use of the term “publisher” is somewhat anachronistic in terms of our current usage, and in the early modern book trade meant something akin to “financier” or “investor,” who then went on to sell copies paid for wholesale. For further information about “publisher” as an early modern term, among other early printing terms, see

Blayney, “The Publication of Playbooks,” in John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan (eds.), A New History of Early English Drama (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 389-392.

4. Bell, Maureen. “Women in the English Book Trade 1557-1700.” Leipziger Jahrbuch zur Buchgeschichte 6 (Dec. 1996): 13-45.

5. Bell, Maureen. “Hannah Allen and the Development of a Puritan Publishing Business, 1646-51.” Publishing History 26 (1989): 5-66.

6. Bell, Maureen. “Elizabeth Calvert and the ‘Confederates.’” Publishing History 32 (1992): 5-49; “‘Her Usual Practices’: The Later Career of Elizabeth Calvert, 1664-75.” Publishing History 35 (1994): 5-64.

7. Bell, Maureen. “Mary Westwood, Quaker Publisher.” Publishing History 23 (1988): 5-66.

8. Kastan, David Scott. “In Plain Sight: Visible Women and Early Modern Plays” in Gordon McMullan, Lena Cowen Orlin, and Virginia Mason Vaughan (eds.),

Women Making Shakespeare: Text, Reception and Performance (London: Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare, 2014), 48.

9. Jackson, Cornell, and Matthew Hammond. “Use of Social Network Analysis to Explore the People of Medieval Scotland” in Clare Mills, Michael Pidd, and Jessica Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress 2014. Studies in the Digital Humanities (Sheffield: HRI Online Publications, 2014), 3. 10.Following the 1643 Star Chamber, the Stationers’ Company made mandatory the

entry of copies into the Register, though this did not always happen. Still, it is unlikely that partnerships did not appear in the SCR at all, even if not everything was entered. See Feather, A History of British Publishing. 2nd _{ed. (New York:}

Routledge, 2006), 51; McKenzie, “The London Book Trade in 1644” in Peter D. McDonald and Michael F. Suarez, S.J. (eds.), Making Meaning: ‘Printers of the Mind’ and Other Essays (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002), 131. McKenzie suggests that economic rather than political reasons motivated the lack of entries in the SCR: “a function of the increase in the number of titles published and a reduction in their length.” He goes on to note that few texts were likely to be pirated and run past a first edition, which, coupled with a 6d. fee for entering copies in the Register, provides an apt explanation.

If two or more persons entered copies together, they held a share in the rights to that copy and thus had the right to print and distribute it or assign

someone else to do so as happened frequently with publishers.10 When an owner of copies died, whether printer, publisher, or bookseller, his rights as a member of the Stationers’ Company and his rights of production would often be passed on through his widow or next of kin, upon which the widow was granted full membership in the Stationers’ Company. She then had the right to do with her property however she wished. But if she married outside of the Company, she would forfeit her rights to copies and business, which would be passed to the eligible next of kin or be subsumed into the English Stock.

11.Bell, Maureen. “Women Publishers of Puritan Literature in the Mid-Seventeenth Century: Three Case Studies.” Diss. (Loughborough University, 1987), 1.

12.For more information on the organizational structure and internal workings of the Stationers’ Company, see Blagden, The Stationers’ Company, 34-46.

13.Coker, Cait. “Gendered Spheres: Theorizing Space in the English Printing

House.” The Seventeenth Century 33.3 (2018): 328; Bell, “Women in the English Book Trade 1557-1700.”

14.Smith, Helen. ‘Grossly Material Things’: Women and Book Production in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); “‘Print[ing] Your Royal Father Off’: Early Modern Female Stationers and the Gendering of the British Book Trades.” Text 15 (2003): 163-186.

15.McDowell, Paula. The Women of Grub Street: Press, Politics, and Gender in the London Literary Marketplace, 1678-1730 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); “‘On Behalf of the Printers’: A Late Stuart Printer-Author and Her Causes” in Sabrina Alcorn Baron, Eric N. Lindquist, and Eleanor F. Shevlin (eds.), Agent of Change: Print Culture Studies after Elizabeth L. Eisenstein

(Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007), 125-139. 16.Smith, “‘Print[ing] Your Royal Father Off’”, 167.

17.Smith, ‘Grossly Material Things’, 111. 18.Ibid., 89.

19.Ibid., 4.

20.Bell, Maureen. “Seditious Sisterhood: Women Publishers of Opposition Literature at the Restoration” in Kate Chedgzoy, Melanie Hansen, and Suzanne Trill (eds.),

Voicing Women: Gender and Sexuality in Early Modern Writing (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996), 185.

21.Bell, “Women and the Production of Texts,” 117.

22.Johns, Adrian. The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making

23.Smith, ‘Grossly Material Things’, 96. 24.Ibid., 99.

25.Ahnert, Ruth, and Sebastian E. Ahnert. “Protestant Letter Networks in the Reign of Mary I: A Quantitative Approach.” ELH 82.1 (2015): 3.

26.Ibid., 3.

27.Peeples, Matthew A. et. al. “Analytical Challenges for the Application of Social Network Analysis in Archaeology” in Tom Brughmans, Anna Collar, and Fiona Coward (eds.), The Connected Past: Challenges to Network Studies in

Archaeology and History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 59-84. 28.Ibid., 74.

29.Düring, Marten. “How Reliable are Centrality Measures for Data Collected from Fragmentary and Heterogenous Historical Sources? A Case Study” in Tom Brughmans, Anna Collar, and Fiona Coward (eds.), The Connected Past: Challenges to Network Studies in Archaeology and History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 85-101.

30.Ibid., 94 31.Ibid., 94.

32.Brughmans, Tom, Anna Collar, and Fiona Coward. “Network Perspectives on the Past: Tackling the Challenges” in Tom Brughmans, Anna Collar, and Fiona Coward (eds.), The Connected Past: Challenges to Network Studies in Archaeology and History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 10.

33.Bastian, Mathieu, Sebastien Heymann, and Mathieu Jacomy. “Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks.” (Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 2009), 1.

34.Traag, V. A., L. Waltman, and N. J. van Eck. “From Louvain to Leiden: Guaranteeing Well-Connected Communities.” Scientific Reports (Nature Publishing Group) 9.1 (2019): 1-12.

35.Blondel, Vincent D., Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre. “Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks.” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment (2008); Hage, Per, and Frank Harary. “Eccentricity and Centrality in Networks.” Social Networks 17 (1995): 57-63.

36.Brandes, Ulrik. “A Faster Algorithm for Betweenness Centrality.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 25.2 (2001): 163-177.

37.Morgan, Paul. “The Provincial Book Trade Before the End of the Licensing Act” in Peter Isaac (ed.), Six Centuries of the Provincial Book Trade in Britain

(Winchester, England: St. Paul’s Bibliographies, 1990), 31.

38.Though other groups are inevitably a part of the textual production process, including its circulation and distribution, the inclusion of communities with different attributes and different relationships to these other communities would skew the results of the statistical tests and may show undue influence on the central community of printers and booksellers. However, the existence of other communities operating in the total book trade network is an important point to bear in mind.

39.Oxford University. Bodleian Libraries. Centre for the Study of the Book. British Book Trade Index. Bodleian Libraries.

40.Oxford University. Bodleian Libraries. Centre for the Study of the Book. The London Book Trades. The Bibliographical Society and the Oxford Bibliographical Society.

41.Stationers’ Company (London, England). A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers; From 1640-1708 A.D, 3 vols.Ed. G. E. Briscoe Eyre. Vol. 1, 2. London, 1913.

42.Oxford University. Oxford University Press. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.

43.The British Library. English Short Title Catalogue. The British Library. 44.Early English Books Online. Chadwyck-Healey.

45.Plomer, Henry R. A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1641 to 1667. London: for the Bibliographical Society, 1922.

46.For a freeman of the Company, part of the Yeomanry, to be clothed meant that they had become a Liveryman. See Blagden, The Stationers’ Company, 37-38. 47.Pratt, Aaron T. “Sophisticated Texts.” Keynote Lecture at the Book History

Workshop. College Station, TX. 4 Jun. 2018. 48.Smith, ‘Grossly Material Things’, 100-101. 49.Ibid., 100, footnote 58.

50.Bell, “Hannah Allen and the Development of a Puritan Publishing Business, 1646-51,” 34-35.

51.Not all purported imprints have survived today – for detailed estimates of statistics and figures, see McKenzie, “The London Book Trade in 1644,” 126- 143.

52.See Margaret Spufford, Small Books and Pleasant Histories: Popular Fiction and Its Readership in Seventeenth-Century England (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1982), 111-128.

53.Smith, ‘Grossly Material Things’, 152-153.

54.McKenzie, “The London Book Trade in 1644,” 131. 55.Smith, “‘Print[ing] Your Royal Father Off’”, 173.

56.For an explanation of power laws in social networks, see Barabàsi, Albert-Làszlò,

Linked: The New Science of Networks (Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2002), 65- 92.

57.Düring, “How Reliable are Centrality Measures for Data Collected from Fragmentary and Heterogenous Historical Sources?”, 99.

58.Bell, “Women Publishers of Puritan Literature in the Mid-Seventeenth Century,” iii.

59.Helen Smith notes and elaborates on this in ‘Grossly Material Things’, 102-103. 60.Gardner, “Introduction: Practices, Perceptions and Connections,” xii.

61.Ashe, Simeon. Self-surrender Unto God, Opened and Applied… (London: for E. Brewster, 1648).

62.Bell, “Seditious Sisterhood.”

63.Bell, “Hannah Allen and the Development of a Puritan Publishing Business, 1646-51,” 6.

64.Elizabeth Allot can be considered an anomaly here in that her high eigenvector score, and thus her placement within this community, is really done through her

husband’s relations, with whom she entered copies once on 10 June 1653. See

SCR vol. 1, 419.

65.We must be careful not to assume that what is true for one figure in terms of community formation and continuation must be true of all others. There are, of course, overlapping community ties as we have in our own lives, belonging to a variety of spheres, and this is no less true of figures in the book trade.

66.Smith, ‘Grossly Material Things’, 91; “‘Print[ing] Your Royal Father Off’”, 183. 67.Jenstad, Janelle. The Map of Early Modern London. The University of Victoria. 68.Brandes, Ulrik. “A Faster Algorithm for Betweenness Centrality,” 165.

69.See Smith, ‘Grossly Material Things’, 91, 93; Bell, “Women Writing and Women Written”, 443; McDowell, Women of Grub Street, 11.

70.Smith, “‘Print[ing] Your Royal Father Off’”, 177.

71.Smith quoting Bell, ‘Grossly Material Things’, 109; Kastan, “In Plain Sight,” 50. 72.Coker, “Gendered Spheres: Theorizing Space in the English Printing House.” 73.Brughmans et. al., “Network Perspectives on the Past: Tackling the Challenges,”