A recent blog posting in anchora uses an image from a 1559 translation of Orbis to show us “How to Read like a Renaissance Reader.” English professor and blogger Adam Hooks explains that the woodcut from a copy in the Folger Shakespeare Library Collections (previously in Wynken de Worde 10 December 2008) shows “[i]n the Renaissance, reading always demanded writing.” (Hooks 23 August 2012) By adding two observations to Hooks’ gloss, the print can also help us conceptualize the early modern, and relate the early modern blogosphere to the term’s historiography and the era itself.
First, note the male reader/writer at his desk surrounded by books and manuscripts separates himself from the world outside his window, an image of solitary endeavor that became de riguer for the portrait of the great writer. Second, the character writes on one paper with scissors close at hand, while he fixes his eye elsewhere on an open book. The early modern production of knowledge, the woodcut implies, involved isolated men, copying and transcribing the work of others. The early modern history blogosphere challenges the first observation, while it conforms to the second. This article examines recent Anglophone blogs about the early modern world, with special attention to those of historians. It finds an interconnected world that challenges the stereotype of the historian as a great man secluded in his study. But this blogosphere follows the early modern process—what Dror Wahrman has called Print 2.0—of constant summarizing, cribbing, even cut-and-pasting from one source and one context into another. (Wahrman 2012)
The early modern became ensconced in the Anglophone historiographical scene about 1970. Of course, the phrase “early modern” had long existed, sometimes to refer to the first age of humans, more often to refer to a stage in language development (early modern French, or early Modern English after Old English), more rarely to refer to several centuries, and for the latter, mainly in university curricula and mainly with regards to Europe or even England. (for example, Dawson 1888, p. 398; Edwards 1896, p. vii; The Cornell University Register 1869, p. 62). But a few works in the 1960s applied the term to a broad era after the Middle Ages and it graced numerous collections and texts from 1970. Where before one might name royal houses (the Tudor‑Stuart era) or use dates of major wars and treaties (Europe before 1648), from the 1960s one increasingly turned to “early modern” to signify variously 1300‑1700 or 1500‑1800. Two nGrams show the phrase’s dramatic rise as a term in British and American texts since the 1960s (http://tinyurl.com/8to62hf; http://tinyurl.com/9ks9cbc). (Randolph Starn 2002, discovers slightly different progenitors than I do; but we both agree to the sea change in usage circa 1970).
Outside the Anglophone world, the early modern has been much less eagerly embraced. As Starn shows, German-language academics remain suspicious of frühe Neuzeit, while the French- (and Spanish-) language ones remain committed to histoire moderne as a broad designation, and the ancien régime society of the earlier part of that broad periodization. Again, using Google books Ngram Viewer (http://tinyurl.com/9dhkk9d; http://tinyurl.com/9nm9z8c) suggests that frühe Neuzeit has become increasingly used in the 1990s and 2000s (although still explained as if a novelty, and, confusingly, neuere Geschichte can also refer to the era from the 16th century onwards), while début des temps modernes has seen a steady increase in use since the 1880s (although the latter mainly refers to the point at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the early modern). Overall, historians tend to group their specialties by century (Revue Dix-Huitième Siècle), and the Anglophone world sometimes stretches that to incorporate the long sixteenth century, or the long eighteenth century (a phraseology which owes more to the Braudelian longue durée).
The underlying reasons for this change are many, but I would point especially to the triumph of Marxian, Weberian, and especially Tönniesian social theories. Karl Marx’s stadial analysis readily explains the focus on early modern Europe and England, if not the terminology. (Rollison 2005) In the 1950s, Paul Sweezy, Maurice Dobb, and others began a debate in the journal Science Society that was collected and several times reprinted as The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (1976, etc.). This transition, from the Medieval to the Modern, emphasized the trajectory or pathway towards what E.P. Thompson labels “the Great Arch”: the bourgeois, capitalist, state-society, fully in place by the fourth decade of the 19th century. This narrative focused on material changes and changes in social relations between the mid-14th and mid-19th centuries. (Sweezy et. al. 1976; Corrigan and Sayer 1985) In 1974, Perry Anderson even apologized for focusing on the state and ignoring the triumph of capitalism as the story of “the early modern epoch,” only to announce that he would, of course, take up that very trajectory in another volume. (Anderson 1974, p. 10) Other works of the 1960s and 1970s employing the term include textbooks (Rowen 1960; Rule 1966; etc.) and slightly more theory-laden essay collections (Zemon Davis 1975; Forster and Greene 1970; etc.). Moreover, Marxian historiography provoked an even more influential “Non‑Communist Manifesto,” from economist W.W. Rostow, published in final form in 1960. Rostow became the doyen of modernization, and he and his followers sought the transition or “take-off” “stage” between traditional and modern societies and economies in an era which would soon be labeled the early modern. (Rostow 1960) The Weberian influence was less overt, but Talcott Parsons’ 1930 translation of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-5, 1920) had an impact beyond the corridors of American sociology departments (especially in its 1958 edition), and was soon sparking study of aspects of an early modern Weltanschauung. (Weber 1958; Tawney 1926; Nelson 1969) By the 1970s, Lawrence Stone and others were heeding the call for tracing the collective mentality of bureaucrats beyond their respective institutions in order to understand “the first modern society.” (Stone 1971; Beier Cannadine and Rosenheim 1989) Finally, although Ferdinand Tönnies’ first published his distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in 1887, it was not translated into English until 1940, and only after a new translation and edition was published in 1957 did it become de rigeur. In any case, it became central to university sociology in the 1960s. (Tönnies 1940, 1957; Nisbet 1966, p. 75; etc.) And it influenced historians most dramatically and influentially through Keith Thomas’s magisterial Religion and Decline of Magic (1971), which sought “knowledge of the mental climate of early modern England,” and its relation to “the material environment more generally.” (Thomas 1971, p. ix) This project deployed less a Marxian and more a Tönniesian framework; even though Thomas’s analysis of “decline” shifted from Tönnies’ synchronic consideration of “community” and “society” to a diachronic story of one succeeding the other. Editors of a recent collection note how Thomas and other major British historians follow “a tendency among early modern social historians to regard the period 1450 to 1750 as England’s transition from one type of social organisation (Gemeinschaft) to the other (Gesellschaft).” (Shepard and Withington 2001, pp. 4-5)
Related to the triumph of Marxian, Weberian, or Tönniesian theory was the emergent hegemony of social and cultural history (in which battles and dynastic shifts no longer were key markers). In 1976, Douglass North and Robert Thomas began discussion of “the early modern period,” by bemoaning the readiness by which historians “widely recognized” 1500 “as the watershed between the medieval world and the modern world,” but who blithely also wore “a fashionable tendency to spurn generalizations,” and rarely offer “a systematically cosmic look atEurope during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” (1976, p. 102) That is, theory gave way to rote periodization.
Let us examine the extent to which North’s and Thomas’s jeremiad is true for major works on the early modern in the decades since they made that observation. Peter Burke’s Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe notes that historians consider from about 1500 to about 1800, “the ‘early modern’ period, even when they deny its modernity.” The “even” might imply that Burke will emphasize the pull both of continuity and of change, of both the vestigial and the incipient. But his prose suggests a relentless Whiggish underlying trajectory of “major economic, social and political changes of the period,” that “had their consequences for culture.” The early modern, for Sharpe is the end-game of the pre-industrial: “[t]he book ends in the late eighteenth century because of the enormous cultural changes set in motion by industrialisation.” (1978, pp. xii-xiii, 244) A decade later, James Sharpe denies his social history textbook title, Early Modern England, signifies anything more than “the decision to write over the period between the mid sixteenth and mid eighteenth centuries.” Certainly his chapters delve into the specific demographic, social, and cultural issues, with little overarching theoretical framing. But a breezy initial political narrative of the first half of the chosen early modern period ends by proclaiming: “England was changing from a dynamic and unstable situation to an inherently stable one: the days of shaking were at an end.” (1987, pp. ix, 31) That is, Sharpe argues that the mid-early modern, the mid-seventeenth century, witnessed both a political and a social shift. The revolutionary transition to modernity remains a key component of Sharpe’s story. By 1999, Euan Cameron is more suspicious of change: “Early modern” is “a quite artificial term,” one “born of hindsight.” Cameron warn us not to assume Athat European culture was travelling towards something called ‘modernity,’” in the period “between the end of the Middles Ages and the start of the nineteenth century.” Yet, even his framework assumes an arc, a trajectory, during the period: “[a] consumer economy, a free exchange of ideas, toleration, and the rational, unitary state were beginning to emerge: it is in this sense that the centuries between 1500 and 1800 formed the ‘early modern’ period of Europe’s history.” (Cameron 1999, pp. xvii, xix) If 1500-1800 was Europe’s early modern, the “early modern” evidently should be dated differently elsewhere; the early modern, then, becomes a stage that all regions go through, not a specific era. As such, this usage is not much different than Rostow’s periodizing of the “take-off” into sustained self-growth.
In the last decade Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks points to the, well, early modern antecedents of the term. In Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789 she notes how historians are simply refining the old Renaissance tripartite schema of antiquity, Middle Ages, and modernity, by splitting the latter in two, and emphasizing that the Europe of Columbus was more likely to carry on Medieval ways of thinking and acting as anticipating modern ones. Wiesner-Hanks reflects recent trends in historiography by questioning or at least claiming to de-privilege modernity itself. She perhaps muddies others’ clear trajectory by aiming both to add “peasants workers, women, and various types of minority groups” to the story, as well as to expand the geographic scope to include both a larger Europe (expanding to the East and South) and one “more connected to the rest of the world.” Her aims perhaps question the “great divergence,” supposedly centered on industry, centralized nation-states, and the expansion of rights and toleration. But the term and the period, signifying the relation between the past and the present, between continuity and change, continue to lure. Even while Wiesner-Hanks ends her study by noting “the centuries coveredwere not just a prelude to modernity,” her phrasing admits that they were at least that. (2006, pp. 4-5, 477, my emphasis)
Both the attraction and the tensions of the early modern can be seen in the recent proliferation of early modern blogs. In the last few decades historical research and writing changed dramatically by first the spread of the personal computer in the 1980s, and then arrival of the Web and later search engines in the 1990s. Historians, who used their Apple, Kaypro, or IBM AT as a tool to write and store/organized large amounts of personal research in the 1980s, became networked and linked first to discussion and then to research databases in the 1990s. By the end of the 1990s, blogs or ezines had been created to provide commentary on the expanding world of online communication. And, by 2004, blogging had gone mainstream, and historians had taken up the new form of communication. (Kovarik 2011) Early modern specialists in history, literature, art, and philosophy first reached each other through listservs and usenets, and, then, expanded into blogging. This rest of this paper plots the metes and bounds of these early modern blogs in general, and analyzes in detail the major blogs as defined by subject and cross-referencing. It notes changes over their brief history, before returning to the question of how blogging reflects or changes our concept of the early modern.
What is an early modern history blog? At the time of writing, Sharon Howard’s Early Modern Commons, an aggregator for blogs covering 1500‑1800, lists some 220 active blogs, of which early modern is part of the blog title for over twenty (including my own earlymodernengland). I sampled these blogs first by simply searching for blogs with “early modern” in the title or subtitle, and then adding to the list those that are referenced elsewhere. I separated out (based on links from other blogs and subject) the main blogs, from blogs mainly about the early modern, blogs occasionally about early modern, semi-blogs, and moribund blogs. As I discovered more blogs and noted their respective blogrolls (lists of other blogs regularly consulted), demoted some blogs and promoted others into the “main” category. Ultimately, I selected over fifty active early modern blogs (twenty main blogs, and thirty others, only a couple of which were not also listed on Howard’s master blogroll). While this selection process is somewhat idiosyncratic (my own interests in English history predominate), it provides a reasonable cross-section of the main trends. Besides Early Modern Commons, there are two other meta-sites for early modern blogging. The Broadside tracks and aggregates the latest blogging and news about history shared by historians using Twitter. And Carnivalesque, began in September 2004 as a carnival of early modernists, and now alternates monthly between ancient/medieval and early modern. (Blog carnivals are posts masquerading as online magazines whereby a blogger in the field is given editorship to select, describe, and link posts from other blogs for that month’s “issue.”) I examined but did not include blogs only occasionally about early modern subjects, moribund blogs (with no posts for the past year), or semi-blogs—peer-reviewed journals or online newsletters (listing calls for papers, etc., with no commentary) in blog-format, that is to say, reverse chronological posting with some sort of archiving of old posts—in the sample.
So, what is the history of the early modern blog? From a sample of fifty blogs, forty percent (20) were formed and began posting in the last two years, 2011-2012. Eighty percent (40) have been founded since 2007; while only eight percent (4) began 2004 and earlier, although Lara E. Eakins has been blogging at TudorHistory.org or its forerunners since 1997.
|1997, 2001 2004||4|
Blogging about the early modern world, then, is a very recent phenomenon.
We can categorize early modern bloggers in terms of their residence, gender, and academic affiliation (employment). Anglophone blogging is largely centered in the United Kingdom. Of those early modern bloggers in my sample whose affiliation or location can be easily identified, roughly two-thirds (20) live in the UK. The rest (11) live in the USA, except for a couple in Australia and one who may reside in Russia. Further research and contact might expand this geography of early modern blogging, but I presume that the general distribution is correct. Also, bloggers do not always name themselves. But, blogs which list the creator or maintainer split evenly between male and female. That is, if we assign gender based on the preponderance of men or women listed for those blogs with multiple authors, we find 21 blogs maintained largely by men, and 17 by women. One might speculate as to gendered difference in reasons for blogging and for subjects covered. But certainly the early modern history blogosphere allows us to agree with a recent study of all British bloggers that “women bloggers are alive and well.” (Pedersen and Macafee 2007) And most bloggers, perhaps surprisingly, have some sort of academic affiliation. Twenty-six individuals are closely associated with the top twenty early modern blogs. Of these, eight are English lecturers/professors, seven history readers/professors, four administrators of libraries, laboratories, student development, or digital projects, two independent researchers (and two others just completed history PhDs.), one self-employed writer, one possible undergraduate, and one employed well outside academia. Almost 75% are employed currently in some way by universities. Very few are still students, although many blogs are begun in graduate school. Several bloggers have commented on the uneasy relation between blogging and the demands of paid teaching and research. Relentless time constraints have some bloggers moving towards the Haiku‑like compression of Twitter (used, for example, by Early Modern World and Wynken de Worde).
One way to define this early modern blogosphere is to note who follows whom (most pages include a blogroll). If we examine which bloggers are watching which blogs, we see that the early modern blogosphere forms an interlinked group (who, of course, may well never have met each other or even know each other’s names). Again, using my sample of some 50 blogs and examining their blogrolls or list of blogs followed, I have compiled a list for each of active, early modern blogs followed. These blogrolls are only one measure of who follows whom. Some blogrolls are not updated regularly, and one might follow even subscribe to a blog through an RSS feed without putting it on one’s blogroll. One might a different ranking based on “hits” or “followers”: the military history blog Anno Domini 1672 has 72 followers, the 17th-century historical fiction blog Hoydens Firebrands has 112. And several with Facebook pages have several hundred “likes.” But not all blogs allow or share lists of followers. And blogroll linkage is arguably related to hits, and the result does help us understand a loosely bounded network. The following table ranks blogs by the number of times that they appear in the list or blogroll of other early modern blogs. Again, this does not indicate all of the blogs followed or occasionally examined, and the top blogs on this list do not link to other blogs. But it suggests that this group is aware of others in the field, and it corroborates somewhat that this is a field although loosely bounded.
- Mercurius Politicus 16 links back (# of early modern blogrolls noting site)
- Wynken de Worde 15 links
- Early Modern Notes 10 links
- Early Modern Whale 9 links
- Early Modern Commons 8 links
- Renaissance Lit 8 links
- A Cuppe of Newes 7 links
- Early Modern Intelligencer 7 links
- Collation 6 links
- Early Modern Online Bibliography 5 links
- Early Modern Post 5 links
- Edward Vallance 5 links
- Carnivalesque 4 links
- Early Modern World 4 links
- Everything Early Modern Women 4 links
- Gilbert Mabbott 4 links
- Investigations of a Dog 4 links
- anchora 3 links
- earlymodernengland 3 links
- Early Modern News Networks 3 links
- Georgian London 3 links
- LOL Manuscripts! 3 links
- A Trumpet of Sedition 3 links
Another way of thinking about this group as a network is to present it spatially. But to portray all of the links between the blogs would be a messy image of overlapping connections. Instead, I have opted for an image of which blogs link in their blogrolls to the top four blogs. Blogs are portrayed a circles whose size very roughly corresponds to the number of times they are linked back, and whose spacing is even more roughly related to their centrality to the network and their subject (with those more historically-centered on the lower left, and those more focused on literature to upper the right).
This draft image is not completely accurate (Early Modern Notes should overlap Early Modern Commons, as does Carnivalesque, because Sharon Howard manages all three), but it does show that the early modern blogosphere is more of a network, a product of social media to use the Web 2.0 terminology, and less of a creation of individuals working in isolation.
Such social interactivity suggested by mapping the early modern blogs is also noted by Christopher Flynn, the creator of a new blog edition of Daniel Defoe’s Review (1704-1713) entry-by-entry. Flynn notes the similarities between the modern blogosphere and the “early bourgeois public sphere, as laid out by [Jürgen] Habermas.” Of course, “social” media, and the blogosphere, is not the same as “live people meeting in public places.” Even so, Flynn concludes “if anything resembling the kind of public sphere that existed in London’s coffee houses in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is possible today, new media is the vehicle that makes it so.” (Flynn 2009, pp. 18-19)
Both early modern historians and literary critics blog in roughly equal numbers. And their interests overlap. The top-linked bloggers often post on aspects of the history of the book. Thus, Sarah Werner, who is also associate editor of Shakespeare Quarterly, notes that a main focus of her Wynken de Worde blog is “early modern book and culture,” and her recent post, “my syllabus is a quarto,” which includes a template for turning a word document into a foldable quarto sheet, has been well-referenced and commented upon by both professors of history and of English. (Werner 10 August 2012) And independent researcher Nick Poyntz, who began Mercurius Politicus while pursuing an MA in early modern history, often posts on London pamphleteers and recently posted on Grub Street newsmen just before the Civil Wars. (Poyntz 28 August 2012) Likewise Early Modern Post blogger, Elizabeth Williamson, began her blog as an outgrowth of PhD research on “the gathering, transmission and preservation of political information, news and intelligence.”
The combination of interests in both early modern print culture, and the emergent public sphere formed by news and correspondence can be seen most clearly in the Early Modern News Networks blog, a grant-funded blog, which seeks to be at the center of an academic network to discuss…: networks. In a recent post, Early Modern News Network project director Joad Raymond notes various visualization tools at the Mapping the Republic of Letters website—a network of early modern intellectuals that was “simultaneously an imagined community…, an information network, and a dynamic platform”— and this might also serve as a model of the post-modern early modern blogosphere. (Raymond 20 June 2012) A well-conceived, but currently less linked blog is Cultures of Knowledge: An Intellectual Geography of the Seventeenth-Century Republic of Letters, established in 2009 as another grant-funded blog and project seeking “to reconstruct the correspondence networks central to the revolutionary intellectual developments of the early modern period.” (see Feola 2012) Likewise, Birkbeck College English instructor Adam Smyth, might have been reflecting on his experience of blogging under the title Renaissance Lit, when he reviewed a book on the Stammbuch or album amicorum of 16th and 17th-century Europe. In the review “Social networking, early modern style,” Smyth notes that these friendship albums collected “likes,” copied images, and encouraging comments which both inscribed a transnational social network and created textual space, “wherein [the album originator] will see himself as in the Socratic mirror.” (Smyth 2012) The parallels of this early modern creation to the modern social media blogosphere should be obvious.
One exciting aspect of the early modern blogosphere is the sharing and discussion of research tools and databases. Two English literature professors created Early Modern Online Bibliography blog specifically to promote such discussion with regards to Early English Books Online (EEBO), Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO), and other online databases. A recent posting about the British Newspaper Archive online, not only test-drove the problems and possibilities of this subscription database, the ensuing discussion pointed to other issues, work-arounds, and offered a citation or two. (Shevlin 6 July 2012) The bloggers at the many-headed monster note alternative uses which might be made of the huge Records of Early English Drama series (REED), and provide links where they can be downloaded legally. (Willis 14 August 2012). Jan Smith at Mistris Parliament has posted several descriptions and tests of various digital tools useful for early modern historians (mainly with regards to online catalogs and databases of early modern printed works). And Smyth at Renaissance Lit posted a call for papers, which seeks “contributions that go beyond describing the advantages and shortcomings of…EEBO, ECCO, and the ESTC [English Short Title Catalog] to contemplate how new forms of information produce new ways of thinking.” (Smyth 16 August 2012) Of course, these exciting new tools can require enough study that they become the goal instead of the means. Some of the most exciting early modern blogs have veered off into digital humanities and their posts strictly on the historical period have declined. (The Long Eighteenth; etc.)
How does the early modern blogosphere interpret the concept of early modern and the issue of broad periodization? Mainly in the breach. Certainly the definition of “early modernity,” varies from 1450-1700 (Making Publics website) to “From The Tudors To Victoria,” or 1485-1837 (Early Modern England blog). While they are quite willing to use the terms early modern, Renaissance, or long 18th century in their blog titles, few posts consider broad periodization. Only a blogger like Keith Livesay, whose blog repeatedly returns to Marxist historians, often overtly considers century long changes.(Livesay 17 July 2011). Jonathan Dresner’s excellent and long-running blog on Japanese, Chinese, and Korean history is one of the few to consider “epochal analogies” and the need for “a shorthand to talk about processes,” in a post on Renaissance Japan. (Dresner 21/3/2005) One might consider that the pointillist tendency of blog post format works best when discussing discussing the materiality of the past. For example, a post at Earlymodernjohn discusses a trilingual Irish Primer present to Elizabeth I. The image from the c. 1560s primer—with Iryshe on the left, Latten in the middle, and Englishe on the right—makes the use and understanding of this document much more immediate. Yet Michael Witmore’s blog Wine Dark Sea, which tends to focus on “the statistical analysis of linguistic features in early modern literary texts,” and “the value of counting things,” brings us back to the sweeping consideration of epochal shifts in a recent post on a meeting in 2010, when vizualizations based on “categorizing all books from 1600 to 2010 according to Library of Congress subject headings,” was shown to “humanities scholars and advocates.” The answer to the question “What do people read during a revolution?,” based on the years before 1642, 1776, and 1789, appears to be “Old World History.” (Witmore and Valenza 11 July 2012) Tim Hitchcock takes on the “headache of big data” which has come to the early modern historian, in part by the millions of words and images now available to the research and blogger. Hitchcock himself has helped bring to our desk and laptops the trial accounts of Old Bailey Proceedings, the prosopographical microhistory possible with London Lives, and the minute geo-referenced comparisons possible with Locating London’s Past. But, as he notes, mastering this material can overwhelm; and positivist impetus can lay competing theories a bit shopworn. (Hitchcock 30 January 2012) Moreover, unlike the academy’s careful delineation between undergraduate apprentices, graduate journeymen, and the masters of the professoriate, the blogosphere is a meritocracy based on specialist interests (“16th century guide to gossip, fashion, and scandal”; “Costume Stuff from the English Civil War”), which is apt to find an image more arresting than big data or epochal analysis. In any case, while blog posts might seem to favor the worm’s eye rather than the bird’s eye, the format—which encourages the hyperlinking/comparison of text and context, with images and even video—remains open to both.
Let’s return to the initial image and note the importance of copying, adding to, others, and to networking and following others in the early modern blogosphere. This brief examination of this group of academics and novice historians and curators of things early modern suggests that this collaborative Web 2.0 arena has been especially successful in contributing to the analysis of what Dror Wahrman has labeled Print 2.0, the era of the late 17th and early 18th centuries in which cheap pamphlets and newspapers made publishing current (especially between the first corantos of the 1620s and the first daily newspaper, The Daily Courant, from 1702) and disposable. Moreover, as the history of our original image from online collection to one blog and then another suggests, blogs quickly copy ideas and images. But, rather than just tweeting the original article or image as modern-day news criers, the blogs often import the ideas from one context to another. Therein lies the potential. Perhaps the earlier historical culture which highlighted the lone researcher could best focus on the canon of a limited set of works by a limited number of authors or on the set number of national archives (Rankean focus on limited diplomatic exchanges). The emergent historical culture has turned to a vast network of online archives. And, perhaps, the challenges of the headache of big data have spawned experiments in individual attempts at crowdsourcing the answers.
The author would like to thank Sace Elder, David Smith, and early modern bloggers for their assistance in this paper.
Blog sites (* = 50-site sample)
Airs, Waters, Places: The seventeenth-century environment [http://airswatersplaces.wordpress.com/].*
anchora: The history and future of early modern books and their readers [http://www.adamghooks.net/].*
Brian Sandberg: Historical Perspectives Resources for Historical Thinking mainly early modern [https://briansandberg.wordpress.com/].*
Boston 1775: History, analysis, and unabashed gossip about the start of the American Revolution in Massachusetts [http://boston1775.blogspot.com/].*
Collation: a gathering of scholarship from the Folger Shakespeare Library [http://collation.folger.edu/].*
Conversion Narratives in Early Modern Europe: The blog for the AHRC funded project [http://europeanconversionnarratives.wordpress.com/].*
Cultures of Knowledge: An Intellectual Geography of the Seventeenth-Century Republic of Letters [http://cofk.history.ox.ac.uk/office-of-addresse/].*
A Cuppe of Newes: Early Modern Studies at Exeter, around the Southwest, and beyond [http://earlymodern.wordpress.com/].*
Defoe’s Review: an interactive version of one of the earliest English periodicals, 1704-1713 [http://www.defoereview.org/].
Digitalhumanistbeginner: Explorations of the eighteenth century [http://digitalhumanistbeginner.wordpress.com/].*
dispositio: arguments about early modern things, and sometimes about politics [http://www.dispositio.net/].
Early Modern at Otago: Exploring the Practical speculative divide in early modern thought [http://blogs.otago.ac.nz/emo/].*
Early Modern Dialogues: An Exploration of Debate, Democracy and Digitisation [http://earlymoderndialogues.wordpress.com/].*
Earlymodernengland: The world the English (and Welsh, Scots, Irish) created between the mid 15th and the mid 18th centuries [http://earlymodernengland.blogspot.com/].*
The Early Modern Intelligencer: of the Birkbeck Early Modern Society [http://www.emintelligencer.org.uk/].*
Early Modern News: CFPs, conferences, events, jobs, etc [http://earlymodernnews.wordpress.com/].*
Early Modern News Networks: A blog featuring news, events and reports from the research project News Networks in Early Modern Europe [http://earlymodernnewsnetworks.wordpress.com/].*
Early Modern Notes: early modern crime, women, digital history [http://earlymodernnotes.wordpress.com/].*
Early Modern Online Bibliography: EEBO, ECCO, and Burney Collection Online [http://earlymodernonlinebib.wordpress.com/].*
Early Modern Post: Blogging on the early modern, with special attention to letters and the post, information and intelligence gathering, diplomacy and politics [http://earlymodernpost.wordpress.com/].*
EM Spanish History Notes: Updates on recent scholarship in early modern Spanish history [http://emspanishhistorynotes.wordpress.com/].*
Everything Early Modern Women: all things to do with the study of early modern women [http://jcmurphy.wordpress.com/].*
The Georgian Bawdyhouse: Being an Exploration of Crime, Disorder Lewdness in the Long Eighteenth Century [http://georgianbawdyhouse.wordpress.com/].*
Hoydens Firebrands: Roaring Ladies Who Write About The Seventeenth Century [http://hoydensandfirebrands.blogspot.com/].
The Long Eighteenth: For anyone interested in the long 18th century [http://long18th.wordpress.com/].
the many headed monster: the history of the unruly sort of clowns and other early modern peculiarities [http://manyheadedmonster.wordpress.com/].*
Mercurius Politicus: a Blog about early modern books, history, and culture [http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/].*
Mistris Parliament: The British Civil Wars and Interregnum [http://mistrisparliament.wordpress.com/].*
Renaissance Lit: Happenings and cavorts in the early modern world [http://earlymodern-lit.blogspot.com/].*
Skulking in Holes and Corners: Genteelly Observing the Enemy since 2011 [http://jostwald.wordpress.com/].*
Wynken de Worde: books, early modern culture, post modern readers [http://sarahwerner.net/blog/].*
Perry Anderson: Lineages of the Absolutist State. London 1974.
A.L. Beier, David Cannadine, and James M. Rosenheim, eds.: The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone. Cambridge 1989.
Peter Burke: Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. New York, 1978.
Euan Cameron: Editor’s Introduction, in: Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History. Oxford 1999.
The Cornell University Register: Ithaca, NY 1869.
Philip Corrigan and Derek Sayer: The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution. Oxford 1985.
Sir John William Dawson: Modern Science in Bible Lands. London 1888.
Jonathan Dresner: Renaissance Japan blog post 21.3.2005, in: 井の中の蛙 [http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2005/03/renaissance japan/], accessed 14/10/2012.
George Wharton Edwards:The Book of Old English Ballads. London 1896.
Vittoria Feola, review of Cultures of Knowledge: An Intellectual Geography of the Seventeenth-Century Republic of Letters, in: Reviews in History [http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1316], accessed 11/10/2012.
Christopher Flynn: Defoe’s Review: Textual Editing and New Media, in: Digital Defoe 1 (2009), pp. 17-24.
Robert Forster and Jack P. Greene: Preconditions of Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Baltimore 1970.
Tim Hitchcock, Academic History Writing and the Headache of Big Data blog post 30.1.2012, in: Historyonics [http://historyonics.blogspot.com/2012/01/academic-history-writing-and-headache.html], accessed 14/1/0/2012.
Sharon Howard, Early Modern Commons Update blog post 25.8.2012, in: Early Modern Notes [http://earlymodernnotes.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/early-modern-commons-update/], accessed 10/10/2012.
Adam Hooks, How to Read like a Renaissance Reader blog post 23.11.2012, in: anchora [http://www.adamghooks.net/2012/08/how‑to‑read‑like‑renaissance‑reader.html], accessed 10/10/2012.
Bill Kovarik: Revolutions in Communication: Media History from Gutenberg to the Digital Age. New York 2011.
Keith Livesay: The English Bourgeois Revolution and Some Marxist Historians blog post 17.7.2011, in: A Trumpet of Sedition [http://keith-perspective.blogspot.com/2011/07/english-bourgeois-revolution-and.html], accessed 14/10/2012.
Meeting the Queen blog post 28.6.201, in: Earlymodernjohn [http://earlymodernjohn.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/meeting-the-queen/], accessed in 14/10/2012.
Benjamin Nelson: Conscience and the Making of Early Modern Cultures: “The Protestant Ethic” Beyond Max Weber, in: Social Research 36, 1 (1969), pp. 4-21.
Robert A. Nisbet: The Sociological Tradition. Boston 1966.
Douglass C. North and Robert Paul Thomas:The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History. Cambridge 1976.
Sara Pedersen and Caroline Macafee: Gender differences in British blogging, in: Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, 4 (2007), article 16 [http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/pedersen.html].
Nick Poyntz, Grub Street in 1641 blog post 28.8.2012, in: Mercurius Politicus [http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/grub-street-in-1641/], accessed 14/10/2012.
Joad Raymond, Mapping Communication blog post 20.6.2012, in: Early Modern News Networks [http://earlymodernnewsnetworks.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/mapping communication], accessed 10/10/2012.
David Rollison: Marxism, in: Writing Early Modern History, ed. Garthine Walker. London 2005, pp. 2-24.
W.W. Rostow: The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non Communist Manifesto. Cambridge 1960.
Herbert Harvey Rowen: A History of Early Modern Europe, 1500-1815. New York 1960.
John C. Rule: The Early Modern Era, 1648-1770. Boston 1966.
J.A. Sharpe: Early Modern England: A Social History 1550-1760. London 1987.
Eleanor Shevlin: British Newspaper Archive: Not Burney (yet), But Still Useful blog post 6.7.2012, in: Early Modern Online Bibliography [http://earlymodernonlinebib.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/british-newspaper-archives-not-burney-yet-but-still-useful/], accessed 11/10/2012.
Alexandra Shepard and Phil Withington (eds.): Communities in Early Modern England: Networks, Place, Rhetoric. Manchester 2001.
Adam Smyth: The Early Modern Digital blog post 16.08.2012, in: Renaissance Lit [http://earlymodern-lit.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-early-modern-digital.html], accessed 11/10/2012.
Adam Smyth: Social networking, early modern style (review), in: Times Literary Supplement, 13 June 2012 [http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1059759.ece].
Randolph Starn: The Early Modern Muddle, in: Journal of Early Modern History 6, 3 (2002), pp. 296-307.
Lawrence Stone: Prosopography, in: Daedalus 100 (1971), pp. 46-79; reprinted in: The Past and the Present Revisited. London 1981, 1987.
Paul Sweezy, et. al.: The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. London 1976, 1978.
R.H. Tawney: Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York 1926.
Keith Thomas: Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York 1971.
Ferdinand Tönnies: Fundamental Concepts of Sociology. New York 1940; Gemeinschaft Und Gesellschaft. New Brunswick, NJ 1957.
Dror Wahrman: Mr. Collier’s Letter Racks: A Tale of Art and Illusion at the Threshold of the Modern Information Age. Oxford 2012.
Max Weber: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons, foreword by R. H. Tawney. New York 1958.
Sarah Werner, Folger digital image collections, part 1 blog post 10.12.2008, in: Wynken de Worde, [http://sarahwerner.net/blog/index.php/2008/12/folger-digital-image-collections-part-1], accessed 9/10/2012.
Sarah Werner, my syllabus is a quarto blog post 10.8.2012, in: Wynken de Worde [http://sarahwerner.net/blog/index.php/2012/08/my-syllabus-is-a-quarto/], accessed 11/10/2012.
Merry E. Wiesner Hanks: Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789. Cambridge 2006.
Jonathan Willis: REED all about it – Part I: Fiddling at the Church Ale… blog post 14.09.2012, in: the many-headed monster [http://manyheadedmonster.wordpress.com/category/theory-and-methods/], accessed 11/10/2012.
Michael Witmore and Robin Valenza: What Do People Read During a Revolution? blog post 11.7.2012, in: Wine Dark Sea [http://winedarksea.org/], access 14/10/2012.
Natalie Zemon Davis: Society and Culture in Early Modern France. Stanford 1975.