Book Ownership in Stuart England: Lyell Lectures in Bibliography

David Pearson’s Book Ownership in Stuart England is a comprehensive overview of the development of book ownership in seventeenth-century England. Pearson has previously written Provenance Research in Book History: A Handbook (1994, 2014), Books as History: The Importance of Books beyond Their Texts (2008), and, more recently, Speaking Volumes: Books with Histories (2022). As a successful librarian and book historian, Pearson has written and presented extensively on the history of books, publishing, and libraries. Book Ownership in Stuart England cumulates many of the topics covered in Pearson’s other published works and lectures to provide a focused insight into books and their ownership in Stuart England, which Pearson defines as 1604 to 1714 or “during the seventeenth century, between the end of the Tudor period and the beginning of the Hanoverian” (1). During this period, only book owners who have passed are considered.Pearson emphasizes that using the word ownership should be a welcome new direction for library and book historians, which moves away from the terms collectors and readers (16). Thus, the discussion extends beyond the contributions of earlier scholars such as David Cressy in Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England (1980), who briefly considered that book ownership did not necessarily correlate with literacy. Book Ownership in Stuart England considerably adds further context to Pearson’s chapter in Book Collecting in Ireland and Britain 1650–1850 (2018), edited by Elizabethanne Boran, wherein he proposes a clearer distinction between book owners and collectors and suggests future implications of discerning such motivations. Other scholars have also begun to contend with a clearer distinction, as seen in David McKitterick’s The Invention of Rare Books: Private Interest and Public Memory, 1600–1840 (2018).Pearson goes beyond by emphasizing that the word owners embraces and widens the scope of the discipline to consider the “c-word” [collector] and “r-word” [reader] as unsuitable or obscene terms, which render the discipline in relation messy and distorted due to the foreboding terminology (163–64). Ownership instead considers other motives for owning books and their use beyond reading or collecting without presentism implications. As such, in Book Ownership in Stuart England, Pearson strives to demonstrate the importance of the word ownership and seeks to answer why someone owned books and curated private libraries in seventeenth-century England.Among seven chapters, one is devoted to “Women and Books in the Seventeenth Century” and another focuses on “Books for the Common Man.” The remaining sections include more general cultures of collecting, often using provenance evidence of ownership, through marginalia, arms, bookplates, and inscriptions, and studies of book formats from a bibliographical lens to answer why someone owned books and curated private libraries in seventeenth-century England, with limited focus into what was curated. Most of the primary sources consulted are from the Bodleian Libraries at the University of Oxford, and to a lesser extent the Syndics of Cambridge University Library, the British Museum, and Senate House Library at the University of London, among other notable collections. Pearson considers the book’s backbone to be the appendix of around 1,370 book owners of private libraries in Stuart England (2). The section spans pages 165 to 303, constituting nearly half of the book’s contents. The appendix is categorized by the occupation of the book owner. Notably, a much more expansive directory of book owners is on Pearson’s site Book Owners Online, wherein there is an ever-growing list of 2,800 book owners from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.Other scholars have delved into the roles of women as producers of books, as seen in Women’s Labour and the History of the Book in Early Modern England, edited by Valerie Wayne (2020), and as readers in Chaste, Silent and Obedient: English Books for Women 1475–1640, by Suzanne Hull (1982). However, there has been comparatively less exploration from the standpoint of women as book owners. Pearson acknowledges that such inquiry is often limited due to the source base to draw upon and surviving documentary evidence, often owing to destruction and loss, as seen in Adam Smyth’s Material Texts in Early Modern England (10, 35, 109) (2017).Seventy-five illustrations add significant value to the book because they contribute to the comprehension of concepts presented and convey complex information more effectively than Pearson’s words alone. Pearson also consults a significant source base of “relevant literature,” mainly “books and journal articles published during the last 40 years or so,” to delve into the motivations for book ownership (305). The index is distinctive in its focus, centring strictly on names rather than encompassing references to cultures of collecting and evidence of ownership. In doing so, it elevates the appendix to the most noteworthy element of the book, thereby limiting the opportunity to cross-reference other essential aspects discussed before the appendix. These aspects include the examination of motivations behind book ownership and presenting authoritative evidence, which are crucial elements that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the subject. Additionally, the appendix highlights a single gardener, one occultist, three yeomen/farmers, and eighty-eight medics—subjects given minimal attention in the previous chapters.Scholars of bibliography may find value in the inclusion of bookbinding, borders, formats, and illuminations. Additionally, the incorporation of marginalia, arms, bookplates, inscriptions, and insights into cultures of collecting could prove relevant to researchers in textual studies and scholars of book and library history. Nevertheless, the appendix is the most likely valuable aspect, serving as a significant reference source alongside the index for future research endeavors.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.