"You see, but you do not observe": Hidden Infrastructure and Labour in the Strand Magazine and Its Twenty-First-Century Digital Iterations

Abstract

[...]we hope that through this process of investigation we can arrive at a better understanding of the role of business documentation-company records, shareholder lists, and other corporate materials-in the formation of the George Newnes firm. [...]we aim to draw attention to how the magazine's digital incarnations can be similarly understood as a form of emergent media.

This article is derived from the archival and digitization work undertaken as part of Mapping the Strand Magazine (2015-present), a digital humanities project that seeks to recover, archive, and visualize the Strand Magazine's corporate and creative infrastructures. Using data from sources such as the 1891 shareholder records of George Newnes, Ltd., the first stage of the project maps the corporate network of the magazine.1 In doing so, we aim to expand and revise established understandings of the economic and cultural work of one of the nineteenth century's key periodical brands.

At the centre of the Mapping the Strand Magazine project is the theorization of the Strand as a form of new or emergent media. In 1891, its identity and status were in a state of flux, even though it would go on to achieve commercial and cultural success. Its form and content would be widely imitated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In July 1891, six months after the launch of the magazine, its publisher, George Newnes, restructured his business as a limited liability company. Articles and brief prospectuses announcing the formation of George Newnes, Ltd., appeared in newspapers in June and early July 1891.2 One such announcement in the Pall Mall Gazette specified that 150,000 out of 400,000 shares were reserved for "newsagents, advertisers, &c." and that investors were promised "10 per cent interest for five years."3 The share offering was a variation on Newnes's commerce-driven formula of participatory journalism. To make the offering accessible, investors were allowed to pay over time, just as they would with the periodical itself.

The shareholder subscription list opened for a single day on July 7, 1891, and the available shares were purchased by booksellers, newsa- gents, bookstall clerks, periodical staff, and advertisers. As a consequence of these infrastructural changes, the meanings associated with the Strand and its parent company, George Newnes, Ltd., were fluid. Hierarchies of production, investment, and meaning had not yet ossified. The Strand as a cultural product and the George Newnes firm as a corporate entity circulated many self-descriptions across a variety of registers and in a range of cultural locations. Like other emergent media addressed by Lisa Gitelman and Geoffrey B. Pingree, the Strand Magazine did not yet have fixed "material means" and "conceptual modes" during the early 1890s.4

Our aim in this article is threefold. First, we seek to recover a large set of founding documents about the Strand and George Newnes, Ltd., both creative and corporate, which focus predominantly on human and mechanical infrastructures. Second, we hope that through this process of investigation we can arrive at a better understanding of the role of business documentation-company records, shareholder lists, and other corporate materials-in the formation of the George Newnes firm. Third, we aim to draw attention to how the magazine's digital incarnations can be similarly understood as a form of emergent media. Jussi Parikka frames media archaeology as a strategy for resisting and "challenging] the strategic amnesia of digital culture."5 One of the most pervasive forms of digital amnesia is the obfuscation or erasure of the complexity of the discourses that shape our understanding of our own increasingly regular media use. Existing discourses about digital resources contain evidence of the human; however, the human they privilege is the user rather than the maker. Investigating narratives surrounding the formation of the Strand and the George Newnes firm during a moment of substantial change prompts a similar kind of investigation of current media encounters with the Strand Magazine. Our study thus links historical analysis with an exploration of "new" digital media that are quickly becoming integral to scholarly investigation of the nineteenth-century press. Such an undertaking can, we suggest, foster a heightened awareness of the ways historical documents and digital resources present narratives about themselves. Illuminating the Strand's history draws attention to the significance of some of the under-considered technological, business, legal, and financing structures involved in the creation of today's digital objects.

The Global and the Local: Geographies of Content and Production in the Strand Magazine

One of the narratives in circulation at the height of the Strand Magazine's new media moment was the story of its printing, production, and distribution. At the same time that production narratives overlapped with established accounts of the magazine's geographical identities, they also complicated them, reminding readers that the Strand was not a lone star but rather existed in a constellation of other George Newnes publications, including Tit-Bits (1881-1984) and the Million (1892-95). This constellation of publications was geographically situated within the company's physical headquarters.

From its beginning in January 1891, the Strand Magazine strongly signalled its location at the heart of empire through the complex and cosmopolitan locales referenced in its contents. In its first year (January 1891 to December 1891), it was decidedly global, promising to publish richly illustrated works of both the "best British writers" and "special translations from the first foreign authors."6 Of course, Arthur Conan Doyle was among the "best British writers," and his work appeared alongside works in translation by authors such as Guy de Maupassant, Jeanne Mairet, and Peter Rosegger, which gave the magazine a continental inflection.7 The Strand's content drew attention to the activities of cultural elites and the functionaries of empire: military men, continental artists and writers, travellers exploring the Continent and the globe, and British philanthropists funding medical treatment for Indian women.8 The content also spoke to globalised consumption-the points around the globe supplying everything from the contents of Christmas crackers to the treasured furnishings of well-appointed celebrity homes.9 This sense of place, according to Jonathan Cranfield, was linked to the magazine's legitimation of empire and masculinity.10

As its title suggests, the Strand also strongly emphasized its local identity. Within the magazine's pages, London's slightly seedy urban core was viewed through the lens of the past, where the "Strand is a great deal more than London's most ancient and historic street: it is in many regards the most interesting street in the world."11 Its title and cover not only represented an identifiable geographic location but also associated the magazine with London's bustling urban economy and the heart of the city's press and print industries. As Linda K. Hughes points out, Victorian periodicals tended to align themselves with the metropolis: "The mention of Fleet Street or of Cornhill Magazine registers the tendency to associate periodicals with urban sites."12 Christopher Pittard asserts that "to read the Strand . . . was also to experience the city," noting that the "magazine was a particularly urban artefact."13 At the time of the share sale announcement, the Strand Magazine was housed in offices on Burleigh Street, just off the Strand. The sale was, in part, motivated by an expansion of Newnes's publishing footprint in the form of a new headquarters building located just off the magazine's titular street.

The cluster of narratives about George Newnes, Ltd., that was present in the brand's new media moment was anticipated by other Newnes publi- cations. An 1891 announcement of the share sale in Tit-Bits described the company's planned headquarters building as a "splendid new premises . . . extending from Southampton Street to Exeter" that would be "one of the most recognised sights in London."14 The print room was to feature stateof-the-art Hoe & Co. equipment "of so remarkable a character, that a gallery is being erected around the Machinery Hall, to which the public will be admitted, in order to witness the printing, folding, cutting, and binding of Tit-Bits at the rate of 24,000 copies per hour."15 A key component of the stories George Newnes's publications told about themselves was the idea of transparency regarding technology and physical infrastructure. Such narratives perhaps also encouraged insider investment. A December 1892 article entitled "A Description of the Offices of The Strand Magazine" exposes readers to the technological and human infrastructures underpinning the publication business eighteen months after the company's initial share sale.16 This was also eighteen months after the first Sherlock Holmes story was published in the Strand, two years after the magazine was launched, and roughly two years after the 500th number of Tit-Bits. Indeed, in one of the illustrations, the title of the Strand Magazine is painted on the building's front windows alongside Tit-Bits and the Million (figure 1).

The article shows readers how periodicals are made and highlights the layers of human intervention involved: editors, contributors, compositors, electrotypers, stereotypers, accountants, skilled labourers, and general staff members. It is simultaneously linear and hierarchical. The article models the print production process by moving from editor to editorial assistants, from prose to art, and from typesetting to print production and distribution. Human intervention in the process is registered at differing levels of granularity. Images show people active in all phases of production, but references to names diminish as the tour progresses. In the editorial offices, twenty-nine individuals are identified by name. In production and distribution spaces, people are reduced to types: workmen or lads. In the spheres of print production, only Mr. Harrison, the man in charge of distribution, and J. T. Woodard, the building's architect, are identified by name.

The article's process of exposing real and virtual visitors to the technologies of print production is sanitised and selective. However, there are sensory traces of the "grime of black lead," the "smell of hot wax," and the sound of "furiously buzzing dynamos."17 The machines and processes used in printing the Strand are contrasted with the machines and processes used to produce Tit-Bits. Such revelations clearly take place at a moment before what Jussi Parikka describes as the "strategic amnesia of digital culture."18 While the office tour article is conscious of the art and technologies of production, it is also conscious of the artefacts of production-desks, counters, chases, proofs, telephone fittings, electric chandeliers, magnifying glasses, and wood blocks. George Newnes's offices are filled with technologies both large and small.

While the article reveals the humans and the machines behind the product, the figure of George Newnes still dominates, appearing not only in his office but also in portraits on the walls of other offices and in textual references to other areas of production. Newnes's identity as publisher and editor is not displaced in the process of revelation-it is complicated. Occasionally, the linear, hierarchical progress of the office tour is interrupted with digressions into semi-public spaces: the art gallery or the public viewing gallery in the machine room. Similarly, the hierarchies of publishing are disrupted by the presence of some of the company's initial investors. Along with revealing the headquarters building and its technology, the article references a few of the affiliated professionals who have chosen to cooperate with the company. Some of the shareholders named in the arti- cle include Newnes's private secretary William Charles Plank (50 shares); artists Gordon Browne (20 shares), Paul Hardy (50 shares), and Alfred Pearse (10 shares); Million editor Newton Hartley Aspden (150 shares); Strand literary editor Herbert Greenhough Smith (100 shares); Strand art editor Henry James Boot (30 shares); Tit-Bits editor Peter Galloway Fraser (330 shares); journalist and Tit-Bits editorial staff member Harry How (250 shares); and the head of the publishing office, Charles Harrison (270 shares).19 Share-owning staff not mentioned in the text may have been depicted in the illustrations that accompanied the article (see, for instance, figure 2). The nameless figures may have included, for example, Tit-Bits clerks Frederick Ainsworth Bodger (4 shares), Horace Cole (3 shares), and Thomas Louis Askew (5 shares). While their status as shareholders is not mentioned in the article, the presence of investors in the office tour illuminates the interconnected networks of known, knowable, and invisible people behind the company and its many publications.

Framed by the article, corporate space is simultaneously public and private, open and closed. The ornate railing of the public viewing gallery in the Tit-Bits print room can be seen, for example, in the upper-right-hand corner of the "Tit-Bits Printing Room" illustration (figure 2). This publicprivate dichotomy echoes the firm's 1891 shareholder records, which rely on nationally prescribed and conscribed regulations underpinning both the corporation and the persistence of its record.20 "A Description of the Offices of The Strand Magazine" constructs a specific relationship between the magazine's readers and its form and content. The article pulls back the curtain at a moment of newness, giving readers a glimpse behind the scenes, a revelation aimed at enhancing consumer loyalty and pleasure through evidence of human and technological processes. By establishing such a relationship, it integrates the Strand reader into the complex network of objects, places, and people that comprised George Newnes, Ltd.

Participatory Journalism and Editorial Control: The 1891 Semi-Public Offering

The complexity of the Strand Magazine's new media moment is shown not only in the narratives the magazine told about itself but also in accounts of its semi-public share offering in July 1891. As required by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, George Hoyle, solicitor for George Newnes, filed a statement of nominal capital on June 30, 1891, which lists 400,000 shares of £i.21 Five months later, the company filed a memorandum of association for George Newnes, Ltd., which specified that the limited liability company was formed "to acquire and take over the publishing business established by Mr. George Newnes, and heretofore carried on in Burleigh Street, Strand, and all or any of the assets and liabilities of the proprietor of that business in connection therewith, and in particular the goodwill and copyrights of 'Tit-Bits' and 'The Strand Magazine.'"22 Seven initial subscribers are named in the memorandum of association: George Newnes (editor and proprietor), Alexander and Alfred Yeatman (accountants), George Hoyle (solicitor), Herbert Greenhough Smith (journalist), Peter Fraser (journalist), Charles Harrison (publisher), and Francis Palmer (barrister). The "Description of the Offices of The Strand Magazine" article mentions several of these initial subscribers, including Herbert Greenhough Smith, who is pictured sitting in his office (figure 3). These men endorsed incorporation paperwork and lent their names to the share prospectus. Altogether, the initial subscribers owned 312,628 shares, or 78.2 percent of the company.23 All seven were London-based young professionals with an average age of 36.6 years. The total number of shares owned by initial subscribers other than Newnes ranged from 20 to 1,000 (table 1).

The identities of the initial seven subscribers are not surprising. They exemplify the urban, male professional network of investors that George Robb has identified as the main demographic of the London finance world during the late nineteenth century.24 They are affiliated with the infrastructures underpinning the Newnes brand and business: law, accounting, government, and the press. The six initial subscribers other than Newnes perform different roles than both corporate figurehead George Newnes and the rest of the shareholder community.

An investigation of the limited liability company that oversaw George Newnes's publishing operations enables us to recover further detail of the Strand Magazine's cultural and economic currency-specifically how its structure evoked the notion of reader engagement with, and editorial control of, the periodical press. George Newnes started his publishing empire in Manchester in 1881. His first publication, the penny weekly Tit-Bits, was aimed at clerks, artisans, and lower-middle-class readers and commuters.25 Tit-Bits appealed to a mass audience with entertaining content, bold headlines, a lively design, and opportunities for reader participation. According to Reginald Pound, who edited the Strand Magazine from 1941 to 1946, Newnes "introduced into journalism a formula that allied it with the coming technological advances, showing that food for the mind could be packaged like food for the body. Kellogg's cornflakes and Newnes literary snacks: both were early manifestations of an irresistible trend."26

Participatory journalism in publications like Tit-Bits gave readers opportunities for financial gain and personal enrichment. Kate Jackson highlights Newnes's "interest in developing, publicising, and promoting the text of Tit-Bits as a site of a community of mutual responsibility."27 Tit-Bits used contests, reader-generated content, correspondence columns, and an innovative rail-commuter insurance scheme to forge customer loyalty and build an imagined community.28 Tit-Bits informed readers about fin de siècle social and technological changes. Stories about women in the workplace and the day-to-day operations of various industries were interspersed with self-reflexive glimpses at the inner workings of the popular press.29 Tit-Bits readers were even called upon to monitor the consistency and accuracy of the magazine's production processes. A weekly "Vigilance Prize," for example, was awarded to the first person to report a spelling mistake in the most recent issue-an incentive for typographic and proofing staff to minimize error and for readers to comb every inch of every column.30 Vigilance Prize winners were identified in the "Answers to Correspondence" column, which exposed the publication's foibles and provided reader enrichment. While not precisely crowd-sourced labour, Tit-Bits involved readers in quality control just as twenty-first century digital projects call on members of the public to engage with development and production processes. The Strand Magazine did not deploy reader participation in the same way as Tit-Bits, but the link between the two publications was highlighted from the outset.31 The first number of the Strand included an insert that depicted a newsboy reading Tit-Bits, an image the company continued to use well into the twentieth century.32 The close relationship between the two publications was also stressed during the 1891 reorganization of the Newnes firm.

Newnes's decision to restructure his business can be seen as an extension of his innovations in participatory journalism. A network of interested individuals was given the opportunity to participate in the success of both the Strand and Tit-Bits, not by sending in content or benefitting from contests but by investing in its financial future. Newnes called upon closely affiliated individuals to co-operate in planning for the business. By making members of the magazine's production and distribution community part owners, he built brand loyalty and constructed a diverse network that could represent the company and its publications on the local level.

Just as accounts of the 1891 share offering mimicked the model of participatory journalism Newnes had used to great effect in titles such as TitBits, the firm's descriptions of its corporate governance alluded to familiar understanding of the relationship between editor and reader. As a technology underpinning and supporting the periodical and newspaper press, the limited liability company did not come to the fore until the last decade of the century, even though the corporate structure was introduced in Britain in 1855.33 The formation of the Newnes firm in 1891 marks an intermediary stage between the small, privately held sole-proprietorships and partnerships that dominated publishing in the nineteenth century and the massive, extensively capitalized corporations of the twentieth and twentyfirst centuries. According to Paddy Ireland, small businesses eschewed the limited liability company form until the economic depression of 1873-96, when "unincorporated sole traders and small partnerships began to incorporate . . . to get the benefit of limited liability."34 The increasing use of this corporate form was due in part to the expensive new print technologies and higher infrastructural costs associated with mass-market publications. Howard Cox and Simon Mowatt suggest that Newnes's decision to embrace the limited liability company structure was driven, in part, by technological advances and the concomitant need for greater capitalisation.35 While Cox and Mowatt trace the business history of the Newnes firm, they do not consider the demographic and geographic makeup of those who invested in the company, either in its initial 1891 limited offering, which is the focus of this article, or a second public offering in 1897.36

Newnes took a measured approach to adopting limited liability status. The decision to make shares available only to closely affiliated individuals can be seen as a variation on his approach to participatory journalism. However, it may also have been motivated by his distrust of the corporate structure and his discomfort with revealing insider information to individuals outside his core business. As a sole proprietor, Newnes was accustomed to acting without consideration for others. In many ways, his approach to acting as the head of the company's board of directors was analogous to his editorial identity; he was both the head of the company and the editor of its publications. Even after the limited liability company was formed, Newnes acted in ways that did not acknowledge the change in corporate structure. In the first year, the firm's shareholders voiced discomfort about both the security underpinning the guaranteed 10 percent return on their investments and the lack of external board members. When asked about the possible return on investment, Newnes replied that his personal wealth, the sole security, was sufficient to compensate shareholders even in the event of his death.37 Likewise, when queried about the possibility of hiring outside co-directors, Newnes replied, "I do not know whether this questioner wishes me to engage some gentlemen at big salaries in order to do practically nothing. The business is conducted with the greatest possible care. . . . There is no use in creating an ornamental Board which would draw large salaries and do no work."38 It is difficult to distinguish any difference between the sole proprietor and the corporate chairman. The notion of a business as the expression of individual identity has much in common with the idea of a periodical as expression of editorial identity; both obfuscate the individuals whose work or participation is subsumed within the figurehead's persona.

The 1891 Shareholder Data

Representations of Newnes as editor and company director stand in sharp contrast to the traces of participatory journalism that run through the contextual history of the 1891 limited public share offering. That sense of participation-of Newnes's publications such as the Strand being the product of substantial labour by a diverse group of individuals-is briefly recovered in articles such as the 1892 "Description of the Offices of The Strand Magazine"; however, it is through an examination of shareholder data itself that a fuller sense of the Strand as a collaborative effort can be recovered, along with a more nuanced sense of the magazine as a form of emergent media.

At the company's first general meeting in October 1891, Newnes announced, "We now have 1,600 newsagents who are shareholders in our business, and whose direct interest is to push the periodicals and magazines which emanate from our office. I anticipate in the future very great help from such valuable co-operations, and, indeed, we have felt already its great value."39 The 1891 shareholder list is dated November 9, 1891, although it was filed on November 17, 1891, fourteen days after the company's first general meeting.40 It lists 1,564 investors, including the seven initial subscribers; a larger set of individuals who invested on or after July 7, 1891; and a few individuals who divested their shares between the initial offering and the November 1891 report. Just as Newnes limited the share offering to closely affiliated individuals in order to promote his brand, he also limited shareholders' ability to transfer shares. He writes, "I wish to keep these [shares] in the hands of the trade. . . . I hope that when any newsagent . . . may desire to part with his shares he will only part with them to a brother newsagent."41

Newnes's gendering of the distribution workforce discounted the many invisible women who were affiliated with the company through bookstores, bookstalls, and news agencies. The shareholder community was 84.6 percent male and 11.2 percent female, with 4.2 percent not identifiable by sex. While fourteen individuals, including Newnes, held 1,000 or more shares, most shareholders held between ten and fourteen shares each, a number that also represented the highest concentration of shares among men. Among women, however, most held between ten and twenty-four shares. While many shareholders listed British addresses, not all were from London. Along with a significant distribution of shareholders in the industrial north of England (Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester), there were also shareholder communities in Dublin, Cardiff, and Glasgow. Shareholders were located as far abroad as Canada, Spain, Gibraltar, and South Africa.42 This geographic diversity holds with Gareth Campbell and John D. Turner's suggestion that late Victorian share ownership in some business sectors, such as banking and transportation, was diffuse.43 The range of occupations listed for the shareholder group is more surprising. Most were booksellers and newsagents-a front-facing network of participant investors with strong ties to the print trade (figure 4). To explore the balance of the shareholder community, we will focus on two groups who are, in their own ways, understudied, and who help to flesh out nodes in the Strand Magazine's network of labour and public engagement: (1) skilled professionals, such as artists, illustrators, engravers, and writers, who contributed to the creation of the magazine as a material and creative object and (2) women from a range of class backgrounds who made up 11.2 percent of the company's investors.

The magazine has long been viewed as an expression of an individual, editorial persona-in this case the editorial voice of George Newnes. The relationship between the editor and certain well-known individuals-artists and authors, for example-has also been investigated by media historians. Investment data helps us shift our understanding the Strand as a network primarily comprised of editors, authors, and artists, by broadening our understanding of the range of contributors considered integral to the magazine's success. The shareholder information moves beyond canonical contribution categories by identifying advertisers, engravers, production professionals, and nodes on the company's distribution network who were also critical to the magazine's and company's success. In the six-month run of the Strand we examined (July-December 1891), five shareholders with a total of 1,060 shares contributed prose, while fourteen shareholders with a total of 1,635 shares contributed images to the magazine (figure 5). Image contributors included both illustrators and engravers. Four of these shareholders-Arthur Conan Doyle, George Newnes, Harry How, and Richard Taylor-were named in all six issues of the magazine. The association between George Newnes and Arthur Conan Doyle perhaps exemplifies the magazine's creative enterprise. Conan Doyle owned 250 shares in the company, while his literary agent, Alexander Pollock Watt, owned 100.44 Another recognisable author-shareholder during the six-month period is Grant Allen, who owned 200 shares of the company.45 Presumably, these high-profile shareholders had stronger ties to the Strand Magazine and the George Newnes firm because of their interest in protecting their investments.

While Conan Doyle's relationship with George Newnes is well-known, other contributor shareholders were much less visible. Harry How, for example, owned 250 shares and contributed to the magazine regularly throughout the 1890s. In contrast to most Strand contributors, his by-line appeared at the end of his pieces rather than beneath the title. How also worked on the Tit-Bits editorial staff. His name was sufficiently recognizable to be touted in advertisements for the Strand Magazine's forthcoming issues, and he gave lectures on his work as a celebrity interviewer.46 In 1893, the George Newnes firm published a collection of seventeen of How's interviews with luminaries, including Cardinal Manning, H. Rider Haggard, Ellen Terry, and Harry Furniss.47 According to Ruth Hoberman, the Strand Magazine's interviews and other celebrity features "reinforced the sense that the 'private' space of the home could be made public, and, reciprocally, that public discourse could appropriately shape the domestic sphere."48 While How is rarely remembered today, possibly because he died young, he is surprisingly visible as a contributor to the Strand.49 He not only writes himself into his interviews but also appears in accompanying photographs and illustrations (for example in the Cardinal Manning and Harry Furniss interviews). How also appears in the 1892 "Description of the Offices of The Strand Magazine" tour. The article notes that "leading from [the Tit-Bits headquarters] is an inner room containing, in addition to the ordinary furniture of a well set up private office, Mr. Harry How, who, besides his editorial work on Tit-Bits, is the writer of the Illustrated Interviews with celebrated people which form so prominent a feature in each month's issue of this Magazine."50 While identified by name in the text of the article, How is not identified in the accompanying illustration, which is captioned "The Inner Room" (figure 6).51

While Harry How's relationship to the Strand Magazine is accessible even without the shareholder records, many of the other investors would have remained invisible without the shareholder report. Among the 1891 shareholders, there are 1,544 booksellers, newsagents, publishers, printers, businesspeople, advertisers, and others whose identities were not represented in the pages of the magazine. These invisible shareholders represent a diffuse network of potential advocates for the magazine scattered throughout Britain and in a few foreign countries. Along with complicating our understanding of the Strand as the creative and material expression of a single editor and a few high-profile authors, the shareholder data prompts us to reconsider assumptions about the magazine's gendering. It prompts us to tell the story of women from diverse class positions whose capital and/or local influence made the Strand's expansion and longevity possible. Josephine Maltby and Janette Rutterford note that substantial evidence "[challenges] the assumption that women played only a negligible role in limited company investment" during the late nineteenth century.52 As George Robb and Nancy Henry discuss, recovering evidence of women's involvement in Victorian financial culture challenges the long-held assumption that the culture's public nature was a deterrent to women's participation.53 Closely examining women's roles as investors in print culture demonstrates that these occupants of the private sphere pursued such public investment opportunities.

The details of Klara Tomalin's 1891 investment in the George Newnes firm offers a compelling case study in this regard. Remarkably, Tomalin's 1,000 shares place her among the company's largest investors. Only five other investors held greater than 1,000 shares, and the other eight shareholders at her investment level were men in law, business, and government. Tomalin's investment data can be understood as indicative of one of the recurrent ways in which middle- and upper-middle-class women participated in the Victorian financial world even if such participation may have been in parallel with, or in some cases at the mercy of, male family members, friends, or trustees who made the crucial investment decisions.54 We will never know if Tomalin purchased the shares herself or if her husband, Lewis Tomalin, the founder and managing director of the popular Dr. Jaeger's Sanitary Woollen System, acquired shares in her name as a guard against future financial calamity.55 Thus, while the degree of Tomalin's agency as an individual investor in the Strand is unknown, it is nevertheless clear that she functioned as an important node in the Strand's complex network of personal and professional associations. Dr. Jaeger's Sanitary Woollen System was advertised in the Strand from its very first issue in January 1891.56 Tomalin thus represents a number of constituencies that would have been important nodes in Newnes's network of influence: businesses, advertisers, and social contacts. While a number of these constituencies were centered in London, they were also located throughout England and Scotland.

According to Robb, lower-middle-class and middle-class women who were "denied access to the professions and largely excluded from entrepreneurial activities" viewed shareholding as a means through which to establish a modicum of financial security.57 In 1891, a number of women booksellers, newsagents, and tobacconists owned shares in George Newnes, Ltd. For example, Jane Ruston Adair (a fifty-five-year-old widow) and Hannah and Lillian Osborne (a sixty-two-year-old mother and her nineteen-year-old daughter) were connected in one way or another to the Strand's distribution network through the occupations they listed in the 1891 census: bookseller, tobacconist, and newsagent, respectively. Though Adair and the Osbornes were not shareholders of the same rank as Tomalin, their holdings of shares (thirty for Adair, ten for the Osbornes) are illustrative of the investment behaviours of lower-middle-class and middle-class women. Adair's geographical location in Whitehaven, Cumbria, furthermore indicates the potential extent of the Strand's investment and distribution networks. These women shareholders no doubt promoted the Newnes brand to customers at a local level. As such, the face of the brand in many communities was not the equivalent of the publisher/editor or the group of seven metropolitan professionals who were the initial subscribers.

Digital Encounters with the Strand Magazine

Reimagining the Strand as a form of emergent media means accounting for the ways the magazine-and its parent company, George Newnes, Ltd.-explained itself to its audience of both readers and investors. By examining its content as well as its materiality, shareholder records, and corporate governance, we can account for its digital presence in a range of resources-both commercial and open-access repositories-and the discursive practices that shape our understanding of the magazine in our own new media moment.

It is not within the scope of this article to provide a sustained analysis of all of the digital iterations of the Strand currently available. Rather, we present a case study in part determined by our work on the Mapping the Strand Magazine project. The need for critical, digitally literate engagements with digital resources has of course already been established by Jim Mussell and other scholars.58 In addition to thinking critically about digitization processes and the range of editorial and curatorial interventions involved in creating digital resources, scholars such as Matthew Kirschenbaum have paid close attention to the recovery of the digital object's production history as a way of countering the prevailing tendency to assess such objects only in terms of their screen presence.59 Like Bonnie Mak, we aim to excavate the "discursive practices by which digitizations are produced, circulated, and received."60 We model here a reading of the Internet Archive's Strand Magazine holdings in order to highlight the ways in which it frames digital objects, placing emphasis on the individual user and maker. While such self-fashioning locates the human in the technology, other important infrastructures, such as corporate governance, remain opaque. We begin by establishing a context for this reading by summarizing existing and ongoing scholarly conversations about such digital resources.

We are interested in discourses that sit between the formal register of academic argument and the informal register of collegial exchange, as these are the places where the human can be recovered. Database reviews-with their focus on utility-tend to prioritise the user experience rather than the people and practicalities involved in production. While reviews of digi- tal resources occur in many nineteenth-century studies journals, including Victorian Periodicals Review, here we take as our example thirteen reviews of digital resources published in the Journal of Victorian Culture's "Digital Forum" (2008-present). These by no means represent the totality of scholarly assessments of digital resources; however, they are illustrative of the discursive formations in which our digital archives and digital editions are often situated.61

In these reviews, scholars primarily discuss digital resources in terms of their size and accessibility. They measure the breadth and depth of a digital resource's coverage by recounting the size of the resource's holdings or the name or number of its contributing libraries, as well as drawing attention to the level of detail contained in the objects' mark-up or metadata. They also tend to emphasize accessibility as a multifaceted category-assessing to what extent the digital resource makes its constituent objects available to those who face geographical, institutional, economic, or other barriers. Increased accessibility, they often suggest, has the potential to flatten problematic hierarchies and, in turn, to democratise scholarship. Another aspect of access highlighted in these reviews is navigability, both in terms of the resource's interface architecture and its options for search and retrieval. While overall there is diversity in individual responses to specific resources, reviewers tend to reflect the general consensus that digital resources are to a greater or lesser degree useful to scholarly enterprise. This suggests that scholars who employ digital resources are edging closer to domesticating these resources. As Nancy Baym points out in her analysis of popular responses to digital communications technologies, when "we no longer engage in either utopian or dystopian discourses . . . what once seemed marvelous and strange, capable of creating greatness and horror, is now so ordinary as to be invisible."62 By focusing on the user, reviews of digital resources can contribute to the development of digital amnesia, which overlooks inquiry into how resources are produced or who is involved in their production and distribution.

Conceptualizing the Strand Magazine as a form of emergent media in the nineteenth century prompts us to re-evaluate its digital incarnations and, in turn, to suggest an alternative mode of reading digital resources that pays attention to how they discursively frame their digital objects. In the case of the Strand Magazine, corporate records help to fill gaps in what is known about the hidden human and technological infrastructures underpinning the publication's production and distribution history. Awareness of such gaps prompts consideration of the technological, business, legal, financing, and visible/invisible human frameworks involved in the creation, production, and distribution of today's digital resources. As with the George Newnes firm, not everything is easily discoverable or know- able, but that does not eliminate the need to consider the hidden infrastructure and labour behind the media object.

In the first stages of our investigation of George Newnes's corporate records and shareholder data, we had recourse to more than one digital resource. An encounter that started in a practical spirit quickly took on critical dimensions as we registered tangible differences between these digital collections. Due to the linear, date-conscribed parameters of our project, we primarily made use of the Internet Archive's 1891-1922 run of the Strand Magazine, which is cross-listed in several of its collections, including the Strand Magazine collection and the Magazine Rack collection. We also made use of ProQuest's British Periodicals Database, collection I, in situations where title or keyword searches were the most expedient way to access content. While we were aware of the Strand holdings in the HathiTrust archive, we did not use them in the project due to problems with access.63

In sympathy with the discussions of utility in the reviews of digital resources mentioned above, we first examined descriptions of digital resources that foregrounded the human user. The Magazine Rack collection situates its content as material and collaborative, echoing the complexity of the Strand's creative content and its investment and distribution infrastructure. The Internet Archive works to construct a user experience that emphasises the mutability of its media holdings. It also signals the significant depth and breadth of its coverage, in part due to its self-ascribed mission "to prevent the Internet [and] 'born-digital' materials from disappearing into the past."64 However, the archive privileges the material aspects of the Strand by archiving individual issues, displaying each item in a way that allows users to virtually flip through the pages, and allowing users to download multiple file versions of each issue (including a PDF rendered searchable through OCR).

Unlike other digital incarnations of the Strand, the Internet Archive also draws attention to the human as maker. Material evidence of the archive's technological and human infrastructure is reinscribed in the way that it makes plain the identities of the project's institutional and individual collaborators and the scope of their contributions. In order to access any of the archive's holdings, a user has to confront a wall of collaborator identities of varying scales at various stages, from the continental ("European Libraries") to the individual (identified archivists). This willingness to place the identity of collaborators front and centre is mirrored in the way the archive also identifies the archivist responsible for each collection, the individuals who maintain it, and the different contributors, both individual and institutional, responsible for uploading content.

Just as the Strand provided its readers with a clue as to its inner workings through the 1892 "Description of the Offices of The Strand Maga- zine," the archive illustrates for its users a commitment to transparency via a short documentary film, The Internet Archivists (2016). Though it was originally exhibited at Loyola Marymount University's Laband Art Gallery and is easily accessible through a search of the Archive's holdings, The Internet Archivists is not a dominant aspect of the Archive's publicfacing identity; it does not mimic the positioning of the 1892 Strand article in relation to the whole. Nevertheless, the film provides details of the archive's physical home and short interviews with some of its key staff. It emphasises the organic and human factors that it would like users to keep in mind as they approach the collection. As archivist Jason Scott explains, the Internet Archive "does have that unusual approach. And, you know, we could have anonymized it all and do a cloud-based approach and just tell you it's somewhere; but, we also love the idea that people enter these kinds of spaces and realize that they don't need to be like everybody else. . . . It's going to be organic and interesting and fun."65 This attention to the human is reiterated in the film's focus on documenting the creative process of artist Nuala Creed, who creates terracotta portraits of key staff members. The sculpture collection continues to grow and is on permanent display in the archive's server farm, housed in a deconsecrated Christian Science Church in San Francisco.66 By drawing attention to the human presence behind the Internet Archive, we are not suggesting that its mechanisms of attribution and transparency make it somehow superior to other repositories. Rather, we aim to draw attention to how its presentation of content and supporting infrastructures, both technological and human, contribute to its discursive formations.

The evocation of the human in the corporate records of George Newnes, Ltd., and accounts of the Internet Archive's formation draw attention to the role of corporate, technological, and human frameworks behind emergent media. In line with Sherlock Holmes's directive in "A Scandal in Bohemia," we must both see and observe.67 In the area of periodical and newspaper studies, evidence of invisible human labour and investments may be excavated from corporate and business records. While other company shareholders may not be as closely tied to the publishing industry as the George Newnes, Ltd., shareholders were, their identities may still reveal hidden networks and structures underpinning the periodical press. At the same time, periodicals themselves contain evidence of behind-thescenes people and technologies, such as the typesetters and Hoe & Company press in the illustration engraved by shareholder Harry Fitzner Davey (figure 7). Such records, in turn, challenge us to expand our conception of who was important to a publication's success. At the same time, when using today's digital iterations of nineteenth-century newspapers and periodicals, it is important to be aware not only of the ways discourses frame the user's experience but also of the people and frameworks involved in the production of digital resources. We cannot always know what technologies were involved in the production of these digital resources-how corporate and legal systems influenced their creation and display. However, the difficulty of finding this information does not absolve us from the necessity of understanding human and technological frameworks. Where possible, we must attempt to make these infrastructures more transparent.

University of Greenwich

Bader International Study Centre (UK), Queen's University (Canada)

Footnote

NOTES

1. A variety of corporate records for George Newnes, Ltd. (Company No. 34316), are held at the UK National Archives, as part of their "Board of Trades and Successors" records. See, for example, BT 34/784/34316 and BT 31/5097/34316.

2. See, for example, "From Our London Correspondent," 2; "Money Market and City News," 6; and "Subscription List Will Open," 15.

3. "Pall Mall Gazette Office," 6.

4. Gitelman and Pingree, "Introduction," xii.

5. Parikka, What Is Media Archaeology?, 13.

6. "Introduction," 3.

7. Maupassant, "Doctor's Story"; Mairet, "Wife or Helpmeet?"; and Rosegger, "Otto's Folly."

8. For military men, see [O'Rell], "Sister Gabrielle"; Montagu, "Anecdotes of the War-Path"; "Regiment on Wheels"; and Holyoake, "Captain Mayne Reid." For continental artists and writers, see, for example, Björnson, "Perilous Wooing"; Clifford, "Last Touches"; Mairet, "Wife or Helpmeet?"; and Rita, "Told in the Studios." For continental and global travelers, see, for example, Besant, "Quarantine Island"; Normand, "P. L. M. Express"; and O'Rell, "Notes on Jonathan's Daughters." Lady Dufferin's philanthropic work in India is recounted in "Lady Dufferin and the Women of India."

9. See "Christmas Crackers." For the contents of celebrity homes, see, for example, Harry How's August 1891 interview with Henry Stacy Marks (How, "Illustrated Interviews No. II") or How's September 1891 interview with Madame Albani (How, "Illustrated Interviews No. III").

10. Cranfield, "Chivalric Machines," 551.

11. "Story of the Strand," 4.

12. Hughes, "SIDEWAYS!," 2.

13. Pittard, "Cheap, Healthful Literature," 3.

14. "Important New Departure," 195.

15. Ibid. Interestingly, George R. Willis, the manager of Hoe & Co., acquired 100 shares of George Newnes, Ltd., in the 1891 share sale. See Form E.

16. In the course of examining digital incarnations of the Strand, we noted that the ProQuest British Periodicals database version lists the publication date of this article as July 1892, while the physical copy we used makes it clear the article was published in December 1892.

17. "Description of the Offices," 604.

18. Parikka, What Is Media Archaeology?, 13.

19. Form E.

20. While limited liability company laws mandated the annual report that became part of the public record and survives as part of the British National Archives collection, these public records are more theoretically than practically accessible, both at the time of creation and in their archival form.

21. Form No. 25.

22. Memorandum of Association, 1.

23. Newnes kept 77.9 percent, or 309,928, of the shares at the time of the Form E report. He continued to acquire shares when individuals chose to resell or return their holdings.

24. Robb, "Ladies of the Ticker," 121.

25. Varga describes the Tit-Bits readership as the "upper working and lower middle classes whose literacy levels had significantly increased during the second half of the century" ("Tit-Bits," 630).

26. Pound, Mirror of the Century, 22.

27. Jackson, "Tit-Bits Phenomenon," 201-2.

28. Anderson, Imagined Communities.

29. For depictions of women in the workforce, see, for example, "How Shop Assistants Are Fined," "Women as Detectives," "Correspondence," and "Experiences of a Shop-Girl." For the day-to-day operations of various industries, see, for example, "New Tricks in the Coal Trade," "Methods of Music Publishers," "In Business as a Pawnbroker," and "Morning with the Telephones." For the inner workings of the press, see, for example, "How to Get on the Press," "Bribing the Press," "Something about Illustrated Journalism," "That Awful Printer!," and "Starting a Newspaper."

30. See, for example, "Tit-Bits Vigilance Prizes."

31. Newnes started the Strand Magazine in the wake of the disintegration of his partnership with W. T. Stead on the Review of Reviews (1890-193 6).

32. The Cathinca Amyot print is not included in either the authors' personal copy of the magazine or in the digitized version available on the Internet Archive. At the end of the year, the Strand Magazine not only produced another Tit-Bits illustration by Cathinca Amyot for its readers but also featured her in its "Portraits of Celebrities at Different Times of Their Lives" series (607).

33. While the periodical press was not, for the most part, an early adopter of the limited liability corporate structure, there were some who elected to take advantage of it from its first year of existence. For example, in 1855 John Bury Dasent, George French, and Thomas Spinks formed the Law Reporting Society, Ltd., to publish court reports. The unsuccessful venture wound down a few years later.

34. Ireland, "Limited Liability," 847.

35. Cox and Mowatt, Revolutions from Grub Street, 25.

36. Ibid.

37. "First General Meeting," 88.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Form E.

41. Newnes, "George Newnes, Limited," 227.

42. The handwritten shareholder list was compiled using a printed boiler plate form published by Jordan & Sons, 120 Chancery Lane, London. For each shareholder, it lists a folio number, surname, given name, address, occupation, and number of shares (including transfers or sales). Thus, a print tool framed and facilitated the information filed to ensure that the company conformed to annual national reporting requirements. See Form E.

43. Campbell and Turner, "Substitutes for Legal Protection," 576.

44. Sidney Paget, the illustrator most associated with the Sherlock Holmes series in the Strand, was not an 1891 shareholder.

45. Allen's relationship with George Newnes, Ltd., began when his novel What's Bred in the Bone won a £1,000 Tit-Bits fiction contest in 1891.

46. For example, the Western Daily Press highlighted How's work, noting that the "May number of the Strand Magazine contains an illustrated interview with Mr. Charles Wyndham by Harry How, who gives a number of interesting and amusing incidents in the career of that well-known comedian" ("May Number," 5). How was an actor before he turned to journalism. See "Institute Entertainers," 10, and "Interviewer's Reminiscences," 4.

47. How, Illustrated Interviews.

48. Hoberman, "Constructing the Turn-of-the-Century Shopper," 6.

49. How died in 1902, just a few months after he left the George Newnes firm to work freelance. As an article in the Belfast Telegraph notes, "Poor Harry How, the journalist, died very young. He was the original interviewer of the 'Strand Magazine,' when it was first started, and his articles were a huge success. He was also for many years one of the working editors of 'Tit-Bits.' A few months ago he left the offices of Newnes, and became a freelance. That he should have died so young . . . is sad in the extreme, for he was a capable man, and should have had a deal of good work in him" ("Man Who Kicked," 4). There are a few mentions of him in the press around the time of his death, but his passing, for the most part, went unnoticed.

50. "Description of the Offices," 600.

51. Ibid., 599.

52. Rutterford and Maltby, "Frank Must Marry Money," 222.

53. Robb, "Ladies of the Ticker," 120; Henry, "Ladies do it?," 131.

54. Robb, "Ladies of the Ticker," 126-27.

55. The company, which manufactured "hygienic" woollen clothing and undergarments, was formed after Tomalin published a translation of Dr. Gustav Jaeger's Health Culture in 1884 and purchased the right to use the Jaeger name. The business began with a single London location before expanding throughout the United Kingdom and later to the United States. The brand was aligned with the rational dress movement and was popular with artists and intellectuals, including Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw.

56. As Ruth Hoberman points out, the Strand was self-reflexive about its advertising content, incorporating references to advertising in its fiction and reader contests. See "Advertisement."

57. Robb, "Ladies of the Ticker," 120.

58. Mussell, Nineteenth-Century Press, 19, 23.

59. Kirschenbaum's Mechanisms (2008) models what this kind of digital bibliographic inquiry might look like through its investigation and recovery of the production history of different digital media projects. However, as Joanna Drucker notes, such a thorough investigation of the production history of a digital object might not be possible: "Surely we don't imagine that from this point on every critic or scholar of digital media artifacts will scrutinize the hard drives and machine codes of the works they study? Knowing that this level of production is a component of the work makes the point, but as technologies shift and change, knowing how these workings produce the work will continue to be an important aspect of the intellectual productions themselves" (par. 9).

60. Mak, "Archaeology," 1515.

61. See Maidment, Thomas, Smith, van Whye, and John, "Reviews"; Crone, "Crime"; Rubery, "Victorian Literature"; Chase, "Digital Chartists"; Sanders, "Chartist Text"; Layton-Jones, "Review"; Birchall, "Review"; Schlitz, "Review"; and Murray, "Review."

62. Baym, Personal Connections, 45.

63. For example, most of the Strand Magazine on HathiTrust is limited to "search-only" access in the UK.

64. "About the Internet Archive."

65. Jones, Peter, and Oller, Internet Archivists. It is noteworthy that Scott is the archivist responsible for the archive's Strand collection.

66. Srinivasan, "Internet Archive."

67. Conan Doyle, "Scandal in Bohemia," 62.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"About the Internet Archive." Internet Archive. https://archive.org/about.

"Advertisement [Dr. Jaeger's Sanitary Woollen System]." Strand Magazine 1 (January 1891): v.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006.

Baym, Nancy. Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010.

Besant, Walter. "Quarantine Island." Strand Magazine 2 (August 1891): 121-30.

Birchall, Heather. "Review of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery's Pre-Raphaelite Online Resources (Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, 2009)." Journal of Victorian Culture 16, no. 3 (2011): 421-25.

Björnson, Björnstejerne. "A Perilous Wooing. From the Norwegian of Björnstejerne Björnson." Strand Magazine 2 (September 1891): 287-90.

"Bribing the Press." Tit-Bits 19 (January 24, 1891): 243.

Campbell, Gareth, and John D. Turner. "Substitutes for Legal Protection: Corporate Governance and Dividends in Victorian Britain." Economic History Review 64 (2001): 571-97.

Chase, Malcolm. "Digital Chartists: Online Resources for the Study of Chartism." Journal of Victorian Culture 14, no. 2 (2009): 294-301.

"Christmas Crackers." Strand Magazine 2 (December 1891): 616-22.

Clifford, Mrs. W. K. "The Last Touches." Strand Magazine 2 (September 1891): 302-12.

Conan Doyle, Arthur. "A Scandal in Bohemia." Strand Magazine 2 (July 1891): 62.

"Correspondence: Should Women Be Taught a Trade?" Tit-Bits 20 (April 25, 1891): 42.

Cox, Howard, and Simon Mowatt. Revolutions from Grub Street. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Cranfield, J. L. "Chivalric Machines: The Boer War, the Male Body, and the Grand Narrative in the Strand Magazine." Victorian Literature and Culture 40, no. 2 (2012): 549-73.

Crone, Rosalind. "Crime-and Its Fabrication: A Review of New Digital Resources in the History of Crime." Journal of Victorian Culture 14, no. 1 (2009): 125-34.

"A Description of the Offices of The Strand Magazine." Strand Magazine 4 (December 1892): 594-606.

Drucker, Joanna. Review of Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination, by Matthew Kirschenbaum. Digital Humanities Quarterly 3 , no. 2 (2009). http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/372/000048/000048.html.

"Experiences of a Shop-Girl." Tit-Bits 20 (June 6, 1891): 133.

"The First General Meeting of George Newnes Limited." Tit-Bits 21 (November 7, 1891): 88.

Form E: Summary of Capital and Shares George Newnes, Limited. November 9, 1891. National Archives, Company No. 34316, BT 31/5097/34316.

Form No. 25: Statement of Nominal Capital. June 30, 1891. National Archives, Company No. 34316, BT 31/5097/34316.

"From Our London Correspondent." Lancashire Evening Post, July 1, 1891, 2.

Gitelman, Lisa, and Geoffrey B. Pingree. "Introduction: What's New about New Media?" In New Media, 1740-1915, edited by Lisa Gitelman and Geoffrey B. Pingree, xi-xxii. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003 .

Henry, Nancy. "'Ladies do it?': Victorian Women Investors in Fact and Fiction." In Victorian Literature and Finance, edited by Francis O'Gorman, 111-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Hoberman, Ruth. "Constructing the Turn-of-the-Century Shopper: Narratives about Purchased Objects in the Strand Magazine, 1891-1910." Victorian Periodicals Review 37, no. 1 (2004): 1-17.

Holyoake, Maltus Questell. "Captain Mayne Reid: Soldier and Novelist." Strand Magazine 2 (July 1891): 93-102.

How, Harry. Illustrated Interviews. London: George Newnes, 1893.

-. "Illustrated Interviews No. II-Henry Stacy Marks, R.A." Strand Magazine 2 (August 1891): 110-20.

-. "Illustrated Interviews No. III-Madame Albani." Strand Magazine 2 (September 1891): 218-27.

"How Shop Assistants Are Fined." Tit-Bits 20 (April 11, 1891): 5.

"How to Get on the Press." Tit-Bits 19 (January 10, 1891): 211.

Hughes, Linda K. "SIDEWAYS!: Navigating the Material(ity) of Print Culture." Victorian Periodicals Review 47, no. 1 (2014): 1-30.

"An Important New Departure." Tit-Bits 20 (July 4, 1891): 195.

"In Business as a Pawnbroker." Tit-Bits 19 (March 7, 1891): 344.

"Institute Entertainers: No. 3-Mr. Harry How (Strand Magazine)." The Dart: A Journal of Satire and Sense 918 (May 25, 1894): 10-12.

"An Interviewer's Reminiscences." Hull Daily Mail, January 17, 1899, 4.

"Introduction." Strand Magazine 1 (January 1891): 3.

Ireland, Paddy. "Limited Liability, Shareholder Rights, and the Problem of Corporate Irresponsibility." Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, no. 5 (2010): 837-56.

Jackson, Kate. "The Tit-Bits Phenomenon: George Newnes, New Journalism, and the Periodical Texts." Victorian Periodicals Review 30, no. 3 (1997): 201-26.

Jones, Chris, Carolyn Peter, and Scott Oller, producers. The Internet Archivists. 17 min., 32 sec. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/TheInternetArchivistsFinalCutBoostedSound.

Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008.

"Lady Dufferin and the Women of India." Strand Magazine 2 (November 1891): 459-62.

Layton-Jones, Kathy. "Review of Victorian Popular Culture (Adam Matthew Digital, 2011)." Journal of Victorian Culture 16, no. 3 (2011): 417-20.

Maidment, Brian, Julia Thomas, Jonathan Smith, John Van Wyhe, and Juliet John. "Reviews of Digitized Scholarly Resources." Journal of Victorian Culture 13, no. 1 (2008): 108-24.

Mairet, Jeanne. "Wife or Helpmeet?: Study of a Woman. Translated from the French of Jeanne Mairet." Strand Magazine 2 (November 1891): 499-512.

Mak, Bonnie. "Archaeology of a Digitization." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 65, no. 8 (2014): 1515-26.

"The Man Who Kicked the Prince." Belfast Telegraph 32 (June 28, 1902): 4.

Maupassant, Guy de. "The Doctor's Story." Strand Magazine 2 (August 1891): I50-5 3.

"The May Number of the Strand Magazine." Western Daily Press 72 (May 16, 1894): 5.

Memorandum of Association: George Newnes Limited. George Newnes, Ltd., Company No. 34316, Incorporated in 1891. National Archives, BT 31/5097/34316.

"The Methods of Music Publishers." Tit-Bits 19 (February 14, 1891): 291.

"Money Market and City News." Morning Post, July 2, 1891, 6.

Montagu, Irving. "Anecdotes of the War-Path." Strand Magazine 2 (July 1891): 15-25.

"A Morning with the Telephones." Tit-Bits 19 (March 21, 1891): 377.

Murray, Brian H. "A Review of Livingston's 1871 Field Diary: A Multispectral Critical Edition." Journal of Victorian Culture 17, no. 4 (December 2012): 543-46.

Mussell, James. The Nineteenth-Century Press in the Digital Age. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

"New Tricks in the Coal Trade." Tit-Bits 19 (February 7, 1891): 279.

Newnes, George. "George Newnes, Limited." Tit-Bits 20 (July 18, 1891): 227.

Normand, Jacques. "The P. L. M. Express." Strand Magazine 2 (October 1891): 342-47.

[O'Rell, Mary Bartlett]. "Sister Gabrielle: A Reminiscence of Max O'Rell during the War. By His Wife." Strand Magazine 2 (July 1891): 46-51.

O'Rell, Max. "Notes on Jonathan's Daughters." Strand Magazine 2 (October 1891): 360-65.

"Pall Mall Gazette Office." Pall Mall Gazette 52 (June 30, 1891): 6.

Parikka, Jussi. What Is Media Archaeology? Cambridge: Polity, 2012.

Pittard, Christopher. "'Cheap, Healthful Literature': The Strand Magazine, Fictions of Crime, and Purified Reading Communities." Victorian Periodicals Review 40, no. 1 (2007): 1-23.

"Portraits of Celebrities at Different Times of Their Lives: Madame Cathinca Amyot." Strand Magazine 2 (December 1891): 607.

Pound, Reginald. Mirror of the Century: The Strand Magazine, 1891-1950. South Brunswick: A. S. Barnes, 1966.

"Regiment on Wheels." Strand Magazine 2 (July 1891): 31-38.

Rita [Mrs. W. Desmond Humphreys]. "Told in the Studios: Three Stories of the Artist Life." Strand Magazine 2 (October 1891): 352-59; (November 1891): 463-67; (December 1891): 580-85.

Robb, George. "Ladies of the Ticker: Women, Investment, and Fraud in England and America, 1850-1930." In Victorian Investments: New Perspectives on Finance and Culture, edited by Nancy Henry and Cannon Schmitt, 120-40. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.

Rosegger, Peter K. "Otto's Folly. From the German of P. K. Rosegger." Strand Magazine 2 (December 1891): 608-15.

Rubery, Matthew. "Victorian Literature out Loud: Digital Audio Resources for the Classroom." Journal of Victorian Culture 14, no. 1 (2009): 134-40.

Rutterford, Janet, and Josephine Maltby. "'Frank Must Marry Money': Men, Women, and Property in Trollope's Novels." Accounting Historians Journal 33, no. 2 (2006): 169-99.

Sanders, Mike. "The Chartist Text in an Age of Digital Reproduction." Journal of Victorian Culture 14, no. 2 (January 2009): 301-7.

Schlitz, Stephanie. "Review of Jane Austen's Fiction Manuscripts (Oxford University and King's College, London, 2010)." Journal of Victorian Culture 16, no. 3 (December 2011): 426-31.

"Something about Illustrated Journalism." Tit-Bits 19 (February 7, 1891): 277.

Srinivasan, Venkat. "The Internet Archive-Bricks and Mortar Version." Scientific American, April 13, 2016. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/ the-internet-archive-bricks-and-mortar-version.

"Starting a Newspaper." Tit-Bits 20 (April 25, 1891): 35.

"The Story of the Strand." Strand Magazine 1 (January 1891): 4-13.

"The Subscription List Will Open." St. James's Gazette 23 (July 2, 1891): 15.

"That Awful Printer!" Tit-Bits 19 (February 7, 1891): 281.

"Tit-Bits Vigilance Prizes." Tit-Bits 21 (October 17, 1891): 25.

Varga, Zsuzsanna. "Tit-Bits (1881-1984)." In The Dictionary of NineteenthCentury Journalism, edited by Laurel Brake and Marysa Demoor, 630. Ghent and London: Academia Press and the British Library, 2009.

"Women as Detectives." Tit-Bits 20 (April 18, 1891): 18.