"England's use of Antwerp printers 1500-1540"

Avis, Frederick C. England's Use of Antwerp Printers, 1500-1540. Mainz: Gutenberg-Gesselschaft, 1973. Print.

I wonder if book historians (or which book historians) expect the same rigorous material history for societal claims as bibliographical claims. When I say that a book was "small," I might better address book historians by saying that it was a 12o. printed on foolscap, or that it was X mm wide, Y mm long, and Z mm tall. Even those metric measurements are slightly imprecise, because environmental factors and handling can affect book thickness (See Gaskell 79). But when I say that a book was "popular," how might I best address book historians?

Avis uses a few terms that verge on the softer side of book history, but without the same hard standard of definition and description as the rest of his argument. 

First, my training in book history has disabused me of many moral statements, such as when Avis describes the Elizabethan reign, "when religious controversy had reached homocidal proportions" (234). 

Second, I've also been taught not to speak to the aesthetic hierarchy of books and book components. Avis, by contrast, says that "a simple illustration" and "simple cuts" "aided" the interpretation of books like a (1510?) edition of 'Til Eulenspiegel (238). If the iconography controversy of the past 30 years has demonstrated anything, it's that the interpretation of print images is no simple matter. A dissenting scholar might say, by contrast, that the simple text helps clarify the images, or that both text and image obfuscate each other. These are conceivable interpretations, not contradictory of any of Avis' material evidence. 

Third, I've been taught to be very careful in the use and definition of terms that refer to social objects, such as "England" or "popularity." Since social objects illicit the perspectives of many people, there are likely to be many interpretations of the nature of "England." For Avis' part, his title refers to "England" as an agent of use. This word usage implies that England exercises utility: is this true?

Fourth, I've been taught to seek out material descriptions of social objects or properties that approach book history. What is "popularity," "profitability" or "literacy"? The answers are important, because they determine the kinds and ranges of evidence that an author may validly introduce in an argument. Avis seems to use both terms without reference to material descriptions (passim). Popularity implies a populus, such as the population of readers. But readers don't create editions, publishers do. Publishers speculate on new editions, possibly out of a perception of readers' interests. For my part, I don't pretend to have a rock-solid definition of "popularity" or "literacy," but I think these terms evoke more kinds of evidence than Avis presents.