Tudor Intelligence Networks - Ruth Ahnert

TUDOR INTELLIGENCE

NETWORKS

Ruth Ahnert

Queen Mary University of London

'WE KILL PEOPLE BASED

ON METADATA'

WHY IS METADATA

USEFUL?In this context: to reconstruct the networks of some

Americans’ social connections, who they spoke to

and when how often, their locations at specific times,

their travel companions.

Once you have the network mapped, you can begin to

mathematically analyse it which is how important

insights can be gleaned even before wiretapping and

surveillance warrants have been issued.

Metadata thus allows a form of what DH scholars call

‘distant reading,’ telling us where we should be close

reading.

TUDOR SURVEILLANCE• The State Papers (official government records) from

the accession of Henry VIII to the death of Elizabeth I.

• Accessed via State Papers online, which brings

together digital surrogates of these documents with

the ‘Calendars’.

• We focus on the correspondence: over 130,000 items

of correspondence connecting ~22,000 individuals.

• Many of these items connect people across Europe

and beyond.

• We completed 18 months of data cleaning (9 months

of which full time) in February and are now engaged

in the analysis stage.

WHAT IS A NETWORK?

Networks consist of

nodesand edges.

This abstract framework allows us to examine a

wide range of networks with the same tools.

CONSTRUCTING A

NETWORKGather metadata:

• name of sender (requires disambiguation)

• name of recipient (requires disambiguation)

• date

• place of writing (requires disambiguation)

• unique document identifiers (e.g. Gale

Document Number, Calendar reference, and

manuscript reference)

• content description

EXPLORATORY TOOL

HUBS• Hubs have an anomalously high number of edges (high

degree).

• They are influential because of this high number of

connections. In social networks they are the kind of

people make influential business deals, who establish

fashions.

• But this kinds of ‘significance’ is obvious. We can see it

to some extent simply by leafing through an archive.

• Network analysis, however, gives us more

sophisticated ways of measuring significance that goes

beyond counting connections.

The betweenness of a node or edge measures how many

shortest paths pass through that node or edge.

High betweenness nodes or edges often act as bridges in

the network.

Getting rid of high betweenness edges is therefore a good

way of fragmenting the network into separate parts.

BETWEENNESS

BETWEENNESS TOP 20

1. Mary I

2. William Paulet, Marquess

of Winchester

3. Sir Thomas Saunders

4. William Cecil

5. Privy Council

6. Edward Courtenay, Earl of

Devon

7. Sir William Petre

8. Philip II of Spain

9. Cardinal Reginald Pole

10. Bernard Fresneda,

Confessor Anheim to Philip

II

11. John Mason

12. Sir Thomas Gresham

13. Peter Vannes

14. Sir Francis Englefield

15. Sir Edward Waldegrave

16. Thomas Wharton, Lord

Wharton

17. Stephen Gardiner, Bishop

of Winchester

18. Anthony Browne, Viscount

Montagu

19. William Howard, Baron

Howard of Effingham

20. Richard Rich, Baron Rich

Reign of Mary I

EDWARD COURTENAY, EARL OF DEVON

(C. 1527 – 18 SEPTEMBER 1556)

• The great-grandson of Edward IV.

• First imprisoned in 1538 (aged 12) following his father’s

involvement in the Exeter conspiracy against Henry VIII.

• His father was executed on 9 December 1538, but Courtenay

remained in prison because he was perceived as a serious

dynastic threat.

• Finally freed at Mary I’s accession (1553), and his fate looked

set to change: created Earl of Devon, made Knight of the Bath,

and mooted as possible spouse for the new monarch.

• But following her engagement to Philip II he was suspected of

involvement in the Wyatt rebellion (a plot to dethrone Mary),

imprisoned, and exiled (1555). He died on the continent one

year later.

Anomalies: unexpected

bursts in activity.

All bar one of his letters

sent during his exile: from

his 16 months on the

continent we have 137

letters.

Over 85% of those sent by

him are intercept copies,

made by English or

Imperial postmasters or

spies.

Most of the remainder

entered the archive when

they were taken by Mary’s

government after his death.

I perceive by a letter from Master [Anthony] Kempe

answering one of myne which I sent hym in a packet

for England and the same was oppened in Flaunders

whereof I somewhat mervaill. I pray you yf the packet

were opened by the master of the post you will do me

the pleasure to fynd the means that those inclosed

lettres may be conveied as they are directed for oon

of them being to my mother and others to certain of

the counsell and other my other frendes about the

queen the delivery of them now sholde do me

pleasure.

(TNA SP 11/9

f.30)

REPORTED INTERACTIONSCourtenay’s letters narrate a number of meetings and

interactions with people suspected by the government of

dissidence. These are mentioned freely in letters to

people loyal to the queen.

For example, he refers to:

• a plan to meet Philip Hoby (who was suspected of

complicity in a new conspiracy against Queen Mary)

• communication with Sir Peter Carew (who had been

part of the Wyatt rebellion)

• 2 visits to the Duke of Ferrara (the leader of the anti-

Habsburg alliance in Italy)

stand I pray you work

with them to make as

least as catholick as you

are. But what should I

write to you in this matter

whose soule I fear is

spotted with like spottes.

For my lady

And if you will, work with

my lady in remembrans

to work with him day and

night. I would you were

suche one as I which

werke [...] to persuade

him to be perfectly

catholike but both of you

being stained with the

like spot. I will pray for

you bothe.

Courtenay to Hoby,

30 December 1555, SP 11/6 f.127r

COURTENAY’S

BETWEENNESS• The contents of the surviving letters are inconclusive

concerning Devon’s guilt

• However, the metadata - specifically his high betweenness -

suggests that he was potentially very dangerous to the Tudor

government.

• He corresponds with a range of individuals that were not only

from different, but actively opposed, communities.

• A government asset with that kind of social network would

make a valuable intelligencer or diplomat.

• The difference, however, is that Devon's true allegiances were

never resolved. In the absence of evidence to prove his

innocence, the only sensible response was to place him under

surveillance, and perhaps to take the ultimate step of having

him assassinated.

BETWEENNESS TOP 20

1. Mary I

2. William Paulet, Marquess

of Winchester

3. Sir Thomas Saunders

4. William Cecil

5. Privy Council

6. Edward Courtenay, Earl of

Devon

7. Sir William Petre

8. Philip II of Spain

9. Cardinal Reginald Pole

10. Bernard Fresneda,

Confessor Anheim to Philip

II

11. John Mason

12. Sir Thomas Gresham

13. Peter Vannes

14. Sir Francis Englefield

15. Sir Edward Waldegrave

16. Thomas Wharton, Lord

Wharton

17. Stephen Gardiner, Bishop

of Winchester

18. Anthony Browne, Viscount

Montagu

19. William Howard, Baron

Howard of Effingham

20. Richard Rich, Baron Rich

Reign of Mary I

HUBS VERSUS BRIDGESHubs are:

• Nodes with anomalously

large number of edges

• Rare, but highly

influential

• Social hubs create trends

and fads

• Create short paths

between other nodes ➔

small world

Bridges:

• May not have many

edges

• But those they do have

are infrastructurally

important (sometimes

called weak ties)

• Cross structural holes

• Create short paths

between other nodes ➔

THE OTHER SNOWDEN• John Snowden (alias of John Cecil) is a clear example of why

spies and conspirators have high betweenness:

• After being educated at Trinity College, Oxford, in 1583 he

and several other scholars attended the English Catholic

seminary at Rheims. He the worked in the service of William

Allen, and Robert Persons.

• He was sent as a spy to England, but his ship was intercepted

and he was imprisoned and interrogated by William Cecil,

Lord Burghley. As a priest, he stood to be tried for treason.

• However, to avoid this fate he provided Burghley with

information on the plans of Persons and Allen, and offered

himself as a secret agent for the crown. Thus, Snowden

became a Catholic double agent.

Snowden’s statement to Burghley, 23 May 1591

(SP 12/238 f.257r-v)

…hyt is not so impossible as it is comonly taken to be a

good subiecte and a good catholique…

…to persuade all men [I.e. Catholics] from favouring

foraine invasions, from practices of treason against her

Majestie from exasperatinge the superior authoritie or

such like violente proceadiges, but to suffer with humility

the crosse that God doth laye. To make hit evydente to

al Catholiques both at home and abrode that nether the

King of Spayne meaneth them any good by his invasions

pretendes[,] nor the Cardinal [Allen] or Par[sons] have

eny respecte or remorse of the poor Catholique

afflictions at home[.]

Sends 17 letters to 5 people:

• Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley [30478] (8)

• Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury [29809] (6)

• Robert Parsons [26791] (1)

• Doctor William Allen [6215] (1)

• Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex [26529] (1)

Receives 1 letters from 1 people:

• Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury [29809] (1)

PREDICTION

QUESTIONS

• Is there a specific kind of network profile for spies,

conspirators and double agents?

• If so why is there an overlap between these types of

people?

• Why do they look similar?

CONCLUSIONS• By co-opting the surveillance methods of one

government body (the NSA), we are able to uncover

the surveillance methods of another government.

• The methods allows is to find overarching patterns and

trends, and also to identify anomalies that require

closer analysis.

• We are able to discover that there are network

properties of intelligencers and conspirators, and

therefore to make predictions about about people who

might also fill these roles.

• As such it can lead to new discoveries, and the

reframing of known histories.

Tudor Intelligence Networks - Ruth Ahnert

Education

Transcript of Tudor Intelligence Networks - Ruth Ahnert