So far, Deibert has outlined the effects of printing on the papacy, beginning by outlining the effects of manuscript copying and why that became the favored way to transmit the written word, all the way to how print influenced the Protestant reformation, to using print as an effort to produce social and economic homogenization. Beginning with the church, efforts towards a uniform collection of knowledge were evidenced by the church's selection of which texts to copy in manuscript, and which ones to leave out of the collection. By doing so, the church effectively had a monopoly over literature. No wonder they could influence so many Kings! The clergy were the only people who could read and write, and everyone thought that that was the way it should be. One interesting point in this section was the way people thought about words, how they were actual representations of things, not merely abstract representations of them. It was like by writing the word "tree", the soul of the tree was wrapped up in the word "tree", and the two could not be separated. This illustrates a point made in my linguistics class the other day, how we are beginning to undo and redo words, for example the word "overwhelmed" has a meaning, but not the word "whelmed". In today's society, we have come up with "underwhelmed" to mean the opposite of "overwhelmed". So, it is much easier for us to separate meaning from arbitrary representations of things/ideas.
Trithemius' warnings against printing, or rather his reasons for copying came to mind when reading the section about monastic copying. As Deibert says, as the monks were the only ones who could read and write, their obligations toward reading and interpreting law matters for the lay man became more and more demanding. More and more monks were probably leaving their work to work in the public realm. Trithemius probably felt a need to bring the monks back to the individualized act of copying religious manuscripts partially due to this trend toward public domain work. This notion is purely presumptuous, but it may have affected him enough to influence him towards writing his treatise.
Well, I've finished reading. The last chapter we were assigned is divided into three parts. First Deibert delves into familiar territory - the sense of individuality that comes along with reading. Not only the detachment of the reader in the act of silent reading, but the fact that printing gave authors a sense of individuality as well. They began to have an idea of themselves as an author(itative) voice, and this brought about the "individual reputation". It's funny though, because as I've learned, many writers (even up to the 18th and 19th centuries) didn't want to be published. They preferred to have their manuscripts circled around their coterie of friends. I guess Diebert isn't talking about them. Anyway, this idea of authorship and individual identity tied to one's work was a whole new idea for writers and is prevalent today. When we talk about what we've read, it's usually by saying something like: Have you read so-and-so? We don't usually name the work, rather the author.
He also makes an interesting point about cartography. As maps related a more rigid demarcation of political space, this linear "view" of the world influenced how people saw their position in the world. It brought about new ideas related to nationalism. It encouraged borders, defining "insiders" and "outsiders". Overall, printing affected our thinking. This section about map making really shows that what we look at affects how we think about the world around us. That's the biggest message I took from Chapter 4.
I also thought his ideas on cartography stood out. The idea that people could actually SEE and understand borders is in of itself a phenomenon. There is no doubt that a greater sense of nationalism and identity emerged from this. People who may have thought of each other as neighbors at one point, were not separate nations.
ReplyDeleteI found your point about the significance of the word in the actual, as opposed to the abstract, having meaning very interesting. I still find it difficult to believe that people back then believed it was the actual words themselves that held power and this is why soldiers would wear pieces of parchment with prayers around their arms or have Holy words written on their swords. It is one thing to worship God, but then to worship His words themselves seems bizarre. However, it is easy to understand why the Church would want to keep such a mentality going, seeing as how with every less person who was able to read, their own powers increased as did their authority.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mentioned the belief of thinking that when these people wrote "tree" they had thought the soul of the tree was wrapped around the word. Essentially they seemed to view the word itself as a physical representation of the object it defined rather than as a group of symbols. It was funny how you mentioned some writers didn't want to be published. I think Deibert was going after the capitalist aspect of using print.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that you mentioned the influence that the papacy had over kings. I always knew that the papacy was powerful, but I was really surprised when Diebert implied that kings were sort of the subjects of the papacy.
ReplyDeleteSarah, is it not a funny coincidence that Deibert draws the logical timeline between when the power of the papacy starting slipping (due to, AMONG OTHER THINGS, the printing press), and when the papacy was getting desperate enough to hold on to their power to start wide spread torture and murder, and how we are analogously reading The Vale Of Cedars in Dr. Goldfield's class? The Inquisition sounds like it must have sucked, eh?
ReplyDeleteI know I'm a habitual nay-sayer and everything, but someone has to be, so as to balance how many people either just don't give a shit, or conveniently suffer from "historical amnesia." For instance, it is difficult--in fact damn nigh impossible--for me to take much that the Catholic Church HAS EVER said seriously. In my eyes, and according to their acutely avaricious, murderous, torturous, and imbecilic record, the Catholic Church seems like it was a long-line of shameless and power-hungry men who would do anything to hold on to their power, and who dressed everything they did up in the guise of religion and spirituality.
And if I'm wrong, and some of them actually bought their own dogmatic bullshit, than it would seem to make their actions even worse. What is the sense of bothering to believe in Jesus, if you yourself lack forgiveness, and think it's fine to torture and main?
I read to escape. I read to explore, i read to have an adventure, to make friends, to save worlds. The way i read is different to what i understand was the way many people back then read. They read for information, for religion, for saving their immortal souls and passing on memories the old people weren't around to pass on themselves. So, for me, seeing print as capitalistic is difficult, seeing as my imagination boils from the type-written word. But, your blog brings up the undenyable point that yes, no matter what us dreamers want to believe, this is a capitalist world and if print makes money, that's why people do it; not because it touches the soul.
ReplyDelete