In the introduction section of Howard’s The Book, she writes “As with a person’s biography, the biography of technology is not limited to the object alone, but must encompass the history of people, places, and ideas that gave rise to the innovation”. Before beginning to read the first chapter (Ancestors: Books before Print), I had never thought much about the history of the format of a book and how different eras and cultures each contributed to making “the book” what it is today. Upon reading this chapter I realized that I had just taken any history of books I had previously learned about for granted. I never considered the actual processes of making papyrus and parchment paper and I never thought about how unlike today, where no two people have the same handwriting, scribes were all trained to have the same handwriting because many times, multiple scribes would contribute to the same work. With multiple scribes working on the same work, how is authorship divided? Are any of them even considered authors considering they most likely weren’t the creative minds behind the work itself, but were instead the ones who brought the work to life through the rigorous process of printing? In this class I not only look forward to more closely looking at the various technologies that brought us to where we are today but also to looking more closely at the issue of authorship in this class.
Authorship indeed. You bring up the fact that multiple scribes could work on the same book. Does this mean they are all authors? It’s not like they all put any of their creative energies into it; nonetheless, their hard work contributed to making something. Now, it seems I have come full circle: Howard’s introduction aptly presents this problem when she says the history of the book is one of people, places, and ideas — things far beyond any individual.
I thought it was interesting to read about the different steps that were taken to get to where we are today in terms of book technology. I took it for granted also.