As an art history major I was particularly interested in the Nuremberg Chronicle illustrations. I have studied Albrecht Durer, a famous german wood block printer, in the past, and it was great to actually see these works of his predecessors up close. It was interesting to hear that the book contained controversy revolving around the inclusion of Pope Joan. In fact, in the edition we were shown someone went through the trouble of defacing this image and writing in a latin phrase to debunk this version of history. I wonder if there were any written responses to this book. It is also interesting that so much work went into the creation of a book, over 1509 wood carvings, that was not fully approved by the church.
Additionally, I found myself very interested in the books themselves as artifacts. Each book had a story attached. One could learn a lot from learning about previous owners, the materials used in the creation, marks left behind, the publishing house, and even which pages were most read. I loved all of the history associated with the books we looked at. The little quirks such as the Pope Joan story or the inker who stopped halfway through the book really animated the discussion for me.
I wholeheartedly enjoyed the rare book viewing today; I had no idea Lafayette possessed so many historic texts. Its incredible to think that some of the pieces of parchment we got to hold were written by a monk in a monastery over 500 years ago. Its incredible to think there was a time when every book was hand written; a process which could take years. And it is because of this fact that the Gutenberg printing press is so important; it allowed books, and therefore knowledge, to become available to the public.
I, too, found the story and history of Pope Joan interesting, especially the concept of defacing texts in order to change her history/story. If something like this were to happen today to a text, a mass defacing or changing of portions considered “offensive,” there would most likely be resistance. For example, many readers dislike censored versions of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, as they are considered to be tampering with Twain’s original work in a negative way.
The widespread defacing of the picture of Pope Joan and her baby, when I really thought about it, was pretty amazing considering the time period in which it occured. Currently, when something important or of a large scale happens all you have to do is turn on the TV or log into facebook and there will be post after post after post about it. And those are simply a couple of resources out of the many in which news quickly spreads, in our current society. Back in the time of Pope Joan, the only means of quick communication was by word of mouth. Can you imagine even having to walk across our small campus to tell a friend you want to hang out? How annoying would that be. Considering there were so many defaced pictures of her, this “scandal” must have been a huge deal in that time for it to spread to so many, without the help of public broadcasting or social networking.
The whole notion of changing a text opens a whole discussion about whether or not an author has the right to change their own works after it has already been consumed by the general public. The specific case study that comes to mind is george Lucas and the “Star Wars” franchise. Lucus went back and re-released some of the films multiple times, each time changing different scenes that were crucial to the audiences understanding of the film. Fans were less than thrilled as Lucas also actively blocked the prior versions that had already been released. Legally Lucas is completely fine, he owns all the rights to his own film, however this brings up the question should he be able to alter his own work after it has already been consumed by the general public?
Tim, you brought up the point about authors changing or recreating their own orignal works. What about when a book gets translated into different languages? Anyone who has studied a foreign language knows that sometimes, a direct translation is impossible. Who decides how to translate a work and does the author need to approve the translation? Does the author lose a piece of ownership during the process, if not literally then figuratively?