Holy Alphabet

"Since God or the gods invented the alphabet- everyone believed it to be divine intervention- the letters were holy. Since it was letters that formed words, the words were equally holy...Letters and words were miraculous in origin and therefore were the stuff of magic." I always knew that words were powerful, but I never knew they were Holy. No wonder the clergy had such an influence over even the highest of authorities back then. If they were the only members of society who knew how to read and write, it would stand to reason that they would yield a significant amount of power over anyone who had need of the written word for any number of purposes. I was unaware that people back then not only thought of the words as magical, but that the words themselves, and not what they represented, were what was seen as so powerful. The fact that these powers extended into the medicinal aspects and this is why people would wear pieces of parchment around their necks in order to relieve any number of ailments struck me as really bizarre. Granted, the way of thinking now is quite different than the way of people back when these philosophies were practiced, but this seems, even for the mentality of people back then, strange. It is one thing to worship God, but to worship the writings themselves, seems backwards, and perhaps even sacrilegious. However, to take the value of the words as so Holy that as Diebert states, "In 1022 a group of heretics were burned in Orleans for referring to the clergy's knowledge as human fabrications "written on animal skins" as opposed to what the heretics believed was the "law written on the inner man by the Holy spirit". It seems as if the Church made sure to make known the sanctity of the written word just to maintain their own levels of power and to be the undisputed source of information. If no one else had the ability to refute anything they were saying, they would remain as the highest source of authority on essentially everything. As Diebert makes known, the aristocracy had to rely on the clergy as much as they did on their servants. Even the greats of the day, such as William of Normandy, had to rely on the Church "to organize a wiser and more prudent administration of the crown's holdings." With all of the other duties that seemed to become associated with the clergy, such as monks being chancellors, ministers, and state advisers, it is no wonder that people started to fear that the Church was actually pulling away from the Holy aspects associated with it, and conducting itself more like a business or administration. It seems that by today's standards, or the standards of a few hundred years ago, that people believe a Church should be run as a Church and not a corporation. It seems that this is the safest way to prevent corruption and keep the Church focused on the more spiritual aspects of life, as opposed to the financial, power-driven world.

To Copy and To Obey

"The printed book is made of paper, and like paper, will quickly disappear." Really? As far as I can tell, books have been around for countless years and will be here for many more to come. Despite making such a bold claim, Trithemius makes no effort to back it up or provide any factual evidence for such an extreme opinion. Instead, it seems as if Trimethius is willing to make any sort of claim, regardless of outrageous it may be, merely in the hopes of scaring- and essentially controlling- monks into acting in a manner which he deems "appropriate". Using fear as a tactic may be effective in the short term, although in the long run, it does not have the desired effect that one may want since the understanding of why one is doing certain things is not there.

Although I do not agree with Trimethius' logic, it is easy to understand how monks of this particular time could be swayed by such an argument. Even though people now may think a better way to show devotion to God is to go out and spread the word of the Bible to people around the country instead of sitting in a cold monestary, the monks back then probably considered the scribing they did a very important part of conserving God's message. However, to try to control monks by making them copy scriptures so as to make sure they do not indulge in “dangerous unchecked liberties” seems the equivalent of giving a child busy work so as to make sure he does not get into any mischief. If this was Trimethius' way of controlling the monks, it would seem to me that although the monks may have been going through the motions of copying a text, if they were not doing so because they had the desire to do so, they would eventually rebel in some way, even if it was just having their minds wander and think about the “unchecked liberties” while they were copying scriptures.

While reading this article, I could not help but make the comparison between the monks' scribing to my taking notes for my history class. I know that after half an hour, my mind starts to wander and even though I may still be copying my notes, I am most definitely not paying attention to what I am doing. This was probably my biggest problem with the argument set forth by Trimethius that one got closer to the Lord by copying His messages day in and day out. If anything, it seems to me that unless one was scribing because he truly wanted to and had “the calling”, he would eventually come to resent his work and if anything, distance himself from the Lord.

The Book - The Quran

"Western historians have often argued that Islamic civilization made its greatest mistake in the fifteenth century when it refused to accept the printing press, for this failure supposedly condemned Islamic civilizations to isolation from the mainstream of knowledge. Although Muslims did not use the printing press until the eighteenth century, and then only tentatively, they had other means of transmitting knowledge effectively and broadly, and for the proceeding eight centuries the inhabitants of the Islamic lands- not only Muslims but Christians and Jews as well- controlled the sluicegates of the very same stream of knowledge at which thirsty Europeans repeatedly came to drink."

I was very intrigued by J. Bloom's article "Paper and Books" since I learned much more than I expected to and was so fascinated by what I was reading. Having always known the stories of the Quran, I found it very refreshing to look at it from the perspective of not the stories, but the actual text and the eventual transcription of the words. Due to the reverence of the Quran and its importance for all Muslims, the written word, for the purpose alone of this Holy book, will always be sacred. However, as Bloom mentions, Muslims have learned and experienced the Quran as primarily an oral text, and this holds true for Muslims 1400 years ago and Muslims today.

As is the custom with most Muslims, during Ramadan, every night before we got to break fast, my uncle would find a video from youtube and we would listen to passages from the Quran which were not being read, as one would read the Bible, but were being sung. As important as we find it to read the Quran, people find it more traditional to sing the Quran to audiences as opposed merely reading aloud. This tradition goes back to the very beginning when God told Muhammad, "Recite in the name of thy Lord/ Who taught by pen/ Taught man what he knew not" and the recitation aspect of the Quran has since remained a vital part of Islamic life.

One thing which I found out while talking to my family about this piece was that Muslim teachings state that Muhammad was illiterate and this point is greatly emphasized throughout the Quran. It was explained to me that it is of great importance for Muslims to realize that Muhammad was illiterate and not a man who would be capable of creating or making up stories such as those written in the Quran. Therefore, this makes his recitation of the Quran to people all the more amazing since it could only be through God's help and therefore truly has to be the word of God. In this case, the basis of the religion is actually of Muhammad's lack of ability to read the written word, and instead relies solely on the oral presentation of God's messages.

I found the distinction between the Bible and the Quran in this sense quite interesting since the Bible focuses on "compilation and comparison of manuscript evidence" whereas the Quran puts a much greater emphasis on the oral tradition and views this as the authority for determining the written text, and not the other way around. The authority of orality goes so far in the Quran that God's first message to Muhammad is to "Recite in the name of thy lord," and there is no thought to writing or transcribing the Holy words.

The French and their Fairy Tales

As disappointed as I was with the Howsam reading, I must admit that I greatly enjoyed Darnot's take on fairy tales. Although I was aware that fairy tales and folklore must have been changed as they were told from one generation to another, I was not aware that the culture of the people telling the stories would dictate the content is such a powerful way. The French have always struck me as being more eccentric and sexually-free than Americans, but even with such a forewarning I was shocked- and of course amused- when I read the eighteenth century French version of Little Red Riding Hood. It truly did seem like a raunchy story for adults and it is hard to fathom that this particular French story is what has transpired into one of the most beloved children's stories. I had also never thought to consider this tale as a symbolic story about the coming-of-age of a young girl with the red cape representing menstruation, the bottle symbolizing virginity, and the wolf representing the "ravishing male". For some reason that I cannot quite put my finger on, I do not like to think of this story as anything besides a children's tale with no hidden symbolism or deeper meaning other than that of "listen to your mother." With everything that I have to read and analyze as an English major, I took pleasure in being able to read a story and know that what I read was what I was all I was supposed to take away from the story and that no level of deeper thinking was required. I cherish the memories of the childhood fairy tales that I was told and to think that they had been-tainted, perhaps?- by a more cynical meaning saddens me.
One point with which I had to agree was, "No matter how accurate they may be, the recorded versions of the tales cannot convey the effects that must have brought the stories to life in the eighteenth century: the dramatic pauses, the sly glances, the use of gestures to set the scene..." When reading this, I realized that as much as I hate being read to- hence my dislike of audio books- there is something almost magical when someone is actually telling you a story, especially when it is a beloved parent, uncle, or grandmother who takes the time to act out the scenes, the sound effects, and the different voices. No matter how well a book may be written and despite wonderful use of description, nothing will be able to match the level of awe that a child has when a story is being told to her for the first time from someone who takes the time to cater the story to her likes and make it as wonderful an experience of possible.

Old Books and New Histories

What is it about something seemingly so simple as the book that has so many scholars up in arms about every aspect of it ranging from the historical aspect, the literary importance, and its bibliographical significance. I was hoping to get some enlightenment after reading Howsam's book, and although I clearly found way more information than I expected to find in such a "little book", I came away sadly disappointed. I felt as if Howsam's desire to remain as fair as possible prevented her from truly submitting any of the disciplines to a deeper degree of critical analysis and this made the reader -or at least me anyways- feel as if they had just been given a brief summary of all of the aspects that make "the book" great as opposed to a truly meaningful insight as to why. Still, one must give credit to Howsam for how she manages to bring a balance between the different methods and make everything that creates "the book" flow so seemingly smoothly. It almost seems from the way Howsam has arranged her book and her arguments that she has a deep respect for all of the different aspects of "the book" and wishes for a happy, albeit perhaps elementary approach, of "Can't we all just get along?"
One thing which Howsam said which really had my attention was "In the material sense the book is of course everywhere in historical study, the the book in the sense of being a vehicle for thinking about the past is just coming into its own" (PG 46). I found her approach to thinking of the book as something which has its own story and history very refreshing. It was very interesting to think about the book's place in history for the first time as opposed to the book merely being the tool which records it.
The one thing that was somewhat strange to me was Howsam's use of end notes as opposed to the more commonplace footnotes and although she explained this was done so as to not overburden the text, I almost found it ironic since she pegs the bibliographical discipline of "the book" as being so important, yet her end notes made reading quite difficult and distracting at times.
Although I found the reading dry for the majority of the book, I give Howsam credit for being able to write a book on "the book" and realize that this is a difficult topic to make riveting and this book was able to at least inform me as to certain aspects of the book which I had never considered before.