Ariel Avgi
From Manuscript to Mobile Phone
Critical Analysis Essay
1503 Words
The Printing Paradox: A Lens for the Analysis of Modern Scholarship
The invention of Gutenberg’s printing press in 1450 laid the foundation for everything from
universal education to the Protestant Reformation. This revolutionary technology in the
dissemination of information transformed our culture in ways only comprehensible by
reevaluating our history. Elizabeth Eisenstein, in “Some Features of Print Culture”, discusses the
impact of printing on Western Culture and the evolution of our thought as an effect, while
Alberto Manguel focuses on the evolution of the book itself, before and after the invention of the
printing press in “The Shape of the Book.” With the enlightening arguments presented by both
authors, printing as a mode of mass production appears to yield a consistency and
standardization that surpasses the form of books alone and extends to a consistency within, and a
standardization of, culture. The paradoxes of print culture, according to Eisenstein, correlate with
the clear evolution of the book expressed by Manguel, highlighting an inherent paradox hidden
within modern scholarship.
First and foremost, the printing press as a technology, generally agreed on by both Eisenstein
and Manguel, standardized all aspects of life from religion, to language to even the perception of
the self. With the printing press, the production of “calendars, dictionaries, ephemerides, and
other reference guides; about maps, charts, diagrams, and other visual aids” kept everyone on the
same page, literally (Eisenstein 127). The first book ever printed was a bible noted for its
uniformity depicted through “very clear and very proper lettering…without any faults” (Manguel
252). The printing press, before yielding a plethora of reading material, standardized the values
of society; after the bible, next to be popularized were “grammar books and dictionaries
alongside the classical texts” (Manguel 254). Religion and education, not explicitly recognized
nor disputed by Eisenstein or Manguel, were core values, perhaps inseparable values, during the
mid-15th century based on printing’s output as a technology. However, after this initial burst of
literature deemed important, varieties of reading material were printed and the characters from
the imaginations of authors and playwrights “made readers evermore aware, not merely of their
shortcomings in their assigned roles, but also of the existence of a solitary singular self”
(Eisenstein 128). Aside from standardizing societal values, out of printing, as a technology, grew
an awareness for other people and other classes of people through standardization. “Repeated
encounters with identical images of couples representing three social groups—noble, burgher,
peasant—wearing distinctive costumes and set against distinctive regional landscapes probably
encouraged a sharpened sense of social divisions,” standardizing not only the visual association
of classes of people but each individual’s sense of where they belonged (Eisenstein 130). Even
printed text as a tool became standard, and the book evolved from a lavish, aristocratic treasure
to economical middle class entertainment.
The paradox is that with the decline of books and literacy belonging to the wealthy, the
universality of literature allowed for “a fuller recognition of diversity”, and therefore as a byproduct of standardization, a sense of individuality emerged (Eisenstein 128). The consistency of
information made possible by the printing press led to superfluous general knowledge that turned
one’s thoughts inward as opposed toward the trivialities of everyday life. The worldliness and
understanding brought about by literacy led to the standardization of social divisions and roles
each individual in society could, and should, play. With each individual’s recognition of his or
her place in a standardized role, “…the very concept of a ‘style’ underwent transformation”
(Eisenstein 127). As opposed to individuality in a unique sense, individuality became a search
for which division one’s self belonged. Just as print standardized books which encompass
genres, print standardized society which encompasses social divisions—only made conscious by
knowledge of archetypes spread through print—and as an individual aware of these instituted
deviations, it was essential to find one’s place. However, Manguel notes “how often a
technological development—such as Gutenberg’s—promotes rather than eliminates that which it
is supposed to supercede” referring to old fashioned handwriting, but the application refers to the
sense of “style” Eisenstein believes has been restructured in a manner far from individual
(Manguel 253). The printing press, though, while attempting to supercede “style”, in the context
of human error, promoted the individual as a member of society. Individualism was not
eliminated nor restructured shamefully but endorsed with this standardization of information that
allowed for concrete new discoveries to be made. As mentioned, religion and education were
core values at the time of the emergence of print, and they were only able to flourish because of
authentic individual thought made possible by the homogeneity of intelligence founded by the
new technology.
Mass production, as a consequence of print, initiated a baseline knowledge that scholars built
off of to develop new ideas as well as new types of prose. The standardization of the book,
through mass production, generated a single literate society of scholars, which in turn allowed
true intellectuals to flourish, increasing the number of genres of literature to accommodate more
diverse audiences from among different fields, individualizing reading. The evolution of readers
and the position of books described by Manguel parallels the paradox Eisenstein identifies as
standardization ensuing a diversifying force. For example, readers evolved from a single class of
“rich bourgeoisie” to “intellectual [aristocrats]” where class divisions fell, financially speaking,
but rose with the standardized portrayals of classes in literature available to all (Manguel 250;
255). The evolution of the position of books equally points toward an increase in individualism,
physically speaking, with the slow progression from text displayed on a lectern to pocket-sized
paperbacks.
The paradox that Eisenstein illuminates that is paralleled by the evolution of the book
described by Manuel brings to question the interdependence of uniformity and diversity and
society and the individual (Eisenstein 128). The development of printed literature was originally
praised for how it transformed scholarship with its advantages of “speed, uniformity of texts, and
relative cheapness,” and continuing with the aforementioned paradox, it led equally to the
diversification of academic texts because of the standardized communication it made possible
(Manuel 253). Academia as a paradox is brought to light by the way print culture is examined:
furthering knowledge in a field is dependent on the cooperation of a society of scholars yet
scholarship, since the invention of the printing press, has become very individualized. With the
uniformity of information, an authentic diversity of ideas has been made possible because of the
foundation of fact that has been laid. Now, not only can everyone be a scholar, but anyone can
build off the ever-growing foundation of ideas made possible by the invention of the printing
press. Society is as dependent on the individual as the individual is dependent on society, but for
what? If the standardization of information, as the mother of diversification, brought about a
surplus of cheap, pocket-sized, bound manuscripts, that speaks to the information being
disseminated in a world revolutionized by the printing press. Information is but a commodity to
be bought and sold, and academia an economy. Printed text, as the first planted seed of mass
production, has had the same effect on scholarship as mass production has had on basic goods:
over-pricing sub-par quality. With printing, “cheap and quick production led to a larger market
of people who could afford copies to read privately,” creating a larger society of scholars but
with contradictory rules of engagement (Manguel 253). A larger society of scholars gives
potential to both collective engagement, because Gutenberg standardized the material, but also
isolated growth because standardizing the material amplified its availability. The paradox of
print as a standardizing and diversifying force individualized reading and therefore scholarship;
however, individualizing scholarship has increased the accessibility of academia, providing
potentials for intellectuals to contribute to its growth.
The second half of the 15th century saw an extraordinary revolution from scroll to codex with
the installation of printing presses throughout Europe, and just as “books declare themselves
through their titles…through their size,” books have declared our culture (Manguel 247). Since
Gutenberg first displayed his printed bible at the Frankfurt Trade Fair, our culture has shifted
from individual to collective, in terms of information, but equally from collective to individual in
terms of content. The abundance of subject matter made possible to all because of the
standardization of information transformed academia like never before, diversifying what was
considered universal knowledge. The paradox of print culture Eisenstein unearths, along with
Manguel’s description of the evolution of the book post-press, contributes to this vision of
academia contradictorily being transformed from both individual to less collective and visa
versa. Lacking the basic foundation of general knowledge, established by the advent of the
printing press, the occurrence of intellectual breakthroughs throughout history may not have
been possible.
Works Cited
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. "Some Features of Print Culture." The Printing Revolution in Early
Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. 124-33. Print.
Manguel, Alberto. "The Shape of the Book." A History of Reading. New York: Viking Penguin,
1996. 246-61. Print.