Keywords: compilation practices; finding devices; note-taking; the sixteenth-century information lust; reference books; consultation (as opposed to reading);
The book deals with the topic of a “information lust” (6) by the sixteenth century, that is, an enthusiasm/anxiety to “gather and manage as much information as possible,” (6) or a “stockpiling mentality” (117) that drove people to amass materials. The historical actors are note-takers and compilers, people who were the major managers of information. The objects of study are reference books, books that were not for everyday use, but for studying ancient texts. Usually large in volume, these books required “collective investment” and therefore expensive, but sold very well. (6-7) The author majorly asks two questions: How did people produced these reference books? How did people use these books. The answers are: firstly, people produced these books by cutting and pasting; (7) secondly, people used these books by consulting them, instead of reading word by word. (7) In this sense, although claiming to investigate how people managed information, the book deals with classical issues of book history: the production and use of books.
The author wants to contribute to book history by revisiting the issue of the impact of printing. (8) She challenges Eisenstein’s point that printing improved book production, by argues that all core features of reference books “developed independently of printing.” (9) These features included 1) reference books were “large-scale compilation”; 2) they included “finding devices”; 3) they used “layouts to facilitate consultation.” (9) Nevertheless, she admits that printing did helped transform reference books from “the purview of a narrow intellectual elite in the Middle ages” to “the much broader audience of the Latin-educated.” (9) In short, although printing did not lead to the rise of sixteenth-century reference books, it contributed to the spread of the genre.
Chapter One puts the “info-lust” in the global context and shows the perception of overload was not unique in Renaissance Europe. In fact, as Blair shows, people in many times in Byzantine, Islamic, and Chinese contexts felt that they could not manage the explosion of information as well. (11) What is really striking is that the author compares the perception of overload in the Renaissance with that today and argues that the perception of overload was more psychological than factual. In other words, people feel that they cannot manage information, not always because the amount of information really explodes, but also because the cultural atmosphere makes them to feel this way. For example, as this chapter shows, the sixteenth-century info-lust under investigation was not driven by the increase in the amount of information. In fact, the information (or knowledge) had been there for long. What really happened was that people grew more interested in ancient texts and therefore wanted to excavate and manage more information.
Chapter Two explores the exciting topic of note-taking. What distinguishes book history from earlier bibliographical studies is an emphasis on the social life of books—i.e. the production, circulation, and reception of books. The same principle goes for manuscripts. Blair uses manuscripts to look at compilation practices in general, which sets her apart from many historians who have used the collections of manuscripts to do intellectual history of celebrities. (74) Blair also provides some insightful observations that could be theoretical frameworks for similar studies. For example, “discarding and forgetting are crucial to effective information management.” (66) What fascinates me the most is the phrase “cannibalization of notes,” meaning that in some cases notes were “physically integrated into” a manuscript, which holds true in some of the late-Ming genealogies that I examine.
Chapter Three covers different techniques used to facilitate the consultations of reference books—or using her term, “finding devices” (132). She commits meticulous paratextual analysis of a wide array of “finding devices” including lists of headings, indexes, the branching diagram, blank space between words, font variation, and bibliographies. These devices not only facilitated consultation, but also created a sense of assurance that knowledge was graspable. This chapter provides an alternative way of paratextual analysis to the classical approach to examining how authors set thresholds for readers through paratexts. Blair shows us that paratexts, not only constrain readers’ experiences, but also facilitate readers’ creative use of texts. This chapter also answers the second question of the book: how were reference books used? The answer is clearly that people used reference books for consultation. The same holds true for late-Ming genealogies: most people would not read genealogies word by word, and therefore genealogy editors and publishers must have done something to meet the various needs of intensive readers, casual users, evidence seekers, or illustration onlookers.
Chapter Four investigates the compilers of reference books, probing their motivations and methods. Compilers were important because they were people who amassed and managed information, and they tell us a great deal about information management. In terms of motivations, compilers had economic motivations or intellectual motivations (for “public utility,” see 198). In terms of methods, they used slips (210) and frequently cut and paste (physically, 213) from printed books, which saved the labor of copying. (225)
Chapter Five continues the question of how people used reference books. Since the major method of using reference books was consultation, compilers included almost everything so that they could offer something for everyone. (236) This chapter also puts reference books in the long historical course and speculates on their impact. The major impact was that references books provided an opportunity for compilers and books users to explore new ways of information management and spreading methods of consultation. In other words, the information management methods people familiarized themselves with laid the foundation for managing modern information. (264) All in all, the methods of compiling and using reference books were much more impactful than the contents of these books.
The most important contribution, as I see it, is that the author pushes the limit of book history and see the process of compiling and using books as information management practices. This is extremely helpful to my own research.
Here are a list of inspirational phrases and concepts I can use in my own analysis: alphabetical ordering, indexing, finding devices, listmaking, sorting, and alphabetizing, memory practices, textual locators, “consultation reading” (59). “Printing produced a text in black.” (49) The overabundance of books created too many authorities. (57) Repetitive (intensive) reading vs. extensive reading. (59) Information overload was not objective, but subjective and universal. (3)
Xin Yu, PhD 
Leave a comment