Written works at one time belonged only to the church. Clerics, church officials, and the scribes copying the books were the only one who possessed them as they were the only ones who could read them. However, over time, the limited access to these manuscripts changed. As the scribes who had once done faithful work to the church began to pursue paid careers, books became more widespread due to the increased force of production available. Soon, members of the aristocracy began to collect books, and eventually those of the middle and lower classes. The types of books being produced became more broad as well. At first, religious texts were the only works being made, as the scribes worked for the church. Eventually, books on law, history, and even works of fiction were in production. As manuscripts began to take the codex form, books saw themselves become more in use in every day life. By the end of this period, primers were being used for educating children in schools.
I find it intriguing how books seemed to become a sort of status symbol. As the aristocracy began to collect them, the lower classes clamored for them as well. The difference here is that it is likely that many lower class families who possessed books were probably still illiterate. If they could not read, why would they seek out something so expensive? It is because books became worth more than what was written in them. Books invoked an image of wealth and knowledge, even if neither of those things were true.
Did the widespread production of manuscripts (notably in the codex form) promote a more secular approach to literature? Why or why not?
Group 1:
ReplyDeleteAmanda R.
Alex B.
Yes, we believe the widespread production of manuscripts promoted a more secular approach to literature. This is may be due to individuals being inspired by religious texts, thus adapting and creating their own versions of texts.