University of Virginia Library

1. The Interdisciplinary Nature of Book History

Writing in 1977, the distinguished Blake scholar Morris Eaves sought to
combat the "parochialism" that characterized the study of publishing history

by promoting a "comprehensive view that can see a fact in its context, even
when that context violates the boundaries of specialized areas of knowledge."[2]
The difficulties attendant upon such interdisciplinarity notwithstanding,
Eaves advocated a Janus-like program of research, affirming "that historians
of publishing have a right and a duty to set their sights very high, working in
decades to come towards a comprehensive history that looks both inwards
and outwards." We must direct our scholarly attentions "inwards towards a
more precise account of the everyday facts of buyers, sellers, and products"
so that our knowledge of book history is adequately grounded in close investigation
of the historical record. Yet, we also bear a concomitant obligation
to marshal our intellectual energies "outwards towards a more comprehensive
account of publishing in its evolution as part of a large history that
includes all the aspects of culture that affect and are affected by publishing"
(77).

Though highly ambitious, this second aspect of Eaves' twin remit is by
no means eccentric, and has long been considered a basic tenet of book-historical
inquiry. When some of the most consequential scholars pursuing
such studies gathered in June 1980 to produce a "Statement on the History
of the Book," their manifesto acknowledged the difficulty and the centrality
of addressing the impact that books have made on society—and the influence
that society has had on the making of books. "The history of the book is
fundamental to the historical study of society," they declare, "but we are far
from understanding the factors that have shaped the writing and the dissemination
of books." Emphasizing the dynamic and reciprocal relationship
between the book and culture, they insist "These factors have changed over
time and have varied from one cultural area to another; hence the impact of
the book has also been ever-varied and changing."[3]

The exigencies of book-historical research accordingly appear to require
a range of specialized knowledge that is genuinely intimidating. "Consider
the demands on the book historian today," Robert Darnton invites us. First,
he or she must command a variety of expertise about the businesses of the
book trade: "know[ing] how to make paper, cast type, impose formes, operate
presses, correct copy, keep accounts, ship freight, place advertisements,
collect bills, satisfy readers and pacify authors." And he or she "must master
the variations of those activities at different stages in the evolution of technology
and business practices." Fair enough. If this were all, if knowledge of
bibliography and the operations of the trades were sufficient, then "the demands
on the book historian today" would be ample, but not excessive. Yet,
Darnton reminds us that, if we are to attend to the larger purview of book
history, then we also "must keep up with the latest varieties of bibliography,

library science, literary criticism, sociology, history and economics."[4] The
scope of knowledge required of those who undertake book-historical research
is so broad in part because books "refuse to be contained within the confines
of a single discipline when treated as objects of study. Neither history nor
literature nor economics nor sociology nor bibliography can do justice to all
the aspects of the life of a book." According to Darnton, "By its very nature,
therefore, the history of books must be . . . interdisciplinary in method."[5]

Kevin Sharpe recognizes that many scholars "do not always feel at home
with sociologists and Annaliste historians, let alone critical theorists," but
nevertheless also argues that book history must incorporate a variety of disciplines
because "certain types of historical enquiry . . . need to be an interdisciplinary
endeavour."[6] Peter D. McDonald so thoroughly insists on the
interdisciplinarity of book history that he decries attempts to institutionalize
book-historical scholarship into a formalized academic discipline, preferring
instead to emphasize the fluidity of its method: "Bokhistorie er en tverrfaglig
undersøkelsesmodus og ikke en `disiplin', et skjæringspunkt og ikke et sted."
["Book history is an interdisciplinary mode of inquiry, not a `discipline', an
intersection not a place."][7] The consensus among book historians that the
nature of texts and the aims of contemporary scholarly inquiry require more
than a passing knowledge of several academic disciplines does not alter the
fact that most practitioners of book history received their professional training
in one, or at most two, disciplines. Thomas Adams and Nicolas Barker
have keenly observed, "The passage of the old bibliography to the new
history of the book is not simple: it is accompanied by an abrupt change
from a reductionist to a maximalist philosophy."[8] Yet, most of us have been

prepared—both by our education and by the demands of the profession—
for intellectual undertakings more appropriately described as minimalist.

Although there certainly are notable exceptions, most book-historical
scholarship published since the first issue of Publishing History appeared in
1976 has not been authentically interdisciplinary. In book history, as elsewhere,
interdisciplinarity too often means doing more than one thing inadequately,
the gesture of tacking on a few purloined paragraphs to satisfy a
notional demand, a shallow obeisance to subjects the investigator does not
genuinely know. No wonder that in an important review, "History of the
Book: An Undisciplined Discipline?," Cyndia Clegg appropriately admonishes
us:

"Integration," with its cognate "integrity," should be a principal characteristic
of our interdisciplinary endeavors, informing the answers we provide
and, most importantly. the questions we pose.

The Introduction to the first number of Book History, an annual produced
under the auspices of SHARP, enthusiastically declares that the history
of the book "is a new kind of history," "that book history is information
history," and "that book history provides a more rigorous and empirical
approach to such issues as reader response, canon formation, and the politics
of literary criticism."[10] Although the editors, both accomplished book historians
themselves, promise "new perspectives and innovative methods," they
discuss neither historiography nor any of the analytical, historical, sociological,
or critical methods by which this new kind of historical investigation
might be conducted to produce scholarship of a standard allowing them to
"promise . . . that every issue of this journal will . . . change the way we
read words on paper" (xi). Almost everywhere in this area of scholarly endeavor
there is much Panglossian confidence and little facing up to the stark
realities of how little we know and how much we need to think deeply about
what we are doing.