|
Inside Publishing
NO WORD UNSPOKEN
Midway through the Confessions, St. Augustine recalls how he used
to marvel at the way Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, read his manuscripts:
"His eyes traveled across the pages and his heart searched out the
meaning, but his voice and tongue stayed still." Scholars have sparred
for decades over whether Augustine's offhand observation reveals something
momentous: namely, that silent reading--that seemingly mundane act you're
engaged in right now--was, in the Dark Ages, a genuine novelty. Evidence abounds
that ancient and medieval readers relished giving voice to their favorite
texts in order to appreciate more fully the cadences of Homer and Lucian.
Of course, we equally enjoy reading poetry aloud. The question is: Could
the earliest readers literally not shut up?
Paul Saenger thinks so--but his argument for the onetime dominance of the
spoken word doesn't rest on Augustine. Saenger, a medieval-manuscript expert
and a curator of rare books at Chicago's Newberry Library, believes that
reading aloud wasn't a mere preference for the ancients, but a practical
necessity. His explanation is simple: Ancientandmedievalmanuscriptslookedlikethis
anditwaseasiertoreadthemaloud. In his provocative new book, Space Between
Words: The Origins of Silent Reading (Stanford), Saenger argues that
the practice of transcribing Greek and Latin manuscripts without spaces,
or in scriptura continua, made reading silently a mind-bogglingly
difficult task. "It wasn't literally impossible to read silently,"
Saenger says, "but the notation system was so awkward that the vast
majority of readers would have needed to sound out the syllables, if only
in a muffled voice." Saenger's book asserts that only at the end of
the seventh century, when Irish monks introduced regular word separation
into medieval manuscripts, did swift, silent reading become feasible.
Why is it so hard to read text without spacing? Just imagine how difficult
it would be for your computer's spell checker if you wrote a document in
scriptura continua. The program would initially have to determine
which syllables to slice into words, and then proceed with its main task.
The human brain, fortunately, is more dexterous than a word processor, but
the burden of breaking strings of letters into words is, nonetheless, a
laborious first step. And therein lies Saenger's thesis: "There is
a correlation between a propensity to read orally in both past and contemporary
cultures and the duration of cognitive activity needed to achieve lexical
access in that culture's script."
Saenger, who has a Ph.D. in medieval history, backs up his claims with cutting-edge
scientific research. (To his delight, he discovered that psychologists had
been testing adult abilities to read English versions of scriptura continua
for decades, "without being aware of its real-world precursor.")
Clinical tests reveal that the brain processes the reading of spaced text--in
which words are essentially digested whole--differently from the syllable-by-syllable
decoding of continuous script. In fact, different parts of the brain handle
these two tasks: Studies of brain-injured Japanese patients demonstrate
that, depending on the site of a cerebral lesion, a person may lose the
faculty for reading kanji ideographs, but not Japanese phonetic script,
which lacks regular word separation--and vice versa. The implication is that,
even if early medieval readers of scriptura continua somehow managed
to keep their mouths shut, they were performing a mental task fundamentally
different from that of contemporary readers.
To modern eyes, the benefits of word spacing seem obvious. What took so
long, then? Actually, word spaces can be found in ancient Hebrew manuscripts,
as well as in a few of the very earliest Greek papyri. But Saenger doubts
those word spaces engendered fluid silent reading at the time. After all,
he notes, these manuscripts were all written without vowels, making the
use of word spaces a virtual necessity for any kind of deciphering.
In any case, following the Greeks' swift incorporation of Phoenician vowels
in the ninth century b.c., scribes began crushing all the words together
and writing in scriptura continua. Indeed, the entire Greek literary
canon, from The Iliad onward, was written down this way.
Why? Were the scribes trying to save paper? Saenger offers an explanation
for this baffling step backward. "The ancient world did not possess
the desire, characteristic of the modern age, to make reading easier and
swifter," he writes. "Those who read...were not interested in
the swift intrusive consultation of books." The canon was small, and
prized texts were typically memorized. Who cared, then, if it was hard to
slog through a manuscript the first dozen times? And let's not forget the
inherent elitism of Greek and Roman readers. "The notion that the greater
portion of the population should be autonomous and self-motivated readers
was entirely foreign to the elitist literate mentality of the ancient world,"
Saenger writes.
Fortunately, this situation didn't last forever. While an ambiguous text
format "enhanced the mystery and power of clerics," Saenger notes,
such awkwardness served no purpose in a scholarly universe in which readers
began "to grapple with highly technical concepts" of science,
law, and theology. Starting in the fifth century, scribes began to speckle
manuscripts with spaces. As Saenger writes, "The introduction of word
separation reflected a mentality in which reading was primarily a visual
process for which the stylistic virtue of mellifluous sound was subordinate
to rapid access to meaning." Most classicists have decried sporadic
spacing as a sign that medieval monks didn't fully understand what they
were transcribing. But Saenger sees it as a "great leap forward. It
allowed the brain to find its bearings." He's even coined a new term,
"aeration," to describe such manuscripts.
Having spent the past fifteen years combing medieval manuscript libraries
on both sides of the Atlantic, Saenger identifies the first properly spaced
Latin manuscript as the Irish Book of Mulling, an illuminated translation
of the Gospels dating from around 690 a.d. Indeed, he notes, the Irish soon
adopted the the verb videre, "to see," as a way to describe
reading. In a similar spirit, an Irish monk compared the activity of reading
to a cat silently stalking a mouse.
Why Ireland? For one thing, Irish monasteries were home to a select collection
of Syriac-language biblical texts from late antiquity, all of which featured
word spacing (but no vowels). Moreover, the Celtic-speaking monks approached
Latin as a foreign language, and word separation greatly aided readers struggling
with the vocabulary. (The French, in contrast, didn't think of their vernacular
language as particularly different from Latin.) In the end, muses Saenger,
"people at the frontiers have always been more open to linguistic innovation
and combining things in new ways."
Over the next couple of centuries, this Irish innovation spread to other
countries--first to England, then to the Low Countries and the rest of Europe.
By the twelfth century, reports Saenger, murmuring monks had become a relic
of the past. (There's no precise date available, alas, for the first appearance
of a SILENCE, PLEASE! sign.) As reading became a silent activity, new types
of manuscripts that took advantage of this intimacy were produced, from
pocket prayer books to erotica. More important, the intellectual orthodoxy
enforced by group readings of manuscripts melted away as scholars retired
to private rooms for quiet study.
Saenger's book is sure to meet some strong resistance. Many simply refuse
to believe that the ancients didn't learn to read scriptura continua
silently. In a classic 1968 article, "Silent Reading in Antiquity,"
Bernard Knox wondered sarcastically, "Are we really to imagine that
Aristarchus read aloud all the manuscripts of Homer he used for his edition?"
Last year, Russian classicist A.K. Gavrilov dug in his heels, insisting
in Classical Quarterly that "the phenomenon of reading itself
is fundamentally the same in modern and in ancient culture."
Why are some scholars so opposed to the idea that scriptura continua
would impose limits on the ancients' reading abilities? "It's funny,"
laughs Saenger. "Mathematicians have no problem seeing the importance
of notation. Newton's contribution in the Principia was both intellectual
and notational, with all its symbolic innovations. But classicists refuse
to accept that reading has anything to do with the page it's printed on."
Of course, classicists aren't the types eager to jump on the interdisciplinary
bandwagon. "These folks tend to be tremendously conservative by
orientation,"
Saenger muses. "They tend to be frightened by modern things like psychological
research. At one conference, after I laid out my ideas, some classicists
called me a Freudian."
DANIEL ZALEWSKI
|
|