by Catriona Mills

Marginalia

Posted 23 July 2009 in by Catriona

As I mentioned briefly, I’ve been at the annual conference for the Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand for the past couple of days, where I presented a co-written paper called “Ariel and Australian Nineteenth-Century Fiction: A Case of Mistaken Attribution.”

Just in case you’re bubbling over with an uncontrollable desire to know what we were talking about, it was a paper tracing the misattribution of five long serials in the Sydney Mail (an early Australian newspaper) that have become known as the works of Eliza Winstanley, the Australian-trained actress on whom I worked for my Ph.D., when they’re actually the work of another author altogether.

It’s a distinctly old-school kind of academia, attribution studies. And I love it. Though I don’t have the patience for it as a full-time research focus, it taps into that part of my brain that, firstly, likes to think of myself as a collector and, secondly, prefers something concrete and empirical as the basis for my research, rather than theory that is closer to philosophy.

Oddly, though, that’s not entirely what I wanted to talk about. What I was thinking about here was something that showed the split in the conference and in the attendees.

Mind, I don’t think this split was a bad thing. Rather, I think the organisers did a marvellous job of showcasing the two faces of the conference theme: “The Limits of the Book.”

You see, the way it looked to me was this: the conference attendees were either librarians or scholars working in the (admittedly broad) field of literary studies. Of course, the two fields aren’t mutually exclusive and they aren’t impermeable categories (and they met perhaps most explicitly in the character of the scholarly bibliographers)—but they did tend to prompt different but sympathetic approaches to the idea of the limits of the book. Librarians and bibliographers were tending to think in terms of lost and missing books, of variant texts and disputed authorship. The rest of us were thinking of the limits of the book in terms of e-books, blogs, cover art, and blurbs—indeed, paratextual material of all kinds.

An awareness of the way in which paratextual material extends the limits of the book was one of the areas where the two (sympathetic) approaches overlapped most broadly.

But one aspect that intrigued me the most wasn’t really the explicit focus of any of the papers, but came up in more than one discussion session. That was the idea of marginalia.

I’ve never really been a scribbler in books—barring a couple of misguided semesters as an undergraduate, and even then I limited myself to scribbling in my own books.

But marginalia is fascinating on a number of levels. And not least (and I admit, here, that this is not my own insight, but something that arose out of the question sessions for a couple of papers) is this: marginalia is something that slips past the kind of digital scholarship that has made academia so much easier in the past twenty years.

The online MLA International Bibliography, for example, is far easier to navigate than the old physical volumes. OCR issues aside, online journals and newspapers are a far more convenient method of searching than microfilm copies—and have the added advantage of not making me seasick. And online library catalogues make many forms of study—including scholarly bibliography—much easier.

But marginalia slips past online library catalogues. How can it not? Marginalia isn’t always present in the book at the time at which it enters a library’s collection. How can you assess the marginalia of a collection, other than to physically walk up and down the shelves, pulling books down and looking for scribbles and interleaving? And how often would you need to keep doing that, while marginalia continues to be added to the books? How can you assess the extent and scholarly value of marginalia, other than physically reading it?

I’m not denying that digital scholarship aids the preservation of marginalia. Projects such as Early English Books Online preserve the marginalia in the copies of the books that they scan—but they don’t always note the presence of that marginalia in their entries for those books, because they aren’t always interested in what a sixteenth-century collator scribbled in a fourteenth-century text.

(And book-based social-networking projects such as Library Thing are generating their own form of marginalia, which will be of enormous value to future scholars.)

But marginalia is of enormous value now.

One paper I saw in the past couple of days talked about a new twist in the (long, long) history of the understanding of the variant texts of Piers Plowman through marginalia in a forgotten (late) edition.

And consider book historians—particularly those whom Jonathan Rose categorises as “new book historians,” the ones who are not as interested in what people read (through library records and sales figures) as they are in how people read. The personal reading experience of the common reader is notoriously difficult to resurrect after much time has passed, but marginalia tells us how one reader, at least, responded to a text.

I have no idea how marginalia can be more effectively traced and catalogued, though I wish I did.

But I do know that I’m following up two of the books mentioned in question sessions: William H. Sherman’s Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England and H. J. Jackson’s Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books.

Share your thoughts [5]

1

Wendy wrote at Jul 23, 09:39 AM

Love this post on the idea of marginalia because i’ve been thinking about it as a concept in a very different way…in order to write a paper about working as an “academic” outside of a metropolitan centre….“scribbling in the margins” as it were….not in a negative sense but in terms of the freedom and possible creativity this allows. Anyway, it’s all very embryonic at this stage and I don’t know if I’ll follow it through, but freaked me out slightly when i saw the title of your post.

I’m blathering….

2

Matthew Smith wrote at Jul 23, 10:06 AM

One of the features planned for some repository software I was once working on was an annotation feature which would allow both personal and shared notes to be added to the records by users. I think most current word processing documents allow annotations to be added but I haven’t seen it actually implemented in a real scholarly application. From a technical point of view it’s a matter of storing an annotation along with a pointer to the location within a document that it belongs to and some metadata to keep track of authorship and possibly a way to control who is authorised to view and edit it. But that will only help with preserving current readers ideas assuming you could motivate people to make such notes (It would actually be valuable if you could spawn an informal scholarly discussion from the annotations).

The question of how to capture and make available marginalia that already exists in the form of scribbles and doodles sounds like it would involve a lot of tedious work.

3

Catriona wrote at Jul 23, 10:48 AM

That’s it, I think, Matt. There are a number of ways to make contemporary marginalia available—basically, any reader feedback in something such Library Thing (or Track Changes in a multi-author or edited document) is a form of marginalia (if we read “marginalia” as anything written on the codex but not inherent to the text that the codex was built to contain)—and all this will be preserved.

But the marginalia of the past is another issue. I don’t think it’s possible to digitise that—though if digitisation projects made a selling point (so to speak) of any marginalia on the books they scan, that would be a start—and you could probably never be sure that you had a thorough record, let alone a comprehensive one.

Of course, not all marginalia is created equal, which is another issue altogether. But, then, not all novels are created equal, either: the ones that literary scholarship tells us are second rate still tell us something about the cultural capital, the cycles of exchange, and the literary marketplaces of another time.

Wendy, I think you could build a paper of that sort around the metaphor of marginalia, actually—I’m increasingly passionate about the idea of building narrative into academic writing, and this seems as though it would be a fruitful metaphor for that sort of work.

4

John wrote at Jul 23, 10:49 PM

When the conference call for papers first went out I was toying with the idea of submitting an abstract on something to do with the hypertext novel, something I wrote about in my Master’s Thesis.

When I saw the shape of the conference, and the emphasis on “a distinctly old-school kind of academia”, I was glad I didn’t. But now I think about it, what is marginalia but a form of pre-digital hypertext?

Should start thinking about that again…

5

Catriona wrote at Jul 23, 11:07 PM

Well, once we’d sat through the first day’s sessions, many of us who were presenting the next day were slightly worried about the content of our papers. But the second day’s sessions were much less old school than the first day’s.

(Like Simone’s spectacular paper, which won everyone over.)

And, you know, I came out of the first day’s sessions thinking how pleased I am that it’s still possible for someone to make their living out of Piers Plowman. I like living in that sort of world, frankly.

Comment Form

All comments are moderated and moderation includes a non-spoiler policy based on Australian television scheduling.

Textile help (Advice on using Textile to format your comments)
(if you do not want your details filled in when you return)

Categories

Blogroll

Monthly Archive

2012
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
2011
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
August
October
November
December
2010
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
October
December
2009
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2008
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December