Scrolling through the history of the book

The search to find out when bound books replaced scrolls leads to a new appreciation of why printed books still hold their own as a “high-tech” format.

Brian Snyder/Reuters
A commuter reads on his e-reader as a subway train arrives in Cambridge, Mass.

“Scroll codex e-book.” 

It sounds like the thinking man’s version of rock-paper-scissors, doesn’t it?

Those words popped up together as I was doing some follow-up research on the word code, explored here last week.

The Latin word codex, I’d found out, gave rise to our English word code, as in a legal code. But codex also found its way into English, as a word meaning “book” – specifically, a book made up of pages stitched together. Codices (plural of codex) were what replaced scrolls.

When did that transition occur? In the 1st century: Early Christians found codices a kind of market differentiator from the Jews, who used scrolls for their important writings, including the Torah. Codices have separate pages, so both sides can be written upon. This makes codices more compact. The shift to papyrus might also have been a factor: It doesn’t roll as easily as parchment, made from animal skins. 

That rolling action is what’s most essential to a scroll. Our word volume, which originally meant a roll of parchment containing writing, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, comes from the Latin volvere, meaning to turn or to roll. 

(Volvo, the name of the Swedish automaker, means literally “I roll.”) 

Now back to rock-paper-scissors: It can be useful to pay attention to Google’s suggestions when you’re entering search terms. That’s how I got to the above-mentioned “scroll codex e-book.” When I entered the first two terms, Google suggested the third.

And so I found a piece by Lev Grossman, headed simply “From Scroll to Screen,” published nearly three years ago but still a top hit for people exploring the übertheme of book format. 

Mr. Grossman’s point is that the shift from paper book to electronic book is not just like the shift from manuscripts (handwritten books) to books printed with movable type, but more profoundly, like the shift from scroll to codex. And then he points out just how important that shift was:

“It created a very different reading experience. With a codex, for the first time, you could jump to any point in a text instantly, nonlinearly. You could flip back and forth between two pages and even study them both at once. You could cross-check passages and compare them and bookmark them. You could skim if you were bored, and jump back to reread your favorite parts. It was the paper equivalent of random-access memory, and it must have been almost supernaturally empowering.”

Note that nonlinear reading is different from a search function – which is where e-books have an edge. But it’s clear that even by the standards of digital information technology, the book – what I suppose we now have to call “the paper book” – holds its own pretty well. It’s compact, portable, and relatively inexpensive. There’s no proprietary software to buy or update. There’s no license fee. You buy a book, and it’s yours. Or you can borrow it from the public library, and return it when you’ve read it. Or you can borrow it from a friend – well, OK, that’s when it actually can get complicated.

But the paradox of the book still stands: It is by making it possible to read in “nonlinear” fashion – dipping into a text here and there, apparently at random – that the book encourages the careful reading that most fully engages with a text. By allowing for a kind of shallowness, the book makes it possible to achieve a kind of depth.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.