|
If
the law of God suffer it, then let his grace put forth a little treatise
in print, and even in the English tongue, that all men may see it, for
his excuse and the defense of his deed, and say, 'Lo, by the authority
of God's word do I this.'
-- William Tyndale, The Practice of Prelates: Whether the King's
Grace may be Separated from his Queen because she was his Brother's
Wife. (Antwerp 1530.)
It is quite possible
that on December 1, the date when this paper is scheduled to be posted on
the Society for Critical Exchange's website, the current political dispute
over who has been elected as the next President of the United States will
still be unresolved. As I write this in mid-November, the central question
that has emerged from the controversy over which candidate won Florida --
and the presidency -- is a technological one: the Bush campaign maintains
that machine counting is the most accurrate and fair method of assessing
voters' intentions; in the Gore camp, only manual recounts can adequately
determine voters' intentions.
More
than three decades after Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault wrote their
notorious elegies for authorship, intentionality is back with a vengeance.
For the time being, however, as both sides prepare to make their respective
cases in various state and federal courts on behalf of intentionality, it
is the technological question that looms ever larger on the epistemological
horizon of the conflict. There is indeed something rather new, yet simultaneously
old about the repeatedly televised images of weary canvassing officials
peering through magnifying glasses at punch-card ballots that not only were
designed to be read by machines, but in their very form recall the material
origins of the computer revolution in the first half of the twentieth century.
No doubt, some astute, historicist-minded commentator will attempt to locate
our current election crisis within the incunabula phase of the digital age;
but, in fact, technology of one kind or another has been at stake in the
transfer and consolidation of power since the moment, some five thousand
years ago, that two emergent conceptions of authority -- epistemic and executive
-- began to converge in the invention of cuneiform.
Consisting of wedged-shaped
lines the first known writing system was impressed with a reed tool in moist
clay tablets subsequently baked or dried. "Thus clay," Stephen L. Sass observes,
"so critical for storing food, came to play an equally important role in
storing information."<1> Indeed,
writing in clay rapidly became the originary royal and beaurocratic technology
of choice, with cuneiform script remaining in use for nearly three thousand
years and being employed for the transcription of some fifteen different
languages.<2> In a sense, then,
there is a kind of back-to-the-futurism about voters expressing their intentions
by using a metal stylus to leave an impression in a paper card, a method
that might have been easily understood by a Mesopotamian scribe.
But clay served another important contemporary function as well. Preserved
as a badly fragmented cuneiform text from the third millennium BCE, the
oldest known story of human creation records the following exhortation from
Enki, the Sumerian water god, to his mother, Nammu, the primeval sea:
mix the
heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
Thou, do thou bring the limbs into existence;
Ninmah (the earth-mother goddess) will work above thee,
.... (goddesses of birth) will stand by thee at thy fashioning'
O my mother, decree thou its (the new-born's) fate,
Ninmah will bind upon it the ... of the gods, .... as man ... <3>
As such, clay constituted
the essence of human life in a narrative that was used to authorize and
legitimate Sumerian royal genealogies and dynastic successions, and clay
also served as the main component of an administrative technology relied
upon by a given king during his reign.
Subsequent traditions would more clearly articulate the links between
writing technology and authority. For example, coffin texts dating back
to Fifth Dynasty Egypt (ca. 2500 BCE) under Pharaoh Asosi prominently
display the following saying: "their officials (magistrates) rise for
you and their scribes who are on their mats before you tremble for you."<4>
The close relation between officials and scribes glimpsed here points
to an important historical truth about the nature of power in ancient
Egyptian society: hieroglyphic technology was an obscure and complex field
of knowledge, and the relatively few who had mastered it played a fundamental
role in governing.
When the alphabet, a new epistemic technology, was introduced in ancient
Greece, the mythic account of its origins further emphasized its ties
to executive authority. As Marshall McLuhan observes,
The Greek
myth about the alphabet was that Cadmus, reputedly the king who introduced
the phonetic letters into Greece, sowed the dragon's teeth, and they sprang
up armed men. Like any other myth, this one capsulates a prolonged process
into a flashing insight. The alphabet meant power and authority and control
of military structures at a distance.... That the power of letters as
agents of aggressive order and precision should be expressed as extensions
of the dragon's teeth is natural and fitting.<5>
The particular convergence
of technology and power that interests me here, that of print and royal
authority in early sixteenth-century England, also generated a myth or
two. In this essay I briefly examine these myths in light of the more
complex historical reality of the King's Printer, Richard Pynson, who
was employed by Henry VIII in the early years of his reign.
Notes
(click note number to return to text):
1. The Substance of Civilization: Materials and Human
History from the Stone Age to the Age of Silicon (New York: Arcade
Publishing, 1998), p. 33.
2. C.B.F. Walker, Reading the Past: Cuneiform
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. 40.
3. Quoted in Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology:
A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium
BC (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 19772), p. 70.
4. Allesandro Roccati, "Scribes," in The Egyptians,
ed. Sirgio Donadoni (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp.
61-86; p. 66.
5. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man
(New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1964), pp. 85-6.
For the full text of this
paper, click here.
|