The rise of the codex formatting of written knowledge, that is, in book form, led to the spread of ideas and knowledge, especially the rise of the Bible and Christianity. The codex form was and is highly preferred because of how compact, sturdy, durable and easy it is to use. Once there were books that were easy to use and easier (than scrolls) to distribute, the widespread distribution could take place.
Although the widespread distribution of the Bible came about around 400 A.D., the way that it did so (through codex) has a much earlier history. Codex was originally developed by the Romans from wax writing tablets. These tablets would be made of wood covered with wax, like the reproduced modern tablet to the right. Also shown in the picture, are writing instruments that were not only used for the obvious, but also to scratch out and smooth over the wax with the flat end of the instrument.
No one gets everything right on the first try, so it makes sense that the Romans created a way of writing for learning. It is reasonable to use something like wax and these special writing instruments to practice. These were not expensive forms of writing like animal skin or parchment. Messing up and starting over was not a huge issue; it was easy.
This gradual replacement of the scroll has been marked as the most important advancement in history until the printing press. The creation of codex did two hugely notable things. The first was that the formatting made widespread knowledge possible. Although there were those who sought to eliminate the spread of ideas and information because with it came power, codex formatting led to the mass spread of knowledge, and especially, the Bible. Something else that codex did, for example with the Roman’s early wax tablets, was made it more possible to learn. Students could erase and rewrite. The formatting established a new, easier way of learning. After all, practice makes perfect, right?
Do you think that a new way of teaching would lead to more or less students?
ReplyDeleteErin I don't understand your question. What new way of learning?
ReplyDeleteMadi that was great! It really does make sense that as books became more widespread, the thirst for learning did too. At first people still were not able to read, but that changed as others began to translate books and offer learning for cheaper.
I think Erin was asking if the new knowledge would lead to more or fewer learners because of the changes it brings- it could lead to fewer because the entire system was completely changed, and people might not want to go back and relearn everything, because it's time-consuming and difficult (sort of like grandparents trying to use technology). And it could lead to more because it is more accessible to a wider audience, therefore increasing the number of people exposed to and learning from the system.
ReplyDeleteEmily, Kim got it exactly. Learning through writing would have been a new way to learn for the people living during these changes. Granted it didn't change within a generation, but perhaps some of their parents or grandparents were more skeptical about the need to write? I also think that just because knowledge is more available doesn't mean more people want it. I know many people take it for granted, and to others it seems the forbidden fruit.
ReplyDeleteKimberly, I agree, I think the results of a new or different teaching method would depend on the teaching method, and the people. Everyone learns differently and, like you said, people may not want to change their ways. That's a good example of the grandparents struggling with technology.
ReplyDelete