The Meaning of Deviation in the Early Modern Evolution of Knowledge Management Systems: A Response to Richard Yeo

Abstract

Research in the fields of history of science and intellectual history over the last thirty years has produced a growing and exciting scholarship on the ways in which, in the early modern period (approximately between 1450 and 1750), the educated classes adapted their approach to managing and reproducing knowledge to meet the new emerging needs of a society faced with the unprecedented impact of the medium of print. The special issue of Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte dedicated to this important topic 1 is just the most recent contribution to this historical investigation, and offers many original insights into the complexity of the phenomenon in question. The research has also been enriched over time by interdisciplinary input, from the fields of sociology of knowledge and social memory in particular, generating additional stimuli and raising new questions. 2 Such extensive, enduring interest goes far beyond mere historiographical curiosity. It is therefore worth considering why, in today's society-by now well-acquainted with the use of digital technologies and the set of new knowledge processing practices collectively referred to as digital humanities-the impact of the medium of print on early modern European society draws such attention. Of course, history is always interesting, because it allows us to make a comparison, which may be a source of information. But it seems that the research into notetaking and excerpting techniques practised-and then subject to pedagogical reflection-between the late-medieval and early modern periods is driven by much more than a desire to take a peek at how the scientists and scholars worked. Significant for similar reasons is the issue raised by Elisabeth DØcultot, Fabian Krämer, and Helmut Zedelmaier in their introduction to the special issue of Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte concerning the fact that the "practice [of excerpting] by no means stopped in the eighteenth century," whereas the discourse about excerpting "disappeared around the same time and never gathered strength again ever since." 3 Effectively, the sources indicate a sort of wane in interest in a debate that had enthused scholars since at least Rudolf Agricola (1443-1485), while also inspiring controversial stances, particularly at the beginning of the 18th century,