Literary types! Lend me your knowledge. (And sorry for the double posting)

[stoney321]

Um, basically I'm wanting to make a joke work and want to be sure I'm not painting myself into a corner. I NEED TO BE INFORMED ON THE FOLLOWING:

QUESTION: was it common in 5th and 6th century writings (or heck, 3rd or 4th centuries) to write a TITLE PAGE? Like, the Greek writers and famed writers of the Middle East, etc. etc. did or did not typically include a TITLE PAGE?*

DEFINITION: this would be a multi-paragraphed summation of what the reader was about to experience/read/learn. Also included is the caveat that if there are any mistakes or errors in fact in the tome, it's the fault of the compiler?

My tongue is firmly in cheek, in case that was in question. But I do want to be reminded of writing rules back in the day, should anyone care to wax poetic or prosaic.

[ETA] I should mention that the alleged title page of the book to which I am referring was written originally on solid gold pages, and collected with d-ring binders of an ancient design. Um, I'm not making that up, that's what is claimed. O_O

Comments

[skypirateb.livejournal.com]

Not sure? I've read a lot of Classical sources for uni, and yes, those writers typically do a breakdown of what sources they used, their intentions, why they used those sources, etc, though there's no set pattern or format they have to follow, it's more like "Hey reader! You should know x y and z!". This is almost exclusively used by "history" writers, like Herodotus and Arrian. I have no idea about later periods, though. I have Medieval lit in a couple of hours, so I could ask my professor and get back to you.

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

That would be fabulous! (And I'm being semi-funny here, as I'm talking about the Book of Mormon's title page, written by the son of the compiler, Mormon. He makes sure to say this is all divine inspiration, and if anything in the book is later found to be incorrect, well, that's just because it's written by a bunch of men.) That's one that feels like it wasn't very common.

...also, the book wasn't written in the 5th century because it's made up by Joseph Smith, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT (lol) let's pretend it was.

Hee.

[pernickety.livejournal.com]

Had they already switched from scrolls to books then? ... I have a hazy memory of my Latin teacher saying something about writers putting a lot of effort into the first couple of paragraphs, as that is what people would read in bookshop... scrollshops. You know, unrolling a couple of inches to sample the text.

[siria]

(I saw this on friendsfriends; hope you don't mind me commenting!) I'm a medievalist, so I'm not hugely familiar with Classical writing, but I do know that there were no such things as title pages that early. Frequently, texts didn't even get a title. The first few words of the opening line—the incipit—were simply written in a different colour or in larger lettering, and texts were often referred to by their incipits. There was no other widely used method of distinguishing the beginning of a text.

[flaming-muse.livejournal.com]

I can't think that in any of the original ancient manuscripts or facsimiles of them I've translated there has been anything like that, although certainly sometimes scholars would add a gloss (often with their own spin on the text, sometimes more obvious than others) before the work in question. This can be particularly true with religious texts; I feel like there are some in the canonical Hebrew Bible itself, though don't ask me to cite on this little sleep. There was a tradition of writers summarizing other people's works before going on and on about how wrong they were.

Heck, you're lucky if you get paragraph breaks or even titles in ancient manuscripts.

Do you mean BCE or CE? Not that my answer is much different, but my proximity to the texts would change.

[flaming-muse.livejournal.com]

I think you should narrow down your question to religious texts; Classical historians can be very chatty (oh, Suetonius, the biggest gossip of the early Roman Empire...), but you're not talking about history. You're talking religion. Very different beasts.

[bienegold.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna say no, since those groups didn't have, you know, real books.

[bienegold.livejournal.com]

I forgot about codices, my bad. That said, it seems unlikely that they would waste material on a title page.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

Here are some links to pictures and descriptions of some fifth century religious texts, ie codex texts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Description

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus

I found some others as well which don't seem to use a title page. The kind of title page you're referring to with the multi paragraph title and the caveats was popular in the 1600's, ie, during the scope of the long eighteenth century.

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

Oh, excellent point! (Also, I added an eta.) This is presented as a non-fiction, historical collection of "what happened," and it happens to be religious.

I know, I know, but these people claim all sorts of weirdness. *head desk*

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

Here is the title page in question. (Let me be clear - I believe without question that the Book of Mormon is all made up. I believe that Joe Smith was trying to copy a certain style of writing that he believed to be "ancient.")

Which doesn't help much. And this would be AD (AC) - 490 A.D. is the claim.

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

And did you see the ETA? This was written on pages of solid gold. Which apparently was free flowing in the Yucatan peninsula.

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

Hello! I'm so glad you decided to comment! (Um, so you know, I'm referring to the Book of Mormon, which claims to be an ancient text. I do not believe it to be so. Also, they claim the original book to have been inscribed on plates of pure gold, which makes the likelihood of a page wasted for the title/summation even more unlikely.)

Oh, that's so interesting about how there weren't even titles, I love my smart flist. (And flistflist. Hee.)

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

And this was golden plates, collected with binder clips. Like, literally. *cough*

Yeah, I'm guessing it's not a commonality, then. :)

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

Sweet! Thank you so much!

And HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. During the scope of the long eighteenth century. (Bleeding into the 19th, perhaps? Like, say, 1830? I'm hoping you've noticed the ETA and know to which I am referring. Hee.)

[soberloki.livejournal.com]

These would be the infamous Mormon books that could only be interpreted by that one guy, who never interpreted them the same way twice? Or something?

LOL, ancient-design D-ring binders!

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

That would be the ones! He had sunglasses made of special crystals that magically translated the "ancient texts" into Victorian English.

...I'm not making that up, either.

It was the Ancient Holy Trapper Keeper! (I actually refer to it that way in my book, lol.)

[flaming-muse.livejournal.com]

"Historical" accounts with an overtly religious context are certainly within the realm of religious texts of the ancient world. See, you know, much of the Bible. What you linked with your ETA reads like what 19th century writers might tack onto the beginnings of their translations (or books in general). Is that page also supposedly translated? (I am too tired to try to figure out the crazy Mormon ways.) It is totally right on target vis-a-vis 19th-century made up religious documents.

But that page from an ancient document? Er, not so much.

[flaming-muse.livejournal.com]

Yeah... not so much with the ancientness. Perfect for the 19th century!

And I did not for a minute think that you thought that good ol' Joe actually translated something ancient. Don't you worry!

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

LOL.

I love everything about this comment of yours.

[altyronsmaker.livejournal.com]

If I'm remembering my Elizabethan literature class correctly, title pages didn't come into being until the print era. There wasnt' really a point to them. You had a cover, usually a leather binding, then the actual written text.

Once printing became more prevalent, then book design started (and you should see some of the earliest title pages) and there was a need to identify the author/publisher etal. That's when title pages came into being.

ETA: Wow. You had a lot of responses before mine. And now that I've read them all AND seen what you've eta'd...I have no words. I am boggling right now.

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

I love all of the responses I'm getting. It's HILARIOUS to me. Because of the shame I still feel for believing the crap I did and for the AWESOME SMACK DOWN that my flist provides.

[siria]

Hee, I've heard all about the Book of Mormon this year. I have a pair of young Mormon missionaries living below me in my apartment building—they found out I'm a history PhD student, so have been trying to gain my interest with lots of carefully casual tit-bits about the Ancient Heritage of the Mormon Church.

It has not worked. *g*

[mumsisdaughter]

I understand where you're coming from in regard to the 'authenticity' of the text but can you tell me what is supposed to have happened to the 'golden plates' and the 'kaleidoscope glasses'? Did Mr Joe Smith lose them, melt them down, hide them away or hand them back to a personal angel? I don't know that part of the story--just to satisfy my curiosity (and make me drop my mouth open even further regarding the gullibility of some folk) :)

[othercat.livejournal.com]

How close is your book to being finished? Enquiring minds want to know. ^_^

I suppose if Procopius can claim Emperor Justinian was a) a demon and b) could take off his head (and walk around with it), Joseph Smith can have a Holy Trapper Keeper.

Be damned if I'll believe either though.