The way that D.F. Makenzie describes the limits that we place as humans are representative by the bound covers in books is quite metaphorical. Yet, it is true that the more we restrict ourselves and others, the less we learn and the more ignorant we become. Mackenzie is a bibliographer who was able to see books’ worth for more than just their content. And, truly, when scholars (or anybody, for that matter) research and observe the details of old or special texts, they aren’t only looking at the words on the page, but the stains, tears, and materials. Studying archives is not only about studying what an original document or story said, but also studying the life of the book. To put it in simpler terms, if we were just to study the dialogue of humans, it would be an unfair and incomplete history of our existence. There is no reason why we shouldn’t study every aspect of an archive because even the slightest detail could reveal its unique history.

Reading about the different types of archival reading methods shed light on otherwise hidden obstacles. While researching archival materials, it is important to keep in mind the qualitative and quantitative, also accounting for newly digitized archives. Some aspects of qualitative research involve the correspondence between people, linking historically relevant figures through books and archives. For example, letters, messages, and legal documents can present connections between people. The reason this is so important is because if it weren’t for these documents, we would simply be guessing relationships between certain people. These archives are important because it takes away the ‘guessing’ or hypothesizing of history, and creates meaningful connections that we can use. One thing I discovered while researching for my biography of a book was how the printer worked in Venice just before and possibly during Aldus Manutius came and made the Aldine Press. I was also able to find the previous owner of the text as well as other scholars who might’ve made contact with the book during their studies. It felt like I was piecing together a puzzle made of people and how they connected in their society. While we have gotten much better about how we save archives, we still have much progress to make in order to accurately account for the quantitative method of archival history. The author brings up how “historical data is often ‘patchy…much more has been lost than survives’” (The History of the Book). I think this raises an important question about the accuracy of how we interpret and engage with history. Clearly, our records might be incorrectly kept or reported, in addition to the fact that most of what survives is from perspective. Therefore, it is hard to determine truthful versions of history when both data and perspectives prevent researchers from finding accuracy. I think about how people in the future are going to research us now and what they might interpret from our digital presence. It’s hard to account for something we aren’t sure will care about us and our records. Perhaps that is why we lose more history than what remains.