<b>Elena S. Danielson.</b> <i>The Ethical Archivist</i>. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2010. 440p. alk. paper, $49.00 (ISBN 978-1-931666-34-2). LC2010-026680.

later book, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. These two foundational essays set the stage for the volume’s other articles covering printing’s impact on the practices of textual production and reception, including Paul F. Grendler’s account of the Roman Inquisition’s repressive influence on the Venetian printing industry; Jean-Francois Gilmont’s discussion of the technical constraints that printing imposed on “the book” and how these restrictions affected the development of new reading practices in the early sixteenth century; Andrew Pettegree’s and Matthew Hall’s eye-opening reassessment of the Protestant Reformation’s impact on the development and spread of printing; Roger Chartier’s description of the competing, yet sometimes cooperative, cultures of reading/writing and orality during the Renaissance, and how these different methods of expression represented different modalities of performance necessitating different forms of reception; Paul Saenger’s fascinating look at how, in contrast to the presentation of manuscript text, typography and the layout of printed text fundamentally changed the way readers interacted with their books; and Lisa Jardine and Anthony Grafton’s insightful analysis of how one particular sixteenth-century reader interpreted and used his copy of Livy’s history in his own social, literary, and political dealings. Volume II concludes with David Cressy’s article on the nonliterary fetishistic use of books as symbolic objects of talismanic power; even for the illiterate, Cressy argues, books embodied knowledge and authority. As informative and wide-ranging as the contents of these two volumes may be, in the end they can only be a representative sample of the many different approaches to book history that scholars have undertaken over the past several decades. The editors of each respective volume are to be praised for executing well a very difficult job. They have conveniently assembled in one place many of the most influential—and in some cases extremely hard to find—articles in the field, while at the same time limiting their selections to a manageable size and quantity.—Eric J. Johnson, The Ohio State University.