Finally, the reason why the occasional typographical error creeps into The Scholarly Kitchen can be revealed — we’ve been visited by the demon Titivillus.

medieval illustration of a monk writing in a book while being observed by a demon
Saint Bernard de Menthon et le diable (Titivillus) Tours BM – ms. 2104, fol-149. Book of Hours, Use of Rome. France, c. 1510. Temptation of St. Bernard.

According to medieval scholar Jan Ziolkowski, the demon responsible for typographic errors dates back to at least the year 1200. As described in The Wall Street Journal  (summarized here), medieval scribes were warned that typos would be counted and held against them as they tried to enter heaven after dying. The video below discusses the dangers of Titivillus from the point of view of an academic author. Personally, I’m just relieved to find out none of this these errors are my fault.

David Crotty

David Crotty

David Crotty is a Senior Consultant at Clarke & Esposito, a boutique management consulting firm focused on strategic issues related to professional and academic publishing and information services. Previously, David was the Editorial Director, Journals Policy for Oxford University Press. He oversaw journal policy across OUP’s journals program, drove technological innovation, and served as an information officer. David acquired and managed a suite of research society-owned journals with OUP, and before that was the Executive Editor for Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, where he created and edited new science books and journals, along with serving as a journal Editor-in-Chief. He has served on the Board of Directors for the STM Association, the Society for Scholarly Publishing and CHOR, Inc., as well as The AAP-PSP Executive Council. David received his PhD in Genetics from Columbia University and did developmental neuroscience research at Caltech before moving from the bench to publishing.

Discussion

11 Thoughts on "The Devil is in the Details, Specifically, Titivillus, the “Medieval Demon of Typos”"

He also steals single socks, leaving one useless and maddening sock behind. Although I contend that stealth Robert Goulet is far more insidious.

Language evolves, and although at times it seems contradictory, we say things like “hang up” and “dial” a phone that no longer hangs on a wall nor includes a dial (and by “phone” I mean the small computer one carries in one’s pocket that almost never gets used for making voice-only calls).

I guess the important question is, did you as a reader understand what was meant by the use of that term in the context above? And if not, I’m blaming it on Titivillus, as I originally meant to use a different word in that spot and clearly was forced into that error through demonic possession.

Just listened to the episode of The Allusionist suggested by a previous commenter above (Typo Demon; thanks Snowden!), and the podcasters go on to refer to the works of Titivillus as “handos”, thought it was brilliant.

I meant to write “Gutenberg”, but we must have summoned Titivillus with all this buzz!

Leave a Comment