ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION

Organization of information in European medieval monastic libraries Nyssa Walsh May 6, 2011 LI839XI: History of Libraries Emporia State University

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION Abstract This paper discusses European medieval libraries and their impact on modern library standards of cataloging, classification, organization, and service. A background on medieval libraries is provided to in order to provide context to a larger discussion of the cataloging systems from this time. Though the term catalog is a modern understanding of the inventory lists created in

monastic libraries, there are many similarities to be found when comparing them to modern ideas of organization.

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION Introduction

The study of library history is an examination of function, rather than form. A library is a flexible definition, even today. Some library catalogs show millions of items and others contain only a few hundred titles. Neither is more or less of a library, because they perform the same functions of access, service, and information. Modern standards in libraries can trace their origins back through the centuries. This paper examines the impact of medieval monastic collections on the formation of libraries as we know them today. Background to medieval library history The beginning of the medieval library begins with Europes break from Roman rule and the standardization of Christianity as Europes major religion (Guthrie, 2003, p. 452). Churches were growing up all around Europe and religious fervor was strong. With the rise of the church came the development of monks and the institution of monasteries. Monastic life was shaped by the writings of St Benedict of Nursia, a religious scholar who wrote The Rule of St Benedict, a guide for monks to lead a purposeful life of worship and study. Some scholars attribute libraries to Benedicts Rule, but in truth there were already libraries being built in major churches. The first is attributed to the basilica of St Lawrence, from the 5th century (Guthrie, 2003, p. 448). But Benedicts guide on the daily life of a monk would have influenced the practice of book collection in monasteries. From The Rule: During the days of Lent, they should be free in the morning to read until the third hour, after which they will work at their assigned tasks until the end of the tenth hour. During this time of Lent each one is to receive a book from the library, and

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION is to read the whole of it straight through. These books are to be distributed at the beginning of Lent (Rule of St Benedict, ch.XLVIII). As the quote includes a reference to a library, this quote is often used as proof for the

existence of libraries in monasteries. Benedicts Rule was highly influential on monastic life. The Benedictine order relied on his teachings in all aspects of their lives, and his dedication to learning and study was distinctive of the great monastic orders (Guthrie, 2003, p. 449). Monasteries were a natural location for libraries. The rise of Christianity in the 4th century spurred an interest in religious texts and monasteries were natural storehouses for large collections of books, being the places where the books were in highest demand as well as the location where most copies of the texts were being created. As the printing press had not yet been invented, libraries didnt include books as we know them to be. The collections consisted of manuscripts, hand copied by the monks in scriptoria. There are records that show a monk was expected to contribute a codex to the monasteries library each time he progressed to a new level in his studies (Jackson, 1967, p. 191). This practice of copying texts so each library could have a copy of the books required for reading and study was very important to the preservation of many works of literature that would have otherwise been lost to time (Humphreys, 1989, p. 5). Libraries varied from monastery to monastery, and the collections grew and developed across the centuries. Their collections were modest according to modern standards (some could boast over 600 titles, while smaller monasteries only had a few dozen) and were mainly religion based (Guthrie, 2003, p. 452). Scripture was expected, as well as writings by the church fathers, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, and Ambrose (Humphreys, 1989, p. 6). Augustine in particular recommended the importance of balanced learning (Jackson, 1967, p. 195). Though religious

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION

writings were the most important and necessary texts for monastic study, libraries often included a wide variety of subjects. The quadrivium as outlined by Boethiuss work, The Consolation of Philosophy, was recognized in many libraries. He outlined knowledge beyond the scripture as a group of seven liberal arts, the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music) (Scrivner, 1980, p. 437). Some libraries had medical texts, histories, and even poetry (Humphreys, 1989, p. 6). Late in the 13th century Greek texts were coming back into fashion and Aristotles works on philosophy and logic were to be found among some (more open-minded) monastic collections (Humphreys, 1989, p. 9). Even though there was recognition of other topics in monastic libraries, the largest part of the collection was always dedicated to religious texts. From the earliest records found of monastic libraries, the collections have always been unbalanced in favor of scripture and writing about scripture (Scrivner, 1980, p. 433). But this tendency to consider these collections unbalanced is decidedly modern. These libraries were built to facilitate study and learning in religious topics and this was the need they filled. Their collections are comparable to our conception of special libraries that contain collections that are specifically developed for the people using them (Olle, 1971). For example, no one would expect a modern law library to include a dedicated fiction section. Monastic libraries were unique from larger libraries of history because they were solely for the use of the monks and therefore followed the same rules the monks used to rule their lives: order, study, and worship (Guthrie, 2003, p.451). The period of the European medieval library is usually recognized from the years 500 to 1200 (Guthrie, p. 2003, 461). The 13th century showed a great deal of change in the European understanding of religion and study. Universities were beginning to grow in the 12th century and the nature of the monastic libraries was changing. Monastic libraries became larger and the

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION desire for more information led to the development of more detailed collections. Friars started using the university libraries for further research beyond the words of the religious fathers, and students began visiting the monastic libraries that were still some of the largest collections of manuscripts and codices (Humphreys, 1989, p. 13). As the age of enlightenment began, the Reformation established Protestantism as the primary religion and the monasteries were dissolved (Guthrie, 2003, p. 461). Their collections were given over to universities as general knowledge beyond strict religious study became standard. Catalogs, Classification, and the Organization of Information The monastic libraries span more than seven centuries through library history and in this time they created many processes and practices that can still be seen in libraries today-albeit in very different forms. The one most often recognized is the library catalog. The first library

catalogs are seen from the 8th century and though they varied widely is style and format from the 8th to the 13th century, these catalogs were rarely more than a basic list of the books included in the monasteries collections. Some are hesitant to compare these lists to modern cataloging systems. According to Ruth French Strout, the term catalog has varied ever since its first usage. It is derived from the Greek phrase kata logos. Kata means by or according to and logos has been translated with various meanings. Sometimes it means word, sometimes order, sometimes reason. Any of these definitions can be meaningful when using them to describe a catalog, for example, according to reason or order. (Strout, 1956, p. 254). For the purposes of discussing library catalogs, I believe using the word to mean, according to order is appropriate. Thus, the problem many researchers have in using the word concerning medieval libraries.

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION Monastic libraries often required an inventory of their collections. For smaller libraries with only a few volumes lists werent needed, but in libraries with hundreds of texts to account for, these lists were necessary. Some scholars argue that they were never intended for any usage besides inventory. Often they were titled inventorium and included everything inside the library including candlesticks and vestments (Jackson, 1967, p. 193). Beth Russell claims that the desire for monastic libraries to be more closely related with modern libraries causes researchers to draw conclusions that dont exist based on our own understandings and uses of catalogs (1998). True, their catalogs do not hold up to our standards of organization, but just as the monastic libraries are far removed from modern libraries, so too are their catalogs (Guthrie,

2003, p. 448). Both are examples of early developments in library history that would inform later generations. Early academic catalogs resembled their monastic forbears, so I choose to refer to these booklists as catalogs. In order to understand these catalogs, it is important to understand how they were used and who used them. The librarians of this time (often called by many names, armarius, precentor, custos liborum, but in the interest of clarity, we will stick with the common name of librarian) were single monks designated to represent their monastery (Jackson, 1967). As these books were vital for the life of a monk, his position was important to the function of a monastery. His duties were outlined in the Rule of St Benedict to care for the books in the library and maintain their quality (Guthrie, 2003, p. 450). As mentioned in the Rule he was in charge of loaning books to other monks for their studies (Jackson, 1967, p. 191). Just as in modern libraries there were strict loaning rules. Borrowers were limited to two books at a time, and certain texts that were important to the library-scripture, or anything extremely rare-could only be loaned with

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION

permission from the abbot (Jackson, 1967, p. 194). These rules only applied to monks who lived in the monastery at first, but later these rules would change. Each book was a unique piece of literature and the only way for a monastery to add a title to their library was to make a copy, thus necessitating inter-monastery loans. This could be a risky undertaking when considering that each book was a priceless, irreplaceable work of art. So books were inscribed with curses to ward off theft, even monks from inside the monastery were required to write a pledge to return the book (Jackson, 1967, p.194). These curses warned of death and eternal suffering, but also the threat of excommunication should a book not be returned in the same condition as it was lent (Guthrie, 2003, p.450). Yet still theft continued. There is evidence that libraries would borrow a text but return the copy instead of the original. This was discovered because many books included references to the original scribe or scriptorium, as a means of identifying to which library the book belonged (Jackson, 1967, p. 192). This loose tendency towards borrowing (despite excommunication) necessitated the catalog. A modern librarian would have difficulty finding anything in a monastic library with only these basic catalogs as her guide. As Buford Scrivner so aptly puts it, the attention to detail in these early catalogs was not especially rigorous (1980, p. 443). The early lists (and many of the later lists as well) were only intended to keep track of the items that a library owned. Only the most basic information needed to identify the work was included. Title and author were given, if this information was known. If unknown the first few words of the text were written instead. Physical descriptions were sometimes included, though the descriptions were not always useful. One such example describes a book simply as large (Russell, 1998, p. 24). But the descriptions could be of use when describing an item on loam to another library to ensure the proper version was returned (Christ, 1984). There is no record of standardization among library

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION catalogs from this time, either from a surviving example, or from any discernible evidence. In fact many catalogs included instructions for use, which was practical as all libraries used their catalogs in a different way (Russell, 1998). No two catalogs were the same, and none used the same classification systems. Some listed authors as subject headings, although this did not guarantee that books listed under that category were written by that author (Scrivner, 1980, p.434). The size of library was no indication of the comprehensiveness or authenticity of the catalog (Strout, 1956, p. 259). Often several works could be combined into one volume, but the catalogs would only list the first

author or title found in the work, sometimes with the note cum multis aliis (with many others), though more often than not they were simply left unidentified (Russell, 1998, p. 26). These early catalogs show evidence of many standards that have survived into modern catalogs. Some catalogs included a call number indicating the books placement on the shelves (Jackson, 1967, p. 188). Though alphabetization and organization according to subject matter did not exist, there was a semblance of organization in monastic libraries. Regardless of the subject matter the items were organized according to function: books that were used more often were kept on shelves; books that didnt leave the library were kept chained to the desks. Scripture was kept separate from choral texts, and both were kept away from the books that could be lent (Scrivner, 1980, p. 434). In this way there was a basic organizational scheme that was relevant to the librarys order, as dictated by how the monks used the items. This general idea has translated into modern cataloging standards. Call numbers are assigned to books both to indicate subject headings, and to show their relation on the shelves to similar subjects. The monastic concept of using call numbers to indicate their place on the shelves is not dissimilar from our own method of assigning a shelving order in relation to other, similar books. Both are geographical in nature

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION (Guthrie, 2003, p. 454). Some catalogs included the call number in the description of the book, but it was much later, as monasteries starting allowing students into the libraries, that catalogs began to be used as a finding aid (Scrivner, 1980, p. 433).

10

The arrangement of books on the shelves was rarely indicative of subject matter, but the organizational structure of these early catalogs shows that monks were classifying knowledge under subject headings, similarly to the way we classify information today (Scrivner, 1980, p.435). The most obvious order was a simple hierarchical structure that was shared by nearly every extant medieval catalog, listing scripture first and foremost. Then came writings by the fathers of the church, secular after sacred (Jackson, 1967, p.193). More subject headings became necessary as the libraries grew in the 13th and 14th centuries to accommodate for the addition of more instructional texts (medical, historical, rhetorical) (Humphreys, 1990). There was suddenly a need to distinguish between reason and faith (Jackson, 1967). One highly detailed catalog from this time designated letters to the subject heading, A was assigned to biblical literature (Humphreys, 1990). Organizational styles are expected for monks of this period. According to St Benedicts Rule they led a very structured existence, it was only natural this tendency would inform other aspects of their lives. According to Buford Scrivner fields of knowledge can be seen to have been discriminated and disposed into rough hierarchical structures, but as most collections were fewer than 1000 works, it wasnt necessary to be too specific (1980) Conclusion Although the function and form of the medieval library differs wildly from our modern conceptions of what libraries should be, there are many similarities. Guthrie identifies

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION

11

classification as one of the most fundamental of human instincts (2003, p.453). As humans we tend to organize our information hierarchically, identifying authority in all aspects of our lives. It is only expected that the monks would share these characteristics. To this day our own classification standards reflect the monks: in both the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress Classification System, the two most commonly used classification standards in America, biblical literature is placed at the top of the list, in the highest ranks of the hierarchy (Guthrie, 2003, p.462). The medieval libraries may not have resembled our modern libraries and their standards are so far removed from our own that they are almost incomparable. Yet in the organizational aspects we see that use dictated function, which is a vital aspect to modern library science. These monastic libraries existed to fill the needs of the users both in information and mode of access. These are lessons that we are constantly trying to answer in todays libraries. How can we make our libraries more accessible? What services can we provide that will meet the needs of our users? These concepts are still an important part of our work and remembering the monastic libraries can be an inspiration on standardization and the desire to constantly improve.

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION References Christ, K. (1984). Handbook of medieval library history. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press.

12

Guthrie II, L.S. (2003). Monastic cataloging and classification and the beginnings of class B at the Library of Congress. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 35(3), 447465.Humphreys, Humphreys, K.W. (1989). The effects of thirteenth-century cultural changes on libraries. Libraries & Culture, 5-20. Humphreys, K.W. (Ed.). (1990). The friars' libraries. London: British Library in association with the British Academy. Jackson, S.L. (1967). Twelfth century in the west, its libraries and Hugh of St. Victors classification of knowledge. The Journal of Library History, 2(3), 185-200. Olle, J.G. (1971). Library history. Hamden, Conn: Archon Books. Russell, B.M. (1998). Hidden wisdom and unseen treasure: Revisiting cataloging in medieval libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 26(3), 21-30. Savage, E. A. (1912). Old English libraries : the making, collection, and use of books during the middle ages. London: Meuthen & Co. Scrivner, B. (1980). Carolingian monastic library catalogs and medieval classification of knowledge. The Journal of Library History, 15(4), 427-444. Strout, R.F. (1956). The development of the catalog and cataloging codes. The Library Quarterly, 26(4), 254-75.

ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION

13