Bibliomania in the Middle Ages | Page 9

probably
have contained nearly double that number of distinct works. I have seen
MSS. formerly belonging to monasteries, which have been catalogued
in this way, containing four or five others, besides the one mentioned.
Designed rather to identify the book than to describe the contents of
each volume, they wrote down the first word or two of the second
leaf--this was the most prevalent usage; but they often adopted other
means, sometimes giving a slight notice of the works which a volume
contained; others took the precaution of noting down the last word of
the last leaf but one,[17] a great advantage, as the monkish student
could more easily detect at a glance whether the volume was perfect.
The armarian was, moreover, particularly enjoined to inspect with
scrupulous care the more ancient volumes, lest the moth-worms should
have got at them, or they had become corrupt or mutilated, and, if such
were the case, he was with great care to restore them. Probably the
armarian was also the bookbinder to the monastery in ordinary cases,
for he is here directed to cover the volumes with tablets of wood, that
the inside may be preserved from moisture, and the parchment from the
injurious effects of dampness. The different orders of books were to be
kept separate from one another, and conveniently arranged; not
squeezed too tight, lest it should injure or confuse them, but so placed
that they might be easily distinguished, and those who sought them
might find them without delay or impediment.[18] Bibliomaniacs have
not been remarkable for their memory or punctuality, and in the early
times the borrower was often forgetful to return the volume within the
specified time. To guard against this, many rules were framed, nor was
the armarian allowed to lend the books, even to neighboring
monasteries, unless he received a bond or promise to restore them
within a certain time, and if the person was entirely unknown, a book
of equal value was required as a security for its safe return. In all cases
the armarian was instructed to make a short memorandum of the name

of the book which he had lent or received. The "great and precious
books" were subject to still more stringent rules, and although under the
conservation of the librarian, he had not the privilege of lending them
to any one without the distinct permission of the abbot.[19] This was,
doubtless, practised by all the monastic libraries, for all generously lent
one another their books. In a collection of chapter orders of the prior
and convent of Durham, bearing date 1235, it is evident that a similar
rule was observed there, which they were not to depart from except at
the desire of the bishop.[20] According to the constitutions for the
government of the Abingdon monastery, the library was under the care
of the Cantor, and all the writings of the church were consigned to his
keeping. He was not allowed to part with the books or lend them
without a sufficient deposit as a pledge for their safe return, except to
persons of consequence and repute.[21] This was the practice at a much
later period. When that renowned bibliomaniac, Richard de Bury, wrote
his delightful little book called Philobiblon, the same rules were strictly
in force. With respect to the lending of books, his own directions are
that, if any one apply for a particular volume, the librarian was to
carefully consider whether the library contained another copy of it; if so,
he was at liberty to lend the book, taking care, however, that he
obtained a security which was to exceed the value of the loan; they
were at the same time to make a memorandum in writing of the name
of the book, and the nature of the security deposited for it, with the
name of the party to whom it was lent, with that of the officer or
librarian who delivered it.[22]
We learn by the canons before referred to, that the superintendence of
all the writing and transcribing, whether in or out of the monastery,
belonged to the office of the armarian, and that it was his duty to
provide the scribes with parchment and all things necessary for their
work, and to agree upon the price with those whom he employed. The
monks who were appointed to write in the cloisters he supplied with
copies for transcription; and that no time might be wasted, he was to
see that a good supply was kept up. No one was to give to another what
he himself had been ordered to write, or presume to do anything by his
own will or inclination. Nor was it seemly that the armarian even
should give any orders for transcripts to be made without first receiving

the permission of his