Article Summary for Lecture # 3 - Russel

Hidden Wisdom and Unseen Treasure: Revisiting Cataloging in Medieval Libraries

Beth Russell in her article “Hidden Wisdom and Unseen Treasure: Revisiting Cataloging in Medieval Libraries”, addresses the challenges of medieval catalogers and summarizes recent research and discovery in the field of medieval libraries. There are no two medieval libraries alike. Since there was no consensus between library professionals regarding the categorization and organization of texts, each library had its own practice for cataloging materials. However, the struggles of medieval catalogers are not too foreign from those of modern catalogers. Both seek to provide easy access to materials for patrons, and that is in itself the core of library cataloging.

When trying to accommodate users, medieval librarians did not have national and international standards upon which to begin building their system, they only had the needs of their patrons to consider. Most early examples of library cataloging take place in monasteries, where the most basic type of classification for books is use. For example, liturgical or service books were stored near the chapel since their function was for use in the chapel. In some situations, specifically Durham Cathedral’s catalog 1391-1395, an iron grille divided stored books, the inner portion being restricted use and the outer portion accessible to any patron, or monk in the case of Durham.

However, once collections started to diversify, there were two collections stored in different rooms with different keys (e.g. Sorbonne’s magna libraria and libraria parva), which was likely due to both secular and religious texts acquired at universities. In the beginnings, chained volumes (pictured above) were not included in early catalogs, as they did not need to be kept track of. In terms of what kinds of information were found on cataloged items, catalogers would often assign letters of the alphabet to the volumes or gave detailed descriptions of the shelf where they could be found. In addition, catalogers would physically describe the books, the number of volumes, their size, and the completeness of the set (if applicable). For multiple copies, catalogers would distinguish each copy by description. Trinity Hall, Cambridge, for example, listed a duplicate as “magna et pulchra” (big and pretty), which would help distinguish it from another copy of the same text that was small and ragged.

Later in medieval times, catalogers would record the opening words of the first leaf in the volume as an organizational tool. This shows that even in medieval times, catalogers realized that distinguishing among copies was necessary for duplicates. As organization evolved, there was an acceptance of alphabetical order for subjects, which began as early as the twelfth century. However, Russell points out that there is the issue of cataloger bias, and uses Glastonbury Abbey as an example. At Glastonbury, books with “interesting” subjects or whose author was not illustrious were cataloged by subject, whereas works by famous authors were filed under that author’s name (with no mention of subject). In this case, the cataloger’s opinion and knowledge defines whether the topic is interesting enough to have a subject heading, or if the author is well known enough to be filed by name.

As should modern libraries, when the use of books changed and when the number of books in the collections increased, so did the catalog and the way in which things were cataloged. Russell comments that "modern catalogers struggling to meet local needs in a cooperative electronic environment can look for inspiration and for examples of ingenuity and invention, to our early colleagues in centuries past, who dealt with similar problems in organizing the knowledge in their care." I believe it is extremely important to learn from the past to aid in future decisions – those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We, as librarians, catalogers, and organizers of information need to be inspired by the ingenuity of past ages, and understand that change isn't a bad thing, in fact, it might be the best thing for your collection. 

Overall, Russell's article was very entertaining and insightful. The organization of the information within this article felt chronological, though I felt like there could be some sort of better organization to the examples of cataloging in medieval times. There are so many examples thrown out, it definitely puts into perspective the non-conformative nature of the medieval catalog, which may be what Russell was going for. I would recommend this article to medieval historians, library and information science professionals, and library enthusiasts alike. I agree with her assertation that we modern information specialists should take note of historical practices and inventiveness and never feel unable to adapt to new usage and new organization of our collections.

______________________________________________________________________

If you want more examples, be sure to check out the whole article (citation below)!

Russell, B.M. (1998). Hidden wisdom and unseen treasure: Revisiting cataloging in medieval libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 26(3):21-30.