Russell, Beth M. “Hidden Wisdom and Unseen Treasure: Revisiting Cataloging in Medieval Libraries.”
According to Russell, medieval libraries are overlooked in cataloging history, with innovations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries being library literature’s predominant focus. She argues that cataloging history should be seen as more of a linear progression, with medieval cataloging included because of problems that catalogers faced and solutions they devised. Indeed, Russell claims medieval catalogers are comparable to modern catalogers given the similar organizational challenges confronted by both groups.
Overall, Russell evaluates how medieval libraries attempted to catalog materials. Most cataloging occurred in a monastery or cathedral, before shifting into the university in the later medieval period. Neither single-system cataloging standards nor general cataloging theories existed; therefore, medieval cataloging was centered at the institutional level and catalogs were unique to their specific locations. As Russell states, “medieval librarians were driven by utilitarian needs to develop cataloging practices that would work in their particular situations.” The primary goal was to provide access to local titles, but over time and with increasing collections and growing research needs, catalogs increased in sophistication.
Russell discusses different medieval cataloging methods created to organize or classify titles. The inventory catalog’s main function was to identify titles in a collection rather than providing detailed descriptions. Differing physical storage location was a key component of cataloging; for example, liturgical books were kept near the chapel. University libraries, including the Sorbonne, divided books based upon whether they were limited or wide circulation, housing them in separate rooms with individual access keys. Medieval catalogers could precisely indicate location through shelf lists and by assigning letters to volumes. Sometimes collections were physically described, varying from “big and pretty” in a Cambridge catalog to Cistercian documents detailing book material and binding. Russell equates medieval and current cataloging, noting that some later medieval catalogs contained the opening words of titles in their collections to distinguish between multiple copies of the same text.
As library collections grew and furthermore secularized at universities, catalogs evolved to better meet access needs. Russell suggests that medieval catalogs correlate to modern counterparts due to their adoption of alphabetically-based subject cataloging, although the medieval notion of subject categories was restricted. Medieval cataloging was not without problems, namely composite volumes bound together because of shared authors, corresponding subjects, or like value. Some catalogs listed the first title in composite volumes while others listed each individual text within. In contrast, the Sorbonne’s cataloger created a master analytic catalog, making a table which charted bound volume contents including titles and opening lines and thus led to individual text location. Russell feels “this is a strong argument against the claim that later catalogs were more sophisticated than earlier documents.” She concludes that modern catalogers can gain examples of innovative practice from medieval catalogers.
Russell’s article taught me that, even in medieval times, users were at the center of the catalog format. Medieval catalogers needed to know “how to let users of the library know what was in the books” of their collections. Interestingly, medieval cataloging problems, such as multiple editions, persist into the present. I now appreciate the level of organization and ease of access I experience when in a library. Yet, Russell presents her argument with narrow evidence, especially given the few libraries referenced in the article. Admittedly, researching medieval catalogs is hindered by a lack of surviving sources. While she did not address this divergence, users of medieval libraries were privileged persons in their respective societies and the concept of access was markedly different from modern libraries’ user policies. Finally, Russell claims that revisiting medieval cataloging is her own special insight and I was curious as to whether other scholarship corroborates her thesis.
southernscholastic 