The persistent labour given by these monkish chroniclers to works, the

interest and importance of which were largely outside the routine of

their home monasteries and had in many cases no direct connection with

religious observances, indicates that they were looking to a larger

circle of readers than could be secured within the walls of their

own homes. While the evidences concerning the arrangements for the

circulation of these chronicles are at best but scanty, the inference

is fairly to be drawn that through the interchange of books between the

libraries of the monasteries, by means of the services of travelling

monks, and in connection with the educational work of the majority of

the monasteries, there came to be, as early as the ninth century, a

very general circulation of the long series of chronicles among the

scholarly readers of Europe. Even the literary style in which the

majority of the chronicles were written gives evidence that the writers

were addressing themselves, not to one locality or to restricted

circles of readers, but to the world as they knew it, and that they

also had an assured confidence in the preservation of their work for

the service and information of future generations. The historian

Stenzel (himself a Protestant) points out that these monkish historians

wrote under certain exceptional advantages which secured for their work

a larger amount of impartiality and of accuracy of statement than could

safely be depended upon with, for instance, what might be called Court

chronicles, that is to say, histories which were the work of writers

attached to the Courts. The monks, said Stenzel, in daring to speak the

truth of those in power, had neither family nor property to endanger,

and their writings, prepared under the eye of their monastic superiors

and under the sovereign protection of the Church, escaped at once the

coercion or the influence of contemporary rulers and the dangers of

flattery for immediate popular appreciation.[78] In the same strain,

Montalembert contends that the literary monks worked neither for gain

nor for fame, but simply for the glory of God. They wrote amidst the

peace and freedom of the cloister in all the candour and sincerity of

their minds. Their only ambition was to be faithful interpreters of

the teaching which God gives to men in history by reminding them of

the ruin of the proud, the exaltation of the humble, and the terrible

certainty of eternal judgment. He goes on to say that if princes and

nobles never wearied of founding, endowing, and enriching monasteries,

neither did the monks grow weary of chronicling the services and the

exploits of their benefactors, in order to transmit these to posterity.

Thus did they pay to the Catholic chivalry a just debt of gratitude.[79]

This pious opinion of Montalembert is a little naïve in its expression

when taken in connection with his previous conclusion that the records

of the monks could be trusted implicitly for candour, sincerity, and

impartiality. It is difficult to avoid the impression that in recording

the deeds of the noble leaders of their time, the monks would naturally

have given at least a full measure of attention and praise to those

nobles who had been the greatest benefactors to their Order or to

the particular monastery of the writer. The converse may also not

unnaturally be assumed. If a monarch, prince, or noble leader should be

neglectful of the claims of the monastery within his realm, if there

might be ground to suspect the soundness of his faith to the Catholic

Church, or doubt in regard to the adequacy of his liberality to his

ecclesiastical subjects, it is probable that his exploits in war or in

other directions were minimised or unrecorded. It is safe to assume

also that after the Reformation, the Protestant side of the long series

of complicated contests could hardly have been presented by the monkish

chroniclers with perfect impartiality. Bearing in mind, however, how

many personal influences may have operated to impair the accuracy and

the impartiality of these chroniclers, they are certainly entitled to

a full measure of appreciation for the inestimable service rendered by

them in the long ages in which, outside of the monasteries, there were

no historians. It seems also to have been the case that with many of

the monks who devoted the larger portion of their lives to literary

work, their ambition and ideals as authors overshadowed any petty

monkish zeal for their Order or their monastery, and that it was their

aim to present the events of their times simply as faithful historians.

An example of this high standard of work is presented by Ordericus

Vitalis, who, as an English monk in a Norman abbey,[80] was able to

say: “I will describe the revolutions of England and of Normandie

without flattery to any, for I expect my reward neither from the

victors nor the vanquished.”[81]

=The Work of the Scriptorium.=--The words employed at the consecration

of the _scriptorium_ are evidence of the spirit in which the devout

scholars approached their work: _Benedicere digneris, Domine, hoc

scriptorium famulorum tuorum, ut quidquid scriptum fuerit, sensu

capiant, opere perficiant_. (Vouchsafe, O Lord, to bless this work-room

of Thy servants, that they may understand and may put in practice all

they write.)[82]

Louis IX. took the ground that it was better to transcribe books than

to purchase the originals, because in this way the mass of books

available for the community was increased. Louis was, however, speaking

only of religious literature; he could not believe that the world would

be benefited by any distribution of the works of profane writers.

Ziegelbauer is in accord with Montalembert and others in giving to

the Benedictines of Iceland the credit for the collections made of

the Eddas and for the preservation of the principal traditions of the

Scandinavian mythology. He also confirms the conclusion arrived at

by the Catholic historians generally, that the literary monuments of

Greece and Rome which escaped the devastation of the barbarians were

saved by the monks and by them alone. He cites, as a few examples from

the long list of classics that were thus preserved, five books of the

_Annals_ of Tacitus, found at Corbie; the treatise of Lactantius on

the _Death of Persecutors_, preserved at Moissac; the _Auluraria_ of

Plautus, and the _Commentaries_ of Servius on Virgil, preserved in

Fleury; the _Republic_ of Cicero, found in the library of Fleury in the

tenth century, etc.[83]

In confirmation of the statement that the classics were by no

means neglected by the earlier monastery collectors, Montalembert

cites Alcuin, who enumerated among the books in his library at York

the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Pliny, Virgil, Statius, Lucan, and

Trogus Pompeïus. A further reference to this library will be found

in the chapter on the Monastery Schools. In Alcuin’s correspondence

with Charlemagne, he quotes Ovid, Horace, Terence, and Cicero, and

acknowledges that in his youth he had been more moved by the tears

of Dido than by the Psalms of David.[84] Loup de Ferrières speaks

of having borrowed from his friends the treatise _De Oratore_ of

Cicero, a _Commentary on Terence_, the works of Quintilian, Sallust,

and Suetonius. He says further that he was occupying himself in

correcting the text of the oration of Cicero against Verres, and that

of Macrobius.[85] Abbot Didier of Monte Cassino, who later became

Pope, succeeding Gregory VII., had transcripts made by his monks of

the works of Horace and Seneca, of several treatises of Cicero, and

of the _Fasti_ of Ovid.[86] S. Anselm, Abbot of Bec in the time of

Gregory VII., recommends to his pupils the careful study of Virgil and

of other profane writers, “omitting the licentious passages.” _Exceptis

his in quibus aliqua turpitudo sonat._[87] It is not clear what method

the abbot proposed to have pursued in regard to the selection of the

passages to be eliminated. It is hardly probable that at this time

there had been prepared, either for the use of the monks or of any

other readers, anything in the form of expurgated editions. S. Peter

Damian seems to have expressed the true mind of an important group

at least of the churchmen of his time, when he referred to the study

of pagan writers. He says: “To study poets and philosophers for the

purpose of rendering the wit more keen and better fitted to penetrate

the mysteries of the Divine Word, is to spoil the Egyptians of their

treasures in order to build a tabernacle for God.[88]”

Montalembert is of opinion, from his study of monastic history in

France, that, at least during the eleventh and twelfth centuries,

classic writers were probably more generally known and more generally

appreciated than at the present day. He points out that the very fact

of the existence of various ordinances and instructions intended to

repress any intemperate devotion to the pagan writers is sufficient

evidence of the extent of the interest in or passion for pagan

literature. He cites among other rulers of the Church who issued

protests or cautions against pagan literature, S. Basil, S. Jerome,

S. Gregory, S. Radbert, S. Peter Damian, Lanfranc, etc., etc.[89] In

the _Customs of Clugni_, there is a curious passage prescribing the

different signs that were to be used in asking for books during the

hours of silence, which indicates at once the frequency of these pagan

studies, and also the grade of esteem in which they ought to be held

by the faithful monk. The general rule, when asking for any book,

was to extend the hand, making motions similar to those of turning

over the leaves. In order, however, to indicate a pagan work, a monk

was directed to scratch his ear as a dog does, because, says the

regulation, unbelievers may well be compared to that animal.[90]

As before indicated, the work of transcribing manuscripts was held

under the monastic rules to be a full equivalent of manual labour in

the fields. The Rule of S. Ferreol, written in the sixth century, says

that, “He who does not turn up the earth with the plough ought to write

the parchment with his fingers.”[91] It is quite possible that for

men of the Middle Ages, who had little fondness for a sedentary life,

work in the _scriptorium_ may have been a more exacting task than work

that could be carried on out-of-doors. There were no fires in the cells

of the monks, and in many portions of Europe the cold during certain

months of the year must, in the long hours of the day and night, have

been severe. Montalembert quotes a monk of St. Gall who, on a corner of

one of the beautiful manuscripts prepared in that abbey, has left the

words: “He who does not know how to write imagines it to be no labour,

but although these fingers only hold the pen, the whole body grows

weary.” It became, therefore, natural enough to use this kind of labour

as a penitential exercise.[92] Othlo, a monk of Tegernsee, who was born

in 1013, has left an enumeration of the work of his pen which makes

it difficult to understand how years enough had been found for such

labour. The list includes nineteen missals, written and illuminated

with his own hand, the production of which, he tells us, nearly cost

him his eyesight.[93]

Dietrich or Theodoric, the first Abbot of St. Evroul (1050-1057), who

was himself a skilled scribe (_Ipse manu propria scribendo volumina

plura_), and who desired to incite his monks to earnest work as

writers, related to them the story of a worldly and sinful Brother,

who, notwithstanding his frivolities, was a zealous scribe, and who

had, in industrious moments, written out an enormous folio volume

containing religious instruction. When he died, the devil claimed his

soul. The angels, however, brought before the throne of judgment the

great book, and for each letter therein written, pardon was given for

one sin, and behold, when the count was completed, there was one letter

over; and, says Dietrich naïvely, it was a very big book. Thereupon,

judgment was given that the soul of the monk should be permitted

again to enter his body, in order that he might go through a period of

penance on earth.[94]

In the monastery of Wedinghausen, near Arnsberg in Westphalia, there

was a skilled and zealous scribe named Richard, an Englishman, who

spent many years in adding to the library of the institution. Twenty

years after his death, when the rest of his body had crumbled into

dust, the right hand, with which this holy work had been accomplished,

was found intact, and has since been preserved under the altar as a

holy relic.[95]

There has been more or less discussion as to whether in the

_scriptoria_, it was the practice for monks to write at dictation.

Knittel[96] takes the ground that the larger portion of the work was

done so slowly, and probably with such a different degree of rapidity

on the part of the different scribes, that it would have been as

impracticable for it to have been prepared under dictation as it would

be to do copper engraving under dictation. Ebert,[97] confirming

Knittel’s conclusions, points out that when works were needed in haste,

it was probably arranged to divide up the sheets to be copied among

a number of scribes. He finds evidence of this arrangement of the

work in a number of manuscripts, the different portions of which, put

together under one cover, are evidently the work of different hands.

Wattenbach specifies manuscripts in which not only are the different

pages in different script, but the divisions have been written with

varying arrangements of space; in some cases the space, which had

been left for an interpolated chapter having evidently been wrongly

measured, so that the script of such interpolated chapter had to be

crowded together instead of having the same spacing as that of the

body of the work. Sickel presents examples of the letters of Alcuin

which are evidently the work of a number of scribes. Each began his

work with a new letter, and where, at the end of the divisions, leaves

remained free, other letters were later written in. In the later Middle

Ages, however, there is evidence of writing at dictation, and this

practice began to obtain more generally as the results of the work of

the scribes came to have commercial value. When the work of preparing

manuscripts was transferred from the monasteries to the universities,

dictation became the rule, and individual copying the exception. West

finds evidence that as early as the time of Alcuin, the monks trained

by him or in his schools, wrote from dictation. “In the intervals

between the hours of prayer and the observance of the round of cloister

life, come hours for the copying of books under the presiding direction

of Alcuin. The young monks file into the _scriptorium_ and one of them

is given the precious parchment volume containing a work of Bede or

Isidore or Augustine, or else some portion of the Latin Scriptures, or

even a heathen author. He reads slowly and clearly at a measured rate

while all the others, seated at their desks, take down his words; thus

perhaps a score of copies are made at once. Alcuin’s observant eye

watches each in turn and his correcting hand points out the mistakes in

orthography and punctuation. The master of Charles the Great, in that

true humility that is the charm of his whole behaviour, makes himself

the writing-master of his monks, stooping to the drudgery of faithfully

and gently correcting many puerile mistakes, and all for the love of

studies and for the love of Christ. Under such guidance and deeply

impressed by the fact that in the copying of a few books they were

saving learning and knowledge from perishing, and thereby offering a

service most acceptable to God, the copying in the _scriptorium_ went

on in sobriety from day to day. Thus were produced those improved

copies of books which mark the beginning of a new age in the conserving

and transmission of learning. Alcuin’s anxiety in this regard was

not undue, for the few monasteries where books could be accurately

transcribed were as necessary for publication in that time as are the

great publishing houses to-day.”[98]

Among the monasteries which, as early as the time of Charlemagne,

developed special literary activity, was that of S. Wandrille, where

the Abbot Gerwold (786-806) instituted one of the earlier schools of

the empire. A priest named Harduin took charge of this school. He

was said to be _in hac arte non mediocriter doctus_. It was further

stated that, _plurima ecclesiæ nostræ proprio sudore conscripta

reliquit volumina, id est volumen quatuor evangeliorum Romana litera

scriptum_.[99] (He had left for one church many books written by the

sweat of his brow, that is to say, a volume of the four Evangelists

written in the “Roman letter.”) This expression, _litera Romana_,

occurs frequently in the monastery chronicles and appears to indicate

the uncial script. The _scriptorium_ of St. Gall, in which was done

some of the most elaborate or important of the earlier literary work

of the monks, is frequently referred to in the chronicles of the

monasteries. Another important _scriptorium_ was that in the monastery

of Tournai, which, under the rule of the Abbot Odo, won for itself

great fame, so that its manuscripts were sought by the Fathers of the

Church far and wide, for the purpose of correcting by them copies with

less scholarly authority.[100]

The work of the scribes was not always voluntary; there is evidence

that it was not unfrequently imposed as a penance. In a codex from

Lorch[101] occur after the words, _Jacob scripsit_, written in by

another hand, the lines: _Quandam partem hujus libri non spontanea

voluntate, sed coactus, compedibus constrictus sicut oportet vagum

atque fugitivum vincire_.[102] (Jacob wrote ... a certain portion of

this book not of his own free will but under compulsion, bound by

fetters, just as a runaway and fugitive has to be bound.)

The aid of the students in the monastery schools was not

unfrequently called in. Fromund of Tegernsee wrote under a codex:

_Cœpi hunc libellum, sed pueri nostri quos docui, meo juvamine

perscripserunt_.[103] (I began this book, but the students whom I

taught, finished transcribing it with my help.)

The monk who was placed in charge of the _armarium_ was called

the _armarius_, and upon him fell the responsibility of providing

the writing materials, of dividing the work, and probably also of

preserving silence while the work was going on, and of reprimanding

the writers of careless or inaccurate script. In some monasteries the

_armarius_ must also have been the librarian, and, in fact, as much of

the work done in the writing-room was for the filling up of the gaps in

the library, it would be natural enough for the librarian to have the

planning of it. It was also the librarian, who, being in correspondence

with the custodians of the libraries of other monasteries, was best

able to judge what work would prove of service in securing new books

in exchange for duplicates of those in his own monastery. Upon the

_librarius_ or _armarius_, or both, fell the responsibility of securing

the loans of the codices of which copies were to be made. On such loans

it was usually necessary to give security in the shape of pledges

either of other manuscripts or of property apart from manuscripts.

The scribes were absolved from certain of the routine of the monastery

work. They were called into the fields or gardens only at the time of

harvest, or in case of special need. They had also the privilege of

visiting the kitchen, in order to polish their writing tablets, to melt

their wax, and to dry their parchment.[104]

The custom of reading at meals, while a part of the usual monastic

routine, was by no means confined to the monasteries. References to the

use of books at the tables of the more scholarly noblemen are found as

early as the time of Charlemagne. Eginhart records that Charlemagne

himself while at supper was accustomed to listen to histories and the

deeds of ancient kings. He delighted also in the books of S. Augustine

and especially in the _Civitate Dei_.[105]

In England, after the Norman conquest, there was for a time a cessation

of literary work in the Saxon monasteries. The Norman ecclesiastics,

however, in taking possession of certain of the older monasteries

and instituting also new monasteries of their own, carried on the

production of manuscripts with no less zeal. One of the most important

centres of literary activity in England was the monastery of St.

Albans, where the Abbot Paul secured, about the year 1100, funds

for instituting a _scriptorium_, and induced some wealthy friends

to present some valuable codices for the first work of the scribes.

As the monks at that time in St. Albans were not themselves skilled

in writing, Paul brought scribes from a distance, and, through the

liberality of his friends, secured funds by which they were paid daily

wages, and were able to work undisturbed. It would appear from this

description that some at least among these scribes were not themselves

monks.

In the thirteenth century, Matthew Paris compiled his chronicles,

the writing in which appears to have been, for the greater part at

least, done by his own hand, but at this time, in a large proportion

of the literary work carried on in the English monasteries, the

transcribing was done by paid scribes. This, however, was much less

the case in the Continental monasteries. In Corbie, towards the latter

half of the century, there is a record of zealous writing on the part

of a certain Brother Nevelo. Nevelo tells us that he had a penance to

work off for a grave sin, and that he was allowed to do this by work

in the _scriptorium_.[106] During this century, the monasteries of

the Carthusians were particularly active in their literary work, but

this work was limited almost entirely to theological and religious

undertakings. An exception is presented in the chronicles of the

Frisian monk Emo. While Emo was still a school-boy, he gave the hours

which his companions employed in play, to mastering penmanship and the

art of illuminating. Later, he was, with his brother Addo, a student in

the schools in Paris, Orleans, and Oxford, and while in these schools,

in addition to their work as students, they gave long hours of labour,

extending sometimes through the entire night, to the transcribing of

chronicles and to the preparation of copies of the so-called heathen

literature.

Emo was the first abbot of the monastery in Wittewierum (1204-1237),

and it is recorded that the abbot, while his brothers were sleeping,

devoted his nights to the writing and illuminating of the choir books.

In this monastery, Emo succeeded in bringing together in the _armarium

librorum_ an important collection of manuscripts, and he took pains

himself to give instructions to the monks in their work as scribes.

The quaint monastic record entitled the _Customs of Clugni_ was written

by Ulrich, a monk of Clugni, some time between the years 1077 and 1093

at the request or under the instructions of William, Abbot of Hirschau.

This was the Abbot William extolled by Trithemius as having restored

the Order of S. Benedict, which had almost fallen into ruin in

Germany. Trithemius speaks of his having founded eight monasteries and

restored more than one hundred, and says that next to the reformation

wrought by the foundation and influence of Clugni, the work done by

Abbot William was the most important recorded in the annals of his

Order.

William trained twelve of his monks to be excellent writers, and to

these was committed the office of transcribing the Holy Scriptures

and the treatises of the Fathers. Besides these, there were in the

_scriptorium_ of Hirschau a large number of lesser scribes, who wrought

with equal diligence in the transcription of other books. In charge

of the _scriptorium_ was placed a monk “well versed in all kinds of

knowledge,” whose business it was to assign the task for each scribe

and to correct the mistakes of those who wrote negligently. William

was Abbot of Hirschau for twenty-two years, and during this time his

monks wrote a great many volumes, a large proportion of which were

distributed to supply the wants of other and more needy monasteries.

There was often difficulty, particularly in the less wealthy

monasteries, in securing the parchment required for their work. It is

evident from such account-books as have been preserved, that throughout

the whole of Europe, but particularly in the north of the Continent

and in England, parchment continued to be a very costly commodity

until quite late in the thirteenth century. It was not unnatural that,

as a result of this difficulty, the monastic scribes should, when

pressed for material, have occasionally utilised some old manuscript by

cleaning off the surface, for the purpose of making a transcript of the

Scriptures, of some saintly legend, or of any other religious work the

writing of which came within the range of their daily duty.

There has been much mourning on the part of the scholars over the

supposed value of precious classics which may thus have been

destroyed, or of which but scanty fragments have been preserved in

the lower stratum of the palimpsest. Robertson is particularly severe

upon the ignorant clumsiness of the monks in thus destroying, for the

sake of futile legends, so much of the great literature of the world.

Among other authors, Robertson quotes in this connection Montfaucon as

saying that the greater part of the manuscripts on parchment which he

had seen (those of an ancient date excepted), are written on parchment

from which some former treatise had been erased. Maitland, who is of

opinion that the destruction of ancient literature brought about by

the monks has been much overestimated, points out that Robertson has

not quoted Montfaucon correctly, the statement of the latter being

expressly limited to manuscripts written since the “twelfth century.”

It is Maitland’s belief that a large proportion of the palimpsests

or doubly written manuscripts which bear date during the twelfth,

thirteenth, or fourteenth centuries, represent, as far as they are

monastic at all, not monastery writings placed upon classic texts, but

monastery work replacing earlier works of the monastery _scriptoria_.

Partial confirmation of this view is the fact that so large an interest

was taken by monks in all parts of Europe in the preservation and

transcribing of such classical works as came into their hands. In fact,

as previously pointed out, the preservation of any fragments whatsoever

of classical literature is due to the intelligent care of the monks. To

the world outside of the monastery, the old-time manuscripts were, with

hardly an exception, little more than dirty parchments.

It seems probable that a great part of such scraping of old manuscripts

as was done was not due to the requirements of the legends or missals,

but was perpetrated in order to carry on the worldly business of

secular men. An indication of the considerable use of parchment for

business purposes, and of instances of what we should to-day call

its abuse, is the fact that, as late as the fourteenth and fifteenth

centuries, notaries were forbidden to practise until they had taken an

oath to use none but new parchment.[107]

The belief that the transcribing of good books was in itself a

protection against the wiles of the evil one, naturally added to the

feeling of regard in which the writer held his work, a feeling under

the influence of which it became not unusual to add at the close of the

manuscript an anathema against any person who should destroy or deface

it. A manuscript of St. Gall contains the following:

Auferat hunc librum nullus hinc omne per ævum

Cum Gallo partem quisquis habere cupit.[108]

[Let no one through all ages who wishes to have any part with Gallus

(the Saint or the Abbey) remove (or purloin) this book.]

In a Sacramentary of the ninth century given to St. Bénoît-sur-Loire,

the donor, having sent the volume as a present from across seas,

devotes to destruction like to that which came upon Judas, Ananias, and

Caiaphas any person who should remove the book from the monastery.[109]

In a manuscript of S. Augustine, now in the Bodleian Library is

written: “This book belongs to S. Mary of Robert’s Bridge; whosoever

shall steal it or sell it, or in any way alienate it from this house,

or mutilate it, let him be anathema maranatha. Amen.” A later owner

had found himself sufficiently troubled by this imprecation to write

beneath: “I, John, Bishop of Exeter, know not where the aforesaid house

is, nor did I steal this book, but acquired it in a lawful way.”[110]

In an exhortation to his monks, delivered in 1486, by John of

Trittenheim (or Trithemius), Abbot of Sponheim, the abbot, after

rebuking the monks for their sloth and negligence, goes on to say: “I

have diminished your labours out of the monastery, lest by working

badly you should only add to your sins; and have enjoined on you the

manual labour of writing and binding books.... There is, in my opinion,

no labour more becoming a monk than the writing of ecclesiastical

books, and preparing what is needful for others who write them, for

this holy labour will generally admit of being interrupted by prayer

and of watching for the food of the soul no less than of the body.

Need also urges us to labour diligently in writing books if we desire

to have at hand the means of usefully employing ourselves in spiritual

studies. For you will recall that all the library of this monastery,

which formerly was so fine and complete, had been dissipated, sold, and

made away with by the disorderly monks before us, so that when I came

here, I found but fourteen volumes. It is true that the industry of the

printing art, lately, in our own day, discovered at Mentz, produces

many volumes every day; but depressed as we are by poverty, it is

impossible for us to buy them all.”[111]

It was certainly the case that, after the invention of printing, there

was a time during which manuscripts came to be undervalued, neglected,

and even destroyed by wholesale, but Maitland is of opinion that this

time had been prepared for by a long period of gradually increasing

laxity of discipline and morals in many monastic institutions. This

view is borne out by the history of the Reformation, the popular

feeling in regard to which was undoubtedly very much furthered by the

demoralisation of the monasteries, a demoralisation which naturally

carried with it a breaking down of literary interests and pursuits.

There had, for some time, been less multiplication, less care, and less

use of books, and many a fine collection had mouldered away. According

to Martene and Mabillon, the destruction due to the heedlessness of

the monks themselves was largely a matter of the later times, that is,

of the fifteenth century and the last half of the fourteenth century.

Maitland is of the opinion that in the later portions of the Middle

Ages the work of the monastic scribes was more frequently carried on

not in a general writing-room, but in separate apartments or cells,

which were not usually large enough to contain more than one person.

Owing to the fact that writing was the chief and almost only in-doors

business of a monk not engaged in religious service, and because of

the great quantity of work that was done and the number of cells

devoted to it, these small rooms came to be generally referred to as

_scriptoria_, even when not actually used or particularly intended for

the purpose of writing. Thus we are told that Arnold, Abbot of Villers

in Brabant, from 1240 to 1250, when he resigned his office, occupied a

_scriptorium_ (he called it a _scriptoriolum_ or little writing cell),

where he lived as a private person in his own apartment.[112] These

separate cells were usually colder and in other ways less comfortable

than the common _scriptorium_. Lewis, a monk of Wessobrunn in Bavaria,

in an inscription addressed to the reader, in a copy he had prepared of

Jerome’s _Commentary on Daniel_, says: _Dum scripsit friguit, et quod

cum lumine solis scribere non potuit, perfecit lumine noctis_.[113]

(He was stiff with cold, while he wrote, and what he could not write

by the light of the sun, he completed by the light of night.) There

is evidence, however, in some of the better equipped monasteries, of

the warming of the cells by hot air from the stove in the calefactory.

Martene mentions that when S. Bernard, owing to the illness produced by

his early austerities, was compelled by the Bishop of Chalons to retire

to a cell, he could not be persuaded to relax the severity of his

asceticism so far as to permit the introduction of any fireplace or

other means of warming it. His friends, however, contrived, with pious

fraud, to heat his cell without his knowledge, by introducing hot air

through the stone floor under the bed.[114]

The _scriptorium_ of earlier times was, however, as previously

described, an apartment specially set aside as a general workroom and

capable of containing many workers, and in which many persons did, in

fact, work together, usually under the direction of a _librarius_ or

chief scribe, in a very business-like manner, in the transcription

of books. Maitland quotes from a document, which is, he states, one

of the very few existing specimens of French Visigothic manuscripts

in the uncial character, and which dates from the eighth century,

the following form of consecration or benediction, entitled (in

monastic Latin) _Orationem in scriptorio_: “Vouchsafe, O Lord, to

bless this _scriptorium_ of Thy servants and all that work therein:

that whatsoever sacred writings shall be here read or written by them,

they may receive with understanding and may bring the same to good

effect.”[115] (see also page 61).

In the more carefully constructed monasteries, the _scriptorium_ was

placed to adjoin the calefactory, which simplified the problem of the

introduction of hot air.

A further evidence, if such were needed, that the larger literary

undertakings were carried on in a _scriptorium_ common room and not

in separate cells, is given by the regulation of the general Chapter

of the Cistercian Order in 1134, which directs that the same silence

should be maintained in the _scriptorium_ as in the cloister: _In

omnibus scriptoriis ubicunque ex consuetudine monachi scribunt,

silentium teneatur sicut in claustro_.[116]

Odo, who in 1093 became Abbot of S. Martin at Tournai, writes that he

confided the management of the outside work of the monastery to Ralph,

the prior. This left the abbot free to devote himself to reading and to

supervising the work in his _scriptorium_. Odo exulted in the number

of writers whom the Lord had given to him. “If you had gone into the

cloister during the working hours, you would have seen a dozen scribes

writing, in perfect silence, at tables constructed for the purpose.”

Odo caused to be transcribed all of Jerome’s _Commentaries on the

Prophets_, all the works of S. Gregory, and all the works that he could

find of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, Bishop Isidore, the Venerable Bede,

and Anselm, then Abbot of Bec and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.

Odo’s successor, Heriman, who gives this account, says with pride that

such a library as Odo brought together in S. Martin could hardly be

paralleled in any monastery in the country, and that other monasteries

were begging for texts from S. Martin’s with which to collate and

correct their own copies.[117]

Maitland mentions that certain of the manuscripts written in Odo’s

_scriptorium_, including the fourth volume of the _Gregorialis_ of

Alulfus, were (in 1845) in the library of Dr. Todd, of Trinity College,

Dublin.[118]

In estimating the extent of book production of the manuscript period,

we may very easily place too large a comparative weight on the

productive power of the Press. Maitland points out that although the

power of multiplication of literary productions was, of course, during

the Dark Ages infinitely below that which now exists, and while the

entire book production of the two periods may not be compared, yet

as regards those books which were considered as the standard works

in sacred literature and in the approved secular literature, the

difference was not so extreme as may easily be supposed. He enquires,

to emphasise his point, what proportion the copies of Augustine’s

_City of God_ and of Gregory’s _Morals_, _printed_ between the years

1700 and 1800, bear to those _written_ between the years 1100 and

1200.[119]

I think, with Maitland, that, according to the evidence on record,

for books such as those given above as typical examples, the written

production during the century selected would probably have exceeded the

number of copies of the same books turned out by the printing-presses

during the eighteenth century. We must recall to ourselves that for a

term of six or seven centuries, writing was a business, and was also

a religious duty; an occupation taken up by choice and pursued with a

degree of zeal, persistence, and enthusiasm for which in the present

day there is no parallel.

Mabillon speaks of a volume by Othlonus, a monk of S. Emmeram’s at

Ratisbon, who was born about the year 1013. In this book, which is

entitled _De ipsius tentationibus, varia fortuna, et scriptis_, the

monk gives an account of his literary labours and of the circumstances

which led to his writing the various works bearing his name.

“For the same reason, I think proper to add an account of the great

knowledge and capacity for writing which was given me by the Lord in

my childhood. When as yet a little child, I was sent to school and

quickly learned my letters, and I began, long before the usual time

of learning and without any order from the master, to learn the art

of writing. Undertaking this in a furtive and unusual manner, and

without any teacher, I got a habit of holding my pen wrongly, nor were

any of my teachers afterwards able to correct me on that point; for

I had become too much accustomed to it to be able to change. Those

who saw my earlier work unanimously decided that I should never write

well. After a short time the facility came to me, and while I was in

the monastery of Tegernsee (in Bavaria) I wrote many books.... Being

sent to Franconia while I was yet a boy, I worked so hard at writing

that before I returned I had nearly lost my sight.... After I became a

monk in the monastery of S. Emmeram, I was appointed the schoolmaster.

The duties of this office so fully occupied my time, that I was able

to do the transcribing in which I was interested only by night and on

holidays.... I was, however, able, in addition to writing the books

which I had myself composed, and the copies of which I gave away for

the edification of those who asked for them, to prepare nineteen

missals (ten for the abbots and monks in our own monastery, four for

the brethren at Fulda, and five for those in other places), three books

of the Gospels, and two with the Epistles and Gospels, which are called

_Lectionaries_; besides which, I wrote four service-books for matins.

I wrote in addition a good many books for the brethren at Fulda, for

the monks at Hirschfeld and at Amerbach, for the Abbot of Lorsch, for

certain friends at Passau, and for other friends in Bohemia, for the

monastery of Tegernsee, for the monastery of Pryel, for the monastery

of Obermünster and for that of Niedermünster, and for my sister’s son.

Moreover, to many others I gave or sent, at different times, sermons,

proverbs, and edifying writings.... Afterwards, old age’s infirmity of

various kinds hindered me.”[120]

If there were many hundred scribes of the diligence of Othlonus, the

mass of literature produced in the _scriptorium_ may very easily have

rivalled the later output of the printing-presses. The labours of

Othlonus were, if the records are to be trusted, eclipsed by those

of the nun Diemude or Diemudis of the monastery of Wessobrunn. An

anonymous monk of this monastery, writing in the year 1513, says:

“Diemudis was formerly a most devout nun of this our monastery of

Wessobrunn. [Pez states that Diemudis lived in the time of Gregory

VII., who became Pope in 1073. She was, therefore, though probably

somewhat younger, a contemporary of the monk Othlonus of Ratisbon.] For

our monastery was formerly double or divided into two parts; that is

to say, of monks and nuns. The place of the monks was where it now is;

but that of the nuns, where the parish church now stands. This virgin

was most skilful in the art of writing: for though she is not known to

have composed any work, yet she wrote with her own hand many volumes in

a most beautiful and legible character, both for divine service and for

the public library of the monastery. Of these books she has left a list

in a certain _plenarius_.[121] The titles are as follows:

A _Missal, with the Gradual and Sequences._ Another _Missal, with

the Gradual and Sequences_, given to the Bishop of Trèves. Another

_Missal, with the Epistles, Gospels, Graduals, and Sequences_. Another

_Missal, with the Epistles and Gospels for the year, the Gradual

and Sequences, and the entire service for baptism_. A _Missal, with

Epistles and Gospels_. A _Book of Offices_. Another _Book of Offices,

with the baptismal service_ (given to the Bishop of Augsburg). A

_Book, with the Gospels and Lessons_. A _Book, with the Gospels_. A

_Book, with the Epistles_. A _Bible_, in two volumes, given for the

estate in Pisinberch. A _Bible_, in three volumes. S. Gregory _ad

regaredum_. _S. Gregory on Ezekiel. Sermons and Homilies of certain

ancient Doctors_, three volumes. _Origen on the Old Testament. Origen

on the Canticles. Augustine on the Psalms_, three volumes. _Augustine

on the Gospels and on the First Epistle of S. John_, two volumes.

Augustine, _Epistles_, to the number of lxxv. Augustine, _Treatises_.

_S. Jerome’s Epistles_, to the number of clxiv. _The Tripartite History

of Cassiodorus. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius._ S. Augustine,

_Fifty Sermons. The Life of S. Silvester. Jerome against Vigilantius._

Jerome, _De Consolatione Mortuorum. The Life of S. Blasius. The Life

of John the Almoner, Patriarch of Alexandria early in the seventh

century. Paschasius on the Body and Blood of Christ. The Conflict of

Lanfranc with Berengarius. The Martyrdom of S. Dionysius. The Life

of S. Adrian._ S. Jerome, _De Hebraicis Quæstionibus_. S. Augustine,

_Confessions. Canons. Glossa per A. B. C. Composita_ (_i. e._, a Gloss

alphabetically arranged).

These are the volumes written with her own hand by the aforesaid

handmaid of God, Diemudis, to the praise of God and of the holy

Apostles Peter and Paul, the patrons of the monastery.”[122]

The same writer says that Diemudis (whom he calls _exaratrix

diligentissima_) carried on a correspondence by very sweet letters

(_epistolæ suaves valde_) with Herluca, who was for thirty-six years a

nun at Eppach, and that the letters were in his time (1513), that is

four and a half centuries later, extant in the monastery of Bernried.

=The Influence of the Scriptorium.=--Hildebrand, who, under the name

Gregory VII., became Pope in 1073, appears to have made large use of

the literary facilities of the monasteries to bring effectively before

the public the doctrinal teachings which seemed to him essential for

the wholesome development of the strength of the Church in its great

contest with the imperial power and for the proper rule of the world.

The histories of the time speak of monks travelling throughout the

Empire circulating writings in favour of the Church, by means of which

writings schism could be withstood and the zeal of good Catholics

aroused.[123]

Certain of the monasteries, in connection with their literary activity

in behalf of the Pope, came into special disfavour with the Emperor.

Among them was Hirschau, the importance of whose literary work has

been previously referred to. This monastery fell under the displeasure

of the Emperor Frederick IV., but the monks, says their own annalist,

sustained by their prayers, braved the sword of the tyrant and despised

the menaces of offended princes.[124] Abbot William of Hirschau had for

twenty-two years been the soul of monastic regeneration in Germany. He

was one of the great scholars of his time and had done not a little to

further the literary pre-eminence of his monastery, and he became one

of the most valiant defenders of the popes during this contest. Among

other ecclesiastical writers whose pens were active in the defence of

the papal decrees and in assailing the utterances of the schismatics,

and whose work, by means of the distributing machinery which had

already been organised between the monasteries, secured for the time

a large circulation, were Bernard, at one time master of the schools

of Constance, but later a monk at Hirschau; Bernold, a monk of St.

Blaise; Adelbert, a monk of Constance; and Gebhard, another monk of

Hirschau.[125]

Gregory was possibly the first pope who made effective and extended

use of the writings of devout authors for the purpose of influencing

public opinion. If we may judge by the results of his long series of

contests with the imperial power in Germany, the selection of these

literary weapons was one proof of his sagacity. In this contest, the

_scriptoria_ of the monasteries proved more powerful than the armies of

the emperors; as, five hundred years later, the printing-presses of the

Protestants proved more effective than the Bulls of the Papacy.

The most important, in connection with its influence and consequences,

of the discoveries made by scholars concerning the fraudulent character

of historic documents, occurred as late as the beginning of the

fifteenth century. It was about 1440 when Laurentius Valla, at that

time acting as secretary for King Alphonso of Naples, wrote his report

upon the famous _Donation_ of Constantine, the document upon which the

Roman Church had for nearly a thousand years based its claims to be the

direct representative in Western Europe of the old imperial authority.

Valla brought down upon his head much ecclesiastical denunciation.

The evidences produced by him of the fact that the document had been

fabricated a century or more after the death of Constantine could

not be gotten rid of, and, although for a number of years the Church

continued to maintain the sacred character of the _Donation_, and

has, in fact, never formally admitted that it was fraudulent, it was

impossible, after the beginning of the sixteenth century, even for the

ecclesiastics themselves to base any further claims for the authority

of the Church upon this discredited parchment.

Of almost equal importance was the discovery of the fabrication of the

pseudo Isidoric _Decretals_. The _Decretals_ had been concocted early

in the ninth century by certain priests in the West Frankish Church,

and had been eagerly accepted by Pope Nicholas I., who retained in the

archives of the Vatican the so-called originals. The conclusion that

the _Decretals_ had been fraudulently imposed upon the Church was not

finally accepted until the beginning of the fourteenth century. It

was with the humanistic movement of the Renaissance that historical

criticism had its birth, and a very important portion of the work of

such criticism consisted in the analysis of the lack of foundation of a

large number of fabulous legends upon which many of the claims of the

Church had been based.

There were evidently waves of literary interest and activity in the

different monasteries, between which waves the art of writing fell

more or less into disuse and the libraries were neglected. In the

monastery at Murbach, for instance, in which, in the beginning of the

century, important work had been done, it is recorded that in 1291

no monks were found who were able to write, and the same was said in

1297 of the more famous monastery of St. Gall.[126] On the other hand,

the newly organised Orders of travelling or mendicant monks took an

active interest in preparing and in distributing manuscript copies

of works of doctrine at about the time when, in the older and richer

Orders, literary earnestness was succumbing to laziness and luxury.

With these mendicant monks, began also to come into circulation a

larger proportion of original writings, transcribed and corrected, and

probably to some extent sold by the authors themselves. Richard de Bury

makes bitter references in his _Philobiblon_ (chapters v. and vi.) to

the general antagonism of the Church towards literature, but speaks

with appreciation of the educational services rendered by the mendicant

monks. Writing was done also by the monks of the Minorite Order, but

their rules and their methods of life called for such close economy

that the manuscripts left by them are distinguished by the meagreness

and inadequacy of the material and the closely crowded script, which,

in order further to save space, contains many abbreviations.

Roger Bacon is said to have come into perplexity because, when he

wished to send his treatises to Pope Clement IV., he could find no

one among the Brothers of his Order who was able to assist him in

transcribing the same, while scribes outside of the Order to whom he

attempted to entrust the work gave him untrustworthy and slovenly

copies.[127]

With the beginning of the fourteenth century, it is possible to note a

scholarly influence exercised upon certain of the monasteries by the

universities. The most enterprising of the monks made opportunities

for themselves to pass some years of their novitiate in one or more

of the universities, or later secured leave of absence from the

monasteries for the purpose of visiting the universities. It also

happened that from the monasteries where literary work had already

been successfully carried on, monks were occasionally called to the

universities in order to further the literary undertakings of the

theological faculties. Finally, the abbots, and other high officials of

the monasteries, were, after the beginning of the fourteenth century,

more frequently appointed from among the ecclesiastics who had had a

university training.

The library in Heidelberg, the university of which dates from 1386,

received from the monastery at Salem a large number of beautiful

manuscripts, and finally, an illuminated breviary was completed in 1494

by the Cistercian Amandus, who, after the destruction of his monastery

in Strasburg, had found refuge in Salem, where in 1529 he became abbot.

There is evidence that, at this time, both in Salem and in other

monasteries in which the business of manifolding and of selling or

exchanging manuscripts became important, a large proportion of the work

of illustrating or illuminating was done by paid artists.

After the reform movement which began with the Council of Basel, there

came into existence, in connection with the renewal of theological

discussions, a fresh literary activity in many of the monasteries.

In the monastery at Camp, in 1440, the library was renewed and very

much extended, and here were written by Guillaume de Reno, _scriptor

egregius nulli illo tempore in arte sua secundus_, the _Catholicon_,

books of the Mass, and other devotional works. Abbot Heinrich von

Calcar provided Guillaume for eighteen years with a yearly supply of

parchment, valued at seventeen florins, and of other writing material.

In Michelsberg, Abbot Ulrich III. (1475-1483) and his successor Andreas

restored the long-time deserted library, and by work by the scribes

of the monastery and through the exchange of works for the productions

of other monasteries, secured an important collection of manuscripts.

In 1492, Andreas, abbot of the monastery of Bergen, near Magdeburg,

renewed the _scriptorium_, which, later, became active in the

production of copies of works connected with this earlier reformation.

Adolph von Hoeck, who died in 1516, Prior of Scheda in Westphalia, was

a skilled scribe as well as a zealous reformer. In Monsee, a certain

Brother, Jacob of Breslau, who died in 1480, was said to have written

so many volumes that six horses could with difficulty bear the burden

of them.[128] In the monastery at Tegernsee, already referred to,

there was, under Abbot Conrad V. (1461-1492), an active business in

the manifolding and distribution of writings. The same was the case

in Blaubeuern, where, as early as 1475, a printing-press was put into

operation, but the preparation of manuscripts continued until the end

of the century. Among the works issued from Blaubeuern in manuscript

form after the beginning of printing, were the _Chronicles of Monte

Cassino_, by Andreas Ysingrin, completed in 1477, and the _Life of the

Holy Wilhelm of Hirschau_, by Brother Silvester, completed in 1492.[129]

This year of 1492 appears to have been one of exceptional intellectual

as well as physical activity. It records not merely the completion of a

number of important works marking the close of the manuscript period of

literary production, but the publication, as will be noted in a later

chapter, of a long series of the more important of the earlier printed

books in Mayence, Basel, Venice, Milan, and Paris.

In Belgium, through the first half of the fifteenth century, while many

of the monasteries had fallen into a condition of luxurious inactivity,

work was still carried on in the Laurentium monastery of Liége by

Johann of Stavelot, and by other zealous scribes, and in several other

of the Benedictine monasteries of the Low Countries the _scriptoria_

were kept busied. Towards the end of the fifteenth century, and for

some years after the beginning of the work of the German printers,

the production of manuscripts in Germany continued actively in the

monastery of S. Peter at Erfurt, and in the monasteries of S. Ulrich

and Afra in Augsburg, the work of which has been recorded with full

precision and detail in the famous catalogue of Wilhelm Wittwer.

In 1472, in this latter monastery, Abbot Melchior founded the first

printing-office at Augsburg in order to give to the monks continued

employment, and in order also to be able to enlarge the library by

producing copies of books for exchange. It was a long time, however,

before the work of the printing-press came to be sufficiently

understood to bring to a stop the labours of the scribes in manifolding

manuscripts for sale and for exchange. The writings of the nun Helena

of Hroswitha, the _Chronicle of Urspergense_, and other works continued

to be prepared in manuscript form after printed editions were in

the market. The same was the case with the great choir books, which

continued during nearly half the century to be very largely prepared

by hand in the _scriptoria_. This persistence of the old methods was

partly due to habit and to the difficulty of communication with the

centres in which the printing-presses were already at work, but was

very largely, of course, the result of the fact that in the monasteries

was always available a large amount of labour, and that the use of this

labour for the preparation of sacred books had come to form part of the

religious routine of the institution.

With the development of the system of common schools, the educational

work which had previously been carried on in the convents was very

largely given up, thus throwing upon the hands of the monks a still

greater proportion of leisure time. In 1492, Johann of Trittenheim,

Abbot of Sponheim, wrote to the Abbot Gerlach of Deutz a letter, _De

Laude Scriptorum_, in which he earnestly invokes the scribes (he was

addressing the scribes of the monasteries) by no means to permit

themselves to be deterred from their holy occupation by the invasion

of the printing-presses. Such admonitions might continue the work of

the monks in certain of the _scriptoria_, but were, of course, futile

in the attempt to preserve for any length of time the business of

circulating manuscript copies in competition with the comparatively

inexpensive, and often beautiful, productions of the printers.

An important part in the work of the preparation and distribution

of manuscripts was taken by the so-called “Brothers of common life”

(_clerici de vita communi_), who later, also occupied themselves with

the new invention of printing. They cannot properly be classed with

the scribes of the monasteries, for they made their work a trade and a

means of revenue. This practice obtained, to be sure, also with certain

of the monasteries, but it must be considered as exceptional with them.

The Brothers differed also from the writers in the university towns and

elsewhere, who prepared manuscripts for renting out to students and

readers, partly because of the special conditions of their Brotherhood,

under which the earnings of individual Brothers all went into a common

treasury, but chiefly because they made their work as scribes a means

of religious and moral instruction. The earnings secured from the sale

of manuscripts were also largely devoted to the missionary work of the

Brotherhood. The chief authority for the history of the Brotherhood is

the work of Delprat, published in Amsterdam in 1856.

The Brotherhood house in Deventer, Holland, founded by Gerhard

Groote in 1383, became an important workshop for the production and

distribution of manuscripts. Delprat states that the receipts from

these sales were for a time the main support of the Brotherhood house.

In 1389, a copy of the Bible which had been written out by Brother

Jan von Enkhuizen was sold for five hundred gulden in gold.[130] In

Liége, the Brothers were known as _Broeders van de Penne_, because they

carried quill pens in their caps. Groote seems himself to have taken

a general supervision of this business of the production of books,

selecting the books to be manifolded, verifying the transcripts, and

arranging for the sale of the copies which were passed as approved.

Florentius Radewijus had the general charge of the manuscripts (filling

the rôle which to-day would be known as that of stock clerk) and of

preparing the parchment for the scribes and writing in the inscriptions

of the finished manuscripts. Later, with the development of the Order

and the extension of its book business, each Brotherhood house had its

_librarius_, or manager of the manufacturing and publishing department;

its _rubricator_, who added the initial letters or illuminated letters

in the more expensive manuscripts; its _ligator_, who had charge of the

binding, etc.

It was a distinctive feature of the works prepared by the Brothers that

they were very largely written in the language of the land instead

of in Latin, which elsewhere was, as we have seen, the exclusive

language for literature. It was, in fact, one of the charges made by

the ecclesiastics against the Order that they put into common language

doctrinal instruction which ordinary readers, without direct guidance

of the Church, were not competent to understand, and which tended,

therefore, to work mischief. In 1398, the Brothers took counsel on

the point whether it were permissible to distribute among the people

religious writings in Low German, and they appear to have secured the

authorisation required. They laid great stress upon the precision of

their script, and they were, as a rule, opposed to needless expenditure

for ornamentation of text or of covers. Under the influence of Groote,

the work of preparing manuscripts of good books was taken up by the

monks and the nuns of Windesheim, but, according to Busch, the books

produced in Windesheim were but rarely sold. In some cases these seem

to have been distributed gratis, while in others they were given in

exchange for other books required for the library of the monastery or

convent.[131]

Wattenbach says that the Brothers in the Home at Hildesheim were

called upon for an exceptional amount of labour in preparing books

of the Mass and other devotional works in connection with the reform

movement in the monasteries of lower Saxony, which was active in

the middle of the fifteenth century. In the year 1450 (the year in

which Gutenberg perfected his printing-press) it is recorded that

the Hildesheim Brothers earned from the sale of their manuscripts no

less than a thousand gulden.[132] In connection with their interest

in the production and distribution of cheap literature, the Brothers

did not fail to make very prompt and intelligent utilisation of the

new invention of printing, and among the earlier printing-offices

established in Germany and in the Low Countries were those organised by

the Brothers at Deventer, Zwoll, Gouda, Bois-le-duc, Brussels, Louvain,

Marienthal, Rostock, etc.

=The Literary Monks of England.=--In accepting the influence of

literary ideals, the Anglo-Saxon monks were much slower and less

imaginative than the quicker and more idealistic Celts. The quickening

of the intellectual development of the monasteries in England was

finally brought about through the influence of Celtic missionaries

coming directly from Ireland or from the Irish monasteries of the

Scottish region, such as Iona and its associates.

Before the literary work of the English monasteries began, there was

already in existence a considerable body of literature, which was

the expression of the pre-christian conceptions and ideals of the

Anglo-Saxons and their Scandinavian kinsmen. Certain of the most famous

of the literary creations of the Anglo-Saxons were probably produced

subsequent to the time of the acceptance by the people of Christianity,

but these productions continued to represent the imagination and the

methods of thought of the pagan ancestry, and to utilise as their

themes the old-time legends. These Saxon compositions were almost

exclusively in the form of poems, epics, and ballads devoted to

accounts of the achievements of heroes (more or less legendary) in

their wars with each other, and in their adventures with the gods

and with the powers of magic and evil. In these early epics, devoted

chiefly to strife, women bear but a small part, and the element of love

enters hardly at all.

While it is doubtless the case that the Saxon epics, like the Greek

poems of the Homeric period and the compositions of the Celtic bards,

were preserved for a number of generations in the memories of the

reciters, there are references indicating that the writing of the

texts on the parchment began at a comparatively early date after

the occupation of England. This would imply the existence of some

trained scribes before work was begun in the _scriptoria_ of the

Saxon monasteries. Such lay scribes must, however, have been very few

indeed, and the task of handing down for posterity the old legendary

ballads must have depended chiefly upon the _scops_, which was the

name given to the poets or bards attached to the court of a prince or

chieftain. It is, however, not until the acceptance of Christianity by

the Saxons that there comes to be any abiding interest in letters. As

Jusserand puts it: “These same Anglo-Saxons, whose literature at the

time of their invasion consisted of the songs mentioned by Tacitus,

_carmina antiqua_, which they trusted to memory alone, who compiled

no books, and who for written monuments had Runic inscriptions graven

on utensils or on commemorative stones, now have in their turn monks

who compose chronicles and kings who know Latin. Libraries are formed

in the monasteries; schools are attached to them; manuscripts are thus

copied and illuminated in beautiful caligraphy and in splendid colours.

The volutes and knots with which the worshippers of Woden ornamented

their _fibulæ_, their arms, the prows of their ships, are reproduced in

purple and azure, the initials of the Gospels. The use made of them is

different, the taste remains the same.”

It is undoubtedly the case that the preservation of such fragments of

Anglo-Saxon literature as have come down to us, and probably of most

of the Scandinavian compositions which were transmitted through the

Saxons, was due to the monastery scribes whose copies were in part

transcribed from the earlier parchments and in part were taken down

from the recitals made in the monasteries by the bards or minstrels.

The service was in fact similar to that previously rendered by the

Irish monks to Celtic literature, and by the scribes of Gaul and Italy

to the writings of classic times.

The identity or kinship of much of the heroic poetry of the

Anglo-Saxons with that of the Scandinavians is pointed out by Grein in

his _Anglo-Saxon Library_, and by Vigfusson and York-Powell in their

_Corpus Poeticum Boreale_. The greatest of the old English epics,

_Beowulf_, sometimes called “the Iliad of the Saxons,” was put into

written form some time in the eighth century and, like all similar

epics, was doubtless the result of the weaving together of a series

of ballads of varied dates and origins. The text of the poem has been

preserved almost complete in a manuscript, now placed in the Cottonian

collection in the British Museum, which dates from the latter part of

the tenth century.

It will be understood that, as a matter of convenience in a brief

reference of this kind, I am using the term Saxon and Anglo-Saxon in

no strict ethnological sense, but simply to designate the Teutonic

element of the people of England, an element whose influence is usually

considered to have begun with the landing of Hengist and Horsa in 451.

The first of the Anglo-Saxon monks to be ranked as a poet appears to

have been the cowherd Cædmon, a vassal of the Abbess Hilda and a monk

of Whitby. Caædmon’s songs were sung about 670. He is reported to have

put into verse the whole of Genesis and Exodus, and, later, the life of

Christ and the Acts of the Apostles, but his work was not limited to

the paraphrasing of the Scriptures. A thousand years before the time

of _Paradise Lost_, the Northumbrian monk sang before the Abbess Hilda

the _Revolt of Satan_. Fragments of this poem, discovered by Archbishop

Usher, and printed for the first time in 1655, have been preserved, and

have since that date been frequently published.[133] Cædmon died in

680, and Milton in 1674. The Abbess Hilda, who was herself a princess

of royal family, appears to have had a large interest in furthering the

study of literature, not only in the nunnery founded by her, but in a

neighbouring monastery which came largely under her influence. In both

nunnery and monastery, schools for the children of the district were

instituted, which schools were probably the earliest of their class in

that portion of Britain.

The Northumbrian poet Cynewulf, whose work was done between the

years 760 and 800, may be referred to as a connecting link between

the group of national or popular bards and the literary workers of

the Church. His earlier years were passed as a wandering minstrel,

but later in life he passed through some religious experience and

entered a monastery, devoting himself thereafter to religious poetry.

His conversion was doubtless the means of preserving (through the

_scriptorium_ of his monastery) such of his compositions as have

remained, and thus of making a place for his name among the authors of

England.

Among the earlier Saxon monks whose educational work was important are

to be included S. Wilfred (634-709) and S. Cuthbert (637-687). Wilfred

introduced into England the Rule of the Benedictines, and exercised

a most important influence in instituting Benedictine monasteries

and in bringing these monasteries into relations with the Church of

Rome. His life was a stormy one, but notwithstanding the various

contentions with the several monarchs who at that time divided between

them the territory of England, and in spite of several periods of

banishment, he found time to carry on a great work in furthering the

intellectual life of his Benedictine monks. It was largely due to him

that the Benedictine monasteries accepted almost from the first the

responsibility of conducting the schools of the land. These schools

achieved so great repute that Anglo-Saxons of high rank were eager

to confide their children to Wilfred to be brought up in one of his

monastic establishments. At the close of their school training they

were to choose between the service of God and that of the King. Wilfred

is also to be credited with the establishing within the English

monasteries of a course of musical instruction, the teachers of which

had largely been trained in the great school of Gregorian music at

Canterbury.

Another of the Saxon abbots whose name remains associated with the

intellectual life of the monasteries was Benedict Biscop. Montalembert

speaks of Biscop as representing science and art in the Church, as

Wilfred had stood for the organising of the English Church as a public

body, and Cuthbert for the renewal and development of its life. The

monasteries of Wearmouth and of Yarrow, founded by Biscop, were

endowed with great libraries and became the centres of an active

literary life. Biscop made no less than six journeys to Rome in the

interest of his monastery work, and, in the seventh century, a journey

to Rome from Britain was not an easy experience. His fourth expedition,

begun in the year 671, was undertaken partly in the interests of

literature and for the purpose of securing books for the education of

his monks. He obtained in the Papal capital a rich cargo of books,

some of which he had purchased while others were given to him. In

Vienne, the ancient capital of Gaul, he secured a further collection.

The monastery of Wearmouth, founded in 673, had the benefit of a large

portion of the books brought from Italy by the abbot. It was his

desire that each monastery for which he was responsible should possess

a library, which seemed to him indispensable for the instruction,

discipline, and the good organisation of the community. Biscop’s fifth

journey was made partly for the purpose of securing pictures, coloured

images, and artistic decorations for the chapel of the monastery, but

the sixth pilgrimage, made in 685, was again devoted almost entirely to

the collection of books.

For the details of the work of Biscop in the organisation of his

monasteries and in the supervision of the work in their _scriptoria_,

and concerning his various architectural and artistic undertakings, we

are largely indebted to the historian Beda, or Bede. Bede was a pupil

of Biscop in the monastery of Yarrow, and it was in this monastery that

were written the famous _Chronicles_. It was the time of comparative

peace in the island which preceded the first Danish invasion. The fame

of the scholar who produced these chronicles was destined to eclipse

that of nearly all the Saxon saints and kings, who were in fact known

to posterity principally through the pen of the Venerable Bede. It is

to Biscop, however, that should be credited the literary surroundings

under which Bede was educated, and it is probable that without

the stimulating influence of the books secured by the abbot in his

wearisome journeys to Southern Europe, the monk would hardly have had

the capacity or the incentive to complete his work.

Coelfried, who later became Abbot of Yarrow, and who, after the death

of Biscop, was in charge also of the monastery of Wearmouth, continued

the interest of his predecessor in the libraries and in the work done

by the scribes in the _scriptoria_. Among the books brought from Rome

by Biscop was a curious work on cosmography, which King Alfred was

very anxious to possess. Abbot Coelfried finally consented to let the

King have the book in exchange for land sufficient to support eight

families. Coelfried had had made in the _scriptorium_ of Wearmouth two

complete copies of the Bible according to the version of S. Jerome, the

text of which had been brought from Rome. These copies were placed, one

in the church of Wearmouth and one in that of Yarrow, and were open

for the use not only of the monks, but of any others who might desire

to consult them and who might be able to read the script. Montalembert

refers to this instance as a refutation of “the stupid calumny” which

represents the Church as having in former times interdicted to her

children the knowledge of the sacred Scriptures.[134]

When Aldhelm, who became Bishop of Sherborn in the year 705, went

to Canterbury to be consecrated by his old friend and companion

Berthwold (_pariter literis studuerant, pariterque viam religionis

triverant_--together they had studied literature and together they had

followed the path of religion), the Archbishop kept him there many

days, taking counsel with him about the affairs of his diocese. Hearing

of the arrival during this time of ships at Dover, he went there to

inspect their unloading and to see if they had brought anything in his

way (_si quid forte commodum ecclesiastico usui attulissent nautæ qui

e Gallico sinu in Angliam provecti librorum copiam apportassent_--to

see whether the ships which had arrived from the French coast had

brought, with the books which formed a part of their cargoes, any

volumes of value for the work of the Church). Among many other books

he saw one containing the whole of the Old and New Testaments, which

book he bought, and which, according to William of Malmesbury, who in

the twelfth century wrote the life of Aldhelm, was at that time still

preserved at Sherborn.[135]

The great Bible given by King Offa, in 780, to the church at Worcester

is described in the chronicle of Malmesbury as _Magnam Bibliam_.[136]

As before indicated, however, the common name of this time for a

collection of the Scriptures was not _Biblia_ but _Bibliotheca_. In

a return of their property which the monks of St. Riquier at Centule

made in the year 831, by order of Louis the Débonnaire, we find, among

a considerable quantity of books: _Bibliotheca integra ubi continentur

libri lxxii., in uno volumine_ (a complete Bible, in which seventy-two

books are comprised in one volume), and also _Bibliotheca dispersa in

voluminibus xiv._[137] (a Bible divided into fourteen volumes).

Fleury says of Olbert, Abbot of Gembloux: _Étant abbé, il amassa à

Gembloux plus de cent volumes d’auteurs ecclésiastiques, et cinquante

d’auteurs profanes, ce qui passoit pour une grande Bibliothèque_.[138]

Warton, using Fleury for his authority, speaks of the “incredible

labour and immense expense” which Olbert had given to the formation

of this library. There is, however, no authority in the quotation

from Fleury for such a description of the exceptional nature of the

labour and of the outlay. On the contrary, Fleury goes on to say that

Olbert, who had been sent to reform and restore the monastery, which

was in a state of great poverty and disorder, had put the monks to

work at writing, in order to keep them from being idle. He himself set

an example of industry as a scribe by writing out, with his own hand,

the whole of the Old and the New Testament, a work which was completed

in the year 1040.[139] Maitland calculates that a scribe must be both

expert and industrious to perform in less than ten months the task

of transcribing all the books of the Old and the New Testament. He

estimates, further, that at the rate at which the law stationers of

London paid their writers in his time (1845), such a transcript would

cost, for the writing only, between sixty and seventy pounds.[140]

The sterling service rendered by King Alfred to the literary interests

of England was important in more ways than one, and while his work does

not strictly belong to the record of the English monasteries, it may

properly enough be associated with the literary history of the English

Church; for the King had been adopted as a spiritual son by Pope Leo

IV., and in organising and supervising the work of the Church, he took

upon himself a large measure of the responsibilities which later were

discharged by the Primate. Alfred ruled over the West Saxons from 871

to 901. His reign was a stormy one, and during a number of years it

seemed doubtful whether the existence of the little Saxon Kingdom could

be maintained against the assaults of the Danes. There came finally,

however, a period of peace when Alfred, with Winchester as his capital,

was able to give attention to the organisation of education in his

kingdom.

During the long years of invasion and of civil war, the literary

interests and culture that had come to the Saxons through the Romans

had been in great part swept away. The collections of books had been

burned and could not be replaced because the clerics had forgotten

their Latin. Alfred complained that at the time of his accession in

Winchester he could not find south of the Thames a single Englishman

able to translate a letter from Latin into English. “When I considered

all this, I remembered also how I saw, before it had all been ravaged

and burned, how the churches throughout the whole of England stood

filled with treasures and books, and there was also a great multitude

of God’s servants, but they had very little knowledge of the books;

they could not understand any of them because they were not written

in their own language.” Alfred can find but one explanation for the

omission of the “good and wise men who were formerly all over England”

to leave translations of these books. “They did not think that men

could ever be so careless and that learning could so soon decay.”

The King recalls, however, that there are still left many who “can

read English writing.” “I began therefore among the many and manifold

troubles of this Kingdom, to translate into English the book which

is called in Latin _Pastoralis_ and in English _Shepherd’s Book_

(_Hirdeboc_), sometimes word for word and sometimes according to the

sense, as I had learned it from Plegmund, my Archbishop, and Asser, my

Bishop, and Grimbold my Mass-priest, and John my Mass-priest.”[141] It

will be noted in these references of King Alfred, that the collections

of books, the loss of which he laments, had been contained in the

churches. It was also to the ecclesiastics that he was turning for help

in the work of rendering into English the instruction for his people to

be found in the few Latin volumes that had been preserved.

Jusserand says that Asser was to Alfred what Alcuin had been to

Charlemagne, and that he helped the King, by means of the production

of translations and by founding schools, to preserve and to spread

learning. King Alfred was, however, not content with using his royal

authority and influence for the instituting of schools, but himself

gave to work as a translator personal time and labour which must

have been spared with difficulty from his duties as a ruler and as a

military commander. He chooses for his translations books likely to

fill up the greatest gaps in the minds of his countrymen, “some books

that are most needful for all men to know”: the _Book of Orosius_,

which is to serve as a hand-book of universal history; the _Chronicles

of Bede_, that will instruct them concerning the history of their own

ancestors; the _Pastoral Rule of S. Gregory_, which will make clear

to churchmen their ecclesiastical duties; and the _Consolation of

Philosophy of Boëthius_, recommended as a guide for the lives of both

ecclesiastics and laymen. These royal translations are at once placed

in the _scriptoria_ of the monasteries and in the writing-rooms of the

monastery schools for manifolding, and secure through these channels an

immediate and important educational influence.

It is also under the instructions of Alfred that the old national

chronicles, written in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, are copied, corrected,

and continued. Of these chronicles, seven, more or less complete and

differing from each other to some extent, have been preserved. The

history of the world presents possibly no other instance of a monarch

who devoted himself so steadfastly, with his own personal labour, to

the educational and spiritual development of his people.

In the latter portion of the tenth century, S. Dunstan, Archbishop

of Canterbury under King Edgar, takes up the task of instructing the

clergy and people. Under his influence, new monasteries are endowed,

a further series of monastery schools is instituted, and special

attention is given in the _scriptoria_ and in the writing-rooms of the

schools to the production of copies of translations of pious works.

The special literary feature of the work done in Dunstan’s school was

the attention given to the production of collections of sermons in the

vulgar tongue. A number of these collections has been preserved, an

example of which, known as the _Blickling Homilies_ (from Blickling

Hall, Norfolk, where the MS. was found) was compiled before 971. The

series also included homilies by Ælfric, who was Abbot of Eynsham in

1005, and sermons of Wulfstan, who was Bishop of York in 1002.

The canons of Ælfric were written between the years 950 and 1000. The

authorities do not appear to be clear whether these canons were the

work of the Archbishop or of a grammarian of the same name, while,

according to one theory, the Archbishop and the grammarian were the

same person. The canons were addressed to Wulfin, Bishop of Sherborn,

and they were written in such a form that the Bishop might communicate

them to his clergy as a kind of episcopal charge. The twenty-first

canon orders: “Every priest also, before he is ordained, must have

the arms belonging to his spiritual work; that is, the holy books,

namely, the _Psalter_, the _Book of Epistles_, the _Book of Gospels_,

the _Missal_, the _Book of Hymns_, the _Manual_, the _Calendar_

(_Computus_), the _Passional_, the _Penitential_, the _Lectionary_.

These books a priest requires and cannot do without, if he would

properly fulfil his office and desires to teach the law to the people

belonging to him. And let him carefully see that they are well

written.”[142]

The library of the English monastery or priory was under the care of

the chantor, who could neither sell, pawn, nor lend books without an

equivalent pledge; he might, however, with respect to neighbouring

churches or to persons of consideration, relax somewhat the strictness

of this rule. In the case of a new foundation, the King sometimes sent

letters-patent to the different abbeys requesting them to give copies

of theological and religious books in their own collections. In certain

instances, the King himself provided such transcripts for the new

foundation. In the catalogue of the abbatial libraries of England,

prepared by Leland, record is found of only the following classics:

Cicero and Aristotle (these two appear in nearly all the catalogues),

Terence, Euclid, Quintus Curtius, Sidonius Apollinaris, Julius

Frontinus, Apuleius, and Seneca.[143] It is difficult from such a list

to arrive at the basis or standard of selection.

Thomas Duffus Hardy gives some interesting information concerning

the later literary and historical work done in the monasteries of

Britain,[144] and for a portion of the following notes concerning

this work I am chiefly indebted to him. The Abbey of St. Albans was

founded towards the close of the eighth century, but it was not until

the latter part of the eleventh century, or nearly three hundred years

later, that the _scriptorium_ was instituted. The organisation of the

_scriptorium_ was due to Paul, the fourteenth abbot, who presided

over the monastery from 1077 to 1093, and who had the assistance in

this work of the Bishop Lanfranc. Paul was by birth a Norman, and was

esteemed a man of learning as well as of piety. After the _scriptorium_

had been opened, the abbot placed in it eight _Psalters_, a _Book of

Collects_, a _Book of Epistles_, a book containing the Gospels for the

year, two _Gospels_ bound in gold and silver and ornamented with gems,

and twenty-eight other notable volumes. In addition to these, there was

a number of ordinals, costumals, missals, troparies, collectories, and

other books for the use of the monks in their devotions. This summary

of the first contents of the library is taken by Hardy from the _Gesta

Abbatum_, a chronicle of St. Albans.