Читать книгу The Story of Books - Gertrude Burford Rawlings - Страница 5

Table of Contents

In literary Greece and Rome, so far as we can tell from the somewhat meagre information handed down to us, literature was pursued for her own sake, and filthy lucre did not enter into the calculations of authors, who appear to have been satisfied if their works met with the approval of those who were competent to judge of them. Literature walked alone, and had not as yet entered into partnership with commerce. The writing of books for pecuniary profit is a wholly modern development, and even now it is more often an aspiration than a realisation.

In those days, when an author desired to make known a work, he would read it aloud to an invited party of friends. This reading of original compositions became in time a common item of the programme provided by a host for the entertainment of his guests, and it is not difficult to imagine that such a custom was often subjected to grave abuse, from the guests' point of view. Later, the private reading developed into the public lecture. Lectures of this kind became very frequent in Rome, and we are told that it was looked upon as a sort of festival when a fashionable author announced a reading. But we are also told that some of the audience often treated a lecturer of mediocre merit with scant courtesy, entering late and leaving early, and frequently they who applauded most were those who had listened least. The public reading is recorded of a poem composed by Nero. It was read to the people on the Capitol, and the manuscript, which was written in letters of gold, was afterwards deposited in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

If a work happened to attract attention by reason of its author's reputation or its own merit, it was copied by students or others who had heard and admired it. This was the only way in which literary productions could be dispersed and made known to the public at large, or a collection of books be gathered together. As the literary taste developed, those who were sufficiently wealthy kept slaves whose sole business it was to copy books, which books might be either the original works of their master, who by this means disseminated his compositions, or the works of others, for the benefit of their master's library. These slaves, being of necessity well educated and skilful scribes, were purchased at high prices and held in great esteem by their owners. But obviously it was only the rich who could command such service, and ordinary folk had to resort to the bookseller.

The booksellers of Athens and Rome were those who made copies of books, or employed slaves to make them, and sold or let them on hire to those who had need of them. The author had no voice in these matters. There was nothing to prevent anyone who borrowed or otherwise got possession of his work from making copies of the manuscript if he chose, and making money from the copies if he could. “Copyright” was a word unknown in those days, and for centuries after. The booksellers advertised their wares by notices affixed to the door-posts of their shops, giving the names of new or desirable works, and sometimes read these works aloud to their friends and patrons. Their shops were favourite places of resort for persons of leisure and literary tastes.

Copyists of books retained a high place in the order of things literary until the introduction of printing, and without their labours we should know nothing of ancient literature, seeing that no original manuscript of any classical author has survived. And apart from its purely literary value, which is variable, the work of the early mediæval scribes in many instances reaches a high artistic standard, and exhibits marvellous skill in an accomplishment now numbered among the lost arts.

On the subject of libraries, as on all literary matters in ancient times, hardly any solid information is available. But we know that Egypt was to the fore in this respect as in so many others. Yet of all the collections of books which, since they are frequently alluded to in the inscriptions, she undoubtedly possessed, stored in her kings' palaces and her temple archives, there is only one which is mentioned in history, and that by a single historian. According to Diodorus Siculus, this library was made by Osymandyas, who was king of Egypt at a date which has not been precisely determined. He tells us that its entrance exhibited the inscription: “Place of Healing for the Soul,” or, as it has been variously rendered, “Balsam for the Soul,” or, “Dispensary of the Mind.” Although doubt has been thrown on the perfect accuracy of the historian in introducing the name of Osymandyas in this connection, modern Egyptologists have identified the plan of the library with a hall of the great “palace temple” of Rameses II., the “Ramesium” or “Memnonium” at Thebes. The door-jambs of this hall utter their own testimony to its ancient use, for they bear the figures of Thoth, the god of writing, and Saf, a goddess who is accompanied by the titles “Lady of Letters” and “Presider over the Hall of Books.” Astle, in The Origin and Progress of Writing, says that the books and colleges of Egypt were destroyed by the Persians, but Matter, on the other hand, in L'École d'Alexandrie, declares that the temple archives were in existence in the Greek and Roman periods. Probably Astle's statement is not intended to be as sweeping as it appears.

Babylonia and Assyria also had their libraries. According to Professor Sayce (The Higher Criticism and the Monuments) they were “filled with libraries, and the libraries with thousands of books.” The royal library already referred to as furnishing so rich a treasure of cuneiform tablets, was begun by Sennacherib, who reigned 705–681 B.C., and completed by Assur-bani-pal, who reigned about 668–626 B.C.

There were libraries, too, in Palestine, in early days, but we know nothing of them. They may have been archives or places where records were kept, rather than libraries as we understand the term. The name of Kirjath-sepher, a city near Hebron, means “city of books,” and survives from pre-Israelitish times. By the Jews, records and “the book of the law” were preserved in the temple.

Almost as scanty are the accounts of the libraries of ancient Greece. The tyrant Pisistratus, 537–527 B.C., has been credited, traditionally, with the establishment in Athens of the first public library, but although he encouraged letters and the preservation of literature there is no good reason for accepting the tradition as authentic.

But of all libraries those of Alexandria were the largest and most celebrated, and yet, notwithstanding their eminence, the accounts relating to them are confused and contradictory. Alexandria, which, although situated in Egypt, was a Greek and not an Egyptian city, was founded by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C., and rapidly rose to a high position. Its buildings, its learning, its luxury, and its books, became world-famous. The first library was established by Ptolemy Soter, a ruler of literary tastes, about 300 B.C., and was situated in that part of the city known as the Bruchium. Copyists were employed to transcribe manuscripts for the benefit of the institution, and it is said that under Ptolemy Euergetes all books brought into Egypt were seized and sent to the library to be transcribed. The copies were returned to the owners, whose wishes were evidently not consulted, in place of the originals, which went to enrich the store in the great library.

Ptolemy Philadelphus is said to have supplemented Soter's library by another, which was lodged in the Temple of Serapis, but it has been conjectured, with more probability, that the Serapeum collection began with the temple archives, to which the Ptolemies made additions from time to time; these additions, as some have affirmed, including part of Aristotle's library. But here, also, contradictions are encountered, and it seems impossible to say exactly whether this statement refers to Aristotle's autograph writings, or to copies of them, or to manuscripts of other authors' works formerly in his possession.

It was Ptolemy Philadelphus, we are told by Galen, who gave the Athenians fifteen talents, a great convoy of provisions, and exemption from tribute, in exchange for the autographs and originals of the tragedies of Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

Two other libraries also helped to make up the glory of Alexandria; one in the Sebasteum, or Temple of Augustus, and one in connection with the Museum. The latter, however, was a much later foundation. The museum or university itself, had been instituted by Ptolemy Soter, and though it was quite distinct from the library which is associated with his name, there was doubtless some relationship between the two. Her museum and libraries, and the encouragement she offered to learning, combined to set Alexandria at the head of the literary world, and to make her “the first great seat of literary Hellenism” (Jebb). She was also the centre of the book industry, that is, of the reproduction of books, as distinguished from their first production. This was owing in a large measure to the number of professional copyists attracted by the facilities afforded to them, and to the fact that the papyrus trade had its headquarters here.

Another famous library of this period was that of the Kings of Pergamus, founded by Attalus I., who reigned from 241 to 197 B.C. Between Pergamus and Alexandria there was vigorous competition. In the end, however, Alexandria had the satisfaction of seeing her rival completely humbled, for Antony presented the books of Pergamus, stated to have been about two hundred thousand in number, to Cleopatra, who added them to Alexandria's treasures. At least, so says Plutarch, but Plutarch's authority for the statement was Calvisius, whose veracity was not above suspicion.

How the enormous accumulation of manuscripts gathered by Alexandria came to perish so utterly is not clear. The Romans accidentally fired the Bruchium when they reduced the city, but according to several accounts there were still a goodly number of books remaining at the time of the Saracen invasion in 638 A.D. The story of the Caliph Omar's reply to a plea for the preservation of the books is well known. “If they contain anything contrary to the word of God,” he is reported to have said, “they are evil; if not, they are superfluous,” and forthwith he had them distributed among the four thousand baths of the city, which they provided with fuel for six months. But several authorities doubt this story, and assert that long before Omar's time the Alexandrian libraries had ceased to exist.

Though very far from being as full as could be wished, the accounts of libraries in Rome are more numerous than any relating to libraries in other parts of the ancient world. Besides the collections of books made by private persons, which in one or two instances were generously opened to the public by the owner, there were the imperial libraries, and the more strictly public libraries. Among the emperors whose names are especially associated with the gathering and preservation of books are Augustus, Tiberius and Trajan. Julius Cæsar had formed a scheme for the establishment of a public library, but it is not clear whether it was ever carried out or no. Domitian, to replace the library in the Capitol, which had been destroyed, sent scholars abroad to collect manuscripts and to copy some of those at Alexandria. Under Constantine the Roman public libraries numbered twenty-nine, and were very frequently lodged in the temples.

Last in point of date come the libraries of Byzantium, the city which the Emperor Constantine in 330 A.D. made the capital of the eastern portion of the empire, and named after himself. He at once began to gather books there, and his successors followed his example. Thus various libraries were established, and those which survived the fires which occurred from time to time in the city, existed until its capture by the Turks in 1452. On this occasion, and also after the assault by the Crusaders in 1203, the libraries probably suffered. It is said, too, by some that Leo III. wantonly destroyed a large number of books, but the assertion cannot be proved. Among the lost treasures of Constantinople was “the only authentic copy” of the proceedings of the Council of Nice, held in 325 A.D. to deal with the Arian heresy.

The ultimate fate of the imperial library at Constantinople yet remains a problem. Some are of opinion that it was destroyed by Amurath IV., and that none but comparatively unimportant Arabic and other Oriental manuscripts make up the Sultan's library. Some believe that, in spite of repeated assertions to the contrary on the part of Turkish officials and others, there somewhere lies a secret hoard, neglected and uncared for, perhaps, but nevertheless existent, of ancient and valuable Greek manuscripts. The Seraglio has usually been considered to be the repository of this hoard, and access to the Seraglio is very difficult and almost impossible to obtain. In the year 1800 Professor Carlyle, during his travels in the East, took enormous pains and used every means in his power to reach the bottom of the mystery surrounding the Seraglio treasures. He was assured by every Turkish officer whom he consulted on the subject that no Greek manuscripts existed there; and when by dint of influence in high quarters and much patience and perseverance he at length gained permission to examine the Seraglio library, he found that it consisted chiefly of Arabic manuscripts, and contained not a single Greek, Latin, or Hebrew writing. The library, or such part of it as the Professor was shown, was approached through a mosque, and consisted of a small cruciform chamber, measuring only twelve yards at its greatest width. One arm of the cross served as an ante-chamber, and the other three contained the book-cases. The books were laid on their sides, one on the other, the ends outward. Their titles were written on the edges of the leaves.

The result of the Professor's researches went to confirm the belief held by so many that no Greek manuscripts had survived. On the other hand, the jealousy and suspicion of the Turks would render it at least possible that despite the apparent straightforwardness with which Mr Carlyle was treated, there were stores of manuscripts which were kept back from him.

A final touch of mystery was given to this fascinating subject by a tradition concerning a certain building in Constantinople which had been closed up ever since the time of the Turkish conquest in the fifteenth century. Of the existence of this building Professor Carlyle was certain. The tradition asserted that it contained many of the former possessions of the Greek emperors, and among these possessions Professor Carlyle expected that the remains of the imperial library would be found, if such remains existed.

Of other libraries of olden times, such as those of Antioch and Ephesus, or those in private possession in the country houses of Italy and Gaul, and which perished at the hands of the barbarians, it is not necessary to speak more fully. It is sufficient to point out that they existed, and that though we possess few details as to their furniture or arrangement, we are justified in concluding that the latter, at any rate, were luxuriously appointed. It must not be inferred, however, that all the books which disappeared from these various centres were of necessity destroyed. Many, and particularly some of the Byzantine manuscripts, were dispersed over Europe, and survive to enrich our libraries and museums of to-day.