Recommended Reading
Visitors to the Library at Innerpeffray often ask how or why
individual books made it into our collections. This month, to coincide with
Book Week Scotland, we’ve sifted through the archives at Innerpeffray to see
whether we can find out how some of our earlier books came to be available for
borrowing.
The Library at
Innerpeffray was founded by David Drummond, Lord Madertie, in the 1680s. His
will states that “I have lately begun a library” in the top room of the family
chapel, and that its books are to be available for borrowing for the benefit of
all. We can identify some 400 books from the original collection due to his
helpful habit of marking his books “Madertie” on the top left corner of one of
the first few pages (as above). None of our archival material goes back far
enough to tell us where his books were coming from, or what he was choosing,
but the books themselves show us that it was not always a matter of choice. For
example, the image below shows the signature of Patrick Lord Drummond dated
1582, taken from the bottom of a “Madertie” book, Cosmographie. This shows that material was being passed down
through the family, and that the collection Madertie was making available to
the public contained some books which he had inherited. We have no evidence to
show that he was choosing any books for a public readership, rather, it seems
that he was making public his own collections, whatever they happened to be.
In the 1740s,
however, the archives at Innerpeffray do give us something to go on. Robert
Hay, an Englishman who had recently begun a career in the church, inherited the
estates of Innerpeffray and Cromlix in 1739, and took up the family name of
Drummond as part of his inheritance. Already a man of the church, he eventually
ascended to the role of Archbishop of York in 1761. In 1744 he dictated to a
secretary a list of “books proposed to be brought into the Library at Innerpeffray,
as occasion offers”, a list which remarkably remains within the archives today.
The list comprises four categories: divinity, classics, history & politic
and miscellanea. It ranges from giving extensive details on particular volumes
(date, format, number of volumes, and place of publication) to recommended
authors in general. Whilst divinity takes pride of place on page one (though
the list is unpaged, Divinity is given immediately below the title), it is
classics which is the largest, closely followed by politics and history. There
is a stark lack of philosophy, even among the classics. Miscellanea contains
many literary works in English (Swift, Chaucer, Congreve, Shakespeare) and
French too (Racine, Molière). This list does not identify gaps Hay Drummond
knew of in the Innerpeffray collection. In fact, it shows us that he did not
know the collection that well, since several of the titles he listed had been
in the collection a long time, displaying the “Madertie” signature associated
with our founder. It does, however, give us a rare insight into what a man like
Hay Drummond would recommend for the shelves of a lending library.
Only around a third of the recommended titles from this list appear in
the collection today, which is far less than can be accounted for by mere
attrition. Further entries in the Mortification Book show that there was a ban
on purchasing items from the list until a space for them, in the form of a new
building commissioned by Hay Drummond (in which the collection remains today) had
been completed. While book buying did not start again until 1765, the list was
not forgotten about in the intervening years. A letter to the librarian from a
trustee in January 1772 still refers to the “Archibishop’s list”, but goes on
to discuss financial dealings with the bookseller, a Mr Drummond, who it seems
had sent across various books mentioned on the list before the library had
secured funds to pay for them. The
casual “as occasion offers” from the header of the 1744 list reminds us that,
as even the future Archbishop knew, books cost a significant amount of money,
money which could not be guaranteed always to be available to the library.
Now that the archives have taken us some way towards knowing what the
patron of the library thought the public should be reading in the mid
eighteenth century, it would be fascinating to see whether the borrowing habits
of Innerpeffray readers match the books intended for them. While we have seen
that a direct comparison is not possible (people cannot borrow items that never
made it to the shelves) the uniquely fulsome borrower records at Innerpeffray
can, with future analysis, show us whether the type of items they were
borrowing (genre, size, modernity, language) reflect what was recommended for
them.