Le 6 de Mars [1581] je fus voir la librerie du Vatican qui est en cinq ou six salles tout de suite. Il y a un grand nombre de livres atachés sur plusieurs rangs de pupitres; il y en a aussi dans des coffres, qui me furent tous ouverts; force livres écris à mein et notamment un Seneque et les Opuscules de Plutarche. J'y vis de remercable la statue du bon Aristide[407] à tout une bele teste chauve, la barbe espesse, grand front, le regard plein de douceur et de magesté: son nom est escrit en sa base très antique....[408]
Je la vis [la Bibliothèque] sans nulle difficulté; chacun la voit einsin et en extrait ce qu'il vent; et est ouverte quasi tous les matins, et si fus conduit partout, et convié par un jantilhomme d'en user quand je voudrois[409].
Sixtus IV. intended the library attached to the Holy See to be of the widest possible use. In the document appointing Demetrius of Lucca librarian, after Platina's death, he says distinctly that the library has been got together "for the use of all men of letters, both of our own age, or of subsequent time[410]"; and that these are not rhetorical expressions, to round a phrase in a formal letter of appointment, is proved by the way in which manuscripts were lent out of the library, during the whole time that Platina was in office. The Register of Loans, beginning with his own appointment and ending in 1485, has been printed by Müntz and Fabre, from the original in the Vatican Library[411], and a most interesting record it is. It is headed by a few words of warning, of which I give the general sense rather than a literal translation.
Whoever writes his name here in acknowledgment of books received on loan out of the Pope's library, will incur his anger and his curse unless he return them uninjured within a very brief period.
This statement is made by Platina, librarian to his Holiness, who entered upon his duties on the last day of February, 1475[412].
Each entry records the title of the book lent, with the name of the borrower. This entry is sometimes made by the librarian, but more frequently by the borrower himself. When the book is returned, Platina or his assistant notes the fact, with the date. The following entry, taken almost at random, will serve as a specimen:
Ego Gaspar de Ozino sapientissimi domini nostri cubicularius anno salutis mcccclxxv die vero xxi Aprilis confiteor habuisse nomine mutui a domino Platina Lecturam sive commentum in pergameno super libris x Etticorum Aristotelis, et in fidem omnium mea propria manu scripsi et supscripsi. Liber autem pavonatio copertus est in magno volumine.——Idem Gaspar manu propria.——Restituit fideliter librum ipsum et repositus est inter philosophos die xxviii April 1475.
It is occasionally noted that a book is lent with its chain, as for instance:
Christoforus prior S. Balbine habuit Agathium Historicum ex banco viiio cum cathena.... Restituit die xx Octobris post mortem Platyne.
When no chain is mentioned are we to understand that the book was not so protected, and that there were in the library a number of books without chains, perhaps for the purpose of being more conveniently borrowed?