Isn’t ‘hostility towards’ redundancy?

Isn’t ‘hostility towards’ redundancy?

The passage below is from The Library A Fragile History by Andrew Pettegree.

In the fifteenth century, hostility towards the depreciation of what had previously been an elite currency – books – greatly complicated the history of the library. The first consequence of the temporary retreat of kings and princes from the building of libraries was an era of tribulation for institutional collections. The first great institutional libraries, like the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, were often based on the donation of a distinguished private collector; or, in the case of

university libraries, the accumulation of multiple smaller donations. Hardly any institutional library before the nineteenth century had a budget for the acquisition of new books, so donations were essential for growth (even if this meant receiving multiple copies of the same worn-out class texts).

I have a question on the first sentence.

To me ‘hostility towards’ in the first sentence seems to be redundant.

Because the first sentence with ‘hostility towards’ doesn’t seem to agree with the next sentence in meaning.

Let me explain my idea.

Once books were an elite currency. Kings and princes were keen on amassing books.

But in the fifteenth century with the invention of the printing press. Elites have quickly lost interest in books.

So happened ‘the depreciation of what had previously been an elite currency – books’.

(Do you agree with my line of thought?)

And ‘the depreciation of what had previously been an elite currency – books’ led to the temporary retreat of kings and princes from the building of libraries.

(Do you agree?)

But the sentence had two more words ‘hostility towards’ in the first sentence.

With these two words I think the 1st sentence conflicts with the next sentence in context.

(I know I have been wrong somewhere in my line of thought. But I don’t know where? Can you show me?)

Thanks in advance.