Part 3

"On this, as on other points, we may observe that two descriptions of persons consult a catalogue--those who know _precisely_ what book they are in search of, and those who do not. The first will find by any rule, so soon as they have learnt it; and will be glad indeed of a catalogue which preserves its consistency, even though 600,000 titles, running over four quarters of the globe, four centuries of time, and four hundred varieties of usage, should actually require _ninety-one_[1] rules of digestion. The second class could easily be suited, if all their imperfect conceptions tended to the same case of confusion: and, as being the majority, would have a right to the adoption of the one nearly universal misconception; which, being one, would furnish a rule. But it is truth which is single, while error is manifold; and consequently, it is clear to every common sense except that of men of letters claiming, as such, to be bibliographers, that one of two things should be done:--either the truth should be taken, when known, or in the event of it being possible to be wrong, the error should be the consequence of a digested and easily-apprehended rule, consistently applied throughout. If the framer of the catalogue be allowed to do as he likes, the consulter of it must do as he can. Now which of the two classes should be considered in preference,--those who know what they want or those who do not? The Doctor of Divinity already quoted, gives this as one of his rules: 'Item, whan anie man comith and wotteth not what he wold haue, then he (the keper of the Bokys) shall tell hym, and doe hym to understond hys besynesse.' This can be done, to a certain extent, by _cross-references_. But, all cross-references being concessions to want of accurate knowledge, it is plain that discretionary entries, with discretionary cross-references, would form a plan which puts entirely out of the question the convenience of the person who knows exactly what he wants; which kills both calf and cow for the less deserving son, without giving the power of making any answer to the complaint of the one who never fed on husks. Nothing is stranger in the course of the evidence before us, than the quiet manner in which the opponents of the existing plan take it for granted that no one ever goes with a precise knowledge of the title-page of the work he seeks, unless it be the coolness with which this accurate inquirer is told, as Mr. Carlyle said to those who write useful knowledge, that he is one 'whom it is not worth while to take much trouble to accommodate.'"

[1] These are not all that might be wanted. For example, the case is not provided for, though it has occurred, in which an author, in his title-page, invites the reader to make his choice between two ways of spelling his own name. Here, we are to presume, some of our witnesses would take the first method given, others would leave the cataloguer to comply with the author's request.

But it is convenient even for those to whom the principles and means of research are best known, to be able to ascertain, readily, what books, of those which they know to have been written upon the subjects of their investigation, are to be found in the particular libraries which they consult. This end may be attained in the following manner. In connection with the _catalogue_ of each library, there should be an _index_ of subjects. This index should also be alphabetical. Under each subject, the divisions which naturally belong to it, should be distinctly recognized. It may here be remarked, that the parts of any particular science, or branch of learning, may be clearly defined, and universally acknowledged, whilst the relation of this science, or branch of learning, to others, may not be clearly established. To use the words of a vigorous writer upon this subject: "Take a library upon one science, and it classifies beautifully, sketching out, to a nicety, the boundaries, which, it is too rarely noticed, are much more distinct between the parts of a subject, than between one subject and another. Long after the counties of England and Scotland were well determined, the debateable land was nothing but a theatre of war."

This index should be alphabetical, rather than classed, because it is easier to find a word, in an alphabetical arrangement, than in any other order of classification; and, besides, the subject of research may be one not admitted, as a distinct division, in any classification. Such indexes can hardly be expected, immediately, in connection with the general catalogue; though, it is to be hoped, that these valuable appendages will not long be, of necessity, omitted.

A method of securing uniformity in such indexes may, hereafter, be agreed upon, so that they may be combined and form an alphabetical index of subjects to the general catalogue. It is thought best, however, for the present, to limit our efforts to the procuring of good alphabetical catalogues, as a groundwork, to which other valuable aids to research, may, as opportunities offer, be superadded.

NECESSITY OF RULES FOR THE PREPARATION OF CATALOGUES.

The preparation of a catalogue may seem a light task, to the inexperienced, and to those who are unacquainted with the requirements of the learned world, respecting such works. In truth, however, there is no species of literary labor so arduous and perplexing. The peculiarities of titles are, like the idiosyncracies of authors, innumerable. Books are in all languages, and treat of subjects as multitudinous as the topics of human thought.

Liability to error and to confusion is, here, so great and so continual, that it is impossible to labor successfully, without a rigid adherence to rules. Although such rules be not formally enunciated, they must exist in the mind of the cataloguer, and guide him, or the result of his labors will be mortifying and unprofitable.

In this country, he who undertakes to prepare a catalogue, goes to the work under great disadvantages, in many respects. Few have had opportunity to acquire the requisite bibliographical knowledge and experience; and few libraries contain the necessary books of reference. A set of rules, therefore, seems peculiarly necessary for the assistance of librarians.

Minute and stringent rules become absolutely indispensable, when the catalogue of each library is, as upon the proposed plan, to form part of a general catalogue. _Uniformity_ is, then, imperative; but, among many laborers, can only be secured by the adherence of all to rules embracing, as far as possible, the minutest details of the work.

The rules which follow were drawn up with great care. They are founded upon those adopted for the compilation of the catalogue of the British Museum; some of them are, _verbatim_, the same. Others conform more to rules advocated by Mr. Panizzi, than to those finally sanctioned by the Trustees of the Museum. Many modifications and additions have been made, adapted to the peculiar character of the system now proposed. Some innovations have been introduced, which, it is hoped, may be considered improvements. The commissioners, appointed to examine and report upon the catalogue project, considered not only its general features, but, also, its minute details. To them, were submitted the rules for cataloguing, which were separately discussed, and, after having been variously amended and modified, were recommended for adoption.

It is too much to suppose that any code should provide for every case of difficulty which may occur. The great aim, here, has been to establish principles, and to furnish analogies, by which many cases, not immediately discussed, may be indirectly settled; and, it is believed, that the instances will be few, which cannot be determined, by studying the rules, with the remarks under them; and carefully considering the characteristics of this kind of catalogue.

It should be remembered that a principal object of the rules is to secure _uniformity_; and that, consequently, some rules, which may seem unnecessarily burdensome, and, in certain applications, even capricious, are, all things considered, the best; because they secure that uniformity, which is not otherwise possible of attainment, and without which, the catalogues could not be comprehended in a general system.

DUTIES OF COLLABORATORS AND SUPERINTENDENT.

The catalogue of each library is to be prepared, in accordance with the rules, under the immediate direction of the librarian, by transcribers employed by him. Should the system here proposed come into general use, it will probably be found expedient to have persons specially trained to the business, who shall go from place to place, for the purpose of making catalogues. Much of the value of the work will, of course, depend upon the faithfulness and learning of those who first prepare the titles. The qualifications, both natural and acquired, demanded for the suitable accomplishment of their task, are, unfortunately, rare. No person, who is impatient, indolent, inaccurate, or careless in his personal habits; who is ignorant of literary history and bibliography; who is unacquainted with the classical, and with the most important modern languages; or who is destitute of that general knowledge of the circle of the sciences, which is attained in, what is usually called, a liberal education; can be expected to make a catalogue of a general library, that will not be discreditable to the compiler, and to the institution employing him. Great care should, therefore, be exercised in selecting men for such work.

It is proper to remark, in this place, that no one, whatever may be his talents, attainments and industry, can safely work with the rapidity, which the public, and committees (inexperienced in catalogue-making, however judicious and well-instructed in other matters) frequently require. It is impossible to say what would be a good average rate of performance, in cataloguing a library, without knowing exactly the kind of works it contains. The best and only satisfactory criterion is furnished by the rate of progress in the British Museum, the National Library of Paris, and other large libraries containing books of all kinds. A trial of many years has shown that men possessed of the best qualifications, long practised in the work, with every advantage of a systematic division of labor, of access to all necessary books of reference, and to persons who could help them in emergencies, provided with every mechanical facility and assistance to be desired, can prepare about forty or fifty titles a day.

The danger of working with too great rapidity, without rules, and without suitable bibliographical preparation, was most strikingly illustrated during the discussions of the British Museum Commission. The following account of the particular instance alluded to is extracted from an article in the Edinburgh Review for October, 1850:

"Mr. Payne Collier, the secretary of the Commission, undertook to show how the Museum catalogue _should_ be made, without reference to any preceding one. Mr. Collier prepared, according to his own views, twenty-five titles, done in an hour, of books from his own library, and with which he was therefore previously well acquainted. They were handed to Mr. Panizzi, with the full consent of the writer, and an invitation of criticism. Mr. Payne Collier is known to our readers: but to 'excuse the tone of confidence' he assumed, he described himself, in handing over these slips, as having attained a certain reputation in letters and particularly in antiquarian literature. The description is as correct a one as could be looked for from Mr. Collier himself: and the Society of Antiquaries, the Shakspeare and Camden Societies, and the Royal Society of Literature could inform the public, if need were, that he did not overrate himself. Moreover, his confidence was proved and supported by the most explicit dealing: he willingly lent those of the books he had described which were not in the Museum library, and, after the criticism to which we are coming, he offered no plea of haste. On the contrary, when a contemporary journal, of opposite views to our own, called them, by way of extenuation, his 'hurried slips,' he wrote a public letter in correction of the designation, maintaining that they were 'not hurried in any sense of the word,' and adhering to the defence, presently to be noticed, which he had circulated among the Commissioners in a private pamphlet.

"Mr. Panizzi put these slips into the hands of Mr. Jones, his senior assistant, requesting him to report upon them. The report was as follows:

'These twenty-five titles contain almost every possible error which can be committed in cataloguing books, and are open to almost every possible objection which can be brought against concise titles. The faults may be classed as follows:--1st. Incorrect or insufficient description, calculated to mislead as to the nature or condition of the work specified. 2nd. Omission of the names of editors, whereby we lose a most necessary guide in selecting among different editions of the same work. 3rd. Omission of the Christian names of authors, causing great confusion between the works of different authors who have the same surname--a confusion increasing in proportion to the extent of the catalogue. 4th. Omission of the names of annotators. 5th. Omission of the names of translators. 6th. Omission of the number of the edition, thus rejecting a most important and direct evidence of the value of a work. 7th. Adopting the name of the editor as a heading, when the name of the author appears in the title-page. 8th. Adopting the name of the translator as a heading, when the name of the author appears on the title-page. 9th. Adopting as a heading the title or name of the author merely as it appears on the title-page--a practice which would distribute the works of the Bishop of London under the names Blomfield, Chester, and London; and those of Lord Ellesmere under Gowan, Egerton, and Ellesmere. 10th. Using English or some other language instead of the language of the title-page. 11th. Cataloguing anonymous works, or works published under initials, under the name of the supposed author. Where this practice is adopted, the books so catalogued can be found only by those who possess the same information as the cataloguer, and uniformity of system is impossible, unless the cataloguer know the author of every work published anonymously or under initials. 12th. Errors in grammar. 13th. Errors in description of the size of the book. We have here faults of thirteen different kinds in twenty-five titles, and the number of these faults amount to more than two in each title. A large proportion of them, moreover, is of such a nature that it would be impossible to detect them when the written title is separated from the book; for example, Mr. Collier has catalogued an edition of the Odyssey, with a Latin title, as though the title were in Greek. A mere perusal of Mr. Collier's title would not lead any person to suspect the existence of such a blunder. [I may say (says Mr. Panizzi), by way of parenthesis, that when I saw this Odyssey, printed at Oxford, with a Greek title, I sent everywhere to try to find it. I had one with a Latin title of the same year, and of the same size, but I could not be sure that it was the same. I sent to Oxford; I made all sorts of inquiries; nobody knew such an Odyssey with a Greek title; but still this was negative evidence, until I begged the favor of Mr. Collier to show me the book itself from which he drew up his title. The title is in Latin, therefore the idea created by his title, that there was another edition of the Odyssey in the same year and of the same size, at Oxford, is wrong; there was only one.] Two editions of Madame de Stael's work on the French Revolution appeared at Paris in 1818; but Mr. Collier's title making no mention of the edition, the inference would arise that the copy to which it referred was of the _first_ rather than of the _second_ edition. It is a fallacy to say that errors can be corrected on a subsequent perusal of the titles or in print, unless that perusal be an actual comparison of the title with the book. [In fact, in the case of the Odyssey with the Greek title, the title looked to all intents and purposes very correct, but it was not correct.] Where we see such a result as is shown above, from an experiment made by a gentleman of education; accustomed to research, and acquainted with books generally, upon only twenty-five works, taken from his own library, and of the most easy description, we may form some idea of what a catalogue would be, drawn up, in the same manner, by ten persons, of about 600,000 works, embracing every branch of human learning, and presenting difficulties of every possible description. The average number of faults being more than two to a title, the total is somewhat startling--about 1,300,000 faults for the 600,000 works; that is, supposing the proportion to continue the same. But it must be borne in mind that the proportion of errors would increase with the number of titles; that to errors in drawing up each individual title would be superadded the errors which would unavoidably occur in the process of arranging the titles, and subsequently in the printing. In short, I humbly conceive that it would be impossible to prove the inexpediency of Mr. Collier's plan more effectually than he has himself done; and I hope I may add, without giving offence, that, had I seen these titles under any other circumstances than the present, I should have concluded that the object was to show how nearly worthless would be a catalogue, the proposed advantages of which were short titles, drawn up and printed within the shortest possible period of time.'

"Mr. Jones then proceeded to a detailed proof of his assertions. In a case of this kind, we are inclined to think that Mr. Collier should have had a reply: but the question is complicated, for though here assailed, he was an assailant, and moreover was an officer of the court who had been permitted to make himself a partizan, and to support his own views by circulating pamphlets among the judges, which a sense of official propriety prevented Mr. Panizzi from answering in the same way. Mr. Collier did answer in a pamphlet addressed to the Commissioners, as well as (recently) in the journal alluded to. The answer does not deny one iota of Mr. Jones's imputation: it merely protests against being tried by Mr. Panizzi's rules. 'I intended,' says Mr. Collier, 'my English mode of cataloguing to be diametrically opposed to his foreign mode, which might do well enough for stationary or retrograding countries, where want of enlightenment is at this hour producing the most lamentable consequences, but which was totally unfit for this country, where inquiry is active, where education is daily extending, and which mainly owes to the spread of education[2] the happiness and tranquillity it enjoys. Nothing therefore could be more obviously unjust than _to test my titles by Mr. Panizzi's rules_. I discarded them altogether; I threw them overboard at once, and _en masse_....'

[2] We understand Mr. Collier to imply that education is much more extended in England than in Prussia.

"We are English as well as Mr. Collier; but we do not see that progress and enlightenment are essentially connected with bad bibliography at two errors and a fraction per title. Neither do we think Mr. Collier's defence more valid than would be that of an incorrect arithmetician who should attribute the rules to Cocker or Walkingame, and protest against the jurisdiction. Mr. Panizzi's rules, like all other codes, contain offences divisible into _mala in se_ and _mala prohibita_: Mr. Collier justifies his departures from the morals of bibliography, by alleging his right to differ from Mr. Panizzi about its expediencies. He leaves out an author's Christian name, or substitutes his translator for him, and says he is not bound to follow Mr. Panizzi's foreign modes: and therein he resembles those reasoners who have defended false inference by renouncing Aristotle. But his own argument may be turned against him: it is a strong presumption in favor of the materiality of Mr. Panizzi's rules, that so able an opponent finds himself under the necessity of implying the following alternative--either those rules, or such bibliography as is seen in _this_ rejection of them. We dwell the more upon this point because we observe that some of the journals adopt the defence, and say in terms that what Mr. Panizzi calls errors are deviations from his own ninety-one rules. Are we really to believe that, if Mr. Collier had chosen to spell authors' names backwards, it would have been a sufficient answer to an objection from Mr. Panizzi, that the plan of writing them forwards was one of his own rules? According to Mr. Collier and his defenders, _English grammar_ is only one of Mr. Panizzi's foreign modes, repudiated by English common sense."

But the most elaborately formed rules for cataloguing are inadequate to provide for all cases. Doubts and difficulties will unavoidably arise, as to their application. For example, in abridging titles, scarcely any two men would agree, even within the limits of the rules given. It is necessary, therefore, that there should be a central superintendence of the whole enterprise; and that the duties of those who are engaged in preparing the titles, and of the superintendent should be distinctly understood. This object has been kept in view in preparing the rules. The transcribers are to be responsible for exactness, in writing off titles without abridgment; and for a clear statement, in notes, of all peculiarities not mentioned in the titles. They should also indicate the parts of the titles which they think might be omitted.

The titles are then to be submitted to the superintendent. He is to examine them, in order to see that all the rules have been observed. He is to decide upon all abridgments and additions, and mark the manuscript for the printer. He is also to examine the last revise.

PRINTING AND STEREOTYPING.

The printing should all be executed in one office, under the immediate eye of the superintendent. The same type, and the same style of work should be used in all parts.

It is not necessary, upon this plan, to finish a catalogue in manuscript, before beginning to print. Titles may be prepared and stereotyped without regard to their future arrangement. The work of the printer may keep pace with that of the transcribers. Should it be desired, a catalogue might be published in parts, each comprising a particular class of books.