THE BATTLE OF THE RULES.
To Sir Anthony Panizzi we owe rules for the making of catalogues:
perhaps it would be more proper to say the codification of rules, for
sound rules must have been in the mind of the compilers of good
catalogues before his time. When one person makes a catalogue, he
usually acts upon principles which are known to himself, although he may
not have committed them to writing. When several assistants are employed
to make a catalogue, it is positively necessary that the compiler in
chief, who will be responsible for the whole work, should give
directions to his assistants, so that they may all work on the same
plan.
The famous code of ninety-one rules which was given to the world in 1841
(_Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum_, vol. i., Letter A)
had for its foundation a small number of rules originally devised by Mr.
Baber[11] (the predecessor of Mr. Panizzi as Keeper of the Printed
Books).
Mr. Panizzi was appointed Assistant Librarian in the British Museum in
April 1831, and in 1837 he succeeded Mr. Baber as Keeper. As a new
general catalogue was now required, a committee was formed to frame
rules for its compilation. This committee consisted of Panizzi, Thomas
Watts, J. Winter Jones, Edward Edwards, and John H. Parry (afterwards
Serjeant Parry). The plan adopted was for each of these gentlemen
separately to prepare rules for the purpose, according to his own views.
These were afterwards discussed collectively, and when any difference
arose, it was settled by vote. When these rules were complete, they were
presented to the trustees by Panizzi on March 18th, 1839, with the
following memorandum:--
"Mr. Panizzi has the honour to lay before the trustees the rules,
which, under all circumstances, he proposes as advisable to be
followed in the compilation of the Alphabetical Catalogue,
accompanied by a number of illustrations. Although he is well aware
that such rules must necessarily be affected by the haste with which
they have been compiled, he ventures to hope they will be
sufficiently intelligible to the trustees, and enable them, even in
their present imperfect state, to judge of the principles that Mr.
Panizzi should wish to see observed. He is fully aware that many
cases may arise unprovided for, and that some of these rules and
principles may be liable to objections, which may not perhaps appear
in other plans, seemingly preferable; but he trusts that what seems
objectionable may, on mature reflection, be found in fact less so.
He cannot, at present, do more than entreat the trustees to take
into their patient and minute consideration every single part, as
well as the whole of the plan proposed, and then decide as they may
think fit, bearing in mind that, although these rules may, if
strictly followed, occasionally lead to what may appear absurd, the
same objection, to a perhaps greater extent, may be urged against
any other plan, and far greater evils result from a deviation from a
principle than from its inflexible application."
The rules were sanctioned by the trustees July 13th, 1839, and printed
in 1841. In the note prefixed to the volume of the catalogue then
printed Panizzi wrote:--
"The application of the rules was left by the trustees to the
discretion of the editor, subject to the condition that a catalogue
of the printed books in the library up to the close of the year 1838
be completed within the year 1844."
Panizzi very properly disapproved of the publication piecemeal of the
catalogue before it was completed, and eventually he obtained his own
way, with the result that the printing was discontinued, and a
manuscript catalogue was gradually built up. In the note just referred
to he proceeds:--
"With a view to the fulfilment of this undertaking, it was deemed
indispensable that a catalogue should be put to press as soon as
any portion of the manuscript could be prepared; consequently the
early volumes must present omissions and inaccuracies, which it is
hoped will diminish in number as the work proceeds."
According to Mr. Fagan (_Life of Sir A. Panizzi_, vol. i., p. 259), the
wasteful publication of the volume containing letter A was due to a
blunder in the secretary's department. Apparently the order of the
trustees was to have the catalogue ready _for_ the press by December
1844, instead of which it was intimated to Panizzi that the catalogue
was to be printed by that time.
Both Panizzi[12] and Parry[13] pointed out in their evidence before the
Commission (1848-49) how wasteful a process it was to catalogue the
library by letters instead of cataloguing every book on a shelf at one
time. There cannot be two opinions among experienced bibliographers of
the absurdity of making a catalogue in such a piecemeal manner, and yet
this is a plan of proceeding which the inexperienced in cataloguing are
frequently found to recommend. Mr. Parry said: "Not only the printing of
letter A first do I look upon to be an entire waste, both of time and
money--a waste just as much as if the time were thrown away, and just as
if the money had been actually thrown away--but the plan of taking those
titles from this large body of titles and sending for the books is a
serious waste of time.... In my opinion, volume A, the volume that is
now printed, must be cancelled, if ever the whole catalogue is printed.
The reason of that would be, that an immense mass of titles, in the
further cataloguing of the succeeding portions of the alphabet, would
arise to be catalogued under the letter A, which nobody would have
anticipated until the whole library was catalogued." The Commission
coincided with Mr. Panizzi's view, and incorporated their opinion on
this point in the report. The consequence was that Panizzi was allowed
to proceed on his own plan, with the result that, in the first place, a
large number of volumes of manuscript titles supplementary to the old
general catalogue were produced, and subsequently an entirely new
catalogue, superseding the old one.
The history of the catalogues of the British Museum Library is a curious
and interesting one. A catalogue prepared by Dr. Maty, the Rev. S.
Harper, and the Rev. S. Ayscough was published in 1787 (2 vols., folio).
This was soon superseded; and in 1806 Sir Henry Ellis and the Rev. H. H.
Baber (then Keeper and Assistant Keeper respectively of the Printed
Books), carrying out the instructions of the trustees, commenced the
compilation of a new catalogue, which was published in 1813-19 (7 vols.
in 8 parts, 8vo). Ellis was answerable for the letters A to F, with P,
Q, and R; and Baber for the remainder of the alphabet.
Now that we have an excellent catalogue of the library, which we owe to
the exertions of Panizzi, we are too apt to forget the services of Ellis
and Baber as compilers of the very valuable old catalogue. Panizzi took
delight in finding faults in this catalogue, and one of the blunders
which he pointed out was the entry of a French translation of one of
Jeremy Bentham's works, in which the author's name, having been
translated in the title-page of the book into French, was transferred in
the same form--"Bentham (Jéréme)"--into the catalogue.[14] Doubtless
there are many bibliographical mistakes; but it is an excellent
practical catalogue, and does the greatest credit to the compilers. Even
now, although the print is almost lost in the mass of manuscript, and
the volumes are nearly worn out, the copy in the Reading Room may still
be used with advantage when a book cannot be found in the more elaborate
new catalogue.
In 1847 the Royal Commission, already alluded to, was appointed to
inquire into the constitution and government of the British Museum, and
the report of the Commission, with minutes of evidence, was published in
1850. This report appeared in a large folio volume of eight hundred and
twenty-three pages, which is still full of interest from a
bibliographical point of view.
The Commissioners considered arrangements connected with the management
which have since been changed, and therefore are of little interest now;
but the evidence chiefly related to the new rules for the catalogue, and
resolved itself into an arraignment of Mr. Panizzi's plans, with
Panizzi's reply to the arraignment at the end of the evidence. The
report shows how unsatisfactory were the relations between the officers
of departments, and how strong was the antagonism to Panizzi's rules and
arrangements among literary men.
Many authors whom one would have expected to know something of the art
of cataloguing showed the most amazing ignorance, and a love for
careless work that makes us extremely glad that their cause was
defeated. Some witnesses exhibited a dislike to the rules merely because
they were rules. Mr. J. G. Cochrane, then Librarian of the London
Library, in answer to the question, "Have you read the ninety-one
rules?" said, "I read some of them, and it appeared to me that they were
more calculated to perplex and to mystify than to answer any useful
purpose;" and again, when asked, "Do you object to rules in any
compilation of catalogues?" he said, "Yes, very much" (p. 460). Further
on in his evidence he said, "I think that in bibliography, as well as in
geography, it is always advisable to keep as much to uniformity of
system as possible" (p. 464). But he did not make it clear how
uniformity was to be obtained without rules.
The greatest grievance which "readers" seem to have had is one which we
can scarcely realize at the present day. Mr. Panizzi ruled that whoever
wanted a book should look it out in the catalogue, and copy the title on
a slip with the press-mark before he could receive it. Mr. Carlyle
refused to look out in the catalogue for a pamphlet which he knew to be
in a particular collection. His account of the matter is as follows:--
"I had occasion at one time to consult a good many of the pamphlets
respecting the Civil War period of the history of England. I
supposed those pamphlets to be standing in their own room, on
shelves contiguous to each other. I marked on the paper, 'King's
Pamphlets,' such and such a number, giving a description undeniably
pointing to the volume; and the servant to whom I gave this paper at
first said that he could not serve me with the volume, and that I
must find it out in the catalogue and state the press-mark, and all
the other formalities. Being a little provoked with that state of
things, I declared that I would not seek for the book in that form;
that I could get no good out of these Pamphlets, on such terms; that
I must give them up rather, and go my ways, and try to make the
grievance known in some proper quarter" (p. 280).
Dr. J. E. Gray expressed the opinion that the feeling against this rule
respecting the press-mark was very general (p. 491). It is necessary to
bear in mind that "the old system was, that you merely wrote the title
of the book you wanted without the necessity of looking for it in the
catalogue. If you wanted a particular edition of it, then you looked in
the catalogue for the particular title or date, and the book was brought
to you if it could be found" (7684, p. 491).
Although many of the witnesses showed a lamentable ignorance of the
principles of sound bibliography, others proved themselves quite capable
of setting right the ignorant.
The Right Hon. J. W. Croker, when asked, "Are you of opinion that the
labour and difficulties in the management and cataloguing of a library
increase merely in the same proportion with its extent?" made this very
true observation, "I think the difficulties would increase, I may say
geometrically rather than arithmetically" (8734, p. 570).
Mr. John Bruce considered it a fault in the new catalogue that the
titles were too full (pp. 417-18); but Prof. A. De Morgan pointed out
very clearly the many dangers of short titles (p. 427). Mr. Croker
strongly advocated the use of long titles. He said: "There will of
course be a few remarkable instances of great prolixity of title-page,
which really are worth preserving as curiosities, if for nothing else.
But generally speaking there is nothing that is quite safe and
satisfactory to a person who goes to look for a book, but a full title;
I will add, a most important consideration in a library like this, which
people come to consult; it has happened to me twice, I think, within the
last ten days to find it unnecessary to send for a book that I intended
to apply for, by finding an ample title-page, which showed me that I
should not find there what I wanted" (8709, p. 567).
Dr. Gray in his pamphlet (_Letter to the Earl of Ellesmere_, 1849) makes
this extraordinary statement: "The works with authors' names, or with
false names, should be arranged alphabetically, according to the names
of the authors, taking care that the names used should be those that are
on the title-pages; and, if an author have changed his or her name, that
the work published under the different names should be in different
places in the alphabet" (p. 5).
Mr. Parry gave much sensible evidence, and this point was submitted to
him. The question of the chairman (Earl of Ellesmere) was, "Have you
heard it proposed that each book should be catalogued under the form of
name appearing on the title, without any regard to uniformity, and
without regard to the different forms of name adopted by an author, or
arising from the different languages in which works by the same author
may be printed?" Mr. Parry's answer was as follows: "I have never heard
that suggested, except by Mr. Gray. I have read it in Mr. Gray's
pamphlet; and I have heard it from Mr. Gray when he was an assistant....
I certainly do not wish to be offensive to Mr. Gray, for I have the
pleasure of his acquaintance, but I think the thing perfectly absurd. I
might be permitted to say, that the noble lord in the chair has
published under two or three names; and that I should prefer to see all
his lordship's works under one heading, and not scattered in three
different places in the Catalogue under the name of Gower, of Egerton,
and of Ellesmere.... I remember Mr. Gray used occasionally to come and
talk about the Catalogue, but it always seemed to me that he had never
given any consideration to the subject. It is by no means an easy thing
to make a catalogue; a person to make it, must have a very large and
special knowledge of books and of languages" (7338, p. 470).
The witness whose evidence was the most unfortunate for himself was Mr.
Payne Collier. He committed himself by submitting some titles which he
had made in illustration of his views. There were twenty-five titles,
which had been made in the course of an hour. These were handed to Mr.
Winter Jones, who reported upon them very fully, with the following
result:--
"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 Blomfield, Chester, and London; and those of
Lord Ellesmere under Gower, 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.[15]
12th. Errors in grammar. 13th. Errors in descriptions 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.... When 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 six
hundred thousand 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 something startling--about one million three hundred thousand
faults for the six hundred thousand works; that is, supposing the
proportion to continue the same."
Then follows a searching examination of each individual title, with the
result that any claims to be considered a correct cataloguer which Mr.
Collier may have been supposed to have were entirely annihilated.
The Report of the Commissioners enters very fully into the various
points raised by the evidence before them, with the result that it was
considered advisable that Mr. Panizzi should be given his own way, and
that the new catalogue should be completed in manuscript.
The British Museum Rules are, as already stated, printed in the
_Catalogue of Printed Books_ (_Letter A_, 1841), and in Henry Stevens's
_Catalogue of the American Books in the Library of the British Museum at
Christmas_, 1856. They are given in Mr. Thomas Nichols's _Handbook for
Readers at the British Museum_ (1869), under the various subjects in
alphabetical order, with a series of useful illustrations. Some slight
modifications of the rules have been made since the printing of the
catalogue has been in hand, and a capital _résumé_ of the rules, under
the title of _Explanation of the System of the Catalogue_, is on sale at
the Museum for the small sum of one penny.
The strife which was caused by the publication of the rules was
gradually quelled, and the British Museum code was acknowledged in most
places as a model.
Professor Charles Coffin Jewett published at Washington in 1853 a very
careful work on this subject. His pamphlet is entitled, "_Smithsonian
Report on the Construction of Catalogues of Libraries, and their
Publication by means of Separate Stereotyped Titles, with Rules and
Examples_. By Charles C. Jewett, Librarian of the Smithsonian
Institution."
Mr. Jewett makes an observation with which all who have considered the
subject with attention must agree. He writes:--
"Liability to error and to confusion is ... so great and so
continual, that it is impossible to labour 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 labours will be mortifying and
unprofitable."
With respect to his own rules he writes:--
"The Rules which follow 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."
The rules are classified as follows:--pp. 1-45, Titles; pp. 45-56,
Headings; pp. 57-59, Cross-references; pp. 59-62, Arrangement; pp. 62,
63, Maps, Engravings, Music; p. 64, Exceptional Cases.
The number of rules is not so large as those of the British Museum, and
rule 39 stands thus: "Cases not herein provided for, and exceptional
cases requiring a departure from any of the preceding rules, are to be
decided on by the Superintendent."
Jewett's rules, with some alterations, were adopted and printed by the
Boston Public Library.
The _Rules to be Observed in Forming the Alphabetical Catalogue of
Printed Books in the University Library_, Cambridge, were drawn up after
the authorities had decided to print the catalogue slips of all
additions to the library, and also gradually to build up a new catalogue
by printing the titles of the books already in the library as they were
re-catalogued. These rules were, to a great extent, founded upon those
of the British Museum. In the year 1879, Mr. Bradshaw, Librarian, in
conjunction with Messrs. E. Magnusson and H. T. Francis, Assistant
Librarians, made some alterations in the rules, and as thus altered they
now stand, numbering forty-nine.
The rules of the Library Association of the United Kingdom may be
considered as somewhat "academical," because they were not made for any
particular library. They have gained, however, in importance in that
they were adopted by Mr. Edward B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, for
the Catalogue of the Bodleian Library. These rules were originally
formed for the purpose of making a foundation for a Catalogue of English
Literature, as proposed by the late Mr. Cornelius Walford. This
catalogue, however, gradually receded into the background, and the rules
were adapted to the purposes of a general library catalogue. The rules
have been modified at successive annual meetings of the Association.
Although Mr. Nicholson adopted the Library Association Rules in the
first instance, he printed in 1882 a set of _Compendious Cataloguing
Rules for the Author-Catalogue of the Bodleian Library_, which has
since been added to, and the number of rules is now sixty.
We have, in conclusion, to take note of by far the most important code
of rules after that of the British Museum. I allude of course to the
remarkable second part of the _Special Report on Public Libraries in the
United States_ (1876), which consists of "Rules for a Printed Dictionary
Catalogue, by Charles A. Cutter." This work stands alone in the
literature of our subject. Not only are the rules set out, but the
reasons for the rules are given. This is usually considered as a
dangerous proceeding, and it requires a man with the clear-headedness
and mastery of his subject for which Mr. Cutter is distinguished to
carry out such a scheme with success. I am not prepared to agree
altogether with the principle of the Dictionary Catalogue, or with all
the reasons for the rules--in fact, some of them are highly stimulating,
and prove strong incentives to argument; but it would be difficult to
find anywhere in so small a space so many sound bibliographical
principles elucidated.
It is now nearly fifty years since the British Museum Rules were
published, and at the present time we can scarcely understand the
antagonistic feeling with which these rules were then received. We can
now see how much we are indebted to them. To their influence we largely
owe the education of the librarian in the true art of cataloguing, and
the improved public opinion on the subject; and to them we owe the noble
Catalogue of the British Museum, which is a remarkable monument of great
knowledge and great labour combined. We are therefore bound to do honour
to the memory of Panizzi, who planned the work and endued with his
spirit the many distinguished men who have followed him and completed
his work.
[Decoration]
FOOTNOTES:
[11] _Report of the Commissioners on the Constitution and Government of
the British Museum_, 1850, p. 16.
[12] See Questions 4207, 4212, pp. 254-55.
[13] See Question 7223, p. 469.
[14] Fagan's _Life of Sir A. Panizzi_, vol. i., pp. 143-44. Mr. Fagan
writes "Jérôme," but it is really Jéréme in the catalogue.
[15] This is the most extraordinary reason ever given. If it were
accepted as valid it would settle the question, for under no
circumstances could the authors of all anonymous works be discovered.
[Decoration]