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.