libraires de Paris. Paris, 1864._ 4ᵗᵒ; 7.
Quérard’s quarrel with M. S. P. is one of the things most to be regretted
in his career, but he does not seem to have had that valuable quality
of making friends, and such was the obstinacy of his character, that he
would have sacrificed his dearest friendship to an idea. In fact it is
only from materials such as this that we ever obtain works of the nature
of Quérard’s.
He has been called “the chief of French bibliographers,”[51] “the
Patriarch and Apostle of men devoted to bibliographical studies,”[52] and
many other equally flattering, though not unmerited, epithets. He was the
first, and probably the last, person in France who attempted—with what
success our readers have seen—to make a profession, and an honourable
means of support out of the science of books. He must long have known
the madness of the endeavour, yet such was his devotion to his darling
art, he was totally unable to deviate from the path which inevitably
led to failure, for one which might have brought success. Bibliography
is an occupation that no one would follow with a fore-knowledge of the
incessant sacrifices, the continuous labour, this introduction to all
science claims at the hands of its votaries. But each one who comes
fresh to the study, brings with him hopes and aspirations which are
sufficient to buoy him up for many years in the struggle for knowledge;
though ultimately to be, like all predecessors, disappointed by neglect,
ignorance, and want of appreciation,[53]
Quérard was pre-eminently endowed with all the qualities which form a
bibliographer, the principal being indefatigable perseverance and the
strictest accuracy.[54] Of his character little is said; he was of a
retiring disposition, modest and unpretending, with a just idea of the
magnitude and importance of his labours, and a full knowledge of the most
unmerited neglect and of the cause of that neglect. He was indefatigable
in his application and worked unremittingly, a necessity, in fact, for
any one who wishes to execute any bibliographical undertaking. For
himself, though not for the literature of his country, it is to be
deplored that this love of research was not exercised in some other
calling in which such constant labour would have ensured an ordinary
competency, if not the highest position. The bibliography of his works
is, in fact, almost his biography. A most interesting feature of the
latter, however, as he himself remarks, would be his relations with
authors and publishers, and others with whom his publications brought him
in contact; whether he has left such, time will probably show.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It is curious that this work, like that of Quérard, should have been
composed away from the repositories one would have expected the authors
to consult. Many parallel circumstances may be traced both in the lives
and works of these men, who so much benefited the literature of their
country: without any benefit to themselves. Quérard was robbed of his
work, as we shall presently see, and so was Watt. The former never
recovered his. The Watts had a year’s labour before they recompiled the
stolen sheets. CHAMBERS’ BIOG. DICT. OF EM: SCOTCH: IV. 439, 1856.
[2] We doubt whether so far as the public are concerned they are not
gainers by his not being pensioned off with some such post. If he
attended to his duties, would he have been able to go on with his work?
In 1856, he himself complained that the Officers in the Imperial Library
attended more to their own pursuits than to the Library or the public;
although it is only open from 10 till 3, and no books to be asked for
after ½ past 2. LE QUÉRARD, II., 564.
We have often thought what an amount of erudition a certain gentleman
at the British Museum must possess: it always reminds us of the sphinx,
it never speaks, nor does it impart its knowledge concealed behind that
expansive forehead. Even if some of the knowledge were imparted, should
we not then complain that our library was ill-attended to?
Upon this point we would refer the reader to Mr. Panizzi’s characteristic
evidence taken before the “Select Committee on the British Museum 1836,”
commencing at 4919.
[3] We cannot resist the temptation of giving this letter entire:—
“Mon cher ami, je suis toujours votre abonné naturel,
ordinaire, et extraordinaire pour toutes vos publications. Je
lis votre journal avec un vif intérêt, et je vois que vous
gagnez du terrain dans ce grand désert de la bibliographie,
où le sol aride produit à peine des pommes de terre. La note
que vous avez mise à l’occasion de la mort du ministre m’a
serré le cœur en me rappelant une des plus grosses injustices
de ce temps-ci; mais que voulez-vous? il est arrêté en
principe ministériel que les bibliothécaires ne sont pas des
bibliographes; les choses allaient de même sans doute avant
la Révolution puisque comme le dit Beaumarchais, il fallait
un calculateur et ce fut un danseur qu’on choisit. Vous
protestez contre cette énormité en publiant de bons travaux: le
meilleur serait encore une seconde édition revue, et augmentée
de votre ‘France Littéraire.’ Quant à ‘l’Encyclopédie du
bibliothécaire,’ c’est tout du monde et le jour des créations
n’appartient qu’au bon Dieu.
Croyez à mes sentiments bien dévouée,
“PAUL LACROIX, bibliophile JACOB.”
(LE QUÉRARD, II., 462, 1856.)
[4] INDÉPENDANCE BELGE, 3 August, 1856.
[5] The Bibliothèque Impériale at present possesses a keeper of the
same calibre. Being asked one day by Quérard if he had works on “La
Gaellique” and “Le Demotique.” What are those two things?—They are two
languages.—Oh, then we have nothing. Note by Q. in 1854. He does not give
the date of the above book?
[6] To show how hollow was the pretext for this legal robbery, the book
though edited by four persons was not completed till 1857, and then in
VII. vols. the last two subjects promised on the title-page have never
been carried out.
[7] It is amusing for instance to find a translation of GULLIVER’S
TRAVELS catalogued under the Christian name, as if “Lemuel (Gulliver)”
were the author. See LA LITTÉRATURE CONTEMP. V. 80.
[8] For the criticisms on the part by Quérard, see REVUE DE BIB. ANA.
1840, p. 1094; and 1842, p. 994; and Nos. XVII. and XXIV.
[9] L’organe des chartistes, l’Athenæum français a cessé de paraître.
Plan et titre étaient empruntés a un journal littéraire anglais qui
compte un grand nombre d’années d’existence. LE QUÉRARD, II. 530. That is
the Athenæum, and which contains a mass of authentic and useful matter
next to perfectly useless for want of a GENERAL INDEX.
[10] One critic, who rejoiced in the name of Hippolyte Babou, fortunately
gives us some guide to the value of his criticisms. The following
is the order in which M. Hippolyte Babou would give biographical
particulars:—1st, The names, Christian names or pseudonyms of the author.
2nd, A succinct biography, if any: the dates of his death, and birth; the
principal events of his life. L’ATHENÆUM FRANÇAIS, 1854; 666.
[11] The insane prejudice against Mr. Panizzi, because he was of Italian
birth, which was exhibited some years ago by a number of grossly ignorant
detractors, will no doubt be recollected. For ourselves, though we
have not the honor of knowing him, we consider Mr. Panizzi a patriotic
Englishman, and whether he is or not proud of England, England ought to
be proud of him.
[12] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, I. 142-431. 1845. This article of M.
Guichard is reprinted in No. XXIV.
[13] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, I. 357. 1845.
[14] In the preface the following observations occur:—The English who
have so many special bibliographers, have not one who has occupied
himself with anonyms and pseudonyms; we will not say universal, but not
even of their own nation. Watt does not cite any in his BIBLIOTHECA
BRITANNICA. M. Philarète Chasles, one of those French writers who has
been greatly instrumental in introducing foreign literature to us, has
recently traced out a most exhaustive plan for English literature,
similar to that which other civilized nations already possess. The REVUE
DES DEUX MONDES, (Series 5, VI. 757, 1844) contains an excellent article
from his pen, which begins thus:—“In the whole history of literature,
there is not a more fantastical group of whimsicalities than that of
the English pseudonyms which abound between 1688 and 1800; nor is there
any subject so new and unexplored, and yet so little explained. It was
at that time some hundreds of writers, amongst whom I shall only take
certain notabilities, deliberately renounced the lustre of their own
names, and sacrificed their vanity to their interest or passion. If
they concealed their names and disguised their hand it was to carry out
their work better: one wishes to destroy an ancient reputation which is
in his way; another wants to popularise sentiments which he considers
useful; others to glorify the national vanity; the greater part to
make their fortunes. There are the innocent and honest, as De Foe; the
violent and imprudent, like Chatterton; the foolish, like Ireland; the
unskilful and the calumniators, like Landor; and lastly, the expert, the
Scotchman Macpherson, who deceived an entire generation of Europe and
America.” Burke’s “imitation” of Bolingbroke may amongst numerous others
be mentioned. It would perhaps be difficult to find a better example of
the necessity there is for a good English bibliographical work, like
LA FRANCE LITTÉRAIRE, than the information Bohn’s LOWNDES gives about
Burke’s writings. The “imitation” is not even mentioned, and in the life,
by Prior, there is scarcely a scrap of bibliographical information.
Generally, we concur in Mr. Hazlett’s very severe condemnation of
Lowndes, though it must not be forgotten it is the only one we have. Mr.
H. while professing not to be critical, in reality “damns the book.”
“It may have been a well-meant scheme.” HAND-BOOK TO EARLY ENGLISH
LITERATURE, 1867, p. VI.
A masterly article upon Burke will be found in ALLIBONE’S CRITICAL DICT.
OF ENG. LIT. 1859. This is without doubt one of the most extensive and
boldest literary enterprises of the day, entirely executed by one man. It
does not contain much bibliographical matter, as the plan precluded it.
As Dr. Petzholdt remarks:—“Enthält zwar eine grosse Masse litterarischer
Materialien, die aber mit allzu grosser Oekonomie zusammengetragen sind,
als dass sie für bibliographische Zwecke sonderlichen Nutzen haben.”
BIBLIOTHECA BIBLIOGRAPHICA, p. 419.
“And the judgment of the learned upon English authors” is no longer a
desideratum. Bolton Corney, CURIOSITIES OF LIT. ILLUSTRATED.
[15] We can assure our readers that this Old Nick is no relation of the
Gentleman so often mentioned in England.
[16] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, II. 78, 1845.
[17] See La L. F. C. of Bourquelot, IV., 104.
[18] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, III. 400, 1846.
[19] B. du B. B. III. 400. 1846.
[20] Years ago we were informed that Mr. Glover, Her Majesty’s Librarian,
had a large collection for a work on anonymous and pseudonymous writers
of England QUAR. REV. LXXII., 8.
[21] What would the writer in the Athenæum (1849) have said if he had
been told at the time, when he was ridiculing the “500” volumes the
catalogue was to be in, that it would ultimately be three times that
number!
[22] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE IV; 222; 1846.
[23] B. DU B. B. IV. 444. 1847.
[24] B. DU B. B. VI. 149-419. 1849.
[25] L’INDÉPENDANCE BELGE. 3 August 1856.
[26] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, III.; 401.
[27] The following is the title of the first part:—
Les Auteurs Apocryphes supposés déguisés plagiaires et les éditeurs
infidèles de la littérature française pendant les quatre derniers siècles
ensemble les industriels littéraires et les lettrés qui se sont enoblés à
notre époque. Par J.-M. Q. auteur de L. F. L., 1ʳᵉ livre Paris l’Éditeur
1846; pp. 80.
[28] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, IV., 66. 1847.
[29] This is erroneous, Quérard declares that he alone was the author,
and the chief assistance he had was from the catalogues of the dramatic
agents.
[30] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, IV.; 206.
[31] IBID, IV.; 352.
[32] IBID, IV.; 434.
[33] IBID, VII.; 398. 1850.
[34] IBID, VII.; 160. 1851.
[35] SUPERCHERIES, I. 484, 511.
[36] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, XX, 141. 1864.
[37] In NOTES AND QUERIES, may it live long and prosperous, some very
ridiculous signatures have been from time to time adopted. One gentleman
indulges in the following:—“Thinks I to myself,” to the great discomfort
of all autonyms. A table of pseudonyms, and the real names of the
writers in this useful little journal, would be more than curious and
interesting; it would make many notes authoritative. We wish the editor
could be encouraged to reveal the pseudonyms, if only of the first and
second series.
[38] Preface, LES ÉCRIVAINS PSEUD.
[39] BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE VI.; 354.
[40] IBID, V.; 132.
[41] B. DU B. B. XX.; 198.
[42] Le Quérard in announcing the MEMOIRS OF LIBRAIRES, by Edward
Edwards, of the BRITISH MUSEUM, DECLARES THAT THE AUTHOR WROTE DIE
MASKIRTE LITERATUR DER ALTEREN UND NEUREN. LEIPZIG; 1856; imp. 8ᵛᵒ; von
EMIL WELLER, and that Emil Weller is Mr. Edward Edwards’ pseudonym. We
can scarcely credit this, seeing the number of works Dr. Petzholdt[A]
ascribes to the former, and the latter’s constant literary occupations
at home. If the above is right, we may compliment Mr. Edwards upon his
German, and Herr Weller upon his correct English titles and familiarity
with our Institutions. We beg respectfully to suggest to Mr. Edwards,
NOTES AND QUERIES, as a medium for contradicting this, if it is not a
fact. We are glad of an opportunity of thanking him for the information
we have derived from many of his works, and particularly his MEMOIRS OF
LIBRARIES.
[A] Bibliotheca Bibliographica, Kritisches Verzeichniss der das
Gesammtgebiet der Bibliographie Betreffenden Litteratur des in- und
auslandes in systematischer ordnung bearbeitet von Dr. Julius Petzholdt.
Mit alphabetischem namen- und Sachregister. Leipzig. Verlag von Wilhelm
Engelmann. 1866; 8ᵛᵒ; xii. 939.
[43] In announcing the death of this gentleman, Quérard writes:—
“M. Fortoul était très affable et rempli de bienveillance. Nous en citons
une preuve entre mille.
Un soir des premiers jours d’Octobre de l’année dernière (1855), un
pauvre solliciteur revenait de l’hôtel du ministre de l’instruction
publique; il était très satisfait!!! Il sortait d’une audience qui lui
avait été accordée, et dans laquelle le ministère avait été pour lui
d’une extrême bonté, quoique le personnage très intimidé de se trouver
dans un cabinet ministériel fût bien décontenancé, et ait dû paraître
passablement gauche au ministre. Mais M. Fortoul connaissait les ouvrages
du rude travailleur qui se trouvait en sa présence, et sa franchise lui
plut; aussi l’accueillit-il mieux qu’un homme à jactance et à prestance
assurées.
Ce solliciteur était l’auteur de LA FRANCE LITTÉRAIRE. M. Fortoul lui
promit de le dédommager de l’indifférence de ses prédécesseurs, sauf
de M. Guizot, en 1830. L’occasion ne s’est pas présentée de tenir la
promesse qu’il avait faite au bibliographe; mais il s’en rappellera dans
le monde meilleur pour lequel il est parti, et la bibliographie sera
relevée un jour en notre personne par une place de bibliothécaire—chez le
Père éternel.” LE QUÉRARD, II., 446.
[44] Nothing could be more apposite to his position than Mathias’
remarks:—“The want of discretion and prudence has ruined more men of
learning and of genius than the time would allow me to mention. Without
this sobriety of intellect, nothing is strong, nothing is great....
The world will but smile at such scholars; and ministers when called
upon to promote them, will tell you, not without reason, that “THEY
ARE NOT PRODUCIBLE.” Those who in confidence of superior capacities or
attainments, DISREGARD THE COMMON MAXIMS OF LIFE, shall be reminded that
nothing will supply the want of prudence.” PURSUITS OF LITERATURE, 1812;
4ᵗᵒ; 366.
The numerous and copious notes in this work remind us that we should
apologise for our own. But it seems some cannot write without them, and
others, a very small minority indeed, with them. It has been said that
notes to a book show want of thought, but surely this could not be a
reproach to the one we have just quoted. The young German students we
are told rush into print and oceans of notes directly their college life
is over. (ROGERS. VANITY AND GLORY OF LIT.) Struvinus says that lawyers
are especially apt to give too many notes. We do not think this aptitude
confined to them. Mr. Bolton Corney, in 30 pages, has 110 notes. (See his
excellent critique on THE NEW GENERAL BIOGRAPHICAL DICT. 1839. 8ᵛᵒ; 35.)
Basil Montagu’s notes sometimes rival the size of his work. George Ensor,
in the INDEPENDENT MAN, has 1000; and Buckle, in his INTRODUCTION, has
10,000. What would become of Dibdin deprived of his notes!
[45] To the honor of America several names of Philadelphians appear. And
to America the mother country was content to leave that honor, for not
a single English name of note appears but those of Antonio Panizzi, J.
Winter Jones and Thomas Watts.
[46] PETZHOLDT. BIBLIOTHECA BIBLIOGRAPHICA, p. 106.
[47] CHERBULIEZ in the REVUE CRITIQUE, 1863.
[48] Joel Cherbuliez “Revue Critique,” 1863. B. DU B. B., XIX., 213, 417.
See also M. de Stacy, “Journal des Débats,” July 12, 1855, p. 3.
[49] The consequence of this criticism was to obtain for Guichard, though
a celebrated and talented author, only a single line in the foot notes of
the 5th edition of Brunet’s Manuel. For critique see B. DU B. B., XIX.,
214, 1863.
[50] See also B. DU B. B., XX., 141, 1864.
[51] M. Aug. Scheler, bibliothécaire de S. M. le roi des Belges in the
BULLETIN DU BIBLIOPHILE BELGE, 1856, p. 302.
[52] His Ex. M. Modeste de Korf, letter to Quérard, 1856.
[53] That this should be so is a reproach to the education of Englishmen;
and yet so it is, and always has been. Important as is the science of
books, there is not a man that can be pointed out who, after having
devoted a life-time to its study, has been adequately rewarded. Let us
simply take as an instance the last man who has been disappointed, who
intended, no doubt, to contribute to English bibliography what should
prove a useful literary addition, instead of which it is a useful
commercial manual. He complains as each part of his work appears:—
“The labour required to make anything like a perfect Manual of
Bibliography, is, both physically and mentally, far beyond what would
be conceived by those who have not engaged in such duties, while the
requital of even a successful achievement would be below what might be
derived from the most ordinary pursuit.”
He then cites Dr. Watt, and “Lowndes, after years of unwearied exertion,
died in distress.” (Part II.)
“The book does not pay at its present price.” (Part IV.) “Bibliographical
knowledge alone is not sufficient for producing a satisfactory manual—it
requires unremitting industry and perseverance.” (Appendix.)
But what would he have said if he had executed his work thoroughly,
devoted twenty years to its compilation, aided scarcely by a single
hand, instead of by numerous coadjutors? We candidly confess that we are
disappointed in the new edition of Lowndes. What unveiling of pseudonyms,
what anonymous books ascribed or given authoritatively to their real
authors had we not a right to expect from one who had been all his life
among books and literary men? And yet we ought to thank Mr. Bohn if only
for making Lowndes cheaper.
[54] We believe the old notion that a bibliographer must know everything
it is possible to know has long since exploded. It was a very popular
thing for the early writers in any science to give a list of the
qualifications a man required to follow it. They generally were so
numerous that to have attempted to study the science according to their
plan would have been madness. Peignot in his MANUEL DU BIBLIOPHILE,
Dijon, 1823, p. lii., says that a bibliographer should have a knowledge
of all sciences. This may be requisite for any one who is attempting
universal bibliography—not for a special bibliograph; if he has a good
education combined with the above qualities, though even in a less degree
than Quérard, he may justly hope for utility and success.
PART II.
It now only remains to record poor Quérard’s death, in torture of body
and mind, in the very midst of his most useful labours, and in his most
active moments. This we shall leave to men who were his personal friends.
Their notices we give entire in the beautiful language of the originals;
we had not sufficient hardihood to spoil them by a translation, so we
give them as a second part, or appendix.
J. M. QUÉRARD.
La science des livres vient de faire une perte qu’on est en droit de
regarder comme irréparable; un des bibliographes les plus actifs, les
plus dévoués que l’Europe ait jamais produits, Quérard vient d’être
enlevé par une mort inattendue.
Des voix plus autorisées que la nôtre se sont fait entendre et elles
ont payé un juste tribut de regrets à la mémoire de cet infatigable
travailleur. Qu’il nous soit permis, à nous qui le connaissions depuis
bien des années, de consigner ici quelques impressions personnelles.
La biographie de Quérard sera sans doute écrite plus tard; nous ne
prétendons nullement la raconter aujourd’hui.
Toutes les personnes qui ont l’occasion de s’occuper de livres consultent
sans cesse la _France littéraire_. Ce qu’il a fallu de patience et de
dévouement pour accomplir un pareil labeur, on ne saurait le dire.
Dresser l’inventaire de tout ce qui a été imprimé en langue française
depuis 1700, accompagner de quelques détails les ouvrages importants,
il y avait dans une pareille entreprise motif d’épouvante pour les plus
intrépides Bénédictins. Quérard, seul, en vint à bout; dix volumes
compactes, à deux colonnes, furent achevés en quinze ans; mais à peine
avait-il écrit la dernière page de cet immense répertoire, qu’il le
continuait sur un autre plan plus vaste encore. La _Littérature française
contemporaine_, commencée en 1840, passée ensuite dans d’autres mains,
n’a pu tenir ce qu’elle promettait. Renonçant à ce labeur, Quérard ajouta
successivement à la _France littéraire_ trois volumes d’additions et
de corrections qui, entrepris en 1854, n’ont pu arriver à la fin de
l’alphabet; la mort l’a frappé lorsque des épreuves attendaient encore le
bon à tirer.
Nous devons en convenir, l’ardent bibliographe s’était fait illusion sur
ses forces; il s’était tracé un cadre que nulle vie humaine n’aurait été
assez longue pour remplir. Les détails biographiques surabondaient sous
sa plume; il reproduisait de longs extraits de journaux relatifs aux
hommes et aux livres. Tout cela était utile, agréable pour les lecteurs,
qui retrouvaient ainsi des morceaux piquants qu’ils auraient eu parfois
beaucoup de peine à découvrir; mais la _France littéraire_ acquérait une
extension qui la condamnait forcément à demeurer inachevée.
Un sujet parfois délicat, mais fort piquant, très-instructif, fut abordé
dans les _Supercheries littéraires_ (1845-53, 5 vol. in-8); l’auteur
voulut restituer chaque ouvrage anonyme ou pseudonyme à son véritable
auteur; il prétendit également faire tomber ces masques si bigarrés dont
s’affublent des écrivains qui métamorphosent leurs noms véritables et qui
se décernent très-souvent des titres de noblesse parfaitement apocryphes.
Il y avait là bien des révélations indiscrètes; bien des susceptibilités
furent blessées; mais la curiosité des lecteurs y trouva son compte. Les
_Supercheries littéraires_ sont de tous les ouvrages de Quérard celui qui
s’est le plus rapidement écoulé.