6

so able a bibliographer as Mr. Bolton Corney, had he grounded his observations upon what could be made a national view of the difficulty. But when we came to this question and answer, we could not prevent their accompanying us through all that followed. Do you approve of the present system of cataloguing the books?' I cannot say that I do, because I see no chance, 'at my time of life, of ever having before me a catalogue which is carried on upon so elaborate a plan.' The Commissioners, we observe, carefully avoided all appearance of baiting crossexamination towards the witnesses who did not belong to the Museum; nor towards these last was it carried one bit further than would have been courted by the witnesses themselves, as public men against whom various charges had been made, both in newspapers and by other witnesses. But, though highly approving of this, we could almost wish that Mr. B. Corney had been asked up to what age he considered his answer to be a valid one. We fancy that it must have been difficult, sometimes, to repress a sly hit: one appears even in the Report; a witness complains that there is but one copy of Facciolati in the Library, on which the Commissioners remark that 'four editions of Forcellini are at the disposal of the readers; which, inas'much as Forcellini* was the real author of the work in question, appears as complete an answer as can be given.'

It seems to have been almost universally agreed that the catalogue ought to be alphabetical. Some time ago the current of opinion among literary men seemed to be setting towards classed catalogues, or those in which the books are arranged according to subjects. We had hardly supposed that this illusion (as we hold it to be) had become so nearly obsolete as the evidence before us shows that it is: and this disappearance of a most injurious opinion, which never was entertained to any extent by the really experienced in bibliography, encourages us to hope that it will not be long before the professional persons just alluded to will be admitted to know best on all the points which have been raised relative to the care of a large library. Of these the one with which we are now most concerned is as follows: Is it, or is it not, requisite for the formation of a good catalogue that the titles of books should be fully given? that is, with such fulness as shall not fail both to represent the author's intention, in every point in which he allowed his titlepage to declare it, and also to supply such information with

* Let us express our hope that one of the results of this inquiry may be the restoration of Forcellini's name to that association with his work of which he has been most unjustly deprived.

1850.

Catalogue of Printed Books: The Evidence.

379

regard to appendices, annotations, &c., as a correct author would advertise in his title-page, when the actual author does not do it? All parties are agreed that this question of fulness is merely an appendage to that of accuracy: all are agreed that the catalogue must be accurate, that is, must give such a description of each book as will enable the reader to know, in the author's words, whether it be the precise work and edition that he wants: all are agreed that a catalogue is bad, when it often happens, in consequence of its faultiness, that the book which is ordered turns out to be the wrong one. We mean, all who know what strict research is. Mr. Carlyle, indeed, says that it is not once in a dozen times that one 'cares about a particular edition :' the only one of whom we believe this, is the one who declares it of himself;- their Majesties might have a right to take brother Neale's money, since brother Neale offers it. We should rather, in catalogue matters, trust those by whom it is only once in a dozen times that a particular edition is not wanted, or a choice of particular editions. The question then is, what degree of fulness is essential to the required accuracy; and as there cannot be different catalogues for different classes of inquirers, (though this has been proposed, and the proposal has been likened to that of the small hole for the small cat, and the large hole for the large one,) it is as necessary that the one constructed should meet the wants of the most profound investigation, as that the engine should be able to draw the longest train which is to be attached to it throughout the whole journey. If, indeed, it could be shown that the catalogue requisite for investigations of greater accuracy could not be used by those for whom less might be sufficient, there would be a case made out for two catalogues. But this has not been attempted; that is to say, all the main objections made to the proposed plan have been described as referring equally to all kinds of use. Mr. G. L. Craik, when asked whether he thinks a catalogue not bibliographical would answer the purposes of the reading room, replies, not all the purposes, but nine out of ten of them.' To this we agree, though probably nine-tenths is too large a fraction. At the same time, nine-tenths is almost a recognised term for an indefinite majority. It is confidently asserted that nine-tenths of literary men are against the proposed plan: we suspect, first, that both the fractions must be cut down, and next, that the two have some connexion with one another.

The following is the briefest possible summary of the tendencies of the evidence with respect to full titles as against condensed ones; and from it can be collected, as nearly as may be, the numerical amount of evidence for and against the plan which Mr. Panizzi's opponents persist in giving to him entire. We

allow Mr. Panizzi and Sir H. Ellis to pair off on opposite sides, as the actual constructors of two opposed catalogues. The naturalists appear to favour a classed catalogue, and (with the exception of Drs. Grant and Lindley, who gave opinions in writing,) approve the plan of Dryander, which involves long titles: so said Mr. Robert Brown, Mr. König, and Professor Owen, the first of whom would also have a succinct alphabetical catalogue. Mr. Adolphus Asher, the well known Berlin bookseller, thinks long titles the only mode. Mr. W. D. Cooley, who proposes to stereotype the titles separately, would only strike out superfluities, and leaves us to infer that he leans to longer titles than the professed advocates of brevity. Mr. G. L. Craik, who considers the common idea that a good catalogue is an easy thing to be a wild and ludicrous delusion, would have a short catalogue constructed for present use, and a long one at deliberate leisure; but is sure the short catalogue would be very unsatisfactory to the public. Mr. John Wilson Croker, who has had much more to do with cataloguing than those who know him only as a public man would think, is as firmly and exclusively for long titles as Mr. Asher. Mr. P. Cunningham thinks the principle of the long catalogue excellent, but wants something immediately. The Rev. W. Cureton is decidedly for long titles, as is Mr. E. Edwards. Professor De Morgan, who has entered more fully than any one except Mr. Panizzi into the errors which arise from short titles, would have very full ones; he finds even the new catalogue rather too brief than otherwise. Mr. H. Hallam is for full titles, but on the supposition, which he advocates in any case, that the catalogue is not to be printed. The Rev. S. R. Maitland also would have full titles, but also would not print them. Mr. W. R. Hamilton would have the titles as full as possible: Mr. J. H. Parry the same. Lord Strangford thinks a bibliographical catalogue desirable, but is afraid of the length of time it would take. Mr. E. Doubleday, Professor Forbes, Mr. E. Hawkins, Mr. G. Soane, and Mr. C. Tomlinson, are not precise as to what they think on the point. Mr. J. J. Bennett, the Rev. G. E. Biber, and Mr. J. Bruce are for short titles. Mr. Carlyle is the same, and thinks that any intelligible way would do. Mr. J. G. Cochrane is for short titles, but objects to any rules in drawing up a catalogue; and certainly his practice, as evidenced by his catalogue of the London Library, is in conformity with his theory. Mr. J. Payne Collier, of whom more presently, is for short titles; as is Mr. Bolton Corney, whose reason has been already mentioned. Mr. G. Dodd thinks the new catalogue too ample. The Rev. J. Forshall thinks that the larger the library,

1850.

Catalogue of Printed Books: The Evidence.

381

the more succinct should be the catalogue: that is, as appears to us, the greater the danger of confusion, the more it should be courted. Mr. J. E. Gray is for short titles, as is also Sir R. H. Inglis, who, we strongly suspect, confounds bibliography with bibliomania. Mr. Edmund Hodgson, the auctioneer, seems to think that consulting the Museum Library in Great Russell Street, and selling it off in Fleet Street, are entirely the same questions as to catalogue: we cannot imagine how or why he was invited to give evidence. Did the Panizzi faction bring him forward as a caricature of some of their literary opponents? If so, though the joke was a good one, it was too broad, was likely to give offence, and was not altogether the mode in which men of education should oppose each other. Sir F. Madden advocates short titles, and considers the Bodleian catalogue as a sufficient model: of this we shall presently speak. Lord Mahon is for short titles; and Mr. T. Hudson Turner thinks even the old catalogue too complicated. Such is the abridgment of our abridgment of the mass of answers on this one point; and it has been no short nor easy task. We cannot hope to satisfy any of the witnesses by it; but many a reader will get a better notion from it, than he would have had courage to get for himself from the original materials.

As to the order of the evidence, the following plan was adopted. Mr. Panizzi gave a general account of the state of the collection, &c., all the witnesses who volunteered or were asked for evidence were then heard, (the willingness of the Commission to receive it having been publicly announced in the 'Athenæum' No. 1111., together with Mr. Panizzi's request that all complainants would come forward,) and, finally, Mr. Panizzi was heard in detailed defence. To this course we have since seen strong objection made by those who thought that, after the defence, the replies of the assailing witnesses should have been heard. For ourselves, we can hardly reconcile such a demand with the principle or usage of such inquiries. Mr. Panizzi was the party on his trial, and those who attacked him had had years of newspaper opportunity, most vigorously used: while he, a public officer, was prevented by his position, as well as by the relation in which his defence would have placed him to the Trustees, from making any reply. The defence was here strictly in answer, in every instance but one; if any body were entitled to reply, it was Mr. Payne Collier, in the matter of which we shall presently speak; but even in that case the right was very doubtful.

Having now given our readers a general view of the principal authorities on either side, we proceed to grapple with the issue

raised. It is most obvious that the onus lies with the complainants assailing the present plan, which was recommended by grave authority, initiated under the sanction of the House of Commons, and which has only been prevented from a more speedy proof of its efficiency by the stress of external clamour acting on the well-intentioned indecision of the Trustees. When a plan is thus in possession, it can only be properly driven out in one of two ways; either by proving that something better has been done, or that something better can be done. We do not demand that the superiority should be so excessive as to balance the evil of rendering nugatory all that has been accomplished; we concede that the importance of the end to be gained would make the sacrifice well worth while, if any reasonably better project could be shown to be very certain to gain the end. That end is a correct catalogue a commonly correct catalogue as it is called: for common correctness, like common sense and common honesty, is assumed to be rightly adjectived. Of course the defenders of the existing scheme pressed for something crucial on one or the other of these points: show us, they said, in existence, the catalogue you would have, or if not, at least show us how you would give it existence. With that downright mode of meeting adverse arguments which both sides have displayed throughout this inquiry-and which, we may stop to say, makes the blue book before us much more interesting to read than most others - both questions were responded to. The parties who ventured virtually to stake their cause, we must not say they did so in terms,-the one upon a catalogue in esse, the other upon one in posse, were among the most eminent in letters of those who took part in the discussion, Sir Frederic Madden and Mr. Payne Collier. Both had right of access to hear the evidence, and were furnished with proof sheets of it; the former as an officer of the Museum, the latter as secretary to the Commission. Both took up the glove at an advanced period of the evidence, when it had become exceedingly apparent that the assertions of such men as themselves would be subjected to sifting scrutiny. The two challenges, therefore, were most deliberately answered.

Sir F. Madden (p. 478.) pointed out the Bodleian* catalogue in the following terms; the italics are our own:

*This catalogue was spoken of as if it contained the whole of the Bodleian collection. Far from it: there will be six more alphabets, and there are five. The Douce, Malone, Gough, and Oppenheimer collections, and that of dissertations and theses, are printed and a supplement to the catalogue of which we speak in the text, is now, we understand, in the press.