SYSTEM.

SYSTEM.SMITHSONIAN CATALOGUE SYSTEM.DIFFICULTIES IN PUBLISHING CATALOGUES.Few persons, except librarians, are aware of the nature and extent of the difficulties, which have been encountered, in attempting to furnish suitable printed catalogues of growing libraries; difficulties apparently insurmountable, and menacing a common abandonment of the hope of affording guides, so important, to the literary accumulations of the larger libraries of Europe.It is, of course, entirely practicable to publish a complete and satisfactory catalogue of a library which is stationary. But most public libraries are constantly and rapidly increasing. This circumstance, so gratifying on every other account, is the source of the difficulties alluded to.While the catalogue of such a library is passing through the press, new books are received, the titles of which it is impossible, in the ordinary manner of printing, to incorporate with the body of the work. Recourse must then be had to a supplement. In no other way can the acquisitions of the library be made known to the public. If the number of supplements be multiplied, as they have been in the library of Congress, the student may be obliged to grope his weary way through ten catalogues, instead of one, in order to ascertain whether the book which he seeks be in the library. He cannot be certain, even then, that the book is not in the collection, for it may have been received, since the last appendix was printed. Supplements soon become intolerable. The whole catalogue must then be re-arranged and re-printed. The expense of this process may be borne, so long as the library is small, but it soon becomes burdensome, and, ere long, insupportable, even to national establishments.There is but one course left—not to print at all. To this no scholar consents, except from necessity. But to this alternative, grievous as it is, nearly all the large libraries of Europe have been reluctantly driven.More than a century has passed, since the printing of the catalogue of the Royal Library at Paris was commenced. It is not yet finished. No one feels in it the interest which he would, if he could hope to have its completeness sustained, when once brought up to a given date.Dr. Pertz, chief librarian of the Royal Library at Berlin, declares, that to print the catalogue of a large library, which is constantly increasing, is to throw away money. His opinion is founded upon the supposed impossibility of keeping up the catalogue, so as continually to represent the actual possessions of the library.The commissioners, lately appointed by the Queen of England, to inquire into the constitution and management of the British Museum, have, in their report, expressed an opinion decidedly against the printing of the catalogue at all, and principally on the ground that it must ever remain imperfect.One of the witnesses, (the Right Honorable J. W. Croker,) examined before the commissioners, thus strongly states the case with respect to printing:"You receive, I suppose, into your library every year some twenty thousand volumes, or something like that. Why, if you had a printed catalogue dropped down from Heaven to you at this moment perfect, this day twelve-month your twenty thousand interlineations would spoil the simplicity of that catalogue; again the next year twenty thousand more; and the next year twenty thousand more; so that at the end of four or five years, you would have your catalogue just in the condition that your new catalogue is now [the manuscript part greater than the printed part]. With that new catalogue before your eyes, I am astonished that there should be any discussion about it, for there is the experiment; the experiment has been made and failed."Not one European library, of the first class, has a complete printed catalogue, in a single work. The Bodleian Library is not an exception. It may be necessary to search six distinct catalogues, in order to ascertain whether any specified book were or were not in that collection, at the close of the year 1847.This is, surely, a disheartening state of things. It has been felt and lamented by every one who has had the care of an increasing library.PLAN FOR OBVIATING THESE DIFFICULTIES.As a remedy for this evil, it is proposed tostereotype the titles separately, and to preserve the plates or blocks, in alphabetical order of the titles, so as to be able readily to insert additional titles, in their proper places, and then to reprint the whole catalogue. By these means, the chief cost of re-publication (that of composition) together with the trouble of revision and correction of the press, would, except for new titles, be avoided. Some of the great difficulties, which have so long oppressed and discouraged librarians, and involved libraries in enormous expenses, may be thus overcome.APPLICATION OF THE PLAN TO THE FORMATION OF A GENERAL CATALOGUE.The peculiar position of the Smithsonian Institution suggested the application of this plan, on a wider scale, and for a more important purpose, than that of merely facilitating the publication of new and complete editions of separate catalogues.It had been proposed to form a general catalogue of all the books in the country, with references to the libraries where each might be found. The plan of stereotyping titles, separately, suggested the following system for the accomplishment of this important purpose:1. The Smithsonian Institution to publish Rules for the preparation of Catalogues.2. Other institutions, intending to publish catalogues of their books, to be requested to prepare them in accordance with these rules, with a view to their being stereotyped under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution.3. The Smithsonian Institution to pay the wholeextraexpense of stereotyping, or such part thereof as may be agreed on.4. The stereotyped titles to remain the property of the Smithsonian Institution.5. Every library, acceding to this plan, to have the right of using all the titles in the possession of the Institution, as often as desired, for the printing of its own catalogue, by the Smithsonian Institution; paying only the expense of making up the pages, of press-work, and of distributing the titles to their proper places.6. The Smithsonian Institution to publish, as soon as possible, and at stated intervals, a General Catalogue of all Libraries coming into this system.ADVANTAGES TO BE DERIVED FROM THIS SYSTEM OF PREPARING CATALOGUES.The plan of stereotyping the titles, separately, would be of great value to every increasing library, independent of any general system. Such a library, in the first issue of its catalogue, would be obliged to incur an additional expense for stereotyping, which we may, for the present, state at fifty per centum above the price for composition. But, in the first reprint, both these expenses would be saved; so that the whole cost of the two editions would, in this respect, be twenty-five per cent. less, if stereotyped.Moreover, it would be necessary to print only a comparatively small number of copies, when the book, in a more perfect state, could be reproduced so easily; much would therefore be saved in paper and press-work. Besides, the arrangement of the titles, for a reprint, would pass from the hands of the librarian to those of the printer. The proof-reading, also, would have been done, once for all. In keeping up such a catalogue, the attention and labor of the librarian would have to be bestowed only upon additional titles.Reckoning, thus, the expense of stereotyping as a part of the diminished cost of the first reprint, the saving, for every subsequent repetition, would be equal to the whole original cost of composition and proof-reading, for the part already stereotyped, and a considerable part of that of paper, press-work, and re-arrangement. It is, therefore, demonstrable that the economy of the plan would be very great, to every library publishing and reprinting its catalogues, even without connection with the system proposed.But, in connection with a general system, the advantages of this plan would be greatly increased, inasmuch as the same books are to be found in many libraries. If the titles, which have been stereotyped for one library, may be used for another having the same books, the saving to the second would be equal to the whole cost of composition and stereotyping of the titles common to the two, added to that of preparation of such titles.At least one quarter of the titles in any two general libraries, of ten thousand volumes and upwards, may safely be supposed to be the same. The saving, from this source, to the second library, would, therefore, go far towards defraying the extra expense of stereotyping. A third institution, adopting the plan, would be likely to find a very large proportion of its titles identical with those already stereotyped, and the amount saved by the use of these titles, would, perhaps, be sufficient to counterbalance the whole extra expenditure for stereotyping. At any rate, the extra expense would be constantly and rapidly diminishing, and would, probably after the fourth or fifth catalogue, cease entirely. The Smithsonian Institution would not, therefore, be required to assume the charge of an enterprise, which might involve it in great and increasing expense, but merely to organize, and to guide a system, which will almost immediately pay its own way, and will soon save large sums of money to our public libraries.That the aggregate economy of this plan would be very great, may be seen from the following statement:In fifteen thousand pages, mostly in octavo, of catalogues of public libraries in the United States, there were found to be more than four hundred and fifty thousand titles. But, according to the best estimate which could be made, these catalogues contained not more than one hundred and fifty thousanddifferenttitles. Two-thirds, at least, of the whole cost of printing these catalogues (except the extra expense incurred by stereotyping the titles which differed) might have been saved, by following this plan.Having shown its economy when employed by single libraries, and its greater economy, in connection with a general system, it is proper to suggest a few, among the many benefits to the cause of knowledge, which the general adoption of this method would seem to promise.It can hardly be necessary to dwell, at length, upon the benefits to be expected from a general printed catalogue of all books in the public libraries of America. By means of it, every student in this country would be able to learn the full extent of his resources for investigation. The places where books could be found, might be indicated in the catalogue. A correspondence could be kept up between this Institution and every other library in the country. A system of exchange and of loans might, with certain stringent conditions, be established, or, when the loan of a book would be impracticable, extracts could be copied, quotations verified, and researches made, through the intervention of this Institution, as effectually to the purpose of the student, in most cases, as a personal examination of the book. All the literary treasures of the country might thus be made measurably available to every scholar.Again, this general catalogue would enable purchasers of books for public libraries, to consult judiciously for the wants of the country. So poor are we in the books which scholars need; so long, at best, must we remain in a condition of provincial dependence in literary matters; that a responsibility to the whole country rests upon the man, who selects books for any public library.An important advantage of this system is, that it allows us to vary the form of the catalogue, at will, from the alphabetical to the classed, and to modify the classification as we please. The titles, separately stereotyped, may change their order at command. If, for example, it were required to print a separate list of all books in the country, on the subject ofmeteorology, it would merely be necessary to check off, in the general catalogue, the titles to be used, leaving to the printer the rest of the work.Another highly beneficial result would be, the attainment of a much higher degree ofuniformitythan could otherwise be hoped for. The rules for cataloguing must be stringent, and should meet, as far as possible, all difficulties of detail. Nothing, so far as can be avoided, should be left to the individual taste or judgment of the cataloguer. He should be a man of sufficient learning, accuracy and fidelity, to apply the rules. In cases of doubt, reference should be made to the central establishment, to which the whole work should be submitted, page by page, for examination and revision. Thus,we should have all our catalogues formed substantially on one plan. Now, even if the one adopted were that of the worst of our catalogues, if it were strictly followed in all alike, their uniformity would render catalogues, thus made, far more useful than the present chaos of irregularities. The best possible system ought, however, to be the object of our aim.It is an important consideration, that this plan would greatly facilitate the formation of an American bibliography, or a complete account of all books published in America.By law, a copy of every book, for which a copyright shall be secured, in this country, is required to be delivered to the Smithsonian Institution, and to be preserved therein. It is hoped, that additional legislation, on this subject, will soon lighten the burdens of publishers, and secure the observance of this law,in all cases.The collection of books thus obtained and preserved, will present a complete monumental history of American literature, during the existence of the law. It is needless to enlarge upon its value, in this point of view. If, now, a list of these publications, as they come into the library, should, month by month, be published in aBulletin, and the titles immediately stereotyped, the expense would be but trifling of issuing, every year, a catalogue of books copyrighted in America, during the year, and printing, every five years, a general catalogue of American publications, up to that limit. Thus, monthly bulletins, annual lists, and quinquennial catalogues would furnish full and satisfactory records of American publications.Another general consideration is, that this project looks towards the accomplishment of that cherished dream of scholars,a universal catalogue. If the system should be successful, in this country, it may eventually be so in every country of Europe. When all shall have adopted and carried out the plan, each for itself, the aggregate of general catalogues, thus formed—few in number—will embrace the whole body of literature extant, and from them, it will be no impossible task to digest and publish a universal bibliography. How much this would promote the progress of knowledge, by showing, more distinctly, what has been attempted and accomplished, and what yet remains to be achieved, and thus indicatingthe path of useful effort; how much, by rebuking the rashness which rushes into authorship, ignorant of what others have written, and adding to the mass of books, without adding to the sum of knowledge; how much, by giving confidence to the true and heroic student, who fears no labor, so that it bring him to the height at which he aims—the summit of learning, in the branch to which he devotes himself; are objects which deserve the hopeful attention of all who desire their attainment.DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CATALOGUE AND A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY.A catalogue of a library is, strictly speaking, but a list of the titles of the books, which it contains. It is not generally expected to give any further description of a book than the author gives, or ought to give in the title-page, and the publisher, in the imprint, or colophon; except the designation of form, which is, almost universally, added.A bibliographical dictionary is supposed to contain, besides the titles of books, such descriptions, more or less extended, drawn from all available sources of information, as may be necessary to furnish means of identifying each work, of distinguishing its different editions, of ascertaining the requisites of a perfect copy, of learning all facts of interest respecting its authorship, publication, typography, subsequent casualties, alterations, etc., its market value, and the estimation in which it is held.A catalogue is designed to show what books are contained in a particular collection, and nothing more. Persons in want of further information, are expected to seek for it in bibliographical dictionaries, literary histories, or similar works.Inasmuch, however, as bibliographical works are not always accessible, or known to the investigator, additions are, not unfrequently, made to the titles, in catalogues, of such notices as belong more appropriately to bibliographical dictionaries, as above described. These, of course, impart to such catalogues greater value and usefulness.As bibliographers, we cannot indeed but wish, that the catalogue of every library were a bibliographical dictionary of its books.Practically, however, we must restrict our efforts, within the limits of probable accomplishment. There is no species of literary labor so arduous, or which makes so extensive demands upon the learning of the author, as that of the preparation of such works. The most which one man can hope to effect, in this department, is to examine and describe books, in some special branch of knowledge, or books of some particular class, aspalæotypes, books privately printed, a selection of books most esteemed by collectors, &c. It is too much to expect, that every librarian can find time, or possess learning, for such a description of all books under his care. Besides, this would be a waste of labor and of money. The same description would be prepared and printed, a hundred or a thousand times.It is doubtless desirable, that such results oforiginalinvestigations of librarians, as are not to be found in any of the bibliographical dictionaries, should be given, in the catalogues which they publish. In other cases, also, as will appear hereafter, it may be important to give, in a catalogue, fuller and more accurate descriptions of books, than are to be found upon their title-pages; but the principle should be established, and ever borne in mind, that a catalogue, being designed to be merely a list of titles, with imprints and designations of size, all additional descriptions should be limited and regulated by explicit rules, in order to give uniformity and system to the work, and to restrict its bulk and cost, within reasonable bounds.PREPARATION OF TITLES SO AS TO SERVE FOR BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR CATALOGUES.It is proposed to prepare and stereotype catalogues of particular libraries, in such a manner, that the titles can be used, without alteration, for constructing a General Catalogue.This requires, that the title of every book be such, as will apply to every copy of the same edition.If the edition be different, the book is to be considered different. In almost every instance, the title also, is different. There are, indeed, cases, where the title of a book is the same, in two editions,while the body of the work is more or less altered. Such instances are, however, of rare occurrence. They are, or should be, recorded in bibliographical works. They could only be described by one, who should place the two books side by side, and compare them together. In general, titles vary with the editions. We may, therefore, in using a title transcribed from one copy of a book, for other copies, avoid trouble by preparing and stereotyping a new title for every distinct edition; treating new editions as new books. So that, if copies of various editions of a work exist in several libraries, each will appear with a distinct title, in the General Catalogue.This method of forming a general catalogue requires, further, thatpeculiarities of copy, which it may be desirable to note in preparing the catalogues of particular libraries, should not be stated within the titles; but, if at all, in notes appended to the titles, and entirely separate from them.One copy of the same edition of a book may be on vellum, another, on paper; one may be in quarto form, another in octavo; one may have cancelled leaves, another, the substituted leaves, another, added leaves; some may contain autographs; some, valuable manuscript notes; others may be bound by Roger Payne, etc., etc. These are peculiarities of copy, and they may be as numerous as the number of copies in the edition. They are not noticed in title-pages, and, consequently, would not modify the entries in a catalogue, which takes cognizance of titles alone.The printed matter, which constitutes the book, as a literary production, is not altered, in any of these cases, except in that of cancelled, substituted, or added leaves. It is indeed true, that, occasionally, alterations are made in the body of a book, while it is passing through the press: that is to say, after a few copies have been struck off, some error may be discovered and corrected, or some word may be substituted for another. But, such changes are always slight, and can only be detected, by comparing two or more copies of a work together. In the case of cancelled leaves, it may, sometimes be desirable to print in the general catalogue, the description of rare and important copies possessed by particular libraries. But these cases would occur comparatively seldom. The rule would be,to omit from the title to be stereotyped, all account of peculiarities, or defects of copies.In cataloguing particular libraries, such peculiarities should be stated, upon the card, after the title, but separate from it. They may be printed, at the expense of such libraries, in the form of notes to their catalogues. The notes for any particular library may be made as extensive, as the means of the institution, and the learning and leisure of its librarian permit.There is another particular, in which the catalogue title might vary, in different copies: that, of designation of size. The same book, in the same edition, may have copies in quarto, in octavo, and in duodecimo. The size of the printed page is, however, in all these cases, the same; otherwise, the edition is different. All difficulty, on this account, therefore, is obviated, and all confusion of editions prevented, by adopting, instead of, or in addition to the usual designation ofform, as the indication of size, the measurement of the printed page, in inches and tenths. Other reasons for this mode of marking the size of books, with minute directions, will be given hereafter.FORM OF THE CATALOGUE.The titles constituting the catalogue may be variously arranged. They may be placed under the names of authors, and the names disposed in alphabetical order; they may be grouped in classes, according to subjects; or they may be made to follow the order of the date, or place of printing.The two most common forms for catalogues, are the alphabetical and the classed. Much controversy has arisen respecting their comparative usefulness. It is not necessary to revive it here, since the system now proposed, renders it easy to vary the order of titles, so as to suit any desired form.For the General Catalogue, however, it is, for several reasons, desirable to adopt the alphabetical arrangement.It would be impossible to propose any system of classification, which would command general approval, or upon which a commission of competent bibliographers would be unanimous in opinion.A classification, founded upon the nature of things, though it has occupied the best thoughts of such men as Bacon, Leibnitz, D'Alembert, Coleridge, Ampère, and many others, has not yet been attained. Every classification which has been proposed or used, is more or less arbitrary, and consequently unsatisfactory, and liable to be altered or superseded.If, however, it were possible to agree upon a system of classification, the attempt to carry it out would, in a work like that proposed, be fatal to uniformity. Where different men were applying the same system, their opinions would vary, with their varying intelligence and skill. This would lead to utter and irremediable confusion, and would eventually defeat all our plans.Even were these objections obviated, the occurrence of fewer difficulties in constructing an alphabetical catalogue would still present a decisive argument in its favor. Even these are great. If increased, by an attempt at classification, they would soon lead to an abandonment of the work.Another consideration of great weight is, that, in reprinting classified catalogues, and inserting additions, if the titles were kept in systematic order, the work of selecting those to be used, and of distributing them to their places, would have to be done by a person, who, besides being a practical printer, should be familiar with the bibliographical system adopted. This would be very expensive. Whereas, on the alphabetical plan, any printer could do the whole.On general considerations, without special reference to those which are peculiar to this system of publishing, alphabetical catalogues are to be preferred;—catalogues in which all the works of each author are placed under his name, and the names of authors are arranged alphabetically; anonymous works being entered under the first word of the title, not an article or preposition. Such is now the general opinion of competent bibliographers and literary men.The Edinburgh Review, in an able and interesting article upon the British Museum, holds the following language:"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 thebooks 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 theprofessionalpersons just alluded to [librarians] will be admitted to know best on all the points which have been raised relative to the care of a large library."The experience of all students, of all who use books, if carefully noted, will show, that, in a vast majority of cases, whoever wishes to refer to books in a library, knows the names of their authors. It follows, that this form of arrangement must be, in the main, the most convenient; and if any other be pursued, it can but accommodate the minority, at the expense of the majority.Still, it is indisputable that, oftentimes, the names of authors are not known; that one knows, merely, what subjects he wishes to investigate.It may be said, that a catalogue, being designed to be merely a list of books contained in a library, is not to be expected to furnish this information; and that references to all authors, treating of any particular subjects, may be obtained from bibliographical works, encyclopædias, and other sources of information. This is true. But, unfortunately, these sources of information are not generally known, or not readily accessible, even to men of considerable attainments and scholarship.It becomes, then, a question of importance how far the wants of such persons are to be provided for. The following remarks on this subject are worthy of attentive consideration:"On this, as on other points, we may observe that two descriptions of persons consult a catalogue—those who knowpreciselywhat 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 requireninety-one1)rules of digestion. The second class could easilybe 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, bycross-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.'"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 thecatalogueof each library, there should be anindexof 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 uponthis 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, goesto 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.Uniformityis, 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 secureuniformity; 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, andwithout 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 whocould 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 catalogueshouldbe 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 thenames 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 thefirstrather than of thesecondedition. 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 lamentableconsequences, 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 education2)the happiness and tranquillity it enjoys. Nothing therefore could be more obviously unjust thanto test my titles by Mr. Panizzi's rules. I discarded them altogether; I threw them overboard at once, anden masse....'"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 intomala in seandmala 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 inthisrejection 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 grammaris 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 forexactness, 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.The titles, after having been set up in type, and corrected with the utmost care, are, before stereotyping, to be sent to the library to which they belong, to be revised, by a comparison with the books themselves. This arrangement implies the necessity of a large fount of type, and of promptness on the part of librarians.The titles are then to be stereotyped, each upon a separate plate, or block. The headings (if they be names) are to stand on plates distinct from the titles. This is required, in order to avoid repeating them for each title. They must be separate from the titles, that other titles may, if occasion require, be interposed.Every name, or other word, used as a heading, is to be printed, in the title, in small capitals; thus each stereotyped title will show, at a glance, the heading under which it belongs.Each title is to have upon it a running number, according to the order of its being stereotyped. The use of this number is for reference to theLocal Indexof the general catalogue, in whichthe libraries, where the books are to be found, will be designated. When the catalogue is made up, these numbers will not be in connection; but in the index, they will follow each other in consecutive order, and should there have, printed against each, the names of the several libraries containing the book. These numbers will further serve to show the extent and progress of the work.Copies of the titles stereotyped will be kept at the Smithsonian Institution, arranged in their numerical order; so that in referring to any particular title it may not be necessary to copy the title in full, but merely to give the number attached to it.It will sometimes happen, that words, which, according to the rules, are used as headings, do not occur in the titles. There would, then, without further provision, be no means of ascertaining, from an examination of the plate itself, its order in the collection. To meet this case, the expedient has been adopted, of setting up the word to be used as the heading, in the margin of the title, and in shorter type, which will then show itself upon the plate, but not upon the printed page.PRESERVATION AND USE OF THE PLATES.When the titles have been stereotyped, and the plates ascertained to be in perfect working order, they are to be arranged alphabetically, and kept on sliding shelves, or shallow drawers, placed as near to each other as possible. The catch-letters of the titles may be marked upon the front of each shelf, so as to admit of alteration as the changing of the plates may require. The ranges of shelves may be so disposed as to form deep and narrow alcoves. A room of fifty feet by forty would accommodate the plates of upwards of a million titles, which may, in this manner, be kept in very compact and perfect order, and, at the same time, be easily accessible.It may not be amiss to add, that the material, which it is proposed to employ in the stereotyping, is much less expensive than common type metal; so cheap, indeed, that the whole expenditure on this account, even for so large a collection, would be of small importance. It is, besides, much lighter than type metal, more convenient in handling, and requires fewer, and less expensive fixtures. It is notat all affected by dampness, or by any ordinary elevation of temperature.The plates are mounted, for printing, upon blocks similar to those ordinarily used for stereotype plates, but with continuous clamps extending the whole length of the page. The breadth of page adopted is such as is suitable for a work in octavo, or in double columns in quarto or folio. The latter form (folio double columns) will probably be found most convenient, as well as most economical, for large catalogues. Presenting more titles upon a page, it enables a student to examine and compare, with greater facility, the various works of an author. It requires also less paper and press-work for the same number of titles. These considerations have led to the general adoption of the folio form for catalogues of large libraries. To these it may be added, in the present case, that in folio pages it would be practicable to avoid the division of titles between lines, without occasioning observable irregularities in the length of the pages.METHOD OF USING THE STEREOTYPED TITLES IN THE FORMATION OF NEW CATALOGUES.In concluding these details of the system of stereotyping catalogues, by separate titles, it now remains to say a few words upon the method of employing the titles, in the construction of new catalogues.Whenever, after the publication of one catalogue, upon this plan, it should be proposed to form a catalogue of another library, the first step would be to ascertain, which of the titles of such library have been already stereotyped; for these need not again be transcribed.This may be done in the following manner. A copy of the catalogue already published, together with a copy of any titles which may have been subsequently stereotyped, should be sent to the cataloguer, who as he takes a book from the shelf should first seek for its title among those already printed. If a title, strictly identical with that of the book, be found, it should be marked in the margin.When titles occur, which he does not find among those already printed, they are to be written, each on a card or slip of paper, according to the rules; and, as the work goes on, sent, in parcels, to be stereotyped.When the cataloguer has gone through the library in this manner, he is to return the printed catalogues, in the margin of which he has marked the common titles. The printer will then be able to select and combine the plates to be used for this particular catalogue, impose them, print the requisite number of copies, and distribute them to their places.After the catalogues of several libraries shall have been thus prepared and printed, they will be combined to form a general catalogue of those libraries, and thus the labor of selecting common titles will always be limited within narrow bounds.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.2)We understand Mr. Collier to imply that education is much more extended in England than in Prussia.

Few persons, except librarians, are aware of the nature and extent of the difficulties, which have been encountered, in attempting to furnish suitable printed catalogues of growing libraries; difficulties apparently insurmountable, and menacing a common abandonment of the hope of affording guides, so important, to the literary accumulations of the larger libraries of Europe.

It is, of course, entirely practicable to publish a complete and satisfactory catalogue of a library which is stationary. But most public libraries are constantly and rapidly increasing. This circumstance, so gratifying on every other account, is the source of the difficulties alluded to.

While the catalogue of such a library is passing through the press, new books are received, the titles of which it is impossible, in the ordinary manner of printing, to incorporate with the body of the work. Recourse must then be had to a supplement. In no other way can the acquisitions of the library be made known to the public. If the number of supplements be multiplied, as they have been in the library of Congress, the student may be obliged to grope his weary way through ten catalogues, instead of one, in order to ascertain whether the book which he seeks be in the library. He cannot be certain, even then, that the book is not in the collection, for it may have been received, since the last appendix was printed. Supplements soon become intolerable. The whole catalogue must then be re-arranged and re-printed. The expense of this process may be borne, so long as the library is small, but it soon becomes burdensome, and, ere long, insupportable, even to national establishments.

There is but one course left—not to print at all. To this no scholar consents, except from necessity. But to this alternative, grievous as it is, nearly all the large libraries of Europe have been reluctantly driven.

More than a century has passed, since the printing of the catalogue of the Royal Library at Paris was commenced. It is not yet finished. No one feels in it the interest which he would, if he could hope to have its completeness sustained, when once brought up to a given date.

Dr. Pertz, chief librarian of the Royal Library at Berlin, declares, that to print the catalogue of a large library, which is constantly increasing, is to throw away money. His opinion is founded upon the supposed impossibility of keeping up the catalogue, so as continually to represent the actual possessions of the library.

The commissioners, lately appointed by the Queen of England, to inquire into the constitution and management of the British Museum, have, in their report, expressed an opinion decidedly against the printing of the catalogue at all, and principally on the ground that it must ever remain imperfect.

One of the witnesses, (the Right Honorable J. W. Croker,) examined before the commissioners, thus strongly states the case with respect to printing:

"You receive, I suppose, into your library every year some twenty thousand volumes, or something like that. Why, if you had a printed catalogue dropped down from Heaven to you at this moment perfect, this day twelve-month your twenty thousand interlineations would spoil the simplicity of that catalogue; again the next year twenty thousand more; and the next year twenty thousand more; so that at the end of four or five years, you would have your catalogue just in the condition that your new catalogue is now [the manuscript part greater than the printed part]. With that new catalogue before your eyes, I am astonished that there should be any discussion about it, for there is the experiment; the experiment has been made and failed."

"You receive, I suppose, into your library every year some twenty thousand volumes, or something like that. Why, if you had a printed catalogue dropped down from Heaven to you at this moment perfect, this day twelve-month your twenty thousand interlineations would spoil the simplicity of that catalogue; again the next year twenty thousand more; and the next year twenty thousand more; so that at the end of four or five years, you would have your catalogue just in the condition that your new catalogue is now [the manuscript part greater than the printed part]. With that new catalogue before your eyes, I am astonished that there should be any discussion about it, for there is the experiment; the experiment has been made and failed."

Not one European library, of the first class, has a complete printed catalogue, in a single work. The Bodleian Library is not an exception. It may be necessary to search six distinct catalogues, in order to ascertain whether any specified book were or were not in that collection, at the close of the year 1847.

This is, surely, a disheartening state of things. It has been felt and lamented by every one who has had the care of an increasing library.

As a remedy for this evil, it is proposed tostereotype the titles separately, and to preserve the plates or blocks, in alphabetical order of the titles, so as to be able readily to insert additional titles, in their proper places, and then to reprint the whole catalogue. By these means, the chief cost of re-publication (that of composition) together with the trouble of revision and correction of the press, would, except for new titles, be avoided. Some of the great difficulties, which have so long oppressed and discouraged librarians, and involved libraries in enormous expenses, may be thus overcome.

The peculiar position of the Smithsonian Institution suggested the application of this plan, on a wider scale, and for a more important purpose, than that of merely facilitating the publication of new and complete editions of separate catalogues.

It had been proposed to form a general catalogue of all the books in the country, with references to the libraries where each might be found. The plan of stereotyping titles, separately, suggested the following system for the accomplishment of this important purpose:

1. The Smithsonian Institution to publish Rules for the preparation of Catalogues.

2. Other institutions, intending to publish catalogues of their books, to be requested to prepare them in accordance with these rules, with a view to their being stereotyped under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution.

3. The Smithsonian Institution to pay the wholeextraexpense of stereotyping, or such part thereof as may be agreed on.

4. The stereotyped titles to remain the property of the Smithsonian Institution.

5. Every library, acceding to this plan, to have the right of using all the titles in the possession of the Institution, as often as desired, for the printing of its own catalogue, by the Smithsonian Institution; paying only the expense of making up the pages, of press-work, and of distributing the titles to their proper places.

6. The Smithsonian Institution to publish, as soon as possible, and at stated intervals, a General Catalogue of all Libraries coming into this system.

The plan of stereotyping the titles, separately, would be of great value to every increasing library, independent of any general system. Such a library, in the first issue of its catalogue, would be obliged to incur an additional expense for stereotyping, which we may, for the present, state at fifty per centum above the price for composition. But, in the first reprint, both these expenses would be saved; so that the whole cost of the two editions would, in this respect, be twenty-five per cent. less, if stereotyped.

Moreover, it would be necessary to print only a comparatively small number of copies, when the book, in a more perfect state, could be reproduced so easily; much would therefore be saved in paper and press-work. Besides, the arrangement of the titles, for a reprint, would pass from the hands of the librarian to those of the printer. The proof-reading, also, would have been done, once for all. In keeping up such a catalogue, the attention and labor of the librarian would have to be bestowed only upon additional titles.

Reckoning, thus, the expense of stereotyping as a part of the diminished cost of the first reprint, the saving, for every subsequent repetition, would be equal to the whole original cost of composition and proof-reading, for the part already stereotyped, and a considerable part of that of paper, press-work, and re-arrangement. It is, therefore, demonstrable that the economy of the plan would be very great, to every library publishing and reprinting its catalogues, even without connection with the system proposed.

But, in connection with a general system, the advantages of this plan would be greatly increased, inasmuch as the same books are to be found in many libraries. If the titles, which have been stereotyped for one library, may be used for another having the same books, the saving to the second would be equal to the whole cost of composition and stereotyping of the titles common to the two, added to that of preparation of such titles.

At least one quarter of the titles in any two general libraries, of ten thousand volumes and upwards, may safely be supposed to be the same. The saving, from this source, to the second library, would, therefore, go far towards defraying the extra expense of stereotyping. A third institution, adopting the plan, would be likely to find a very large proportion of its titles identical with those already stereotyped, and the amount saved by the use of these titles, would, perhaps, be sufficient to counterbalance the whole extra expenditure for stereotyping. At any rate, the extra expense would be constantly and rapidly diminishing, and would, probably after the fourth or fifth catalogue, cease entirely. The Smithsonian Institution would not, therefore, be required to assume the charge of an enterprise, which might involve it in great and increasing expense, but merely to organize, and to guide a system, which will almost immediately pay its own way, and will soon save large sums of money to our public libraries.

That the aggregate economy of this plan would be very great, may be seen from the following statement:

In fifteen thousand pages, mostly in octavo, of catalogues of public libraries in the United States, there were found to be more than four hundred and fifty thousand titles. But, according to the best estimate which could be made, these catalogues contained not more than one hundred and fifty thousanddifferenttitles. Two-thirds, at least, of the whole cost of printing these catalogues (except the extra expense incurred by stereotyping the titles which differed) might have been saved, by following this plan.

Having shown its economy when employed by single libraries, and its greater economy, in connection with a general system, it is proper to suggest a few, among the many benefits to the cause of knowledge, which the general adoption of this method would seem to promise.

It can hardly be necessary to dwell, at length, upon the benefits to be expected from a general printed catalogue of all books in the public libraries of America. By means of it, every student in this country would be able to learn the full extent of his resources for investigation. The places where books could be found, might be indicated in the catalogue. A correspondence could be kept up between this Institution and every other library in the country. A system of exchange and of loans might, with certain stringent conditions, be established, or, when the loan of a book would be impracticable, extracts could be copied, quotations verified, and researches made, through the intervention of this Institution, as effectually to the purpose of the student, in most cases, as a personal examination of the book. All the literary treasures of the country might thus be made measurably available to every scholar.

Again, this general catalogue would enable purchasers of books for public libraries, to consult judiciously for the wants of the country. So poor are we in the books which scholars need; so long, at best, must we remain in a condition of provincial dependence in literary matters; that a responsibility to the whole country rests upon the man, who selects books for any public library.

An important advantage of this system is, that it allows us to vary the form of the catalogue, at will, from the alphabetical to the classed, and to modify the classification as we please. The titles, separately stereotyped, may change their order at command. If, for example, it were required to print a separate list of all books in the country, on the subject ofmeteorology, it would merely be necessary to check off, in the general catalogue, the titles to be used, leaving to the printer the rest of the work.

Another highly beneficial result would be, the attainment of a much higher degree ofuniformitythan could otherwise be hoped for. The rules for cataloguing must be stringent, and should meet, as far as possible, all difficulties of detail. Nothing, so far as can be avoided, should be left to the individual taste or judgment of the cataloguer. He should be a man of sufficient learning, accuracy and fidelity, to apply the rules. In cases of doubt, reference should be made to the central establishment, to which the whole work should be submitted, page by page, for examination and revision. Thus,we should have all our catalogues formed substantially on one plan. Now, even if the one adopted were that of the worst of our catalogues, if it were strictly followed in all alike, their uniformity would render catalogues, thus made, far more useful than the present chaos of irregularities. The best possible system ought, however, to be the object of our aim.

It is an important consideration, that this plan would greatly facilitate the formation of an American bibliography, or a complete account of all books published in America.

By law, a copy of every book, for which a copyright shall be secured, in this country, is required to be delivered to the Smithsonian Institution, and to be preserved therein. It is hoped, that additional legislation, on this subject, will soon lighten the burdens of publishers, and secure the observance of this law,in all cases.

The collection of books thus obtained and preserved, will present a complete monumental history of American literature, during the existence of the law. It is needless to enlarge upon its value, in this point of view. If, now, a list of these publications, as they come into the library, should, month by month, be published in aBulletin, and the titles immediately stereotyped, the expense would be but trifling of issuing, every year, a catalogue of books copyrighted in America, during the year, and printing, every five years, a general catalogue of American publications, up to that limit. Thus, monthly bulletins, annual lists, and quinquennial catalogues would furnish full and satisfactory records of American publications.

Another general consideration is, that this project looks towards the accomplishment of that cherished dream of scholars,a universal catalogue. If the system should be successful, in this country, it may eventually be so in every country of Europe. When all shall have adopted and carried out the plan, each for itself, the aggregate of general catalogues, thus formed—few in number—will embrace the whole body of literature extant, and from them, it will be no impossible task to digest and publish a universal bibliography. How much this would promote the progress of knowledge, by showing, more distinctly, what has been attempted and accomplished, and what yet remains to be achieved, and thus indicatingthe path of useful effort; how much, by rebuking the rashness which rushes into authorship, ignorant of what others have written, and adding to the mass of books, without adding to the sum of knowledge; how much, by giving confidence to the true and heroic student, who fears no labor, so that it bring him to the height at which he aims—the summit of learning, in the branch to which he devotes himself; are objects which deserve the hopeful attention of all who desire their attainment.

A catalogue of a library is, strictly speaking, but a list of the titles of the books, which it contains. It is not generally expected to give any further description of a book than the author gives, or ought to give in the title-page, and the publisher, in the imprint, or colophon; except the designation of form, which is, almost universally, added.

A bibliographical dictionary is supposed to contain, besides the titles of books, such descriptions, more or less extended, drawn from all available sources of information, as may be necessary to furnish means of identifying each work, of distinguishing its different editions, of ascertaining the requisites of a perfect copy, of learning all facts of interest respecting its authorship, publication, typography, subsequent casualties, alterations, etc., its market value, and the estimation in which it is held.

A catalogue is designed to show what books are contained in a particular collection, and nothing more. Persons in want of further information, are expected to seek for it in bibliographical dictionaries, literary histories, or similar works.

Inasmuch, however, as bibliographical works are not always accessible, or known to the investigator, additions are, not unfrequently, made to the titles, in catalogues, of such notices as belong more appropriately to bibliographical dictionaries, as above described. These, of course, impart to such catalogues greater value and usefulness.

As bibliographers, we cannot indeed but wish, that the catalogue of every library were a bibliographical dictionary of its books.Practically, however, we must restrict our efforts, within the limits of probable accomplishment. There is no species of literary labor so arduous, or which makes so extensive demands upon the learning of the author, as that of the preparation of such works. The most which one man can hope to effect, in this department, is to examine and describe books, in some special branch of knowledge, or books of some particular class, aspalæotypes, books privately printed, a selection of books most esteemed by collectors, &c. It is too much to expect, that every librarian can find time, or possess learning, for such a description of all books under his care. Besides, this would be a waste of labor and of money. The same description would be prepared and printed, a hundred or a thousand times.

It is doubtless desirable, that such results oforiginalinvestigations of librarians, as are not to be found in any of the bibliographical dictionaries, should be given, in the catalogues which they publish. In other cases, also, as will appear hereafter, it may be important to give, in a catalogue, fuller and more accurate descriptions of books, than are to be found upon their title-pages; but the principle should be established, and ever borne in mind, that a catalogue, being designed to be merely a list of titles, with imprints and designations of size, all additional descriptions should be limited and regulated by explicit rules, in order to give uniformity and system to the work, and to restrict its bulk and cost, within reasonable bounds.

It is proposed to prepare and stereotype catalogues of particular libraries, in such a manner, that the titles can be used, without alteration, for constructing a General Catalogue.

This requires, that the title of every book be such, as will apply to every copy of the same edition.

If the edition be different, the book is to be considered different. In almost every instance, the title also, is different. There are, indeed, cases, where the title of a book is the same, in two editions,while the body of the work is more or less altered. Such instances are, however, of rare occurrence. They are, or should be, recorded in bibliographical works. They could only be described by one, who should place the two books side by side, and compare them together. In general, titles vary with the editions. We may, therefore, in using a title transcribed from one copy of a book, for other copies, avoid trouble by preparing and stereotyping a new title for every distinct edition; treating new editions as new books. So that, if copies of various editions of a work exist in several libraries, each will appear with a distinct title, in the General Catalogue.

This method of forming a general catalogue requires, further, thatpeculiarities of copy, which it may be desirable to note in preparing the catalogues of particular libraries, should not be stated within the titles; but, if at all, in notes appended to the titles, and entirely separate from them.

One copy of the same edition of a book may be on vellum, another, on paper; one may be in quarto form, another in octavo; one may have cancelled leaves, another, the substituted leaves, another, added leaves; some may contain autographs; some, valuable manuscript notes; others may be bound by Roger Payne, etc., etc. These are peculiarities of copy, and they may be as numerous as the number of copies in the edition. They are not noticed in title-pages, and, consequently, would not modify the entries in a catalogue, which takes cognizance of titles alone.

The printed matter, which constitutes the book, as a literary production, is not altered, in any of these cases, except in that of cancelled, substituted, or added leaves. It is indeed true, that, occasionally, alterations are made in the body of a book, while it is passing through the press: that is to say, after a few copies have been struck off, some error may be discovered and corrected, or some word may be substituted for another. But, such changes are always slight, and can only be detected, by comparing two or more copies of a work together. In the case of cancelled leaves, it may, sometimes be desirable to print in the general catalogue, the description of rare and important copies possessed by particular libraries. But these cases would occur comparatively seldom. The rule would be,to omit from the title to be stereotyped, all account of peculiarities, or defects of copies.

In cataloguing particular libraries, such peculiarities should be stated, upon the card, after the title, but separate from it. They may be printed, at the expense of such libraries, in the form of notes to their catalogues. The notes for any particular library may be made as extensive, as the means of the institution, and the learning and leisure of its librarian permit.

There is another particular, in which the catalogue title might vary, in different copies: that, of designation of size. The same book, in the same edition, may have copies in quarto, in octavo, and in duodecimo. The size of the printed page is, however, in all these cases, the same; otherwise, the edition is different. All difficulty, on this account, therefore, is obviated, and all confusion of editions prevented, by adopting, instead of, or in addition to the usual designation ofform, as the indication of size, the measurement of the printed page, in inches and tenths. Other reasons for this mode of marking the size of books, with minute directions, will be given hereafter.

The titles constituting the catalogue may be variously arranged. They may be placed under the names of authors, and the names disposed in alphabetical order; they may be grouped in classes, according to subjects; or they may be made to follow the order of the date, or place of printing.

The two most common forms for catalogues, are the alphabetical and the classed. Much controversy has arisen respecting their comparative usefulness. It is not necessary to revive it here, since the system now proposed, renders it easy to vary the order of titles, so as to suit any desired form.

For the General Catalogue, however, it is, for several reasons, desirable to adopt the alphabetical arrangement.

It would be impossible to propose any system of classification, which would command general approval, or upon which a commission of competent bibliographers would be unanimous in opinion.A classification, founded upon the nature of things, though it has occupied the best thoughts of such men as Bacon, Leibnitz, D'Alembert, Coleridge, Ampère, and many others, has not yet been attained. Every classification which has been proposed or used, is more or less arbitrary, and consequently unsatisfactory, and liable to be altered or superseded.

If, however, it were possible to agree upon a system of classification, the attempt to carry it out would, in a work like that proposed, be fatal to uniformity. Where different men were applying the same system, their opinions would vary, with their varying intelligence and skill. This would lead to utter and irremediable confusion, and would eventually defeat all our plans.

Even were these objections obviated, the occurrence of fewer difficulties in constructing an alphabetical catalogue would still present a decisive argument in its favor. Even these are great. If increased, by an attempt at classification, they would soon lead to an abandonment of the work.

Another consideration of great weight is, that, in reprinting classified catalogues, and inserting additions, if the titles were kept in systematic order, the work of selecting those to be used, and of distributing them to their places, would have to be done by a person, who, besides being a practical printer, should be familiar with the bibliographical system adopted. This would be very expensive. Whereas, on the alphabetical plan, any printer could do the whole.

On general considerations, without special reference to those which are peculiar to this system of publishing, alphabetical catalogues are to be preferred;—catalogues in which all the works of each author are placed under his name, and the names of authors are arranged alphabetically; anonymous works being entered under the first word of the title, not an article or preposition. Such is now the general opinion of competent bibliographers and literary men.

The Edinburgh Review, in an able and interesting article upon the British Museum, holds the following language:

"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 thebooks 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 theprofessionalpersons just alluded to [librarians] will be admitted to know best on all the points which have been raised relative to the care of a large library."

"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 thebooks 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 theprofessionalpersons just alluded to [librarians] will be admitted to know best on all the points which have been raised relative to the care of a large library."

The experience of all students, of all who use books, if carefully noted, will show, that, in a vast majority of cases, whoever wishes to refer to books in a library, knows the names of their authors. It follows, that this form of arrangement must be, in the main, the most convenient; and if any other be pursued, it can but accommodate the minority, at the expense of the majority.

Still, it is indisputable that, oftentimes, the names of authors are not known; that one knows, merely, what subjects he wishes to investigate.

It may be said, that a catalogue, being designed to be merely a list of books contained in a library, is not to be expected to furnish this information; and that references to all authors, treating of any particular subjects, may be obtained from bibliographical works, encyclopædias, and other sources of information. This is true. But, unfortunately, these sources of information are not generally known, or not readily accessible, even to men of considerable attainments and scholarship.

It becomes, then, a question of importance how far the wants of such persons are to be provided for. The following remarks on this subject are worthy of attentive consideration:

"On this, as on other points, we may observe that two descriptions of persons consult a catalogue—those who knowpreciselywhat 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 requireninety-one1)rules of digestion. The second class could easilybe 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, bycross-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.'"

"On this, as on other points, we may observe that two descriptions of persons consult a catalogue—those who knowpreciselywhat 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 requireninety-one1)rules of digestion. The second class could easilybe 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, bycross-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.'"

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 thecatalogueof each library, there should be anindexof 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 uponthis 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.

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, goesto 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.Uniformityis, 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 secureuniformity; 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, andwithout which, the catalogues could not be comprehended in a general system.

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 whocould 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 catalogueshouldbe 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 thenames 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 thefirstrather than of thesecondedition. 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 lamentableconsequences, 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 education2)the happiness and tranquillity it enjoys. Nothing therefore could be more obviously unjust thanto test my titles by Mr. Panizzi's rules. I discarded them altogether; I threw them overboard at once, anden masse....'"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 intomala in seandmala 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 inthisrejection 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 grammaris only one of Mr. Panizzi's foreign modes, repudiated by English common sense."

"Mr. Payne Collier, the secretary of the Commission, undertook to show how the Museum catalogueshouldbe 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 thenames 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 thefirstrather than of thesecondedition. 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.'

'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 thenames 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 thefirstrather than of thesecondedition. 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 lamentableconsequences, 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 education2)the happiness and tranquillity it enjoys. Nothing therefore could be more obviously unjust thanto test my titles by Mr. Panizzi's rules. I discarded them altogether; I threw them overboard at once, anden masse....'

"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 intomala in seandmala 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 inthisrejection 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 grammaris 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 forexactness, 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.

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.

The titles, after having been set up in type, and corrected with the utmost care, are, before stereotyping, to be sent to the library to which they belong, to be revised, by a comparison with the books themselves. This arrangement implies the necessity of a large fount of type, and of promptness on the part of librarians.

The titles are then to be stereotyped, each upon a separate plate, or block. The headings (if they be names) are to stand on plates distinct from the titles. This is required, in order to avoid repeating them for each title. They must be separate from the titles, that other titles may, if occasion require, be interposed.

Every name, or other word, used as a heading, is to be printed, in the title, in small capitals; thus each stereotyped title will show, at a glance, the heading under which it belongs.

Each title is to have upon it a running number, according to the order of its being stereotyped. The use of this number is for reference to theLocal Indexof the general catalogue, in whichthe libraries, where the books are to be found, will be designated. When the catalogue is made up, these numbers will not be in connection; but in the index, they will follow each other in consecutive order, and should there have, printed against each, the names of the several libraries containing the book. These numbers will further serve to show the extent and progress of the work.

Copies of the titles stereotyped will be kept at the Smithsonian Institution, arranged in their numerical order; so that in referring to any particular title it may not be necessary to copy the title in full, but merely to give the number attached to it.

It will sometimes happen, that words, which, according to the rules, are used as headings, do not occur in the titles. There would, then, without further provision, be no means of ascertaining, from an examination of the plate itself, its order in the collection. To meet this case, the expedient has been adopted, of setting up the word to be used as the heading, in the margin of the title, and in shorter type, which will then show itself upon the plate, but not upon the printed page.

When the titles have been stereotyped, and the plates ascertained to be in perfect working order, they are to be arranged alphabetically, and kept on sliding shelves, or shallow drawers, placed as near to each other as possible. The catch-letters of the titles may be marked upon the front of each shelf, so as to admit of alteration as the changing of the plates may require. The ranges of shelves may be so disposed as to form deep and narrow alcoves. A room of fifty feet by forty would accommodate the plates of upwards of a million titles, which may, in this manner, be kept in very compact and perfect order, and, at the same time, be easily accessible.

It may not be amiss to add, that the material, which it is proposed to employ in the stereotyping, is much less expensive than common type metal; so cheap, indeed, that the whole expenditure on this account, even for so large a collection, would be of small importance. It is, besides, much lighter than type metal, more convenient in handling, and requires fewer, and less expensive fixtures. It is notat all affected by dampness, or by any ordinary elevation of temperature.

The plates are mounted, for printing, upon blocks similar to those ordinarily used for stereotype plates, but with continuous clamps extending the whole length of the page. The breadth of page adopted is such as is suitable for a work in octavo, or in double columns in quarto or folio. The latter form (folio double columns) will probably be found most convenient, as well as most economical, for large catalogues. Presenting more titles upon a page, it enables a student to examine and compare, with greater facility, the various works of an author. It requires also less paper and press-work for the same number of titles. These considerations have led to the general adoption of the folio form for catalogues of large libraries. To these it may be added, in the present case, that in folio pages it would be practicable to avoid the division of titles between lines, without occasioning observable irregularities in the length of the pages.

In concluding these details of the system of stereotyping catalogues, by separate titles, it now remains to say a few words upon the method of employing the titles, in the construction of new catalogues.

Whenever, after the publication of one catalogue, upon this plan, it should be proposed to form a catalogue of another library, the first step would be to ascertain, which of the titles of such library have been already stereotyped; for these need not again be transcribed.

This may be done in the following manner. A copy of the catalogue already published, together with a copy of any titles which may have been subsequently stereotyped, should be sent to the cataloguer, who as he takes a book from the shelf should first seek for its title among those already printed. If a title, strictly identical with that of the book, be found, it should be marked in the margin.

When titles occur, which he does not find among those already printed, they are to be written, each on a card or slip of paper, according to the rules; and, as the work goes on, sent, in parcels, to be stereotyped.When the cataloguer has gone through the library in this manner, he is to return the printed catalogues, in the margin of which he has marked the common titles. The printer will then be able to select and combine the plates to be used for this particular catalogue, impose them, print the requisite number of copies, and distribute them to their places.

After the catalogues of several libraries shall have been thus prepared and printed, they will be combined to form a general catalogue of those libraries, and thus the labor of selecting common titles will always be limited within narrow bounds.

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

Back to IndexNext