« PředchozíPokračovat »
many editions as the author of these maps, and an article is consacré to his memory by Baron Walckenaer in the Biographie Universelle.' A similar error is committed by Père Simon, in his Histoire Critique du Vieux et Nouveau Testament,' where he turns part of an Irish sentence into Dom Allbrighte. As to the still earlier maps designed for Ptolemy's geography by Ayatos Aaav, or Agathodæmon of Alexandria, we find, in the recent catalogue raisonné of the Bibliothèque de la Marine de la France,' a note to inform us that they are the work of Agathus Dumon. However, we do not as yet find a life of M. Dumon in the Biographie Universelle.' It will probably soon appear as one of the additional names in the new edition-in which we already observe Giovanni Acuto' given as a novelty, although a life by Sismondi of Sir John Hawkwood, the real Simon Pure, is in its proper place in the old edition. Eckhel, in his Doctrina Numorum Veterum (vol. vi. p. 229), gives an account of the wives of Caligula, and, having mentioned Claudia, and Livia Orestilla, and Lollia Paulina, adds that Caligula, 'pulsâ Paulinâ Miloniam Cæsoniam.....duxit.' M. Mionnet, of the Cabinet des Antiques de la Bibliothèque du Roi, who in his 'Catalogue of Roman Medals' largely borrows from Eckhel, has made, out of this sentence, a new empress, whom he calls (vol. i. 'Pulsa Paullina Milonia Cæsonia.'
Akin to this is the carelessness of an editor in not ascertaining whether the work in his hand be really that of the author whose name it bears: thus, in 1723, a certain Nathaniel Boothe, of Gray's Inn, Esq., published, and inscribed to Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, a work which he said was written by the Lord Keeper Sir Nicholas Bacon, in favour of the Scottish right of succession to the crown of England-in reply to Sir Anthony Browne, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas—who, he says, advocated the claims of the Suffolk line. Now the work which Nicholas Boothe has put forth as Bacon's is that of Chief Justice Sir Anthony Browne himself, assisted by Carill and Lesly, Bishop of Rosse, in defence of Mary of Scotland's right; whilst Bacon strongly advocated the contrary claim, that of Lady Katharine Grey, daughter of the Duke of Suffolk, and sister of the ill-fated Lady Jane. Bacon we know was accused by Leicester, perhaps with truth, of favouring and assisting John Hales, clerk of the Hanaper, in his work on behalf of the Suffolk claim; and yet it is this very work of Hales which Boothe attributes to Sir Anthony Browne*, and makes Sir N. Bacon reply to. Will it be believed that Hales's book had, only ten years before Boothe's edition,
* A copy of Boothe's publication is in the British Museum Library, having notes by that eminent lawyer Francis Hargrave, which show his doubts as to the authorship of the respective treatises, although he had not found out the truth.
been printed with his name by the non-juror John Harbin and Hilkiah Bedford, which last had stood in the pillory for his reward? Bacon's work is still unpublished, but it exists in manuscript, in the British Museum and in the rich collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps.
Several bad fashions have of late been much revived; amongst others that of the mock-modesty which but half reveals its name, which would fain be thought to shun the public eye, yet still contrives to leave a trace behind,—
'Et fugit ad salices et se cupit ante videri.'
This chiefly obtains amongst lady-writers, the Q. Q.'s and L. E. L.'s, not inaptly termed the initial' school: whilst others, greatly daring, put forth a Christian name; these are generally the lackadaisical poetess, the hysterical novelist, or the muslin divine; the Laura Matildas, the Annes of Swansea, and the Charlotte Elizabeths. Others there are, of either sex or none, who ape the eccentricities of genius, and remembering the fame of the author of Waverley,' write a bad novel, then a worse 'by the author of' the bad. Some, afraid to venture forth alone, shelter themselves beneath the name of one who has passed, no matter how, through the ordeal of public criticism, and announce their productions as edited by -:' mistrusting their own strength, they appear in a literary go-cart. These and other similar absurdities make one sometimes wish that Sir Frederick Flood's motion had been carried,-that every anonymous book should have its author's name upon the titlepage!
Much has been said in favour of a classed catalogue, and a catalogue raisonné; and by many persons who ought to know better, the two expressions are confounded or used as convertible terms. We may as well say that a catalogue raisonné is simply a descriptive catalogue, or catalogue with notes, and by no means implies any attempt at classification. Clement's Bibliothèque curieuse et raisonnée is alphabetical. By some a classed catalogue is spoken of as if it were the ne plus ultra of bibliography; and yet with strange contradiction they have supposed it a work of no difficulty, contenting themselves with the expression of their wonder that it has not always been put into execution.
Dr. Olinthus Gregory told the Committee of the House of Commons that he had never so visited the Library of the British Museum as to become intimately acquainted with it; and that
the only fact upon which he has grounded all his thoughts upon the subject of the library has been the simple fact, that it contains only 220,000 volumes:' yet he says (the italics are ours), 'I think I should find no difficulty myself in suggesting a plan
which would accomplish the whole.' This notable plan he thus gives: A library in six divisions might be thus constituted : first, Intellectual Sciences, in six sections; secondly, Natural Sciences, in several sections, ten or twelve or more; thirdly, the Exact Sciences, pure, mixed, and applied. The fourth, I think, might be devoted to the Fine Arts, and Useful Arts and Manufactures, in two sections at least; and the fifth, I think, should be devoted to History, Biography, and Chronology; and there would be several sections which could be easily defined. The sixth to General Literature, Languages, Bibliography, Belleslettres, &c., of course including grammars, lexicons, classics, poetry, &c., voyages and travels, periodical and miscellaneous literature, of various kinds and of different countries: these also could be readily specified for arrangement.' All this fine and precise scheme, however, the Doctor himself destroys by his candid avowal that it would be very possible that, in the arrangement of a library, deviations from a strictly logical plan would occasionally be required on practical considerations; and that even the character of the majority of the books now in the library might tend to modify any arrangement that might be attempted. Another witness, a Mr. Bowerbank, told the same committee that he could, without difficulty, class 1000 works in each day— 'Where it was Literature, I put an L;" where it was Geology, a "G;" where it was Zoology, a "Z;" if it was a particular zoological treatise, for example, Mammalia, I put "Ma." It appears that this gentleman had not forgotten the 'A, apple-pie of his infancy: we doubt, however, if such rare knowledge qualified him to talk of L, literature,' or to give evidence thereupon before a committee of the House of Commons, whose 'P, patience,' must have been sorely taxed while listening to such crude simplicity.
One great advantage to be derived from the catalogue of any particular library, is the power of finding with ease and certainty whether it contains the work of which we are in want: for this purpose there can be no doubt that an alphabetical arrangement is the simplest and best, although of necessity clogged with the difficulties which we have mentioned. This, however, supposes that we know the name or author of a work on the subject of our studies: now it often happens that we wish to consult other books than those with which we are acquainted, and here an alphabetical arrangement fails to assist us unless we doggedly wade on from Aa to Zy. There is indisputably something good in any plan by which two or more works on any one subject are brought together; but there are heavy and numerous difficulties in the way of a full development of the principle of classification, in devising a plan
which shall at once be generally understood, and give more assistance, and oppose fewer difficulties to a student, than an alphabetical catalogue. It is true that certain broad lines of demarcation may be observed :-Mathematics may be separated from Law, Ethics from Botany, and Mechanics from Sermons; but, strange as it may seem, it is no less true, that there are many books which nearly approach to a subject, yet do not touch it, with a title-page wholly foreign to the matter; and also that a book may be written on one subject with a view to another, from which if it be separated, its ultimate scope and end are lost.
There is no settled canon of classification. The modes which have been proposed are as numerous as the projectors. We do not hesitate to affirm that no two of them agree even in essential matters; and as for details, it is ludicrous to observe the anomalies into which the rage for systematizing has plunged persons who otherwise display discrimination. In all the cases which have come within the scope of our researches, the schemes proposed either are framed to suit a particular collection, or are formed upon an abstract ideal notion, often inapplicable, but always insufficient to embrace the varied contents of a large library. We need here only to refer to the evidence of Dr. Gregory. The most copious and the best plan of classification which we have seen, is that which was drawn up by the Rev. T. Hartwell Horne, and printed for the use of the Trustees of the British Museum. It was med after long and anxious consideration of all previously existing plans, and it contains all that is good in the schemes of Franck, De Bure, Brunet, Barbier, and Fontanini; but those schemes which fitted well to the choice library of Count Bunau, to the 6000 works of the Bibliographie Instructive, to the 20,000 of the Manuel du Libraire, and to the professional library of the Conseil d'Etat, aided and improved though they were by Mr. Horne's experience in forming an analytical index to the catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts, and a classed catalogue of the books of Queen's College Library at Cambridge, were found by the laborious compiler to be quite inadequate to the classification of a library containing one-fourth of a million of books. Mr. Horne's scheme, copious as it is, when attempted to be carried out, was doubled in the number of its subdivisions, and essential alterations were introduced. Besides, there are vices inseparable from classification, at least from classification as hitherto practised or proposed. There exists, as we have said, no standard: a philosophical system of classification, to be strictly observed, must be irrespective of modes, of prose, or poetry, of time, or language, or country, or place; yet in every plan which we have seen do these or some of these obtain. It is true that
there is poetry which is poetry and nothing else; but are Constantine Manasses, and Paulus Diaconus, and Robert of Gloucester, and Peter Langtoft, and Benôit de St. More, because they wrote in a metrical form, to be discarded from amongst historians? Yet are not their works Poetry? We may assert it on the dicta of the Stagyrite and of the maître de philosophie of Monsieur Jourdain Tout ce qui n'est point prose est vers, et tout ce qui n'est point vers est prose.'
Why separate the Æsopic fables in verse from those in prose? Are Aristotle, and Pliny, and Buffon, and Aldrovandi and Cuvier, and Spallanzani, to be separated because they wrote in different countries, at different times, and in different languages? or because the former two are called classics? Are Oppian's Halieutica and Davy's Salmonia to be separated for the like reasons? What are Classics? what are Esthetics? and, to come to a point which now enters into the daily reading or talk of all readers and talkers, who are the Fathers of the Church? By the generality of readers this expression is understood to embrace a number of great names, constantly quoted and referred to as Fathers,' without any examination of their claim to that title, either from the merit of their writings or the time in which they lived; but arising merely from custom, or a vague and undefined idea of their importance and antiquity. Of those writers who have defined the term, and have limited the time within which they conceive it necessary that an author should have lived in order to merit the title of Father, the opinions are various and widely differing. Some extend its signification so far as to embrace within it all ecclesiastical writers nearly to the time of the Reformation, whilst others, following St. Augustine, restrict its use to the Apostles alone, asserting that it is sufficient honour for others to be called their sons. Rivet styles the Apostles Patres Patrum. Again, according to some, the term includes all Christian writers prior to the rise of the Scholastic theology in the twelfth century; and according to others, only the writers of the first six centuries, prior to the grant of the Emperor Phocas to Gregory the Great; since in the seventh century the corruptions of the church were more openly shown. By some the term is limited to the time of St. Augustine, when, as he himself complains, such numerous traditions inundated the Church. Gerhard describes three classes of writers who may respectively be called Fathers:-1. Those between the time of the Apostles and the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. 2. From the Council of Nice to the second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 681. 3. From 681 to 1172, at which period flourished Peter Lombard, the author of the Book of Sentences.' By the term