The appointment was £200 per annum for five days in the week, and £75 for extra attendance to Mr. Walter. I am very glad of your success, and think that your appointment will be of great value to the Museum.”
That the Trustees were satisfied with the performance of Panizzi’s duties there can be no doubt, and it will be interesting to record his earliest labours. His first report is dated May 4th, 1831, in which it is stated that he was engaged in transcribing a catalogue of duplicates to be submitted to the Royal Society for their selection. This duty was soon followed by cataloguing an extraordinary collection of tracts, illustrative of the history of the French Revolution, and formerly the property of Mr. Croker. That it was no easy task, and that it demanded special attention, may be gathered from a letter which the cataloguer addressed on the 18th of April, 1834, to Mr. Baber, then his superior officer:—
“1st. As to the omission of the Christian name of the author, when his family name is given.
2nd. As to the great proportion of anonymous tracts.
3rd. As to the number of works without any author’s name or title whatever, or with so vague a title as to be of no use for the purpose of cataloguing the work.”
He continues:—
“Much time is spent in searching for names or for authors, and in glancing over tracts to see what is their subject, to catalogue them properly, after a most tedious search proves useless with respect to the first point, and no evidence remains of the trouble and loss of time which it causes. I cannot catalogue more than forty tracts each day.”
As it is a matter of importance that Panizzi’s stormy connection with the Royal Society should be fairly and impartially added to these memoirs, and as we have now arrived at the period when, for the proper elucidation of the facts thereto belonging, the whole circumstances of the case should be thoroughly weighed and dwelt upon, it will be necessary to devote a few pages to a clear account of the proposal made by that Society, of the obstacles that were placed in Panizzi’s path, in his conscientious endeavours to fulfil the obligations imposed on him, and of the untiring zeal and patience he displayed in doing his duty in the matter, and in opposing the force with which it was attempted to crush the evidence of his superior talent, and to trample under foot even the Society’s own verbal agreements upon which, as coming from a body of men beyond suspicion, Panizzi relied. The whole of that opposition was successfully surmounted by his undoubted genius.
Biographers generally have to undergo the tedium of monotony in their faithful endeavours to reproduce the lives of those whose careers they pen, and it is only at certain epochs in the course of the lives of consistent men that an opportunity is afforded for a discursive chapter such as is now presented to our readers. It deserves, however, due consideration, and has its value as a proof of the forbearance, learning, and perseverance of the man of whom we are writing; whilst it, without doubt, throws somewhat into shade the members of a very learned Society, who vainly strove, first from want of knowledge of their own requirements, and secondly from non-appreciation of him with whom they had to deal, to undervalue true talent, and, by their associative power, to make a show of quashing not only Panizzi’s (subsequently proved) intelligence, but also his right to acknowledgment for the new light he threw upon their want of accuracy and knowledge for the work which they had confided to him, and for which they should—some, at least, must—have known he was so eminently fitted.
The origin, progress, and dénoûment of this affair cannot be brought within very small compass; but attracting (as they did at the time) the notice of many literary men, are worthy of some space in this volume.
It would be amusing to watch the progress of this attempt to thwart Panizzi’s intentions for the development of that which he so well understood, even were it not also a necessary record of the heartburnings of, and wrongs done to, one who, justly confident in his own position, had to prove, step by step, willingly or not, for his own defence, his superiority to those whose business it was to direct him, and not to derive from him their inspiration.
To proceed, then, as we have intimated above, in reference to the connection of Panizzi with the Royal Society; and to give our readers a clear conception of that connection, it will be necessary to make considerable quotations from his own letters and notes, for which, considering their importance as indications of his learning, and humility under adverse treatment, it will scarcely be necessary for us to offer any apology.
In the year (1832–33) the Royal Society, from the incompetency of those who had taken the matter in hand, found it advisable to engage the services of some known and experienced cataloguer to revise a work, which had been begun on their behalf by one of the members, whose presumption and arrogance cannot be better proved than in the mild unassuming language of Panizzi himself:—
“So long ago as October, 1832, I happened to meet Dr. Roget at dinner, who told me that the Catalogue of the Royal Society, of which a sheet had been set up in type as a specimen, had been found to require revision in passing through the press, and that a Committee, on that very day, had requested him to ask me whether I would undertake the task. I said that I had no objection, and I received from him a proof of the sheet in question. The same evening, on my return home, glancing over it, I was astonished at the numberless errors by which it was disfigured. The more I looked into it, the worse did it appear, and I soon felt convinced that it was utterly incapable of correction. I immediately wrote a note to Dr. Roget, stating the conclusion to which I had come, and begging to decline to have anything to do with a work which I felt satisfied would be disgraceful to the Royal Society, and to any person who should venture to meddle with it. Either in that note, or verbally, shortly after, I mentioned to Dr. Roget that it would be necessary for the Royal Society to have an entirely new Catalogue, compiled in such a manner as would answer the expectations which the public had a right to form; adding, that, although I would never attempt to correct what had already been done, I was ready to undertake a new compilation.
I had no idea when I so candidly expressed my opinion, that I was making a powerful and unrelenting enemy in one of the most influential officers of the Royal Society, who, as I have learned since, had put together the titles of books which were to form the Catalogue, and was so well satisfied with his performance as to order a very large number of titles to be set up in type; whatever, in fact, he included in classes, which he called: Mathematics, Astronomy and Navigation, Mechanics, Optics, Transactions, Tables and Journals. The Members of the Catalogue Committee, on being informed of what had passed between Dr. Roget and myself, perceived that my opinion, as to the value of the work done, was correct, and it was resolved that the compilation of a new Catalogue should be intrusted to my care. Thus, not only all that had been done was undone at once, but the time which had been lost, and, what is more, the unwarrantable expense incurred by sending so large a proportion of the ill-digested work to press, was thrown away. Such is the origin of my connection with the Royal Society.”
This is an extract from a letter dated 28th January, 1837, from Panizzi to his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex (then President of the Royal Society), a letter wherein is fully set forth his whole conduct in the case, and which, besides revealing the puerile and almost unpardonable errors he detected in the titles brought under his notice, is a wonderful certificate to the patience, endurance, and acuteness of a gentleman who was called upon to contend, single-handed, with a corporate body, supported by a clique necessarily jealous of its own distinction.
We shall now explain as clearly as possible the course pursued by the Society, and the pains-taking, much enduring way in which Panizzi met his opponents.
Let us, therefore, continue to extract from the memorable letter to H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex, those passages wherein are particularized the egregious blunders of Panizzi’s predecessor in the work:—
“Authors’ names were not better treated than the subjects. Bonaventura, the Christian name of Cavalieri, was taken for a family name, and a cross reference put from it to Cavalieri; of the three mathematical decades of Giovan Camillo Gloriosi, one was put under Camillo, his second Christian name, and the remainder under his family name Gloriosi. On entering a collection, the word Collezione was taken for a surname, and Nuova for a christian name, and thus