Which is the best system of classification?
This question has often been asked, and no satisfactory reply to it has yet been given.
It must, indeed, remain to a large extent a matter of individual taste, depending on the leisure and pecuniary means of the collector, the extent and value of his collection, and the special circumstances (if any) for which the collection has been formed. There are three principal systems, each of which has its advantages and its drawbacks, 1. The simple alphabetical. 2. The national, with subdivisions. 3. The arrangement according to the styles of the designs.
No doubt the purely alphabetical arrangement, according to the family names of the plate owners, is at once the easiest to plan out, and the simplest for the purposes of reference. It also lends itself well to the tracing of family history, and the comparison of the modifications of heraldry in successive generations.
In libraries, public institutions, and very large private collections, this alphabetical method must almost necessarily be adopted, each plate being as readily accessible for reference as is a word in a dictionary. But it involves a large number of albums to allow sufficient room in each letter for additions, and the plates are all mixed in one heterogeneous mass, with little regard to age, style, or beauty in design. In the department of engravings in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, there are upwards of sixty large volumes full of ex-libris, arranged alphabetically. This collection was commenced about twenty years ago, and, under the energetic supervision of M. Georges Duplessis, it has rapidly increased, and the alphabetical arrangement has been adopted to facilitate easy reference and comparison.
But M. Henri Bouchot, who, being an official in the print department there, speaks with authority, remarks that enthusiastic collectors are also students of history in their special branches, and will (that is, if their leisure permit) be certain to prefer some more regular and distinctive system of classification than the simple alphabetical arrangement.
He therefore recommends the second plan, namely, the division by countries first, and next, the arrangement in strict chronological order. There are, however, many difficulties in the way of this seemingly ideal plan. One may, it is true, soon learn to distinguish, with a fair amount of accuracy, between French, German, Italian, and British book-plates; but with other nations the distinctions are less marked, and Spanish, Dutch, Swiss, or Belgian plates can be easily confounded with those of their immediate neighbours.
Again, in dealing with plates which have neither name, artist’s signature, nor date, the chronological subdivisions can only be decided by a constant comparison of the styles in use at various periods, and by well-known artists and engravers.
This practice gives the collector a great insight into the progress of art, and the development of taste, yet it demands both time and patience to carry it out. Finally, it is true, the collector will have formed a continuous series of heraldic devices illustrating family history more completely than can be arrived at in any other manner. It is only by this constant study and comparison that the student of French ex-libris can hope to acquire a knowledge of their details, so as to be able to arrange his collection with a due attention to time, place, and families.
The third system advocated, namely, the arrangement according to the styles of the designs on the plates, may be interesting from an artistic point of view, but is certainly not very methodical.