jeanflop/post_ocr_correction2 huggingface dataset:
obligeaient à présenter à la fois un guide entre les mains du visiteur et un instrument de travail entre les mains du chercheur. Il a fallu viser à une extrême concision NAPLES. LE MUSÉE ROYAL DE LA FLORIDIANA La villa FLORIDIANA vue des jardins de façon à offrir la plus abondante documentation possible dans un texte des plus restreints. Il a été fort bien accueilli. Un catalogue comportant, en outre, pedigree et bibliographie, devient trop coûteux dans les circonstances présentes; il ne se vendrait guère, destiné qu'il est, de par sa nature, à un nombre trop limité de spécialistes. Le Catalogue de la peinture moderne, par Fierens-Gevaert et Arthur Laes, sera publié incessamment. Commencé pendant la guerre, il est conçu d'après le même plan que les Catalogues de la Peinture ancienne et de la Sculpture. Par avance il répond mieux à la suggestion faite par le Comité des experts pour les catalogues « scientifiques » : il comporte, pour certains tableaux, une description donnant le sens général de la composition. Notre Galerie moderne possède, en effet, des tableaux à sujets historiques, principalement de l'époque romantique. Quant à nos vues sur les « catalogues scientifiques » dont la publication reste provisoirement parmi les « pioto » nous estimons notamment que les notices sur les artistes ne doivent pas être trop étendues. Elles ne doivent donner que l'essentiel et ne pas faire double emploi avec les biographies que l'on trouve dans les lexiques et dictionnaires d'art. Il ne faut plus de descriptions des compositions. Ces descriptions sont devenues superflues depuis l'extension prise par la reproduction photographique. Par contre, il faudra une reproduction de chaque tableau et, à côté, quelques indications sur les colorations. Le pedigree complet est désirable, même indispensable, pour établir l'histoire de l'œuvre. Mais il n'est pas nécessaire, à notre avis, que la bibliographie et les citations, pour certains tableaux, soient au complet : pour des tableaux célèbres comme il en est dans presque toutes les galeries, ces citations comporteraient des pages nombreuses; en pareil cas, un choix judicieux s'impose. Un Petit Guide du visiteur a déjà été publié par
parmi les « pioto » nous estimons notamment que les notices sur les artistes ne doivent pas être trop étendues. Elles ne doivent donner que l'essentiel et ne pas faire double emploi avec les biographies que l'on trouve dans les lexiques et dictionnaires d'art. Il ne faut plus de descriptions des compositions. Ces descriptions sont devenues superflues depuis l'extension prise par la reproduction photographique. Par contre, il faudra une reproduction de chaque tableau et, à côté, quelques indications sur les colorations. Le pedigree complet est désirable, même indispensable, pour établir l'histoire de l'œuvre. Mais il n'est pas nécessaire, à notre avis, que la bibliographie et les citations, pour certains tableaux, soient au complet : pour des tableaux célèbres comme il en est dans presque toutes les galeries, ces citations comporteraient des pages nombreuses; en pareil cas, un choix judicieux s'impose. Un Petit Guide du visiteur a déjà été publié par Arthur Laes en 1924, pour le Musée Moderne, lors de son remaniement. Cet ouvrage de vulgarisation est bref : il ne comporte pas même vingt pages de texte. Il a reçu le meilleur accueil. Le guide étant destiné, comme le dit le Comité des experts, aux visiteurs touristes, nous estimons qu'il doit être court, afin que ces visiteurs, toujours pressés, trouvent le moyen de le lire entièrement au Musée au cours de leur visite, tout en ne les empêchant pas de voir les œuvres capitales qu'il signale, ce qui est tout de même l'essentiel. Sinon le guide manque son but. Il faut donc se garder ici de vouloir faire trop important. A moins qu'on ne crée un second type de guide destiné à une autre catégorie de visiteurs, évidemment beaucoup moins nombreux, qui désirent consacrer plusieurs visites successives aux diverses salles ou sections du Musée. D'autre part, vous verrez que la disposition typographique de nos catalogues a fait l'objet de nos meilleurs soins. Elle a été étudiée de manière que ces catalogues, dans toutes leurs parties, présentent beaucoup de clarté, une grande lisibilité. Nous les avons voulus « pratiques » tout en leur donnant un bel aspect. Les noms des
qu'il doit être court, afin que ces visiteurs, toujours pressés, trouvent le moyen de le lire entièrement au Musée au cours de leur visite, tout en ne les empêchant pas de voir les œuvres capitales qu'il signale, ce qui est tout de même l'essentiel. Sinon le guide manque son but. Il faut donc se garder ici de vouloir faire trop important. A moins qu'on ne crée un second type de guide destiné à une autre catégorie de visiteurs, évidemment beaucoup moins nombreux, qui désirent consacrer plusieurs visites successives aux diverses salles ou sections du Musée. D'autre part, vous verrez que la disposition typographique de nos catalogues a fait l'objet de nos meilleurs soins. Elle a été étudiée de manière que ces catalogues, dans toutes leurs parties, présentent beaucoup de clarté, une grande lisibilité. Nous les avons voulus « pratiques » tout en leur donnant un bel aspect. Les noms des artistes (classés dans l'ordre alphabétique), les numéros et les titres des œuvres, indications essentielles, demeurent surtout très apparents. Les pages blanches réservées aux notes sont appréciées par les travailleurs. GRANDE-BRETAGNE De Sir F. G. KENYON, directeur du British Museum : In the first place I doubt whether the standardisation of catalogues is a practical proposition. Museums differ greatly in scale, and the collections even within the same museum, vary much in value. Unless catalogues are to be limited to simple inventories, the method of treatment must vary according to the importance of the collection. Take, for example, the question of Greek Vases, of which an international Corpus is now in progress. This shows that standardisation is possible only so long as the catalogue is in the form of an inventory, containing only the minimum of particulars. As soon as more is required, as in dealing with a small collection of high value, standardisation has to be abandoned; and this applies also to the more detailed catalogues issued by the greater museums. The scale must inevitably vary according to the nature of the collections and the idiosyncrasies of the scholars who produce them, and I see no advantage in insisting upon
catalogues is a practical proposition. Museums differ greatly in scale, and the collections even within the same museum, vary much in value. Unless catalogues are to be limited to simple inventories, the method of treatment must vary according to the importance of the collection. Take, for example, the question of Greek Vases, of which an international Corpus is now in progress. This shows that standardisation is possible only so long as the catalogue is in the form of an inventory, containing only the minimum of particulars. As soon as more is required, as in dealing with a small collection of high value, standardisation has to be abandoned; and this applies also to the more detailed catalogues issued by the greater museums. The scale must inevitably vary according to the nature of the collections and the idiosyncrasies of the scholars who produce them, and I see no advantage in insisting upon a stereotyped form. Compare, for example, the catalogues of manuscripts issued by the Bibliothèque Nationale and the British Museum. Both are good, both are the work of scholars of the greatest competence, but they differ in scale and method, and I see no advantage in reducing them to uniformity. Moreover, the number of different standards required is bewildering; not only are there the three categories mentioned in your letter, — Guide Catalogues, Concise Catalogues, and Scientific Catalogues, but a different form is requisite for each different class of object — prints, classical and other antiquities (and these again cannot all be treated in the same way), ethnographical collections, ceramics, historical collections, documents, etc., etc. Is it proposed to produce standard patterns for each class of object in each category of catalogue. A further difficulty which would apply to this Museum, and similarly to many others of the more important Museums, is that they already have catalogues in progress, and it would not be desirable that the method of these should be changed. Thus we have already six volumes of the catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets, four of the Catalogue of Greek Vases, ten or more of various other categories of classical
the number of different standards required is bewildering; not only are there the three categories mentioned in your letter, — Guide Catalogues, Concise Catalogues, and Scientific Catalogues, but a different form is requisite for each different class of object — prints, classical and other antiquities (and these again cannot all be treated in the same way), ethnographical collections, ceramics, historical collections, documents, etc., etc. Is it proposed to produce standard patterns for each class of object in each category of catalogue. A further difficulty which would apply to this Museum, and similarly to many others of the more important Museums, is that they already have catalogues in progress, and it would not be desirable that the method of these should be changed. Thus we have already six volumes of the catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets, four of the Catalogue of Greek Vases, ten or more of various other categories of classical antiquities, seven of various categories of mediaeval antiquities, twenty-eight of Greek coins, seven of Roman and Byzantine coins, six of seals, over twenty of prints and drawings, and so on besides thirty or forty Guide-books, which are shorter catalogues of exhibited objects, which serve as handbooks to the subjects dealt with. In all these cases it would be confusing if a new system of cataloguing were introduced into works, the methods of which are already known to scholars. I feel, therefore, that no good purpose would be served by submitting proposals for the standardisation of catalogues, as suggested in your letter. I am very far from suggesting that the catalogues of other museums are not quite as good as those of the British Museum; but what is good in one museum is not necessarily the best for another. It is quite likely that the methods of Paris, Berlin, Rome and London will differ according to the idiosyncrasies of the several peoples, and that the method suitable for a provincial museum in France would not be applicable to a provincial museum in England. In short, I doubt the value of the method of Procrustes. I trust you will excuse the freedom
with. In all these cases it would be confusing if a new system of cataloguing were introduced into works, the methods of which are already known to scholars. I feel, therefore, that no good purpose would be served by submitting proposals for the standardisation of catalogues, as suggested in your letter. I am very far from suggesting that the catalogues of other museums are not quite as good as those of the British Museum; but what is good in one museum is not necessarily the best for another. It is quite likely that the methods of Paris, Berlin, Rome and London will differ according to the idiosyncrasies of the several peoples, and that the method suitable for a provincial museum in France would not be applicable to a provincial museum in England. In short, I doubt the value of the method of Procrustes. I trust you will excuse the freedom with which I have written; but intellectual cooperation is valueless unless colleagues express their real opinions freely. Mr. L. D. BARNETT, conservateur du département oriental et des manuscrits du British Museum, précise quelques points relatifs aux catalogues de la section qu'il dirige et qui sont naturellement inspirés par des nécessités assez particulières : The catalogues published by this Department deal only with printed books and manuscripts, and are well known to orientalists so I need not discuss their methods. Our catalogues of printed books and hand-lists of manuscripts belong to the class of Concise Catalogues, and our "Catalogues of Manuscripts" are more copious; but all of them may claim to be "scientific" in the strict sense of the word. As examples I may point to Dr. Rieu's Catalogues of Persian MSS. (which would be the better for fuller details of artists and a special index of their names), the Descriptive List of Arabic MSS. acquired since 1894, and the Catalogue of Persian Printed Books. In the last-mentioned publication you will observe that we have for the sake of economy of space abbreviated all cross-references into general form, whereas previously (in accordance with the practice of the Department of Printed Books)
assez particulières : The catalogues published by this Department deal only with printed books and manuscripts, and are well known to orientalists so I need not discuss their methods. Our catalogues of printed books and hand-lists of manuscripts belong to the class of Concise Catalogues, and our "Catalogues of Manuscripts" are more copious; but all of them may claim to be "scientific" in the strict sense of the word. As examples I may point to Dr. Rieu's Catalogues of Persian MSS. (which would be the better for fuller details of artists and a special index of their names), the Descriptive List of Arabic MSS. acquired since 1894, and the Catalogue of Persian Printed Books. In the last-mentioned publication you will observe that we have for the sake of economy of space abbreviated all cross-references into general form, whereas previously (in accordance with the practice of the Department of Printed Books) they were given in particular form, i.e. one cross-reference for each main-title. This reformed system is worked out more fully in my Supplementary Catalogue of Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali Printed Books now in the press. Mr. George HILL, conservateur du département des sceaux et médailles du British Museum, nous envoie, sur la façon dont doivent être faits les catalogues relatifs à ces spécialités, la note précise qu'on lira ci-après : COINS AND MEDALS 1. Catalogues of Coins should specify the following details : a) The metal of which the coin is composed. For the three most usual metals, the following abbreviations should be used : AV for Gold; AR for Silver; AE for copper and its alloys (bronze, brass, orichalcum, etc.) b) The greatest diameter, in millimetres, to 5 mm. c) The axis, or die-position, i.e. the relation of the obverse to the reverse, whether parallel and upright (t), parallel and inverted (j), at right angles to left (←) or to right (→) or askew (↗ etc.). A single arrow is sufficient for this indication, which is of great importance; d) The weight, in grammes, to 0.1 grm. English numismatists have usually used grains troy; though historically justifiable for medieval
sur la façon dont doivent être faits les catalogues relatifs à ces spécialités, la note précise qu'on lira ci-après : COINS AND MEDALS 1. Catalogues of Coins should specify the following details : a) The metal of which the coin is composed. For the three most usual metals, the following abbreviations should be used : AV for Gold; AR for Silver; AE for copper and its alloys (bronze, brass, orichalcum, etc.) b) The greatest diameter, in millimetres, to 5 mm. c) The axis, or die-position, i.e. the relation of the obverse to the reverse, whether parallel and upright (t), parallel and inverted (j), at right angles to left (←) or to right (→) or askew (↗ etc.). A single arrow is sufficient for this indication, which is of great importance; d) The weight, in grammes, to 0.1 grm. English numismatists have usually used grains troy; though historically justifiable for medieval and modern coinage, it is inconvenient owing to the prevalent use of the metric system by continental scholars; e) The obverse and reverse should be described in separate columns. Where there is an inscription it should precede the description of the type; f) The date, if expressed on the coin, should be given in a final column, with its equivalent in years before or after the Christian era, in the case of non-Christian datings; g) The denomination, when known. Since a number of specimens of a particular denomination are usually described together, the name of the denomination may be placed, not in a special column, but across the page before the description. Where a group of coins is described, consisting of pieces differing slightly from each other, the general description which applies to the whole group should be set out first, and the variations should be described under the number belonging to each coin. The use of words such as "similar", "même description", "autre", is to be deprecated. The ideal catalogue would describe the dies actually used for producing a coinage, as ascertained from the coins actually issued. This is important for the classification of a coinage in chronological sequence.
should be given in a final column, with its equivalent in years before or after the Christian era, in the case of non-Christian datings; g) The denomination, when known. Since a number of specimens of a particular denomination are usually described together, the name of the denomination may be placed, not in a special column, but across the page before the description. Where a group of coins is described, consisting of pieces differing slightly from each other, the general description which applies to the whole group should be set out first, and the variations should be described under the number belonging to each coin. The use of words such as "similar", "même description", "autre", is to be deprecated. The ideal catalogue would describe the dies actually used for producing a coinage, as ascertained from the coins actually issued. This is important for the classification of a coinage in chronological sequence. The dies, the use of which is inferred from existing coins, should therefore be numbered or lettered, and this indication placed immediately after the description of the type. Where the names of the engravers of the dies are known, these should be set forth prominently in the middle of the page. The same applies to the names of the mints where coins were struck, when they are known. The general method of classification adopted must vary according to the category of coin. Greek Coins : the primary classification should be geographical, following in this respect generally some acknowledged textbook, such as Head's Historia Numorum. The coins of each mint should be described together; the regal coins of a kingdom should precede the description of the civic coins (with cross-references where required); coinages issued generally for a province should precede the civic coinages. The classification, in the second place, should be chronological. In the third place, by denominations. But, as a matter of fact, to describe chronologically a long series of coins issued over a number of years in two or three denominations would be uneconomical, and would require frequent repetition of the same description. The chronological divisions should therefore be
page. The same applies to the names of the mints where coins were struck, when they are known. The general method of classification adopted must vary according to the category of coin. Greek Coins : the primary classification should be geographical, following in this respect generally some acknowledged textbook, such as Head's Historia Numorum. The coins of each mint should be described together; the regal coins of a kingdom should precede the description of the civic coins (with cross-references where required); coinages issued generally for a province should precede the civic coinages. The classification, in the second place, should be chronological. In the third place, by denominations. But, as a matter of fact, to describe chronologically a long series of coins issued over a number of years in two or three denominations would be uneconomical, and would require frequent repetition of the same description. The chronological divisions should therefore be large, and, for instance, all the shekels of Sidon of the period 107 B.C. to 43 A.D. should be described together, followed by the half-shekels of the same period. Roman Coins. — The main classification should be chronological. In the Republican period, and under the Empire before the last years of the third century, identification of the mints outside Rome at which coins were struck is at present largely conjectural; it is therefore not desirable to make a classification by mints a main principle in cataloguing. Even when the identification of the mints is fairly certain, as from 296 A.D. onwards, a classification by mints should not take precedence of classification by rulers, for two reasons: a) the coinage was uniform throughout the mints, which were not independent, like civic mints in ancient Greece; b) the mintmarks are frequently very difficult to read, more so than other indications on the coin. Thus all the coinage, for instance, of Constantine the Great should be classed together; it should be grouped under types, in such chronological divisions as can be ascertained, and the classification by mints should come in the third place. Medieval Coins. — In a series which, like the English,
of the third century, identification of the mints outside Rome at which coins were struck is at present largely conjectural; it is therefore not desirable to make a classification by mints a main principle in cataloguing. Even when the identification of the mints is fairly certain, as from 296 A.D. onwards, a classification by mints should not take precedence of classification by rulers, for two reasons: a) the coinage was uniform throughout the mints, which were not independent, like civic mints in ancient Greece; b) the mintmarks are frequently very difficult to read, more so than other indications on the coin. Thus all the coinage, for instance, of Constantine the Great should be classed together; it should be grouped under types, in such chronological divisions as can be ascertained, and the classification by mints should come in the third place. Medieval Coins. — In a series which, like the English, consists mainly of regal issues, the classification should be in the first place chronological. Under each king, where the same type is struck at various mints, the types should be arranged chronologically, and the mints under them (as in the B.M. Catalogue of Norman coins, but not that of the Anglo-Saxon coins). When however there is a complicated series of denominations, as in the French of English regal series in the later middle ages, the coins of each denomination should be catalogued together; any other method would be extravagant. Muhammadan Coins. — In cataloguing a collection of Muhammadan coins the dynasties should be arranged in the order first proposed in Fraehn's Conspectus Classium with the modifications and additions contained in Lane-Poole's Mohammadan Dynasties or E. von Zambaur's Manuel de Généalogie. The coins of each member of a dynasty should be classified first under metals, then under mints: the coins of each mint should be classed under denominations if necessary, and then described in chronological order. The mints should be arranged in the order of the Arabic alphabet; obverse and reverse legends should be given in parallel columns, as in the Berlin Catalogue, B.M. Cat. of Indian Coins. The method, followed