THE RIVAL BIBLIOGRAPHERS JAMES COLLIER AND T. M. HOCKEN

Turnbull Library Record, Volume I, Issue 2, 1 November 1967, Page 22

THE RIVAL BIBLIOGRAPHERS JAMES COLLIER AND T. M. HOCKEN

A. G. B.

About two and a half years ago, while hastily scanning a 1909 file of the Evening Post , I paused to run through a feature article on Dr T. M. Hocken written by the Australian journalist A. G. Stephens. The writer referred to Hocken’s ‘immense task’ in compiling his forthcoming bibliography of the works relating to New Zealand then with the Government Printer. He gave a transcription of the first page of the bibliography and reviewed at length its early contents. An eye-catching new fact in the article was the statement that the Government Printer was publishing the work on the ‘...enlightened recommendation of Mr Charles Wilson, the librarian of Parliament, who was asked to report on the matter.’ 1

The steps whereby the publication of the bibliography in 1909 had become a state responsibility were hitherto unknown and here was the first definite ‘trace’ of the decision. Unfortunately the records of the General Assembly Library threw no light on this particular commission by Mr Wilson. Charles Wilson (1857-1932), a journalist, Member of Parliament in 1898-99, was appointed Chief Librarian in 1901. He had thrown himself energetically into his new duties, but in background and interest was very much less qualified than the compiler to pass judgement on a work of this kind.

His report if not in the expected place could perhaps be in another. In 1895 an overseas enquiry about a bibliographical matter had been dealt with by the Colonial Secretary’s Office 2 and a decade later the same administration may have acted. This was in fact the case with, for posterity, the rewarding find of a minor dossier on the subject. 3 The proposal seems to have originated in an approach by Hocken to John Mackay the Government Printer, in February, 1906 as a result of which Hocken wrote formally to the Hon William Hall-Jones: ‘A few evenings ago I had a long conversation with Mr Mackay the Government Printer regarding the publication of some important manuscript written by me... a Bibliography of the Colony. Mr Mackay promised to bring this under your notice & it was very pleasant to me to learn a day or two ago that his interview with you was of a very encouraging kind. Following his suggestion I desire to lay before you fuller particulars, which I think are of an interesting kind.

‘Learning some years ago that Mr Collier, the Government Librarian, was preparing a Bibliography of N.Z. literature I called upon him during a visit to Wellington & explained to him what I had already done in the matter. He was greatly pleased & suggested that we might carry out the work conjointly he doing the pamphlets & I the books. To this I readily assented & with this view he visited Dunedin to inspect my

work & make final conclusions. In one sense the result was very gratifying to me, in another very disappointing though the latter arose entirely from Mr Collier’s sentiments & honourable scruples. He considered my work so extensive & careful that it would be quite unfair to group it with his own under our joint names, & that it should be issued separately & from this view he did not recede.

‘I regretted this extremely for not only did Mr Collier’s skill as a librarian far exceed mine, but the appearance of his Bibliography stamped his labours as being far superior to the diffident way in which he apparently estimated them indeed his book is excellent, & for long I was deterred by this from taking further steps with regard to mine.’ 4

Collier’s The literature relating to New Zealand: a bibliography appeared in 1889, twenty years before Hocken’s, so the meeting to which Hocken referred must have taken place even earlier. However, the revelation that the two bibliographers had met and discussed collaboration in almost the remote past was an exciting discovery. The fact, too, that at this early time Hocken, some twenty years before the publication of his own work, had made progress at a standard to warrant the somewhat fulsome assessment which Collier apparently gave. The date of Hocken’s visit to Collier in Wellington can be inferred. Collier in a letter to Hocken in the Hocken Library dated 19 July 1888 states that the Doctor had called at the General Assembly Library when in Wellington during the recess. Collier’s own visit to Dunedin would therefore have probably been after the end of the Parliamentary session on 30 August.

The proposed division of responsibility is also of interest. In Collier’s bibliography, apart from its full and careful transcription, one of its features was the number of entries for secondary material, particularly periodical references many of which are still not in any New Zealand library. Hocken’s own detailed annotation of book material, particularly for the early years may have been apparent in this early draft. Hocken continued his letter to Hall-Jones by naming the ‘competent persons’ who had seen the manuscript,... ‘Professor Morris, late Professor of English, German & French Literature at the University of Melbourne, strongly pressed me to place it in his hands, saying that he would secure its publication by the Victorian Government. But of course to this I could not listen.’ He mentioned also Augustus Hamilton of the Colonial Museum, Judge Chapman, Percy Smith and Sir Robert Stout. He invited inspection: ‘Of course I should expect & desire that some thoroughly competent person should examine it on behalf of the Government. And it will give me great pleasure on the occasion of your next visit to Dunedin not only to show it to yourself but also other manuscripts & my extensive library which is without

doubt the best in the world on N.Z. literature.’ Mackay had asked him to state his terms ‘lt is difficult to do this fully now... I think 30 or 3 5 copies would do for myself. I should like the volumes to be printed per se that is, as not forming part of an “Historical Records” idea which I understand the Government is proposing to publish....’ Hall-Jones minuted the letter to the Parliamentary Librarian through Col. Pitt then Colonial Secretary ‘As Dr Hocken’s work appears to be of some value I think it would be as well for the Librarian to see the manuscript. I understand the Doctor would be satisfied with 35 copies for his own use. The cost of printing this work to be bourne by the Govt....’ 5 Pitt concurred.

Charles Wilson commented at length on the same day as the Minute and only two days after Hocken had dated his letter. ‘I have often heard of Dr Hocken’s work, and of his bibliography. If it really merits the enconiums that have been passed upon it, I for one, as Librarian of what is really New Zealand’s National Library, would be only too glad to hear that the Government had decided to print and publish it.’ 6 He claimed that the only existing bibliographies of New Zealand were three, firstly Collier’s, secondly the Catalogue of the York Gate Library (The Silver collection, by E. A. Petherick, published in 1886) and a Francis Edwards catalogue, presumably Edwards Australasian catalogue. 1900. He considered that ‘the first of these is very imperfect and now almost useless; the second has many good features but is practically confined to books possessed by Mr Silver... [and] the third is merely a trade list.’ For one whose lengthy professional life as a librarian appears to have been innocent of any bibliographical exercise good or Wilson’s strictures on his predecessor were unwarrantably severe. Collier’s work was incomplete but until replaced by something better was useful and worthwhile.

If Dr Hocken has done his work well, he has produced a bibliography, which will be welcomed by librarians all the world over... But I would not like to say, that the work is worth undertaking, unless I saw the manuscript. I have not yet taken my yearly holiday and if you approve I would be glad to place a portion of it at the disposal of the Department, and personally examine the Manuscript on the spot. I could then give a reliable report upon the whole matter. The incidental expenses for travelling, etc., would be comparatively trifling. Such an investigation would also be useful in affording an opportunity of ascertaining particulars of many publications that at present the Library lacks. To show how incomplete is our own Collection, I may mention, that I know of nearly 380 books and pamphlets, which we have not got, and very few of these are included in Collier’s bibliography.

I could also thoroughly inspect Dr Hocken’s famous library of New Zealand books and would no doubt gather much information that would be of value. If ever Dr Hocken’s Library Comes into the market I hope it will be secured by the Government, for the General Assembly Library. The Doctor has, I believe, hundreds of items, especially rare pamphlets, which we have not g0t....

It was not until June that Wilson managed to visit Dunedin but the report which he made on his return strongly supported publication. ...Arriving in Dunedin on Monday night June n I waited upon Dr Hocken on the following morning and was most courteously received.... I spent several hours each day from the Tuesday to the Saturday inclusive, in going through the manuscript, sheet by sheet, and was from the outset greatly impressed with the industry, patience, and perseverance and most scrupulous regard for accuracy which have been displayed by the Doctor. I compared many scores of entries with the originals of the volumes and pamphlets... in the bibliography. As you are doubtless aware, Dr Hocken possesses what is far and away the most comprehensive collection of works dealing with the early history and literature of this colony that is in existence.... His library, which at a rough estimate, I would say, is worth at least from to (actual value in the open book market) consists of thousands of volumes of books, bound pamphlets, broadsheets and proclamations also valuable charts and illustrations, and has thus afforded the bibliographer opportunities, lacking in so many instances to previous workers... for personally comparing, checking, and correcting his entries by reference to first sources.

Wilson compared the work with Collier’s and the two other items noted earlier and remarked on the greatly increased number of entries, the detailed biographical information at the Doctor’s command, the identification of pseudonyms, the annotations and analysis of the contents of the voyages. ‘Were it merely a dry-as-dust record of all that has been written and printed in or about the Colony of New Zealand there might be some reasonable objection to it being printed at the expense of the state. But it is much more.’ He proceeded to examine its value from three aspects, its comprehensiveness, its use to the historian and student of New Zealand history and its value to the general public. ‘The publication of such a record as that to which the Dr has devoted so many years of patient industry and careful research cannot fail... to be of widespread interest and value. There is nothing like this work in print that in any way approaches it in practical value...’. Repetitive and unnecessarily prolix as was Wilson’s report there was no question about his earnest enthusiasm and Hall-Jones authorised printing to proceed on 3 August 1906. 7 It was almost exactly three years later that the completed work appeared. 8 Reviews appear to have been mainly confined to the daily press and were in general commendatory and largely uncritical, 9 seldom showing the perceptive appreciation of the pre-publication article by Stephens. ‘Liber’ in the New Zealand Times thought that the annotations although on the whole commendable showed a tendency to indulge in criticism which reflected the prejudices of the compiler. Hocken’s comments on Stout’s edition of Wakefields’ Adventure in New Zealand, he thought ‘somewhat discourteous’ (and the reader will recollect that Stout was cited by Hocken as one who had commented favourably on his work); ‘Liber’ thought that if some items were

criticised then all should be but that primarily a bibliography should be a record and not a collection of ‘pemmican’ reviews. However these were only mere drops in the ocean of accurate well arranged information.

But one voice which might have been heard appeared to be silent in fact might by now be silent for all time Collier, with whom Hocken had offered to collaborate twenty years before. Unknown to Hocken, Collier was still alive, in Sydney, whither he had gone over ten years earlier. Although Hocken was himself to die the following year, Collier lived on until 1925. His papers might have found a resting place in some Australian library. Enquiries by the researcher during the following months both from the Hocken Library and likely Australian sources failed to bring to light any further information. If a door had been opened into our bibliographical history and the light turned on, a strong feeling remained that the whole text had not been read.

And so the search shrank to a mere subconscious alertness to any possible clue until a few months ago. A careful resorting of A. H. Turnbull’s correspondence and accounts then brought to light a most dramatic letter from Hocken to Turnbull written only three months before his death and six months after the publication of the bibliography; a letter which from its significance in a number of contexts had almost culpably not been available to Dr E. H. McCormick when preparing his lectures on The fascinating folly in i 960. It is given in full:

Dunedin, Feb 28/10 My dear Turnbull, I must not allow a second of your kind letters to pass unanswered though I am in a sadly crippled condition & do not know what the end may be. However I can & do still do some work though mostly in bed. I am very pleased that you derive so much assistance from my bibliography which I am quite sure is of great value. I was somewhat annoyed & still more so as unable to answer from illness that odd & curious criticism of Collier’s in the I forget what. He took & gave in the same breath. A most jealous spirit seems to have pervaded him - very very different from the correspondence I had with him before ever he commenced his bib. 25 years ago when I offered to work conjointly with him. Fortunately I kept this correspondence, not certainly with the least idea that it might ever prove useful but simply as a pleasant reminiscence of what an able man like himself might say on the whole subject. His solar myth business I was on the ace of rejecting as it is now virtually valueless & superseded but at the time I was pushed for time to make further research & as the matter was of no great importance I accepted his remarks. I thought he was dead until at the last moment his ‘Sir G. Grey’ appeared which whilst interesting appears to me to be unfinished & somewhat erratic. Still the book did not profess to be more than a sketch of some incidents in his life. I hope in about 10 days to begin forwarding the collection to its final home. Still it is a great regret that I cannot superintendent its proper distribution especially the pictures. Few can understand this but you will most thoroughly. I was sorry indeed to pass twice through Wellington without seeing you the first time I have ever done such a thing. But I was simply unable & had to

remain on board. You know how much I should enjoy a long talk & browse with you. Let us hope the day may come again. I forbear to ask you questions. Ever your sincerely my dear Turnbull T. M. Hocken 10

Most regrettably, the day was not to come again and one would like to think that the strain of Collier’s criticism did not hasten the end. But where was the review? The tantalising reference to the ‘... criticism of Collier’s in the I forget what’ began a widespread search for the likely resting place. After all, Collier had been long resident in Australia and his contact with New Zealand must, by now, have been tenuous. The review was just as likely to have been published in Australia as in New Zealand. It was clearly not in a well-known publication for Hocken even in sickness was too keen a bibliographer to fall a victim to ‘active forgetting’ in such a case. However, after the tedious elimination of the obvious and the less obvious the inspired curiosity of a staff member led her to take off the shelf the single volume of a small periodical, The Citizen, which existed only for 23 numbers in 1909. It was published and edited by a young journalist, Arthur Nelson Field later a well-known Dominion newspaper columnist, ‘T.D.H.’ and later still the protagonist of unpopular and unorthodox economic and political theories. His invitation to Collier was, however, perceptive editing. He pointed out in the anonymous introduction to the review, that the bibliography had received only perfunctory notice from the daily press and The Citizen was now able to make a ‘critical appraisement’ of it. The article was therefore ‘a review of the work of one expert by another.’ 11

Collier wrote in a crisp, fluent style which as he approached the climax of his argument reached a pitch of almost oratorical intensity. Collier (1847-1925), it may be recalled, although not a graduate, had been educated at St. Andrews and Edinburgh Universities and had been in the 1870 s the research assistant and later collaborator of Herbert Spencer in the latter’s Descriptive sociology. A breakdown in 1876 left him incapacitated for some years and his coming to New Zealand in the early 1880 s was a move in search of health. Although only four years Chief Librarian (1885-1889) of the General Assembly Library, by New Zealand standards his experience and scholarship were formidable as was his achievement in completing and publishing his bibliography in the last year of his brief service. Hocken’s criticism of Collier’s biography of Sir George Grey was accurate and just while his Pastoral age in Australasia published in 1911 dealt only with Australia, an interesting point in view of his strictures shortly to be noted on Hocken for interpreting the scope of his work quite differently from the implications of its title.

Collier in the review began by outlining briefly some European and American bibliographies and then passed to New Zealand:

We have manfully done our part in these remote regions. Australia has catalogued down to a recent date all the publications relating to Australia 12 , and it was a great achievement, even if only the titles of the books were given. New Zealand ahead of her contemporaries here as in so much else, has done a great deal for her literature. Only mentioning the useful lists in Thomson’s and Wakefield’s works and Mr Davis’s fuller catalogue, the writer may be permitted to acknowledge a royal octavo issued by the Government just twenty years ago. It was really the first bibliography of that literature. Depending largely on the excellent, but incomplete, collection in the Parliamentary Library, he went in chase of books to be found in other collections, or noted down what he could learn of inaccessible works. Acquaintances in the colony and friends abroad strenuously aided him, especially in the mazes of German literature. His plan included an account of each book in some detail; sometimes a critical appraisement of it; indications about the author and recovery of his name, if the book were anonymous; the circumstances under which it was written, if these were significant... Besides two seperate indexes of authors and titles, there was a classified catalogue, where not only books, but their contents were distributed under a series of headings....

The possessor of the completest collection of New Zealandiana in existence a collection now generously bestowed on the University of Otago has resumed the never-to-be-finished task. All the leisure of a busy professional life has been lavished on the patriotic duty of fitting himself to be the bibliographer of New Zealand. In fulfilment of it he has gathered together from every source all the books, maps, charts, manuscripts, letters and curios that could throw light on the history of the colony. He has ransacked public libraries and private collections. He has interviewed every person in the Dominion of any importance.... In 1903 he spent some months at the Record Office tabulating the correspondence of the New Zealand Company and the documents connected with its eventful history.... Minute researches among the other incunabula of New Zealand have made of him an expert. A more highly qualified bibliographer could not be found.

Collier then proceeded to join issue with Hocken over the scope of the bibliography claiming that the discrepancy between the size of his own work and that of the Doctor’s was due not merely to the new items included but because Hocken’s work included not merely the literature relating to New Zealand (the scope of Collier’s and the titlepage definition of Hocken’s) but also the literature published in it, whether or not of any specific New Zealand association. ‘The first of Dr Hocken’s loans from his predecessor,’ Collier wrote, ‘is to be found on the title-page. I had named my compilation The literature relating to New Zealand: a Bibliography, and rightly, because only publications relating to New Zealand are included in it. Dr Hocken similarly calls his work A Bibliography of the Literature Relating to New Zealand. The title is a complete misnomer. The doctor has spread a wider net than mine, with smaller loops, which nothing published in New Zealand is allowed to escape. ... I cannot help thinking that this extreme inclusiveness is a mistaken policy.’ He objected also to the inclusion of non-New Zealand works by authors such as E. G. Wakefield and A. Domett many of

whose titles he considered irrelevant. He noted, too, that in his own bibliography he had catalogued only those sections of general works which related to New Zealand whereas Hocken had transcribed fully the entire contents of many Pacific voyages. Maori literature he thought should be elsewhere although he admitted that in strict interpretation of Hocken’s running title, Bibliography of New Zealand Literature it had a place. Having warmed up on points of logic, very proper in one who had been the amanuensis of Herbert Spencer, he proceeded to exercise the real sinews of his criticism:

Save in the particulars I have mentioned, Dr Hocken’s plan is the same as my own in all respects. His original design was to make the accurate transcription of titles suffice. From his immediate predecessor he borrowed the idea of adding such notes as appear in my Bibliography. He has done it with a plenitude of information, personal and historical, such as he alone possesses. He rightly claims that he has shed many sidelights on the history of the colony, and has shot a dry catalogue, which otherwise would have been a Barmecide feast, with bright scarlet threads of history and biography. What could, for example, be more pathetic than the accounts of the various literary adventures ofj. G. S. Grant.... The book abounds in such sketches. Nothing but unstinted praise can be extended to the whole of Dr Hocken’s work in this department. I have but one exception to take to it. Some of the notes, and these among the more important, are devoid of originality in places where originality is implicitly claimed. I find no fault with his adapting from my note on Schirren’s work the reference to the English and German editions of Hochstetter’s book on New Zealand. It is a small matter that he should take from me his account of Louis Reybaud’s article on New Zealand as long ago as 1840. It is little that he should have extracted after me, the portions of Cassell’s Picturesque Atlas of Australasia relating to New Zealand. It is a light thing that he should have transcribed the titles of the French and English versions of an essay by Alphonse Esquiros, and again used my very words in describing it. Nor is it, perhaps, of much importance that he should have carried off bodily the notes I appended to two works of Andrew Long [sic], with reference to other English publications on their subjects and to French and German b00k5.... Other conveyances appear still more questionable. Dr Hocken has verbally appropriated, without a word of acknowledgement, my analysis of Lesson’s work on the Polynesians, which it cost some labour to make. I spent no little time in cataloguing Quatrefagues’ various works on the same race, and in giving the gist of his theories on its origin; but the whole of the rather long note in which I have condensed his views has been similarly annexed. All such notes (and they are numerous) should have been printed within inverted commas, with the name of their author appended to them. At present they figure as of Dr Hocken’s authorship, and no one is to know that he had not even seen the erudite works he will seem to have analysed.

What substance was there in Collier’s contention? One obvious borrowing, has long been familiar to users of both, namely Hocken’s transcription of the unseen asterisked entries in Collier. Collier in bis very brief introductory note makes the signification of the asterisk quite clear it is prefixed to items which he ‘has had no opportunity of examining.’ In Hocken’s bibliography it is inferentially clear that the mark has the same meaning but this is nowhere explained. This may

have been merely an oversight by the Government Printer but it covers hundreds of entries chiefly those which Collier obtained from Poole’s Index and from Dr Scheppig of Kiel. Presumably when Collier saw the Doctor’s preliminary work twenty years earlier the entries were without notes or he would not have so confidently made the charge in the beginning of the lengthy quotation above that this idea Hocken had borrowed from the reviewer. Again, where Hocken has used the exact words of Collier in an annotation he should have inserted quotes although as Collier himself acknowledged Hocken’s own wide knowledge and industry enabled him to make an infinitely greater number of useful notes than the few which he borrowed.

What of the examples specifically quoted? The first Schirren (Collier, p 63; Hocken, p 185) is not clear-cut although it appears that Hocken has much shortened and paraphrased the note of his predecessor while adding to the example the names of Percy Smith, Fornander and others. The book is not in the Trimble catalogue of the Hocken Library which does not necessarily prove anything while the section of the note to which Collier took exception that relating to Hochstetter has been recast and could have been done from the original work. The second example Reybaud (Collier, p 28; Hocken, p 90) is a clear paraphrased borrowing for Collier has seen the work but Hocken has inserted an asterisk. In the case of Cassell’s Picturesque Atlas ... a common work readily available to both, all that Hocken appears to have done is to summarise in his own words the New Zealand sections of the book. Here, however, Collier may be correct for he, Collier, overlooked in Vol 2, Wellington and its surroundings as, more significantly did Hocken also. The note under Esquiros (Collier, p 78; Hocken, p 216) in the second work is a clear borrowing, as there is also in the second Andrew Lang reference (Collier, p 164; Hocken, p 380) but not in the first (Collier, p 153; Hocken, p 353) where Hocken’s rewording implies at least a reference to an intermediate source if not the original. What then is a considered judgement? It would have been better in some instances to have used quotation marks and it was unfortunate that the explanation of the asterisk was not given. Collier may have made over-much of the borrowings and Hocken in his last sickness was over-concerned. Merely to claim one’s own is not to be pervaded by a jealous spirit. And Collier continued to conclude on a note of unqualified praise... ‘The careful collations of difficult works are beyond praise. Errors of any moment are non-existent.’ And in that same mood we

may leave the controversy.

REFERENCES 1 Evening Post, 3 April 1909. 2 Secretary, Royal Colonial Institute to Colonial Secretary, NZ 7 March 1895, re listing of NZ publications and reply on file Col. Sec. 95/1063. Col. Sec. 96/1649.

As in numerous other instances I am indebted to Miss J. Homabrook, National Archives, for locating the papers and to the Chief Archivist, Mr J. D. Pascoe, for permission to publish them. 4 Hocken to Hall-Jones 20 February 1906, on 96/1649. 5 Hall-Jones minute on above, 23 February 1906. 6 Wilson to Hall-Jones, 22 February 1906, ibid. 7 Minute, Hall-Jones, 3 August 1906, ibid and Cabinet approval, ibid 28 June 1906. 8 Evening Post, 19 August 1909; reference to the bibliography ‘...0n the point of being issued from the Government Printing Office’. 9 eg New Zealand Times, 28 August 1909; Evening Post, 21 August 1909; Otago Daily Times, 14 August 1909, and Sydney Bulletin, 7 October 1909. 10 Hocken to Turnbull, 28 February 1910, in A.T.L. 11 The literature of New Zealand; A criticism and a protest in The Citizen, 24 October 1909, p 485-6. Lacking as we still do indexes to so many New Zealand periodicals the happy inspiration of Miss M. Walton curtailed an otherwise lengthy search.