Noblemen. Oriental Names.
Noblemen. Title _v._ Family Name. Double Subject-Entry.
Oriental Names. Indian Names. Japanese and Chinese Names.
Hebrew Names. Maori Names.
Whether noblemen are to be entered in the catalogue as authors or
subjects, the question of entry by title or family name requires
careful consideration. Difference of opinion exists on this point. This
difference is carried into the codes of rules, the Library Association
of this country, curiously enough, advocating entry by the family name,
whereas the American Association, ignoring the republican tradition,
recommends entry under the latest title. This latter recommendation
is certainly far more convenient, because, as a rule, the title is
better remembered, even in cases of recent "creations." Those who
make any large use of the _Dictionary of National Biography_ know how
troublesome it is in this respect, invariably entailing two references.
For the catalogues of popular libraries, entry under the latest and
highest title is by far the most convenient and satisfactory, while no
possibility of mistake can arise if references are given in doubtful
cases from the family name to the title, or from an earlier and lower
to a later and higher title.
Some illustrations of such names are the following:--
ROSEBERY, Earl of. Napoleon: the last phase.
1904 944.05
Under the rule in the English Code (Joint-Code) this would be given as
PRIMROSE, Archibald P., _Earl of Rosebery_. Napoleon:
the last phase. 1904 944.05
For the former entry no reference is needed from Primrose to
Rosebery, but in the latter the reference from Primrose is absolutely
indispensable.
The indexer of a lately-published book on dress gets over the
difficulty in a very easy if unsophisticated way by entering under
"Lord," after this manner
Lord Beaconsfield, how dressed, 235
" Brougham, his check trousers, 104
It is of importance to have the books entered under the highest title
attained at the time the catalogue is published. The two undermentioned
books illustrate this point. The first is described as by "the late
Alexander, Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, Lord Lindsay, Etc.," and the
second as by "Lord Balcarres." We distinguish between them and enter in
this way
CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES, Alexander, 25th Earl
of. The Earldom of Mar in sunshine and
shade during 500 years. 2 v. _Edin._, 1882 923.2
CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES, David, 27th Earl of.
The evolution of Italian sculpture, illus. 4º
1909 784
This latter work being published while the author was Lord Balcarres
necessitates the reference
BALCARRES, Lord. _See_ Crawford and Balcarres,
Earl of.
which will fit any Earl of Crawford who might have published a book
while using the courtesy title of Lord Balcarres. It may be admitted
that entry by the family name would bring all books together by members
of this particular family, irrespective of the titles under which they
may have written, whether Lord Balcarres, Lord Lindsay, or Earl of
Crawford, but such cases are few.
When the title of a nobleman is adopted for the entry in cases where he
has written books before being raised to the peerage, it is essential
that the reference from his former name be given, particularly if it
differs from the title he has assumed, as
LUBBOCK, Sir John. _See_ Avebury, Lord.
MITFORD, A. B. Freeman. _See_ Redesdale, Lord.
If the family name and the title are alike, or almost so, the reference
is seldom necessary, as the two names come near together. Examples
are:--
COURTNEY OF PENWITH, Lord (Leonard H. Courtney).
MORLEY OF BLACKBURN, Lord (John Morley).
In the event of there being many entries under the names of Courtney
and Morley, the references are required. In arranging these names for
order they would, of course, precede those of commoners, irrespective
of the alphabetical order of the secondary parts, that is to say
"Courtney of Penwith, Lord," comes before, say, "Courtney, Abram."
As "exceptions which prove the rule," there are a few noblemen who
are decidedly better known and are always referred to by their family
names, of which two outstanding instances are Francis Bacon (Viscount
St. Albans) and Horace Walpole (Earl of Orford).
The subject-entries for the three books given above are
=Napoleon I.=, _Emperor_:
Rosebery, Earl of. Napoleon: the last phase.
1904 944.05
Mar, The Earldom of. Crawford, Earl of. 2 v.
1882 923.2
=Sculpture=:
Crawford, Earl of. The evolution of Italian
sculpture. 1909 784
There is no occasion to distinguish between the Earls of Crawford in
the sub-entries except in the very remote possibility of two of them
having written on the same subject.
The book on Italian sculpture raises a very troublesome question in
connection with subject-entries for the dictionary catalogue, namely,
whether double entry is required or not. The youthful beginner may be
told here, as a kind of aside, that there is no _third_ subject to this
book, it has nothing to do with "Evolution" as such. The book is not
upon sculpture as a whole, but upon that subject with a geographical
(or national) limitation, yet the prominence of Italian sculpture in
that art calls for an entry under "Sculpture," as shown above. The
book, moreover, is not specifically upon Italian art, but only upon a
phase of it, yet those who want to study Italian art in all its aspects
must have their attention directed to it. Accordingly we either need an
entry, as
=Italy=:
_Art._
Crawford, Earl of. The evolution of Italian
sculpture. 1909 784
or the more economical reference:--
=Italy=:
_Art.
See also_ Sculpture.
When space is a consideration, then the reference will suffice, but
where it can be afforded, double entry is advised. If there are
many entries under such a heading it can be sub-divided to simplify
reference--divisions as "General," "Greek and Roman," "Italian,"
"British," suggest themselves, though the amount of sub-division
usually depends upon the material to be arranged. The heading need not
necessarily be the geographical one (Italy), as here shown; a term more
direct, say "Italian Art," might be chosen.
In any case a book of this definite character would not be entered
under "Art" in the dictionary catalogue, sculpture being but a branch
of the Fine Arts, as also are painting and architecture. The heading
"Art" then would be reserved for books dealing with art generally,
including all the arts, or, at least, the two principal, painting and
sculpture, which people mostly mean when speaking of art, though in no
case must the valuable guiding reference be omitted
=Art=:
_See also_ Sculpture.
Furthermore, there is no reason why this heading should not be reserved
for books upon art generally without a qualification, and the books
upon national art be placed under the names of the country concerned,
with a further reference of a comprehensive nature, to this effect
=Art=:
_See also_ Architecture. Painting. Sculpture.
_For the art of particular countries see
their names as_ Greece, Italy, Japan.
Though not quite in the same category, by far the most troublesome
names the cataloguer has to contend with are the Oriental, both of the
far and near East. They are increasingly coming under notice, not only
attached to translations, but to books written in English, and have
to be reckoned with for the catalogues of even comparatively small
libraries. If the cataloguer should stumble in his selection of the
name under which he makes the entry, he has the satisfaction of knowing
that he errs in good company, with the further consolation of believing
that there will be few who know enough to discover his mistake, though
these facts will be no justification, and should only serve to put him
on his guard. In Abdullah Yusuf-Ali's _Life and labour of the people of
India_ (1907) we read:--
"If Miss Toru Dutt were to come to life again, and had nothing
better to do than go to the British Museum, she would never
be able to trace her own book from the Catalogue. Her name
is to be found neither under Dutt nor under Toru, but as
Tarulata Datta. Mrs. Naidu's name appears under S. as Sarojini
Nayadu. Perhaps some sympathy might be extended to the
Frenchman who never could understand why names were treated
so badly in England; there was one he knew which they wrote
as Marjoribanks and pronounced as _Chumley!_ To be consistent
the British Museum Catalogue ought (especially after the
recent spelling crusade) to spell the names of the President
of the United States "Rôs-felt" and classify it under T as
Theodoros--Theodore being only a modern corruption of a good
Greek name."
This is quoted for what it is worth, though coming as it does from
a native source and from one who can also write in English, it is
entitled to great respect. The following paragraph taken from _The
Westminster Gazette_ is helpful in this connection:--
"The usually full telegrams from India during the past week
have furnished several examples of that perpetual puzzle the
proper use of Indian names. Both the home and the Anglo-Indian
Press are apt to stumble, and to an Indian reader their
mistakes must be as amusing as the 'Lord Balfour' and 'Sir
Morley' of certain French newspapers are to us. As a rule, the
blunders occur in reference to Parsee or Bengali names. Roughly
speaking, every Bengali man has three names. The first is his
given name, the second is conventional or honorific, the third
is the patronymic, analogous to an Irish or Scottish clan-name.
For example, Dr. Rash Behari Ghose (who should have been
president of this year's National Congress), Mr. Romesh Chandra
Dutt (the historian and ex-Civil servant), Bepin Chandra Pal
(the well-known agitator). In each case the important names
are the first and third; the second cannot be used without the
first, though in certain forms of address the third is omitted.
Thus, while it is permissible to speak of Dr. Rash Behari,
Reuter is quite wrong with his 'Dr. Behari Ghose.' Similarly,
the _Times_ should not speak of 'Mr. Chandra Pal,' nor the
_Morning Post_ of 'Babu Banerjea.' We may say 'Bepin Babu' or
'Mr. Pal,' 'Surendra Babu,' or Mr. Banerjea; but it is safer
to give the full names. Parsee names are another matter, and a
more intricate one."
We may take a book by way of illustration, and examine it for
cataloguing. The title-page of that chosen reads
The Tarikh-i-Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát. A
history of the Moghuls of Central Asia. An English version
edited, with commentary, notes, and map by N. Elias. The
translation of E. Denison Ross. London, Sampson Low, &c. 1895
Upon somewhat general principles--too general to be always
reliable--the entry in such names is usually made under the first
name, which in this instance is Mirza, the author being referred to
throughout the preface as Mirza Haidar, though it appears that other
European writers have called him Haidar Mirza. In some parts of Asia
the reversal of the name in this way makes considerable difference;
when "Mirza" leads it means simply "Mr." or "Esq.," but at the end of
the name it is equivalent to "Prince," and is so used only by persons
who belong to a reigning family. As the writer was a prince, his name
could properly be given either way. Mirza being a title and not a name,
cannot be the entry-name, yet it is so entered, with other Mirzas, in
the Catalogue of the London Library. The British Museum enters the name
as "Muhammad Haidar, _Dughlát_." For most libraries an entry to the
following effect will prove sufficient
MUHAMMAD HAIDAR, _Mirza_. The Tarikh-i-Rashidi:
a history of the Moghuls of Central Asia;
ed. by N. Elias. 1895 950
The book from which the paragraph criticising the British Museum
Catalogue was taken will serve as a further example, though it is a
very simple one; the author, apparently appreciating the difficulty
his name presents to Westerns, has given it at the end of the preface
and on the binding as "A. Yusuf-Ali," though it is in full, Abdullah
Yusuf-Ali, on the title-page. This enables us to see that it is correct
to treat the name as if it were an occidental one, and the entry is
YUSUF-ALI, Abdullah. Life and labour of the
people of India, illus. 1907
For ascertaining the meaning of terms attached to Oriental names, the
"List of Oriental titles and occupations with their signification,"
given in Linderfelt's _Eclectic Card Catalog Rules_ already named
is useful. For Indian names such works of reference as Whitworth's
_Anglo-Indian Dictionary_, Beale and Keene's _Oriental Biographical
Dictionary_, and Lethbridge's _Golden Book of India_ are serviceable.
Japanese and Chinese names present the same difficulty, though
the books themselves often indicate the correct name for entry,
especially in translations. Works in the original will necessitate
obtaining the aid of an expert, not only for giving the name of the
author and stating the subject with which he deals, but for making
a transliteration or some rendering suitable for a catalogue entry.
On the rare occasions when this is required, there is seldom any
difficulty in obtaining reliable voluntary help. Quite recently the
Chelsea Library obtained the loan of a Japanese manuscript from the
Swedish Royal Library, and a Frenchman translated it into English.
For the present Japanese names are oftener met with than Chinese, not
only attached to translations, but to books written in English and
continental languages, and first name entry is not always the correct
form. To take two examples in illustration
The ideals of the East, with special reference to
the art of Japan, by Kakasu Okakura. 1903
A Japanese artist in London, written and illustrated
by Yoshio Markino. 1910
In the prefaces of these books the writers are referred to as Mr.
Okakura and Mr. Markino respectively, therefore, these names may be
looked upon as corresponding to, although not actually the same as, the
family name in European usage, and the entries are given accordingly
OKAKURA, Kakasu. The ideals of the East, with
special reference to the art of Japan. 1903 709.52
MARKINO, Yoshio. A Japanese artist in London,
illus. 1910 914.21
There is every probability that had these books been published in Japan
the names of the authors would have been reversed upon the title-pages,
as "Okakura Kakasu" and "Markino Yoshio," but that fact does not
involve any necessity for references in an English catalogue.
Chinese names may need quite different treatment, and, failing any clue
as to the correct name for entry, the first given should be taken. The
following will not only illustrate this point, but serve to demonstrate
the method of condensing a title which in full is
The Light of China. The Tâo Teh King of Lâo Tsze, 604-504
B.C. An accurate metrical rendering, translated directly from
the Chinese text, and critically compared with the standard
translations, the ancient and modern Chinese commentaries, and
all accessible authorities. With preface, analytical index, and
full list of important words, and their radical significations.
By I. W. Heysinger, M.A., M.D., Author of "Solar Energy, its
Source and Mode Throughout the Universe," Etc., Etc. Research
Publishing Co., Philadelphia, MDCCCCIII.
This is more advertisement than title-page, and the cataloguer renders
it all as simply as possible in this way:--
LÂO TSZE. The Light of China: the Tâo Teh
King; metrical transl., ed. by I. W. Heysinger.
_Philad._, 1903 299.5
Before proceeding further, these books by Orientals must have
subject-entries to complete them. The first is a history of the
Mongols, and not of the Mohammedan Empire in India as the title might
seem to imply, therefore the entry is
=Mongols, The=:
Muhammed Haidar. Tarikh-i-Rashidi: history
of the Moghuls. 1895 950
The author's name here cannot be curtailed to "Muhammed H." Two
references are needed, none being required from Moghuls to Mongols,
=Asia, Central=:
_See also_ Mongols.
ELIAS, N. (_Ed._) _See_ Muhammed Haidar.
=India=:
_Social life._
Yusuf-Ali, A. Life and labour of the people of
India. 1907 915.4
=Japan=:
Okakura, Kakasu. The ideals of the East.
1903 709.52
=London=:
Markino, Yoshio. A Japanese artist in
London. 1910 914.21
Where names have become so much adapted to the Western style, as the
above two, it might be possible to reduce them to "Okakura, K." and
"Markino, Y.", though the full form is preferable, even in sub-entries.
The Chinese work being by the founder of the religion known as
"Taoism," receives an entry accordingly
=Taoism=:
Lâo Tsze. The Light of China: the Tâo Teh
King. 1903 299.5
The necessary reference is
=China=:
_Religions.
See also_ Taoism.
Hebrew names, those of Jewish rabbis especially, come up occasionally
for entry, but a general recommendation to consult the _Jewish
Encyclopedia_ (12 v. 1901-6) will suffice.
There are many other forms of foreign names, but the foregoing
remarks and illustrations will enable the cataloguer to see that no
definite rule governing all forms of names, even those of a particular
nationality, can be laid down. For instance, to go further afield
in the world, no code gives any guidance for Maori names, yet it
is conceivable that people of this race may yet figure as authors
of English books, even if only sermons, as a number of them are
clergymen of the Church of England. So far as Crockford's _Clerical
Directory_ serves as a guide, their names appear mostly under "Te," as
Te Awekotuku, Te Hana, Te Ngara, Te Raro, but there are no names of
the kind in the British Museum Catalogue under "Te," and, therefore,
the careful cataloguer will take heed, when the occasion arises, to
ascertain exactly the really important and distinguishing part of the
name, and enter accordingly.