_a_ Unless the respondent is known to be the “auctor” (“auctor et
respondens,” “scriptor,” etc.) enter under the name of the præses,
without reference.
_b_ If the respondent is “auctor” enter under him, with reference from
the præses.
II. After 1750 enter under the respondent, unless it is known that the
præses is the author, when his name will be the heading. In neither
case refer from the other name.
For universities where the old custom was kept up beyond 1750, as the
Swedish, Rule I applies till the change was made. {18}
Where there are two respondents, neither specified as author, enter
under the first, without reference from the second.
6. Enter pseudonymous works generally under the author’s real name,
when it is known, with a reference from the pseudonym; but make the
entry under the pseudonym, with a reference from the real name, when
the writer is better known by the false name.
In the first edition this rule was without limitation, and I added
the following note “One is strongly tempted to deviate from this
rule in the case of writers like George Eliot and George Sand,
Gavarni and Grandville, who appear in literature only under their
pseudonyms. It would apparently be much more convenient to enter their
works under the name by which alone they are known and under which
everybody but a professed cataloguer would assuredly look first. For
an author-catalogue this might be the best plan, but in a dictionary
catalogue we have to deal with such people not merely as writers of
books, but as subjects of biographies or parties in trials, and in
such cases it seems proper to use their legal names. Besides, if one
attempts to exempt a few noted writers from the rule given above,
where is the line to be drawn? No definite principle of exception can
be laid down which will guide either the cataloguer or the reader; and
probably the confusion would in the end produce greater inconvenience
than the present rule. Moreover, the entries made by using the
pseudonym as a heading would often have to be altered. For a long
time it would have been proper to enter the works of Dickens under
«Boz»; the Dutch annual bibliography uniformly uses Boz-Dickens as a
heading. No one would think of looking under «Boz» now. Mark Twain is
in a transition state. The public mind is divided between Twain and
Clemens. The tendency is always toward the use of the real name; and
that tendency will be much helped in the reading public if the real
name is always preferred in catalogues. Some pseudonyms persistently
adopted by authors have come to be considered as the only names, as
«Voltaire» (see § 23), and the translation «Melanchthon». Perhaps
George «Sand» and George «Eliot» will in time be adjudged to belong to
the same company. It would be well if cataloguers could appoint some
permanent committee with authority to decide this and similar points
as from time to time they occur.”
I am now in favor of frequent entry under the pseudonym, with
reference from the real name. I should recommend the pseudonym
as heading in the case of any popular writer who has not written
under his own name, provided he is known to the public chiefly by
his pseudonym, and in the subject catalogue for any person who is
so known. Examples are George «Eliot», George «Sand», «Gavarni»,
«Grandville», «Cagliostro», «Cham», Pierre «Loti», Daniel «Stern», in
some doubtful cases a card catalogue might profitably make entry both
under the real and the false name. This elastic practice will give
a little more trouble to the cataloguer than a rigid rule of entry
under the real name, but it will save trouble to those who use the
catalogue, which is more important.
But entry should not be made under a pseudonym which is used only once
or a few times; if the author writes also under his real name, if he
is known to the contemporary public or in literary history under his
real name, that is to be used for entry. It may sometimes happen that
an author is well known under a pseudonym and afterwards is better
known by his real name. In that case change the entries from the false
to the real name. If any author uses two different pseudonyms enter
under each the works written under it, with references both ways, and
from the real name, until the real name becomes better known.
It is plain that this practice of entering under the _best known_
name, whether real or false, puts an end to uniformity of entry
between different catalogues, leads to inconsistency of entry in the
same catalogue, and will often throw the cataloguer into perplexity
to decide which name is best known; but for the last objection it
must be remembered that the catalogue is made for the reader, not
for the cataloguer, and {19} for the first two that references will
prevent any serious difficulty; and in the few cases of nearly equal
notoriety, double entry is an easy way out of the difficulty.
7. When the illustrations form a very important part of a work,
consider both the author of the text and the designer—or in certain
cases the engraver—of the plates to be author, and make a full entry
under each. Under the author mention the designer’s name in the title,
and vice versa.
Such works are: Walton’s Welsh scenery, with text by Bonney; Wolf’s
“Wild animals,” with text by Elliot. Which shall be taken as author in
the subject or form entry depends upon the work and the subject. Under
«Water-color drawings» it would be Walton; under «Wood-engravings»,
Wolf; under «Wales» and «Zoölogy», the cataloguer must decide which
illustrates the subject most, the writer or the artist. _E. g._, under
«Gothic Architecture» Pugin is undoubtedly to be considered the author
of his “Examples,” though “the literary part” is by E. J. Willson; for
the illustrator was really the author and the text was subsidiary to
the plates. It was to carry out Pugin’s ideas, not Willson’s, that the
work was published.
8. The designer or painter copied is the author of engravings; the
cartographer is the author of maps; the engraver in general is to be
considered as no more the author than the printer. But in a special
catalogue of engravings the engraver would be considered as author; in
any full catalogue references should be made from the names of famous
engravers, as Raimondi, Müller, Steinla, Wolle. An architect is the
author of his designs and plans.
9. Enter musical works doubly, under the author of the words and also
the composer of the music.
Short and Medium will generally enter only under the composer; Don
Giovanni, for example, only under «Mozart» and not under Da «Ponte».
This economy especially applies to songs.
10. Booksellers and auctioneers are to be considered as the authors of
their catalogues, unless the contrary is expressly asserted.
Entering these only under the form-heading «Catalogues» belongs to the
dark ages of cataloguing. Put the catalogue of a library under the
library’s name. (§ 56.)
11. Put the auctioneer’s catalogue of a public library under the name
of the library, of a private library under the name of the owner,
unless there is reason to believe that another person made it. In the
latter case it would appear in the author catalogue under the maker’s
name, and in the subject catalogue under the owner’s name.
12. Enter commentaries with the text complete under the author of the
text and also under the author of the commentary, provided that is
entitled “Commentary on * * *” and not “* * * with commentary.”
In a majority of cases this difference in the title will correspond to
a difference in the character of the works and in the expectation of
the public; if in any particular case the commentary preponderates in
a title of the second of the forms above, a reference can be made from
the commentator’s name. {20}
13. Enter a continuation or an index, when not written by the author of
the original work but printed with it, under the same heading, with an
analytical reference from its own author (§§ 164, 194); when printed
separately, enter it under each author.
14. An epitome should be entered under the original author, with a
reference from the epitomator.
_Ex._ “The boy’s King Arthur” under Sir Thomas «Malory», with a
reference from Sidney «Lanier».
15. A revision should be entered under the name of the original author
unless it becomes substantially a new work.
There will often be doubt on this point. To determine it, notice
whether the revision is counted as one of the editions of the original
work, and whether it is described on the title-page as the work of the
original author or the reviser, and read and weigh the prefaces. Refer
in all doubtful cases.
16. Excerpts and chrestomathies from a single author go under that
author, with a reference from the excerptor if his introduction and
annotations are extensive, or he has added a lexicon of importance.
_Ex._ Urlichs’ Chrestomathia Pliniana goes under «Plinius», with a
reference from «Urlichs».
17. Enter concordances both under their own author and the author
concorded. The latter entry, however, is to be regarded as a
subject-entry.
_Ex._ «Cleveland’s» Concordance to the poetical works of «Milton»,
«Brightwell’s» Concordance to «Tennyson», Mrs. «Furness’s» Concordance
to «Shakespeare’s» poems.
18. Reporters are usually treated as authors of reports of trials,
_etc._[11] Translators and editors are not to be considered as
authors.[12] (But see References, § 60.)
[note] 11. A stenographic reporter is hardly more an author
than the printer is; but it is not well to attempt to make fine
distinctions.[/note]
[note] 12. A collection of works should be entered under the
translator if he is also the collector (see § 59); but again if he
translates another man’s collection it should be put under the name of
the original collector; as Dasent’s “Tales from the North” is really a
version of part of «Asbjörnsen» _and_ «Moe’s» “Norske Folkeventyr” and
belongs under their names as joint collectors, with a reference from
«Dasent».[/note]
(ii.) _Under what part of the name._