British[14] and foreign[15] noblemen, referring from earlier titles by
which they have been known, and, in the case of British noblemen, from
the family name.
_Ex._ «Chesterfield», Philip Dormer Stanhope, _4th Earl of_. Refer
from «Stanhope». «Saint-Simon», Louis de Rouvroi, _duc_ de.
[note] 14. The British Museum and Mr. Jewett enter British noblemen
under the family name; Mr. Perkins prefers entry under titles for
British noblemen, in which I agree with him, although the opposite
practice is now so well established. The reasons for entry under
the title are that British noblemen are always so spoken of, always
sign by their titles only, and seldom put the family name upon the
title-pages of their books, so that ninety-nine in a hundred readers
must look under the title first. The reasons against it are that the
founders of noble families are often as well known—sometimes even
better—by their family name as by their titles (as Charles Jenkinson
afterwards Lord Liverpool, Sir Robert Walpole afterwards Earl of
Orford); that the same man bears different titles in different parts
of his life (thus P. Stanhope published his “History of England from
the peace of Utrecht” as Lord Mahon, and his “Reign of Queen Anne”
as Earl Stanhope); that it separates members of the same family
(Lord Chancellor Eldon would be under «Eldon» and his father and
all his brothers and sisters under the family name «Scott»), and
brings together members of different families (thus the earldom of
Bath has been held by members of the families of Shaunde, Bourchier,
Granville, and Pulteney, and the family name of the present Marquis
of Bath is Thymne), which last argument would be more to the point
in planning a family history. The same objections apply to the entry
of French noblemen under their titles, about which there can be no
hesitation. The strongest argument in favor of the Museum rule is that
it is well-established and that it is desirable that there should be
some uniform rule. Ecclesiastical dignitaries stand on an entirely
different footing. There is much more use of the family name and much
more change of title. In the first edition I followed the British
Museum rules, but I am now in favor of the more popular method of
entry of noblemen, namely, under their titles, _except when the family
name is decidedly better known_ (Francis «Bacon», _Baron Verulam_,
Horace «Walpole», _4th Earl of Orford_). In such cases enter under the
family name and refer from the title. This rule was adopted by the
committee of the American Library Association (_Lib. jnl._, 3: 12–19;
8: 251–254). The reasons pro and con were discussed in _Lib. jnl._,
3: 13, 14. The gist of them is: “Authors should be put under their
names. The definition of a name is ‘that by which a person or thing
is known.’ British noblemen are known by their titles, not by their
family names.”[/note]
[note] 15. Put the military nobles and princes of the French Empire
under their family names, with references from their titles, _e.
g._, Lucien «Bonaparte», _Prince de Canino_, «MacMahon», _duc de
Magenta_.[/note]
22. Put the works of authors who change their name under the latest
form, provided the new name be legally and permanently adopted.
Do not worry about the proper form of changed and transliterated
names, nor spend much time in hunting up facts and deciding. If the
necessary references are made, it is of little importance which form
is chosen for the main entry, provided, of course, that the library
always chooses the same heading.
If the change consist in the addition of a name the new name is to be
treated by the next rule. {23}