-------
“The sheet-anchor of cataloguing-work, as of all other
true work that a man has to do, is accuracy.”—_Edward
Edwards_ (Memoirs of Libraries, 1859, vol. II. 868).
... “l’exactitude est le meilleur fondment du succès
des livres de bibliographie.”—Quérard, Omissions et
bévues du livre intitulé La Littérature Française
contemporaine ... 1848, p. xv.
“As bibliographers, we cannot indeed but wish, that the
catalogue of every library were a bibliographical
dictionary of its books.... There is no species of
literary labor so arduous, or which makes so extensive
demands upon the learning of the author, as that of
the preparation of such works.”—Smithsonian Report on
the construction of catalogues.... By C. C. Jewett....
1853, p. 10.
“It is impossible to labor successfully, without a rigid
adherence to rules. Although such rules be not
formally enunciated, they must exist in the mind of
the cataloguer and guide him, or the result of his
labors will be mortifying and unprofitable.”—Ibid, p.
17.
I have used the word Bibliography, but I must warn the student that it
is meaningless, or, rather, its meanings are so numerous and varied,
being used for every sort of thing connected with books, that for any
scientific purpose the word is useless. Bibliotheca also is used amongst
other things to express a miscellaneous collection of titles; whether
good, bad, or indifferent, matters little.
What is wanted is a short word which shall express that a book is
accurately described. The word catalogue is worse for its indefinite
meaning than bibliotheca or bibliography. The science or art of
describing books has no technical term.[2]
Footnote 2:
The reader can refer to Notes and Queries, 4 Series IX, p. 8, for some
remarks on the inconvenient length of bibliographical words.
In describing books, accuracy is the one thing to attain. And the object
should be so to describe the book, that anybody else shall be certain
from the description that a particular book they have in hand is the one
described.
So difficult did Prof. De Morgan consider this, with regard to early
printed books that he said if he had to do his work on “Arithmetical
Books” over again he would invariably describe some defect or error in
the printing.
I now propose to give some hints on this subject, premising that there
is at present no “Grammar” of Bibliography—nothing settled, no
recognized authority.
Supposing a person were about to make a catalogue of a library, or even
of a few books, the first thing to do is to lay down certain rules, to
be strictly adhered to, or adopt rules laid down by another for that
purpose. This has been done for many years past by the librarians of our
National Library. So that there at least we have a Catalogue that we can
depend upon so far as it goes: how far that is the rules inform us.
Several of them simply provide against the prevailing loose notions of
cataloguing. Rules for example to tell us that titles are written
straight on as they are found, or in the language in which the book is
written and not in another, read like satires on ignorance. And yet how
necessary they are.
These rules, invaluable as a guide to every catalogue maker, will be
found printed in the: Catalogue of printed books in the British Museum,
volume 1. London, printed by order of the trustees, MDCCCXLI, in folio;
the Preface is signed by the editor Sir Antonio Panizzi, and examples of
the rules will be found in: A handbook for Readers at the British
Museum, by Thomas Nichols, assistant in the British Museum, London,
Longman, 1866, p. 51. This useful little work unfortunately has no
index. A catalogue drawn up according to the rules of the Museum will be
found in: “A list of the books of reference in the Reading room of the
British Museum.”
The rules are ninety-one in number but for small libraries where
provision is not required for every language under the sun, a smaller
number would be sufficient.[3]
Footnote 3:
Since the above was written a most exhaustive and useful work
rendering a reference to any other almost superfluous has been
published, entitled “Rules for a printed dictionary catalogue by
Charles A. Cutter,” forming part II of the Special Report on public
libraries in the United States, Washington, 1876.
Whatever rules are determined upon should be printed in the catalogue,
so that those who consult it may know at once whether or not they are
likely to find what they want and how.
-------
The first question that arises is the amount of title page information
to be given. To abbreviate or not abbreviate becomes the difficult
question. It generally resolves itself into one of expense, and
abbreviated titles are determined upon.
I now therefore treat of the matter as it is, and not as it should be,
for if I treated it as it should be, namely with full titles, I should
have little to say.
He must have been a bold man who first began to abbreviate titles for a
catalogue. It is a most unsatisfactory practice, though now having long
precedent for its use. It is like cutting off a leg or an arm, the body
can still go on, it is true, but it is nevertheless mutilated.
The more title page information a bibliotheca gives the greater will be
its usefulness. Everything, however, is subordinate to the proper
description of the book. If that is done upon certain principles and
rules, the cataloguer will at least be consistent, which few of the
present day are.
Every word of a title may be given and yet be inaccurate, on the other
hand half the title may be left out and yet be accurate[4] though not
perfect as I shall presently show.
Footnote 4:
Instead of “inaccurate” and “accurate,” I had written the words
“unbibliographical” and “bibliographical,” but as I have already
explained that word does not at present necessarily include accuracy,
which word will better explain what I wish to impress on the student.
The ordinary and most popular way of referring to or describing a book
is to reverse everything and alter the title. For example, let us
suppose it is stated that in 1868 Messrs. Longman published an octavo
volume of 800 pages by George Brown, entitled a Treatise on the best
mode of ventilation. Here everything is topsy turvy, besides being
incorrectly called a treatise instead of an essay.[5] The proper title
being: An historical essay on ventilation, by George Brown, London,
Longman, 1868, octavo, pp. xv. 786.
Instances of this kind of thing the student will find at every turn, in
every publication, periodical or otherwise.
Footnote 5:
Refer to the remarks of Bolton Corney “On the new general Biographical
dictionary”, p. 33.
Another bad practice is cutting short the title page and explaining in a
note what the book is about almost in the words of the author, so that
all the necessary information is given, only incorrectly instead of
correctly, an example of which, taken from Lowndes, will be found in my
list.
The difficulty is not to find instances of looseness in describing
books, but to find instances where they are properly described. I know
of few bibliothecas, English or foreign, that can be relied on.
Probably these will appear to some trivial matters. Yet what thought and
anxious consideration do most authors give to the titles of their works,
before they finally suit their fancy; frequently, indeed, not being
satisfied with them as sent forth to the world. How has the author
considered whether he will put his own name, or whether he will write
under a fictitious name, or his initials, or simply call himself “A
Gentleman,” or designate himself by the office he holds as “A
Magistrate.” Then, with what difficulty has he at last settled upon a
publisher, and for what a number of reasons may he have done so. And yet
some ruthless barbarian, who is totally ignorant of all the trouble that
has been taken, and who knows nothing of the subject, cuts down our
author’s title without hesitation. Or perhaps, what is still more
astonishing, an author himself, although he has given the matter so much
thought, will sometimes on being asked, send a list of his works, in
which not a single title shall be correct, in which he will leave out
all the first words, erroneously state the subject as in the book
instead of as it appears on the title page: omit to say when published,
whether with his own name or not; and, finally, and almost invariably,
leave out the publisher’s name, which cost him so much pains to decide
on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------