-------
Catalogues must have nothing to do with distinctions
between celebrity and obscurity. They must aim at
serving the tyro no less than the professor.—_Edward
Edwards_ (Memoirs of Libraries, 1859, II., p. 836).
Books may be classed under four heads, namely (1) Autonymous—(2)
Polyonymous—(3) Pseudonymous, and—(4) Anonymous.
1. Autonymous, the first and most common is with the author’s name
either on the title-page, or if not on the title-page, signed to a
preface, introduction, letter, or dedication, or in some part of the
book, or at the end. Speeches though usually anonymous with regard to
the reporting or editing, are frequently catalogued under the name of
the speaker as autonymous.
2. Polyonymous, is with several authors’ names. It is usual to enter
them under the name of the first author, with cross references from the
others.
3. Pseudonymous, without the author’s name, but with a fictitious name
or designation, thus giving some indication as to the author, though
possibly a very slight one. No matter in what part of the book the
pseudonym appears, the work is pseudonymous.[6]
In cataloguing, the pseudonym should no more be left out, than the
author’s name. If an author uses a pseudonym on the title, but gives his
real name in the book, it is not pseudonymous, but must be catalogued as
autonymous. In this case, as in all others, the pseudonym should be
given, even if the title is abbreviated. In fact the pseudonym for
bibliographical purposes takes the place of the author’s name. I have
not space here to enumerate the different classes of pseudonyms, of
which there are many varieties.[7]
Footnote 6:
For a curious instance see the Handbook of Fictitious Names, p. 94.
One who is BUT an attorney; and One who thinks for himself _i.e._ T.
Truewit.
Footnote 7:
A list, unfortunately containing many errors, will be found at the end
of “A notice of the life and works of J. M. Quérard by Olphar Hamst:
London, J. R. Smith, 1867.” This list is adopted by John Power in his
“Handy-book about books,” with all my errors and a good stock of his
own to boot. There is an extended treatise on pseudonyms in the
introduction to either edition of Quérard’s “Supercheries Littéraires
Devoilées.” The subject is also treated of in M. Octave Delepierre’s
“Supercheries littéraires, pastiches,” Londres, Trübner, 1872.
Probably the earliest treatise is that entitled “Auteurs déguisez,”
Paris, 1690, by Adrien Baillet, but published without his name.
4. Lastly an Anonymous book is one without the author’s name, whether on
the title page, or any part of the book. The word anonymous has been and
still is very indiscriminately used to include pseudonymous. The
cataloguer must be careful not to be betrayed into this error so
fruitful of inaccuracy. This class of books has resisted the most
strenuous efforts of the learned to bring it within rules, every rule
for cataloguing such books requiring an exception. With anonymous works
having simple titles, such as “Aggravating Ladies” (supposing a work to
be published anonymously with such a title) the task is easy. Though
even this example will illustrate the difficulty of the subject, for
there are only two words and there are two ways of cataloguing, each
having advantages. By one system it would come under “Aggravating” and
by the other under “Ladies.” According to the system of Audiffredi[8]
and of Barbier[9] and of a similar work on English authors[10], it would
be catalogued by the first word, and for such works this is the most
approved method[11]. According to the Rules of the British Museum it
would be catalogued under Ladies.
Footnote 8:
Audiffredi’s work, referred to in the Report on the British Museum
(1850, p. 469), it is entitled “Bibliothecæ Casanatensis catalogus
librorum typis impressorum,” tom 1-4, A-K. Roma, 1761-1788, fol., and
is quoted by Barbier at p. xlviii of the work referred to in the next
note.
Footnote 9:
Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes ... par A. A.
Barbier ... Paris, 1806, 4 vols, 8o. It is curious to note that
Barbier had not settled in his own mind at the date of the above the
first edition, what was an anonymous work. He describes it as one upon
the title page of which the author is not named, and he then states
that sometimes the author’s name is found in the work; but he says it
is the custom to class them all as anonymous and not to distinguish
different degrees of anonymity. In the second edition in 1826 he very
properly eliminated so far as he was able such works as contained the
authors’ names. For many things the first edition is better than the
second, in which many of the titles we are told were abbreviated. In
the third and last and best edition, part of which was published in
1872, his son, (see p. xxix., note) has so far as he was able,
re-instated such titles because so many editors and others still
continue to consider a work anonymous if the author’s name does not
occur on the title page. This is a step backwards, and the sooner M.
Olivier Barbier throws the editors and others overboard the better.
Footnote 10:
A prospectus was issued in 1872, with the title: A dictionary of the
anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain by the late
Samuel Halkett.—See Notes and Queries 4 s. IX., p. 403.
Footnote 11:
And is recommended in a pamphlet entitled: Hints on the formation of
small libraries, by W. E. A. Axon, London, Trübner [1869] reprinted
in: A handy book about books, by J. Power, Lond., J. Wilson, 1870, p.
156, and he adopts it in: The literature of the Lancashire dialect, a
bibliographical essay, by W. E. A. Axon, 1870.
It affords matter for consideration when we find it stated that “An
anonymous work is seldom read with confidence or quoted as an
authority.”[12]
Footnote 12:
Bolton Corney, “On the new general Biographical dictionary,” 1839, p.
15.
Many publications intended expressly for youth, and therefore requiring
some guarantee that they are fit for the purpose, are published without
the author’s name, though frequently with an indication of sex.
It may probably be that little as is the credit given to the anonymous
or pseudonymous work, for in the above quotation both are meant, it
would obtain less if it had the author’s real name[13].
Footnote 13:
For examples see Notes and Queries 3rd s. XII, 394, and the Handbook
of Fictitious Names.
To shew that a book was published without the author’s name, whether
anonymous or pseudonymous, some bibliographers have put an asterisk or
star at the beginning of the title. I am not aware that this, or indeed
any plan has systematically been adopted in any English work, except
within the last few years. In his learned Essay On the Literature of
Political economy, p. x, J. R. McCulloch says: “When the name of the
author of a work is included between brackets, it shows that it was
published anonymously.” He uses anonymous here in the sense of without
the author’s name, and to include pseudonymous. I made use of the star
in the Handbook of Fictitious Names in 1868, but only to indicate
anonymity, and not as Quérard uses it. In Notes and Queries for the 6th
April, 1872, I suggested the adoption of a line — to shew that a book
was published pseudonymously. And I made use of both signs in my
Bibliographical list of Lord Brougham’s publications. These signs have
the advantage of attracting the eye, and declaring at once the class of
book. On the other hand they cannot be used for foot notes, are likely
to be overlooked in printing, and there is always great difficulty in
getting readers to find out what signs mean. On the whole after much
consideration I have determined for the future to use simply
abbreviations of the words anonymous and pseudonymous which everybody
understands without explanation.
As in describing a book the principal object is to enable the student to
identify it, so that there may be no doubt that the cataloguer’s remarks
upon a certain book apply to that for which the reader is searching. It
is less important that autonymous works should be catalogued so fully as
anonymous, because the author’s name is at once a guide. For though two
autonymous works bear the same title their authors’ names would be
different. But not so with two anonymous works having the same title.
Pseudonymous works, in which the pseudonym is a name and not a phrase or
denomination, would come in the same category.
For anonymous, and frequently for pseudonymous works it is not only
desirable to give the full title, but to supplement it with any further
information that will help identification. As for example, if the book
is printed at a different place to that of sale or publication[14] or if
dated and addressed from what would appear to be the author’s residence,
or if there is any allusion in the work or the advertisements[15] to
other publications of the same author. Examples of all will be found in
my list. Though a book be anonymous so far as the title page informs us,
yet if pseudonymous from the preface or introduction being signed with a
fictitious name, or with initials or denomination, or other
qualification, it should be catalogued as pseudonymous. Thus following
the rule with regard to autonyms. Except when signed:—The Author, The
Editor, The Translator, Himself, or Herself, of which it is best to take
no notice, even if on the title. Such works should be considered
anonymous without even giving cross-references from those words.
Footnote 14:
Many London publishers have printing houses out of town, in such cases
the place of printing is no guide.
Footnote 15:
Advertisements should generally be preserved. If, however, a book has
been through a binder’s hands there is little chance of their
surviving. Never send a book to the binder without special
instructions to preserve the advertisements and covers or wrappers,
and mark every page intended to be kept, otherwise there is a
barbarous custom amongst binders, arising from ignorance or cupidity,
of denuding every pamphlet of the covers and advertisements which
frequently teem with matter useful in after years. Binders like to
treat books like convicts, and shave their heads.
Of whatever description, whether autonymous, or anonymous, or
pseudonymous, the first words of the title, or the half title, should be
quoted correctly, and exactly as they occur, and to this rule there
should be no exception, whether for bibliographical lists, or for the
purpose of citation as an authority. For in the latter case, however
familiar the work cited may be, there are sure to be readers unfamiliar
with it, to whom a loose reference will cause trouble. The half title or
any abbreviation of the title, if used by the author of the book may be
adopted.
Few things cause greater waste of time amongst literary men than the
habitually careless manner in which they give references. Not only
should a book be correctly described, but the edition or date and page
ought to be added. Bibliographers (which term I here use to mean persons
who have concerned themselves with the description of books) have sinned
terribly in this respect by giving descriptions of books at second, or
even third-hand, and repeating the mistakes and blunders of the original
authority. Title pages are like rumours, the oftener they are repeated
the more incorrect they become. The student should never rely upon a
catalogue for the description of a book, unless the compiler has adhered
strictly to rules. A statement in bibliothecas, biographical
dictionaries, or catalogues, that a work is anonymous, can never be
relied upon[16].
Footnote 16:
Those who desire to see examples of several classes of errors to be
avoided can refer to the following works. On the new general
Biographical dictionary: a specimen of amateur criticism in letters
[signed Bolton Corney] to Mr. Sylvanus Urban [motto] London: Shoberl,
1839, 8o. A remarkable piece of criticism indispensable to every
biographer or bibliographer.
Arithmetical books ... being brief notices of a large number of works
drawn up from actual inspection by Augustus de Morgan ... London,
1847. See the preface and introduction to this valuable and
interesting work. The English catalogue of books, 1864, makes an
edition of this work with the date 1853, at 2s 6d. Being desirous of
possessing this, I wrote to the learned Professor to know where it was
to be obtained, and what difference there was, he replied:—“The
difference between the 1st and 2nd edition of my Arithmetical Books,
is the difference between something and nothing, which, let Hegel say
what he will, is a very great difference. There is not any second
edition, nor I think, will be.” Refer also to an article by De Morgan
in the Companion to the Almanac for 1853, entitled “On the difficulty
of correct description of books,” pp. 5 to 19, full of various and
useful matter.
Handbook of Fictitious names of authors of the XIXth Century ... by
Olphar Hamst ..., 1868, p. xi.
Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes par A. A. Barbier, 3e. ed., 1872,
see the note by Olivier Barbier on the second page of the
advertisement to the first volume.
After the first few words of the title every abbreviation or omission
should be indicated by three dots ... close together not thus. . . .
This is a better method than using an “etc.,” a sign which from the
carelessness of authors is frequently found on title-pages of books, and
if used by both authors and cataloguers we should never know which. As
few authors could explain the meaning of an “&c.” on the title, it is
not likely that readers can guess.
It has been customary to omit mottoes without any indication of the
omission, and this has been done in one of the most bibliographical
works published in England[17]. I only know of one work of importance
where special notice is taken of such omissions.[18]
Footnote 17:
A descriptive catalogue of Friends’ books, ... by Joseph Smith, in two
vols, ... 1867.
Footnote 18:
This is the: Catalogue of the Manchester free library, reference
department, prepared by A. Crestadoro, ... 1864, where the omission is
indicated by three stars.
In my “List of works on Swimming,” I give full titles, including
mottoes of all the books I was able to see. In my “Bibliographical
list of Lord Brougham’s publications,” I indicate the place of the
motto on the title.
If a title page has a motto its omission should be shewn thus [motto].
To print mottoes when numerous or lengthy in an extensive work seems
quite out of the question. When short it is a luxury the bibliographer
may occasionally indulge in. I confess that this is one of the points I
have felt extremely puzzled about. I never abbreviate or omit anything
from a title-page without fear and trembling, which is intensified in
the case of mottoes. They frequently in one short verse, or sentence,
give the pith of a book, and my fear is that some one in the future
should wonder how I could be so stupid as to suggest their omission.
All additions should be indicated with the same care by placing them
between brackets [ ]. Additions in titles should be as few and as
short as possible, all explanatory matter can be given in a note.
Sometimes authors use brackets or parentheses on the title pages. When
this is the case, if of no use or unimportant, they should be left out
by the cataloguer. For instance, when an author has the words [Reprinted
from, &c.] in the title. To omit the brackets is the least misleading,
for if left in it would look as if this information were not supplied by
the author, and if (_sic_) were put it would not be understood as
referring to the brackets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------