HOW TO TREAT A TITLE-PAGE.
In this chapter we shall discuss the various points that arise in
connection with the transference of the title of a book to the catalogue
slip, and for convenience we shall treat the subject under the following
main divisions: 1. Author; 2. Headings other than Author Headings; 3.
The Title; 4. Place of Publication; 5. Date; 6. Size Notation; 7.
Collation.
Before dealing with these points it is necessary to give the cataloguer
a warning not to take his title from the outer wrapper. The title-page
only must be used, but in cases where there is no title-page, and it
becomes necessary to copy from the wrapper, this must be clearly stated.
Wrappers and title-pages of the same book often differ, and a neglect of
the above rule has sometimes caused a confusion in bibliographies by
the conversion of one book into two.
AUTHOR.
With the title-page of the book to be catalogued before us, our first
care is to find the author's name. If there is no author's name, we must
put the book aside for consideration later on. First of all, therefore,
it is necessary to answer the question, What is an author?
Mr. Cutter's definition is as follows: "Author, in the narrower sense,
is the person who writes a book; in a wider sense, it may be applied to
him who is the cause of the book's existence, by putting together the
writings of several authors (usually called _the editor_, more properly
to be called _the collector_). Bodies of men (societies, cities,
legislative bodies, countries) are to be considered the authors of their
memoirs, transactions, journals, debates, reports, etc." This is a fair
definition, about which there can be no dispute, down to the word
_collector_; but the latter portion requires much consideration, and we
shall have to deal with it further on.
First let us consider some of the questions which arise respecting the
person who writes the book. If we suppose his names to be John Smith, we
have the matter in its simplest form for a small catalogue, and we write
at the head of a slip of paper--SMITH (JOHN).
But in the case of a large library, the very simplicity causes a
difficulty. There are so many different John Smiths, that it becomes
necessary to find out some means of distinguishing them. At the British
Museum explanatory designations, such as _Schoolmaster_,
_Bibliographer_, etc., are added; but this point belongs more properly
to arrangement, which will be discussed in the sixth chapter of this
book.
All authors' names, however, are not so simple as those of John Smith,
and one of the greatest difficulties is connected with compound names.
A few years ago the rule respecting these compound names might have been
stated quite simply, thus: "In foreign names take the first as the
catch-word, and in English names take the last." But lately a large
number of persons have taken a fancy to bring into prominence their
second Christian name, when it is obtained from a surname, and, adding a
hyphen, insist on being called Clarkson-Smith, Sholto-Brown, or
Tredegar-Jones. Now here is a great difficulty which the cataloguer has
to face. Take the case of John Clarkson Smith. His family name may be
Clarkson, and the Smith added as a necessary consequence of obtaining a
certain property, in which case he properly comes under C; but he may
just as likely be a Smith, who, having been named Clarkson at his
christening, thinks it advantageous to bring that name into prominence,
so as to distinguish himself from the other Smiths. Probably, to still
further carry on the process, he will name all his children Clarkson, so
that in the end it will become practically a compound surname. The
cataloguer, therefore, needs to know much personal and family history
before he can decide correctly. If we decide in all cases to take the
first of the names hyphened together, we shall still meet with
difficulties, for many persons, knowing the origin of the Clarkson, will
insist on calling our friend Smith.
On this point the British Museum rule is:--
"Foreign compound surnames to be entered under the initial of the
first of them. In compound Dutch and English surnames, the last name
to be preferred, if no entry of a work by the same person occur in
the Catalogue under the first name only."
Cutter rules as follows:--
"16. Put compound names:
"_a._ If English, under the last part of the name, when
the first has not been used alone by the author.
"This rule requires no investigation and secures
uniformity; but, like all rules, it sometimes leads to
entries under headings where nobody would look for them.
Refer.
"_b._ If foreign, under the first part.
"Both such compound names as GENTIL-BERNARD, and such as
GENTIL DE CHAVAGNAC. There are various exceptions, as
FÉNELON, not SALIGNAC DE LAMOTHE FÉNELON; VOLTAIRE, not
AROUET DE VOLTAIRE. Moreover, it is not always easy to
determine what is a compound surname in French. A convenient
rule would be to follow the authority of Hoefer (_Biog Gen._)
and Quérard in such cases, if they always
agreed,--unfortunately they often differ. References are
necessary whichever way one decides each case."
The Library Association rule is:--
"32. English compound surnames are to be entered under the
last part of the name; foreign ones under the first part,
cross-references being given in all instances."
The Cambridge rule is as follows:--
"4. [English] compound surnames to be entered under the
last part of the compound, unless when joined by a hyphen.
"9. [Foreign] compound names to be under the first part of
the compound."
It will be seen that, although all the lawgivers are agreed upon the
general principle, they do not entirely settle the difficulty which has
been raised above. Probably it will be best for the cataloguer to
settle each individual case on its own merits, and to be generous in the
use of cross-references. It is dangerous to be guided by hyphens,
because they have become absurdly common, and many persons seem to be
ignorant of the true meaning of the hyphen. One sometimes even sees an
ordinary Christian name joined to the surname by a hyphen, as
John-Smith.
Prefixes present a great difficulty to the cataloguer, and here again a
different rule has to be adopted for foreign names to that which governs
English names. The broad rule is that in foreign names the article
should be retained, and the preposition rejected; and the reason for
this is that the article is permanent, while the preposition is not. A
prefix which is translated into the relative term in a foreign language
cannot be considered as a fixed portion of the name. Thus Alexander von
Humboldt translated his name into Alexander de Humboldt when away from
his native country. For the same reason prefixes are retained in English
names. They have no meaning in themselves, and cannot be translated.
There is a difficulty in the case of certain cosmopolitan Jews who use
the "De" before their names. This is so with the Rothschilds, who style
themselves De Rothschilds; but when a British peerage was conferred on
the head of the house the "De" went. Under these circumstances we must
consider the "De" as a foreign prefix, and reject it.
There is probably no point in cataloguing which presents so many
difficulties to the inexperienced as this one connected with prefixes,
and yet it is one upon which the lawgivers are far from being so clear
as they ought to be.
Mr. Cutter's rule is the fullest, and that of the Library Association
the vaguest.
Mr. Cutter writes as follows:--
"17. Put surnames preceded by prefixes:
"_a._ In French, under the prefix when it is or contains
an article, _Les_, _La_, _L'_, _Du_, _Des_; under the word
following when the prefix is a preposition, _De_, _D'_.
"_b._ In English, under the prefix, as _De Quincey_,
_Van Buren_, with references when necessary.
"_c._ In all other languages, under the name following
the prefix, as _Gama_, Vasco de, with references whenever
the name has been commonly used in English with the
prefix, as _Del Rio_, _Vandyck_, _Van Ess_."
This is all the Library Association have to say:--
"31. English and French surnames beginning with a prefix
(except the French _De_ and _D'_) are to be recorded under
the prefix; in other languages, under the word following."
The British Museum rule stands thus:--
"12. Foreign names, excepting French, preceded by a
preposition and article, or by both, to be entered under the
name immediately following. French names preceded by a
preposition only, to follow the same rule: those preceded by
an article, or by a preposition and an article, to be entered
under the initial letter of the article. English surnames, of
foreign origin, to be entered under their initial, even if
originally belonging to a preposition."
The Cambridge rules are as follows:--
"8. German and Dutch names, preceded by a preposition or an
article, or both, to be catalogued under the name, and not
under the preposition or article.
"9. French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese names,
preceded by a preposition only, to be catalogued under the
name; those preceded by an article, or by a preposition and
an article forming one word, to be catalogued under the
article or combined preposition and article."
The point was fully considered by the Index Society; and as the rule
laid down by the Council is full and clear, I venture to give it here in
addition to those above.
"5. Proper names of foreigners to be alphabetically arranged under the
prefixes
_Dal._ as _Dal Sie._
_Del._ _Del Rio._
_Della._ _Della Casa._
_Des._ _Des Cloiseaux._
_Du._ _Du Bois._
_La._ _La Condamine._
_Le._ _Le Sage._
but not under the prefixes
_D'._ as _Abbadie_ not _D'Abbadie._
_Da._ _Silva_ _Da Silva._
_De._ _La Place_ _De La Place._
_Von._ _Humboldt_ _Von Humboldt._
_Van._ _Beneden_ _Van Beneden._
_Van der._ _Hoeven_ _Van der Hoeven._
It is an acknowledged principle that when the prefix is a preposition it
is to be rejected, but when an article it is to be retained. When,
however, as in the case of the French _Du_, _Des_, the two are joined,
it is necessary to retain the preposition. This also applies to the case
of the Italian _Della_, which is often rejected by cataloguers. English
names are, however, to be arranged under the prefixes _De_, _Dela_,
_Van_, etc., _as De Quincey_, _Delabeche_, _Van Mildert_, because these
prefixes are meaningless in English and form an integral part of the
name."
We must be careful not to invent an author by misreading a title, as was
done by the cataloguer who entered the _Relatio felicis agonis_ of
certain martyrs as the work of one Felix Ago.[21] This is by no means
an unnecessary caution, for several imaginary authors have found their
way into biographical dictionaries by the blundering of title-readers.
The British Museum rule by which Voltaire is entered under _Arouet_ and
Molière under _Poquelin_ has been so often criticised that I scarcely
like to refer to it here; but as these are very striking examples of an
irritating rule, I feel bound to allude to them. Mr. Jewett, in forming
his rules, felt bound to place Arouet le jeune and Poquelin under the
only names by which they are known, viz., Voltaire and Molière; and to
cover his departure from rules he was following, he made this note: "The
family name of an individual is to be considered that which he has or
adopts for himself and his descendants rather than that which he
received from his ancestors--his family name, not his father's." This,
to a great extent, covers the case; for we are bound to take for our
catalogue the name by which an author decides to be known, and by which
he always is known. It is not for us to rake up his family history.
Panizzi, however, specially answered the objection made to his
treatment of Voltaire. He said that Lelong, in his _Bibliotheque
Historique de la France_, while Voltaire was alive, entered him under
Arouet; and in answer to the question, "Mr. Tomlinson states that the
family name of Voltaire was Arouet, a name which the writer himself
never used, and by which he was scarcely known?" Panizzi added, "The
first thing that occurred in his life was, that he was sent to prison as
Arouet, as the supposed writer of certain satirical verses against the
Regent; and if you look at the index to the best edition of St. Simon,
you will not find Voltaire at all. You will find M. Arouet. We put it
under Arouet, but there is a cross-reference from Voltaire. I believe
Mr. Milnes pointed out the advantage of this, because, he said, the
greatest harm that can arise is, that if you look under 'Voltaire' you
find that you are sent to 'Arouet,' but if we are not consistent we
mislead every one" (p. 675). This is an answer, but I do not think it
will be accepted as a satisfactory one. The reference could as easily be
made the other way, and no one would be misled. References should be
from the little known to the better known, and not the reverse way. We
may pay too high a price for consistency in cataloguing.
By the rule that an author should be placed under the name by which he
is best known, Melanchthon will be under that name and not under
Schwartzerde, Oecolampadius not under Hausschein, Xylander not under
Holzmann, Regiomontanus not under Müller. The tersest reason I know for
this rule is that of Professor De Morgan: "As the butchers' bills of
these eminent men are lost, and their writings only remain, it is best
to designate them by the name which they bear on the latter rather than
on the former."
We shall sometimes come upon a title in which the author appears as the
Bishop of Carlisle, or the Dean of Chichester; and before making the
heading for our catalogue slip we shall have to look in a book of
dignities, or almanac, or directory to find out the surname of the
bishop or the dean. These titles can no more be treated as names than
could the Mayor or Recorder of Brighton be registered under the name of
that place. This rule is clear, and one that is universally adopted; but
in another case, which is supposed to be similar, the lawgivers have, I
think, gone very wrong. It has become general to place peers under their
family names instead of under their titles. This rule is in direct
opposition to the clear principle of placing an author under the name by
which he is best known, and under which he is most likely to be sought
for. The majority of peers are known only by their titles, and therefore
if they are placed under their family names they are placed under the
worst possible heading. Readers of history know that the great Duke of
Marlborough began to make a figure as Colonel Churchill, but most
persons know him only as Marlborough, and when they wish to find whether
a certain catalogue contains his Despatches, they do not wish either to
be referred to Churchill or to have to look for his family name in a
peerage. The titles of noblemen and the names of the sees of bishops
have really little in common. The title is practically the man's name,
and he has no other for use; but a bishop never loses his name.
The British Museum rules, and those of the Cambridge University Library,
direct that noblemen shall be placed under their family names. At
Cambridge there is the further rule that, "in the case of dukes of the
blood royal who have no surname, the title is to be taken as the leading
word." The necessity for this exception condemns the original rule.
The Library Association and Bodleian rules adopt the common-sense plan
of entering noblemen under their titles; and Mr. Cutter gives some
excellent reasons for doing this, although he cannot make up his mind to
run counter to a supposed well-established rule.
Mr. Cutter writes:--
"STANHOPE, Philip Dormer, _4th Earl of Chesterfield_.... This is the
British Museum rule and Mr. Jewett's. Mr. Perkins prefers entry
under titles for British noblemen also, in which I should agree with
him if the opposite practice were not so well established. The
reasons for entry under the title are that British noblemen are
always 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 Thynne), 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 favour of the Museum rule is
that it is well established, and that it is desirable that there
should be some uniform rule."
Sovereigns, saints, and friars are to be registered under their
Christian names. Upon this point all the authorities are agreed. The
British Museum rule is:--
"IV. The works of sovereigns, or of princes of sovereign
houses, to be entered under their Christian or first name, in
their English form.
"VI. Works of friars, who, by the constitution of their
order, drop their surname, to be entered under the Christian
name; the name of the family, if ascertained, to be added in
brackets. The same to be done for persons canonized as well
as for those known under their first name only, to which, for
the sake of distinction, they add that of their native place
or profession or rank."
The Cambridge rule 12 is the same as the British Museum rule VI., but
worded a little differently.
The Library Association rule appears in a highly condensed form, thus:--
"28. All persons generally known by a forename are to be so
entered, the English form being used in the case of
sovereigns, popes, ruling princes, oriental writers, friars,
and persons canonized."
As usual, Mr. Cutter is more explicit. His rule is as follows:--
"13. Put under the Christian or first name:
"_a._ Sovereigns or princes of sovereign houses. Use
the English form of the name."
The direction, "Use the English form of the name," was a concession to
ignorance. When it was given, that form was almost alone employed in
English books. Since then the tone of literature has changed; the desire
for local colouring has led to the use of foreign forms, and we have
become familiarized with Louis, Henri, Marguerite, Carlos, Karl,
Wilhelm, Gustaf. If the present tendency continues, we shall be able to
treat princes' names like any other foreign names; perhaps the next
generation of cataloguers will no more tolerate the headings _William_,
Emperor of Germany, Lewis XIV., than they will tolerate Virgil, Horace,
Pliny. The change, to be sure, would give rise to some difficult
questions of nationality, but it would diminish the number of the titles
now accumulated under the more common royal names.
"_b._ Persons canonized.
"_Ex._ THOMAS [à Becket], _Saint_.
"_c._ Friars, who, by the constitution of their order,
drop their surname. Add the name of the family in
parentheses, and refer from it.
"_Ex._ Paolino da S. Bartolomeo [J. P. Wesdin].
"_d._ Persons known under their first name only,
whether or not they add that of their native place or
profession or rank.
"_Ex._ PAULUS _Diaconus_, THOMAS _Heisterbacensis_."
Here are, I think, two points which are open to question. Doubtless it
is far better to use the correct forms of foreign Christian names than
the English forms, and when the initial is the same there can be no
objection; but it is not satisfactory to separate the same name over
different letters of the alphabet. It must be remembered that the name
in a catalogue is a heading taken out of its proper place on the
title-page, for the sake of convenience, and therefore there is no
impropriety or show of ignorance if these headings are in English.
As to the practice with respect to the names of saints, I think the rule
is a good one; but there must be some exceptions, and Mr. Cutter's
example I should treat as an exception.
Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, is known to most men as
Becket, and under that name they would look for him. The mere fact that
the Roman Catholic Church chose to canonize him does not seem to be a
sufficient reason for putting him under the heading of Thomas (St.),
where no one but an ecclesiastic would think of looking for him.
These rules go on to deal with Oriental authors, who are to be placed
under their first names. This rule is, perhaps, the safest, if we know
nothing of Oriental names; but it will often need to be departed from,
and Mr. Cutter's suggestion is therefore a good one. He writes:
"Graesse's _Lehrbuch einer allgemeinen Literärgeschichte_ is a
convenient guide in this matter; he prints that part of the name by
which Arabic writers are commonly known in a heavier type than the
rest." This is not a subject which is likely to trouble the general
cataloguer much, and in the case of a multitude of Oriental works
special information must be sought.
Something must now be said about Christian names. These should not be
contracted, but written in full, unless a special system of contraction
is adopted. Mr. Cutter suggested in the _American Library Journal_ that
the most common Christian names should be represented by an initial with
a colon after it; thus, Hart, G: H:, would read Hart, George Henry; but
Hart, G. H., would be read as usual, and G. H. might stand for any
names. Mr. Cutter contributed a list of the abbreviations of Christian
names which he adopted to the _American Library Journal_ (vol. i., p.
405).
There is a great difficulty connected with the arrangement of Christian
names in large catalogues, such as that of the British Museum, which
must be overcome by means of cross-references. Suppose a certain work
which you require is written by one Charles Raphael Smith. You are
pretty sure to have the name given as Raphael Smith, and in consequence
you will seek for the name in the secondary alphabet R, while it will
really be found under C, and to this position you probably have no clue.
Sometimes cataloguers take a great deal of pains to discover a Christian
name that an author has persistently dropped, but this in general only
gives everyone unnecessary trouble.
In foreign titles it is not always easy to distinguish between Christian
and surnames. For instance, there are a large number of surnames in
Spanish which are formed from Christian names in the same way as
Richards is formed from Richard. Thus Fernando is a Christian name, but
Fernandez or Fernandes is a surname. Again, in Hungarian and some other
languages, the surname is placed first, and is followed by the Christian
name. The surname is, in fact, made into an adjective, as if we spoke of
the Smithian John instead of John Smith.
* * * * *
A difficulty arises when authors change their name, for it is necessary
to bring all the works by an author under one heading, and the question
must be settled whether the first or the last name is to be chosen.
The British Museum rule is:--
"XI. Works of authors who change their name, or add to it a
second, after having begun to publish under the first, to be
entered under the first name, noticing any alteration which
may have subsequently taken place."
This is a very inconvenient rule, as it frequently causes an author to
be placed under his least known name. For instance, in the British
Museum Catalogue the works of Sir Francis Palgrave are entered under
Cohen, a name which not one in ten thousand persons knows to have been
the original name of the historian. The reverse plan is therefore more
generally adopted. Thus the Cambridge rule is:--
"7. Persons who change their names, or add a second name or
a title, to be catalogued under the final form (being a
surname) which their name assumes, the previous entries being
gathered under this heading by means of written entries on
the slip."
And Cutter writes:--
"15. Put the works of authors who change their name under
the latest form, provided the new name be legally and
permanently adopted."
Intimately connected with this change of name by authors is the case of
authoresses who are married after they have commenced to write. Here the
most convenient plan is to adopt the husband's name, except in those
cases where the authoress elects to continue her maiden name. In this,
as in many other cases, it is not advisable to go behind the writer's
own statement in the title-page. If the author is consistent in using
one name on all his or her works, there is no need to seek out a name
which he or she does not use. The cataloguer's difficulty arises when
different names are used at different periods of life; and, as his main
duty is to bring all the works of an author under one heading, he must
decide which of the different names he is to choose as a heading.
Mr. Cutter's rule is:--
"Married women, using the surname of the last husband, or
if divorced, the name then assumed. Refer.
"I should be inclined to make an exception in the case of
those wives who continue writing, and are known in
literature, only under their maiden names (as Miss FREER, or
Fanny LEWALD), were we sure of dealing with them only as
authors, but they may be subjects; we may have lives of
them, for instance, which ought to be entered under their
present names."
The Library Association rule is rather ambiguous:--
"29. Married women and other persons who have changed their
names to be put under the name best known, with a
cross-reference from the last authorized name."
The case of married women is carried by the British Museum rule
respecting change of name which is quoted above, with the inconvenient
result that Mrs. Centlivre, the playwright, who is only known by that
name, appears in the British Museum Catalogue under the name Carroll.
* * * * *
Having dealt with some of the difficulties of modern names, we will pass
on to consider some of the points connected with classical names. There
is little difficulty connected with Greek authors, as they usually had
but one name; but as a mixture of alphabets cannot be tolerated in the
headings of catalogues, we must use the Latin form of these names, as
Herodotus, not [Greek: Êrodotus]. In this case, besides the
inconvenience of different alphabets, we should have the author known to
us all as Herodotus under the letter E, if we adopted the original
form.
There is more to be said with respect to the names of Roman authors. Mr.
Cutter's rule is:--
"18. Put names of Latin authors under that part of the name
chosen in Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography_,
unless there is some good reason for not doing so."
This rule is very good as far as it goes, but a general rule may be laid
down which will save the cataloguer from the need of consulting Smith,
except in very difficult cases. Most Latin authors have three names--the
prenomen, which answers to our Christian name; the nomen, or family
name; and the agnomen. In the case of Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Quintus
is the prenomen, Horatius the nomen by which the author is and ought to
be known, and Flaccus is the agnomen. But in the case of Cicero we have
incorrectly taken to call him by his agnomen, although our ancestors
correctly called him by his nomen, Tully. The same thing may be said of
Cæsar, whose family name was Julius. But we must be content to follow
custom in these cases. Besides the agnomen some men had a cognomen, or
strictly personal name, and some had two prenomens; so that it is not
safe to take the middle of three names as the nomen for certain. In some
cases the prenomens of authors have been lost, and others have come down
to us without agnomens.
* * * * *
Having dealt with the chief difficulties connected with the arrangement
of the name of an author when there is no doubt about who the author is,
we must now pass on to those cases where there is some difficulty in
deciding as to the authorship of a book. Many titles are purposely
misleading. Thus a letter addressed to some celebrated person is made to
appear as if it were written by that person.
A well-known county history in six volumes, quarto, is constantly quoted
as the work of one who never wrote it, on account of the misleading
character of the title-page. This book is entitled, "_Collections for
the History of Hampshire_. By D. Y. With Original Domesday of the
County, and an Accurate English Translation.... By Richard Warner...."
The second volume contains the Domesday, and this alone is edited by
Warner. In his _Literary Recollections_ (1830), the Rev. R. Warner
remarks on this. He writes: "A circumstance somewhat singular arose out
of the publication of _Hampshire, extracted from Domesday Book_, as the
volume formed the foundation of one of the most barefaced piracies ever
committed on the literary property of an unfortunate author" (vol. ii.,
p. 267).
Mr. Cutter's remark, already referred to, that he who is the cause of a
book's existence should be treated as the author, is a perfectly just
one. Thus we are in the habit of using the word "editor" rather loosely.
According to the work done by the so-called editor, we shall arrange the
book under his name or not. If a man takes a book which already exists
and edits it with notes, he establishes no right to have its title
placed under his name. For instance, if the original book has an author,
it goes under his name; or if it is anonymous, it is treated by the rule
that governs anonymous books. To adopt any other system would be to
distribute various editions of the same book under different headings.
On the other hand, if a man collects together various pieces, and forms
an entirely new and substantive work, he should be treated as the
author, because without his initiative the book would have no existence.
Hakluyt's _Principal Navigations of the English Navigators_, Purchas's
_Pilgrimes and Pilgrimages_, and Pinkerton's _Collection of Voyages and
Travels_, are special cases about which no one would doubt; but the
cataloguer will come upon cases where he may have some difficulty in
deciding.
Mr. Cutter enters very fully into the points relating to corporate
authors, some of which are of considerable difficulty. First among
corporate authors are societies and institutions who publish
proceedings; but these will be treated in the sixth chapter, under the
heading of Transactions. There are, however, many other publications of
corporate bodies which do not come under this heading, such as Acts,
Laws, Resolutions, Reports, etc. It is scarcely worth while to discuss
this point very fully here, as this class of book is only to be found in
the largest libraries, where the rules are settled. Moreover, they will
sometimes require to be treated differently, according to the class of
library in which they are included.
According to the rules of the Cambridge University Library, they are
arranged under the general (or superior) heading of _Official
Publications_.
Academical dissertations frequently offer considerable difficulties to
the cataloguer, and as the recognized authorities are not so clear in
their rules upon this subject as they might be, I venture here to
introduce the substance of a paper which my brother, the late Mr. B. R.
Wheatley, read before the Library Association in 1881:--
ON THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP IN ACADEMICAL DISSERTATIONS.
In the "title-taking" of these dissertations the difficulty is not in
their "subjects," which are sometimes confined even to a single word,
but it is in the choice of their authors' names: whether the præses,
the respondent, the proponent or defendant is to be chosen. It may
perhaps be thought that I am fighting with a shadow, but when it is
considered that the seventh of the _Rules for Cataloguing_ printed by
the British Museum, copied afterwards into Cutter's Rules, and since, I
find, adopted by the Library Association, is that "The Respondent or
Defendant of a Thesis is the Author, except when it unequivocally
appears to be the work of the Præses," and that nevertheless in some
special catalogues, such as Pritzel's _Thesaurus_, Haller's
_Bibliothecæ_, etc., and in the catalogues of the Linnæan and some other
Societies' libraries, the rule has been generally adopted that the
præses is the author, or at least that he takes that position from the
dissertations being entered under his name--and that in a large number
of collections of these dissertations, this latter rule has been
frequently favoured--it will be allowed that this shadow puts on a
substantial appearance, and has sufficient reality in it to bear a
practical discussion. In placing before you some examples from
title-pages, in illustration of the question, I must apologize for
taking them entirely from works connected with Medicine and its allied
sciences, as being the class more immediately ready to my hand for
reference.
Before entering on the bibliographical part of our subject, you will
allow me to quote, from Watts' _On the Improvement of the Mind_, a short
summary of the method of scholastic disputation: "The tutor appoints a
question in some of the sciences to be debated amongst his students; one
of them undertakes to affirm or to deny the question and to defend his
assertion or negation, and to answer all objections against it; he is
called the _respondent_, and the rest of the students in the same class
or who pursue the same science are the _opponents_, who are appointed to
dispute or raise objections against the proposition affirmed or denied.
It is the business of the respondent to write a thesis in Latin, or
short discourse on the question proposed, and he either affirms or
denies the question according to the opinion of the tutor, which is
supposed to be the truth, and he reads it at the beginning of the
dispute. The opponent, or opponents in succession, make objections in
the form of a syllogism, the proposition in which is in reply argued
against and denied by the respondent. During this time the tutor sits in
the chair as President or Moderator to see that the rules of disputation
and decency be observed on both sides. His work is also to illustrate
and explain the answer or distinction of the respondent where it is
obscure, to strengthen it where it is weak, and to correct it where it
is false, and when the respondent is pinched with a strong objection,
and is at a loss for an answer, the Moderator assists him and suggests
some answer to the objection of the opponent, in defence of the
question, according to his own opinion or sentiment."
The latter part of the above quotation seems to be the only ground for
attributing an authorship to the præses, viz., that he has had so great
a hand in correcting and moulding the form and argument of the essay as
to be entitled to the appellation. I cannot understand the thesis being
attributed to the præses on any other supposition, but if that
supposition be correct, and the præses did give the candidate the
information on which his dissertation is compiled, and the candidate had
merely the superficial reality of the position as a defender of the
statements given in his thesis, would not that circumstance be purely a
literary question and a matter for a statement by foot-note? while, as
the candidate for honours brings the thesis forward as his own, he must
bibliographically be considered its author.
The questions also arise: is the published thesis the original thesis
prepared for disputation, or is it in its printed form a combination of
that thesis with such corrections and emendations as have been elicited
in the discussion? Is it like a paper contributed to our societies, in
which the _ipsissima verba_ of the author are retained if the paper is
thought generally worthy of publication, in despite of some of its
statements having been contravened in the discussion? Is it like a
drafted Bill for Parliament, or as amended in committee or by a rival
committee, with the chairman's notes of addition and correction? Might
not the authorship, if conceded to the præses on these grounds, be given
also to a schoolmaster who suggested some of the principal points of the
themes for his pupils on which they were to gain honour and distinction;
or to a drawing-master, who
"In years gone by, when we were lads at school,"
put some last brilliant touches to our dull, spiritless attempts at
imitation; rendering our pencillings liable, in their improved
condition, to be declared by some cynical critic, much to our
dissatisfaction, more our master's than our own?
In the _Dissertationes Inaugurales_ of the Edinburgh, Leipzig,
Goettingen, Berlin, Paris, and other universities, there is little or no
difficulty, where the author, A. B. _eruditorum examini subjicit, ex
auctoritate Rectoris vel Præfecti_, as, if we take, for instance, the
case of the Edinburgh Dissertations, no one could suppose the hundreds
of dissertations submitted for examination by aspirants for academic
honours could all be attributed, either to the learned Præfects Drs.
Wishart or Wm. Robertson of the last century, or to Dr. Georgius Baird
of the first quarter of the present; and one of the difficulties
connected with the question is, how far the usual præses in thesis with
a respondent, is or is not in almost the same relative position as the
rector of the above dissertations, and in fact whether the hundred and
one different forms and variations of words on title-pages used in the
various cases of rector and candidate for honours, præses and proponent,
præses and defendant, defendant alone, præses and respondent, respondent
alone, etc., are not all slightly varying representations of much the
same condition of things, modified perhaps by some variety of usages, as
in Sweden, for instance, which may have been more favourable to the
claims of the præses than in other countries; a condition, however,
which is a veritable Proteus in its many changes of shape.
Presidents, we allow to be absolute in their decisions, but in the case
of these dissertations they are in an "ablative absolute" position, and
therefore, I suggest, should, with few exceptions, be removed from the
status of author, which belongs grammatically as well as
bibliographically to the proponent, defendant, or respondent, who in the
nominative case dominates the entire construction of the title-page.
The British Museum rule, as adopted by Mr. Cutter in his _Rules for a
Dictionary Catalogue_ and by our Association since, viz., "_Consider the
Respondent or Defendant of a Thesis as its Author except when it
unequivocally appears to be the work of the Præses_," does not
comprehend cases where both the words respondent and defendant occur
together.
The respondent is the author when words like _auctor respondens_ are
attached to his name, or when the præses is the only other name
mentioned on the title, but not when there is a proponent or defendant,
as in the following out of many instances I could produce:--
"_De Mangano_: Dissertatio quam publice _defendere_ studebit
G. Forchhammer, _respondente_ Tho. G. Repp;" Hafniæ, 1820, 4to.
"Dissertatio Medica quam auspiciis Rectoris Friderici Hassiæ
Landgravii _defendet_ P. J. Borellus, _respondente_ H. G.
Sibeckero."
I should like, therefore, to have added to that rule, "the Defendant or
Respondent is the Author when either occurs separately on the
title-page, but when together, the Defendant must be so considered."
In Cutter's rules for cross-referencing, he considers that one should be
made from the præses to the respondent or defendant of a thesis, which I
cannot but consider supererogatory; the contrary one, from respondent to
præses, where the præses can be proved to be the author, has more reason
in its favour.
This latter case is, however, of comparatively rare occurrence, the
following being examples of those few cases in which the authorship must
be given to him:--
"_Dissertatio quam sistit præses G. F. Francus de Frankenau,
respondente Daniel Wagnero;_" Hafniæ, 1704, the dedication
being also signed by Francus. "_De Humoribus disputatio,
authore ac præside D._ _C. Lucio et respondente M. Rotmundo_,"
Ingolstadii, 1588.
In what way, favourable or unfavourable to the præses-author hypothesis,
shall we take such titles as--
Deo triuno præside ex decreto gratiosi Med. Ordinis.
Quam deo ter optimo maximo Præside ex auctoritate D. Rectoris exam.
subjicit J. G. W.
Quam præside summo numine ex auctoritate D. Rectoris subjicit J. G. W.
When the præses is the author he is usually called author, defendant, or
proponent, never respondent, but the opposing respondent is sometimes a
participating author.
The following case is one of our difficulties, and shows the necessity
of looking further than the title:--
"_Dissertatio de Hæmorrhoidibus, præses Geo. Francus,
respondens J. G. Carisius_, Heidelb. 1672."
The dedication to this is signed by Francus, with this remark,
"_Dissertationem Medicam primitias nempe meas offerre debui_," proving
him to be the author.
And in numerous cases where the names of a præses and respondent occur
on the title without the word author being attached to either, the
preface or dedication is signed sometimes by one and sometimes by the
other, and the authorship must be attributed accordingly.
But with regard to those Disputations in which only the names of præses
and respondent occur on the title, we must recollect that the antithesis
is not always between _them_, but between the _opponents_, whether
mentioned or not, and the _author_ who responds to their strictures, the
præses being only the arbiter between them.
The principal cause of our troubles in these matters is not, however, to
be found so much in the separate dissertations in their original
publication, as in the collected editions of them by Haller and others.
In these collections the name of the præses is constantly given as
author of the thesis in the heading lines of the text, even when the
title, in agreement with its original publication, attaches the word
_auctor_ to the name of the defendant or respondent; are we in these
cases to suppose that these heading lines have really been left to the
caprice of the printer, who has adopted the name of the præses as
occurring first on the title, on the principle of first come first
served?
In Haller's Collection of _Disputationes Chirurgicæ_ contrarieties
constantly occur, the exact sameness of construction in the titles being
followed sometimes by the name of the præses and sometimes by that of
the defendant, on the heading lines of the text; as, for instance, in
one where, though the fly-title mentions Orth as the "_respondens
auctor_," the dissertation is in the heading placed under the name of
Salzmann, the præses.
Other instances of this difficulty occur in Gruner's _Delectus
Dissertationum Medicarum Jenensium_, in which a large number are
attributed to the præses Baldinger, in a title-construction which
mentions the names of the proponents as authors. In Haller's
_Disputationes ad Morborum historiam_, the regular titles are omitted,
and the two names, sometimes præses and respondent, sometimes respondent
and opponent, or defendant and respondent, are given coupled by an _et_
as the authors of the dissertation, the first name, however, gaining the
honour of the heading line. I give one or two instances exhibiting the
confusion involved in the question.
_J. V. Scheid et Marci Mappi Disputatio de duobus ossiculis in cerebro
humano mulieris, 1687._ Scheid's name appears as the author in the
heading line, but on turning to the original edition I find _pro
disputatione proposita, præside J. V. Scheid, respondente Marco Mappo_,
and in the dedication signed by Mappus it is stated by him to be his
first specimen of his medical studies.
In another instance of the same kind, _Joh. Saltzmann et E. C. Honold de
Verme naribus excusso_, the heading line has Saltzmann as the author,
while in the original edition the dedication to the magistracy of his
native town is signed by Honold, as dedicating to them _primitias hasce
academicas_, and at the end are several letters and sets of
congratulatory verses on his performance. How in a bibliographical sense
can Scheid or Saltzmann be the authors of these theses? The information
they may have contributed as teachers does not constitute them authors.
Cases of the same kind occur in _Richteri Opuscula Medica, studio J. C.
G. Ackermann, 1780_; in _Trilleri Opuscula_, and in _J. G. Roedereri
Opuscula Medica_, in which latter are included dissertations which are
said to be _totæ ab illo factæ_, which yet on their titles have _quam
publico eruditorum examini submittit_--Dietz, Winiker, Hirschfeld,
Stein, Schael, Chüden, Zeis, and some with the word _auctor_ prefixed to
the proponent, and without the name of Roederer on the title at all,
which yet are said in the table of contents to be _illo non plane
auctore sed suasore et moderatore enatæ_.
There is a series of thirteen _Disputationes de recta ratione Purgandi,
a Melchiore Sebizio_, 1621, which are printed as by Sebizius, but in
each of the disputations the dedication is signed by the respondent, and
the respondents speak of the theses as the firstfruits of their studies.
There are, indeed, so many of these dissertations in which the
construction of the title is the same whether a præses is mentioned or
not, and with the word auctor sometimes following the name of the
defendant, sometimes that of the respondent, that there can be little
doubt that one of the latter must be considered the author, in all cases
where auctor does not follow the name of the præses.
When a collection of theses or dissertations is published under the name
of a præses as his _opera_, such as in the case of Sebizius, Richter,
Roederer, and others, it is merely in a secondary sense from his having
contributed opinions and corrections to them; and may there not also, in
this publication of sets of theses under the name of the præses as his
works, be some little display of bibliopolic art, as insuring a better
sale if the name of an important professor of the place be attached to
them than with those of yet obscure students bringing forth their first
displays of knowledge before the academic world?
And though I feel great objections to their being considered as authors
bibliographically speaking, yet with regard to Linnæus, Thunberg, and
some other Swedish authors, they really seem to have had so very much
to do with the composition of the theses, at the disputations on which
they sat as presidents, that I feel great difficulty in comprehending
them in the previous category.
From these collections of dissertations it seems impossible to form any
bibliographical conclusions as a basis for certainty of arrangement, but
I will add from the previous statements a few suggestions which may tend
towards that end:--
That the proponent is always the author of a dissertation.
That the defendant is always the author of a dissertation when it occurs
with another name as respondent.
That the term defendant is, when alone, synonymous with respondent.
That when the respondent's name occurs with a præses only, the
respondent is the author except words are attached to the president's
name affirming him to be the proponent, defendant, or author, or there
is evidence in the preface or dedication that he claims the authorship.
That the respondent when he is the author is frequently described as
auctor respondens.
That the opponent is never the author of a thesis.
That dissertatio, disputatio, thesis, etc., are generally used
synonymously, the same construction of words as to the authorship
following each.
And that when a collection of theses or dissertations is published under
the name of a præses as his "opera" it is merely in a secondary literary
sense, viz., his having contributed opinions and corrections to the
theses, or as being their editor.
That the adoption of an asterisk in catalogues to denote an academical
dissertation or thesis relieves us of the necessity of repeating a large
amount of redundant wording to each title. It has been used successfully
in the library of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, and by Dr.
Billings in his most valuable _Index-Catalogue of the Library of the
Surgeon-General's Office, United States_.
HEADINGS OTHER THAN AUTHOR HEADINGS.
Reports of trials are frequently difficult to catalogue, and some
persons who are anxious to find an author for a book have considered the
reporter as such. This I consider a hopeless mistake, for the name of
the reporter is little likely to be retained in the memory of the
searcher, who is sure to remember the subject of the trial. Mr. Cutter's
remark upon this point is very just. He says: "It may be doubted ...
whether a stenographic reporter is entitled to be considered an author
any more than a type-setter."
The British Museum rule is as follows:--
"XXXVII. Reports of civil actions to be catalogued under
the name of that party to the suit which stands first upon
the title-page.
"In criminal proceedings the name of the defendant to be
adopted as a heading.
"Trials relating to any vessel to be entered under the
name of such vessel."
Mr. Cutter adopts this rule, but he simplifies the wording. His rule
is:--
"48. Trials may be entered only under the name of the
defendant in a criminal suit and the plaintiff in a civil
suit, and trials relating to vessels under the name of the
vessel."
The treatment of catalogues in a catalogue has given rise to a
considerable amount of difference of opinion. The British Museum rules
on this subject appear to meet the difficulties clearly and well.
"LXXXV. Anonymous catalogues, whether bearing the title
'catalogue' or any other intended to convey the same meaning,
to be entered under the head 'Catalogues,' subdivided as
follows:--
"1st. Catalogues of public establishments (including those of
societies, although not strictly speaking _public_). 2nd. Catalogues
of private collections, drawn up either for sale or otherwise. 3rd.
Catalogues of collections not for sale, the possessors of which are
not known. 4th. General as well as special catalogues of objects
without any reference to their possessor. 5th. Dealers' catalogues.
6th. Sale catalogues not included in any of the preceding sections."
In the foregoing rule the word "anonymous" would, I think, be better
omitted. It seems absurd to omit under the heading such catalogues as
may happen to have the name of the compiler on the title-page. He is in
no proper sense the author. Of course there are some books in which the
word "catalogue" is used that should come under the names of the
authors. This rule applies only to catalogues of particular collections,
and not to such books as _Catalogue of Works of Velasquez in the
Galleries of Europe_, which should be placed under the name of its
compiler, who is as much its author as he is of _The Life of Velasquez_.
The Cambridge rule is as follows:--
"Catalogues of all descriptions to be entered under the
superior heading CATALOGUE, to be followed, in the case of
all other articles than books, by the word or phrase (used in
the title) which expresses what they are, printed in italics.
The word CATALOGUE standing alone, to be used for catalogues
of books, whether of private libraries, booksellers, or
auctions. In the case of institutions, the name of the town
and institution to be subjoined in italics to the word
'catalogue' in the superior heading. In the title which
follows the superior heading, preference to be given to the
owner rather than the compiler, in choosing a leading word
for the entry."
The Library Association rule is:--
"Catalogues are to be entered under the name of the
institution, or owner of the collection, with a
cross-reference from the compiler."
Mr. Cutter is opposed to the plan adopted in the above rules. He says:--
"8. 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."
I cannot understand why a system of arranging catalogues under a general
heading, where they are most likely to be sought for, should be
stigmatized as belonging to the dark ages. It is impossible to imagine
a worse heading for an auction catalogue than the name of the
auctioneer. His name is seldom quoted, and more often forgotten. By this
rule, unless a special exception is introduced, the Heber Catalogue
would be separated under the names of Evans, Sotheby, and Wheatley.
It is necessary to bear in mind that catalogues are not really books,
and to make them follow rules adapted for true books is only confusing,
and leads to no useful end. One great advantage of bringing them under
the heading of "Catalogues" is that they can be tabulated and the titles
condensed. It becomes needless to repeat such formulæ as "to be sold by
auction," or "forming the stock of," etc.
The title of a true book is an individual entity, the outcome of an
author's mind; but this is not the case with a catalogue. Its title,
like that of a journal or publication of a society, is formed upon a
system.
It will be seen that the Cambridge rule improves upon that of the
British Museum in respect to arrangement. By the latter, catalogues of
books, coins, estates, and botanical specimens are mixed up together.
These should each be arranged separately.
Concordances are usually placed under the headings of the works to which
they relate. The compiler of a concordance must not, however, be
overlooked, and it is necessary to make a reference to his name. In some
instances, such as Cruden's _Concordance_, the user of the catalogue is
more likely to look under "Cruden" than under "Bible." All the best
authorities group together under the heading of Bible the Old and New
Testaments and their separate parts. Also commentaries, etc.
Another important heading is that of _Liturgies_, which is likely to be
extensive in a large public library. It requires the special arrangement
of an expert, but the British Museum and the Cambridge University rules
deal with this subject.
There is some difficulty in choosing the proper heading for certain
reports of voyages. Sometimes these are written by an author whose name
occurs on the title-page. In these instances the book is naturally
catalogued under its author's name, and it is only necessary to make a
reference under the name of the vessel.
But there is another class of voyages more elaborate in their
arrangement, which either are anonymous or have many authors. There is
usually an account of the voyage, and then a series of volumes devoted
to zoology, botany, etc. Sometimes these voyages are catalogued under
the name of the commander as Dumont d'Urville for _Voyage autour du
Monde de la Corvette l'Astrolabe_; but it is in every way more
convenient to use the name of the vessel as a heading, and bring all the
different divisions under it, as _Astrolabe_, _Challenger_, etc.
ANONYMOUS AND PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS.
We now come to consider the large question of the treatment of anonymous
books. I read a paper on this subject at the Conference of Librarians,
and I venture to transfer to these pages the substance of that paper
with some further remarks. Before entering into the discussion I wish
to protest against the use of the term "anonym," which appears to me to
be formed upon a false analogy. It may be a convenient word, but it is
incorrect. A pseudonym is an entity--a false name under cover of which
an author chooses to write; but an anonymous book has a title from which
an important something is omitted, viz., the author's name. You cannot
express a negation such as this by a distinctive term like "anonym." I
am sorry to see that the term has found a place in the Philological
Society's _New English Dictionary_ (Murray), although it is stated to be
of rare occurrence in this sense.
In dealing with the titles of anonymous books, it is necessary, in the
first place, to agree upon the definition of an anonymous book. Barbier,
who published the first edition of his useful _Dictionnaire des Ouvrages
Anonymes et Pseudonymes_ in 1806, gives the following: "On appelle
ouvrage anonyme celui sur le frontispice duquel l'auteur n'est pas
nommé."
Mr. Cutter gives the same definition, and adds: "Strictly, a book is not
anonymous if the author's name appears anywhere in it, but it is safest
to treat it as anonymous if the author's name does not appear in the
title."
The Bodleian rule (16) also is:--"If the name of a writer occur in a
work, but not on the title-page, the work is also to be regarded for the
purpose of headings as anonymous, except in the case of works without
separate title-page."
Barbier, however, in the second edition of his book (1822), was forced
by the vastness of his materials to adopt a more rigid rule. The best
definition of an anonymous work would probably take something of this
form: A book printed without the author's name, either in the title or
in the preliminary matter.
According to the British Museum rule, a book which has been published
without the author's name always remains anonymous, even after the
author is well known and the book has been republished with the name on
the title-page. By this means you have the same book in two places. For
instance, the anonymous editions of _Waverley_ are catalogued under
"Waverley," and the others under "Scott." But for cataloguing purposes a
book surely ceases to be anonymous when the author's name is known. We
ought never to lose sight of the main object of a catalogue, which is to
help the consulter, and not to present him with a series of
bibliographical riddles. If we settle that all anonymous works shall be
entered under the authors' names when known, the question has still to
be answered, What is to be done with those which remain unknown? Some
cataloguers have objected to the insertion of subject-headings in the
same alphabet with authors' names, and in the old catalogue of the Royal
Society Library the plan was adopted of placing all anonymous titles
under the useless heading of "Anonymous."
The British Museum rule 38 directs that in the case of all anonymous
books not arranged under proper names according to previous rules, the
first substantive in the title (or if there be no substantive, the
first word) shall be selected as the heading. "A substantive adjectively
used, to be taken in conjunction with its following substantive as
forming one word, and the same to be done with respect to adjectives
incorporated with their following substantive."
The great objection to this rule is that an important word in a title
may throw very little light upon the subject of the book. Mr. Cutter's
rule is: "Make a first-word entry for all anonymous works except
anonymous biographies, which are to be entered under the name of the
subject of the life." When this rule is applied, the majority of books
will be placed under headings for which no one is likely to seek, so
that many cross-references will be necessary. For instance, _A True and
Exact Account of the Scarlet Gowns_ is entered under "True," which we
may safely say would be the last word looked for. It is these redundant
words of a title-page that are pretty sure to escape the memory. All the
rules that I have seen relating to anonymous books appear to me to be
based upon a fundamental confusion of the essential differences between
a catalogue and a bibliography. When Barbier compiled his valuable work,
he adopted the simple plan of arranging each title under the first word
not an article, which works admirably, because the consulter has the
book whose author he seeks in his hand. In the case of a catalogue it is
quite different, for the consulter has not the book before him, and
wishes to find it from the leading idea of the title, which is probably
all he remembers.
The rule I would propose is, to take as a heading the word which best
explains the objects of the author, in whatever part of the title it may
be. The objection that may be raised to this is that it is not rigid
enough; but the cataloguer should be allowed a certain latitude, and it
is well that the maker of the catalogue should try to place himself in
the position of the user of it in these cases.[22]
The Bodleian rule (16) is good:--"Under the first striking word or words
of the titles of anonymous works with a second heading or cross
reference, when advisable under or from any other noticeable word or
catch-title."
The evidence before the Commission of 1847-49 contains much opinion
about the treatment of anonymous works in the Catalogue of the British
Museum. The general feeling of the witnesses was adverse to the system,
but Sir Anthony Panizzi argued strongly in favour of his plan. The plan
actually adopted was not to Panizzi's taste, and doubtless the changes
which were introduced caused some confusion. The Commissioners reported
on this subject as follows:--
"To another instance in which Mr. Panizzi's opinion was overruled by
that of the Trustees he attributes much avoidable delay and expense;
we allude to the 33rd and seven following rules, which govern the
process of cataloguing anonymous works. It will appear from the
evidence, that some of our principal witnesses are at issue on
questions involved in the consideration of this subject. It seems
clear enough that no one rule can be adopted which will not lead to
instances apparently anomalous and absurd. Such authorities,
however, as Mr. Maitland and Professor De Morgan, are nevertheless
of opinion, that some one rule should be devised and strictly
observed, while Mr. Collier and others are of opinion that free
scope may be left to the discretion of the parties employed. Mr.
Panizzi having to deal with an immense mass of works under this
head, advocates the adoption and the rigid observance of a rule by
which the main entries of all such works should find their places in
the Catalogue in alphabetical order, under the first word of the
title not an article or preposition. To certain decisions of the
Trustees which have compelled him to depart from this rule, he
attributes many defects in the work already executed, and, above
all, much of that delay so loudly complained of in its progress."
Panizzi's arguments quite converted the Commissioners, and they added
to their statement of the case these words: "We recommend for the
future that Mr. Panizzi should be released from an observance of these
rules, and directed to proceed, with regard to anonymous works, upon
such system as under present circumstances may appear to him best
calculated to reconcile the acceleration of the work with its
satisfactory execution."
Mr. Parry in his evidence made some remarks on this subject. He
said:--"If Mr. Panizzi's plan, with respect to anonymous works, had been
adopted, it would have given great facility to the compilation of the
Catalogue; his plan was the plan of Audiffredi, in the Catalogue of the
Casanate Library at Rome, and the plan followed by Barbier in his
_Dictionnaire des Anonymes_;[23] that plan was taking the first word,
not an article or preposition, or, as it might be modified, the first
substantive, for the heading of the title. I am quite aware that the
plan seems almost absurd upon the face of it. For example, supposing
there was such a title as this, _The Lame Duck; or, A Rumour from the
Stock Exchange_, why, that would come under 'Lame' or 'Duck,' according
to that plan; but if that plan be taken in conjunction with an index of
matters, whilst it would materially facilitate the formation of a
catalogue, it would cease to be objectionable. I believe one of the
great hindrances being anonymous works,--there have been more
difficulties and more labour about anonymous works than about any other
portion of the Catalogue,--the plan suggested by Mr. Panizzi originally,
and which he would have adopted, but which the trustees objected to,
taken in conjunction with the index of matters at the end, is by no
means an absurd plan" (p. 469).
Sir Frederick Madden, when under examination, said: "The first point in
the statement I wish to make is with reference to the cataloguing of
anonymous works; that the plan adopted is founded altogether upon a
mistaken notion, so much so that I should say in nine cases out of ten
the books cannot be found. I cannot understand upon what principle it is
that a book is to be entered by the first substantive or the first word
rather than the last. It seems to me that the principle is entirely
fallacious." I entirely agree with Sir F. Madden, and I can speak from
bitter experience of the great difficulty there is in finding anonymous
books in the British Museum Catalogue.
Lord Mahon (afterwards Earl Stanhope), one of the trustees, dealt with
this matter very satisfactorily in his examination. He said:--
"I will take the heading 'Account' as I find it in the _Catalogue of
the Letter A_, printed in 1841. Under that heading I find seventeen
entries of different books, and I am of opinion with respect to all
the seventeen that the heading 'Account' is one of the least
convenient under which they could stand. The entries are such as
these:--
_An Account of Several Workhouses for Employing and Maintaining
the Poor._ London, 1725. 4°.
_An Account of the Constitution and Security of the General Bank
of Credit._ London, 1683. 4°.
_An Exact Account of Two Real Dreams which happened to the Same
Person._ London, 1725. 8°.
_An Impartial Account of the Prophets, in a Letter to a Friend._
Edinburgh. 4°.
_An Account of the Proceedings in Order to the Discovery of the
Longitude._ London, 1765. 4°.
It seems to me, that these works could be entered far more
conveniently under the headings respectively of 'Workhouses,'
'Banks,' 'Dreams,' 'Prophets,' and 'Longitude.' Now, to take only
the last case, the book upon the longitude, it should be considered
that probably a reader would only be directed to that book through
one of two channels. In the first place, he might desire, by means
of the Catalogue, to have an opportunity of examining all the
publications that have appeared on the subject of the longitude; and
if he do not find these publications collected under the heading
'Longitude,' in what a labyrinth of perquisitions must he become
involved![24] Or, secondly, he may have seen the book in question
referred to by some other writer on science. But in such a case the
reference is seldom given at full length; it is far more commonly
comprised in some such words as the following: 'The proceedings to
discover the longitude up to 1763 are well described in an anonymous
tract published in the same year;' or, 'An essay, without the
author's name, published in 1763, gives a good summary of the
proceedings so far towards the discovery of the longitude;' or
again, 'For these facts, see the _Proceedings towards the Discovery
of the Longitude_ (London, 1763).' Now with such a reference, if the
book in question had been entered under 'Longitude,' it would be
found readily and at once; but if not, how is the inquirer to know
that he should seek it under 'Account' rather than under 'Essay,'
'Treatise,' 'Dissertation,' 'Remarks,' 'Observations,' 'Letter,'
'History,' 'Narrative,' 'Statement,' or any other similar heading?"
(p. 812).
Mr. C. Tomlinson referred in his evidence to the effects of rule XXXIV.,
by which the name of a country is adopted as a heading. He instanced the
anonymous work (known, however, to have been written by John Holland)
entitled, _The History and Description of Fossil Fuel; the Collieries
and Coal Trade of Great Britain_. He says: "This book has occasioned me
a great deal of search. I looked under the head of 'Coal,' I looked
under 'Collieries,' and I looked under 'Fuel,' and it is not to be found
under any of those titles, but it is found under 'Great Britain and
Ireland'" (p. 305).
Mr. Panizzi alludes to this in his reply to criticisms. He says that
under his own rule it would appear under "History," but under the system
of taking the main subject it properly comes under "Great Britain" (p.
677).
Mr. John Bruce objected to _L'Art de Vérifier les Dates_, _The Art of
Cookery_, and _The Art of Love_ all coming under the heading of "Art,"
and here I should agree with him; but when he proceeded to suggest that
a book entitled, _Is it Well with You?_ should be entered under "Well"
because that is the emphatic word (p. 423), I think he is wrong. This is
a distinctive title similar to the title of a novel, and likely to be
completely quoted and to remain on the memory, and therefore the book
should be entered under "Is."
I hope enough has been said to show that the system adopted by Mr.
Panizzi, however clear and logical, is not a convenient one for the
person who wishes to discover the title of an anonymous book in the
catalogue.
There seem to have been two reasons for adopting this system: first,
that it was simple; and, secondly, that the other plan of putting a
title under a subject-heading was confusing classification with
alphabetization. Lord Wrottesley put this point as a question: "Any
other system of cataloguing anonymous works than the system which you
recommend does in point of fact confound two different things, a classed
catalogue and an alphabetical catalogue?" To which Mr. Panizzi
answered, "Yes."
With respect to the first reason, I allow that the rule is simple, and
can be rigidly followed by a staff of cataloguers, but a catalogue is
not made for the convenience of the cataloguer. It is intended for the
convenience of the consulter; and if the titles are placed under
headings for which the consulter is not likely to look, the system
signally fails in this respect.
With respect to the second reason, I do not see that the only
alternative to the use of the first substantive or first important word
is classification. And, further, referring to the work on fossil fuel
lately alluded to, is it not as much a classification to make the
heading "Great Britain" as to make it "Coal" or "Fuel"?
The great object should be, not to classify, but to choose as a heading
the word which is likely to remain in the memory, instead of one which
is as likely to escape it.
To give an instance of what I mean. Suppose we had to catalogue a
publication issued during the course of the Crimean War, entitled,
_Whom shall we Hang?_ This I should put under "W," and not under the
Crimean War, because the whole of this sentence is likely to remain in
the memory. Again, in a foreign title, I should take the prominent word
as it stands on the title, and not translate it. It is the title of the
book that we have to deal with, and not the subject of it.
In cataloguing a library, I think the only safe way is to keep all the
anonymous titles together to the last, and then make headings for them
at the same time and upon one system. Errors are likely to occur if the
heading is finally made when the book is first catalogued, and such
errors have crept into the British Museum, as maybe seen from the
following extracts:--
Champions, Seven Champions of Christendom. See "Seven
Champions."
Seven Champions of Christendom. See "Christendom."
Christendom, Seven Champions of. See "Seven Champions of."
I have not noticed that much remark has been made on rule XXXII., by
which "works published under initials [are] to be entered under the last
of them;" but I think it is one of the most successful modes of hiding
away titles under a heading least likely to be remembered. When titles
are quoted pretty fully and accurately, it is seldom that the initials
on a title are quoted; and if these initials are only at the end of the
preface, they are never likely to be remembered. Thus by placing the
title in the catalogue under the initials (in whatever order they may be
taken), it is buried entirely out of sight, and is practically useless.
The Rev. Dr. Biber remarked upon this point in his evidence. He said:
"The remarks which I made about letter A were merely made incidentally,
because, having noticed the difficulty of finding books which were
catalogued under initials, I wished to satisfy myself as to what
arrangement there was" (p. 577).
I presume that this arrangement under initials has been found
inconvenient at the British Museum, because in the useful _Explanation
of the System of the Catalogue_ I find a note as to special
cross-references, which are to be made to "works under initials from
whatever heading the work would have been entered under, but for the
initials." We are informed, however, that "at present this has not been
fully carried out."
Another point connected with this class of books is one of particular
difficulty. I refer to the treatment of pseudonyms, which are dealt with
in rules XLI., XLII., and XLIII.:--
"XLI. In the case of pseudonymous publications, the book to
be catalogued under the author's feigned name; and his real
name, if discovered, to be inserted in brackets, immediately
after the feigned name, preceded by the letters '_i.e._'
"XLII. Assumed names, or names used to designate an office,
profession, party, or qualification of the writer, to be
treated as real names. Academical names to follow the same
rule. The works of an author not assuming any name, but
describing himself by a circumlocution, to be considered
anonymous.
"XLIII. Works falsely attributed in their title to a
particular person, to be treated as pseudonymous."
There is much to be said for this arrangement under pseudonyms, but
there is also much to be said against it. In the first place, an author
may, and often does, take in the course of his literary life several
pseudonyms, which are merely adopted for a temporary purpose, and thus
the works of the same author will be spread about in several parts of
the alphabet. There does not appear to be any particular advantage in
separating Sir Walter Scott's works under such headings as "Jedediah
Cleishbotham" and "Malachi Malagrowther." Sometimes, also, these
pseudonyms are so unlike real names that they are passed by unquoted,
and the same difficulty occurs as in the case of initials.
When, however, an author takes a name under which he always writes, and
by which he is always known, it seems scarcely worth while to put the
author's works under a practically unknown name, instead of under a
well-known one. This, however, does not often occur in the case of an
author, although it frequently does in the case of an authoress. For
instance, George Eliot has written her name in literature, and is always
known by that name, so that to place her works under Evans or Lewes or
Crosse is to change the known for the unknown. In a lesser degree this
is the case with the novelist known as Sarah Tytler, whose real name is
Henrietta Keddie. Probably not one in a thousand of her readers knows
this fact.
Mr. Cutter makes some very pertinent remarks upon this point. His note
to his rule 5, "Enter pseudonymous works under the author's real name,
when it is known, with a reference from the pseudonym," is as follows:--
"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 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 use "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 towards 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, 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."
If the French bibliographer had borne in mind the British Museum rule,
that "the works of an author not assuming any name, but describing
himself by a circumlocution [are] to be considered anonymous," he would
not have made this amusing entry in his catalogue: "_Herself_, Memoirs
of a Young Lady by."
The Cambridge rules were largely founded upon those of the British
Museum, and many anomalies crept into the catalogue on account of the
difficulties caused by the rules relating to anonymous works; but a few
years before the lamented death of Mr. Henry Bradshaw[25] these rules
were considerably altered by him, and I think the statement in rules 28
and 29 as they now stand is by far the most satisfactory of any I know
of:--
"28. Anonymous works which refer to neither person nor
place, and to which none of the foregoing rules can be
applied, to be catalogued under the name of the subject
(whether a single word or a composite phrase) which is
prominently referred to on the title-page; the primary
consideration being, under what heading the book will be most
easily found. When there is no special subject mentioned, and
the title is a catch-title (as in the case of most novels and
many pamphlets), the first word not an article to stand at
the head in capitals, but not to be separated off from the
title as a heading. When the indication on the title is
insufficient, the heading understood to be taken, but all
classification to be avoided, the words of the title being
exclusively used as far as possible. Works to be catalogued
under general headings only where such are unavoidable. In
the case of foreign titles the heading to follow the same
rule, and to be in the language of the title instead of being
translated.
"29. When the author of a pseudonymous or anonymous work is
ascertained and acknowledged after the title has been
printed, the name to be added within a bracket at the end of
the title; and the various titles of works thenceforward
assigned to such author to be gathered under his name by
means of written entries on the slips. Cross-references to be
printed from the pseudonymous or anonymous heading to the
author's name."
These remarks upon the cataloguing of anonymous works may appear to some
to have run to an inordinate length, but the great importance of the
subject will, I hope, be accepted by the reader as some excuse. I quite
agree with the late Serjeant Parry when he said, during his examination
before the British Museum Commission, that "it is comparatively easy to
catalogue when the author's name appears on the title, but nothing is
more difficult than cataloguing anonymous works."
THE TITLE.
Having dealt with the subject of headings, we may now pass on to
consider the treatment of the title itself.
There has been much discussion on this subject: one party has been in
favour of short titles, and another of long titles. Much has been said
in favour of single-line catalogues, and these often form very useful
keys to a library; but they are perhaps more properly designated
alphabetical lists than catalogues.[26]
On the other side the advocates of full titles, in carrying out their
views, while adding to the size of their catalogues, frequently do not
add to their utility. Here, as in many other things, the medium is the
safest way. The least important works have usually the longest titles,
and it is surely useless to copy the whole title of some trumpery
pamphlet, when it may occupy ten or a dozen lines of print. Here the art
of the cataloguer comes into play, by which he is enabled to choose what
is important and reject the redundant. With respect to standard works by
classical authors, it is well to give the whole title (and these titles
will seldom be found to be long). The classical author will most
probably have weighed the words of his title with care, and left little
that is redundant. When a title is contracted, it is well to insert dots
to show that something has been left out, and if any words are added
they must be placed between square brackets.
It is also necessary to bear in mind the fact that a long title may be
perfectly clear in the book itself, on account of the varied size of the
type used. The cataloguer, however, has not these facilities of
arrangement at his disposal, and in consequence it becomes difficult for
the consulter to distinguish the important parts of the title from the
unimportant.
The following are three titles of books which are not long, and which
could not be curtailed without disadvantage:--
"1. Pike (Luke Owen). A History of Crime in England, illustrating
the Changes of the Laws in the Progress of Civilization. Written
from the Public Records and other Contemporary Evidence. London,
1873. 2 vols., 8vo.
"2. Hunter (Joseph). New Illustrations of the Life, Studies, and
Writings of Shakespeare; Supplementary to all the Editions. London,
1845. 2 vols., 8vo.
"3. Rickman (Thomas). An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of
Architecture in England, from the Conquest to the Reformation, with
a Sketch of the Grecian and Roman Orders; Seventh Edition, with
Considerable Additions, Chiefly Historical, by John Henry Parker.
Oxford, 1881. 8vo."
Now, we may take the instance of a long title, which needs
curtailment:--
"The
English Expositor
Improv'd:
Being a Complete
Dictionary,
teaching
The Interpretation of the most Difficult
Words, which are commonly made use of
in our English Tongue.
First set forth by J. B., Doctor of Physick.
And now carefully Revised, Corrected, and
abundantly Augmented, with a new and very large
Addition of very useful and significant Words.
By R. Browne, Author of the
_English School Reform'd_.
There is also an Index of Common Words
(alphabetically set) to direct the Reader or others more
Learned, and of the same signification with them.
And likewise a short Nomenclator of the most
celebrated Persons among the Ancients; with Variety of
Memorable Things: Collected out of the best of History,
Poetry, Philosophy, and Geography.
The Twelfth Edition.
London: Printed for W. Churchill, at the
Black Swan in Pater-noster-Row. 1719.
Where may be had the above-mention'd Spelling-Book, Entituled,
_The English School Reform'd_: Being a method
very exact and easy both for the Teacher and Learner."
This long title may be reduced into the following form:--
"4. B[ullokar] (J[ohn]). The English Expositor Improv'd: Being a
Complete Dictionary, teaching the Interpretation of the most
Difficult Words, which are commonly made use of in our English
Tongue.... Revised, Corrected, and ... Augmented ... by R. Browne,
... [with] an Index of Common Words ... and ... a short Nomenclator
of the most Celebrated Persons among the Ancients, with Variety of
Memorable Things.... 12th Edition.
London, 1719. 12mo."
It may be said that all these titles are in English, and present few
difficulties. I therefore add a Latin title, prepared by my brother, the
late Mr. B. R. Wheatley. The full title is as follows:--
"Speculum Polytechnum Mathematicum novum,
tribus visionibus illustre
quarum extat
Una Fundamentalis
Aliquot
Numerorum Danielis et Apocalypseos
naturæ et proprietatis
Consignatio
Altera, usus Hactenus
incognitus Instrumenti Danielis
Speccelii, ad altitudinum, profunditatum,
longitudinum, latitudinumque dimensiones,
nec non Planimetricas delineationes
accommodatio.
Postrema brevis ac luculenta sexies
Acuminati Proportionum Circini
quibus fructuose iste adhibeatur
enarratio
In Omnium Mathesin Adamantium
Emolumentum
prius Germanicè æditum
Authore
Joanne Faulhabero Arithmetico
et Logista Ulmensi ingeniosissimo
Posterius vero ne tanto aliæ nationes
defraudentur bono, Latine conversum
per
Joannem Remmelinum Ph. et Med.
Doctorem
Impressum Ulmæ, typis Joannis
Mederi
M.DC.XII."
This long title may be reduced into the following catalogue form:--
"Faulhaber (Joannes).
"Speculum Polytechnum Mathematicum novum tribus visionibus ...
una:... Numerorum Danielis et Apocalypseos naturæ ... consignatio;
altera: usus.... Instrumenti Danielis Speccelii, ad altitudinum
[etc.] dimensiones ... accommodatio; postrema:... sexies Acuminati
Proportionum Circini ... enarratio; ... prius Germanicè æditum,...
Latine conversum per Joannem Remmelinum....
Ulmæ, 1612. 4to."
Sometimes it is advisable to repeat the author's name in its proper
place on the title either in full or with initials. This is the case
with Dilke's _Papers of a Critic_, which should appear in the catalogue
as follows:--
"6. Dilke (Charles Wentworth). The Papers of a Critic. Selected from
the Writings of the late C. W. D., with a Biographical Sketch by his
Grandson, Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Bart., M.P. London, 1875. 2
vols., 8vo."
Mr. Jewett, in his rules, directs that the position of the author's name
on the title-page should be indicated.
For scarce and curious books it is under some circumstances useful to
mark the position of the lines on a title-page thus:--
"7. Bacon (Francis) Viscount St. Alban. | The | Essayes | or |
Counsels | Civill and | Morall | of | Francis Lo. Verulam | Viscount
St. Alban newly written | London | Printed by John Haviland for |
Hanna Barret | 1625 | 4to."
This is clearly not necessary in the case of common modern books.
It is very important that all indication of edition or editor (as in No.
3) should be made clear on the catalogue slip; and if this information
is not given on the title-page, but can be obtained elsewhere, it should
be added to the catalogue slip, but between square brackets.
Many books have two title-pages, an engraved one and a printed one, and
these frequently differ in the wording. In these cases the printed
title-page is the one to be followed. Sometimes a second title-page will
occur in the middle of a book, and the cataloguer must be careful not to
make two books out of one. When the contents of this second title-page
are noted on the first title-page, it is not necessary to refer to it
specially, unless a collation is given. If, however, this second
title-page contain additional matter, it should be catalogued and added
on the slip, but within parentheses, thus (), to show that it is added,
and that it is not made up by the cataloguer, which would be understood
if it were placed between square brackets, thus [].
Sometimes a title-page not only gives no real indication of the contents
of a book, but is positively misleading. In such a case the cataloguer
will do well to give some indication of the true contents, either in a
note or as an addition to the title within brackets. Both Mr. Cutter and
Professor Otis Robinson refer, in the _Special Report on Public
Libraries in the United States_, to the difficulties caused by these
misleading titles. Professor Robinson gives some amusing instances of
modern clap-trap titles which may well be added to Disraeli's
_Curiosities of Literature_.
"Mr. Parker writes a series of biographical sketches, and calls it
_Morning Stars of the New World_. Somebody prepares seven religious
essays, binds them up in a book, and calls it _Seven Stormy
Sundays_.... An editor, at intervals of business, indulges his true
poetic taste for the pleasure of his friends, or the entertainment
of an occasional audience. Then his book appears, entitled, not
_Miscellaneous Poems_, but _Asleep in the Sanctum_, by A. A.
Hopkins. Sometimes, not satisfied with one enigma, another is added.
Here we have _The Great Iron Wheel; or, Republicanism Backwards and
Christianity Reversed_, by J. R. Graves."
In cataloguing books it is very important to turn carefully over the
leaves to see that a second book, which may have been bound up in the
volume, is not overlooked. It was a frequent practice at one time to
bind up thin books with thicker ones, to save the expense of binding;
and very frequently these thin additions are overlooked altogether, and
never catalogued.
PLACE OF PUBLICATION.
When we have finished with the title proper, we come to consider the
imprint, the date, and the size. These are most commonly arranged thus,
volumes, size, place, date; and this is the best order if this
information is tabulated; but when it remains as a part of the title, it
is better to place the volumes and size at the end, because this is
added information not found in the title-page.
The name of the place of publication[27] should be given exactly as it
occurs on the title-page, and in old and rare books the name of the
printer or publisher may be added with advantage; not necessarily full
as it appears there, but shortened and placed between parentheses.
Sometimes several places are named on a title-page, but in these cases
it is not necessary to notice more than the first.
DATES.
The dates, which usually occur in Roman numerals on the title-pages of
books, should be printed in the catalogue with Arabic numerals, except
in case of very rare books, where it is thought expedient to copy the
original title-page exactly. Every one knows the numerical power of the
letters, and that M stands for 1,000, D = 500, C = 100, L = 50, X = 10,
V, U, = 5, I = 1; but the old printers were fond of playing tricks with
the letters, and they allowed themselves much latitude in the practice
of reducing the numerical power of one letter by placing another before
it. We are used to this in IV and IX; but the following dates, copied
from books, show how varied were the arrangements formerly made use
of:--
MIID. = 1498, MID. = 1499, MCDXCIX. = 1499, MDXXCV. = 1585, MDIC. =
1599, MDCVIV. = 1609, MIIDCC. = 1698.
In one book MVICXXI. was made to stand for 1621; but in this case the
printer must have lacked a D, and replaced it by VI. In old books the
M's and the D's are frequently built up thus, CI<C, I<C.
The date is one of the most important portions of a title, and the
cataloguer must seek for it until he finds it. Sometimes it is to be
found at the end of the preface or dedication, and sometimes it is on
the title-page as a chronogram. Mr. James Hilton for years has searched
over Europe for chronograms, and he has been highly successful in his
search, as is evidenced by his two handsome volumes, _Chronograms, 5,000
and more in Number_ (1882), and _Chronograms Continued and Concluded_
(1885).
The following specimens are from Mr. Hilton's books:--
"Anagrammata regia in honorem maximi mansuetissimi regis Caroli
conscripta."
Imprint:--
"LonDInI regIo prIVILegIo eXaratVM = 1626."
On the last page is:--
"eXtant Ista In æDIbVs gVLIeLMI stansbIe = 1626"
A curious little book (a chronographic imitation of Thomas à Kempis) is
filled with chronograms, and contains two on the title-page:--
"De spIrItaLI IMItatIone ChrIstI [1658] aDMonItIones saCræ et
VtILes [1658] pIIs In LVCeM Datæ [1658]."
"a R.P. Antonio Vanden Stock Societatis Jesu. Ruræmundæ apud
Gasparem du Pree."
On the frontispiece is another chronogram:--
"chrIsto aDhærens non aMbVLat In tenebrIs."
Mr. Hilton has succeeded in finding several additions to the small store
of chronograms in English, and has produced some new ones.
On the back of the title-page of the first book is this inscription:--
"An eXCeLLent neVV book of ChronograMs gathereD together & noVV
set forth by I. hILton, F.S.A. = 1882."
On the second book:--
"Another qVIte neVV book of rIght eXCeLLent chronograMs IssVeD by
I. hILton, F.S.A." = 1885.
More difficult than chronograms are Greek dates, because each letter in
Greek has a numerical value, and the numbers do not follow in an
uninterrupted series, because certain additional figures are introduced.
It is therefore often necessary in cataloguing Greek books to refer to a
table such as the following:--
[Greek: A a'] 1 [Greek: I i'] 10 [Greek: R r'] 100
[Greek: B b'] 2 [Greek: K k'] 20 [Greek: S s'] 200
[Greek: G g'] 3 [Greek: L l'] 30 [Greek: T t'] 300
[Greek: D d'] 4 [Greek: M m'] 40 [Greek: U u'] 400
[Greek: E e'] 5 [Greek: N n'] 50 [Greek: Ph ph'] 500
[stigma]' 6 [Greek: X x'] 60 [Greek: Ch ch'] 600
[Greek: Z z'] 7 [Greek: O o'] 70 [Greek: Ps ps'] 700
[Greek: Ê ê'] 8 [Greek: P p'] 80 [Greek: Ô ô'] 800
[Greek: Th th'] 9 [Qoppa qoppa'] 90 [sampi] 900
It will be noticed that the top letters of each series spell "[Greek:
air]," which can be borne in mind. The irregularities in the series are
final [stigma]' for six, and the invented letters, for 90 and 900. The
same series of letters, with the accent beneath instead of above, are
used for thousands, as--
[Greek: a'] = 1 [Greek: i'] = 10 [Greek: r'] = 100
[Greek: a,] = 1,000 [Greek: i,] = 10,000 [Greek: r,] = 100,000
There is considerable difficulty in dating books published in France
between September 1792, when the French Revolutionary Calendar was
introduced, and December 1805, when the Gregorian mode of calculation
was restored by Napoleon, because the Revolutionary year began with the
autumn. It is impossible therefore, as the months are not usually given
in the imprints of books, to tell whether a book dated _an._ 1 was
published in 1792 or 1793. It is usual, however, to reckon from 1792,
and to count _an._ 8, for instance, as 1800, by which means an
approximate date is obtained.
SIZE-NOTATION.
When we come to the last piece of description on our catalogue slip, we
experience considerable difficulty in certain cases. The statement of
the case of size-notation, which has caused so much discussion, and
given rise to so many schemes, is so well put by the late Mr. Winter
Jones, in his inaugural address at the Conference of Librarians held in
London, October 1877, that I shall transfer it to these pages:--
"One of these points is the designation of the sizes of books. As
regards modern books, the folding of the sheets of paper is
generally received as the guide, but it is not a guide which speaks
to the eye. Some duodecimos may be larger than some octavos, and
some octavos may be larger than some folios, to say nothing of the
uncertainty of the quartos. When we come to ancient books the matter
is still worse. The early printers did not use large sheets of paper
and fold them twice or more to form quartos, octavos, etc., but
merely folded their paper once, thus making what is now understood
by the terms folios or quartos, according to the size of the sheet
of paper. Three or more of these sheets were laid one within
another, and formed gatherings or quires, each sheet after the first
in each gathering being called an inlay.[28] This printing by
gatherings was adopted for the convenience of binding. The
consequence of this practice would be that the printer would either
print one page at a time or two, but no more. If two, he would have
to divide the matter to be printed into portions sufficient for
eight, twelve, sixteen, or twenty pages, according to the number of
inlays in each gathering, and then print, say the first and twelfth,
then the second and the eleventh, and so on; and the result of this
practice is occasionally seen in an inequality in the length of the
pages, particularly in the centre inlay, which would be printed
last, and would therefore have either too much or too little matter
if the calculation of the quantity necessary for each page had not
been exact. It has been suggested that the difficulty might be met
by adopting the size of the printed page as the guide, but such a
guide would certainly be fallacious. It would not indicate the size
of the volume; it would not allow for the many cases of 'oceans of
margins and rivers of text;' it would not speak to the eye without
opening the book. The better plan would appear to be to adopt, to a
certain extent, the system used by bookbinders. As they regulate
their charges according to the size of the millboard required for
binding their book, their scale is independent of the folding of the
printed sheet. It contains twenty-nine divisions or designations of
different sizes, of which twenty-six represent modifications of the
five sizes of folio, 4to, 8vo, 12mo, and 18mo, a striking proof of
the uncertainty of the sizes supposed to be indicated by these five
terms. I speak, of course, of the measure used by English
bookbinders. It would certainly be advisable that some rule should
be laid down, which might apply to all countries, by which the
general sizes of books might be designated, and minute subdivisions
be avoided. Why should we designate sizes by paper marks, and talk
of pot quartos and foolscap octavos? The pot and the foolscap are
things of the past. It would surely be better to adopt some such
rule as the following: To designate as 12mo all books not exceeding
seven inches in height; as 8vo all those above seven and not
exceeding ten inches in height; as 4to those above ten and not
exceeding twelve inches in height; and as folio all above twelve
inches. The folios might be further described, according to the
fact, as _large_ or _super_, in order to avoid the various
subdivisions of crown, copy, demy, medium, royal, imperial, elephant,
and columbier folio."
At the Exhibition of Library Appliances in connection with the London
Conference, Mr. F. Weaklin submitted seven diagrams of eighty-two sizes
given to books, from imperial 4to to demy 48mo, and the matter had
already been under special consideration in the United States. Mr.
Jewett suggested that after the description 8vo, 4to, etc., the exact
height and width in inches and tenths of inches should be added between
brackets. He measured print; but, as pointed out by Mr. Winter Jones in
the above quotation, this measurement overlooks one of the most
important points in respect to the character and value of a book, viz.,
the size of the margin. When the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell
wished to adopt Mr. Jewett's suggestion, I recommended that the width
and height of the actual page should be measured, and this was done in
_An Essay towards a Collection of Books relating to Proverbs, Emblems,
Apophthegms, Epitaphs, and Ana, being a Catalogue of those at Keir_
(1860), which I edited for him.
This system of measurement is not needed in a small library, where the
ordinary nomenclature is sufficient. The real difficulty underlying the
whole subject was pointed out by Mr. Bradshaw in his paper at the
Cambridge Meeting of the Library Association, "A Word on Size Notation
as distinguished from Form Notation." He there states two facts often
overlooked: "(1) That the terms folio, quarto, octavo, etc., represent
strictly not size-notation, but form-notation; and (2) That the modern
methods of making paper and of printing books combine to render any
accurate application of form-notation to such books not so much
difficult as impossible. The logical conclusion from these two facts is,
of course, that the form-notation expressed by the terms folio, quarto,
octavo, etc., should be given up in the case of modern books, to which
it is wholly inapplicable; and that a size-notation which does represent
an undoubted fact, should be adopted in its place. This logical
conclusion was seen, accepted, and acted upon at Cambridge in the year
1854; and I confess that it is difficult to resist the conviction that
this principle must sooner or later be accepted by others, though there
will no doubt be differences of opinion as to the most advisable form of
notation to adopt. A librarian cannot afford to be eccentric in this
matter; whatever method is adopted, it must be adopted by all the great
libraries, and it must commend itself to the general reader. Now I feel
sure that I shall not be taxed with dogmatism or with any predilection
for some crotchet of my own devising, if I say that the complicated and
artificial systems recommended by the Committee and others, are such as
cannot possibly become familiar, even if they become intelligible, to
the general run of readers. In the old Cambridge size-notation of London
1856, 8 × 5 meaning eight inches high by five inches across, the second
number denoting the breadth very soon fell out of use, except in
writing, and for years we always spoke of books as eights, sevens,
sixes, etc., meaning that they were eight, seven, or six inches high."
To this passage is added the following note:--
"The practice in use with us has been to measure the height of the
book from the top to the bottom of the page, disregarding the cover.
We compute inches as we compute a man's age; a book is eight inches
until it is nine inches, only, seeing that bound books are so often
cut not quite square, anything short of the number used in the
size-notation by the eighth of an inch or less, we call by that
number for ordinary purposes. I have said above that in our General
Library Catalogue we have reverted to the common form-notation, 8vo,
12mo, etc., but pure size-notation is still retained in other
departments, while in Trinity College Library it has never been
given up since it was first adopted in 1856 or thereabouts."
The committee referred to by Mr. Bradshaw was the Size-Notation
Committee of the Library Association, of which my brother, the late Mr.
B. R. Wheatley, was a member. He took great interest in this subject,
and drew up a scale of sizes which might be marked upon an ordinary
two-foot rule. He was anxious that "a system should be adopted based on
the well-known terms hitherto employed of folio, 4to, 8vo, 12mo, etc.,
and their qualifying varieties of imperial, royal, etc., with an
approximate height and width in inches affixed to each size."
I think that Mr. Bradshaw's argument is convincing against making any
arbitrary rule of this kind, and affixing a definite size to every
variety of form-designation. But at the same time we must remember that
the form-notation has very largely been used for a size-notation, and
that bibliographers alone cannot make this change, because publishers,
booksellers, and bookbinders all use the notation as well as
cataloguers. After all I cannot help thinking that the difficulty has
been very greatly exaggerated. Folio and quarto are almost entirely used
as terms of form-notation, and they are usually found sufficient except
in the case of atlas or elephant folios, which seem to require some
distinguishing designation. Nowadays a large number of library books are
in what is called demy octavo. This I would distinguish as octavo, and
all below that size I would call small octavos, and all above large
octavos. Very few modern books are styled duodecimos; therefore that
form will not give the cataloguer much trouble. It is clearly useless
for the latter to distinguish books by such meaningless terms as
foolscap octavo, post octavo, etc., like the publisher. Of course there
is the difference in size between old and new books. The ordinary octavo
of the old books is a smaller size than the modern octavo, but this will
be settled by the date, and among the old books there will be no
difficulty in finding duodecimos.
Mr. Nicholson has entered very fully into this question of size-notation
in his Bodleian Rules, where he gives two tables as guides for correct
description. Rule 57 is: "The size of a book printed on water-marked
paper is to be described in accordance with Table I., on unwater-marked
paper with Table II."
COLLATION.
In most catalogues the note of the size will finish the entry, but it is
a very useful addition when the number of pages of all books in single
volumes is given. Sometimes the pages of the book itself only are noted
without reference to the preliminary matter, and sometimes the Roman
numerals are added on to the Arabic numerals and given as one total; but
this latter practice is not to be commended. The best plan is to set
down the pages thus--pp. xv, 421 (some put this pp. xv + 421, but the
plus sign is not necessary); or if the preliminary matter is not paged,
thus--half-title, title, five preliminary leaves, pp. 467.
In the case of very rare and valuable works, a full collation becomes
necessary, and such collation should be drawn up according to the plan
accepted among bibliographers, which can be seen in the standard
bibliographies of early printed books, and such a model bibliography as
Upcott's _Bibliographical Account of the Principal Works relating to
English Topography_ (3 vols., 8vo, 1818).
Even when it is not thought necessary to give a collation, it will be
well to notice if a book contains a portrait, or plates.
[Decoration]
FOOTNOTES:
[21] _Quarterly Review_, vol. lxxii., p. 8.
[22] "On the Alphabetical Arrangement of the Titles of Anonymous Books"
(_Transactions and Proceedings of the Conference of Librarians_, 1877,
pp. 97-9).
[23] Referring to my remarks on the use of the word "anonym," I may
point out that this is not the correct title of Barbier's work. He used
_Anonymes_ as an adjective (_ouvrages anonymes_), and not as a
substantive.
[24] This point weakens Lord Mahon's arguments, because the same
objection would apply to all the books with authors' names.
[25] I had the privilege of talking over these rules with Mr. Bradshaw
for many consecutive days, when I inspected the University Library in
1878.
[26] For useful notes on short titles and booksellers' catalogues, Mr.
Charles F. Blackburn's amusing _Hints on Catalogue Titles and on Index
Entries_ (1884) may be consulted.
[27] The names of places as they appear in a Latin form are frequently
much disguised. A list of some of the most common of these names will be
found in the Appendix.
[28] It was this practice which confused a correspondent of the
_Athenæum_, who published his discovery that the first folio of
Shakespeare was not a folio at all.
[Decoration]