Wheatley Henry Benjamin
How to Catalogue a Library
CHAPTER IV.
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
but not under the prefixes
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, Œcolampadius 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 Ήρόδοτος. 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.
