How to Catalogue a Library
by Henry B. Wheatley · English · Gutenberg #41813 · 306,149 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of How to Catalogue a Library
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: How to Catalogue a Library
Author: Henry B. Wheatley
Release date: January 10, 2013 [eBook #41813]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41813
Credits: E-text prepared by Adrian Mastronardi, C.S. Beers, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries (http://archive.org/details/americana)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOW TO CATALOGUE A LIBRARY ***
Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
http://archive.org/details/howtocatalogueli00wheaiala
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Gesperrt, or widely spaced, letters occur in the tables
of catalog entries and are enclosed by tilde characters
(example: ~Le Breton~). In this e-book, the gesperrt text
is also in small capitals.
Backward-facing C is indicated by <C.
The examples of chronograms contain combinations of small
and regular capital letters. The small capitals have been
changed to lower case, while the regular capitals remain
in upper case.
Greek letters appearing in the original have been
transliterated and are indicated by [Greek: ]. Three of
the Greek numerals do not have corresponding letters. The
words "stigma" (for 6), "qoppa" (for 90), and "sampi"
(for 900), enclosed in [], have been used for these. The
table in the original does not include upper case characters
for stigma and sampi. The numerical accents are indicated
by ' for the upper and , for the lower.
[Decoration]
The Book-Lover's Library.
Edited by
Henry B. Wheatley, F.S.A.
HOW TO CATALOGUE A LIBRARY
by
Henry B. Wheatley, F.S.A.
Author of "How to Form a Library," "The Dedication of Books,"
etc., etc.
[Decoration]
London
Elliot Stock, 62 Paternoster Row
1889
PREFACE.
_Those who are interested in library work are constantly asked where a
statement of the first principles of cataloguing may be found, and the
question is one which it is not easy to answer. Most of the rules which
have been printed are intended for large public libraries, and are
necessarily laid down on a scale which unfits them for use in the making
of a small catalogue. I have divided out the subject on a plan which I
hope will commend itself to my readers, and, after discussing the most
notable codes, I have concluded with a selection of such rules as I
trust will be found useful by those who are employed in making
catalogues of ordinary libraries.
Here I must express the hope that my readers will excuse the frequent
use of the personal pronoun. If the use of "I" could have been avoided,
I would gladly have avoided it; but as the main point of the book is the
discussion of principles and theories, it seemed to me that such value
as the book may possess would be entirely destroyed if I did not give my
own opinions, founded upon a somewhat long experience.
In dealing with a subject such as this, I cannot hope to convince all
my readers, but I trust that those who disagree with my arguments will
be willing to allow them some force.
The compilation has been attended with constant feelings of regret in
my own mind, for almost every page has brought up before me the memory
of two men with whom I have at different times discussed most of the
points here raised,--two men alike in their unselfish devotion to the
cause of Bibliography. Mr. Henry Bradshaw's work was more widely known,
but Mr. Benjamin R. Wheatley's labours were scarcely less valued in the
smaller circle where they were known, and both brought to bear upon a
most difficult subject the whole force of their thoroughly practical
minds. I have learned much from both, and I have felt a constant wish to
consult them during the preparation of these pages.
All those who prepared the British Museum rules are gone from us; but
happily cataloguers can still boast of Mr. Cutter of Boston, one of the
foremost of our craft. Mr. Cutter has prepared a most remarkable code of
rules, and has not only laid down the law, but has also fearlessly given
the reasons for his faith, and these reasons form a body of sound
opinion. May he long live to do honour to Bibliography, a cause which
knows no nationality._
H. B. W.
_October, 1889._
CONTENTS.
CHAP. PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION.
What is a Catalogue?--Vulgar Errors--A Good Cataloguer
attempts to put himself in the Seeker's Place--Judicious
Shortening of Titles--Difference between Cataloguing
and Bibliography-making--A Universal Catalogue--Printing
of the British Museum Catalogue--Different Classes of
Catalogues--Classified and Alphabetical--Catalogue
Raisonné--Index Catalogues--Mr. Bradshaw's View--Need of
Care--No Jumping to Conclusions--Different Styles of
Catalogues--Purton Cooper's Sale Catalogues 1
II. BATTLE OF THE RULES.
British Museum Foremost in the Race--Printed Catalogues
of the Museum--Panizzi's Fight--Evidence before the Royal
Commission--Payne Collier's Defeat--The Museum Rules--
Jewett's Rules--Cambridge University Library Rules--Library
Association Rules adopted by Bodley's Librarian--Cutter's
Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue--Triumph of the Museum 25
III. PRINT _versus_ MANUSCRIPT.
Panizzi's Objection to Print--Parry in Favour of Print--
The British Museum again Foremost in the Race, this time
in Printing, thanks to Mr. Bond--Mr. Cutter on the Advantages
and Disadvantages of Printing--How to keep a Printed
Catalogue up to Date--Card Catalogues--Stereotyping--Henry
Stevens's Photo-Bibliography--Co-operative Cataloguing 49
IV. HOW TO TREAT A TITLE-PAGE.
_Author:_ Cutter's Definition of an Author--Compound Names--
Prefixes--Imaginary Authors--The Name by which a Man is
generally known to be preferred to that by which he is not
known--Official Names--Names of Peers--Personal Names--
Sovereigns, Saints, and Friars--Oriental Names--Contraction
for Christian Names--Distinction between Christian and
Surnames--Treatment of Changed Names--Married Authoresses--
Greek and Roman Authors--Difficulties in deciding as to the
Author of a Book--Corporate Authorship--Academical Dissertation.
_Headings other than Author Headings:_ Trials--Catalogues--
Bible--Liturgies--Voyages--Anonymous and Pseudonymous Works--
Evidence before the Commission of 1847-49--Arrangement under
Initials, under Pseudonyms. _The Title:_ Shortening of Titles--
Indication of Editions--Addition to Title-Pages. _Place of
Publication:_ Date--Use of Chronograms--Greek Dates.
_Size-Notation:_ Difficulties--Attempted Solution of these
Difficulties. _Collation_ 74
V. REFERENCES AND SUBJECT INDEX.
References and Cross-References--Press-Marks to References--
Mode of Referencing--Subject Index advocated by Panizzi 180
VI. ARRANGEMENT.
Use of the English Alphabet--I and J--U and V--Order--
Arrangement of Titles under an Author's Name--Transactions
of Societies--Pamphlets not to be divided from Books--
Journals and Magazines 198
VII. SOMETHING ABOUT MSS.
The British Museum Collections--Arrangement of an Ordinary
Collection--The Museum Catalogues--Catalogues of Manuscripts
more Readable than Catalogues of Printed Books 228
VIII. RULES FOR A SMALL LIBRARY.
_Headings:_ Author (1-11)--Non-Author (12-19)--The
Title (20, 21)--Place of Publication (22)--Date (23, 24)--
Size-Notation (25)--Collation (26)--Abstract of
Contents (27)--References (28-31)--Arrangement (32-45)--
Manipulation (52) 235
APPENDIX. LIST OF LATIN NAMES OF PLACES 247
INDEX 255
[Decoration]
HOW TO CATALOGUE A LIBRARY.
[Decoration]
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
Before we can answer the question implied in the title of this little
book, it will be necessary for author and reader to agree as to what a
catalogue really is.
The word "catalogue" is used to mean a list or enumeration of men or
things. Thus we have a catalogue of students, but in actual use we
differentiate the two words, and a list ("a mere list") is understood to
mean a common inventory, often in no particular order (although we can
have alphabetical or classified lists); while a catalogue implies
something fuller and something disposed in a certain order. What the
limit of that something fuller and what that certain order as applied to
a catalogue of books really are, it will be for us now to consider.
It was formerly very much the fashion for those who knew little of the
subject to speak as if nothing was easier than to make a catalogue. All
you had to do was to have a sheet of paper and the book to be catalogued
before you, and then to transfer the title to the paper. No previous
knowledge was necessary. But those who were better acquainted with the
difficulties that beset even the cataloguer, realized that Sheridan's
joke about "easy writing being damned hard reading" was applicable to
the work produced under these circumstances. Since the discussion on the
British Museum Catalogue, and the consequent attention to the first
principles of bibliography, these ignorant views are not so generally
held, but still many erroneous opinions are abroad. One of these is that
the clerical portion of the work of cataloguing or indexing is
derogatory to a superior person, and therefore that he should have an
inferior person to help him. The superior person dictates, and the
inferior person copies down; and the result in practice is that endless
blunders are produced, which might have been saved if one person had
done the work.
Another vulgar error is that cataloguers form a guild, with secrets
which they wish to keep from the public. This is a grievous mistake. The
main object of the good cataloguer should be to make the consultation of
his work easy. He knows the difficulties, and knows that rules must be
made to overcome these difficulties; but he does not care to multiply
these rules more than is absolutely necessary. The good cataloguer will
try to put himself into the place of the intelligent consulter--that is,
the person who brings ordinary intelligence to bear upon the catalogue,
but has not, necessarily, any technical knowledge. Some persons seem to
think that everything is to be brought down to the comprehension of the
fool; but if by doing this we make it more difficult for the
intelligent person, the action is surely not politic. The consulter of a
catalogue might at least take the trouble to understand the plan upon
which it is compiled before using it.
Formerly it was too much the practice to make catalogue entries very
short, and to leave out important particulars mentioned on the
title-page; but now the opposite extreme of writing out the whole title,
however long, is more common. It should be remembered that in the
judicious compression of a title-page the art of the cataloguer is
brought into play, for any one can copy out the whole of a long title. I
cannot help thinking that this latter extreme is caused by some
misunderstanding of the relative conditions necessary for the production
of bibliographies and catalogues. Of course catalogues form a section of
the class Bibliography; but we understand also by the word
"bibliography" a collection of titles of books on a special subject, or
belonging to a particular literature.
The uses of a bibliography, either of a national literature or of a
subject such as _History_, are to find out what books have been
written, either by a particular author or on a particular subject; to
find whether a certain point is dealt with in a certain book; or, it may
be, to see whether a book you possess is the right edition, or whether
it is wanting in some particular. For these purposes it is most
important to have full titles, and collations with necessary additional
information given in the form of notes. Very often the particulars
included in the bibliography will be sufficient in themselves to save
the consulter from the necessity of searching for the book.
The uses of a catalogue are something quite different. This is in the
same house as the books it describes, and is merely a help to the
finding of those books. It would be absurd to copy out long titles in a
catalogue and be at the cost of printing them when the title itself in
the book can be in our hands in a couple of minutes. Sufficient
information only is required to help us to find the right book and the
right edition. How far this should be given will be discussed in a
later chapter. It is necessary for us, however, to remember that when
the catalogue is printed and away from the library it becomes to some
extent a bibliography, and therefore when a library contains rare or
unique books it is usual, for love of the cause, to describe these
fully, as if the catalogue was a bibliography. This is the more
necessary because we are so deficient in good bibliographies. The ideal
state, from which we are still far off, would be a complete and full
bibliography of all literature, and then cataloguers could be less full
in their descriptions, and reference might be made to the bibliography
for further particulars. It is a standing disgrace to the country that
we have no complete bibliography of English authors, much less of
English literature generally.
It has long been the dream of the bibliographer that a universal
catalogue might be obtained by the amalgamation of the catalogues of
several collections. Thus it was the intention of Gerard Langbaine,
Provost of Queen's College, Oxford, and Keeper of the University
Archives, to have made a classified catalogue of the Bodleian Library,
and to incorporate with it all the books not in the Bodleian but in
other Oxford libraries, public and private, so as to show at a glance
all the books that existed in Oxford. He died, however, on February
10th, 1657-58, without having carried his design into execution. Dr.
Garnett, in his valuable paper on "The Printing of the British Museum
Catalogue" (_Transactions_, Fourth and Fifth Meetings of the Library
Association of the United Kingdom, 1884, pp. 120-28), gave words to his
aspiration "that the completion of the Museum Catalogue in print may
coincide with the completion of the present century," and he continued
that no better memorial of the nineteenth century could be produced than
a "register of almost all the really valuable literature of all former
centuries." This is very true; but I think that catalogues can only form
the groundwork for bibliographies, and are not sufficiently satisfactory
to supersede them. Moreover, each country should produce its own
national bibliography.
Mr. Cutter divides libraries into (1) those for study, and (2) those for
reading; and this division must always be kept in view. We shall chiefly
consider the first division, although it will not be right altogether to
pass over the latter. Libraries for reading have been rightly considered
in the light of educational institutions; and the various points
connected with the information to be given to readers, as to what they
should read, and how they should read, perhaps belong more properly to
Education than to Bibliography.
As to the order in which the catalogue should be disposed we have
considerable choice, and Mr. Cutter has given in the _United States
Special Report_ (pp. 561-67) a most elaborate classification of the
different species of catalogues, but the main divisions are the
classified and the alphabetical. Years ago the classified was considered
the ideal; but when this ideal was brought down to practice it usually
failed, and the result was almost useless. The late Professor De Morgan
made the following pertinent remarks on this point:--
"A classed catalogue is supposed to be useful to those who want to
know what has been written on a particular subject. Now, in the
first place, who are the persons who look at a book list with any
such view? Not beginners in a wide field of research. Did any one in
his senses ever go to a library to learn geometry, for instance, and
take the subject in a classed catalogue, and fall to work upon some
author because he was therein set down? This attempt to feed the
mind _à la carte_ would certainly end in an indigestion, if, which
is rather to be hoped, it did not begin in a surfeit."[1]
Again:--
"Any one who is willing to trust the maker of a catalogue, however
highly qualified, with the power of settling what books he can want
in reference to a given subject, is either a person who consults
only the most celebrated works, and has nothing to do with research,
or one who is willing to take completeness upon trust, and to
content himself with blaming another person if he do not reach
it."[2]
It is a common mistake to speak of a classified catalogue as a Catalogue
Raisonné. A Catalogue Raisonné is a catalogue with bibliographical
details and notes, in which the merits or demerits of the books are
discussed. Therefore a Catalogue Raisonné can be alphabetical as well as
classified. An alphabetical catalogue can be either one of authors, or
of subjects, or what the Americans have styled the Dictionary Catalogue.
A catalogue of authors will contain the description of anonymous books
under headings in the same alphabet, and it may either have an index of
subjects, or subject cross-references included in the general alphabet.
But as the rules to be considered later on relate chiefly to the
catalogue of authors, it is not necessary to say more on this point
here. Again, De Morgan has made some excellent remarks on the catalogue
of authors:--
"An alphabetical catalogue has this great advantage, that all the
works of the same author come together. Those who have had to hunt
up old subjects know very well that of all lots which it is useful
to find in one place, the works of one given author are those which
occur most frequently. Again, those who go to a library to read upon
a given subject generally know what authors they want; and an
alphabetical catalogue settles the question whether the library does
or does not contain the required work of the author wanted. We
believe that of those who go into a place where books are collected,
whether to read, buy, borrow, (or even steal), nineteen out of
twenty know what author they want; and to them an alphabetical
catalogue is all-sufficient."[3]
Mr. Cutter has written the history of the Dictionary Catalogue in the
_United States Special Report_ (pp. 533-39), and he traces it back in
America to about the year 1815.
Mr. Crestadoro, in his pamphlet, _The Art of Making Catalogues of
Libraries_, 1856, recommended an inventorial catalogue of unabridged
titles arranged in no order, but numbered, and an alphabetical index to
the numbers of this inventory. The index thus formed was somewhat
similar to the Dictionary Catalogue (_United States Special Report_, p.
535). Mr. Bradshaw held very strongly the view that an alphabetical
catalogue was an index, and that a full shelf catalogue was the real
catalogue; and few things he enjoyed more than to read through a list of
the books as they stood on the shelves.[4] In a letter to me, dated
September 9th, 1879, he wrote:--
"It is a cardinal point with me that an alphabetical catalogue of a
library is really an index, or should be so, to any other kind of
catalogue you choose to make; while if you once lose sight of this
fact you are quite sure to cumber the catalogue up with
bibliographical details which are entirely out of place."
Scientific cataloguing is of modern invention, and to the British Museum
it is that we owe the origination of a code of rules--rules which form
the groundwork of all modern cataloguing. Good catalogues were made
before rules were enunciated, but this is accounted for by the fact that
bibliographers, like poets, are more often born than made.
Carefulness must be one of the chief characteristics of the cataloguer,
for he will frequently find himself beset with difficulties. Mr. W. F.
Poole, the author of that most useful work the _Index to Periodical
Literature_, states this very forcibly when he writes:--
"The inexperienced librarian will find the cataloguing of his books
the most difficult part of his undertaking, even after he has made a
diligent theoretical study of the subject. He will find after he has
made considerable progress that much of his work is useless, and
scarcely any of it correct."[5]
The cataloguer must not jump to conclusions upon insufficient authority,
or, as some persons have proposed, take a short list from the books and
amplify the titles from bibliographies. Such a course will lead to
endless blunders, and create confusion like that described by Professor
De Morgan:--
"Lalande, in his _Bibliographie Astronomique_, wrote from his own
knowledge the title of the second edition of the work of
Regiomontanus on Triangles, Basle, folio, 1561. He knew that the
first edition was published about thirty years before, and so he set
it down with the same title-page as the second, including the
announcement of the table of Sines, Basle, 1536. Now, as it
happened, it was published at Nuremberg in 1533, and there was no
table of Sines in it. The consequence is that Apian and Copernicus
are deprived of their respective credits, as being very early (the
former the earliest) publishers of Sines to a decimal radius. No one
can know how far an incorrect description of a book may produce
historical falsehood; but there are few writers who have the
courage to say exactly how much they know, and how much they
presume."[6]
Before concluding this Introduction it may be well to say something
about a few catalogues that have been issued in the different styles.
One of the best classified catalogues ever published in England is that
of the London Institution, which was first printed in 1835, and
completed in 1852.[7] This has indexes of subjects, and of authors and
books. The catalogue is very useful as a bibliography; and as the
library was well selected, the reading of its pages is very instructive;
but what shows the general uselessness of a classified catalogue for the
work of a library is that in actual practice an alphabetical finding
index has been in more constant use than the fuller catalogue.
Of an alphabetical catalogue of subjects an example may be found in that
of the Library of the Board of Trade, which was published in 1866. Here
the authors are relegated to an index, and all the titles are arranged
under the main subject. This may be convenient under some circumstances,
but it is not satisfactory for general use. The idea of the scheme was
due to the late Mr. W. M. Bucknall, then librarian to the Board of
Trade; but the catalogue itself was made by the author of this book. The
system adopted was to use the subject-word of the title as a heading;
but an exception was made in the case of foreign words which were
translated. For instance, there is a heading of Wool. Under this first
come all the English works; then the French works under sub-headings of
_Laine_, _Laines_, and _Lainière_; then German under _Schafwollhandel_
and _Wollmarkt_. From these foreign words in the alphabet there are
references to WOOL. There is, however, no more classification than is
absolutely necessary; and it may be said that if all the books had been
anonymous the scheme would have been an admirable one.
The Dictionary Catalogue mostly flourishes in America; but a very
satisfactory specimen of the class was prepared by Mr. D. O'Donovan,
Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland. It is entitled, _Analytical and
Classified Catalogue of the Library of the Parliament of Queensland_
(Brisbane: 1883. 4to). The books are entered under author and subject
with full cross-references, and all the entries are arranged in one
alphabet. There are abstracts of the contents of certain of the books,
and references to articles in reviews. In the preface Mr. O'Donovan
writes:--
"I have made a catalogue of authors, and index of titles, and an
index of subjects, a partial index of forms, and having thrown the
whole together into an alphabetical series, the work may be referred
to as an ordinary dictionary."
Of the usefulness of the Dictionary Catalogue there cannot be two
opinions, but the chief objection is that it is a waste of labour to do
for many libraries what if done once in the form of a bibliography would
serve for all.
A most important example of this class of catalogue is the
_Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, United
States Army_, of which nine large volumes have been issued. This owes
its existence to Dr. J. S. Billings, and the publication was commenced
in 1880. An enthusiastic friend is inclined to describe it as the best
of published catalogues.
Authors' catalogues are the most common, and it would be invidious to
point out any one in particular for special commendation.
It is rather curious that the United States, which is now to the fore in
all questions of bibliography, should have produced in former times many
singularly bad catalogues. There is one classified catalogue which may
be mentioned as a typical specimen of bad work. There is an index of
authors, with such vague references that in some cases you have to turn
over as many as seventy pages to find the book to which you are
referred.[8]
The oddities of catalogue-making would form a prolific subject, and we
cannot enter into it at the end of this chapter; but space may be found
for two odd catalogues which owe their origin to the Secretary of the
old Record Commission.
The sale catalogue of portions of Mr. Charles Purton Cooper's library[9]
is a literary curiosity. It contains two hundred and fourteen pages, but
only one hundred and eighteen of these are devoted to the catalogue of
books for sale, and the remaining pages are filled with appendixes which
contain many amusing notes. The first appendix consists of a "Catalogue
of Books mostly in English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh History and
Biography now at Autun, which will be included in the sale of further
portions of Mr. Purton Cooper's Library unless previously disposed of by
private agreement." On page 159 is this note to a catalogue of a
collection of grammars and dictionaries "now at Louvain": "My passion
for languages (a very unwise one) ceased many years ago." Mr. Cooper
notes on page 167, in relation to some books of miscellaneous
antiquities "now at Brussels," that "the most expensive of the following
works are presents from Foreign Sovereigns, Universities, Cities, and
Towns, principally in the period 1831-1840." To the catalogue of
miscellaneous books on page 182 is appended this queer autobiographical
note: "These books, formerly kept in the house in New Boswell Court, so
long used by me as chambers (1816-1850), and from whence all my
correspondence as Secretary of Records was dated (1831-1838), are now in
chests waiting some place of deposit. What will be their destination I
know not. Grove End Road is let. Denton Court (near Canterbury, my new
residence) has undergone such changes in the hands of its last literary
owner (the late Sir Egerton Brydges) that it will hardly afford
convenient space for a schoolboy's collection." Mr. Cooper goes on to
say: "Indifferent as I am become to the mere possession of books, still
the selection was a task with which (having no check but my own will) I
dared not trust myself."
The notes to this list are very comical. This book was given to him by a
duke, that by a regius professor, another was bought at Fontainebleau,
and still another "of a soldier in an English regiment, badly wounded at
the disastrous assault upon Bergen-op-Zoom, and then in hospital at
Breda." An edition of Aristophanes was bought at Frankfort for nine
shillings, and "Lord Harrowby (then Lord Sandon, fresh from Oxford)
observed that so cheap a purchase must be a piece of luck rarely
occurring." An Edinburgh edition of Livy cost Mr. Cooper five shillings
in 1810, "and," he adds, "not a bad bargain, considering the purchaser
had not attained his seventeenth year." One of the notes said to be
copied from a French book of prayers (1789), is interesting; but its
substance would be said to be incredible if we did not know of the
rampant villainy of the times. "In the summer of 1794 (it was somewhat
late in the day) two travellers stopped at a chateau in a southeastern
department of France, one of them having a slight acquaintance with the
owner of the chateau, who had the misfortune to belong to the ancient
noblesse of the country. Both were invited to partake of the family
dinner. A dinner which in those circumstances might be considered
sumptuous was served up; and the conversation, as generally happens on
such occasions, became more than usually gay. When, however, the dessert
was placed on the table, the conversation was suddenly interrupted by
one of the travellers taking from his pocket a paper constituting
himself and his companion Commissioners of the Convention, and
authorizing them to seize the chateau and its contents, and forthwith to
guillotine the 'aristocrat,' its proprietor. The reading of this paper
was immediately followed by an intimation that a guillotine with the
usual assistants had during dinner arrived in the courtyard of the
chateau. The repast was discontinued for a few minutes, whilst the two
guests hurried their host to the courtyard of his chateau and saw him
guillotined; it was then resumed." This curious catalogue has at the end
a folding coloured plate of Mr. Cooper's library at Grove End Road, with
this note: "The view of the library is here introduced for the purpose
of mentioning that Mr. Cooper wishes to dispose, by private agreement,
of eight mahogany book-cases of the kind there represented."
In 1856 a sale catalogue of a further portion of Mr. Cooper's library
was issued.[10] It consisted of a hundred and fifty-one pages, only
thirty-four of which are occupied by the list of books for sale by
auction. The rest of the pages are filled with lists of books to be
disposed of at some future time in some other manner, but there are not
notes of the same amusing character as in the former catalogue.
[Decoration]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 7.
[2] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 12.
[3] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 6.
[4] I remember very vividly a pleasant day spent in the Pepysian Library
with Mr. Bradshaw, under the kindly guardianship of Professor Newton.
Mr. Bradshaw was specially delighted with Pepys's own MS. catalogues.
[5] "On the Organization and Management of Public Libraries" (_United
States Special Report_, p. 490).
[6] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 20.
[7] _Catalogue of the Library of the London Institution, Systematically
Classified._ London: 1835-52. 4 vols., royal 8vo.
[8] _Catalogue of the Library of Congress in the Capitol of the United
States of America_: Washington, 1840. 8vo. The third entry in the Index
is _Abdy_, and the reference "xxix. 215. i.;" xxix. applies to the
class, which is _Geography_; the title is to be found in section v.,
_America_; so that actually seventy pages of the catalogue have to be
glanced through before the work of Abdy can be found.
[9] "_Bibliotheca Cooperiana._ Catalogue of Portions of the Extensive
and Valuable Library of Charles Purton Cooper, Esq., Q.C.... These
portions will, by Mr. Cooper's direction, be sold by auction by Messrs.
S. Leigh Sotheby and John Wilkinson ... on Monday, April 19th [1852],
and seven following days."
[10] "_Catalogue of a Further Portion of the Library of Charles Purton
Cooper, Esq., Q.C._ ... This further portion, deposited with Messrs.
Sotheby and Wilkinson in the summer of 1852, will, by Mr. Cooper's
direction, be sold by them by auction in the spring of the ensuing year.
December 1856."
[Decoration]
CHAPTER II.
THE BATTLE OF THE RULES.
To Sir Anthony Panizzi we owe rules for the making of catalogues:
perhaps it would be more proper to say the codification of rules, for
sound rules must have been in the mind of the compilers of good
catalogues before his time. When one person makes a catalogue, he
usually acts upon principles which are known to himself, although he may
not have committed them to writing. When several assistants are employed
to make a catalogue, it is positively necessary that the compiler in
chief, who will be responsible for the whole work, should give
directions to his assistants, so that they may all work on the same
plan.
The famous code of ninety-one rules which was given to the world in 1841
(_Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum_, vol. i., Letter A)
had for its foundation a small number of rules originally devised by Mr.
Baber[11] (the predecessor of Mr. Panizzi as Keeper of the Printed
Books).
Mr. Panizzi was appointed Assistant Librarian in the British Museum in
April 1831, and in 1837 he succeeded Mr. Baber as Keeper. As a new
general catalogue was now required, a committee was formed to frame
rules for its compilation. This committee consisted of Panizzi, Thomas
Watts, J. Winter Jones, Edward Edwards, and John H. Parry (afterwards
Serjeant Parry). The plan adopted was for each of these gentlemen
separately to prepare rules for the purpose, according to his own views.
These were afterwards discussed collectively, and when any difference
arose, it was settled by vote. When these rules were complete, they were
presented to the trustees by Panizzi on March 18th, 1839, with the
following memorandum:--
"Mr. Panizzi has the honour to lay before the trustees the rules,
which, under all circumstances, he proposes as advisable to be
followed in the compilation of the Alphabetical Catalogue,
accompanied by a number of illustrations. Although he is well aware
that such rules must necessarily be affected by the haste with which
they have been compiled, he ventures to hope they will be
sufficiently intelligible to the trustees, and enable them, even in
their present imperfect state, to judge of the principles that Mr.
Panizzi should wish to see observed. He is fully aware that many
cases may arise unprovided for, and that some of these rules and
principles may be liable to objections, which may not perhaps appear
in other plans, seemingly preferable; but he trusts that what seems
objectionable may, on mature reflection, be found in fact less so.
He cannot, at present, do more than entreat the trustees to take
into their patient and minute consideration every single part, as
well as the whole of the plan proposed, and then decide as they may
think fit, bearing in mind that, although these rules may, if
strictly followed, occasionally lead to what may appear absurd, the
same objection, to a perhaps greater extent, may be urged against
any other plan, and far greater evils result from a deviation from a
principle than from its inflexible application."
The rules were sanctioned by the trustees July 13th, 1839, and printed
in 1841. In the note prefixed to the volume of the catalogue then
printed Panizzi wrote:--
"The application of the rules was left by the trustees to the
discretion of the editor, subject to the condition that a catalogue
of the printed books in the library up to the close of the year 1838
be completed within the year 1844."
Panizzi very properly disapproved of the publication piecemeal of the
catalogue before it was completed, and eventually he obtained his own
way, with the result that the printing was discontinued, and a
manuscript catalogue was gradually built up. In the note just referred
to he proceeds:--
"With a view to the fulfilment of this undertaking, it was deemed
indispensable that a catalogue should be put to press as soon as
any portion of the manuscript could be prepared; consequently the
early volumes must present omissions and inaccuracies, which it is
hoped will diminish in number as the work proceeds."
According to Mr. Fagan (_Life of Sir A. Panizzi_, vol. i., p. 259), the
wasteful publication of the volume containing letter A was due to a
blunder in the secretary's department. Apparently the order of the
trustees was to have the catalogue ready _for_ the press by December
1844, instead of which it was intimated to Panizzi that the catalogue
was to be printed by that time.
Both Panizzi[12] and Parry[13] pointed out in their evidence before the
Commission (1848-49) how wasteful a process it was to catalogue the
library by letters instead of cataloguing every book on a shelf at one
time. There cannot be two opinions among experienced bibliographers of
the absurdity of making a catalogue in such a piecemeal manner, and yet
this is a plan of proceeding which the inexperienced in cataloguing are
frequently found to recommend. Mr. Parry said: "Not only the printing of
letter A first do I look upon to be an entire waste, both of time and
money--a waste just as much as if the time were thrown away, and just as
if the money had been actually thrown away--but the plan of taking those
titles from this large body of titles and sending for the books is a
serious waste of time.... In my opinion, volume A, the volume that is
now printed, must be cancelled, if ever the whole catalogue is printed.
The reason of that would be, that an immense mass of titles, in the
further cataloguing of the succeeding portions of the alphabet, would
arise to be catalogued under the letter A, which nobody would have
anticipated until the whole library was catalogued." The Commission
coincided with Mr. Panizzi's view, and incorporated their opinion on
this point in the report. The consequence was that Panizzi was allowed
to proceed on his own plan, with the result that, in the first place, a
large number of volumes of manuscript titles supplementary to the old
general catalogue were produced, and subsequently an entirely new
catalogue, superseding the old one.
The history of the catalogues of the British Museum Library is a curious
and interesting one. A catalogue prepared by Dr. Maty, the Rev. S.
Harper, and the Rev. S. Ayscough was published in 1787 (2 vols., folio).
This was soon superseded; and in 1806 Sir Henry Ellis and the Rev. H. H.
Baber (then Keeper and Assistant Keeper respectively of the Printed
Books), carrying out the instructions of the trustees, commenced the
compilation of a new catalogue, which was published in 1813-19 (7 vols.
in 8 parts, 8vo). Ellis was answerable for the letters A to F, with P,
Q, and R; and Baber for the remainder of the alphabet.
Now that we have an excellent catalogue of the library, which we owe to
the exertions of Panizzi, we are too apt to forget the services of Ellis
and Baber as compilers of the very valuable old catalogue. Panizzi took
delight in finding faults in this catalogue, and one of the blunders
which he pointed out was the entry of a French translation of one of
Jeremy Bentham's works, in which the author's name, having been
translated in the title-page of the book into French, was transferred in
the same form--"Bentham (Jéréme)"--into the catalogue.[14] Doubtless
there are many bibliographical mistakes; but it is an excellent
practical catalogue, and does the greatest credit to the compilers. Even
now, although the print is almost lost in the mass of manuscript, and
the volumes are nearly worn out, the copy in the Reading Room may still
be used with advantage when a book cannot be found in the more elaborate
new catalogue.
In 1847 the Royal Commission, already alluded to, was appointed to
inquire into the constitution and government of the British Museum, and
the report of the Commission, with minutes of evidence, was published in
1850. This report appeared in a large folio volume of eight hundred and
twenty-three pages, which is still full of interest from a
bibliographical point of view.
The Commissioners considered arrangements connected with the management
which have since been changed, and therefore are of little interest now;
but the evidence chiefly related to the new rules for the catalogue, and
resolved itself into an arraignment of Mr. Panizzi's plans, with
Panizzi's reply to the arraignment at the end of the evidence. The
report shows how unsatisfactory were the relations between the officers
of departments, and how strong was the antagonism to Panizzi's rules and
arrangements among literary men.
Many authors whom one would have expected to know something of the art
of cataloguing showed the most amazing ignorance, and a love for
careless work that makes us extremely glad that their cause was
defeated. Some witnesses exhibited a dislike to the rules merely because
they were rules. Mr. J. G. Cochrane, then Librarian of the London
Library, in answer to the question, "Have you read the ninety-one
rules?" said, "I read some of them, and it appeared to me that they were
more calculated to perplex and to mystify than to answer any useful
purpose;" and again, when asked, "Do you object to rules in any
compilation of catalogues?" he said, "Yes, very much" (p. 460). Further
on in his evidence he said, "I think that in bibliography, as well as in
geography, it is always advisable to keep as much to uniformity of
system as possible" (p. 464). But he did not make it clear how
uniformity was to be obtained without rules.
The greatest grievance which "readers" seem to have had is one which we
can scarcely realize at the present day. Mr. Panizzi ruled that whoever
wanted a book should look it out in the catalogue, and copy the title on
a slip with the press-mark before he could receive it. Mr. Carlyle
refused to look out in the catalogue for a pamphlet which he knew to be
in a particular collection. His account of the matter is as follows:--
"I had occasion at one time to consult a good many of the pamphlets
respecting the Civil War period of the history of England. I
supposed those pamphlets to be standing in their own room, on
shelves contiguous to each other. I marked on the paper, 'King's
Pamphlets,' such and such a number, giving a description undeniably
pointing to the volume; and the servant to whom I gave this paper at
first said that he could not serve me with the volume, and that I
must find it out in the catalogue and state the press-mark, and all
the other formalities. Being a little provoked with that state of
things, I declared that I would not seek for the book in that form;
that I could get no good out of these Pamphlets, on such terms; that
I must give them up rather, and go my ways, and try to make the
grievance known in some proper quarter" (p. 280).
Dr. J. E. Gray expressed the opinion that the feeling against this rule
respecting the press-mark was very general (p. 491). It is necessary to
bear in mind that "the old system was, that you merely wrote the title
of the book you wanted without the necessity of looking for it in the
catalogue. If you wanted a particular edition of it, then you looked in
the catalogue for the particular title or date, and the book was brought
to you if it could be found" (7684, p. 491).
Although many of the witnesses showed a lamentable ignorance of the
principles of sound bibliography, others proved themselves quite capable
of setting right the ignorant.
The Right Hon. J. W. Croker, when asked, "Are you of opinion that the
labour and difficulties in the management and cataloguing of a library
increase merely in the same proportion with its extent?" made this very
true observation, "I think the difficulties would increase, I may say
geometrically rather than arithmetically" (8734, p. 570).
Mr. John Bruce considered it a fault in the new catalogue that the
titles were too full (pp. 417-18); but Prof. A. De Morgan pointed out
very clearly the many dangers of short titles (p. 427). Mr. Croker
strongly advocated the use of long titles. He said: "There will of
course be a few remarkable instances of great prolixity of title-page,
which really are worth preserving as curiosities, if for nothing else.
But generally speaking there is nothing that is quite safe and
satisfactory to a person who goes to look for a book, but a full title;
I will add, a most important consideration in a library like this, which
people come to consult; it has happened to me twice, I think, within the
last ten days to find it unnecessary to send for a book that I intended
to apply for, by finding an ample title-page, which showed me that I
should not find there what I wanted" (8709, p. 567).
Dr. Gray in his pamphlet (_Letter to the Earl of Ellesmere_, 1849) makes
this extraordinary statement: "The works with authors' names, or with
false names, should be arranged alphabetically, according to the names
of the authors, taking care that the names used should be those that are
on the title-pages; and, if an author have changed his or her name, that
the work published under the different names should be in different
places in the alphabet" (p. 5).
Mr. Parry gave much sensible evidence, and this point was submitted to
him. The question of the chairman (Earl of Ellesmere) was, "Have you
heard it proposed that each book should be catalogued under the form of
name appearing on the title, without any regard to uniformity, and
without regard to the different forms of name adopted by an author, or
arising from the different languages in which works by the same author
may be printed?" Mr. Parry's answer was as follows: "I have never heard
that suggested, except by Mr. Gray. I have read it in Mr. Gray's
pamphlet; and I have heard it from Mr. Gray when he was an assistant....
I certainly do not wish to be offensive to Mr. Gray, for I have the
pleasure of his acquaintance, but I think the thing perfectly absurd. I
might be permitted to say, that the noble lord in the chair has
published under two or three names; and that I should prefer to see all
his lordship's works under one heading, and not scattered in three
different places in the Catalogue under the name of Gower, of Egerton,
and of Ellesmere.... I remember Mr. Gray used occasionally to come and
talk about the Catalogue, but it always seemed to me that he had never
given any consideration to the subject. It is by no means an easy thing
to make a catalogue; a person to make it, must have a very large and
special knowledge of books and of languages" (7338, p. 470).
The witness whose evidence was the most unfortunate for himself was Mr.
Payne Collier. He committed himself by submitting some titles which he
had made in illustration of his views. There were twenty-five titles,
which had been made in the course of an hour. These were handed to Mr.
Winter Jones, who reported upon them very fully, with the following
result:--
"These twenty-five titles contain almost every possible error which
can be committed in cataloguing books, and are open to almost every
possible objection which can be brought against concise titles. The
faults may be classed as follows:--1st. Incorrect or insufficient
description, calculated to mislead as to the nature or condition of
the work specified. 2nd. Omission of the names of editors, whereby
we lose a most necessary guide in selecting among different editions
of the same work. 3rd. Omission of the Christian names of authors,
causing great confusion between the works of different authors who
have the same surname--a confusion increasing in proportion to the
extent of the catalogue. 4th. Omission of the names of annotators.
5th. Omission of the names of translators. 6th. Omission of the
number of the edition, thus rejecting a most important and direct
evidence of the value of a work. 7th. Adopting the name of the
editor as a heading, when the name of the author appears in the
title-page. 8th. Adopting the name of the translator as a heading,
when the name of the author appears on the title-page. 9th. Adopting
as a heading the title or name of the author merely as it appears on
the title-page--a practice which would distribute the works of the
Bishop of London under Blomfield, Chester, and London; and those of
Lord Ellesmere under Gower, Egerton, and Ellesmere. 10th. Using
English or some other language instead of the language of the
title-page. 11th. Cataloguing anonymous works, or works published
under initials, under the name of the supposed author. Where this
practice is adopted, the books so catalogued can be found only by
those who possess the same information as the cataloguer, and
uniformity of system is impossible, unless the cataloguer know the
author of every work published anonymously or under initials.[15]
12th. Errors in grammar. 13th. Errors in descriptions of the size of
the book. We have here faults of thirteen different kinds in
twenty-five titles, and the number of these faults amount to more
than two in each title.... When we see such a result as is shown
above, from an experiment made by a gentleman of education,
accustomed to research and acquainted with books generally, upon
only twenty-five works, taken from his own library, and of the most
easy description, we may form some idea of what a catalogue would
be, drawn up, in the same manner, by ten persons, of about six
hundred thousand works, embracing every branch of human learning,
and presenting difficulties of every possible description. The
average number of faults being more than two to a title, the total
is something startling--about one million three hundred thousand
faults for the six hundred thousand works; that is, supposing the
proportion to continue the same."
Then follows a searching examination of each individual title, with the
result that any claims to be considered a correct cataloguer which Mr.
Collier may have been supposed to have were entirely annihilated.
The Report of the Commissioners enters very fully into the various
points raised by the evidence before them, with the result that it was
considered advisable that Mr. Panizzi should be given his own way, and
that the new catalogue should be completed in manuscript.
The British Museum Rules are, as already stated, printed in the
_Catalogue of Printed Books_ (_Letter A_, 1841), and in Henry Stevens's
_Catalogue of the American Books in the Library of the British Museum at
Christmas_, 1856. They are given in Mr. Thomas Nichols's _Handbook for
Readers at the British Museum_ (1869), under the various subjects in
alphabetical order, with a series of useful illustrations. Some slight
modifications of the rules have been made since the printing of the
catalogue has been in hand, and a capital _résumé_ of the rules, under
the title of _Explanation of the System of the Catalogue_, is on sale at
the Museum for the small sum of one penny.
The strife which was caused by the publication of the rules was
gradually quelled, and the British Museum code was acknowledged in most
places as a model.
Professor Charles Coffin Jewett published at Washington in 1853 a very
careful work on this subject. His pamphlet is entitled, "_Smithsonian
Report on the Construction of Catalogues of Libraries, and their
Publication by means of Separate Stereotyped Titles, with Rules and
Examples_. By Charles C. Jewett, Librarian of the Smithsonian
Institution."
Mr. Jewett makes an observation with which all who have considered the
subject with attention must agree. He writes:--
"Liability to error and to confusion is ... so great and so
continual, that it is impossible to labour successfully without a
rigid adherence to rules. Although such rules be not formally
enunciated, they must exist in the mind of the cataloguer and guide
him, or the result of his labours will be mortifying and
unprofitable."
With respect to his own rules he writes:--
"The Rules which follow are founded upon those adopted for the
compilation of the Catalogue of the British Museum. Some of them are
verbatim the same; others conform more to rules advocated by Mr.
Panizzi than to those finally sanctioned by the Trustees of the
Museum."
The rules are classified as follows:--pp. 1-45, Titles; pp. 45-56,
Headings; pp. 57-59, Cross-references; pp. 59-62, Arrangement; pp. 62,
63, Maps, Engravings, Music; p. 64, Exceptional Cases.
The number of rules is not so large as those of the British Museum, and
rule 39 stands thus: "Cases not herein provided for, and exceptional
cases requiring a departure from any of the preceding rules, are to be
decided on by the Superintendent."
Jewett's rules, with some alterations, were adopted and printed by the
Boston Public Library.
The _Rules to be Observed in Forming the Alphabetical Catalogue of
Printed Books in the University Library_, Cambridge, were drawn up after
the authorities had decided to print the catalogue slips of all
additions to the library, and also gradually to build up a new catalogue
by printing the titles of the books already in the library as they were
re-catalogued. These rules were, to a great extent, founded upon those
of the British Museum. In the year 1879, Mr. Bradshaw, Librarian, in
conjunction with Messrs. E. Magnusson and H. T. Francis, Assistant
Librarians, made some alterations in the rules, and as thus altered they
now stand, numbering forty-nine.
The rules of the Library Association of the United Kingdom may be
considered as somewhat "academical," because they were not made for any
particular library. They have gained, however, in importance in that
they were adopted by Mr. Edward B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, for
the Catalogue of the Bodleian Library. These rules were originally
formed for the purpose of making a foundation for a Catalogue of English
Literature, as proposed by the late Mr. Cornelius Walford. This
catalogue, however, gradually receded into the background, and the rules
were adapted to the purposes of a general library catalogue. The rules
have been modified at successive annual meetings of the Association.
Although Mr. Nicholson adopted the Library Association Rules in the
first instance, he printed in 1882 a set of _Compendious Cataloguing
Rules for the Author-Catalogue of the Bodleian Library_, which has
since been added to, and the number of rules is now sixty.
We have, in conclusion, to take note of by far the most important code
of rules after that of the British Museum. I allude of course to the
remarkable second part of the _Special Report on Public Libraries in the
United States_ (1876), which consists of "Rules for a Printed Dictionary
Catalogue, by Charles A. Cutter." This work stands alone in the
literature of our subject. Not only are the rules set out, but the
reasons for the rules are given. This is usually considered as a
dangerous proceeding, and it requires a man with the clear-headedness
and mastery of his subject for which Mr. Cutter is distinguished to
carry out such a scheme with success. I am not prepared to agree
altogether with the principle of the Dictionary Catalogue, or with all
the reasons for the rules--in fact, some of them are highly stimulating,
and prove strong incentives to argument; but it would be difficult to
find anywhere in so small a space so many sound bibliographical
principles elucidated.
It is now nearly fifty years since the British Museum Rules were
published, and at the present time we can scarcely understand the
antagonistic feeling with which these rules were then received. We can
now see how much we are indebted to them. To their influence we largely
owe the education of the librarian in the true art of cataloguing, and
the improved public opinion on the subject; and to them we owe the noble
Catalogue of the British Museum, which is a remarkable monument of great
knowledge and great labour combined. We are therefore bound to do honour
to the memory of Panizzi, who planned the work and endued with his
spirit the many distinguished men who have followed him and completed
his work.
[Decoration]
FOOTNOTES:
[11] _Report of the Commissioners on the Constitution and Government of
the British Museum_, 1850, p. 16.
[12] See Questions 4207, 4212, pp. 254-55.
[13] See Question 7223, p. 469.
[14] Fagan's _Life of Sir A. Panizzi_, vol. i., pp. 143-44. Mr. Fagan
writes "Jérôme," but it is really Jéréme in the catalogue.
[15] This is the most extraordinary reason ever given. If it were
accepted as valid it would settle the question, for under no
circumstances could the authors of all anonymous works be discovered.
[Decoration]
CHAPTER III.
PRINT _V._ MANUSCRIPT.
There has been much discussion on the relative advantages of Print and
Manuscript. Panizzi's objection to print was a sound one, as he
considered that no titles should be printed until the catalogue of the
whole library was completed. When this time came the objection was no
longer valid, and arrangements were made in due course for printing the
catalogue by instalments. Before this was decided upon there were some
who insisted upon the actual superiority of manuscript over print; but
this was really absurd, because, if the extra cost of printing can be
defrayed, there must be great advantage in the clearness and legibility
of print, as well as in the saving of space caused by its use.
Mr. Parry, with his strong common sense, advocated, in 1849, the use of
the printing-press. He said in his evidence: "I think the Catalogue
ought to be printed; not merely for the purposes of the library, and of
reference out of the library, but also because I think the Catalogue of
this library is a work that ought to be in every public institution
where men of letters resort, either here, on the Continent, in America,
or in any other part of the civilized world; still, it ought not to be
printed until the whole of the books are catalogued up to a certain
time. I say 'up to a certain time' because the whole of the books never
can be catalogued in a library where there are constant accessions. But
a limit may be fixed, and when that limit is reached and the whole of
the books within that limit are catalogued I would then print the
Catalogue, and not before. I have said before that the volume of letter
A must be cancelled; that is inevitable. Nobody after this Catalogue is
completed, no librarian, no man of the most ordinary literary
acquirements, would presume to print the Catalogue without cancelling
this volume: that arises from the circumstance that, as the cataloguing
goes on, thousands of works will turn up as necessary to be inserted in
letter A."[16]
Mr. Parry added, that in ordering this partial printing the trustees
gave way to pressure from without, which he defined very justly as "a
sort of ignorant impatience for a catalogue by persons who do not really
understand what a catalogue is or what a catalogue should be."
Dr. Garnett read a very interesting paper on "The Printing of the
British Museum Catalogue," before the Library Association, at the
Cambridge meeting, in 1882, in which he tells how the present system of
printing came about.
Mr. Rye, when Keeper of the Printed Books, strongly urged the adoption
of print; but Dr. Garnett adds, "Other views, however, prevailed for the
time; and when, in October 1875, the subject was again brought forward
by the Treasury it fell to my lot to treat it from a new point of view,
suggested by my observations in my capacity as superintendent of the
reading-room. I saw that, waiving the question as to the advantage or
disadvantage of print in the abstract, it would soon be necessary to
resort to it for the sake of economy of space. There were by this time
two thousand volumes of manuscript catalogue in the reading-room,
exclusive of the catalogues of maps and music. There would be three
thousand by the time that the incorporation of the general and
supplementary catalogues was complete. Hundreds of these volumes in the
earlier letters of the alphabet were already swollen with entries, and
required to be broken up and divided into three. Sooner or later every
volume would have undergone this process. By that time there would be
nine thousand volumes of manuscript catalogue, three times as many as
the reading-room could contain, or the public conveniently consult. The
only remedy was to put a check upon the growth of the catalogue by
printing all new entries for the future, and to mature meanwhile a plan
for converting the entire catalogue into a printed one. I prepared a
memorandum embodying these ideas, and entered into the subject more
fully, when, in January 1878, it was again brought forward by the
Treasury. These views, however, did not find acceptance at the time....
The question was thus left for Mr. Bond, who became Principal Librarian
in the following August. As Keeper of the Manuscripts, Mr. Bond's
attention had never been officially drawn to the catalogue of printed
books, but as a man of letters, he had formed an opinion respecting it;
and I am able to state that he came to the principal librarianship as
determined to bestow the boon of print upon the Catalogue and the
public, as to effect the other great reforms that have signalized his
administration."[17]
Dr. Garnett, near the end of his paper, said, "My aspiration is that the
completion of the Museum Catalogue in print may coincide with the
completion of the present century;" and I believe he still holds the
opinion that this is possible and probable.
Mr. Cutter enters very fully into this question of _Printed or
Manuscript_? in his elaborate article on "Library Catalogues" in the
_United States Report on Public Libraries_, 1876 (pp. 552-56). The
advantages of a printed catalogue he states under five heads: "(1) that
it is in less danger of partial or total destruction than a manuscript
volume or drawers of cards;" "(2) that it can be consulted out of the
library;" "(3) that it can be consulted in other libraries;" "(4) that
it is easier to read than the best manuscript volume, and very much
easier to consult. A card presents to the eye only one title at a time,
whereas a printed catalogue generally has all an author's works on a
single page. Time and patience are lost in turning over cards, and it is
not easy either to find the particular title that is wanted or to
compare different titles and make a selection;" "(5) that several
persons can consult it at once."
The disadvantages are stated by Mr. Cutter under three heads: "(1) that
it is costly;" "(2) that a mistake once made is made for ever, whereas
in a card catalogue a mistake in name or in classification or in copying
the title can be corrected at any time;" "(3) it is out of date before
it is published. As it cannot contain the newest books, the very ones
most sought for, fresh supplements are continually needed, each of which
causes an additional loss of time and patience to consulters. The
average man will not look in over four places for a book; a few, very
persevering or driven by a great need, will go as far as five or six. It
becomes necessary therefore, if the catalogue is to be of any use, to
print consolidated supplements every five years, and that is expensive."
Of the advantages the main one is No. 4, and of the disadvantages the
only one of any importance is, it seems to me, No. 1.
As to disadvantage No. 2, it is more apparent than real. A mistake in
print will of course remain for ever in the copies of the catalogue
outside the library, but it can easily be corrected in the library copy
either in manuscript or by reprinting the single title in which the
mistake occurs. The card catalogue cannot be used outside the library,
and the catalogue in the library can be as easily corrected whether it
be printed and pasted down on pages or arranged on cards. The two are
equal in this respect. Disadvantage 3 is the stock objection. But what
does it really come to? He who consults the catalogue of a library away
from that library knows that a given book is there if he finds it in the
catalogue; but if it is not in the catalogue, he does not give up hope,
but either visits the library or sends to know if the book he requires
is in. He is no worse off in this case than if there had been no printed
catalogue; and in the former case he is much better off. The library
copy of the catalogue can be kept up as well in print as it can be in
manuscript, and here at all events there will only be one alphabet. It
will therefore be a question for the consulter alone whether it is
better worth his while to consult several supplements than to go
straight to the library. For the purposes of the library, it is quite
unnecessary to reprint or consolidate your supplements, because your
library copy of the catalogue will always be kept up to date. If the
library is a lending one, the subscribers will probably insist upon
having new catalogues, as the supplements become too numerous; but this
is only an additional instance of the advantages of a printed catalogue.
A printed catalogue should never be added to in manuscript, as this
causes the greatest confusion; and, moreover, it is not necessary. It is
quite possible to keep up a catalogue in print for many years; and even
when worn out, if the printed sheets have been kept, a working catalogue
can be made up afresh without printing again. The plan adopted by my
brother, the late Mr. B. R. Wheatley, is so simple, that it seems
scarcely necessary to enlarge upon its merits; but as it has not been
generally adopted, I may perhaps explain it here with advantage. It will
be seen by the specimen on page 59, that each page of the library copy
of the catalogue is divided in two. On the left-hand side is pasted down
the catalogue as it exists at the time, and the right-hand side is left
for additions. These additions may be printed as annual supplements, or
they may be printed from time to time at short intervals on galley slips
on one side only, without being made into pages. This can be done as
suits the best convenience of all concerned; and it is just as easy to
have the titles printed frequently as to have them copied for insertion
in the library copy of the catalogue. The ruled columns are for the
press-marks, and these are arranged on the outside of each column for
purposes of symmetry. It is not advantageous, as a rule, to print the
press-marks in the catalogue, although this is done in the case of the
British Museum. There are two advantages in having two columns of type
on one page. One is that there is a saving of space, and the other is
that it is easier to keep the alphabet in perfect register if it becomes
necessary to insert a page. However well arranged a library copy of a
catalogue may be, it will probably become congested in some places
before the whole catalogue requires readjustment. Now suppose each page
contains only one column of print, and the left-hand page is left for
additions. When both pages are full, and it is necessary to insert a
leaf for fresh additions, it is clear that the correct order of the
alphabet will be thrown out. But if there are two columns on each page,
then the additional leaf will introduce no confusion; for the recto of
the additional leaf will range with the verso of the old leaf, and the
verso of the additional leaf with the recto of the next leaf in the
book. The only difference will be that you will have to run your eye
along four columns instead of two.[18]
================================================================
|Case.|Shelf.| | |Case.|Shelf.|
|-----+-------------------------+-----------------+-----+------|
| B | 1 |~Le Breton~ | | N | 5 |
| | |(Anna Letitia). | | | |
| | |Memoir of Mrs. | | | |
| | |Barbauld, with | | | |
| | |Letters and | | | |
| | |Notices of her | | | |
| | |Family. Sm. | | | |
| | |8vo, London, | | | |
| | |1847. | | | |
| | | | | | |
| B | 2 |----Correspondence| | | |
| | |of Dr. | | | |
| | |Channing and | | | |
| | |Lucy Aikin | | | |
| | |(1826-1842). Sm. | | | |
| | |8vo, London, | | | |
| | |1874. |~Liddell~ | | |
| | | |(Henry Geo.), | | |
| | | |and Robert | | |
| | | |SCOTT. A Lexicon,| | |
| | | |abridged | | |
| | | |from "Liddell | | |
| | | |and Scott's | | |
| | | |Greek-English | | |
| | | |Lexicon"; 14th | | |
| | | |edition. Sm. | | |
| | | |square 8vo, | | |
| | | |Oxford, 1871. | | |
| G | 4 |~McNicoll~ | | | |
| | |(David H.). | | | |
| | |Dictionary of | | | |
| | |Natural History | | | |
| | |Terms, with | | | |
| | |their derivations,| | | |
| | |including the | | | |
| | |various orders, | | | |
| | |genera, and | | | |
| | |species. Sm. | | | |
| | |8vo, London, | | | |
| | |1863. | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
The advantage of this plan is that the library catalogue can be
actually kept up for any length of time without any reprinting. When the
catalogue is filled up, and there is no room for any additions, the
whole may be pasted down afresh as in the first instance, always
presuming that copies of the catalogue and its supplements have been
retained.
Sometimes the pasting down of the print is delegated to the binder; but
it should be done either by the librarian himself, or at all events
under his eye, for much judgment and knowledge are required for the
proper leaving of spaces where the additions are likely to be the
thickest.
Another advantage of this plan is that a practically new library
catalogue may be made up from old printed catalogues. Some
five-and-twenty years ago, the Athenæum Club possessed a worn-out
catalogue of its library. Supplements were printed, and I laid down in
one alphabet a catalogue of the whole, which has lasted to the present
time, although I believe it is pretty well worn out now. There were
certain difficulties to be overcome, for the catalogue and its
supplements were not made on the same system.
Card catalogues have been strongly advocated by some, and they present
many advantages if used while the catalogue is growing in completeness;
but for use when the catalogue is completed they cannot compete in
convenience with the plan just described. It takes much longer to look
through a series of cards representing the works of a given author than
it does to run the eye down a page of titles.[19]
Professor Otis Robinson, in his article on "College Library
Administration" (_United States Report on Public Libraries_, p. 512),
writes thus on the adoption of card catalogues in the United States:--
"In some of the largest libraries of the country the card system has
been exclusively adopted. Several of them have no intention of
printing any more catalogues in book form. In others cards are
adopted for current accessions, with the expectation of printing
supplements from them from time to time. I think the tendency of the
smaller libraries is to adopt the former plan, keeping a manuscript
card catalogue of books as they are added, without a thought of
printing."
This system of cataloguing has not taken hold of the English mind,
although it has been adopted at the Bodleian Library by Mr. Nicholson,
and at the Guildhall Library. The growth of this fashion appears to me
as something almost incomprehensible, and one can only ask why such a
primitive mode of arrangement should be preferred to a book catalogue. I
can scarcely imagine anything more maddening than a frequent reference
to cards in a drawer; and my objection is not theoretical, but formed
on a long course of fingering slips or cards. If the arrangement of the
catalogue is constantly being altered, it may be convenient to have
cards; but when a proper system has been settled at the beginning, this
cannot be necessary. When additions only have to be considered, these
can be inserted into the book catalogue, so that the catalogue may last
for many years. The use of a duplicate set of titles on cards for use in
arrangement, which can be arranged and rearranged as often as required,
is quite another matter. This plan is adopted at the Bodleian.
Varieties of type help the eye to choose out what it requires, and there
is much saving of time in consulting a good printed catalogue instead of
a good manuscript one. This is not a matter of opinion merely, but can
be proved at once by consulting the printed volumes of the British
Museum Catalogue against the volumes still in manuscript.
Before the details of printing are finally settled it is well to pay
particular attention to the typographical arrangement, as a catalogue
will be all the more useful as it is well set out.
A very ingenious scheme for the stereotyping of catalogue titles was
published by Mr. C. C. Jewett, Librarian of the Smithsonian Institution,
in 1850.[20]
The mode of carrying out the plan is explained as follows:--
"1. The Smithsonian Institution to publish rules for the preparation of
catalogues.
"2. To request other institutions intending to publish catalogues of
their books to prepare them according to these rules, with a view to
their being stereotyped under the direction of the Smithsonian
Institution.
"3. The Smithsonian Institution to pay the whole _extra_ expense of
stereotyping, or such part thereof as may be agreed on.
"4. The stereotyped titles to remain the property of the Smithsonian
Institution.
"5. Every library uniting in this plan to have the right of using all
the titles in the possession of the Smithsonian Institution, as often as
desired for the printing of its own catalogue by the Institution; paying
only the expense of making up the pages, of the press work, and of
distributing the titles to their proper places.
"6. The Smithsonian Institution to publish as soon as possible, and at
stated intervals, general catalogues of all libraries coming into this
system."
It is not necessary here to explain how the stereotyped slips were to be
manufactured, as the explanation will be found in the original paper.
A scheme of an allied character was propounded by the late Mr. Henry
Stevens, who read a very interesting and amusing paper before the
Conference of Librarians in 1877 on "Photo-Bibliography; or, A Central
Bibliographical Clearing House" (_Transactions_, pp. 70-81). Mr. Stevens
wrote:--
"My notion is that every book, big and little, that is published,
like every child, big and little, that is born, should be
registered, without inquiry into its merits or character.... I ask
the attention of this Conference of Librarians to a word on the
necessity of cataloguing every book printed; the importance of
printed card catalogues of old, rare, beautiful, and costly books,
and how to make them on a co-operative or universal system, which,
for lack of a better term, I shall for the present call
'photo-bibliography.' For carrying out this project a Central
Bibliographical Bureau or Clearing House for Librarians is
suggested."
The author goes on to say:--
"From the days of Hipparchus to the present time, the stars have
been catalogued; and to-day every bird, beast, fish, shell, insect,
and living thing, yea every tree, shrub, flower, rock, and gem, as
they become known are scientifically, systematically, and
intelligently named, described, and catalogued. In all these
departments of human knowledge there is a well-ascertained and
generally acknowledged system, which is dignified as a science."
But no such system of registering books has ever been attempted. The
cure for this negligence is then suggested:--
"This isolation and waste of vain repetition, it is believed, is
wholly unnecessary. There is no royal road, it has been said, to
knowledge. He who would attain the goal must learn to labour and to
wait, for knowledge is locked up mainly in books, appropriately
termed works. There is, however, a short cut with a pass-key in
universal or co-operative bibliography, a simple system of
arrangement by which may be economized the labours of hundreds who
are cataloguing over and over the same books."
Mr. Stevens's special contribution to this great object was the use of
reduced photographs of the title-pages of rare and curious books. The
adoption of this plan would help on vastly the study of bibliography.
The strong feeling as to the waste of time occupied in the constant
repetition going on in cataloguing the same book in different libraries
crops up again and again, and surely we shall in the end be able to
elaborate some scheme which will meet such a universally felt want.
Professor Robinson was one of the earliest to protest against this
waste, and his attention was called to it when inspecting various card
catalogues. He found similar cards being repeatedly reproduced, and he
suggested that by some system of cooperation this waste of labour might
be reduced (_United States Report on Public Libraries_, pp. 512-14).
Two practical suggestions have been made. One is that every publisher
should place in each copy of each book issued by him a catalogue slip
made upon a proper system which has been settled by competent
authorities, so that there may be a satisfactory uniformity; and the
other that each government should catalogue every work published in its
country. The former plan is scarcely likely to be undertaken
systematically by all publishers, but the latter one might be carried
out in connection with the ratification of copyright privileges. Every
publication should be registered, and a copy submitted at the
registration office. A part of the business of this office should be to
issue periodically proper catalogue slips of every work registered, on a
settled plan that had been well thought out by experts. The authorities
of Stationers' Hall ought long ago to have been instructed to issue
lists of all the books registered there; and if they were not prepared
to undertake the duties indicated by the new Registration Law, the
office might possibly be transferred to the British Museum with
advantage. If England initiated such a scheme, other nations would
probably follow its lead. At present the Catalogue of the British
Museum, as now published, to some extent fulfils the required
conditions; but much that is published in Great Britain even escapes
through the meshes of the Museum's widespread net.
However much printed catalogues may be superior to manuscript ones, the
latter must always be used in a large number of cases, especially for
private libraries; and therefore it may be well to say a few words here
respecting the preparation and keeping up of a manuscript catalogue.
There are two ways of making and keeping up a new catalogue. The one is
that adopted at the British Museum, which was suggested simultaneously
by the Right Hon. J. Wilson Croker, and by Mr. Roy, one of the Assistant
Librarians in the Printed Book Department. The catalogue slips are
lightly pasted down into guarded volumes, the ends being left unpasted,
so that the slips can easily be detached with the help of a paper-knife
if it be needful at any time to change their position.
The other plan is to copy out fairly the titles on one side of sheets of
paper, proper spaces being left, as well as the whole of the opposite
page for additions. These sheets are afterwards bound into a volume or
volumes. The former plan is the best for a large and a constantly
increasing catalogue; but the latter plan is more satisfactory for an
ordinary private library, as it forms a more shapable and better-looking
volume. From experience it may be said that a catalogue of this kind,
in which proper spaces have been left, will last for many years; and
should it become congested in any one portion, it is quite easy to
rewrite those pages on a larger scale, and have the volume rebound.
======================================================
|Case.|Shelf.| |Size.|Date.|
|-----+------+---------------------------+-----+-----|
| 10 | B | HAYDN (Joseph). Haydn's |_8vo_|1878 |
| | | Dictionary of Dates and | | |
| | | Universal Information, | | |
| | | relating to all ages and | | |
| | | nations; 16th edition, | | |
| | | containing the History of | | |
| | | the World to the autumn | | |
| | | of 1878, by Benjamin | | |
| | | Vincent. _London_. | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
A specimen of how paper should be ruled for a manuscript catalogue made
on the latter plan is given on page 72. The columns at the right-hand
side of the paper, for size and date, add to the clearness of the
catalogue, as well as making the page look neater. The most useful size
is about 1 ft. 5 in. high by 11-1/2 in. wide--the size of Whatman's best
drawing paper, which can be used with advantage.
[Decoration]
FOOTNOTES:
[16] It must be thoroughly understood that this catalogue of letter A is
in itself an excellent piece of work. Its shortcomings are entirely due
to incompleteness caused by premature printing.
[17] _Transactions_ of the Fourth and Fifth Annual Meetings of the
Library Association, 1884, pp. 122-23. In the discussion which followed
the reading of this paper, I ventured to speak of the British Museum
having been converted to the advantages of printing. Mr. Bullen in his
speech said: "There were those in the Museum, Mr. Garnett and himself
among them, who, long before the present time, advocated printed, in
contradistinction to manuscript, catalogues. As a manuscript catalogue
was one of the greatest advantages to a library, so a printed catalogue
must of course be of a hundred times greater advantage" (p. 207).
[18] I find that the merits of this plan are not so self-evident as I
thought, for my friend, Mr. J. B. Bailey, Librarian of the Royal College
of Surgeons, who has had experience of a double columned catalogue,
prefers a single column with the _verso_ of each page left for
additions. I allow that there may be advantages in the latter, but as an
octavo page of print is very narrow it is wasteful of space to have only
one column. Where it is no disadvantage to have a catalogue in several
volumes, this question of space need not be considered.
[19] Mr. Cutter gives some useful information respecting card catalogues
and the drawers used for keeping the cards, in his article on "Library
Catalogues" (_United States Report on Public Libraries_, pp. 555-60).
[20] "A Plan for Stereotyping Catalogues by Separate Titles, and for
forming a General Stereotyped Catalogue of Public Libraries in the
United States." _Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, held at New Haven, Conn.,
August 1850_ (8vo, Washington, 1851).
[Decoration]
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
_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]
CHAPTER V.
REFERENCES AND SUBJECT INDEX.
I suppose it may be conceded that in the abstract the most useful kind
of catalogue is that which contains the titles and subject references in
one alphabet; but in the particular case of a large library this system
is not so convenient, because the subject references unnecessarily swell
the size of the catalogue, and by their frequency confuse the title
entries. For instance, it is something appalling to conjecture what
would be the size of the British Museum Catalogue if subject references
were included in the general alphabet. In the case of a large library it
will be more convenient to have an index of subjects forming a separate
alphabet by itself, and this cannot be made until the catalogue of
authors is completed. Taking a somewhat arbitrary limit, it may be said
that in libraries containing more than ten thousand volumes it will be
found more useful to have a distinct index of subjects, while in
catalogues of libraries below that number it will generally be advisable
to include the subject references with the titles in one general
alphabet.
If all the subject references are reserved for an index, there will
still remain a large number of references in the general alphabet which
are required for the proper use of the catalogue; and here it may be
well to say something as to the nomenclature of references. Mr. Cutter,
in the valuable series of definitions prefixed to his _Rules for a
Dictionary Catalogue_, has the following:--
"_Reference_, partial registry of a book (omitting the imprint)
under author, title, subject, or kind, referring to a more full
entry under some other heading; occasionally used to denote merely
entries without imprints, in which the reference is implied. The
distinction of entry and reference is almost without meaning for
Short, as a title-a-liner saves nothing by referring unless there
are several references.
"_Analytical reference_, or simply an analytical registry of some
part of a book or of some work contained in a collection, referring
to the heading under which the book or collection is entered.
"_Cross reference_, reference from one subject to another.
"_Heading reference_, from one form of a heading to another.
"_First-word reference_, _catch-word reference_, _subject-word
reference_, same as first-word entry, omitting the imprint and
referring."
These definitions are important, and it would be well if the distinction
here made as to what a cross-reference really is were borne in mind. It
has become the practice among bibliographers to describe all references
as cross-references. This is the case in the British Mus
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/41813