Part 1

AGGRAVATING LADIES

BEING A LIST OF WORKS PUBLISHED UNDER THE PSEUDONYM OF “A LADY,” WITH PRELIMINARY SUGGESTIONS ON THE ART OF DESCRIBING BOOKS BIBLIOGRAPHICALLY.

BY

OLPHAR HAMST

“The time is coming when really learned men will again be ashamed of not seeing the value of all the uses of mind: when nothing but thoughtlessness or impudence, mercurial brain or brazen forehead, will aver that no knowledge is practical, except that which ends in the use of material instruments.”—Prof. De Morgan (Arithmetical Books 1847, p. 54).

LONDON BERNARD QUARITCH 15 PICCADILLY 1880.

CONTENTS.

PAGE.

Preface 5

Preliminary Remarks 7

How to describe a Book 9

Cataloguing 10

Of different descriptions of books 14

Matters to be attended to in Cataloguing 21

Style of Printing 27

Punctuation 29

The beginning and the end 30

Of errors 32

On the means of identifying the authors of 35 anonymous and pseudonymous publications

List of Works by a Lady 40

Advertisements 52

Index 54

PREFACE.

In the course of collecting materials for my “Handbook of Fictitious Names of Authors of the Nineteenth Century,” I came across the titles of a number of works purporting to be written by “A Lady,” the authorship of which appeared to be unknown.

It occurred to me that I might probably ascertain the names of many of the authors, and also proper descriptions of such of the books as I had not seen, and was unable to see, if I printed a list of them. As however, the essential points to be attended to, in the proper description of a book, are little understood, I thought it would be desirable to prefix to the list a few suggestions on the way to supply correct information. These gradually developed, so that I soon found the subject required more space, more time, and more consideration than I at first imagined.

In the hope that I might obtain assistance from others, and with a view to getting hints and exciting discussion, I wrote an article for “Notes and Queries,” which was printed in the numbers for January and April of 1872, entitled, “How to describe a Book.” I now go more fully into the matters that I consider require attention in the proper description of a book.

An explanation of the title of this essay will no doubt be looked for in the preface. It is very simple. In my searches for the Authors’ names, the ladies in this list have resisted all enquiry in the most aggravating manner. Therefore I took the title of Aggravating Ladies as being concise and appropriate.

The information asked for relates only to English Literature of the 19th century, to which period I confine myself entirely. The anonymous and pseudonymous writers during this century being more than sufficient to occupy a whole life of laborious application.

I have not included in the list any phrases such as:—A Lady of Rank—A Lady of Distinction—A Lady of Hebrew faith—A Banished Lady—A Young Lady—A too generous Young Lady—nor, A Lady of distinction, who has witnessed and attentively studied what is esteemed truly graceful and elegant amongst the most refined nations of Europe (!) The pseudonym of the author of The Mirror of the Graces, or an English lady’s costume [treating of] ... taste ... grace; modesty ... dress ...; rank ... in life; ... of accomplishments; ... the mind ... means of preserving beauty ...; by a lady, &c. London, Crosby & Co., 1811.

On the other hand I have inserted some titles which have been entered in different catalogues as by “a lady,” when those words do not occur on the title. Such works probably being really written by a lady, the publisher naturally desired they should go forth with that impress of good faith and with all the prestige attaching to that talismanic little word.

As I have already explained, my list comprises only works published in the present century, whose authors are unknown to me. I have a longer list of works by “a lady,” whose names are known, and who have therefore ceased to be aggravating. I do not give the title when I know the name of the author because I am now seeking not supplying information.

Another list as long as that I give at the end I have not printed, not having been able to see the books themselves so as to describe them from actual inspection.

I shall be grateful for information as to any of the works, or the lives of these Aggravating Ladies.

38, Doughty Street, W.C.

July, 1880.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

What’s in a name?

Ask the booksellers, and they will tell you, _much_ in the title-page of a new book....

The making up of a taking title-page, seems to have been the peculiar province of the bookseller, time out of mind.—_Fly leaves.... London_ [published and edited by] _John Miller_, 1854.

After a perusal of my list I think every gentleman will agree with me that Ladies really are very aggravating. It would be curious to hear the exclamation of any lady who has written as “A lady,” upon looking it over. She would probably exclaim that when she wrote as “A lady,” she thought she was the only one, or at all events one of the first.

The authoress of: “How to dress on £15 a year as a lady, by a lady,” would no doubt be surprised to find such a long list for the present century alone. I mention this flowing and somewhat vigorously written little work; but it is of too recent a date for me to make any enquiry for the author’s name, especially as it is a secret that, from the present popularity of the book, is not likely to be long kept.[1] For I have remarked that though these ladies do not like placing their names on their books, yet there is little desire to disguise the authorship, and enquiries are generally soon satisfied if a work has attained any success. They like to see themselves in print, so long as there is no infringement of the patent of modesty.

Footnote 1:

Since this was written (1875) the author’s name has been divulged, and there has also been a Chancery Suit in relation to the work. I have put the book in the list which follows as an illustration of some of my remarks.

The inference from this is that my list is composed chiefly of works that have not become famous or popular, which is the fact. If secresy were their object, it has to the present time been attained, for they have defied my researches. Nevertheless I believe that to some one of the author’s friends or relations she has been known, but “no man is a prophet in his own country,” and friends and relations very often care too little for what literary ladies are doing to follow Captain Cuttle’s advice and “make a note” of an author’s name. Knowledge is often the greatest enemy to the recording of facts. People often know so well whom a book is by, that they are not even aware of its pseudonimity. The majority of novel readers never know the name of the author, nor do they care to enquire, and much prefer reading a novel “By the author of” some previous work which has interested them.

In many cases I am asking for information which the authoresses do not conceal, and which is well known though unknown to me.

Thus I ascribe my not knowing the name of the author rather to the fact of there being no one to make a note of it when found, than any desire on the fair writer’s part to remain unknown. When a lady has written her first work as “a lady” she seldom adopts that denomination in her second work; but more frequently uses the term “By the author of” the previous work, or “By a lady, author of,” etc.

HOW TO DESCRIBE A BOOK.

“If you are troubled with a pride of accuracy, and would have it completely taken out of you, print a catalogue.” (Author unknown).

Dr. Aikin used to say, that nothing is such an obstacle to the production of excellence as the power of producing what is pretty good with ease and rapidity. _The Circulator_ [1825] quoted in the Manual of Laconics by John Taylor, 1838, p. 361.

Practice is the best, if not the only way to learn how to describe a book. Simply reading descriptions of what to do is of little use. Indeed practice is found to teach so much, that we often find authors of bibliographical books cancelling the early portions of their works in order to correct those defects and deficiencies which experience has brought forcibly to their notice. Such was the case with the first part of Quérard’s France Littéraire, which was called in and cancelled; and the Bibliotheca Cornubiensis of Boase and Courtney, published by Longmans in 1874.

Every one must be guided by their particular requirements; but must never lose sight of the absolute necessity there is of following a system rigidly, and of being accurate.

With these preliminary remarks I will now proceed to give some hints derived from my own experience.

CATALOGUING.

“The sheet-anchor of cataloguing-work, as of all other true work that a man has to do, is accuracy.”—_Edward Edwards_ (Memoirs of Libraries, 1859, vol. II. 868).

... “l’exactitude est le meilleur fondment du succès des livres de bibliographie.”—Quérard, Omissions et bévues du livre intitulé La Littérature Française contemporaine ... 1848, p. xv.

“As bibliographers, we cannot indeed but wish, that the catalogue of every library were a bibliographical dictionary of its books.... There is no species of literary labor so arduous, or which makes so extensive demands upon the learning of the author, as that of the preparation of such works.”—Smithsonian Report on the construction of catalogues.... By C. C. Jewett.... 1853, p. 10.

“It is impossible to labor successfully, without a rigid adherence to rules. Although such rules be not formally enunciated, they must exist in the mind of the cataloguer and guide him, or the result of his labors will be mortifying and unprofitable.”—Ibid, p. 17.

I have used the word Bibliography, but I must warn the student that it is meaningless, or, rather, its meanings are so numerous and varied, being used for every sort of thing connected with books, that for any scientific purpose the word is useless. Bibliotheca also is used amongst other things to express a miscellaneous collection of titles; whether good, bad, or indifferent, matters little.

What is wanted is a short word which shall express that a book is accurately described. The word catalogue is worse for its indefinite meaning than bibliotheca or bibliography. The science or art of describing books has no technical term.[2]

Footnote 2:

The reader can refer to Notes and Queries, 4 Series IX, p. 8, for some remarks on the inconvenient length of bibliographical words.

In describing books, accuracy is the one thing to attain. And the object should be so to describe the book, that anybody else shall be certain from the description that a particular book they have in hand is the one described.

So difficult did Prof. De Morgan consider this, with regard to early printed books that he said if he had to do his work on “Arithmetical Books” over again he would invariably describe some defect or error in the printing.

I now propose to give some hints on this subject, premising that there is at present no “Grammar” of Bibliography—nothing settled, no recognized authority.

Supposing a person were about to make a catalogue of a library, or even of a few books, the first thing to do is to lay down certain rules, to be strictly adhered to, or adopt rules laid down by another for that purpose. This has been done for many years past by the librarians of our National Library. So that there at least we have a Catalogue that we can depend upon so far as it goes: how far that is the rules inform us. Several of them simply provide against the prevailing loose notions of cataloguing. Rules for example to tell us that titles are written straight on as they are found, or in the language in which the book is written and not in another, read like satires on ignorance. And yet how necessary they are.

These rules, invaluable as a guide to every catalogue maker, will be found printed in the: Catalogue of printed books in the British Museum, volume 1. London, printed by order of the trustees, MDCCCXLI, in folio; the Preface is signed by the editor Sir Antonio Panizzi, and examples of the rules will be found in: A handbook for Readers at the British Museum, by Thomas Nichols, assistant in the British Museum, London, Longman, 1866, p. 51. This useful little work unfortunately has no index. A catalogue drawn up according to the rules of the Museum will be found in: “A list of the books of reference in the Reading room of the British Museum.”

The rules are ninety-one in number but for small libraries where provision is not required for every language under the sun, a smaller number would be sufficient.[3]

Footnote 3:

Since the above was written a most exhaustive and useful work rendering a reference to any other almost superfluous has been published, entitled “Rules for a printed dictionary catalogue by Charles A. Cutter,” forming part II of the Special Report on public libraries in the United States, Washington, 1876.

Whatever rules are determined upon should be printed in the catalogue, so that those who consult it may know at once whether or not they are likely to find what they want and how.

The first question that arises is the amount of title page information to be given. To abbreviate or not abbreviate becomes the difficult question. It generally resolves itself into one of expense, and abbreviated titles are determined upon.

I now therefore treat of the matter as it is, and not as it should be, for if I treated it as it should be, namely with full titles, I should have little to say.

He must have been a bold man who first began to abbreviate titles for a catalogue. It is a most unsatisfactory practice, though now having long precedent for its use. It is like cutting off a leg or an arm, the body can still go on, it is true, but it is nevertheless mutilated.

The more title page information a bibliotheca gives the greater will be its usefulness. Everything, however, is subordinate to the proper description of the book. If that is done upon certain principles and rules, the cataloguer will at least be consistent, which few of the present day are.

Every word of a title may be given and yet be inaccurate, on the other hand half the title may be left out and yet be accurate[4] though not perfect as I shall presently show.

Footnote 4:

Instead of “inaccurate” and “accurate,” I had written the words “unbibliographical” and “bibliographical,” but as I have already explained that word does not at present necessarily include accuracy, which word will better explain what I wish to impress on the student.

The ordinary and most popular way of referring to or describing a book is to reverse everything and alter the title. For example, let us suppose it is stated that in 1868 Messrs. Longman published an octavo volume of 800 pages by George Brown, entitled a Treatise on the best mode of ventilation. Here everything is topsy turvy, besides being incorrectly called a treatise instead of an essay.[5] The proper title being: An historical essay on ventilation, by George Brown, London, Longman, 1868, octavo, pp. xv. 786.

Instances of this kind of thing the student will find at every turn, in every publication, periodical or otherwise.

Footnote 5:

Refer to the remarks of Bolton Corney “On the new general Biographical dictionary”, p. 33.

Another bad practice is cutting short the title page and explaining in a note what the book is about almost in the words of the author, so that all the necessary information is given, only incorrectly instead of correctly, an example of which, taken from Lowndes, will be found in my list.

The difficulty is not to find instances of looseness in describing books, but to find instances where they are properly described. I know of few bibliothecas, English or foreign, that can be relied on.

Probably these will appear to some trivial matters. Yet what thought and anxious consideration do most authors give to the titles of their works, before they finally suit their fancy; frequently, indeed, not being satisfied with them as sent forth to the world. How has the author considered whether he will put his own name, or whether he will write under a fictitious name, or his initials, or simply call himself “A Gentleman,” or designate himself by the office he holds as “A Magistrate.” Then, with what difficulty has he at last settled upon a publisher, and for what a number of reasons may he have done so. And yet some ruthless barbarian, who is totally ignorant of all the trouble that has been taken, and who knows nothing of the subject, cuts down our author’s title without hesitation. Or perhaps, what is still more astonishing, an author himself, although he has given the matter so much thought, will sometimes on being asked, send a list of his works, in which not a single title shall be correct, in which he will leave out all the first words, erroneously state the subject as in the book instead of as it appears on the title page: omit to say when published, whether with his own name or not; and, finally, and almost invariably, leave out the publisher’s name, which cost him so much pains to decide on.

OF DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF BOOKS.

Catalogues must have nothing to do with distinctions between celebrity and obscurity. They must aim at serving the tyro no less than the professor.—_Edward Edwards_ (Memoirs of Libraries, 1859, II., p. 836).

Books may be classed under four heads, namely (1) Autonymous—(2) Polyonymous—(3) Pseudonymous, and—(4) Anonymous.

1. Autonymous, the first and most common is with the author’s name either on the title-page, or if not on the title-page, signed to a preface, introduction, letter, or dedication, or in some part of the book, or at the end. Speeches though usually anonymous with regard to the reporting or editing, are frequently catalogued under the name of the speaker as autonymous.

2. Polyonymous, is with several authors’ names. It is usual to enter them under the name of the first author, with cross references from the others.

3. Pseudonymous, without the author’s name, but with a fictitious name or designation, thus giving some indication as to the author, though possibly a very slight one. No matter in what part of the book the pseudonym appears, the work is pseudonymous.[6]

In cataloguing, the pseudonym should no more be left out, than the author’s name. If an author uses a pseudonym on the title, but gives his real name in the book, it is not pseudonymous, but must be catalogued as autonymous. In this case, as in all others, the pseudonym should be given, even if the title is abbreviated. In fact the pseudonym for bibliographical purposes takes the place of the author’s name. I have not space here to enumerate the different classes of pseudonyms, of which there are many varieties.[7]

Footnote 6:

For a curious instance see the Handbook of Fictitious Names, p. 94. One who is BUT an attorney; and One who thinks for himself _i.e._ T. Truewit.

Footnote 7:

A list, unfortunately containing many errors, will be found at the end of “A notice of the life and works of J. M. Quérard by Olphar Hamst: London, J. R. Smith, 1867.” This list is adopted by John Power in his “Handy-book about books,” with all my errors and a good stock of his own to boot. There is an extended treatise on pseudonyms in the introduction to either edition of Quérard’s “Supercheries Littéraires Devoilées.” The subject is also treated of in M. Octave Delepierre’s “Supercheries littéraires, pastiches,” Londres, Trübner, 1872. Probably the earliest treatise is that entitled “Auteurs déguisez,” Paris, 1690, by Adrien Baillet, but published without his name.

4. Lastly an Anonymous book is one without the author’s name, whether on the title page, or any part of the book. The word anonymous has been and still is very indiscriminately used to include pseudonymous. The cataloguer must be careful not to be betrayed into this error so fruitful of inaccuracy. This class of books has resisted the most strenuous efforts of the learned to bring it within rules, every rule for cataloguing such books requiring an exception. With anonymous works having simple titles, such as “Aggravating Ladies” (supposing a work to be published anonymously with such a title) the task is easy. Though even this example will illustrate the difficulty of the subject, for there are only two words and there are two ways of cataloguing, each having advantages. By one system it would come under “Aggravating” and by the other under “Ladies.” According to the system of Audiffredi[8] and of Barbier[9] and of a similar work on English authors[10], it would be catalogued by the first word, and for such works this is the most approved method[11]. According to the Rules of the British Museum it would be catalogued under Ladies.

Footnote 8:

Audiffredi’s work, referred to in the Report on the British Museum (1850, p. 469), it is entitled “Bibliothecæ Casanatensis catalogus librorum typis impressorum,” tom 1-4, A-K. Roma, 1761-1788, fol., and is quoted by Barbier at p. xlviii of the work referred to in the next note.

Footnote 9:

Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes ... par A. A. Barbier ... Paris, 1806, 4 vols, 8o. It is curious to note that Barbier had not settled in his own mind at the date of the above the first edition, what was an anonymous work. He describes it as one upon the title page of which the author is not named, and he then states that sometimes the author’s name is found in the work; but he says it is the custom to class them all as anonymous and not to distinguish different degrees of anonymity. In the second edition in 1826 he very properly eliminated so far as he was able such works as contained the authors’ names. For many things the first edition is better than the second, in which many of the titles we are told were abbreviated. In the third and last and best edition, part of which was published in 1872, his son, (see p. xxix., note) has so far as he was able, re-instated such titles because so many editors and others still continue to consider a work anonymous if the author’s name does not occur on the title page. This is a step backwards, and the sooner M. Olivier Barbier throws the editors and others overboard the better.

Footnote 10:

A prospectus was issued in 1872, with the title: A dictionary of the anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain by the late Samuel Halkett.—See Notes and Queries 4 s. IX., p. 403.