Part 2

Footnote 11:

And is recommended in a pamphlet entitled: Hints on the formation of small libraries, by W. E. A. Axon, London, Trübner [1869] reprinted in: A handy book about books, by J. Power, Lond., J. Wilson, 1870, p. 156, and he adopts it in: The literature of the Lancashire dialect, a bibliographical essay, by W. E. A. Axon, 1870.

It affords matter for consideration when we find it stated that “An anonymous work is seldom read with confidence or quoted as an authority.”[12]

Footnote 12:

Bolton Corney, “On the new general Biographical dictionary,” 1839, p. 15.

Many publications intended expressly for youth, and therefore requiring some guarantee that they are fit for the purpose, are published without the author’s name, though frequently with an indication of sex.

It may probably be that little as is the credit given to the anonymous or pseudonymous work, for in the above quotation both are meant, it would obtain less if it had the author’s real name[13].

Footnote 13:

For examples see Notes and Queries 3rd s. XII, 394, and the Handbook of Fictitious Names.

To shew that a book was published without the author’s name, whether anonymous or pseudonymous, some bibliographers have put an asterisk or star at the beginning of the title. I am not aware that this, or indeed any plan has systematically been adopted in any English work, except within the last few years. In his learned Essay On the Literature of Political economy, p. x, J. R. McCulloch says: “When the name of the author of a work is included between brackets, it shows that it was published anonymously.” He uses anonymous here in the sense of without the author’s name, and to include pseudonymous. I made use of the star in the Handbook of Fictitious Names in 1868, but only to indicate anonymity, and not as Quérard uses it. In Notes and Queries for the 6th April, 1872, I suggested the adoption of a line — to shew that a book was published pseudonymously. And I made use of both signs in my Bibliographical list of Lord Brougham’s publications. These signs have the advantage of attracting the eye, and declaring at once the class of book. On the other hand they cannot be used for foot notes, are likely to be overlooked in printing, and there is always great difficulty in getting readers to find out what signs mean. On the whole after much consideration I have determined for the future to use simply abbreviations of the words anonymous and pseudonymous which everybody understands without explanation.

As in describing a book the principal object is to enable the student to identify it, so that there may be no doubt that the cataloguer’s remarks upon a certain book apply to that for which the reader is searching. It is less important that autonymous works should be catalogued so fully as anonymous, because the author’s name is at once a guide. For though two autonymous works bear the same title their authors’ names would be different. But not so with two anonymous works having the same title.

Pseudonymous works, in which the pseudonym is a name and not a phrase or denomination, would come in the same category.

For anonymous, and frequently for pseudonymous works it is not only desirable to give the full title, but to supplement it with any further information that will help identification. As for example, if the book is printed at a different place to that of sale or publication[14] or if dated and addressed from what would appear to be the author’s residence, or if there is any allusion in the work or the advertisements[15] to other publications of the same author. Examples of all will be found in my list. Though a book be anonymous so far as the title page informs us, yet if pseudonymous from the preface or introduction being signed with a fictitious name, or with initials or denomination, or other qualification, it should be catalogued as pseudonymous. Thus following the rule with regard to autonyms. Except when signed:—The Author, The Editor, The Translator, Himself, or Herself, of which it is best to take no notice, even if on the title. Such works should be considered anonymous without even giving cross-references from those words.

Footnote 14:

Many London publishers have printing houses out of town, in such cases the place of printing is no guide.

Footnote 15:

Advertisements should generally be preserved. If, however, a book has been through a binder’s hands there is little chance of their surviving. Never send a book to the binder without special instructions to preserve the advertisements and covers or wrappers, and mark every page intended to be kept, otherwise there is a barbarous custom amongst binders, arising from ignorance or cupidity, of denuding every pamphlet of the covers and advertisements which frequently teem with matter useful in after years. Binders like to treat books like convicts, and shave their heads.

Of whatever description, whether autonymous, or anonymous, or pseudonymous, the first words of the title, or the half title, should be quoted correctly, and exactly as they occur, and to this rule there should be no exception, whether for bibliographical lists, or for the purpose of citation as an authority. For in the latter case, however familiar the work cited may be, there are sure to be readers unfamiliar with it, to whom a loose reference will cause trouble. The half title or any abbreviation of the title, if used by the author of the book may be adopted.

Few things cause greater waste of time amongst literary men than the habitually careless manner in which they give references. Not only should a book be correctly described, but the edition or date and page ought to be added. Bibliographers (which term I here use to mean persons who have concerned themselves with the description of books) have sinned terribly in this respect by giving descriptions of books at second, or even third-hand, and repeating the mistakes and blunders of the original authority. Title pages are like rumours, the oftener they are repeated the more incorrect they become. The student should never rely upon a catalogue for the description of a book, unless the compiler has adhered strictly to rules. A statement in bibliothecas, biographical dictionaries, or catalogues, that a work is anonymous, can never be relied upon[16].

Footnote 16:

Those who desire to see examples of several classes of errors to be avoided can refer to the following works. On the new general Biographical dictionary: a specimen of amateur criticism in letters [signed Bolton Corney] to Mr. Sylvanus Urban [motto] London: Shoberl, 1839, 8o. A remarkable piece of criticism indispensable to every biographer or bibliographer.

Arithmetical books ... being brief notices of a large number of works drawn up from actual inspection by Augustus de Morgan ... London, 1847. See the preface and introduction to this valuable and interesting work. The English catalogue of books, 1864, makes an edition of this work with the date 1853, at 2s 6d. Being desirous of possessing this, I wrote to the learned Professor to know where it was to be obtained, and what difference there was, he replied:—“The difference between the 1st and 2nd edition of my Arithmetical Books, is the difference between something and nothing, which, let Hegel say what he will, is a very great difference. There is not any second edition, nor I think, will be.” Refer also to an article by De Morgan in the Companion to the Almanac for 1853, entitled “On the difficulty of correct description of books,” pp. 5 to 19, full of various and useful matter.

Handbook of Fictitious names of authors of the XIXth Century ... by Olphar Hamst ..., 1868, p. xi.

Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes par A. A. Barbier, 3e. ed., 1872, see the note by Olivier Barbier on the second page of the advertisement to the first volume.

After the first few words of the title every abbreviation or omission should be indicated by three dots ... close together not thus. . . . This is a better method than using an “etc.,” a sign which from the carelessness of authors is frequently found on title-pages of books, and if used by both authors and cataloguers we should never know which. As few authors could explain the meaning of an “&c.” on the title, it is not likely that readers can guess.

It has been customary to omit mottoes without any indication of the omission, and this has been done in one of the most bibliographical works published in England[17]. I only know of one work of importance where special notice is taken of such omissions.[18]

Footnote 17:

A descriptive catalogue of Friends’ books, ... by Joseph Smith, in two vols, ... 1867.

Footnote 18:

This is the: Catalogue of the Manchester free library, reference department, prepared by A. Crestadoro, ... 1864, where the omission is indicated by three stars.

In my “List of works on Swimming,” I give full titles, including mottoes of all the books I was able to see. In my “Bibliographical list of Lord Brougham’s publications,” I indicate the place of the motto on the title.

If a title page has a motto its omission should be shewn thus [motto].

To print mottoes when numerous or lengthy in an extensive work seems quite out of the question. When short it is a luxury the bibliographer may occasionally indulge in. I confess that this is one of the points I have felt extremely puzzled about. I never abbreviate or omit anything from a title-page without fear and trembling, which is intensified in the case of mottoes. They frequently in one short verse, or sentence, give the pith of a book, and my fear is that some one in the future should wonder how I could be so stupid as to suggest their omission.

All additions should be indicated with the same care by placing them between brackets [ ]. Additions in titles should be as few and as short as possible, all explanatory matter can be given in a note.

Sometimes authors use brackets or parentheses on the title pages. When this is the case, if of no use or unimportant, they should be left out by the cataloguer. For instance, when an author has the words [Reprinted from, &c.] in the title. To omit the brackets is the least misleading, for if left in it would look as if this information were not supplied by the author, and if (_sic_) were put it would not be understood as referring to the brackets.

MATTERS TO BE ATTENDED TO IN CATALOGUING.

In arranging a number of rules, it is difficult to please every reader. I have frequently been unable to satisfy myself; and therefore, cannot expect that the arrangement which I have at last adopted will give universal satisfaction.—W. LENNIE, The principles of English grammar ... 34th ed., Edinb., 1854, p. 4.

Cataloguers may comment upon, but should never alter what it has been deemed right to state on the title page of a book by those who have framed it.—Art of making catalogues, &c. [by A. Crestadoro], 1856, p. 14.

In cataloguing or describing a book six points at least should be kept in view as necessary to its identification.[19]

(1.) Title.

(2.) Name of author, and sometimes description.

(3.) Place of publication.

(4.) Publisher’s name, and sometimes address.

(5.) The date of publication.

(6.) The size.

Footnote 19:

The student may refer to the useful little pamphlet above quoted, entitled: The art of making catalogues of libraries, or a method to obtain in a short time, a most perfect, complete, and satisfactory printed catalogue of the British Museum library, by a reader therein [Dr. Crestadoro], Lond. 1856, p. 38.

If full titles (that is, an exact transcript of the title from beginning to the end), are given, it will only be necessary for the cataloguer to supply in its proper, or most suitable place, such of the above information as is not on the title-page.

If abbreviations be adopted several considerations arise.

(1.) As to so much of the title as occurs before the author’s name we have already said that the first few words should be copied word for word, and afterwards every omission should be denoted by dots.

(2.) The name of the author should not be abbreviated, if it renders it difficult to distinguish between two with the same initials. If the author’s qualifications are omitted or abbreviated, dots ... of omission should be inserted. A description after a name is often very important and useful in determining the degree of credit to be attached to the work, but they are frequently so numerous that they are too long for most catalogues.

Works in more than one volume generally have the number on the title, as “In three volumes, vol 1.” Take no notice of “Vol I.,” but invariably state the number of volumes in the order in which it occurs on the title-page. The number of volumes, however, is not always stated; in some works each volume simply has “Vol I,” or “Vol II,” on the title, when this is so, the number of volumes should be stated after the date thus: “1873, in three volumes, octavo.” The reader would then know whether the number of volumes was stated on the title or not.

There will be cases where this rule will not sufficiently indicate the fact, as for instance, when the first does not, but the second does, state the number of volumes. A note will meet this case, if necessary.

It may appear to some that so trifling a matter is unworthy of note, but with this the cataloguer has nothing to do. His business is to note facts however trivial, whether anybody should ever require them is not in his province.

(3.) Place of publication. Several places of publication are frequently given in the imprint of a book, when this is the case, the first place should, at all events, be given, and if the book is not printed as well as published there, the place where it is printed should be stated.

(4.) The Publisher’s name we seldom find in any list of books. I never recollect to have seen it in any catalogue of a library, and in very few bibliographical works. And yet it is often of great importance. In cataloguing works without the author’s name it should seldom if ever be omitted, however much the title is abbreviated. The publisher’s address may often be added with advantage, especially in cases where he is little known. For many firms who have been issuing works from the same house for a century or even longer, it seems superfluous.[20]

Footnote 20:

I must remind the student that I am only writing for present century books, I have no experience of cataloguing old books.

Both name and address of publishers may be abbreviated without marks of omission, a rule having been made to that effect, so that the reader may be apprised of the fact. Some small elementary works have as many as ten or fifteen places and double that number of publishers in the imprint, these of course would not be given in full unless with some special object.

The publisher’s name when well known is also important as frequently giving a character, or guarantee, if not of the literary worth of a book, at all events of its sincerity.

If the publisher is also the author, but does not signify that fact, the book must be considered anonymous. The publisher’s name (that is the author’s) must be repeated, as would be the case if written by another person.

Privately printed[21] works are frequently issued without the name of a publisher or bookseller, though less frequently without that of a printer, which if not on the title should be supplied in parenthesis or in a note.

Footnote 21:

For examples the student can refer to the only English work on the subject, of which two editions have been issued, viz., Martin’s Bibliographical catalogue of privately printed books. It is necessary to have both editions in consequence of the death of the author, unfortunately interrupting the completion of the second.

(5.) The date of publication, if not on the title, will like the author’s name, be frequently found in some other part of the book. It should then be supplied after the last word on the title in parenthesis. If not in the book, it should be put between brackets [ ], and if uncertain with a note of interrogation.

Stereotyped books are generally without dates of publication for certain commercial reasons. Only superficial readers are duped by the artifice, for the first object of the literary student would be to determine approximately the date of issue. When the preface is not dated it is no doubt as often through thoughtlessness as intention.

In quoting a work that has passed through numerous editions, it is often useful to give the date of the first.

There is a practice amongst publishers of post dating books issued towards the end of a year.[22] This practice will account for the dates of books in some bibliothecas, biographies and catalogues, sometimes being a year earlier than the date on the book. The title having been copied from an advertisement or a review of the work apparently before publication. When known to the cataloguer the actual year of issue should be supplied in brackets immediately after the date of the title.

Footnote 22:

See the article referred to (p. 19) by Prof. De Morgan, in the Companion to the Almanac.

(6.) With the different descriptions of sizes of books Professor De Morgan was so exasperated that after giving descriptions of how the sheets of a book are folded he says, “The words _folio_, _quarto_, _octavo_, _duodecimo_, _decimo-octavo_, refer (in his book) entirely to size, as completely as in a modern sale catalogue, the maker of which never looks at the inside of a book to tell its form. All the very modern distinctions of _imperial_, _royal_, _crown_, _atlas_, _demy_, &c., &c., &c., I have relinquished to paper-makers and publishers, who alone are able to understand them.”[23]

Footnote 23:

Arithmetical Books, p. xii.

All the words in use to describe sizes are useless. They convey no definite idea to the reader, for the simple reason that nothing definite as to size is meant. The only definite meaning is that the paper is folded into certain divisions, and not that the paper or print is of a particular size. A quarto is often the size of an octavo, and an octavo the size of a quarto, duodecimo, or anything else. Nevertheless though not certain, the terms do in most cases, enable us to guess at the probable or approximate size. The only way to be certain of the size is to state it in inches.[24] Probably few literary men would put up with the trouble of measuring.

Footnote 24:

This plan is advocated in a work I cannot too strongly recommend. It is indispensable to every librarian. The learned author thoroughly studied all the various systems in vogue, and founds almost a code for the cataloguer upon them. It is the:—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, second edition. Washington, published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1853, 8vo, pp. xii., 96. Since the above was written Mr. Cutter’s Rules have appeared (see p. 11), and should be referred to.

Compilers of Catalogues of modern books may content themselves in most cases with the terms at present in use.[25]

Footnote 25:

For what these are, and how to know them, I must refer the reader to the Smithsonian Report, previously quoted, or to a note by Charles Naylor on “the size of a book” in Notes and Queries for 10 Feb., 1872, 4th s., ix. p. 122.

Novels are generally described in the advertisements as “post octavo,” which is not octavo at all, but duodecimo. The mis-description is of little importance, for everybody knows about the size of the modern three volume novel, a little larger now than at the beginning of the century.

It is annoying that so small a matter as the size of a book should occupy so much space. It has always been a subject of difficulty. A bookseller as such, in his sale catalogues, will describe a book as 12mo, but when he compiles a bibliographical list he will describe it correctly as octavo, though the actual size is what is looked upon as duodecimo.

These points are strictly necessary for ordinary catalogues, but they will not satisfy all enquiries, for we cannot tell from them whether it is a book or a pamphlet that is described. It is therefore desirable to add the number of pages. In the paging we have as much variety as in the sizes, authors, publishers, and printers, not having the slightest thought for bibliographers, and the infinite trouble of collation.

A book should be paged in as simple a manner as possible. This is a rule that has never been attended to, and so long as authors do not know their own minds never can be. If the printer begins the paging regularly, and the author thinks irregularly, and recollects something that has been left out, irregular paging will be the result.[26]

Footnote 26:

The most disorderly book I know in this respect is:—A universal alphabet grammar and language, ... by George Edmonds, ... [1856] quarto:—The following is the collation. Its length would generally preclude its being given in a bibliotheca. First we have the preface vii pages, then a table of contents vii pages; the introduction 34 pages, a half-title unpaged, then 152 pages, then another half-title unpaged, then pp. 44 and iii., then corrigenda pp. ix., then a half-title and “the Dictionary,” forming a third of the book entirely unpaged, then the addenda paged separately pp. 3. Sometimes the figures of paging are at the side, sometimes in the middle, sometimes at the top and sometimes at the bottom! Timperley in his “Printer’s Manual” (1838) p. 18, says, “Running titles may be set to an index, but folios are seldom put unless with a view to recommend the book for its extraordinary number of pages; for as an index does not refer to its own matter by figures, they are needless in this case.” When the trouble that a variety of pagings gives the bibliographer, is considered, it is to be hoped that the simplicity I recommend will be adopted as much as possible.

Always count from the very first printed page belonging to the book, excluding advertisements. Give the paging as printed, that is, in the same characters. If leaves occur unpaged, either before those paged or after, use arabian numerals to denote those unpaged.

Sometimes an octavo book begins with, say xii. numbered pages and then occur four unnumbered, and then we have page 1 on signature B, numbered consecutively to page 253, and three pages of appendix and errata beyond. Describe it thus: octavo pp. xii., and 4, and 253, and 3. But if 4 and 3 are numbered with roman numerals, it should be thus:—octavo, pp. xii., and iv., 253, iii., because this is more accurate. We use the same kind of numerals used in the book. It is, however, not a matter of much moment, provided the correct number of pages is given in the collation.

I do not use the sign plus (xii.+iv.+iii.) because it makes the figures look more uninteresting, and signs enough occur in the titles themselves.

The price at which a book is published is often unascertainable, and it is useful to insert it, though it has nothing to do with its literary or scientific value. But in this as in every other particular it is impossible to say what the student may require, and its omission might make a man of genius waste precious hours which it is the special object of the true bibliographer to save.

If the price is mentioned on the title page, accuracy requires that it be given in its regular order, whether at the beginning or end of the title. Instances will be found in the list of works by a lady at the end.