Part 3

STYLE OF PRINTING.

I now come to a few minor points of printing, for in a catalogue nothing is so trivial as not to require attention.

In the previous observations I have treated of things that are invariable, they must be attended to, in any list of books, there is no room for exercise of taste, they go to the very root of a good catalogue, and are laws dictated by accuracy.

But the manner in which a title is printed in a list or catalogue, or biography is a matter of taste, and we therefore give the following hints merely as suggestions[27], hoping that they will commend themselves to all who print title-pages. Have as few capitals as possible in the title, none except for names of persons or places. Titles of persons may well be printed without capitals, as prince, marquess, lord, not Prince, Marquess, Lord.

Footnote 27:

Most of which have been acted on, if not carried to their fullest extent in my study, already referred to: “A bibliographical list of lord Brougham’s publications,” printed in Lord Brougham’s Works, ... Edinb., A. and C. Black, 1873, vol XI., pp. 463 to 486.

Take for example the following title, which, printed according to the usual method would be:—

“Speeches by the Lord Chancellor; Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham; and Lord Campbell, in The House of Lords, on Tuesday the 9th, August, 1842, at giving Judgment in the Appeal, the Rev. John Ferguson and others, Appellants, against the Earl of Kinnoull, and the Rev. R. Young, Respondents, with the Judgments appended, from Mr. Gurney’s Shorthand notes,” &c.

I prefer this title-page for catalogue purposes to be printed thus:

Speeches by the lord chancellor [Lyndhurst], lord Brougham, lord Cottenham, and lord Campbell in the house of lords, on tuesday the 9th august, 1842, at giving judgment in the appeal, the rev. John Ferguson and others, appellants, against the earl of Kinnoull and the rev. R. Young, respondents; with the judgment appended from Mr. Gurney’s shorthand notes. Edinb. James Gall and son [1842], 8o, pp. 36, 1s. The improvement in appearance of this title and the facility in reading, counterbalance all such objections as that we are accustomed to Lord, and not lord, or Tuesday, and not tuesday. The compilers of the [English] Law List have long since discarded capitals for the names of streets with great advantage, for example they print, “gray’s-inn-square,” not Gray’s Inn Square: “court of exchequer”; “house of lords,” &c. The Catalogue of the Advocates library, lately printed, is a good example; refer for instance to the title under Bullion, vol I., 1867, p. 763, a title that in ordinary catalogues would bristle with capitals.

PUNCTUATION.

The punctuation should also be carefully considered. Everything in bibliography is at present very much over punctuated, half, if not two thirds, might be dispensed with to the lessening of the expense, and the great advantage in the appearance.

Imagine you are copying a sentence instead of a title page, and punctuate and put capitals accordingly. If writing that a work was by an author, nobody would write By, neither need it have a capital for a copy of a title.

Mr. Henry Stevens has advocated and adopted this method in his later catalogues and notably in the:—“Bibliotheca geographica and historica or a catalogue of a nine days sale of rare & valuable ... books ... et cetera ... with an essay upon the Stevens system of photobibliography by Henry Stevens GMB [_i.e._ gatherer of musty books] ... [with a photograph of] Ptolemy’s World by Mercator 1578 Part I. to be dispersed by auction by Messrs Puttick and Simpson ... London Henry Stevens at the Nuggetory 4 Trafalgar square July 25 1872.”

The title, which I have abbreviated nearly one third, has upwards of two hundred words in it without a single mark of punctuation, except after “Part I.” where it seems to have got in by accident. Throughout his titles, he uses stops very sparingly. Any word which is complete requires no stop. Thus: “vols” requires no stop after it, because it is a finished abbreviation, but vol. does[28].

Footnote 28:

Mr. Stevens’ work contains an essay on catalogues, teeming with useful suggestions, as indeed might be expected from one who has had such long and varied experience.

THE BEGINNING AND THE END.

The unwise seem to be of opinion that any fool can index, but we have already seen that the wise think differently.—Wheatley’s What is an index? 1879, p. 41.

The beginning of every book should be a table of contents, or an analytical table, or both, and the end a good index.

I can scarcely over estimate the importance which I attach to the index. A book may almost as well be unwritten, as be without an index.

The publications by “a lady,” are exceedingly deficient in indexes. It is amazing that authors who must have felt the want of indexes in the works of others should publish their own without such helps.

It would occupy too much space to give all the opinions I have collected of different authors entreating others never to publish a book without an index. Allibone never loses an opportunity, in his Dictionary of English Literature, of impressing upon his readers the importance of indexes. See more particularly an article of absorbing interest under the name of Samuel Ayscough of the British Museum, celebrated for his most useful indexes to Shakespeare, to that grand storehouse of information “The Gentleman’s Magazine” (obit. 1868), to “the Monthly Review,” and other works. Of such importance indeed does Allibone consider indexes, that, not content with insisting on them throughout his three ponderous volumes, he, on the very last page, gives a note “Concerning Indexes.” Often a good index obtains for a book a prominent position it might not otherwise obtain; as, for example, Godfrey Higgins’s “Anacalypsis,” which is said to be in the reading room of the British Museum, from its containing[29] “thousands of statements cited from all quarters, and very well indexed.” What would Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica be without its two volumes of index to two volumes of authors. Bibliographical and biographical works beyond everything require the most minute indexes.

Footnote 29:

Athenæum, 2 Aug. 1856, p. 953, quoted by Allibone in his Dictionary, p. 843. See also p. 3140, and refer also to Ayscough, Mary Cowden Clarke, Godfrey Higgins, John Nichols, and other articles in Allibone and to his Alphabetical Index to the New Testament, Phil. [1868], published under his initials only.

Formerly I was in love with the scientific look of a number of indexes, but I am now convinced that two heads are not better than one in this case and that one index is more useful than two. A person who consults an index wants to find something as quickly as possible, if there is only one index he cannot consult the wrong one first.

It has been suggested by Prof. De Morgan that historians by having no indexes, think to oblige their readers to go through their works from beginning to end. The contrary being the result.

If book buyers made a rule of not buying a book without an index, authors and publishers would then supply that want.

Beware, however, of snares, for such there are in this as in all else, big books with lean, lanky, and starved indexes.

Since the above was written the “Index Society” has come into existence, and published an indispensable little work, entirely devoted to this subject entitled: What is an index? a few notes on indexes and indexers by Henry B. Wheatley ... [motto] London, Longmans 1879. Besides being useful this is a most amusing book.

OF ERRORS.

What still remains to be taken notice of are the _errata’s_,... Sometimes they are put by themselves on the even side of a leaf, so as to face the title. But though this is very seldom done, it is a pity that it should ever have come into the thoughts of anyone to do it at all; for it is a maxim to bring errata’s into as narrow a compass as we conveniently can, and to put them in a place where they can make no great show: since it is not to the credit of a book, to find a catalogue of its faults annexed. It is therefore wrong policy in those who make errata’s appear numerous and parading, in hopes of being thought very careful and accurate; when they only serve to witness an author’s inattention at a time when he should have been of the opposite inclination. But the subterfuges that are used by writers upon this occasion, are commonly levelled at the printer, to make him the author of all that is amiss; whereas they ought to ascribe it to themselves: ... whoever has any ideas of printing, must consequently know that it is impossible to practice that art without committing errors; and that it is the province of an author to rectify them. For these several reasons it will appear how material it is not to make an erratum of every trifling fault....—John Smith’s Printer’s grammar, 1755, quoted in Timperley’s Printer’s Manual, 1838, p. 19.

Le nouvel _Errata_, je le répète, est long, d’une longueur inaccoutumée. Les auteurs semblent avoir honte d’avouer les fautes qu’ils ont commises, ou qu’on commet pour eux; je n’ai pas cette pudeur menteuse; je confesse les fautes de mon livre.—A. JAL: préface de la seconde édition du Dict. Crit. de Biographie et d’histoire, 1872.

It is next to impossible to avoid errors, more especially in bibliographical works, with numbers of names and figures. All that can be done to avoid them, of course, should be; but with the most minute and constant supervision errors will creep in and oversights occur.

This, however, is no reason for adopting eccentricities. For example, Professor De Morgan in his “Arithmetical Books,” adopted the singular plan of giving the dates twice, in figures and in words, the latter being abbreviated, and after all, as he himself shows, he was still liable to commit the very errors he desired to provide against.

His plan never has been, and I hope, never will be adopted by any one else. It is original, but highly inconvenient and unbibliographical in the extreme. It is to be hoped that if a new edition is ever published we shall have proper title page information in a proper manner, and be spared such eccentricities as beginning the title-page from the bottom instead of the top.

I may here remark that the learned Professor went upon the right principle, he excluded no book on the ground of unimportance, or worthlessness. He described no book unless he had seen it, which was also J. R. McCulloch’s plan in his “Literature of Political Economy” (1845), but he unfortunately described only select works, without even giving a brief list of what he considered rubbish, simply saying, “We have proceeded on a principle of selection; and neglecting the others, have, with exceptions, noticed those works only which appear to have contributed to develop sound principles, or to facilitate their adoption.” The consequence is if we find a book unmentioned by him, it at once becomes a question whether he excluded it because it was worthless, or because he had not seen it.

There is a large class of errors arising from the habit of one writer copying another, instead of each going to original sources.

The errors prevalent in biography and bibliography were pointed out by Mr. Bolton Corney years ago. I think it is unnecessary for me to give here any further criticisms on the method which should be pursued. The student who wishes to go deeper into the subject can refer to Bolton Corney’s pamphlet: “On the New General Biographical Dictionary,” already noticed.

The work I have quoted above by M. Jal is a large volume consisting almost entirely of articles in correction of those existing in other works.

No statement of any former writer should be taken for granted, if there is any more original source. Compilers of Dictionaries sin greatly in this respect. The reason is probably that to be correct requires so much time and research that it does not pay to be accurate if much time is consumed.

The safest way to avoid errors would be to compare the proof of every title page with the book itself, but the labour would be enormous, and I doubt if it is practicable in most cases. Nevertheless, it is the surest way. At the same time I would not discourage anybody from attempting a catalogue or bibliotheca, although nobody can expect to do anything of much value without accuracy, the greater the accuracy the greater the value.

Nothing is satisfactory but actual inspection of the books themselves. We have quite enough of descriptions of books at second, third, or fourth hand, in nearly all existing works, and it is time now to go upon “a new and improved principle.” Mr. W. Carew Hazlitt in the preface to his “Collections and Notes,” 1876, has some interesting remarks on this subject to which the student can refer.

ON THE MEANS OF IDENTIFYING THE AUTHORS OF ANONYMOUS AND PSEUDONYMOUS PUBLICATIONS.

It constantly happens that “a lady,” in one of her later publications will mention a former one. In this case it is necessary to look at the publication so referred to, when it will be ascertained if it is anonymous. Works are also advertised at the end of others, either as published, or forthcoming, and these works themselves must all be looked at.

A most extensive library is requisite for references such as these. Indeed, it frequently happens that the works required cannot be found even in the enormous library of the British Museum.

To take the following as an example, in Mrs. H. Mozley’s: Louisa, or the bride, by the author of the fairy bower [motto]. London, James Burns, Portman street, and Henry Mozley & sons, Derby, 1842, 12o, pp. 302.

It is pseudonymous. We find advertised at the end by the same author: Bessie Gray, or the dull child. Hymns for children on the Lord’s Prayer, our duty to God and scripture history. Robert Marshall, or the cleverest boy in the school. The Stanley Ghost. The old Bridge. Some published, others in the press, none of them, however, have I (1872), been able to find in the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum[30]. They may be there nevertheless.

Footnote 30:

I have lately (May 1880) searched again, but still do not find them.

As another example, I have traced the following works to the same author, without, however, ascertaining the author’s name.

Spain yesterday and to-day, by a lady, London, Harvey and Darton [1829?], sm. 8o.—Portugal, or the young travellers, ... 1830.—The new estate, or the young travellers in Wales and Ireland, by the author of Portugal, ... 1831.—The East Indians at Selwood, or the orphans’ home, by the author of Portugal; the new estate, &c., &c., Lond. Darton and Harvey, 1834, small 12o.—Gleanings from many fields, by the author of Portugal, the new estate, &c., &c., Lond., Darton and Harvey, 1834, 12o.

Sometimes it is possible to make a tolerably certain guess at the author, from the similarity in style, or some trick of the author, as in the punctuation, or the use of italics, as by Archbishop Whately, or the constant use of the dash, as in the works of James Flamank.

But in all cases corroborative evidence is necessary. For how wrong a guess of this kind may be has been amply illustrated in Notes and Queries.

Every celebrated man has had numerous publications attributed to him by people who professed themselves quite certain of the authorship, from the style and subject matter.

There is at present no book which will give any help in an investigation like the present. In the “Handbook of Fictitious Names,” at pages 7 and 8, only seven real names of ladies are revealed, with a note to the effect that there were upwards of fifty works unknown.

The very useful series of catalogues published by Messrs. Bent, Hodgson, and Sampson Low, the English Catalogue of the latter being the best of the kind, afford great assistance.

The London catalogue of books, 1814-1851, has a classified index, and in this anonymous works are frequently attributed to their real authors, though without any indication of their anonymity.

The British catalogue also has a subject index.

The following include the majority of publications from 1800 to the present time, except pamphlets and privately printed works.

The London catalogue of books ... since the year 1800 to March 1827, Lond. pub. for the executor of the late W. Bent by Longman &c. 1827, 8o.

The London catalogue ... 1814 to 1846.

The London catalogue ... 1816 to 1851, Lond., Thomas Hodgson 13 Paternoster row and sold by Longman &c., 1851, 8o.

The classified index to the London catalogue ... 1816 to 1851, London T. Hodgson 1853, 8o.

The British catalogue of books published from oct. 1837, to dec. 1852 ... by Sampson Low, vol. 1. general alphabet, Lond. S. Low & son, 1853.

In this the dates of publication were added for the first time. The author published an Index to the above in 1858, in which he acknowledges the assistance of Dr. Crestadoro.

The English catalogue of books, published from january, 1835, to january, 1863, comprising the contents of the “London” and the “British” catalogues, and the principal works published in the United States of America and Continental Europe ... compiled by Sampson Low [and assistants], London, S. Low Son & Marston, 1864, r. 8o. And continuations to the present time. So that we thus have names of authors and index of subjects from 1814 to the present time. For the years from 1800 to 1814, Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica can be referred to.

I will now give an illustration.

Information we will say, for example, is sent to the following effect:—

“Sir,—Seeing that you are collecting, with a view to publication, names of authors of the nineteenth century, I beg to say that I was well acquainted with Miss Seaman, who died about the year 1830, a notice of whom you will find in the Ryde papers. She wrote ‘Some Observations on Girl’s Schools and Boarding Schools,’ but whether with her name or not I forget. Also, about 1822, was published, by Smith of London, an interesting religious tale called Lily, and in 16o, 1825, a capital little work on the choice of books, with advice about Miss Edgeworth’s Novels.”

It will be evident to anyone that the whole of the above requires verification, a labour of hours, perhaps days, which might have been saved by a little bibliographical knowledge on the part of our informant.

On investigation it appears, then, that our informant has scarcely given a single date or title correctly.—1. Miss Seaman died in 1829, not 1830.—2. The reference to the Ryde papers is useless, as too wide for verification, and inaccessible.—3. The title of each of her works is given from recollection, or rather, from no recollection, and they are all incorrect.—4. The titles are made up.—5. Words not in the title-pages are interpolated without notice.—6. The size of the book is placed before the date—_i.e._ it is interpolated, and in fact everything is reversed.

The above information might be best put in this form.

SEAMAN (Lucy) the daughter of a Captain in the Royal Navy, born at Ryde, the 23 May, 1801, wrote several works which are held in high estimation, and died of consumption on the 15 September, 1829. The following are the only publications I know of from her pen; but as she published without giving her name, there are probably others that are unknown.

(1.) Remarks on education, as at present conducted, especially with reference to private tuition and the system of boarding schools for young ladies, London (printed at Ryde), for the author, 1822, 12mo, pp. iv. 33, anon.

The authoress says, that her father’s early death making her, while very young, acquainted with the routine of teaching, was the cause of her publishing these remarks.

(2.) Little Lily, a moral tale for children, by a lady, author of Remarks, &c., Lond. J. Smith, 1823, 8o, pp. 115, 2s 6d, pseudon.

This is the first edition of this excellent little book, the second and subsequent editions of which were published with her name.

We observe that a book entitled “Little Lily’s travels, Lond. Nelson, 1860,” has been published; but it is a different work to the above.

(3.) Miss Maria Edgeworth’s tales compared with other works of fiction; to which is added advice for the selection, and a list of works most suitable for children, by the author of Little Lily, &c., Lond., J. Smith, 1826 [1825], 18o, pp. xi and 200, 3s, auton.

In this she complains of her failing health, and expresses her great respect for the writings of her friend Miss Edgeworth.

Here it will be observed that the first work is strictly anonymous, as the abbreviation “anon,” indicates, that is to say, it has no name on the title-page, nor any name, pseudonym, nor initials to the preface; and has in fact no clue whatever as to who is the author, as the reference to her in the imprint cannot be considered such. But from the book being printed at Ryde for the author, though published in London, it may be inferred that she resided at Ryde at the time.

The second work is pseudonymous, as the abbreviation “pseudon,” indicates.

The third work would appear also by the title-page to be pseudonymous, it is not so, as the preface is signed by the authoress, and the abbreviation “auton,” warns us that it is autonymous.

In conclusion, I hope that my observations will not dishearten the student who is ambitious of being bibliographical. Let every one strive to do his best. But let no man suppose he can make a good catalogue simply from his desire to do so and without previous study. It is no use saying a man must be accurate, he cannot until he has studied the art of bibliography, and learned what has already been done in that science; so that by taking note of the errors of his predecessors, he may attempt a catalogue on the most modern and improved principles, and thereby contribute towards the advancement and improvement of bibliography.

LIST OF WORKS BY A LADY.

“Bibliography is a dry occupation,—a caput mortuum,—it is a borrowed production, which brings very little grist to the mill; and so difficult and tedious is the object, of laying before our eyes all the real or reported copies or editions of the works enumerated, that almost every line of our reports may be suspected of falsehood.”—James Atkinson, Medical Bibliography, 1834, 8o [he stopped with letter B].

It is probable that every great national library contains more works without authors’ names than with them. Of these anonymous books, a considerable proportion will, doubtless, belong to authors whose names are either known to, or conjectured, more or less plausibly, by the learned bibliographer. But if conjecture be allowed to govern the _place_ of a book in a catalogue, all reliability on it ceases.—Edward Edwards, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, eighth edition, 1857, Art. Libraries, p. 378.