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]