CHAPTER V.

THE PRINCIPAL ENTRY--THE AUTHOR-ENTRY, 3.

=40.=--There are further difficulties that arise from time to time in making the author-entry owing to the great variety in the form of authors’ names. The first book we take to illustrate one of these is:

M. Tullii Ciceronis Orationes; with a commentary by George Long. (Bibliotheca classica; ed. by George Long and A. J. Macleane.) 4 v. la. 8o. 1855-62

The rule is to transcribe Greek and Latin names either into the English form, as Cicero, Horace, Livy, Ovid, or into the Latin nominative as M. Tullius Cicero, and therefore the entry will be:

CICERO, M. Tullius. Orationes; with a commentary, by George Long. (_Bibliotheca classica_). 4 v. la. 8o. 1855-62

Greek names are not simply transcribed in Roman characters, as Homeros, but into the English or Latin form, as Homer, Homerus. All forms of the name, irrespective of the language of the original book or its translations, must be concentrated under the form adopted; thus the following three books,

The odes of Horace; transl. into English by the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. pp. xvi., 154. 8o. 1894

Quinti Horatii Flacci Opera omnia; with a commentary by the Rev. Arthur John Macleane, M.A. 4th ed., revised by George Long, M.A. (1869). (_Bibliotheca classica._) pp. xxxii, 771. la. 8o. 1881

Q. Orazio Flacco. Odi, epistole, satire; traduzione di Diocleziano Mancini. pp. 64. sm. 8o. _Castello_, 1897

are entered either under Horace or Horatius Flaccus (Quintus), and therefore would appear as

HORACE. Opera omnia; with a commentary, by Arthur J. Macleane. 4th ed., revised by Geo. Long (1869). (_Bibliotheca classica._) pp. xxxii, 771. la. 8o. 1881

⸻ Odi, epistole, satire; trad. di Diocleziano Mancini. pp. 64. sm. 8o. _Castello_, 1897

⸻ Odes; transl. into English by W. E. Gladstone, pp. xvi, 154. 8o. 1894

It is very rarely required to give cross-references from the one form of name to the other, especially in the case of the classical authors. It should be noted that absolute uniformity is necessary in the style of such names in a single catalogue, be the form Latin or English, as it would be inconsistent to have, say Virgilius in one place, and Livy in another--in other words, it should be Virgil and Livy or Livius and Virgilius, popular libraries adopting the English form as most suitable.

=41.=--The customary mode of arranging the entries in such a case as the Horace given above, is to give first the whole works in the original, then the whole works in translations, afterwards the portions in the original followed by translations of these in their turn, the greater parts taking precedence of the lesser, and those in the language of the original coming before translations without regard to alphabetical order.

=42.=--There are classes of persons whose names come oftener under the notice of the cataloguer for subject-than for author-entry, such as sovereigns, princes, saints, and popes; but as one rule governs both forms of entry, it may be referred to at this point. All such personages are entered under the Christian names by which they are known and not under family or titular names. With these names are included those of ancient or mediæval use before the days of fixed surnames, or when they were merely sobriquets. Omitting titles of books in illustration examples of all these with the correct form would be:

Albert, _Prince Consort_.

Albert Edward, _Prince of Wales_.

Augustine, _St._

Giraldus Cambrensis.

Leo XIII., _Pope_.

Paul, _St._

Thomas a’Becket.

Thomas a’Kempis.

Victoria, _Queen_.

William _of Malmesbury_.

It would be safer to provide cross-references for such names as Thomas a’ Becket and Thomas a’ Kempis, thus:

Becket, Thomas a’. _See_ Thomas a’ Becket.

Kempis, Thomas a’. _See_ Thomas a’ Kempis.

=43.=--Strange to say, it is quite a common mistake in catalogues to enter all the saints together under “Saint,” instead of under their names, and it has even been attempted to justify such an obvious absurdity by the contention that people naturally turn to the word “Saint” for such names. This is very likely, but it would be just as reasonable to expect to find Lord Beaconsfield’s books under “Lord” or “Earl,” and Mr. Gladstone’s under “Mr.” Besides, if such a rule were logically carried out in the case of every person canonized, Sir Thomas More would now be entered under “Blessed,” and Thomas a’ Becket under “Saint.”

=44.=--In the case of noblemen who are authors, the entry should be under the title, and not under the family name, though it may be necessary in some instances to give a cross-reference from the family name. Illustrative examples of these would be:

Beaconsfield, Earl of. Coningsby.

Disraeli, Benjamin. _See_ Beaconsfield.

Argyll, Duke of. The reign of law.

In full catalogues it is usual to give more particulars, as

Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of.

Argyll, George D. Campbell, 8th Duke of.

but even in concise catalogues, if the library happens to possess books by noblemen of the same title, the distinction must be clearly shown as

Albemarle, 6th Earl of. Fifty years of my life.

Albemarle, 8th Earl of. Cycling.

or fuller still, as

Derby, Edward, 14th Earl of. The Iliad of Homer, translated.

Derby, Edward H., 15th Earl of. Speeches and addresses.

=45.=--In some exceptional and well-defined cases, it is better to place the entries under the family name, for the reason that it is more in common use and so is better known, as

Bacon, Francis, Lord Verulam.

Walpole, Horace, Earl of Orford.

It is important to remember that the title of the author to be used is not that of the time when the book happened to be published, but the highest attained to at the time the catalogue is prepared or issued.

=46.=--This brings us to the question as to the extent in which titles of honour, of professional rank, or of scholastic attainment are to be used in cataloguing, particularly in connection with authors’ names. This is a matter that has been settled more by convenience and usage than by fixed rules. It is usual to omit all titles of rank below that of a knight, all such distinctions to a name as “Baronet,” “Knight,” “Right Honourable,” and “Honourable,” as well as the initials of the various orders of knighthood, as K.G., K.C.B., C.B., &c. University degrees and initials of membership of learned or other societies, as D.D., M.A., F.R.S., F.R.Hist.S., &c., are ignored, and so are professional titles, as Professor, Colonel, Doctor, Barrister-at-Law. For example, in the “republic of letters,” as exemplified in cataloguing,

The Right Honourable Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Bart., M.P.

becomes simply

Dilke, Sir Charles W.

and

The Right Honourable Professor F. Max Müller.

is

Müller, F. Max.

Upon the same plan most of the ecclesiastical titles are passed over, or at anyrate all under the rank of a dean, and all the prefixes as “Right Reverend,” “Rev.” are left out. Thus

The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton, D.D., &c.

is reduced to

Creighton, Mandell, _Bp. of London_.

or shorter still, if desired, to

Creighton, Mandell, _Bp._

It has been found that simple treatment of this kind meets every requirement, and it is quite unnecessary to waste space in a catalogue by adding superfluous matter of this kind, besides the line must be drawn somewhere, and, as the cataloguer has no reason, even for politic motives, to indulge in snobbery, there is no occasion to swell a catalogue to undue proportions.

=47.=--If it is desired, however, to include degrees or other distinctive affixes, they must follow the Christian name, as

Jones, Thomas, _LL.D._

and not

Jones, _LL.D._, Thomas.

Prefixes would be inserted in their proper order, as

Jones, _Dr._ Thomas.

Anything not actually part of the author’s name should be made distinctive by being printed in italics as here shown.

=48.=--It cannot be too often impressed on the young cataloguer how important it is to keep himself well posted in all changes occurring in the world around, and, more particularly, in the literary and social world. While many sources of information are available in a well-equipped library, yet none of these can compensate for a retentive memory and a mind keenly alive even for the comparatively trivial affairs that need to be constantly noted if error is to be avoided, or at least if the catalogue is to show the latest information. For instance, as each New Year and Queen’s Birthday comes round the lists of new honours gazetted have to be read, as an author or two may be among those raised to the peerage or be made baronets or knights and their style in the catalogue has to be altered accordingly. This may be considered unnecessary advice because catalogues of libraries are supposed to, and do, cover the whole field of human knowledge in all directions, and it is part of the cataloguer’s business to keep his knowledge modernized if his services are to be worth much. It is as well, however, to point this out to beginners, otherwise, if attention be not paid to such details, they will very soon find, or others will for them, that they have books written by the same person under two names, sometimes three, in a single catalogue. Many examples could be given of how this can be brought about, but it will suffice to give one. The first edition, 1887, of the book on cycling in the “Badminton Library” series has the names of Viscount Bury and G. L. Hillier as the authors, and the new edition of 1895 is by the Earl of Albemarle and G. L. Hillier. It would not do for a library possessing the first edition only to now enter it under “Bury,” nor for a library with both editions to enter one under “Bury” and the other under “Albemarle.”

=49.=--This point may be further emphasized by stating that ecclesiastical changes in the higher orders of the clergy have to be carefully observed from time to time, so that the very latest office is shown at the time the catalogue is printed, or that the alteration is made if in manuscript. It would not look well to continue to describe Frederick Temple as Bishop of Exeter or even as Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton as Bishop of Peterborough, or Frederick W. Farrar as Archdeacon, though their names may so appear upon the books being catalogued.

Occasionally books will be found by authors whose ecclesiastical office and not their names appear upon the title-pages, as “by William, Bishop of Chester,” “by the Archbishop of York,” when the name must be sought out and care taken to give the credit of the book to the right person. For instance, there is a book upon the Riviera, published in 1870, “by the Dean of Canterbury,” which might easily be credited to Dean Payne Smith instead of Dean Alford, and a very careless or unthinking cataloguer might even add it to Dean Farrar’s books. In this connection a very useful book of reference is _The book of dignities_, by Joseph Haydn, continued by Horace Ockerby, 1894, and of course any back volumes available of clerical directories or diocesan calendars will prove useful.

=50.=--But the ladies have to be watched with much greater care, as they are so much more apt to change their name, and that without any evidence of such change being given upon the title-page. Many examples might be given of ladies who have written under both their maiden and their married names. If the ladies continue writing under their maiden names, then the rule given for pseudonymous books would fitly apply, and the more familiar name should be used, as M. E. Braddon, and not Mrs. Maxwell, Florence Warden, and not Mrs. James. Where women authors are better known under their husbands’ names with the prefix “Mrs.,” as Mrs. Humphry Ward, Mrs. Coulson Kernahan, &c., it will be found that the best known form is also the best for use in a general or popular catalogue, though it would be more exact to give the ladies’ own names. If exactness is of prime importance, then the distinction can very well be shown, as

Ward, Mary A. (Mrs. Humphry Ward).

Kernahan, Jeanie G. (Mrs. Coulson Kernahan).

When both the maiden and married names are given upon a title-page, as “Katharine Tynan (Mrs. H. A. Hinkson),” then it is better to adopt the married name for the entry, but a cross-reference should be given, especially if books have been issued under the maiden name alone. Accordingly the entry would be

Hinkson, Katharine (Katharine Tynan).

and the reference

Tynan, Katharine. _See_ Hinkson, Katharine.

=51.=--Peculiarities of form in surnames will next demand consideration, and probably the first of these will be names with patronymic or other prefixes. If the author is English, or has virtually become so (and “English” is to be here understood in its widest sense), then the prefix is simply regarded as a part of the name, and as such it will lead off. The following are some examples of names in this form:

St. John, Percy B.

De Crespigny, E. C.

D’Israeli, Isaac

Fitz George, George

Le Gallienne, Richard.

L’Estrange, A. G.

M’Crie, Thomas.

MacDonald, George.

O’Brien, William.

Ap John, Lewis.

Van Dyck, Sir A.

=52.=--In French names the entry should not be made under the prefix “de,” but under the name next following it, unless the “de” has become so much embodied in the surname as to be an integral part of it rather than a prefix. If the prefix happens to be the definite article “le” or “la,” or the article is comprised in it, as “du,” then the entry is to be given under the prefix. The following names show the part of the name which leads off:

Maupas, C. E. de.

Decourcelle, A.

Delaroche, Paul.

La Bruyère, Jean de.

La Sizeranne, Robert de.

Le Monnier, L.

Du Boisgobey, F.

Du Camp, Maximè.

In arranging such names for alphabetical order they are placed as if the prefix were part of the name, and the last five would come in place as Labr., Lasi., Lemo., Dubo., Duca. The English names are treated in much the same manner, but contractions are to be placed as if spelt out in full, and letters omitted by elision are to be ignored. In this way the English names given above would come in order: St. John as Saint John (not as Saintj, however, but _before_ Sainte, as Sainte-Beuve), De Crespigny as Decre., D’Israeli as Disra., Le Gallienne as Legall., L’Estrange as Lestr., M’Crie as Maccrie, Mac Donald as Macdon., O’Brien as Obri., Ap John as Apjohn, and Van Dyck as Vandyck. Of course, the names must in no wise be altered from the form appearing upon the title-pages even for the purpose of harmonising them with neighbouring names in the alphabetical sequence.

=53.=--In German and Dutch names the “von” and “van” are entered after the name similarly to the French “de” as:

Ewald, G. H. A. von.

Beneden, P. J. van.

Some cataloguers keep these and the French “de” in their place as prefixes, at the same time ignoring them for alphabetical order, thus:

von Ewald, G. H. A.

van Beneden, P. J.

de Cuvier, Georges, Baron.

of course, placing them under Ewald, Beneden, Cuvier. The effect is not wholly satisfactory and it breaks the running line in the alphabet.

=54.=--The next difficulty is that of the compound names. It has been already hinted that stereotyped uniformity is not always to be recommended, but in dealing with names of this type it is as well to fix a rule and adhere rigidly to it. In the case of English compound names the best course to adopt is to give the entries under the _last_ name in all cases. Examples of such names would be

Phillipps, J. O. Halliwell.

Turner, C. Tennyson.

Dunton, Theodore Watts.

These are so well known to most people as changed names, that it would not be quite correct to give merely an initial for the first name, as

Phillipps, J. O. H.

Turner, C. T.

Dunton, Theodore W.

though in most cases of compound names, this would not signify.

Under some rules for cataloguing, it is recommended that where the author has added to his name at a late period of his life, as the above-named persons have, then the entry should be given under the first part of the name. The objection to adopting this course is that two methods would be in use, and they would likely lead to confusion, for the reason that it is not always clearly or generally known that a compound name consists in reality of the addition of a name to the original surname. It is more frequently the case, owing to fashion or foible, that two names already belonging by right to a person have simply been joined by a hyphen, and so become “compounded.” Again, it is not always shown or known that a new name has been taken, as for instance J. F. B. Firth so described himself upon his books on London Government, and not as J. F. Bottomley-Firth, though he was born Bottomley, and took the name of Firth afterwards. Therefore, all things considered, it is wiser to adhere to the last name, more especially as it is so easy to safeguard it in doubtful cases by the useful cross-reference, such as

Tennyson-Turner, C. _See_ Turner.

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. _See_ Phillipps.

Watts-Dunton, Theodore. _See_ Dunton.

Even these cross-references are seldom necessary, as it may reasonably be presumed that if a person fails to find the entries under the one name he turns to the other, thus if he wants books by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, and fails to find them under Baring, it is unlikely that he will conclude they are not in the library without first looking under Gould.

=55.=--But while this rule for making use of the last part of a compound name holds good for English authors, the reverse method must be adopted as correct for foreign compound names, and the entry given accordingly under the first part of such a name, as

Dreux-Brézé, Marquis de.

Martinengo-Cesaresco, Countess.

Merle d’Aubigné, J. H.

Tascher de la Pagerie, Comtesse de.

It will be seen that this form is principally governed by the custom of the country to which the author happens to belong, and cataloguers will make themselves acquainted with the usages of each country as far as they can, either by reading or by constant reference to native biographical dictionaries and authoritative catalogues.

=56.=--In an average British library oriental names will only occasionally come under the notice of the cataloguer, and then for the most part attached to English books. A general rule may be laid down that the first part of such names should be taken for the author-entry, as

Omar Khayyam. Rubàiyàt; transl. by Fitzgerald.

Wo Chang. England through Chinese spectacles.

Dosabhai Framji Karaka. History of the Parsis.

but a rule of this kind must not be blindly followed, as it is sure to have exceptions. Some other part of the name may be the best known or even correct form, as:

Ranjitsinhji, K. S. The Jubilee book of cricket.

remembering always that the surname according to Western ideas, handed on from one generation to another does not exist in the East. In every case it is a wise plan to consult any available catalogues that have been compiled by experts in oriental language and custom. Care is also necessary in dealing with these names lest it should be found when too late that the entry has been given under a title and not a name. On pages 76-97 of Linderfelt’s _Eclectic card catalog rules_ will be found a list of oriental titles and occupations with their signification, and the use of this will do much to prevent mistakes of the kind. Beale’s _Oriental biographical dictionary_; revised by H. G. Keene (W. H. Allen, 1894) is also a helpful work in this connection.