Part 3

It is plain that this practice of entering under the _best known_ name, whether real or false, puts an end to uniformity of entry between different catalogues, leads to inconsistency of entry in the same catalogue, and will often throw the cataloguer into perplexity to decide which name is best known; but for the last objection it must be remembered that the catalogue is made for the reader, not for the cataloguer, and {19} for the first two that references will prevent any serious difficulty; and in the few cases of nearly equal notoriety, double entry is an easy way out of the difficulty.

7. When the illustrations form a very important part of a work, consider both the author of the text and the designer—or in certain cases the engraver—of the plates to be author, and make a full entry under each. Under the author mention the designer’s name in the title, and vice versa.

Such works are: Walton’s Welsh scenery, with text by Bonney; Wolf’s “Wild animals,” with text by Elliot. Which shall be taken as author in the subject or form entry depends upon the work and the subject. Under «Water-color drawings» it would be Walton; under «Wood-engravings», Wolf; under «Wales» and «Zoölogy», the cataloguer must decide which illustrates the subject most, the writer or the artist. _E. g._, under «Gothic Architecture» Pugin is undoubtedly to be considered the author of his “Examples,” though “the literary part” is by E. J. Willson; for the illustrator was really the author and the text was subsidiary to the plates. It was to carry out Pugin’s ideas, not Willson’s, that the work was published.

8. The designer or painter copied is the author of engravings; the cartographer is the author of maps; the engraver in general is to be considered as no more the author than the printer. But in a special catalogue of engravings the engraver would be considered as author; in any full catalogue references should be made from the names of famous engravers, as Raimondi, Müller, Steinla, Wolle. An architect is the author of his designs and plans.

9. Enter musical works doubly, under the author of the words and also the composer of the music.

Short and Medium will generally enter only under the composer; Don Giovanni, for example, only under «Mozart» and not under Da «Ponte». This economy especially applies to songs.

10. 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. (§ 56.)

11. Put the auctioneer’s catalogue of a public library under the name of the library, of a private library under the name of the owner, unless there is reason to believe that another person made it. In the latter case it would appear in the author catalogue under the maker’s name, and in the subject catalogue under the owner’s name.

12. Enter commentaries with the text complete under the author of the text and also under the author of the commentary, provided that is entitled “Commentary on * * *” and not “* * * with commentary.”

In a majority of cases this difference in the title will correspond to a difference in the character of the works and in the expectation of the public; if in any particular case the commentary preponderates in a title of the second of the forms above, a reference can be made from the commentator’s name. {20}

13. Enter a continuation or an index, when not written by the author of the original work but printed with it, under the same heading, with an analytical reference from its own author (§§ 164, 194); when printed separately, enter it under each author.

14. An epitome should be entered under the original author, with a reference from the epitomator.

_Ex._ “The boy’s King Arthur” under Sir Thomas «Malory», with a reference from Sidney «Lanier».

15. A revision should be entered under the name of the original author unless it becomes substantially a new work.

There will often be doubt on this point. To determine it, notice whether the revision is counted as one of the editions of the original work, and whether it is described on the title-page as the work of the original author or the reviser, and read and weigh the prefaces. Refer in all doubtful cases.

16. Excerpts and chrestomathies from a single author go under that author, with a reference from the excerptor if his introduction and annotations are extensive, or he has added a lexicon of importance.

_Ex._ Urlichs’ Chrestomathia Pliniana goes under «Plinius», with a reference from «Urlichs».

17. Enter concordances both under their own author and the author concorded. The latter entry, however, is to be regarded as a subject-entry.

_Ex._ «Cleveland’s» Concordance to the poetical works of «Milton», «Brightwell’s» Concordance to «Tennyson», Mrs. «Furness’s» Concordance to «Shakespeare’s» poems.

18. Reporters are usually treated as authors of reports of trials, _etc._[11] Translators and editors are not to be considered as authors.[12] (But see References, § 60.)

[note] 11. A stenographic reporter is hardly more an author than the printer is; but it is not well to attempt to make fine distinctions.[/note]

[note] 12. A collection of works should be entered under the translator if he is also the collector (see § 59); but again if he translates another man’s collection it should be put under the name of the original collector; as Dasent’s “Tales from the North” is really a version of part of «Asbjörnsen» _and_ «Moe’s» “Norske Folkeventyr” and belongs under their names as joint collectors, with a reference from «Dasent».[/note]

(ii.) _Under what part of the name._

19. Put under the Christian or forename:

_a._ Sovereigns or princes of sovereign houses.[13] Use the English form of the name except for Greeks and Romans. {21}

_b._ Persons canonized.

_Ex._ «Thomas» [«a 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_.

Similarly are to be treated a few persons known almost entirely by the forename, as «Michelangelo Buonarroti», «Raffaello Santi» (refer from «Raphael»), «Rembrandt van Rhijn». Refer always from the family name.

_e._ Oriental authors, including Jewish rabbis whose works were published before 1700.

_Ex._ «Abu Bakr ibn Badr.» This rule has exceptions. Some Oriental writers are known and should be entered under other parts of their name than the first, as “«Abu-l-Kasim», Khalaf ibn Abbas,” or under some appellation as “al-«Masudi»,” “at-«Tabari».” Grässe’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.

In Arabic names the words of relationship Abu (father), Umm (mother), Ibn, Bin (son), Ahu (brother), though not to be treated as names by themselves, are yet not to be disregarded, as proposed by Dr. Dziatzko. They form a name in conjunction with the word following (_e. g._, «Abu Bakr») and determine the alphabetical place of the entry. But the article al (changed by assonance to ad-, ar-, as-, at-, az-, according to the letter it precedes) is neglected (al-«Masudi»).

In all Oriental names the cataloguer must be careful not to take titles, as Emir, Bey, Pasha, Sri, Babu, Pundit, for names.

In regard to East Indian names, Dr. Feigl (Centralbl. f. Bibl., 4: 120) gives the rule: If there are two names, enter under the first, which is the individual name, with a reference from the second; if there are three, enter under the third, which is the family name, with a reference under the second.

[note] 13. This must include Popes even before the acquisition and after the loss of the temporal power.

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 coloring 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.[/note]

20. Put under the surname:

_a._ In general, all persons not included under § 19.

In a few cases, chiefly of artists, a universally-used sobriquet is to be taken in place of the family or forename, as «Tintoretto» (whose real name was Giacomo «Robusti»). Similar cases are «Canaletto» (Antonio «Canale» and also B. «Belotto»), «Correggio» (Ant. «Allegri»), «Garofalo» (Benvenuto Piero «Tisi»), Il «Sodoma» (Giov. Ant. «Bazzi»), «Spagnoletto» (José «Ribera»), «Uccello» (Paolo «Doni»). Always refer from the family name.

_b._ In particular, ecclesiastical dignitaries. Refer.

_Ex._ «Kaye», John, _Bishop of Lincoln_.

«Lincoln», John, _Bishop of_. _See_ «Kaye».

Bishops usually omit their family name, canons their forename, on their title-pages, as “by Canon Liddon,” “by the Bishop of Ripon,” “by Henry Edward, archbishop of Westminster,” _i. e._, H: E: Manning. Care must be taken not to treat Canon as a forename or Edward as a family name. {22}

_c._ Married women, using the last well-known form. Refer.

Wives often continue writing, and are known in literature, only under their maiden names (as Miss «Freer» or Fanny «Lewald»), or after a second marriage retain for literary purposes the first husband’s name. The cataloguer should not hurry to make a change in the name as soon as he learns of a marriage. Let him rather follow than lead the public.

21. Put under the title:

British[14] and foreign[15] noblemen, referring from earlier titles by which they have been known, and, in the case of British noblemen, from the family name.

_Ex._ «Chesterfield», Philip Dormer Stanhope, _4th Earl of_. Refer from «Stanhope». «Saint-Simon», Louis de Rouvroi, _duc_ de.

[note] 14. The British Museum and Mr. Jewett enter British noblemen under the family name; Mr. Perkins prefers entry under titles for British noblemen, in which I agree with him, although the opposite practice is now so well established. The reasons for entry under the title are that British noblemen are always so 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 Thymne), 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 favor of the Museum rule is that it is well-established and that it is desirable that there should be some uniform rule. Ecclesiastical dignitaries stand on an entirely different footing. There is much more use of the family name and much more change of title. In the first edition I followed the British Museum rules, but I am now in favor of the more popular method of entry of noblemen, namely, under their titles, _except when the family name is decidedly better known_ (Francis «Bacon», _Baron Verulam_, Horace «Walpole», _4th Earl of Orford_). In such cases enter under the family name and refer from the title. This rule was adopted by the committee of the American Library Association (_Lib. jnl._, 3: 12–19; 8: 251–254). The reasons pro and con were discussed in _Lib. jnl._, 3: 13, 14. The gist of them is: “Authors should be put under their names. The definition of a name is ‘that by which a person or thing is known.’ British noblemen are known by their titles, not by their family names.”[/note]

[note] 15. Put the military nobles and princes of the French Empire under their family names, with references from their titles, _e. g._, Lucien «Bonaparte», _Prince de Canino_, «MacMahon», _duc de Magenta_.[/note]

22. Put the works of authors who change their name under the latest form, provided the new name be legally and permanently adopted.

Do not worry about the proper form of changed and transliterated names, nor spend much time in hunting up facts and deciding. If the necessary references are made, it is of little importance which form is chosen for the main entry, provided, of course, that the library always chooses the same heading.

If the change consist in the addition of a name the new name is to be treated by the next rule. {23}

23. Put compound names:

_a._ If English, under the last part of the name, when the first has not been used alone by the author.

_Ex._ «Gould», Sabine Baring-; but «Halliwell» (_afterwards_ «Halliwell-Phillipps»), J. O., because the author wrote much under the first name.

This rule 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, when a name has been more known under the last part, as «Fénelon», not «Salignac de Lamothe Fénelon»; «Voltaire», not «Arouet de Voltaire»; «Sternberg», not «Ungern-Sternberg». 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 Hœfer (Biog. gén.) and Quérard, in such cases, if they always agreed; unfortunately, they often differ. References are necessary whichever way one decides each case, especially when the second part of a foreign compound name has been used alone, as «Merle d’Aubigné» (enter under «Merle» with a reference from «Aubigné»).

In French a forename is sometimes joined to a surname by a hyphen. In such cases make the entry under the family name with a reference from the forename, _e. g._, entry, «Rochette», Désiré Raoul; reference, «Raoul-Rochette». _See_ «Rochette».

_c._ In foreign compound names of women also, although the first part is generally the maiden name and the second the husband’s name, the entry should generally be under the first, with a reference from the second. (_See_ 20, _c._)

_Ex._ «Rivé-King», with cross-reference from «King», _born_ «Rivé».

24. Put surnames preceded by prefixes:

_a._ In French, under the prefix when it is or contains an article, «Le», «La», «L’», «Du», «Des»; under the word following when the prefix is a preposition, «de», «d’».

When the name is printed by the author as one word the entry is made under the preposition, as «Debucourt», «Decamps».

_b._ In English, under the prefix, no matter from what language the name is derived, as «De Quincey», «Van Buren», with references when necessary.

_c._ In all other languages, under the name following the prefix, as «Gama», Vasco da. with references whenever the name has been commonly used in English with the prefix, as «Del Rio», «Vandyck», «Van Ess».

But when the author prints his name as one word entry is made under the prefix, as «Vanderhaeghen».

_d._ Naturalized names are to be treated by the rules of the nation adopting them.

Thus German names preceded by von when belonging to Russians are to be entered under «Von». _E. g._, Фонь Визин is to be entered as «Von Vizin» (not «Vizin», von), as this is the Russian custom. So when Dutch names compounded with van are adopted into French or English (as «Van Laun») the «Van» is treated as part of the family name.

Prefixes are d’, de, de «La» (the name goes under _La_ not _de_), Des, Du, L’, La, Le, Les, St., Ste. (to be arranged as if written Saint, Sainte), Van, A’, Ap, O’, Fitz, Mac (which is to be printed as it is in the title, whether M’, or Mc, or Mac, but to be arranged as if written Mac). {24}

25. 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.

26. Put names of capes, lakes, mountains, rivers, forts, _etc._, beginning with Cape, Lake, Mt., etc., under the word following the prefix, but when the name is itself used as a prefix, do not transpose Cape, etc., nor in such names as Isle of the Woods, Isles of Shoals.

_Ex._ «Cod, Cape»; «George, Lake»; «Washington, Mt.»; «Moultrie, Fort»; but «Cape Breton Island». When the name of a fort becomes the name of a city, of course the inversion must be abandoned, as «Fort Wayne».

(iii.) _Under what form of the name._

27. Give the names, both family and Christian, in the vernacular form,[16] if any instance occurs of the use of that form in the printed publications of the author.[17]

[note] 16. The vernacular form of most Christian names may be found in Michaelis’s “Wörterbuch der Taufnamen” (Berlin, 1856). There are also meagre lists in foreign dictionaries. For the forms of mediæval names much assistance can be had from A. Potthast’s “Bibliotheca historica medii aevi, Berlin, Weber, 1862,” O, and “Supplement, 1868,” O; also from Alfred Franklin’s “Dictionnaire des noms, surnoms, et pseudonymes latins de l’histoire littéraire du Moyen Age (1100 à 1530), Paris, 1876,” O. (On the names of sovereigns, see § 19; on the Latin names of Greek authors, see § 36; on the names of Greek gods, see § 100.)[/note]

[note] 17. This is the British Museum rule. It will obviously be sometimes impossible and often difficult to determine this point in a library of less extent than the Museum, and the cataloguer must make up his mind to some inconsistency in his treatment of mediæval names, and be consoled by the knowledge that if proper references are made no harm will be done. Against a too great preference for the vernacular Professor De Morgan writes in the preface to his “Arithmetical books:” “I have not attempted to translate the names of those who wrote in Latin at a time when that language was the universal medium of communication. I consider that the Latin name is that which the author has left to posterity, and that the practice of retaining it is convenient, as marking, to a certain extent, the epoch of his writings, and as being the appellation by which his contemporaries and successors cite him. It is well to know that Copernicus, Dasypodius, Xylander, Regiomontanus, and Clavius were Zepernik, Rauchfuss, Holtzmann, Müller, and Schlüssel. But as the butchers’ bills of these eminent men are all lost, and their writings only remain, it is best to designate them by the name they bear on the latter rather than the former.”

The same may be said of Camerarius (Kämmerer), Capito (Kopflein), Mercator (Kramer), Œcolampadius (Hausschein), where it would be useless to employ the vernacular name; if both forms are in use, as in the case of Pomeranius = Bugenhagen, the vernacular should have the preference. Reuchlin is much more common than its equivalent, Capnio.

Before the Reformation the presumption is in favor of the Latin form; after it in favor of the vernacular.

Short will consult the convenience of his readers if he uses the English forms of names like «Homer», «Horace», «Virgil», in place of «Homerus», «Horatius», «Vergilius».

The vernacular names of the Middle Ages often appear in various forms. The form which has survived to the present time is to be preferred (as «Jean» to «Jehan»), unless a name is commonly used in the old form, as in the romances «Jehan» de Lançon. Refer from the one not chosen.[/note]

{25}

28. If an author has written in several modern languages, choose that in which he has written most.

29. In languages which use a masculine and a feminine form of family names (as «Modjeski» and «Modjeska»), use that which the authoress herself chiefly employs.

30. When an author’s name is variously spelled, select the best authorized form as heading, add the variants in parentheses, and make references from them to the form adopted.

Of course, great care must be taken not to enter separately works in which an author spells his name differently, as Briant and Bryant, Easterbrookes and Estabrook, Erdmann and Erdtmann. On the other hand, different people who spell their names differently should be separated, as Hofmann and Hoffmann, Maier, Mair, Majer, Mayer, Mayr, Meier, Meir, Mejer, Meyer, Meyr, Schmid, Schmidt, Schmied, Schmiedt, Schmit, Schmitt. (On the arrangement of such names in a card catalogue see § 218.)

In German Christian names there is a want of uniformity in the use of C and K (Carl, Conrad, Karl, Konrad) and f and ph (Adolf, Adolph). Occasionally an author uses both forms in different books, or writing only in Latin (Carolus, Rudolphus), does not show which form he prefers. Where the author thus leaves the point undecided, K and f should be preferred to C and ph (except in Christoph). Swedish f is to be preferred to v, as Gustaf, not Gustav.

31. When family names are written differently by different persons, follow the spelling adopted by each, even though it should separate father and son.

32. Forenames are to be used in the form employed by their owners, however unusual, as Will «Carleton», Sally (Pratt) «McLean», Hans «Droysen», Fritz «Reuter».

33. Give names of places in the English form.

«Munich» not «Muenchen» or «München», «Vienna» not «Wien», «Austria» not «Oesterreich».

34. But if both the English and the foreign forms are used by English writers, prefer the foreign form.

35. Use the modern name of a city and refer to it from the ancient, provided its existence has been continuous and there is no doubt as to the identity.

36. In transliteration of names from alphabets of differently formed letters, use the vowels according to their German sounds. (_See_ Appendix II for the report of the Transliteration Committee of the American Library Association.)