How to Catalogue a Library Part 5

"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 const.i.tution 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 a.s.sociation 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 t.i.tles now acc.u.mulated under the more common royal names.

"_b._ Persons canonized.

"_Ex._ THOMAS [a Becket], _Saint_.

"_c._ Friars, who, by the const.i.tution 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 t.i.tle-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 a 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 Literargeschichte_ 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 mult.i.tude 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 t.i.tles 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 t.i.tle, to be catalogued under the final form (being a surname) which their name a.s.sumes, 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 auth.o.r.esses 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 auth.o.r.ess 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 t.i.tle-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 a.s.sumed. 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 f.a.n.n.y 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 a.s.sociation 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 pa.s.s on to consider some of the points connected with cla.s.sical 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: erodotus]. 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 Caesar, 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 pa.s.s on to those cases where there is some difficulty in deciding as to the authors.h.i.+p of a book. Many t.i.tles 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 t.i.tle-page. This book is ent.i.tled, "_Collections for the History of Hamps.h.i.+re_. 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 circ.u.mstance somewhat singular arose out of the publication of _Hamps.h.i.+re, 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 t.i.tle 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 _Princ.i.p.al 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.