Manual of Library Cataloguing

The work is in three volumes, the first being dated 1828, the second 1829, and the third 1830. We ascertain by reference to a biographical dictionary, or other likely work, that the author’s name is William, and as Wm. Taylor is a somewhat common name we retain the description “of Norwich,” so that he may be distinguished from any other author of the same name. The author-entry then is:

This book being in more than one volume a collation of each is not given, as the statement of the number of volumes is considered to give sufficient idea of its extent. If the work were illustrated this fact would still be stated, not usually as “3 v., illus.” but “Illus. 3 v.” or “illus. 3 v.” It will be seen that the date of publication of each volume is not given but the first and last dates only. It is necessary to point out that the earliest and latest dates are not always those of the first and last volumes of a set, as it sometimes happens that they are not the first or last issued. Often enough the volumes of a set are made up of two or more editions with long intervals between the dates. In all cases the earliest and latest dates are to be given, and any peculiarities of the edition can be stated in the form of a note at the end of the entry.

Taking another book we find that the title-page reads:

and after an exhaustive examination the entry comes out as

29.—The desirability, or otherwise, of using initials instead of giving the Christian name in full in an author-entry depends largely upon the requirements of the library and the space taken up.

There seems to be a growing practice to search out from any available source all the names that an author was ever saddled with. The object of this for catalogues, other than those of great libraries of national importance, is not very obvious, and it should not concern the cataloguer why Dickens chose to be known as Charles simply instead of Charles John Huffam, or Du Maurier preferred to be called George rather than George Louis Palmela Busson, or even why Hall Caine has dropped the use of Thomas Henry from the fore part of his name. Yet these and other persons have appeared with all the names set out at length even in minor catalogues, and sometimes with the titles of the books cut down to the finest limit in order that the whole name might be got in. The spirit of infinite research is not always an advantage to the cataloguer.

30.—On the other hand, bare initials have a meagre appearance, and the middle course should be adopted even when expense is a consideration, as it adds very little to the cost of printing to give at least one name in full. It must be admitted that in many instances where there are two or more Christian names, the initials are distinctive enough for all reasonable purposes, as E. A. Abbott, A. K. H. Boyd, E. A. Freeman, and can be so used. Well-understood abbreviations, like Chas. Dickens, Geo. R. Sims, Robt. Browning, Thos. Carlyle, can also be used, but the gain is so trifling as not to be worth consideration. The first Christian name in use should be given in full, unless it happens that some other is better or specially known, as W. H. Davenport Adams, J. Percy Groves, J. Cotter Morison, R. Bosworth Smith.

31.—With the commoner surnames, as Smith, Brown, Jones, and the rest, there will be a number of authors who will have also the same Christian name, when particular care must be exercised not to mix the works together, and so attribute books to a wrong author. Some distinction must be given, like that shown in the “Taylor of Norwich” entry (p. 27), and these are better printed in italics. Examples of these, taken from a catalogue, are

When father and son with the same name are authors, and the difference between them appears in the book as “the elder,” “jun.,” “fils,” “aîné,” &c., it should be given at the time the entry is made, even though not then required for distinguishing purposes, the library only possessing the works of one or the other. Frequently such a distinction is not shown on the book, and the cataloguer must add it. Strange to say, entries like the following have been seen in catalogues:—

The first book being by the Paquet frères, and the other by Nassau W. Senior.

32.—Biographical dictionaries of all kinds are useful to the cataloguer, but for making distinctions like those referred to above, and for general use, the most serviceable and handiest, because concise and comprehensive, is “The dictionary of biographical reference, containing one hundred thousand names,” by Lawrence B. Phillips (Sampson Low, 1871.) There is a later edition of this work, but it is merely a reprint with no new matter. It should be superfluous to name the valuable and indispensable “Dictionary of national biography” for British names. Allibone’s “Critical dictionary of English literature and British and American authors,” with its supplement by Kirk, is an every-day book of reference for cataloguers. For German biography the “Allgemeine deutsche Biographie” (Leipzig, 1875-98), is the most important, and for French names the “Biographie universelle” (Paris, 1842-65) is very serviceable, as well as for names generally. It should be supplemented by Vapereau’s “Dictionnaire des contemporains.”

33.—The form for author-entry is clear and simple enough, and seems easy to put into practice, but difficulties soon arise, and the amount of knowledge the cataloguer possesses upon men in general and authors in particular will be early put to the test. The next book coming before us is

The author’s name in this instance is a pseudonym, and the mode of treating such names has given rise to differences of opinion, and consequently of practice. In many catalogues the real name of the author, when known, is taken for the author-entry, and a reference given from the pseudonym to it. This may be a good rule to follow in very special catalogues, but there is no doubt that it is against the convenience of the great majority of persons who use libraries; and therefore the best, because most convenient and useful, plan is to make the entry under the best known name, whether it be assumed or real. It has been often said, and with much truth, that it is not the business of librarians to discover the identity of an author by proving his use of an alias unless for some sufficient reason. It has become quite a mania with some cataloguers to hunt and pry until they find out whether a name is real or not, and their zeal in this direction sometimes misleads them, as witness the fact that “George Eliot” has been entered as Mrs. Lewes in quite a number of catalogues, and Marie Corelli is called Marion Mackay. The cataloguer, besides putting himself to the bother of being ever on the look-out for real names, gives readers the trouble and vexation of looking in several places in the catalogue before they can find the author’s works they are in search of. People wanting books by “Ouida” do not care to be told on turning to that name to “see De la Ramé,” or “Ramée, L. de la,” or even “La Ramé.” It would be equally absurd, on the other hand, to refer from Dickens to “Boz,” or Thackeray to “Titmarsh;” therefore use the best known names. When the pseudonym is the most familiar name, and the principal entry is accordingly given under that form, then it is desirable, but not absolutely essential, to also give the real name, when known with certainty, enclosing it in parentheses, as

Sometimes the pseudonym is printed in italics in all entries, but this only serves to emphasise the name, without indicating that it is a known pseudonym. If it is wished to point out that the name is assumed, then the customary form of printing it in inverted commas is better understood, as

but this need only be in the author-entry. Upon these lines the book before us appears as

To perfectly complete the author-entry and to prevent any possibility of mistake, we require a cross-reference pointing from the real name to the pseudonym under which the entry is found, thus:

If space is of no consideration, and it is wished to make the entry as exact as possible, then the form is

and the reference reads

34.—Before leaving this question of the treatment of pseudonymous books attention may be directed to other phases of it. There is the difficulty that occasionally arises of an author publishing under a pseudonym and under his real name and being equally as well-known under both. Instances of this would be the Rev. John M. Watson, whose theological works appear under his own name, and his stories under “Ian Maclaren;” and J. E. Muddock, who publishes some stories under that name and, it is said, his detective stories under the name of “Dick Donovan.” Common-sense might offer the suggestion to adhere to the rule already laid down and enter under both names, but this violates one of the first principles of dictionary cataloguing, viz., that all works by an author must be brought together under a single name. Therefore in such cases there is no option but to adopt the real name, at the same time taking care to remove all occasion of difficulty by giving cross-references, as

35.—Then there are books that have a phrase for the pseudonym, like “One who has kept a diary,” or “A whistler at the plough.” These, while nominally pseudonyms, are virtually anonyms, and it is customary in full and special catalogues to make the entry under the first word not an article of such a phrase-name. It may be considered as very likely that such an entry in the majority of catalogues would be quite superfluous. Books like:

would be better dealt with if the title-entries, such as these, were taken as the principal entries and the pseudonym ignored. This is a case where the cataloguer will use his discretion as to the best course to pursue, being guided by the requirements of the library, but it is a mistake on the right side to give both forms if there is the least doubt.

36.—Books with initials only instead of the author’s name come between the pseudonymous and anonymous. The initials may be those of a name or indicate a title or profession. In all cases where the name veiled by the initials cannot be discovered, or their meaning ascertained, then the entry is given under the last letter, but if the letters stand for a known pseudonym, as “A.L.O.E.,” or a title or degree, as “by an M.P.,” or “M.A. (Oxon),” then the first letter is taken instead of the last. Occasionally an initialism will be given like, “by B.H.W., D.D.,” when, the meaning being clear, the entry will be under the W., as

If it is known what the name is that is covered by the initials, as A.K.H.B., or L.E.L., then the entry is given under the name in full,

but it is requisite that cross-references be given from the initialism, as

The remark as to whether it is worth while in minor catalogues to give an entry under a phrase-pseudonym applies equally to the initials, and is open to the same doubts.

37.—In arranging the entries in alphabetical order it should be noted that initials take precedence of all other names in each particular letter, as

The works most useful to the cataloguer in revealing real names are Halkett and Laing’s Dictionary of the anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain, Cushing’s Initials and pseudonyms, and Les supercheries littéraires dévoilées, par Quérard. A list of pseudonyms, mostly modern instances, with the real names, will be found in Appendix C, by those who may require it.

38.—The next illustration is selected because it is distinctly anonymous, that is the author is not shown in any form in the book, either by a pseudonym or initialism, and the ordinary sources of information do not enable the authorship to be discovered.

Upon such books, if they are worth it, the industry of the cataloguer may very well be exercised, as librarians and the public feel that they are fully justified in finding out who the author is if they can. If the book is of any importance the name of the author is sure to be revealed for general information sooner or later, and the possibility of this adds zest to the search for the name at the moment it is needed by the cataloguer. Besides the works of reference mentioned already, Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica should be consulted (for the older books), Barbier’s Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes, and any special bibliographies or catalogues within reach, not forgetting the great British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books. Local catalogues often prove valuable in this work, as the identity of an author may be well-known locally but not further. It is as well to point out that if a work is merely “ascribed,” or “said to be” by a particular person it is better to regard the book as altogether anonymous. To name a case in point, Halkett and Laing ascribe the authorship of the, at one time, celebrated “red pamphlets” on the Mutiny of the Bengal Army to a Major Bunbury, whereas the author is now known to have been the late Colonel G. B. Malleson.

In the event of the search after the author’s name proving futile, the rule is that the principal entry be given under the first word of the title not an article, in the same way as the entries follow in the work of Halkett and Laing. Should the library be a small one of a general character it would be somewhat pedantic to adhere rigidly to this rule, more especially if the subject of the book is clearly stated upon its title-page. For example, books like, A short history of Poland, and The rambler’s guide to Harrogate, would be amply and satisfactorily dealt with if entries were alone given under “Poland” and “Harrogate” respectively, instead of under “Short” and “Rambler’s,” as required by the rule.

39.—When books are said to be “by the author of —” and it cannot be ascertained who the author is, then they are treated as altogether anonymous and dealt with accordingly, as

No entry would be made under “Honor bright” except, of course, for that book itself if it happened to be in the library.

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:

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:

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,

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

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:

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

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:

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

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

or fuller still, as

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

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,

becomes simply

and

is

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

is reduced to

or shorter still, if desired, to

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

and not

Prefixes would be inserted in their proper order, as

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

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

and the reference

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:

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:

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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.

CHAPTER VI.
THE PRINCIPAL ENTRY.—THE AUTHOR-ENTRY, 4.

57.—When books are written in collaboration, the customary procedure is to make the entry under the first-named author, if not more than two are given on the title-page, followed by the name of the second. If there are more than two authors, then the name of the first only is given, followed by “and others,” or “&c.,” as

It is desirable to give a cross-reference from every joint-author to the name under which the entry is placed, but it depends greatly upon the style of the catalogue whether this is done or not. In most cases it will be found that the references can be dispensed with if more than two authors, and often enough from the second when but two. It is unlikely, for example, that a reference is necessary from Rice to Besant for the novels by Besant and Rice, or from Chatrian for those by Erckmann-Chatrian. If, however, the second-named author is also the single author of other books in the library, the reference is unavoidable and must be given. In the principal entry it is unnecessary to reverse the names of any author but the first, though this is sometimes done, as

but the better form is

58.—The order of arrangement for books written by an author who is also a joint-author is to give first those books written by him alone; then those books in which he has collaborated, with his name occupying the leading place upon the title-page; and lastly the references to other authors with whom he has joined, but with his name in a secondary place. The entries would be separately alphabetical in each of these divisions. The following illustrates this point:—