Catalogues must have nothing to do with distinctions between celebrity and obscurity. They must aim at serving the tyro no less than the professor.—Edward Edwards (Memoirs of Libraries, 1859, II., p. 836).
Books may be classed under four heads, namely (1) Autonymous—(2) Polyonymous—(3) Pseudonymous, and—(4) Anonymous.
1. Autonymous, the first and most common is with the author’s name either on the title-page, or if not on the title-page, signed to a preface, introduction, letter, or dedication, or in some part of the book, or at the end. Speeches though usually anonymous with regard to the reporting or editing, are frequently catalogued under the name of the speaker as autonymous.
2. Polyonymous, is with several authors’ names. It is usual to enter them under the name of the first author, with cross references from the others.
3. Pseudonymous, without the author’s name, but with a fictitious name or designation, thus giving some indication as to the author, though possibly a very slight one. No matter in what part of the book the pseudonym appears, the work is pseudonymous.[6]
In cataloguing, the pseudonym should no more be left out, than the author’s name. If an author uses a pseudonym on the title, but gives his real name in the book, it is not pseudonymous, but must be catalogued as autonymous. In this case, as in all others, the pseudonym should be given, even if the title is abbreviated. In fact the pseudonym for bibliographical purposes takes the place of the author’s name. I have not space here to enumerate the different classes of pseudonyms, of which there are many varieties.[7]
4. Lastly an Anonymous book is one without the author’s name, whether on the title page, or any part of the book. The word anonymous has been and still is very indiscriminately used to include pseudonymous. The cataloguer must be careful not to be betrayed into this error so fruitful of inaccuracy. This class of books has resisted the most strenuous efforts of the learned to bring it within rules, every rule for cataloguing such books requiring an exception. With anonymous works having simple titles, such as “Aggravating Ladies” (supposing a work to be published anonymously with such a title) the task is easy. Though even this example will illustrate the difficulty of the subject, for there are only two words and there are two ways of cataloguing, each having advantages. By one system it would come under “Aggravating” and by the other under “Ladies.” According to the system of Audiffredi[8] and of Barbier[9] and of a similar work on English authors[10], it would be catalogued by the first word, and for such works this is the most approved method[11]. According to the Rules of the British Museum it would be catalogued under Ladies.
It affords matter for consideration when we find it stated that “An anonymous work is seldom read with confidence or quoted as an authority.”[12]
Many publications intended expressly for youth, and therefore requiring some guarantee that they are fit for the purpose, are published without the author’s name, though frequently with an indication of sex.
It may probably be that little as is the credit given to the anonymous or pseudonymous work, for in the above quotation both are meant, it would obtain less if it had the author’s real name[13].
To shew that a book was published without the author’s name, whether anonymous or pseudonymous, some bibliographers have put an asterisk or star at the beginning of the title. I am not aware that this, or indeed any plan has systematically been adopted in any English work, except within the last few years. In his learned Essay On the Literature of Political economy, p. x, J. R. McCulloch says: “When the name of the author of a work is included between brackets, it shows that it was published anonymously.” He uses anonymous here in the sense of without the author’s name, and to include pseudonymous. I made use of the star in the Handbook of Fictitious Names in 1868, but only to indicate anonymity, and not as Quérard uses it. In Notes and Queries for the 6th April, 1872, I suggested the adoption of a line — to shew that a book was published pseudonymously. And I made use of both signs in my Bibliographical list of Lord Brougham’s publications. These signs have the advantage of attracting the eye, and declaring at once the class of book. On the other hand they cannot be used for foot notes, are likely to be overlooked in printing, and there is always great difficulty in getting readers to find out what signs mean. On the whole after much consideration I have determined for the future to use simply abbreviations of the words anonymous and pseudonymous which everybody understands without explanation.
As in describing a book the principal object is to enable the student to identify it, so that there may be no doubt that the cataloguer’s remarks upon a certain book apply to that for which the reader is searching. It is less important that autonymous works should be catalogued so fully as anonymous, because the author’s name is at once a guide. For though two autonymous works bear the same title their authors’ names would be different. But not so with two anonymous works having the same title.
Pseudonymous works, in which the pseudonym is a name and not a phrase or denomination, would come in the same category.
For anonymous, and frequently for pseudonymous works it is not only desirable to give the full title, but to supplement it with any further information that will help identification. As for example, if the book is printed at a different place to that of sale or publication[14] or if dated and addressed from what would appear to be the author’s residence, or if there is any allusion in the work or the advertisements[15] to other publications of the same author. Examples of all will be found in my list. Though a book be anonymous so far as the title page informs us, yet if pseudonymous from the preface or introduction being signed with a fictitious name, or with initials or denomination, or other qualification, it should be catalogued as pseudonymous. Thus following the rule with regard to autonyms. Except when signed:—The Author, The Editor, The Translator, Himself, or Herself, of which it is best to take no notice, even if on the title. Such works should be considered anonymous without even giving cross-references from those words.
Of whatever description, whether autonymous, or anonymous, or pseudonymous, the first words of the title, or the half title, should be quoted correctly, and exactly as they occur, and to this rule there should be no exception, whether for bibliographical lists, or for the purpose of citation as an authority. For in the latter case, however familiar the work cited may be, there are sure to be readers unfamiliar with it, to whom a loose reference will cause trouble. The half title or any abbreviation of the title, if used by the author of the book may be adopted.
Few things cause greater waste of time amongst literary men than the habitually careless manner in which they give references. Not only should a book be correctly described, but the edition or date and page ought to be added. Bibliographers (which term I here use to mean persons who have concerned themselves with the description of books) have sinned terribly in this respect by giving descriptions of books at second, or even third-hand, and repeating the mistakes and blunders of the original authority. Title pages are like rumours, the oftener they are repeated the more incorrect they become. The student should never rely upon a catalogue for the description of a book, unless the compiler has adhered strictly to rules. A statement in bibliothecas, biographical dictionaries, or catalogues, that a work is anonymous, can never be relied upon[16].
After the first few words of the title every abbreviation or omission should be indicated by three dots … close together not thus. . . . This is a better method than using an “etc.,” a sign which from the carelessness of authors is frequently found on title-pages of books, and if used by both authors and cataloguers we should never know which. As few authors could explain the meaning of an “&c.” on the title, it is not likely that readers can guess.
It has been customary to omit mottoes without any indication of the omission, and this has been done in one of the most bibliographical works published in England[17]. I only know of one work of importance where special notice is taken of such omissions.[18]
If a title page has a motto its omission should be shewn thus [motto].
To print mottoes when numerous or lengthy in an extensive work seems quite out of the question. When short it is a luxury the bibliographer may occasionally indulge in. I confess that this is one of the points I have felt extremely puzzled about. I never abbreviate or omit anything from a title-page without fear and trembling, which is intensified in the case of mottoes. They frequently in one short verse, or sentence, give the pith of a book, and my fear is that some one in the future should wonder how I could be so stupid as to suggest their omission.
All additions should be indicated with the same care by placing them between brackets [ ]. Additions in titles should be as few and as short as possible, all explanatory matter can be given in a note.
Sometimes authors use brackets or parentheses on the title pages. When this is the case, if of no use or unimportant, they should be left out by the cataloguer. For instance, when an author has the words [Reprinted from, &c.] in the title. To omit the brackets is the least misleading, for if left in it would look as if this information were not supplied by the author, and if (sic) were put it would not be understood as referring to the brackets.
6. For a curious instance see the Handbook of Fictitious Names, p. 94. One who is But an attorney; and One who thinks for himself i.e. T. Truewit.
7. A list, unfortunately containing many errors, will be found at the end of “A notice of the life and works of J. M. Quérard by Olphar Hamst: London, J. R. Smith, 1867.” This list is adopted by John Power in his “Handy-book about books,” with all my errors and a good stock of his own to boot. There is an extended treatise on pseudonyms in the introduction to either edition of Quérard’s “Supercheries Littéraires Devoilées.” The subject is also treated of in M. Octave Delepierre’s “Supercheries littéraires, pastiches,” Londres, Trübner, 1872. Probably the earliest treatise is that entitled “Auteurs déguisez,” Paris, 1690, by Adrien Baillet, but published without his name.
8. Audiffredi’s work, referred to in the Report on the British Museum (1850, p. 469), it is entitled “Bibliothecæ Casanatensis catalogus librorum typis impressorum,” tom 1-4, A-K. Roma, 1761-1788, fol., and is quoted by Barbier at p. xlviii of the work referred to in the next note.
9. Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes … par A. A. Barbier … Paris, 1806, 4 vols, 8o. It is curious to note that Barbier had not settled in his own mind at the date of the above the first edition, what was an anonymous work. He describes it as one upon the title page of which the author is not named, and he then states that sometimes the author’s name is found in the work; but he says it is the custom to class them all as anonymous and not to distinguish different degrees of anonymity. In the second edition in 1826 he very properly eliminated so far as he was able such works as contained the authors’ names. For many things the first edition is better than the second, in which many of the titles we are told were abbreviated. In the third and last and best edition, part of which was published in 1872, his son, (see p. xxix., note) has so far as he was able, re-instated such titles because so many editors and others still continue to consider a work anonymous if the author’s name does not occur on the title page. This is a step backwards, and the sooner M. Olivier Barbier throws the editors and others overboard the better.
10. A prospectus was issued in 1872, with the title: A dictionary of the anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain by the late Samuel Halkett.—See Notes and Queries 4 s. IX., p. 403.
11. And is recommended in a pamphlet entitled: Hints on the formation of small libraries, by W. E. A. Axon, London, Trübner [1869] reprinted in: A handy book about books, by J. Power, Lond., J. Wilson, 1870, p. 156, and he adopts it in: The literature of the Lancashire dialect, a bibliographical essay, by W. E. A. Axon, 1870.
12. Bolton Corney, “On the new general Biographical dictionary,” 1839, p. 15.
13. For examples see Notes and Queries 3rd s. XII, 394, and the Handbook of Fictitious Names.
14. Many London publishers have printing houses out of town, in such cases the place of printing is no guide.
15. Advertisements should generally be preserved. If, however, a book has been through a binder’s hands there is little chance of their surviving. Never send a book to the binder without special instructions to preserve the advertisements and covers or wrappers, and mark every page intended to be kept, otherwise there is a barbarous custom amongst binders, arising from ignorance or cupidity, of denuding every pamphlet of the covers and advertisements which frequently teem with matter useful in after years. Binders like to treat books like convicts, and shave their heads.
16. Those who desire to see examples of several classes of errors to be avoided can refer to the following works. On the new general Biographical dictionary: a specimen of amateur criticism in letters [signed Bolton Corney] to Mr. Sylvanus Urban [motto] London: Shoberl, 1839, 8o. A remarkable piece of criticism indispensable to every biographer or bibliographer.
Arithmetical books … being brief notices of a large number of works drawn up from actual inspection by Augustus de Morgan … London, 1847. See the preface and introduction to this valuable and interesting work. The English catalogue of books, 1864, makes an edition of this work with the date 1853, at 2s 6d. Being desirous of possessing this, I wrote to the learned Professor to know where it was to be obtained, and what difference there was, he replied:—“The difference between the 1st and 2nd edition of my Arithmetical Books, is the difference between something and nothing, which, let Hegel say what he will, is a very great difference. There is not any second edition, nor I think, will be.” Refer also to an article by De Morgan in the Companion to the Almanac for 1853, entitled “On the difficulty of correct description of books,” pp. 5 to 19, full of various and useful matter.
Handbook of Fictitious names of authors of the XIXth Century … by Olphar Hamst …, 1868, p. xi.
Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes par A. A. Barbier, 3e. ed., 1872, see the note by Olivier Barbier on the second page of the advertisement to the first volume.
17. A descriptive catalogue of Friends’ books, … by Joseph Smith, in two vols, … 1867.
18. This is the: Catalogue of the Manchester free library, reference department, prepared by A. Crestadoro, … 1864, where the omission is indicated by three stars.
In my “List of works on Swimming,” I give full titles, including mottoes of all the books I was able to see. In my “Bibliographical list of Lord Brougham’s publications,” I indicate the place of the motto on the title.