*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 41813 ***

Note: Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
      http://archive.org/details/howtocatalogueli00wheaiala


Transcriber's note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      Gesperrt, or widely spaced, letters occur in the tables
      of catalog entries and are enclosed by tilde characters
      (example: ~Le Breton~). In this e-book, the gesperrt text
      is also in small capitals.

      Backward-facing C is indicated by <C.

      The examples of chronograms contain combinations of small
      and regular capital letters. The small capitals have been
      changed to lower case, while the regular capitals remain
      in upper case.

      Greek letters appearing in the original have been
      transliterated and are indicated by [Greek: ]. Three of
      the Greek numerals do not have corresponding letters. The
      words "stigma" (for 6), "qoppa" (for 90), and "sampi"
      (for 900), enclosed in [], have been used for these. The
      table in the original does not include upper case characters
      for stigma and sampi. The numerical accents are indicated
      by ' for the upper and , for the lower.





[Decoration]

The Book-Lover's Library.

Edited by

Henry B. Wheatley, F.S.A.


HOW TO CATALOGUE A LIBRARY

by

Henry B. Wheatley, F.S.A.

Author of "How to Form a Library," "The Dedication of Books,"
etc., etc.







[Decoration]

London
Elliot Stock, 62 Paternoster Row
1889




PREFACE.


_Those who are interested in library work are constantly asked where a
statement of the first principles of cataloguing may be found, and the
question is one which it is not easy to answer. Most of the rules which
have been printed are intended for large public libraries, and are
necessarily laid down on a scale which unfits them for use in the making
of a small catalogue. I have divided out the subject on a plan which I
hope will commend itself to my readers, and, after discussing the most
notable codes, I have concluded with a selection of such rules as I
trust will be found useful by those who are employed in making
catalogues of ordinary libraries.

Here I must express the hope that my readers will excuse the frequent
use of the personal pronoun. If the use of "I" could have been avoided,
I would gladly have avoided it; but as the main point of the book is the
discussion of principles and theories, it seemed to me that such value
as the book may possess would be entirely destroyed if I did not give my
own opinions, founded upon a somewhat long experience.

In dealing with a subject such as this, I cannot hope to convince all
my readers, but I trust that those who disagree with my arguments will
be willing to allow them some force.

The compilation has been attended with constant feelings of regret in
my own mind, for almost every page has brought up before me the memory
of two men with whom I have at different times discussed most of the
points here raised,--two men alike in their unselfish devotion to the
cause of Bibliography. Mr. Henry Bradshaw's work was more widely known,
but Mr. Benjamin R. Wheatley's labours were scarcely less valued in the
smaller circle where they were known, and both brought to bear upon a
most difficult subject the whole force of their thoroughly practical
minds. I have learned much from both, and I have felt a constant wish to
consult them during the preparation of these pages.

All those who prepared the British Museum rules are gone from us; but
happily cataloguers can still boast of Mr. Cutter of Boston, one of the
foremost of our craft. Mr. Cutter has prepared a most remarkable code of
rules, and has not only laid down the law, but has also fearlessly given
the reasons for his faith, and these reasons form a body of sound
opinion. May he long live to do honour to Bibliography, a cause which
knows no nationality._

                                                                H. B. W.

  _October, 1889._




CONTENTS.


CHAP.                                                            PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION.

    What is a Catalogue?--Vulgar Errors--A Good Cataloguer
    attempts to put himself in the Seeker's Place--Judicious
    Shortening of Titles--Difference between Cataloguing
    and Bibliography-making--A Universal Catalogue--Printing
    of the British Museum Catalogue--Different Classes of
    Catalogues--Classified and Alphabetical--Catalogue
    Raisonné--Index Catalogues--Mr. Bradshaw's View--Need of
    Care--No Jumping to Conclusions--Different Styles of
    Catalogues--Purton Cooper's Sale Catalogues                     1

II. BATTLE OF THE RULES.

    British Museum Foremost in the Race--Printed Catalogues
    of the Museum--Panizzi's Fight--Evidence before the Royal
    Commission--Payne Collier's Defeat--The Museum Rules--
    Jewett's Rules--Cambridge University Library Rules--Library
    Association Rules adopted by Bodley's Librarian--Cutter's
    Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue--Triumph of the Museum        25

III. PRINT _versus_ MANUSCRIPT.

    Panizzi's Objection to Print--Parry in Favour of Print--
    The British Museum again Foremost in the Race, this time
    in Printing, thanks to Mr. Bond--Mr. Cutter on the Advantages
    and Disadvantages of Printing--How to keep a Printed
    Catalogue up to Date--Card Catalogues--Stereotyping--Henry
    Stevens's Photo-Bibliography--Co-operative Cataloguing         49

IV. HOW TO TREAT A TITLE-PAGE.

    _Author:_ Cutter's Definition of an Author--Compound Names--
    Prefixes--Imaginary Authors--The Name by which a Man is
    generally known to be preferred to that by which he is not
    known--Official Names--Names of Peers--Personal Names--
    Sovereigns, Saints, and Friars--Oriental Names--Contraction
    for Christian Names--Distinction between Christian and
    Surnames--Treatment of Changed Names--Married Authoresses--
    Greek and Roman Authors--Difficulties in deciding as to the
    Author of a Book--Corporate Authorship--Academical Dissertation.
    _Headings other than Author Headings:_ Trials--Catalogues--
    Bible--Liturgies--Voyages--Anonymous and Pseudonymous Works--
    Evidence before the Commission of 1847-49--Arrangement under
    Initials, under Pseudonyms. _The Title:_ Shortening of Titles--
    Indication of Editions--Addition to Title-Pages. _Place of
    Publication:_ Date--Use of Chronograms--Greek Dates.
    _Size-Notation:_ Difficulties--Attempted Solution of these
    Difficulties. _Collation_                                      74

V. REFERENCES AND SUBJECT INDEX.

    References and Cross-References--Press-Marks to References--
    Mode of Referencing--Subject Index advocated by Panizzi       180

VI. ARRANGEMENT.

    Use of the English Alphabet--I and J--U and V--Order--
    Arrangement of Titles under an Author's Name--Transactions
    of Societies--Pamphlets not to be divided from Books--
    Journals and Magazines                                        198

VII. SOMETHING ABOUT MSS.

    The British Museum Collections--Arrangement of an Ordinary
    Collection--The Museum Catalogues--Catalogues of Manuscripts
    more Readable than Catalogues of Printed Books                228

VIII. RULES FOR A SMALL LIBRARY.

    _Headings:_ Author (1-11)--Non-Author (12-19)--The
    Title (20, 21)--Place of Publication (22)--Date (23, 24)--
    Size-Notation (25)--Collation (26)--Abstract of
    Contents (27)--References (28-31)--Arrangement (32-45)--
    Manipulation (52)                                             235

APPENDIX. LIST OF LATIN NAMES OF PLACES                           247

INDEX                                                             255




[Decoration]




HOW TO CATALOGUE A LIBRARY.




[Decoration]

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.


Before we can answer the question implied in the title of this little
book, it will be necessary for author and reader to agree as to what a
catalogue really is.

The word "catalogue" is used to mean a list or enumeration of men or
things. Thus we have a catalogue of students, but in actual use we
differentiate the two words, and a list ("a mere list") is understood to
mean a common inventory, often in no particular order (although we can
have alphabetical or classified lists); while a catalogue implies
something fuller and something disposed in a certain order. What the
limit of that something fuller and what that certain order as applied to
a catalogue of books really are, it will be for us now to consider.

It was formerly very much the fashion for those who knew little of the
subject to speak as if nothing was easier than to make a catalogue. All
you had to do was to have a sheet of paper and the book to be catalogued
before you, and then to transfer the title to the paper. No previous
knowledge was necessary. But those who were better acquainted with the
difficulties that beset even the cataloguer, realized that Sheridan's
joke about "easy writing being damned hard reading" was applicable to
the work produced under these circumstances. Since the discussion on the
British Museum Catalogue, and the consequent attention to the first
principles of bibliography, these ignorant views are not so generally
held, but still many erroneous opinions are abroad. One of these is that
the clerical portion of the work of cataloguing or indexing is
derogatory to a superior person, and therefore that he should have an
inferior person to help him. The superior person dictates, and the
inferior person copies down; and the result in practice is that endless
blunders are produced, which might have been saved if one person had
done the work.

Another vulgar error is that cataloguers form a guild, with secrets
which they wish to keep from the public. This is a grievous mistake. The
main object of the good cataloguer should be to make the consultation of
his work easy. He knows the difficulties, and knows that rules must be
made to overcome these difficulties; but he does not care to multiply
these rules more than is absolutely necessary. The good cataloguer will
try to put himself into the place of the intelligent consulter--that is,
the person who brings ordinary intelligence to bear upon the catalogue,
but has not, necessarily, any technical knowledge. Some persons seem to
think that everything is to be brought down to the comprehension of the
fool; but if by doing this we make it more difficult for the
intelligent person, the action is surely not politic. The consulter of a
catalogue might at least take the trouble to understand the plan upon
which it is compiled before using it.

Formerly it was too much the practice to make catalogue entries very
short, and to leave out important particulars mentioned on the
title-page; but now the opposite extreme of writing out the whole title,
however long, is more common. It should be remembered that in the
judicious compression of a title-page the art of the cataloguer is
brought into play, for any one can copy out the whole of a long title. I
cannot help thinking that this latter extreme is caused by some
misunderstanding of the relative conditions necessary for the production
of bibliographies and catalogues. Of course catalogues form a section of
the class Bibliography; but we understand also by the word
"bibliography" a collection of titles of books on a special subject, or
belonging to a particular literature.

The uses of a bibliography, either of a national literature or of a
subject such as _History_, are to find out what books have been
written, either by a particular author or on a particular subject; to
find whether a certain point is dealt with in a certain book; or, it may
be, to see whether a book you possess is the right edition, or whether
it is wanting in some particular. For these purposes it is most
important to have full titles, and collations with necessary additional
information given in the form of notes. Very often the particulars
included in the bibliography will be sufficient in themselves to save
the consulter from the necessity of searching for the book.

The uses of a catalogue are something quite different. This is in the
same house as the books it describes, and is merely a help to the
finding of those books. It would be absurd to copy out long titles in a
catalogue and be at the cost of printing them when the title itself in
the book can be in our hands in a couple of minutes. Sufficient
information only is required to help us to find the right book and the
right edition. How far this should be given will be discussed in a
later chapter. It is necessary for us, however, to remember that when
the catalogue is printed and away from the library it becomes to some
extent a bibliography, and therefore when a library contains rare or
unique books it is usual, for love of the cause, to describe these
fully, as if the catalogue was a bibliography. This is the more
necessary because we are so deficient in good bibliographies. The ideal
state, from which we are still far off, would be a complete and full
bibliography of all literature, and then cataloguers could be less full
in their descriptions, and reference might be made to the bibliography
for further particulars. It is a standing disgrace to the country that
we have no complete bibliography of English authors, much less of
English literature generally.

It has long been the dream of the bibliographer that a universal
catalogue might be obtained by the amalgamation of the catalogues of
several collections. Thus it was the intention of Gerard Langbaine,
Provost of Queen's College, Oxford, and Keeper of the University
Archives, to have made a classified catalogue of the Bodleian Library,
and to incorporate with it all the books not in the Bodleian but in
other Oxford libraries, public and private, so as to show at a glance
all the books that existed in Oxford. He died, however, on February
10th, 1657-58, without having carried his design into execution. Dr.
Garnett, in his valuable paper on "The Printing of the British Museum
Catalogue" (_Transactions_, Fourth and Fifth Meetings of the Library
Association of the United Kingdom, 1884, pp. 120-28), gave words to his
aspiration "that the completion of the Museum Catalogue in print may
coincide with the completion of the present century," and he continued
that no better memorial of the nineteenth century could be produced than
a "register of almost all the really valuable literature of all former
centuries." This is very true; but I think that catalogues can only form
the groundwork for bibliographies, and are not sufficiently satisfactory
to supersede them. Moreover, each country should produce its own
national bibliography.

Mr. Cutter divides libraries into (1) those for study, and (2) those for
reading; and this division must always be kept in view. We shall chiefly
consider the first division, although it will not be right altogether to
pass over the latter. Libraries for reading have been rightly considered
in the light of educational institutions; and the various points
connected with the information to be given to readers, as to what they
should read, and how they should read, perhaps belong more properly to
Education than to Bibliography.

As to the order in which the catalogue should be disposed we have
considerable choice, and Mr. Cutter has given in the _United States
Special Report_ (pp. 561-67) a most elaborate classification of the
different species of catalogues, but the main divisions are the
classified and the alphabetical. Years ago the classified was considered
the ideal; but when this ideal was brought down to practice it usually
failed, and the result was almost useless. The late Professor De Morgan
made the following pertinent remarks on this point:--

    "A classed catalogue is supposed to be useful to those who want to
    know what has been written on a particular subject. Now, in the
    first place, who are the persons who look at a book list with any
    such view? Not beginners in a wide field of research. Did any one in
    his senses ever go to a library to learn geometry, for instance, and
    take the subject in a classed catalogue, and fall to work upon some
    author because he was therein set down? This attempt to feed the
    mind _à la carte_ would certainly end in an indigestion, if, which
    is rather to be hoped, it did not begin in a surfeit."[1]

Again:--

    "Any one who is willing to trust the maker of a catalogue, however
    highly qualified, with the power of settling what books he can want
    in reference to a given subject, is either a person who consults
    only the most celebrated works, and has nothing to do with research,
    or one who is willing to take completeness upon trust, and to
    content himself with blaming another person if he do not reach
    it."[2]

It is a common mistake to speak of a classified catalogue as a Catalogue
Raisonné. A Catalogue Raisonné is a catalogue with bibliographical
details and notes, in which the merits or demerits of the books are
discussed. Therefore a Catalogue Raisonné can be alphabetical as well as
classified. An alphabetical catalogue can be either one of authors, or
of subjects, or what the Americans have styled the Dictionary Catalogue.
A catalogue of authors will contain the description of anonymous books
under headings in the same alphabet, and it may either have an index of
subjects, or subject cross-references included in the general alphabet.
But as the rules to be considered later on relate chiefly to the
catalogue of authors, it is not necessary to say more on this point
here. Again, De Morgan has made some excellent remarks on the catalogue
of authors:--

    "An alphabetical catalogue has this great advantage, that all the
    works of the same author come together. Those who have had to hunt
    up old subjects know very well that of all lots which it is useful
    to find in one place, the works of one given author are those which
    occur most frequently. Again, those who go to a library to read upon
    a given subject generally know what authors they want; and an
    alphabetical catalogue settles the question whether the library does
    or does not contain the required work of the author wanted. We
    believe that of those who go into a place where books are collected,
    whether to read, buy, borrow, (or even steal), nineteen out of
    twenty know what author they want; and to them an alphabetical
    catalogue is all-sufficient."[3]

Mr. Cutter has written the history of the Dictionary Catalogue in the
_United States Special Report_ (pp. 533-39), and he traces it back in
America to about the year 1815.

Mr. Crestadoro, in his pamphlet, _The Art of Making Catalogues of
Libraries_, 1856, recommended an inventorial catalogue of unabridged
titles arranged in no order, but numbered, and an alphabetical index to
the numbers of this inventory. The index thus formed was somewhat
similar to the Dictionary Catalogue (_United States Special Report_, p.
535). Mr. Bradshaw held very strongly the view that an alphabetical
catalogue was an index, and that a full shelf catalogue was the real
catalogue; and few things he enjoyed more than to read through a list of
the books as they stood on the shelves.[4] In a letter to me, dated
September 9th, 1879, he wrote:--

    "It is a cardinal point with me that an alphabetical catalogue of a
    library is really an index, or should be so, to any other kind of
    catalogue you choose to make; while if you once lose sight of this
    fact you are quite sure to cumber the catalogue up with
    bibliographical details which are entirely out of place."

Scientific cataloguing is of modern invention, and to the British Museum
it is that we owe the origination of a code of rules--rules which form
the groundwork of all modern cataloguing. Good catalogues were made
before rules were enunciated, but this is accounted for by the fact that
bibliographers, like poets, are more often born than made.

Carefulness must be one of the chief characteristics of the cataloguer,
for he will frequently find himself beset with difficulties. Mr. W. F.
Poole, the author of that most useful work the _Index to Periodical
Literature_, states this very forcibly when he writes:--

    "The inexperienced librarian will find the cataloguing of his books
    the most difficult part of his undertaking, even after he has made a
    diligent theoretical study of the subject. He will find after he has
    made considerable progress that much of his work is useless, and
    scarcely any of it correct."[5]

The cataloguer must not jump to conclusions upon insufficient authority,
or, as some persons have proposed, take a short list from the books and
amplify the titles from bibliographies. Such a course will lead to
endless blunders, and create confusion like that described by Professor
De Morgan:--

    "Lalande, in his _Bibliographie Astronomique_, wrote from his own
    knowledge the title of the second edition of the work of
    Regiomontanus on Triangles, Basle, folio, 1561. He knew that the
    first edition was published about thirty years before, and so he set
    it down with the same title-page as the second, including the
    announcement of the table of Sines, Basle, 1536. Now, as it
    happened, it was published at Nuremberg in 1533, and there was no
    table of Sines in it. The consequence is that Apian and Copernicus
    are deprived of their respective credits, as being very early (the
    former the earliest) publishers of Sines to a decimal radius. No one
    can know how far an incorrect description of a book may produce
    historical falsehood; but there are few writers who have the
    courage to say exactly how much they know, and how much they
    presume."[6]

Before concluding this Introduction it may be well to say something
about a few catalogues that have been issued in the different styles.
One of the best classified catalogues ever published in England is that
of the London Institution, which was first printed in 1835, and
completed in 1852.[7] This has indexes of subjects, and of authors and
books. The catalogue is very useful as a bibliography; and as the
library was well selected, the reading of its pages is very instructive;
but what shows the general uselessness of a classified catalogue for the
work of a library is that in actual practice an alphabetical finding
index has been in more constant use than the fuller catalogue.

Of an alphabetical catalogue of subjects an example may be found in that
of the Library of the Board of Trade, which was published in 1866. Here
the authors are relegated to an index, and all the titles are arranged
under the main subject. This may be convenient under some circumstances,
but it is not satisfactory for general use. The idea of the scheme was
due to the late Mr. W. M. Bucknall, then librarian to the Board of
Trade; but the catalogue itself was made by the author of this book. The
system adopted was to use the subject-word of the title as a heading;
but an exception was made in the case of foreign words which were
translated. For instance, there is a heading of Wool. Under this first
come all the English works; then the French works under sub-headings of
_Laine_, _Laines_, and _Lainière_; then German under _Schafwollhandel_
and _Wollmarkt_. From these foreign words in the alphabet there are
references to WOOL. There is, however, no more classification than is
absolutely necessary; and it may be said that if all the books had been
anonymous the scheme would have been an admirable one.

The Dictionary Catalogue mostly flourishes in America; but a very
satisfactory specimen of the class was prepared by Mr. D. O'Donovan,
Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland. It is entitled, _Analytical and
Classified Catalogue of the Library of the Parliament of Queensland_
(Brisbane: 1883. 4to). The books are entered under author and subject
with full cross-references, and all the entries are arranged in one
alphabet. There are abstracts of the contents of certain of the books,
and references to articles in reviews. In the preface Mr. O'Donovan
writes:--

    "I have made a catalogue of authors, and index of titles, and an
    index of subjects, a partial index of forms, and having thrown the
    whole together into an alphabetical series, the work may be referred
    to as an ordinary dictionary."

Of the usefulness of the Dictionary Catalogue there cannot be two
opinions, but the chief objection is that it is a waste of labour to do
for many libraries what if done once in the form of a bibliography would
serve for all.

A most important example of this class of catalogue is the
_Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, United
States Army_, of which nine large volumes have been issued. This owes
its existence to Dr. J. S. Billings, and the publication was commenced
in 1880. An enthusiastic friend is inclined to describe it as the best
of published catalogues.

Authors' catalogues are the most common, and it would be invidious to
point out any one in particular for special commendation.

It is rather curious that the United States, which is now to the fore in
all questions of bibliography, should have produced in former times many
singularly bad catalogues. There is one classified catalogue which may
be mentioned as a typical specimen of bad work. There is an index of
authors, with such vague references that in some cases you have to turn
over as many as seventy pages to find the book to which you are
referred.[8]

The oddities of catalogue-making would form a prolific subject, and we
cannot enter into it at the end of this chapter; but space may be found
for two odd catalogues which owe their origin to the Secretary of the
old Record Commission.

The sale catalogue of portions of Mr. Charles Purton Cooper's library[9]
is a literary curiosity. It contains two hundred and fourteen pages, but
only one hundred and eighteen of these are devoted to the catalogue of
books for sale, and the remaining pages are filled with appendixes which
contain many amusing notes. The first appendix consists of a "Catalogue
of Books mostly in English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh History and
Biography now at Autun, which will be included in the sale of further
portions of Mr. Purton Cooper's Library unless previously disposed of by
private agreement." On page 159 is this note to a catalogue of a
collection of grammars and dictionaries "now at Louvain": "My passion
for languages (a very unwise one) ceased many years ago." Mr. Cooper
notes on page 167, in relation to some books of miscellaneous
antiquities "now at Brussels," that "the most expensive of the following
works are presents from Foreign Sovereigns, Universities, Cities, and
Towns, principally in the period 1831-1840." To the catalogue of
miscellaneous books on page 182 is appended this queer autobiographical
note: "These books, formerly kept in the house in New Boswell Court, so
long used by me as chambers (1816-1850), and from whence all my
correspondence as Secretary of Records was dated (1831-1838), are now in
chests waiting some place of deposit. What will be their destination I
know not. Grove End Road is let. Denton Court (near Canterbury, my new
residence) has undergone such changes in the hands of its last literary
owner (the late Sir Egerton Brydges) that it will hardly afford
convenient space for a schoolboy's collection." Mr. Cooper goes on to
say: "Indifferent as I am become to the mere possession of books, still
the selection was a task with which (having no check but my own will) I
dared not trust myself."

The notes to this list are very comical. This book was given to him by a
duke, that by a regius professor, another was bought at Fontainebleau,
and still another "of a soldier in an English regiment, badly wounded at
the disastrous assault upon Bergen-op-Zoom, and then in hospital at
Breda." An edition of Aristophanes was bought at Frankfort for nine
shillings, and "Lord Harrowby (then Lord Sandon, fresh from Oxford)
observed that so cheap a purchase must be a piece of luck rarely
occurring." An Edinburgh edition of Livy cost Mr. Cooper five shillings
in 1810, "and," he adds, "not a bad bargain, considering the purchaser
had not attained his seventeenth year." One of the notes said to be
copied from a French book of prayers (1789), is interesting; but its
substance would be said to be incredible if we did not know of the
rampant villainy of the times. "In the summer of 1794 (it was somewhat
late in the day) two travellers stopped at a chateau in a southeastern
department of France, one of them having a slight acquaintance with the
owner of the chateau, who had the misfortune to belong to the ancient
noblesse of the country. Both were invited to partake of the family
dinner. A dinner which in those circumstances might be considered
sumptuous was served up; and the conversation, as generally happens on
such occasions, became more than usually gay. When, however, the dessert
was placed on the table, the conversation was suddenly interrupted by
one of the travellers taking from his pocket a paper constituting
himself and his companion Commissioners of the Convention, and
authorizing them to seize the chateau and its contents, and forthwith to
guillotine the 'aristocrat,' its proprietor. The reading of this paper
was immediately followed by an intimation that a guillotine with the
usual assistants had during dinner arrived in the courtyard of the
chateau. The repast was discontinued for a few minutes, whilst the two
guests hurried their host to the courtyard of his chateau and saw him
guillotined; it was then resumed." This curious catalogue has at the end
a folding coloured plate of Mr. Cooper's library at Grove End Road, with
this note: "The view of the library is here introduced for the purpose
of mentioning that Mr. Cooper wishes to dispose, by private agreement,
of eight mahogany book-cases of the kind there represented."

In 1856 a sale catalogue of a further portion of Mr. Cooper's library
was issued.[10] It consisted of a hundred and fifty-one pages, only
thirty-four of which are occupied by the list of books for sale by
auction. The rest of the pages are filled with lists of books to be
disposed of at some future time in some other manner, but there are not
notes of the same amusing character as in the former catalogue.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 7.

[2] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 12.

[3] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 6.

[4] I remember very vividly a pleasant day spent in the Pepysian Library
with Mr. Bradshaw, under the kindly guardianship of Professor Newton.
Mr. Bradshaw was specially delighted with Pepys's own MS. catalogues.

[5] "On the Organization and Management of Public Libraries" (_United
States Special Report_, p. 490).

[6] _Dublin Review_, October 1846, p. 20.

[7] _Catalogue of the Library of the London Institution, Systematically
Classified._ London: 1835-52. 4 vols., royal 8vo.

[8] _Catalogue of the Library of Congress in the Capitol of the United
States of America_: Washington, 1840. 8vo. The third entry in the Index
is _Abdy_, and the reference "xxix. 215. i.;" xxix. applies to the
class, which is _Geography_; the title is to be found in section v.,
_America_; so that actually seventy pages of the catalogue have to be
glanced through before the work of Abdy can be found.

[9] "_Bibliotheca Cooperiana._ Catalogue of Portions of the Extensive
and Valuable Library of Charles Purton Cooper, Esq., Q.C.... These
portions will, by Mr. Cooper's direction, be sold by auction by Messrs.
S. Leigh Sotheby and John Wilkinson ... on Monday, April 19th [1852],
and seven following days."

[10] "_Catalogue of a Further Portion of the Library of Charles Purton
Cooper, Esq., Q.C._ ... This further portion, deposited with Messrs.
Sotheby and Wilkinson in the summer of 1852, will, by Mr. Cooper's
direction, be sold by them by auction in the spring of the ensuing year.
December 1856."




[Decoration]

CHAPTER II.

THE BATTLE OF THE RULES.


To Sir Anthony Panizzi we owe rules for the making of catalogues:
perhaps it would be more proper to say the codification of rules, for
sound rules must have been in the mind of the compilers of good
catalogues before his time. When one person makes a catalogue, he
usually acts upon principles which are known to himself, although he may
not have committed them to writing. When several assistants are employed
to make a catalogue, it is positively necessary that the compiler in
chief, who will be responsible for the whole work, should give
directions to his assistants, so that they may all work on the same
plan.

The famous code of ninety-one rules which was given to the world in 1841
(_Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum_, vol. i., Letter A)
had for its foundation a small number of rules originally devised by Mr.
Baber[11] (the predecessor of Mr. Panizzi as Keeper of the Printed
Books).

Mr. Panizzi was appointed Assistant Librarian in the British Museum in
April 1831, and in 1837 he succeeded Mr. Baber as Keeper. As a new
general catalogue was now required, a committee was formed to frame
rules for its compilation. This committee consisted of Panizzi, Thomas
Watts, J. Winter Jones, Edward Edwards, and John H. Parry (afterwards
Serjeant Parry). The plan adopted was for each of these gentlemen
separately to prepare rules for the purpose, according to his own views.
These were afterwards discussed collectively, and when any difference
arose, it was settled by vote. When these rules were complete, they were
presented to the trustees by Panizzi on March 18th, 1839, with the
following memorandum:--

    "Mr. Panizzi has the honour to lay before the trustees the rules,
    which, under all circumstances, he proposes as advisable to be
    followed in the compilation of the Alphabetical Catalogue,
    accompanied by a number of illustrations. Although he is well aware
    that such rules must necessarily be affected by the haste with which
    they have been compiled, he ventures to hope they will be
    sufficiently intelligible to the trustees, and enable them, even in
    their present imperfect state, to judge of the principles that Mr.
    Panizzi should wish to see observed. He is fully aware that many
    cases may arise unprovided for, and that some of these rules and
    principles may be liable to objections, which may not perhaps appear
    in other plans, seemingly preferable; but he trusts that what seems
    objectionable may, on mature reflection, be found in fact less so.
    He cannot, at present, do more than entreat the trustees to take
    into their patient and minute consideration every single part, as
    well as the whole of the plan proposed, and then decide as they may
    think fit, bearing in mind that, although these rules may, if
    strictly followed, occasionally lead to what may appear absurd, the
    same objection, to a perhaps greater extent, may be urged against
    any other plan, and far greater evils result from a deviation from a
    principle than from its inflexible application."

The rules were sanctioned by the trustees July 13th, 1839, and printed
in 1841. In the note prefixed to the volume of the catalogue then
printed Panizzi wrote:--

    "The application of the rules was left by the trustees to the
    discretion of the editor, subject to the condition that a catalogue
    of the printed books in the library up to the close of the year 1838
    be completed within the year 1844."

Panizzi very properly disapproved of the publication piecemeal of the
catalogue before it was completed, and eventually he obtained his own
way, with the result that the printing was discontinued, and a
manuscript catalogue was gradually built up. In the note just referred
to he proceeds:--

    "With a view to the fulfilment of this undertaking, it was deemed
    indispensable that a catalogue should be put to press as soon as
    any portion of the manuscript could be prepared; consequently the
    early volumes must present omissions and inaccuracies, which it is
    hoped will diminish in number as the work proceeds."

According to Mr. Fagan (_Life of Sir A. Panizzi_, vol. i., p. 259), the
wasteful publication of the volume containing letter A was due to a
blunder in the secretary's department. Apparently the order of the
trustees was to have the catalogue ready _for_ the press by December
1844, instead of which it was intimated to Panizzi that the catalogue
was to be printed by that time.

Both Panizzi[12] and Parry[13] pointed out in their evidence before the
Commission (1848-49) how wasteful a process it was to catalogue the
library by letters instead of cataloguing every book on a shelf at one
time. There cannot be two opinions among experienced bibliographers of
the absurdity of making a catalogue in such a piecemeal manner, and yet
this is a plan of proceeding which the inexperienced in cataloguing are
frequently found to recommend. Mr. Parry said: "Not only the printing of
letter A first do I look upon to be an entire waste, both of time and
money--a waste just as much as if the time were thrown away, and just as
if the money had been actually thrown away--but the plan of taking those
titles from this large body of titles and sending for the books is a
serious waste of time.... In my opinion, volume A, the volume that is
now printed, must be cancelled, if ever the whole catalogue is printed.
The reason of that would be, that an immense mass of titles, in the
further cataloguing of the succeeding portions of the alphabet, would
arise to be catalogued under the letter A, which nobody would have
anticipated until the whole library was catalogued." The Commission
coincided with Mr. Panizzi's view, and incorporated their opinion on
this point in the report. The consequence was that Panizzi was allowed
to proceed on his own plan, with the result that, in the first place, a
large number of volumes of manuscript titles supplementary to the old
general catalogue were produced, and subsequently an entirely new
catalogue, superseding the old one.


The history of the catalogues of the British Museum Library is a curious
and interesting one. A catalogue prepared by Dr. Maty, the Rev. S.
Harper, and the Rev. S. Ayscough was published in 1787 (2 vols., folio).
This was soon superseded; and in 1806 Sir Henry Ellis and the Rev. H. H.
Baber (then Keeper and Assistant Keeper respectively of the Printed
Books), carrying out the instructions of the trustees, commenced the
compilation of a new catalogue, which was published in 1813-19 (7 vols.
in 8 parts, 8vo). Ellis was answerable for the letters A to F, with P,
Q, and R; and Baber for the remainder of the alphabet.

Now that we have an excellent catalogue of the library, which we owe to
the exertions of Panizzi, we are too apt to forget the services of Ellis
and Baber as compilers of the very valuable old catalogue. Panizzi took
delight in finding faults in this catalogue, and one of the blunders
which he pointed out was the entry of a French translation of one of
Jeremy Bentham's works, in which the author's name, having been
translated in the title-page of the book into French, was transferred in
the same form--"Bentham (Jéréme)"--into the catalogue.[14] Doubtless
there are many bibliographical mistakes; but it is an excellent
practical catalogue, and does the greatest credit to the compilers. Even
now, although the print is almost lost in the mass of manuscript, and
the volumes are nearly worn out, the copy in the Reading Room may still
be used with advantage when a book cannot be found in the more elaborate
new catalogue.

In 1847 the Royal Commission, already alluded to, was appointed to
inquire into the constitution and government of the British Museum, and
the report of the Commission, with minutes of evidence, was published in
1850. This report appeared in a large folio volume of eight hundred and
twenty-three pages, which is still full of interest from a
bibliographical point of view.

The Commissioners considered arrangements connected with the management
which have since been changed, and therefore are of little interest now;
but the evidence chiefly related to the new rules for the catalogue, and
resolved itself into an arraignment of Mr. Panizzi's plans, with
Panizzi's reply to the arraignment at the end of the evidence. The
report shows how unsatisfactory were the relations between the officers
of departments, and how strong was the antagonism to Panizzi's rules and
arrangements among literary men.

Many authors whom one would have expected to know something of the art
of cataloguing showed the most amazing ignorance, and a love for
careless work that makes us extremely glad that their cause was
defeated. Some witnesses exhibited a dislike to the rules merely because
they were rules. Mr. J. G. Cochrane, then Librarian of the London
Library, in answer to the question, "Have you read the ninety-one
rules?" said, "I read some of them, and it appeared to me that they were
more calculated to perplex and to mystify than to answer any useful
purpose;" and again, when asked, "Do you object to rules in any
compilation of catalogues?" he said, "Yes, very much" (p. 460). Further
on in his evidence he said, "I think that in bibliography, as well as in
geography, it is always advisable to keep as much to uniformity of
system as possible" (p. 464). But he did not make it clear how
uniformity was to be obtained without rules.

The greatest grievance which "readers" seem to have had is one which we
can scarcely realize at the present day. Mr. Panizzi ruled that whoever
wanted a book should look it out in the catalogue, and copy the title on
a slip with the press-mark before he could receive it. Mr. Carlyle
refused to look out in the catalogue for a pamphlet which he knew to be
in a particular collection. His account of the matter is as follows:--

    "I had occasion at one time to consult a good many of the pamphlets
    respecting the Civil War period of the history of England. I
    supposed those pamphlets to be standing in their own room, on
    shelves contiguous to each other. I marked on the paper, 'King's
    Pamphlets,' such and such a number, giving a description undeniably
    pointing to the volume; and the servant to whom I gave this paper at
    first said that he could not serve me with the volume, and that I
    must find it out in the catalogue and state the press-mark, and all
    the other formalities. Being a little provoked with that state of
    things, I declared that I would not seek for the book in that form;
    that I could get no good out of these Pamphlets, on such terms; that
    I must give them up rather, and go my ways, and try to make the
    grievance known in some proper quarter" (p. 280).

Dr. J. E. Gray expressed the opinion that the feeling against this rule
respecting the press-mark was very general (p. 491). It is necessary to
bear in mind that "the old system was, that you merely wrote the title
of the book you wanted without the necessity of looking for it in the
catalogue. If you wanted a particular edition of it, then you looked in
the catalogue for the particular title or date, and the book was brought
to you if it could be found" (7684, p. 491).

Although many of the witnesses showed a lamentable ignorance of the
principles of sound bibliography, others proved themselves quite capable
of setting right the ignorant.

The Right Hon. J. W. Croker, when asked, "Are you of opinion that the
labour and difficulties in the management and cataloguing of a library
increase merely in the same proportion with its extent?" made this very
true observation, "I think the difficulties would increase, I may say
geometrically rather than arithmetically" (8734, p. 570).

Mr. John Bruce considered it a fault in the new catalogue that the
titles were too full (pp. 417-18); but Prof. A. De Morgan pointed out
very clearly the many dangers of short titles (p. 427). Mr. Croker
strongly advocated the use of long titles. He said: "There will of
course be a few remarkable instances of great prolixity of title-page,
which really are worth preserving as curiosities, if for nothing else.
But generally speaking there is nothing that is quite safe and
satisfactory to a person who goes to look for a book, but a full title;
I will add, a most important consideration in a library like this, which
people come to consult; it has happened to me twice, I think, within the
last ten days to find it unnecessary to send for a book that I intended
to apply for, by finding an ample title-page, which showed me that I
should not find there what I wanted" (8709, p. 567).

Dr. Gray in his pamphlet (_Letter to the Earl of Ellesmere_, 1849) makes
this extraordinary statement: "The works with authors' names, or with
false names, should be arranged alphabetically, according to the names
of the authors, taking care that the names used should be those that are
on the title-pages; and, if an author have changed his or her name, that
the work published under the different names should be in different
places in the alphabet" (p. 5).

Mr. Parry gave much sensible evidence, and this point was submitted to
him. The question of the chairman (Earl of Ellesmere) was, "Have you
heard it proposed that each book should be catalogued under the form of
name appearing on the title, without any regard to uniformity, and
without regard to the different forms of name adopted by an author, or
arising from the different languages in which works by the same author
may be printed?" Mr. Parry's answer was as follows: "I have never heard
that suggested, except by Mr. Gray. I have read it in Mr. Gray's
pamphlet; and I have heard it from Mr. Gray when he was an assistant....
I certainly do not wish to be offensive to Mr. Gray, for I have the
pleasure of his acquaintance, but I think the thing perfectly absurd. I
might be permitted to say, that the noble lord in the chair has
published under two or three names; and that I should prefer to see all
his lordship's works under one heading, and not scattered in three
different places in the Catalogue under the name of Gower, of Egerton,
and of Ellesmere.... I remember Mr. Gray used occasionally to come and
talk about the Catalogue, but it always seemed to me that he had never
given any consideration to the subject. It is by no means an easy thing
to make a catalogue; a person to make it, must have a very large and
special knowledge of books and of languages" (7338, p. 470).

The witness whose evidence was the most unfortunate for himself was Mr.
Payne Collier. He committed himself by submitting some titles which he
had made in illustration of his views. There were twenty-five titles,
which had been made in the course of an hour. These were handed to Mr.
Winter Jones, who reported upon them very fully, with the following
result:--

    "These twenty-five titles contain almost every possible error which
    can be committed in cataloguing books, and are open to almost every
    possible objection which can be brought against concise titles. The
    faults may be classed as follows:--1st. Incorrect or insufficient
    description, calculated to mislead as to the nature or condition of
    the work specified. 2nd. Omission of the names of editors, whereby
    we lose a most necessary guide in selecting among different editions
    of the same work. 3rd. Omission of the Christian names of authors,
    causing great confusion between the works of different authors who
    have the same surname--a confusion increasing in proportion to the
    extent of the catalogue. 4th. Omission of the names of annotators.
    5th. Omission of the names of translators. 6th. Omission of the
    number of the edition, thus rejecting a most important and direct
    evidence of the value of a work. 7th. Adopting the name of the
    editor as a heading, when the name of the author appears in the
    title-page. 8th. Adopting the name of the translator as a heading,
    when the name of the author appears on the title-page. 9th. Adopting
    as a heading the title or name of the author merely as it appears on
    the title-page--a practice which would distribute the works of the
    Bishop of London under Blomfield, Chester, and London; and those of
    Lord Ellesmere under Gower, Egerton, and Ellesmere. 10th. Using
    English or some other language instead of the language of the
    title-page. 11th. Cataloguing anonymous works, or works published
    under initials, under the name of the supposed author. Where this
    practice is adopted, the books so catalogued can be found only by
    those who possess the same information as the cataloguer, and
    uniformity of system is impossible, unless the cataloguer know the
    author of every work published anonymously or under initials.[15]
    12th. Errors in grammar. 13th. Errors in descriptions of the size of
    the book. We have here faults of thirteen different kinds in
    twenty-five titles, and the number of these faults amount to more
    than two in each title.... When we see such a result as is shown
    above, from an experiment made by a gentleman of education,
    accustomed to research and acquainted with books generally, upon
    only twenty-five works, taken from his own library, and of the most
    easy description, we may form some idea of what a catalogue would
    be, drawn up, in the same manner, by ten persons, of about six
    hundred thousand works, embracing every branch of human learning,
    and presenting difficulties of every possible description. The
    average number of faults being more than two to a title, the total
    is something startling--about one million three hundred thousand
    faults for the six hundred thousand works; that is, supposing the
    proportion to continue the same."

Then follows a searching examination of each individual title, with the
result that any claims to be considered a correct cataloguer which Mr.
Collier may have been supposed to have were entirely annihilated.

The Report of the Commissioners enters very fully into the various
points raised by the evidence before them, with the result that it was
considered advisable that Mr. Panizzi should be given his own way, and
that the new catalogue should be completed in manuscript.

The British Museum Rules are, as already stated, printed in the
_Catalogue of Printed Books_ (_Letter A_, 1841), and in Henry Stevens's
_Catalogue of the American Books in the Library of the British Museum at
Christmas_, 1856. They are given in Mr. Thomas Nichols's _Handbook for
Readers at the British Museum_ (1869), under the various subjects in
alphabetical order, with a series of useful illustrations. Some slight
modifications of the rules have been made since the printing of the
catalogue has been in hand, and a capital _résumé_ of the rules, under
the title of _Explanation of the System of the Catalogue_, is on sale at
the Museum for the small sum of one penny.

The strife which was caused by the publication of the rules was
gradually quelled, and the British Museum code was acknowledged in most
places as a model.

Professor Charles Coffin Jewett published at Washington in 1853 a very
careful work on this subject. His pamphlet is entitled, "_Smithsonian
Report on the Construction of Catalogues of Libraries, and their
Publication by means of Separate Stereotyped Titles, with Rules and
Examples_. By Charles C. Jewett, Librarian of the Smithsonian
Institution."

Mr. Jewett makes an observation with which all who have considered the
subject with attention must agree. He writes:--

    "Liability to error and to confusion is ... so great and so
    continual, that it is impossible to labour successfully without a
    rigid adherence to rules. Although such rules be not formally
    enunciated, they must exist in the mind of the cataloguer and guide
    him, or the result of his labours will be mortifying and
    unprofitable."

With respect to his own rules he writes:--

    "The Rules which follow are founded upon those adopted for the
    compilation of the Catalogue of the British Museum. Some of them are
    verbatim the same; others conform more to rules advocated by Mr.
    Panizzi than to those finally sanctioned by the Trustees of the
    Museum."

The rules are classified as follows:--pp. 1-45, Titles; pp. 45-56,
Headings; pp. 57-59, Cross-references; pp. 59-62, Arrangement; pp. 62,
63, Maps, Engravings, Music; p. 64, Exceptional Cases.

The number of rules is not so large as those of the British Museum, and
rule 39 stands thus: "Cases not herein provided for, and exceptional
cases requiring a departure from any of the preceding rules, are to be
decided on by the Superintendent."

Jewett's rules, with some alterations, were adopted and printed by the
Boston Public Library.

The _Rules to be Observed in Forming the Alphabetical Catalogue of
Printed Books in the University Library_, Cambridge, were drawn up after
the authorities had decided to print the catalogue slips of all
additions to the library, and also gradually to build up a new catalogue
by printing the titles of the books already in the library as they were
re-catalogued. These rules were, to a great extent, founded upon those
of the British Museum. In the year 1879, Mr. Bradshaw, Librarian, in
conjunction with Messrs. E. Magnusson and H. T. Francis, Assistant
Librarians, made some alterations in the rules, and as thus altered they
now stand, numbering forty-nine.

The rules of the Library Association of the United Kingdom may be
considered as somewhat "academical," because they were not made for any
particular library. They have gained, however, in importance in that
they were adopted by Mr. Edward B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, for
the Catalogue of the Bodleian Library. These rules were originally
formed for the purpose of making a foundation for a Catalogue of English
Literature, as proposed by the late Mr. Cornelius Walford. This
catalogue, however, gradually receded into the background, and the rules
were adapted to the purposes of a general library catalogue. The rules
have been modified at successive annual meetings of the Association.

Although Mr. Nicholson adopted the Library Association Rules in the
first instance, he printed in 1882 a set of _Compendious Cataloguing
Rules for the Author-Catalogue of the Bodleian Library_, which has
since been added to, and the number of rules is now sixty.

We have, in conclusion, to take note of by far the most important code
of rules after that of the British Museum. I allude of course to the
remarkable second part of the _Special Report on Public Libraries in the
United States_ (1876), which consists of "Rules for a Printed Dictionary
Catalogue, by Charles A. Cutter." This work stands alone in the
literature of our subject. Not only are the rules set out, but the
reasons for the rules are given. This is usually considered as a
dangerous proceeding, and it requires a man with the clear-headedness
and mastery of his subject for which Mr. Cutter is distinguished to
carry out such a scheme with success. I am not prepared to agree
altogether with the principle of the Dictionary Catalogue, or with all
the reasons for the rules--in fact, some of them are highly stimulating,
and prove strong incentives to argument; but it would be difficult to
find anywhere in so small a space so many sound bibliographical
principles elucidated.

It is now nearly fifty years since the British Museum Rules were
published, and at the present time we can scarcely understand the
antagonistic feeling with which these rules were then received. We can
now see how much we are indebted to them. To their influence we largely
owe the education of the librarian in the true art of cataloguing, and
the improved public opinion on the subject; and to them we owe the noble
Catalogue of the British Museum, which is a remarkable monument of great
knowledge and great labour combined. We are therefore bound to do honour
to the memory of Panizzi, who planned the work and endued with his
spirit the many distinguished men who have followed him and completed
his work.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[11] _Report of the Commissioners on the Constitution and Government of
the British Museum_, 1850, p. 16.

[12] See Questions 4207, 4212, pp. 254-55.

[13] See Question 7223, p. 469.

[14] Fagan's _Life of Sir A. Panizzi_, vol. i., pp. 143-44. Mr. Fagan
writes "Jérôme," but it is really Jéréme in the catalogue.

[15] This is the most extraordinary reason ever given. If it were
accepted as valid it would settle the question, for under no
circumstances could the authors of all anonymous works be discovered.




[Decoration]

CHAPTER III.

PRINT _V._ MANUSCRIPT.


There has been much discussion on the relative advantages of Print and
Manuscript. Panizzi's objection to print was a sound one, as he
considered that no titles should be printed until the catalogue of the
whole library was completed. When this time came the objection was no
longer valid, and arrangements were made in due course for printing the
catalogue by instalments. Before this was decided upon there were some
who insisted upon the actual superiority of manuscript over print; but
this was really absurd, because, if the extra cost of printing can be
defrayed, there must be great advantage in the clearness and legibility
of print, as well as in the saving of space caused by its use.

Mr. Parry, with his strong common sense, advocated, in 1849, the use of
the printing-press. He said in his evidence: "I think the Catalogue
ought to be printed; not merely for the purposes of the library, and of
reference out of the library, but also because I think the Catalogue of
this library is a work that ought to be in every public institution
where men of letters resort, either here, on the Continent, in America,
or in any other part of the civilized world; still, it ought not to be
printed until the whole of the books are catalogued up to a certain
time. I say 'up to a certain time' because the whole of the books never
can be catalogued in a library where there are constant accessions. But
a limit may be fixed, and when that limit is reached and the whole of
the books within that limit are catalogued I would then print the
Catalogue, and not before. I have said before that the volume of letter
A must be cancelled; that is inevitable. Nobody after this Catalogue is
completed, no librarian, no man of the most ordinary literary
acquirements, would presume to print the Catalogue without cancelling
this volume: that arises from the circumstance that, as the cataloguing
goes on, thousands of works will turn up as necessary to be inserted in
letter A."[16]

Mr. Parry added, that in ordering this partial printing the trustees
gave way to pressure from without, which he defined very justly as "a
sort of ignorant impatience for a catalogue by persons who do not really
understand what a catalogue is or what a catalogue should be."

Dr. Garnett read a very interesting paper on "The Printing of the
British Museum Catalogue," before the Library Association, at the
Cambridge meeting, in 1882, in which he tells how the present system of
printing came about.

Mr. Rye, when Keeper of the Printed Books, strongly urged the adoption
of print; but Dr. Garnett adds, "Other views, however, prevailed for the
time; and when, in October 1875, the subject was again brought forward
by the Treasury it fell to my lot to treat it from a new point of view,
suggested by my observations in my capacity as superintendent of the
reading-room. I saw that, waiving the question as to the advantage or
disadvantage of print in the abstract, it would soon be necessary to
resort to it for the sake of economy of space. There were by this time
two thousand volumes of manuscript catalogue in the reading-room,
exclusive of the catalogues of maps and music. There would be three
thousand by the time that the incorporation of the general and
supplementary catalogues was complete. Hundreds of these volumes in the
earlier letters of the alphabet were already swollen with entries, and
required to be broken up and divided into three. Sooner or later every
volume would have undergone this process. By that time there would be
nine thousand volumes of manuscript catalogue, three times as many as
the reading-room could contain, or the public conveniently consult. The
only remedy was to put a check upon the growth of the catalogue by
printing all new entries for the future, and to mature meanwhile a plan
for converting the entire catalogue into a printed one. I prepared a
memorandum embodying these ideas, and entered into the subject more
fully, when, in January 1878, it was again brought forward by the
Treasury. These views, however, did not find acceptance at the time....
The question was thus left for Mr. Bond, who became Principal Librarian
in the following August. As Keeper of the Manuscripts, Mr. Bond's
attention had never been officially drawn to the catalogue of printed
books, but as a man of letters, he had formed an opinion respecting it;
and I am able to state that he came to the principal librarianship as
determined to bestow the boon of print upon the Catalogue and the
public, as to effect the other great reforms that have signalized his
administration."[17]

Dr. Garnett, near the end of his paper, said, "My aspiration is that the
completion of the Museum Catalogue in print may coincide with the
completion of the present century;" and I believe he still holds the
opinion that this is possible and probable.

Mr. Cutter enters very fully into this question of _Printed or
Manuscript_? in his elaborate article on "Library Catalogues" in the
_United States Report on Public Libraries_, 1876 (pp. 552-56). The
advantages of a printed catalogue he states under five heads: "(1) that
it is in less danger of partial or total destruction than a manuscript
volume or drawers of cards;" "(2) that it can be consulted out of the
library;" "(3) that it can be consulted in other libraries;" "(4) that
it is easier to read than the best manuscript volume, and very much
easier to consult. A card presents to the eye only one title at a time,
whereas a printed catalogue generally has all an author's works on a
single page. Time and patience are lost in turning over cards, and it is
not easy either to find the particular title that is wanted or to
compare different titles and make a selection;" "(5) that several
persons can consult it at once."

The disadvantages are stated by Mr. Cutter under three heads: "(1) that
it is costly;" "(2) that a mistake once made is made for ever, whereas
in a card catalogue a mistake in name or in classification or in copying
the title can be corrected at any time;" "(3) it is out of date before
it is published. As it cannot contain the newest books, the very ones
most sought for, fresh supplements are continually needed, each of which
causes an additional loss of time and patience to consulters. The
average man will not look in over four places for a book; a few, very
persevering or driven by a great need, will go as far as five or six. It
becomes necessary therefore, if the catalogue is to be of any use, to
print consolidated supplements every five years, and that is expensive."

Of the advantages the main one is No. 4, and of the disadvantages the
only one of any importance is, it seems to me, No. 1.

As to disadvantage No. 2, it is more apparent than real. A mistake in
print will of course remain for ever in the copies of the catalogue
outside the library, but it can easily be corrected in the library copy
either in manuscript or by reprinting the single title in which the
mistake occurs. The card catalogue cannot be used outside the library,
and the catalogue in the library can be as easily corrected whether it
be printed and pasted down on pages or arranged on cards. The two are
equal in this respect. Disadvantage 3 is the stock objection. But what
does it really come to? He who consults the catalogue of a library away
from that library knows that a given book is there if he finds it in the
catalogue; but if it is not in the catalogue, he does not give up hope,
but either visits the library or sends to know if the book he requires
is in. He is no worse off in this case than if there had been no printed
catalogue; and in the former case he is much better off. The library
copy of the catalogue can be kept up as well in print as it can be in
manuscript, and here at all events there will only be one alphabet. It
will therefore be a question for the consulter alone whether it is
better worth his while to consult several supplements than to go
straight to the library. For the purposes of the library, it is quite
unnecessary to reprint or consolidate your supplements, because your
library copy of the catalogue will always be kept up to date. If the
library is a lending one, the subscribers will probably insist upon
having new catalogues, as the supplements become too numerous; but this
is only an additional instance of the advantages of a printed catalogue.

A printed catalogue should never be added to in manuscript, as this
causes the greatest confusion; and, moreover, it is not necessary. It is
quite possible to keep up a catalogue in print for many years; and even
when worn out, if the printed sheets have been kept, a working catalogue
can be made up afresh without printing again. The plan adopted by my
brother, the late Mr. B. R. Wheatley, is so simple, that it seems
scarcely necessary to enlarge upon its merits; but as it has not been
generally adopted, I may perhaps explain it here with advantage. It will
be seen by the specimen on page 59, that each page of the library copy
of the catalogue is divided in two. On the left-hand side is pasted down
the catalogue as it exists at the time, and the right-hand side is left
for additions. These additions may be printed as annual supplements, or
they may be printed from time to time at short intervals on galley slips
on one side only, without being made into pages. This can be done as
suits the best convenience of all concerned; and it is just as easy to
have the titles printed frequently as to have them copied for insertion
in the library copy of the catalogue. The ruled columns are for the
press-marks, and these are arranged on the outside of each column for
purposes of symmetry. It is not advantageous, as a rule, to print the
press-marks in the catalogue, although this is done in the case of the
British Museum. There are two advantages in having two columns of type
on one page. One is that there is a saving of space, and the other is
that it is easier to keep the alphabet in perfect register if it becomes
necessary to insert a page. However well arranged a library copy of a
catalogue may be, it will probably become congested in some places
before the whole catalogue requires readjustment. Now suppose each page
contains only one column of print, and the left-hand page is left for
additions. When both pages are full, and it is necessary to insert a
leaf for fresh additions, it is clear that the correct order of the
alphabet will be thrown out. But if there are two columns on each page,
then the additional leaf will introduce no confusion; for the recto of
the additional leaf will range with the verso of the old leaf, and the
verso of the additional leaf with the recto of the next leaf in the
book. The only difference will be that you will have to run your eye
along four columns instead of two.[18]

    ================================================================
    |Case.|Shelf.|                  |                 |Case.|Shelf.|
    |-----+-------------------------+-----------------+-----+------|
    | B   |  1   |~Le Breton~       |                 | N   |  5   |
    |     |      |(Anna Letitia).   |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Memoir of Mrs.    |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Barbauld, with    |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Letters and       |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Notices of her    |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Family. Sm.       |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |8vo, London,      |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |1847.             |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |                 |     |      |
    | B   |  2   |----Correspondence|                 |     |      |
    |     |      |of Dr.            |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Channing and      |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Lucy Aikin        |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |(1826-1842). Sm.  |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |8vo, London,      |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |1874.             |~Liddell~        |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |(Henry Geo.),    |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |and Robert       |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |SCOTT. A Lexicon,|     |      |
    |     |      |                  |abridged         |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |from "Liddell    |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |and Scott's      |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |Greek-English    |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |Lexicon"; 14th   |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |edition. Sm.     |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |square 8vo,      |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |Oxford, 1871.    |     |      |
    | G   |  4   |~McNicoll~        |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |(David H.).       |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Dictionary of     |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Natural History   |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |Terms, with       |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |their derivations,|                 |     |      |
    |     |      |including the     |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |various orders,   |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |genera, and       |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |species. Sm.      |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |8vo, London,      |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |1863.             |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |                 |     |      |
    |     |      |                  |                 |     |      |

The advantage of this plan is that the library catalogue can be
actually kept up for any length of time without any reprinting. When the
catalogue is filled up, and there is no room for any additions, the
whole may be pasted down afresh as in the first instance, always
presuming that copies of the catalogue and its supplements have been
retained.

Sometimes the pasting down of the print is delegated to the binder; but
it should be done either by the librarian himself, or at all events
under his eye, for much judgment and knowledge are required for the
proper leaving of spaces where the additions are likely to be the
thickest.

Another advantage of this plan is that a practically new library
catalogue may be made up from old printed catalogues. Some
five-and-twenty years ago, the Athenæum Club possessed a worn-out
catalogue of its library. Supplements were printed, and I laid down in
one alphabet a catalogue of the whole, which has lasted to the present
time, although I believe it is pretty well worn out now. There were
certain difficulties to be overcome, for the catalogue and its
supplements were not made on the same system.

Card catalogues have been strongly advocated by some, and they present
many advantages if used while the catalogue is growing in completeness;
but for use when the catalogue is completed they cannot compete in
convenience with the plan just described. It takes much longer to look
through a series of cards representing the works of a given author than
it does to run the eye down a page of titles.[19]

Professor Otis Robinson, in his article on "College Library
Administration" (_United States Report on Public Libraries_, p. 512),
writes thus on the adoption of card catalogues in the United States:--

    "In some of the largest libraries of the country the card system has
    been exclusively adopted. Several of them have no intention of
    printing any more catalogues in book form. In others cards are
    adopted for current accessions, with the expectation of printing
    supplements from them from time to time. I think the tendency of the
    smaller libraries is to adopt the former plan, keeping a manuscript
    card catalogue of books as they are added, without a thought of
    printing."

This system of cataloguing has not taken hold of the English mind,
although it has been adopted at the Bodleian Library by Mr. Nicholson,
and at the Guildhall Library. The growth of this fashion appears to me
as something almost incomprehensible, and one can only ask why such a
primitive mode of arrangement should be preferred to a book catalogue. I
can scarcely imagine anything more maddening than a frequent reference
to cards in a drawer; and my objection is not theoretical, but formed
on a long course of fingering slips or cards. If the arrangement of the
catalogue is constantly being altered, it may be convenient to have
cards; but when a proper system has been settled at the beginning, this
cannot be necessary. When additions only have to be considered, these
can be inserted into the book catalogue, so that the catalogue may last
for many years. The use of a duplicate set of titles on cards for use in
arrangement, which can be arranged and rearranged as often as required,
is quite another matter. This plan is adopted at the Bodleian.

Varieties of type help the eye to choose out what it requires, and there
is much saving of time in consulting a good printed catalogue instead of
a good manuscript one. This is not a matter of opinion merely, but can
be proved at once by consulting the printed volumes of the British
Museum Catalogue against the volumes still in manuscript.

Before the details of printing are finally settled it is well to pay
particular attention to the typographical arrangement, as a catalogue
will be all the more useful as it is well set out.

A very ingenious scheme for the stereotyping of catalogue titles was
published by Mr. C. C. Jewett, Librarian of the Smithsonian Institution,
in 1850.[20]

The mode of carrying out the plan is explained as follows:--

  "1. The Smithsonian Institution to publish rules for the preparation of
  catalogues.

  "2. To request other institutions intending to publish catalogues of
  their books to prepare them according to these rules, with a view to
  their being stereotyped under the direction of the Smithsonian
  Institution.

  "3. The Smithsonian Institution to pay the whole _extra_ expense of
  stereotyping, or such part thereof as may be agreed on.

  "4. The stereotyped titles to remain the property of the Smithsonian
  Institution.

  "5. Every library uniting in this plan to have the right of using all
  the titles in the possession of the Smithsonian Institution, as often as
  desired for the printing of its own catalogue by the Institution; paying
  only the expense of making up the pages, of the press work, and of
  distributing the titles to their proper places.

  "6. The Smithsonian Institution to publish as soon as possible, and at
  stated intervals, general catalogues of all libraries coming into this
  system."

It is not necessary here to explain how the stereotyped slips were to be
manufactured, as the explanation will be found in the original paper.

A scheme of an allied character was propounded by the late Mr. Henry
Stevens, who read a very interesting and amusing paper before the
Conference of Librarians in 1877 on "Photo-Bibliography; or, A Central
Bibliographical Clearing House" (_Transactions_, pp. 70-81). Mr. Stevens
wrote:--

    "My notion is that every book, big and little, that is published,
    like every child, big and little, that is born, should be
    registered, without inquiry into its merits or character.... I ask
    the attention of this Conference of Librarians to a word on the
    necessity of cataloguing every book printed; the importance of
    printed card catalogues of old, rare, beautiful, and costly books,
    and how to make them on a co-operative or universal system, which,
    for lack of a better term, I shall for the present call
    'photo-bibliography.' For carrying out this project a Central
    Bibliographical Bureau or Clearing House for Librarians is
    suggested."

The author goes on to say:--

    "From the days of Hipparchus to the present time, the stars have
    been catalogued; and to-day every bird, beast, fish, shell, insect,
    and living thing, yea every tree, shrub, flower, rock, and gem, as
    they become known are scientifically, systematically, and
    intelligently named, described, and catalogued. In all these
    departments of human knowledge there is a well-ascertained and
    generally acknowledged system, which is dignified as a science."

But no such system of registering books has ever been attempted. The
cure for this negligence is then suggested:--

    "This isolation and waste of vain repetition, it is believed, is
    wholly unnecessary. There is no royal road, it has been said, to
    knowledge. He who would attain the goal must learn to labour and to
    wait, for knowledge is locked up mainly in books, appropriately
    termed works. There is, however, a short cut with a pass-key in
    universal or co-operative bibliography, a simple system of
    arrangement by which may be economized the labours of hundreds who
    are cataloguing over and over the same books."

Mr. Stevens's special contribution to this great object was the use of
reduced photographs of the title-pages of rare and curious books. The
adoption of this plan would help on vastly the study of bibliography.

The strong feeling as to the waste of time occupied in the constant
repetition going on in cataloguing the same book in different libraries
crops up again and again, and surely we shall in the end be able to
elaborate some scheme which will meet such a universally felt want.
Professor Robinson was one of the earliest to protest against this
waste, and his attention was called to it when inspecting various card
catalogues. He found similar cards being repeatedly reproduced, and he
suggested that by some system of cooperation this waste of labour might
be reduced (_United States Report on Public Libraries_, pp. 512-14).

Two practical suggestions have been made. One is that every publisher
should place in each copy of each book issued by him a catalogue slip
made upon a proper system which has been settled by competent
authorities, so that there may be a satisfactory uniformity; and the
other that each government should catalogue every work published in its
country. The former plan is scarcely likely to be undertaken
systematically by all publishers, but the latter one might be carried
out in connection with the ratification of copyright privileges. Every
publication should be registered, and a copy submitted at the
registration office. A part of the business of this office should be to
issue periodically proper catalogue slips of every work registered, on a
settled plan that had been well thought out by experts. The authorities
of Stationers' Hall ought long ago to have been instructed to issue
lists of all the books registered there; and if they were not prepared
to undertake the duties indicated by the new Registration Law, the
office might possibly be transferred to the British Museum with
advantage. If England initiated such a scheme, other nations would
probably follow its lead. At present the Catalogue of the British
Museum, as now published, to some extent fulfils the required
conditions; but much that is published in Great Britain even escapes
through the meshes of the Museum's widespread net.

However much printed catalogues may be superior to manuscript ones, the
latter must always be used in a large number of cases, especially for
private libraries; and therefore it may be well to say a few words here
respecting the preparation and keeping up of a manuscript catalogue.

There are two ways of making and keeping up a new catalogue. The one is
that adopted at the British Museum, which was suggested simultaneously
by the Right Hon. J. Wilson Croker, and by Mr. Roy, one of the Assistant
Librarians in the Printed Book Department. The catalogue slips are
lightly pasted down into guarded volumes, the ends being left unpasted,
so that the slips can easily be detached with the help of a paper-knife
if it be needful at any time to change their position.

The other plan is to copy out fairly the titles on one side of sheets of
paper, proper spaces being left, as well as the whole of the opposite
page for additions. These sheets are afterwards bound into a volume or
volumes. The former plan is the best for a large and a constantly
increasing catalogue; but the latter plan is more satisfactory for an
ordinary private library, as it forms a more shapable and better-looking
volume. From experience it may be said that a catalogue of this kind,
in which proper spaces have been left, will last for many years; and
should it become congested in any one portion, it is quite easy to
rewrite those pages on a larger scale, and have the volume rebound.

    ======================================================
    |Case.|Shelf.|                           |Size.|Date.|
    |-----+------+---------------------------+-----+-----|
    | 10  | B    | HAYDN (Joseph). Haydn's   |_8vo_|1878 |
    |     |      | Dictionary of Dates and   |     |     |
    |     |      | Universal Information,    |     |     |
    |     |      | relating to all ages and  |     |     |
    |     |      | nations; 16th edition,    |     |     |
    |     |      | containing the History of |     |     |
    |     |      | the World to the autumn   |     |     |
    |     |      | of 1878, by Benjamin      |     |     |
    |     |      | Vincent. _London_.        |     |     |
    |     |      |                           |     |     |
    |     |      |                           |     |     |

A specimen of how paper should be ruled for a manuscript catalogue made
on the latter plan is given on page 72. The columns at the right-hand
side of the paper, for size and date, add to the clearness of the
catalogue, as well as making the page look neater. The most useful size
is about 1 ft. 5 in. high by 11-1/2 in. wide--the size of Whatman's best
drawing paper, which can be used with advantage.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[16] It must be thoroughly understood that this catalogue of letter A is
in itself an excellent piece of work. Its shortcomings are entirely due
to incompleteness caused by premature printing.

[17] _Transactions_ of the Fourth and Fifth Annual Meetings of the
Library Association, 1884, pp. 122-23. In the discussion which followed
the reading of this paper, I ventured to speak of the British Museum
having been converted to the advantages of printing. Mr. Bullen in his
speech said: "There were those in the Museum, Mr. Garnett and himself
among them, who, long before the present time, advocated printed, in
contradistinction to manuscript, catalogues. As a manuscript catalogue
was one of the greatest advantages to a library, so a printed catalogue
must of course be of a hundred times greater advantage" (p. 207).

[18] I find that the merits of this plan are not so self-evident as I
thought, for my friend, Mr. J. B. Bailey, Librarian of the Royal College
of Surgeons, who has had experience of a double columned catalogue,
prefers a single column with the _verso_ of each page left for
additions. I allow that there may be advantages in the latter, but as an
octavo page of print is very narrow it is wasteful of space to have only
one column. Where it is no disadvantage to have a catalogue in several
volumes, this question of space need not be considered.

[19] Mr. Cutter gives some useful information respecting card catalogues
and the drawers used for keeping the cards, in his article on "Library
Catalogues" (_United States Report on Public Libraries_, pp. 555-60).

[20] "A Plan for Stereotyping Catalogues by Separate Titles, and for
forming a General Stereotyped Catalogue of Public Libraries in the
United States." _Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, held at New Haven, Conn.,
August 1850_ (8vo, Washington, 1851).




[Decoration]

CHAPTER IV.

HOW TO TREAT A TITLE-PAGE.


In this chapter we shall discuss the various points that arise in
connection with the transference of the title of a book to the catalogue
slip, and for convenience we shall treat the subject under the following
main divisions: 1. Author; 2. Headings other than Author Headings; 3.
The Title; 4. Place of Publication; 5. Date; 6. Size Notation; 7.
Collation.

Before dealing with these points it is necessary to give the cataloguer
a warning not to take his title from the outer wrapper. The title-page
only must be used, but in cases where there is no title-page, and it
becomes necessary to copy from the wrapper, this must be clearly stated.
Wrappers and title-pages of the same book often differ, and a neglect of
the above rule has sometimes caused a confusion in bibliographies by
the conversion of one book into two.


AUTHOR.

With the title-page of the book to be catalogued before us, our first
care is to find the author's name. If there is no author's name, we must
put the book aside for consideration later on. First of all, therefore,
it is necessary to answer the question, What is an author?

Mr. Cutter's definition is as follows: "Author, in the narrower sense,
is the person who writes a book; in a wider sense, it may be applied to
him who is the cause of the book's existence, by putting together the
writings of several authors (usually called _the editor_, more properly
to be called _the collector_). Bodies of men (societies, cities,
legislative bodies, countries) are to be considered the authors of their
memoirs, transactions, journals, debates, reports, etc." This is a fair
definition, about which there can be no dispute, down to the word
_collector_; but the latter portion requires much consideration, and we
shall have to deal with it further on.

First let us consider some of the questions which arise respecting the
person who writes the book. If we suppose his names to be John Smith, we
have the matter in its simplest form for a small catalogue, and we write
at the head of a slip of paper--SMITH (JOHN).

But in the case of a large library, the very simplicity causes a
difficulty. There are so many different John Smiths, that it becomes
necessary to find out some means of distinguishing them. At the British
Museum explanatory designations, such as _Schoolmaster_,
_Bibliographer_, etc., are added; but this point belongs more properly
to arrangement, which will be discussed in the sixth chapter of this
book.

All authors' names, however, are not so simple as those of John Smith,
and one of the greatest difficulties is connected with compound names.

A few years ago the rule respecting these compound names might have been
stated quite simply, thus: "In foreign names take the first as the
catch-word, and in English names take the last." But lately a large
number of persons have taken a fancy to bring into prominence their
second Christian name, when it is obtained from a surname, and, adding a
hyphen, insist on being called Clarkson-Smith, Sholto-Brown, or
Tredegar-Jones. Now here is a great difficulty which the cataloguer has
to face. Take the case of John Clarkson Smith. His family name may be
Clarkson, and the Smith added as a necessary consequence of obtaining a
certain property, in which case he properly comes under C; but he may
just as likely be a Smith, who, having been named Clarkson at his
christening, thinks it advantageous to bring that name into prominence,
so as to distinguish himself from the other Smiths. Probably, to still
further carry on the process, he will name all his children Clarkson, so
that in the end it will become practically a compound surname. The
cataloguer, therefore, needs to know much personal and family history
before he can decide correctly. If we decide in all cases to take the
first of the names hyphened together, we shall still meet with
difficulties, for many persons, knowing the origin of the Clarkson, will
insist on calling our friend Smith.

On this point the British Museum rule is:--

    "Foreign compound surnames to be entered under the initial of the
    first of them. In compound Dutch and English surnames, the last name
    to be preferred, if no entry of a work by the same person occur in
    the Catalogue under the first name only."

Cutter rules as follows:--

    "16. Put compound names:

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

      "This rule requires no investigation and 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, as
      FÉNELON, not SALIGNAC DE LAMOTHE FÉNELON; VOLTAIRE, not
      AROUET DE VOLTAIRE. 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 Hoefer (_Biog Gen._)
      and Quérard in such cases, if they always
      agreed,--unfortunately they often differ. References are
      necessary whichever way one decides each case."

The Library Association rule is:--

        "32. English compound surnames are to be entered under the
      last part of the name; foreign ones under the first part,
      cross-references being given in all instances."

The Cambridge rule is as follows:--

      "4. [English] compound surnames to be entered under the
    last part of the compound, unless when joined by a hyphen.

      "9. [Foreign] compound names to be under the first part of
    the compound."

It will be seen that, although all the lawgivers are agreed upon the
general principle, they do not entirely settle the difficulty which has
been raised above. Probably it will be best for the cataloguer to
settle each individual case on its own merits, and to be generous in the
use of cross-references. It is dangerous to be guided by hyphens,
because they have become absurdly common, and many persons seem to be
ignorant of the true meaning of the hyphen. One sometimes even sees an
ordinary Christian name joined to the surname by a hyphen, as
John-Smith.

Prefixes present a great difficulty to the cataloguer, and here again a
different rule has to be adopted for foreign names to that which governs
English names. The broad rule is that in foreign names the article
should be retained, and the preposition rejected; and the reason for
this is that the article is permanent, while the preposition is not. A
prefix which is translated into the relative term in a foreign language
cannot be considered as a fixed portion of the name. Thus Alexander von
Humboldt translated his name into Alexander de Humboldt when away from
his native country. For the same reason prefixes are retained in English
names. They have no meaning in themselves, and cannot be translated.
There is a difficulty in the case of certain cosmopolitan Jews who use
the "De" before their names. This is so with the Rothschilds, who style
themselves De Rothschilds; but when a British peerage was conferred on
the head of the house the "De" went. Under these circumstances we must
consider the "De" as a foreign prefix, and reject it.

There is probably no point in cataloguing which presents so many
difficulties to the inexperienced as this one connected with prefixes,
and yet it is one upon which the lawgivers are far from being so clear
as they ought to be.

Mr. Cutter's rule is the fullest, and that of the Library Association
the vaguest.

Mr. Cutter writes as follows:--

    "17. Put surnames preceded by prefixes:

        "_a._ In French, under the prefix when it is or contains
     an article, _Les_, _La_, _L'_, _Du_, _Des_; under the word
     following when the prefix is a preposition, _De_, _D'_.

        "_b._ In English, under the prefix, as _De Quincey_,
     _Van Buren_, with references when necessary.

        "_c._ In all other languages, under the name following
     the prefix, as _Gama_, Vasco de, with references whenever
     the name has been commonly used in English with the
     prefix, as _Del Rio_, _Vandyck_, _Van Ess_."

This is all the Library Association have to say:--

      "31. English and French surnames beginning with a prefix
    (except the French _De_ and _D'_) are to be recorded under
    the prefix; in other languages, under the word following."

The British Museum rule stands thus:--

      "12. Foreign names, excepting French, preceded by a
    preposition and article, or by both, to be entered under the
    name immediately following. French names preceded by a
    preposition only, to follow the same rule: those preceded by
    an article, or by a preposition and an article, to be entered
    under the initial letter of the article. English surnames, of
    foreign origin, to be entered under their initial, even if
    originally belonging to a preposition."

The Cambridge rules are as follows:--

      "8. German and Dutch names, preceded by a preposition or an
    article, or both, to be catalogued under the name, and not
    under the preposition or article.

      "9. French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese names,
    preceded by a preposition only, to be catalogued under the
    name; those preceded by an article, or by a preposition and
    an article forming one word, to be catalogued under the
    article or combined preposition and article."

The point was fully considered by the Index Society; and as the rule
laid down by the Council is full and clear, I venture to give it here in
addition to those above.

"5. Proper names of foreigners to be alphabetically arranged under the
prefixes

    _Dal._      as _Dal Sie._
    _Del._         _Del Rio._
    _Della._       _Della Casa._
    _Des._         _Des Cloiseaux._
    _Du._          _Du Bois._
    _La._          _La Condamine._
    _Le._          _Le Sage._

but not under the prefixes

    _D'._      as _Abbadie_      not _D'Abbadie._
    _Da._         _Silva_            _Da Silva._
    _De._         _La Place_         _De La Place._
    _Von._        _Humboldt_         _Von Humboldt._
    _Van._        _Beneden_          _Van Beneden._
    _Van der._    _Hoeven_           _Van der Hoeven._

It is an acknowledged principle that when the prefix is a preposition it
is to be rejected, but when an article it is to be retained. When,
however, as in the case of the French _Du_, _Des_, the two are joined,
it is necessary to retain the preposition. This also applies to the case
of the Italian _Della_, which is often rejected by cataloguers. English
names are, however, to be arranged under the prefixes _De_, _Dela_,
_Van_, etc., _as De Quincey_, _Delabeche_, _Van Mildert_, because these
prefixes are meaningless in English and form an integral part of the
name."

We must be careful not to invent an author by misreading a title, as was
done by the cataloguer who entered the _Relatio felicis agonis_ of
certain martyrs as the work of one Felix Ago.[21] This is by no means
an unnecessary caution, for several imaginary authors have found their
way into biographical dictionaries by the blundering of title-readers.

The British Museum rule by which Voltaire is entered under _Arouet_ and
Molière under _Poquelin_ has been so often criticised that I scarcely
like to refer to it here; but as these are very striking examples of an
irritating rule, I feel bound to allude to them. Mr. Jewett, in forming
his rules, felt bound to place Arouet le jeune and Poquelin under the
only names by which they are known, viz., Voltaire and Molière; and to
cover his departure from rules he was following, he made this note: "The
family name of an individual is to be considered that which he has or
adopts for himself and his descendants rather than that which he
received from his ancestors--his family name, not his father's." This,
to a great extent, covers the case; for we are bound to take for our
catalogue the name by which an author decides to be known, and by which
he always is known. It is not for us to rake up his family history.
Panizzi, however, specially answered the objection made to his
treatment of Voltaire. He said that Lelong, in his _Bibliotheque
Historique de la France_, while Voltaire was alive, entered him under
Arouet; and in answer to the question, "Mr. Tomlinson states that the
family name of Voltaire was Arouet, a name which the writer himself
never used, and by which he was scarcely known?" Panizzi added, "The
first thing that occurred in his life was, that he was sent to prison as
Arouet, as the supposed writer of certain satirical verses against the
Regent; and if you look at the index to the best edition of St. Simon,
you will not find Voltaire at all. You will find M. Arouet. We put it
under Arouet, but there is a cross-reference from Voltaire. I believe
Mr. Milnes pointed out the advantage of this, because, he said, the
greatest harm that can arise is, that if you look under 'Voltaire' you
find that you are sent to 'Arouet,' but if we are not consistent we
mislead every one" (p. 675). This is an answer, but I do not think it
will be accepted as a satisfactory one. The reference could as easily be
made the other way, and no one would be misled. References should be
from the little known to the better known, and not the reverse way. We
may pay too high a price for consistency in cataloguing.

By the rule that an author should be placed under the name by which he
is best known, Melanchthon will be under that name and not under
Schwartzerde, Oecolampadius not under Hausschein, Xylander not under
Holzmann, Regiomontanus not under Müller. The tersest reason I know for
this rule is that of Professor De Morgan: "As the butchers' bills of
these eminent men are lost, and their writings only remain, it is best
to designate them by the name which they bear on the latter rather than
on the former."

We shall sometimes come upon a title in which the author appears as the
Bishop of Carlisle, or the Dean of Chichester; and before making the
heading for our catalogue slip we shall have to look in a book of
dignities, or almanac, or directory to find out the surname of the
bishop or the dean. These titles can no more be treated as names than
could the Mayor or Recorder of Brighton be registered under the name of
that place. This rule is clear, and one that is universally adopted; but
in another case, which is supposed to be similar, the lawgivers have, I
think, gone very wrong. It has become general to place peers under their
family names instead of under their titles. This rule is in direct
opposition to the clear principle of placing an author under the name by
which he is best known, and under which he is most likely to be sought
for. The majority of peers are known only by their titles, and therefore
if they are placed under their family names they are placed under the
worst possible heading. Readers of history know that the great Duke of
Marlborough began to make a figure as Colonel Churchill, but most
persons know him only as Marlborough, and when they wish to find whether
a certain catalogue contains his Despatches, they do not wish either to
be referred to Churchill or to have to look for his family name in a
peerage. The titles of noblemen and the names of the sees of bishops
have really little in common. The title is practically the man's name,
and he has no other for use; but a bishop never loses his name.

The British Museum rules, and those of the Cambridge University Library,
direct that noblemen shall be placed under their family names. At
Cambridge there is the further rule that, "in the case of dukes of the
blood royal who have no surname, the title is to be taken as the leading
word." The necessity for this exception condemns the original rule.

The Library Association and Bodleian rules adopt the common-sense plan
of entering noblemen under their titles; and Mr. Cutter gives some
excellent reasons for doing this, although he cannot make up his mind to
run counter to a supposed well-established rule.

Mr. Cutter writes:--

    "STANHOPE, Philip Dormer, _4th Earl of Chesterfield_.... This is the
    British Museum rule and Mr. Jewett's. Mr. Perkins prefers entry
    under titles for British noblemen also, in which I should agree with
    him if the opposite practice were not so well established. The
    reasons for entry under the title are that British noblemen are
    always 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 Thynne), 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 favour of the Museum rule is
    that it is well established, and that it is desirable that there
    should be some uniform rule."

Sovereigns, saints, and friars are to be registered under their
Christian names. Upon this point all the authorities are agreed. The
British Museum rule is:--

      "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 constitution 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 Association 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 titles
now accumulated under the more common royal names.

          "_b._ Persons canonized.

      "_Ex._ THOMAS [à 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_."

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
title-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 à 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 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." This is not a subject which is likely to trouble the general
cataloguer much, and in the case of a multitude 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 titles 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 title, to be catalogued under the final form (being a
    surname) which their name assumes, 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
authoresses 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 authoress 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 title-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 assumed. 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
     Fanny 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 Association 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 pass
on to consider some of the points connected with classical 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: Êrodotus]. 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
Cæsar, 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 pass on to those cases where there is some difficulty in
deciding as to the authorship of a book. Many titles 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 title-page. This book is entitled, "_Collections for
the History of Hampshire_. 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 circumstance somewhat singular arose out
of the publication of _Hampshire, 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 title
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 _Principal 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.

Mr. Cutter enters very fully into the points relating to corporate
authors, some of which are of considerable difficulty. First among
corporate authors are societies and institutions who publish
proceedings; but these will be treated in the sixth chapter, under the
heading of Transactions. There are, however, many other publications of
corporate bodies which do not come under this heading, such as Acts,
Laws, Resolutions, Reports, etc. It is scarcely worth while to discuss
this point very fully here, as this class of book is only to be found in
the largest libraries, where the rules are settled. Moreover, they will
sometimes require to be treated differently, according to the class of
library in which they are included.

According to the rules of the Cambridge University Library, they are
arranged under the general (or superior) heading of _Official
Publications_.

Academical dissertations frequently offer considerable difficulties to
the cataloguer, and as the recognized authorities are not so clear in
their rules upon this subject as they might be, I venture here to
introduce the substance of a paper which my brother, the late Mr. B. R.
Wheatley, read before the Library Association in 1881:--


ON THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP IN ACADEMICAL DISSERTATIONS.

In the "title-taking" of these dissertations the difficulty is not in
their "subjects," which are sometimes confined even to a single word,
but it is in the choice of their authors' names: whether the præses,
the respondent, the proponent or defendant is to be chosen. It may
perhaps be thought that I am fighting with a shadow, but when it is
considered that the seventh of the _Rules for Cataloguing_ printed by
the British Museum, copied afterwards into Cutter's Rules, and since, I
find, adopted by the Library Association, is that "The Respondent or
Defendant of a Thesis is the Author, except when it unequivocally
appears to be the work of the Præses," and that nevertheless in some
special catalogues, such as Pritzel's _Thesaurus_, Haller's
_Bibliothecæ_, etc., and in the catalogues of the Linnæan and some other
Societies' libraries, the rule has been generally adopted that the
præses is the author, or at least that he takes that position from the
dissertations being entered under his name--and that in a large number
of collections of these dissertations, this latter rule has been
frequently favoured--it will be allowed that this shadow puts on a
substantial appearance, and has sufficient reality in it to bear a
practical discussion. In placing before you some examples from
title-pages, in illustration of the question, I must apologize for
taking them entirely from works connected with Medicine and its allied
sciences, as being the class more immediately ready to my hand for
reference.

Before entering on the bibliographical part of our subject, you will
allow me to quote, from Watts' _On the Improvement of the Mind_, a short
summary of the method of scholastic disputation: "The tutor appoints a
question in some of the sciences to be debated amongst his students; one
of them undertakes to affirm or to deny the question and to defend his
assertion or negation, and to answer all objections against it; he is
called the _respondent_, and the rest of the students in the same class
or who pursue the same science are the _opponents_, who are appointed to
dispute or raise objections against the proposition affirmed or denied.
It is the business of the respondent to write a thesis in Latin, or
short discourse on the question proposed, and he either affirms or
denies the question according to the opinion of the tutor, which is
supposed to be the truth, and he reads it at the beginning of the
dispute. The opponent, or opponents in succession, make objections in
the form of a syllogism, the proposition in which is in reply argued
against and denied by the respondent. During this time the tutor sits in
the chair as President or Moderator to see that the rules of disputation
and decency be observed on both sides. His work is also to illustrate
and explain the answer or distinction of the respondent where it is
obscure, to strengthen it where it is weak, and to correct it where it
is false, and when the respondent is pinched with a strong objection,
and is at a loss for an answer, the Moderator assists him and suggests
some answer to the objection of the opponent, in defence of the
question, according to his own opinion or sentiment."

The latter part of the above quotation seems to be the only ground for
attributing an authorship to the præses, viz., that he has had so great
a hand in correcting and moulding the form and argument of the essay as
to be entitled to the appellation. I cannot understand the thesis being
attributed to the præses on any other supposition, but if that
supposition be correct, and the præses did give the candidate the
information on which his dissertation is compiled, and the candidate had
merely the superficial reality of the position as a defender of the
statements given in his thesis, would not that circumstance be purely a
literary question and a matter for a statement by foot-note? while, as
the candidate for honours brings the thesis forward as his own, he must
bibliographically be considered its author.

The questions also arise: is the published thesis the original thesis
prepared for disputation, or is it in its printed form a combination of
that thesis with such corrections and emendations as have been elicited
in the discussion? Is it like a paper contributed to our societies, in
which the _ipsissima verba_ of the author are retained if the paper is
thought generally worthy of publication, in despite of some of its
statements having been contravened in the discussion? Is it like a
drafted Bill for Parliament, or as amended in committee or by a rival
committee, with the chairman's notes of addition and correction? Might
not the authorship, if conceded to the præses on these grounds, be given
also to a schoolmaster who suggested some of the principal points of the
themes for his pupils on which they were to gain honour and distinction;
or to a drawing-master, who

    "In years gone by, when we were lads at school,"

put some last brilliant touches to our dull, spiritless attempts at
imitation; rendering our pencillings liable, in their improved
condition, to be declared by some cynical critic, much to our
dissatisfaction, more our master's than our own?

In the _Dissertationes Inaugurales_ of the Edinburgh, Leipzig,
Goettingen, Berlin, Paris, and other universities, there is little or no
difficulty, where the author, A. B. _eruditorum examini subjicit, ex
auctoritate Rectoris vel Præfecti_, as, if we take, for instance, the
case of the Edinburgh Dissertations, no one could suppose the hundreds
of dissertations submitted for examination by aspirants for academic
honours could all be attributed, either to the learned Præfects Drs.
Wishart or Wm. Robertson of the last century, or to Dr. Georgius Baird
of the first quarter of the present; and one of the difficulties
connected with the question is, how far the usual præses in thesis with
a respondent, is or is not in almost the same relative position as the
rector of the above dissertations, and in fact whether the hundred and
one different forms and variations of words on title-pages used in the
various cases of rector and candidate for honours, præses and proponent,
præses and defendant, defendant alone, præses and respondent, respondent
alone, etc., are not all slightly varying representations of much the
same condition of things, modified perhaps by some variety of usages, as
in Sweden, for instance, which may have been more favourable to the
claims of the præses than in other countries; a condition, however,
which is a veritable Proteus in its many changes of shape.

Presidents, we allow to be absolute in their decisions, but in the case
of these dissertations they are in an "ablative absolute" position, and
therefore, I suggest, should, with few exceptions, be removed from the
status of author, which belongs grammatically as well as
bibliographically to the proponent, defendant, or respondent, who in the
nominative case dominates the entire construction of the title-page.

The British Museum rule, as adopted by Mr. Cutter in his _Rules for a
Dictionary Catalogue_ and by our Association since, viz., "_Consider the
Respondent or Defendant of a Thesis as its Author except when it
unequivocally appears to be the work of the Præses_," does not
comprehend cases where both the words respondent and defendant occur
together.

The respondent is the author when words like _auctor respondens_ are
attached to his name, or when the præses is the only other name
mentioned on the title, but not when there is a proponent or defendant,
as in the following out of many instances I could produce:--

    "_De Mangano_: Dissertatio quam publice _defendere_ studebit
  G. Forchhammer, _respondente_ Tho. G. Repp;" Hafniæ, 1820, 4to.
  "Dissertatio Medica quam auspiciis Rectoris Friderici Hassiæ
  Landgravii _defendet_ P. J. Borellus, _respondente_ H. G.
  Sibeckero."

I should like, therefore, to have added to that rule, "the Defendant or
Respondent is the Author when either occurs separately on the
title-page, but when together, the Defendant must be so considered."

In Cutter's rules for cross-referencing, he considers that one should be
made from the præses to the respondent or defendant of a thesis, which I
cannot but consider supererogatory; the contrary one, from respondent to
præses, where the præses can be proved to be the author, has more reason
in its favour.

This latter case is, however, of comparatively rare occurrence, the
following being examples of those few cases in which the authorship must
be given to him:--

    "_Dissertatio quam sistit præses G. F. Francus de Frankenau,
  respondente Daniel Wagnero;_" Hafniæ, 1704, the dedication
  being also signed by Francus. "_De Humoribus disputatio,
  authore ac præside D._ _C. Lucio et respondente M. Rotmundo_,"
  Ingolstadii, 1588.

In what way, favourable or unfavourable to the præses-author hypothesis,
shall we take such titles as--

Deo triuno præside ex decreto gratiosi Med. Ordinis.

Quam deo ter optimo maximo Præside ex auctoritate D. Rectoris exam.
subjicit J. G. W.

Quam præside summo numine ex auctoritate D. Rectoris subjicit J. G. W.

When the præses is the author he is usually called author, defendant, or
proponent, never respondent, but the opposing respondent is sometimes a
participating author.

The following case is one of our difficulties, and shows the necessity
of looking further than the title:--

    "_Dissertatio de Hæmorrhoidibus, præses Geo. Francus,
  respondens J. G. Carisius_, Heidelb. 1672."

The dedication to this is signed by Francus, with this remark,
"_Dissertationem Medicam primitias nempe meas offerre debui_," proving
him to be the author.

And in numerous cases where the names of a præses and respondent occur
on the title without the word author being attached to either, the
preface or dedication is signed sometimes by one and sometimes by the
other, and the authorship must be attributed accordingly.

But with regard to those Disputations in which only the names of præses
and respondent occur on the title, we must recollect that the antithesis
is not always between _them_, but between the _opponents_, whether
mentioned or not, and the _author_ who responds to their strictures, the
præses being only the arbiter between them.

The principal cause of our troubles in these matters is not, however, to
be found so much in the separate dissertations in their original
publication, as in the collected editions of them by Haller and others.
In these collections the name of the præses is constantly given as
author of the thesis in the heading lines of the text, even when the
title, in agreement with its original publication, attaches the word
_auctor_ to the name of the defendant or respondent; are we in these
cases to suppose that these heading lines have really been left to the
caprice of the printer, who has adopted the name of the præses as
occurring first on the title, on the principle of first come first
served?

In Haller's Collection of _Disputationes Chirurgicæ_ contrarieties
constantly occur, the exact sameness of construction in the titles being
followed sometimes by the name of the præses and sometimes by that of
the defendant, on the heading lines of the text; as, for instance, in
one where, though the fly-title mentions Orth as the "_respondens
auctor_," the dissertation is in the heading placed under the name of
Salzmann, the præses.

Other instances of this difficulty occur in Gruner's _Delectus
Dissertationum Medicarum Jenensium_, in which a large number are
attributed to the præses Baldinger, in a title-construction which
mentions the names of the proponents as authors. In Haller's
_Disputationes ad Morborum historiam_, the regular titles are omitted,
and the two names, sometimes præses and respondent, sometimes respondent
and opponent, or defendant and respondent, are given coupled by an _et_
as the authors of the dissertation, the first name, however, gaining the
honour of the heading line. I give one or two instances exhibiting the
confusion involved in the question.

_J. V. Scheid et Marci Mappi Disputatio de duobus ossiculis in cerebro
humano mulieris, 1687._ Scheid's name appears as the author in the
heading line, but on turning to the original edition I find _pro
disputatione proposita, præside J. V. Scheid, respondente Marco Mappo_,
and in the dedication signed by Mappus it is stated by him to be his
first specimen of his medical studies.

In another instance of the same kind, _Joh. Saltzmann et E. C. Honold de
Verme naribus excusso_, the heading line has Saltzmann as the author,
while in the original edition the dedication to the magistracy of his
native town is signed by Honold, as dedicating to them _primitias hasce
academicas_, and at the end are several letters and sets of
congratulatory verses on his performance. How in a bibliographical sense
can Scheid or Saltzmann be the authors of these theses? The information
they may have contributed as teachers does not constitute them authors.
Cases of the same kind occur in _Richteri Opuscula Medica, studio J. C.
G. Ackermann, 1780_; in _Trilleri Opuscula_, and in _J. G. Roedereri
Opuscula Medica_, in which latter are included dissertations which are
said to be _totæ ab illo factæ_, which yet on their titles have _quam
publico eruditorum examini submittit_--Dietz, Winiker, Hirschfeld,
Stein, Schael, Chüden, Zeis, and some with the word _auctor_ prefixed to
the proponent, and without the name of Roederer on the title at all,
which yet are said in the table of contents to be _illo non plane
auctore sed suasore et moderatore enatæ_.

There is a series of thirteen _Disputationes de recta ratione Purgandi,
a Melchiore Sebizio_, 1621, which are printed as by Sebizius, but in
each of the disputations the dedication is signed by the respondent, and
the respondents speak of the theses as the firstfruits of their studies.

There are, indeed, so many of these dissertations in which the
construction of the title is the same whether a præses is mentioned or
not, and with the word auctor sometimes following the name of the
defendant, sometimes that of the respondent, that there can be little
doubt that one of the latter must be considered the author, in all cases
where auctor does not follow the name of the præses.

When a collection of theses or dissertations is published under the name
of a præses as his _opera_, such as in the case of Sebizius, Richter,
Roederer, and others, it is merely in a secondary sense from his having
contributed opinions and corrections to them; and may there not also, in
this publication of sets of theses under the name of the præses as his
works, be some little display of bibliopolic art, as insuring a better
sale if the name of an important professor of the place be attached to
them than with those of yet obscure students bringing forth their first
displays of knowledge before the academic world?

And though I feel great objections to their being considered as authors
bibliographically speaking, yet with regard to Linnæus, Thunberg, and
some other Swedish authors, they really seem to have had so very much
to do with the composition of the theses, at the disputations on which
they sat as presidents, that I feel great difficulty in comprehending
them in the previous category.

From these collections of dissertations it seems impossible to form any
bibliographical conclusions as a basis for certainty of arrangement, but
I will add from the previous statements a few suggestions which may tend
towards that end:--

  That the proponent is always the author of a dissertation.

  That the defendant is always the author of a dissertation when it occurs
  with another name as respondent.

  That the term defendant is, when alone, synonymous with respondent.

  That when the respondent's name occurs with a præses only, the
  respondent is the author except words are attached to the president's
  name affirming him to be the proponent, defendant, or author, or there
  is evidence in the preface or dedication that he claims the authorship.

  That the respondent when he is the author is frequently described as
  auctor respondens.

  That the opponent is never the author of a thesis.

  That dissertatio, disputatio, thesis, etc., are generally used
  synonymously, the same construction of words as to the authorship
  following each.

  And that when a collection of theses or dissertations is published under
  the name of a præses as his "opera" it is merely in a secondary literary
  sense, viz., his having contributed opinions and corrections to the
  theses, or as being their editor.

  That the adoption of an asterisk in catalogues to denote an academical
  dissertation or thesis relieves us of the necessity of repeating a large
  amount of redundant wording to each title. It has been used successfully
  in the library of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, and by Dr.
  Billings in his most valuable _Index-Catalogue of the Library of the
  Surgeon-General's Office, United States_.


HEADINGS OTHER THAN AUTHOR HEADINGS.

Reports of trials are frequently difficult to catalogue, and some
persons who are anxious to find an author for a book have considered the
reporter as such. This I consider a hopeless mistake, for the name of
the reporter is little likely to be retained in the memory of the
searcher, who is sure to remember the subject of the trial. Mr. Cutter's
remark upon this point is very just. He says: "It may be doubted ...
whether a stenographic reporter is entitled to be considered an author
any more than a type-setter."

The British Museum rule is as follows:--

      "XXXVII. Reports of civil actions to be catalogued under
    the name of that party to the suit which stands first upon
    the title-page.

       "In criminal proceedings the name of the defendant to be
     adopted as a heading.

       "Trials relating to any vessel to be entered under the
     name of such vessel."

Mr. Cutter adopts this rule, but he simplifies the wording. His rule
is:--

      "48. Trials may be entered only under the name of the
    defendant in a criminal suit and the plaintiff in a civil
    suit, and trials relating to vessels under the name of the
    vessel."

The treatment of catalogues in a catalogue has given rise to a
considerable amount of difference of opinion. The British Museum rules
on this subject appear to meet the difficulties clearly and well.

      "LXXXV. Anonymous catalogues, whether bearing the title
    'catalogue' or any other intended to convey the same meaning,
    to be entered under the head 'Catalogues,' subdivided as
    follows:--

    "1st. Catalogues of public establishments (including those of
    societies, although not strictly speaking _public_). 2nd. Catalogues
    of private collections, drawn up either for sale or otherwise. 3rd.
    Catalogues of collections not for sale, the possessors of which are
    not known. 4th. General as well as special catalogues of objects
    without any reference to their possessor. 5th. Dealers' catalogues.
    6th. Sale catalogues not included in any of the preceding sections."

In the foregoing rule the word "anonymous" would, I think, be better
omitted. It seems absurd to omit under the heading such catalogues as
may happen to have the name of the compiler on the title-page. He is in
no proper sense the author. Of course there are some books in which the
word "catalogue" is used that should come under the names of the
authors. This rule applies only to catalogues of particular collections,
and not to such books as _Catalogue of Works of Velasquez in the
Galleries of Europe_, which should be placed under the name of its
compiler, who is as much its author as he is of _The Life of Velasquez_.

The Cambridge rule is as follows:--

      "Catalogues of all descriptions to be entered under the
    superior heading CATALOGUE, to be followed, in the case of
    all other articles than books, by the word or phrase (used in
    the title) which expresses what they are, printed in italics.
    The word CATALOGUE standing alone, to be used for catalogues
    of books, whether of private libraries, booksellers, or
    auctions. In the case of institutions, the name of the town
    and institution to be subjoined in italics to the word
    'catalogue' in the superior heading. In the title which
    follows the superior heading, preference to be given to the
    owner rather than the compiler, in choosing a leading word
    for the entry."

The Library Association rule is:--

      "Catalogues are to be entered under the name of the
    institution, or owner of the collection, with a
    cross-reference from the compiler."

Mr. Cutter is opposed to the plan adopted in the above rules. He says:--

      "8. 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."

I cannot understand why a system of arranging catalogues under a general
heading, where they are most likely to be sought for, should be
stigmatized as belonging to the dark ages. It is impossible to imagine
a worse heading for an auction catalogue than the name of the
auctioneer. His name is seldom quoted, and more often forgotten. By this
rule, unless a special exception is introduced, the Heber Catalogue
would be separated under the names of Evans, Sotheby, and Wheatley.

It is necessary to bear in mind that catalogues are not really books,
and to make them follow rules adapted for true books is only confusing,
and leads to no useful end. One great advantage of bringing them under
the heading of "Catalogues" is that they can be tabulated and the titles
condensed. It becomes needless to repeat such formulæ as "to be sold by
auction," or "forming the stock of," etc.

The title of a true book is an individual entity, the outcome of an
author's mind; but this is not the case with a catalogue. Its title,
like that of a journal or publication of a society, is formed upon a
system.

It will be seen that the Cambridge rule improves upon that of the
British Museum in respect to arrangement. By the latter, catalogues of
books, coins, estates, and botanical specimens are mixed up together.
These should each be arranged separately.

Concordances are usually placed under the headings of the works to which
they relate. The compiler of a concordance must not, however, be
overlooked, and it is necessary to make a reference to his name. In some
instances, such as Cruden's _Concordance_, the user of the catalogue is
more likely to look under "Cruden" than under "Bible." All the best
authorities group together under the heading of Bible the Old and New
Testaments and their separate parts. Also commentaries, etc.

Another important heading is that of _Liturgies_, which is likely to be
extensive in a large public library. It requires the special arrangement
of an expert, but the British Museum and the Cambridge University rules
deal with this subject.

There is some difficulty in choosing the proper heading for certain
reports of voyages. Sometimes these are written by an author whose name
occurs on the title-page. In these instances the book is naturally
catalogued under its author's name, and it is only necessary to make a
reference under the name of the vessel.

But there is another class of voyages more elaborate in their
arrangement, which either are anonymous or have many authors. There is
usually an account of the voyage, and then a series of volumes devoted
to zoology, botany, etc. Sometimes these voyages are catalogued under
the name of the commander as Dumont d'Urville for _Voyage autour du
Monde de la Corvette l'Astrolabe_; but it is in every way more
convenient to use the name of the vessel as a heading, and bring all the
different divisions under it, as _Astrolabe_, _Challenger_, etc.


ANONYMOUS AND PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS.

We now come to consider the large question of the treatment of anonymous
books. I read a paper on this subject at the Conference of Librarians,
and I venture to transfer to these pages the substance of that paper
with some further remarks. Before entering into the discussion I wish
to protest against the use of the term "anonym," which appears to me to
be formed upon a false analogy. It may be a convenient word, but it is
incorrect. A pseudonym is an entity--a false name under cover of which
an author chooses to write; but an anonymous book has a title from which
an important something is omitted, viz., the author's name. You cannot
express a negation such as this by a distinctive term like "anonym." I
am sorry to see that the term has found a place in the Philological
Society's _New English Dictionary_ (Murray), although it is stated to be
of rare occurrence in this sense.

In dealing with the titles of anonymous books, it is necessary, in the
first place, to agree upon the definition of an anonymous book. Barbier,
who published the first edition of his useful _Dictionnaire des Ouvrages
Anonymes et Pseudonymes_ in 1806, gives the following: "On appelle
ouvrage anonyme celui sur le frontispice duquel l'auteur n'est pas
nommé."

Mr. Cutter gives the same definition, and adds: "Strictly, a book is not
anonymous if the author's name appears anywhere in it, but it is safest
to treat it as anonymous if the author's name does not appear in the
title."

The Bodleian rule (16) also is:--"If the name of a writer occur in a
work, but not on the title-page, the work is also to be regarded for the
purpose of headings as anonymous, except in the case of works without
separate title-page."

Barbier, however, in the second edition of his book (1822), was forced
by the vastness of his materials to adopt a more rigid rule. The best
definition of an anonymous work would probably take something of this
form: A book printed without the author's name, either in the title or
in the preliminary matter.

According to the British Museum rule, a book which has been published
without the author's name always remains anonymous, even after the
author is well known and the book has been republished with the name on
the title-page. By this means you have the same book in two places. For
instance, the anonymous editions of _Waverley_ are catalogued under
"Waverley," and the others under "Scott." But for cataloguing purposes a
book surely ceases to be anonymous when the author's name is known. We
ought never to lose sight of the main object of a catalogue, which is to
help the consulter, and not to present him with a series of
bibliographical riddles. If we settle that all anonymous works shall be
entered under the authors' names when known, the question has still to
be answered, What is to be done with those which remain unknown? Some
cataloguers have objected to the insertion of subject-headings in the
same alphabet with authors' names, and in the old catalogue of the Royal
Society Library the plan was adopted of placing all anonymous titles
under the useless heading of "Anonymous."

The British Museum rule 38 directs that in the case of all anonymous
books not arranged under proper names according to previous rules, the
first substantive in the title (or if there be no substantive, the
first word) shall be selected as the heading. "A substantive adjectively
used, to be taken in conjunction with its following substantive as
forming one word, and the same to be done with respect to adjectives
incorporated with their following substantive."

The great objection to this rule is that an important word in a title
may throw very little light upon the subject of the book. Mr. Cutter's
rule is: "Make a first-word entry for all anonymous works except
anonymous biographies, which are to be entered under the name of the
subject of the life." When this rule is applied, the majority of books
will be placed under headings for which no one is likely to seek, so
that many cross-references will be necessary. For instance, _A True and
Exact Account of the Scarlet Gowns_ is entered under "True," which we
may safely say would be the last word looked for. It is these redundant
words of a title-page that are pretty sure to escape the memory. All the
rules that I have seen relating to anonymous books appear to me to be
based upon a fundamental confusion of the essential differences between
a catalogue and a bibliography. When Barbier compiled his valuable work,
he adopted the simple plan of arranging each title under the first word
not an article, which works admirably, because the consulter has the
book whose author he seeks in his hand. In the case of a catalogue it is
quite different, for the consulter has not the book before him, and
wishes to find it from the leading idea of the title, which is probably
all he remembers.

The rule I would propose is, to take as a heading the word which best
explains the objects of the author, in whatever part of the title it may
be. The objection that may be raised to this is that it is not rigid
enough; but the cataloguer should be allowed a certain latitude, and it
is well that the maker of the catalogue should try to place himself in
the position of the user of it in these cases.[22]

The Bodleian rule (16) is good:--"Under the first striking word or words
of the titles of anonymous works with a second heading or cross
reference, when advisable under or from any other noticeable word or
catch-title."

The evidence before the Commission of 1847-49 contains much opinion
about the treatment of anonymous works in the Catalogue of the British
Museum. The general feeling of the witnesses was adverse to the system,
but Sir Anthony Panizzi argued strongly in favour of his plan. The plan
actually adopted was not to Panizzi's taste, and doubtless the changes
which were introduced caused some confusion. The Commissioners reported
on this subject as follows:--

    "To another instance in which Mr. Panizzi's opinion was overruled by
    that of the Trustees he attributes much avoidable delay and expense;
    we allude to the 33rd and seven following rules, which govern the
    process of cataloguing anonymous works. It will appear from the
    evidence, that some of our principal witnesses are at issue on
    questions involved in the consideration of this subject. It seems
    clear enough that no one rule can be adopted which will not lead to
    instances apparently anomalous and absurd. Such authorities,
    however, as Mr. Maitland and Professor De Morgan, are nevertheless
    of opinion, that some one rule should be devised and strictly
    observed, while Mr. Collier and others are of opinion that free
    scope may be left to the discretion of the parties employed. Mr.
    Panizzi having to deal with an immense mass of works under this
    head, advocates the adoption and the rigid observance of a rule by
    which the main entries of all such works should find their places in
    the Catalogue in alphabetical order, under the first word of the
    title not an article or preposition. To certain decisions of the
    Trustees which have compelled him to depart from this rule, he
    attributes many defects in the work already executed, and, above
    all, much of that delay so loudly complained of in its progress."

Panizzi's arguments quite converted the Commissioners, and they added
to their statement of the case these words: "We recommend for the
future that Mr. Panizzi should be released from an observance of these
rules, and directed to proceed, with regard to anonymous works, upon
such system as under present circumstances may appear to him best
calculated to reconcile the acceleration of the work with its
satisfactory execution."

Mr. Parry in his evidence made some remarks on this subject. He
said:--"If Mr. Panizzi's plan, with respect to anonymous works, had been
adopted, it would have given great facility to the compilation of the
Catalogue; his plan was the plan of Audiffredi, in the Catalogue of the
Casanate Library at Rome, and the plan followed by Barbier in his
_Dictionnaire des Anonymes_;[23] that plan was taking the first word,
not an article or preposition, or, as it might be modified, the first
substantive, for the heading of the title. I am quite aware that the
plan seems almost absurd upon the face of it. For example, supposing
there was such a title as this, _The Lame Duck; or, A Rumour from the
Stock Exchange_, why, that would come under 'Lame' or 'Duck,' according
to that plan; but if that plan be taken in conjunction with an index of
matters, whilst it would materially facilitate the formation of a
catalogue, it would cease to be objectionable. I believe one of the
great hindrances being anonymous works,--there have been more
difficulties and more labour about anonymous works than about any other
portion of the Catalogue,--the plan suggested by Mr. Panizzi originally,
and which he would have adopted, but which the trustees objected to,
taken in conjunction with the index of matters at the end, is by no
means an absurd plan" (p. 469).

Sir Frederick Madden, when under examination, said: "The first point in
the statement I wish to make is with reference to the cataloguing of
anonymous works; that the plan adopted is founded altogether upon a
mistaken notion, so much so that I should say in nine cases out of ten
the books cannot be found. I cannot understand upon what principle it is
that a book is to be entered by the first substantive or the first word
rather than the last. It seems to me that the principle is entirely
fallacious." I entirely agree with Sir F. Madden, and I can speak from
bitter experience of the great difficulty there is in finding anonymous
books in the British Museum Catalogue.

Lord Mahon (afterwards Earl Stanhope), one of the trustees, dealt with
this matter very satisfactorily in his examination. He said:--

    "I will take the heading 'Account' as I find it in the _Catalogue of
    the Letter A_, printed in 1841. Under that heading I find seventeen
    entries of different books, and I am of opinion with respect to all
    the seventeen that the heading 'Account' is one of the least
    convenient under which they could stand. The entries are such as
    these:--

    _An Account of Several Workhouses for Employing and Maintaining
      the Poor._ London, 1725. 4°.

    _An Account of the Constitution and Security of the General Bank
      of Credit._ London, 1683. 4°.

    _An Exact Account of Two Real Dreams which happened to the Same
      Person._ London, 1725. 8°.

    _An Impartial Account of the Prophets, in a Letter to a Friend._
      Edinburgh. 4°.

    _An Account of the Proceedings in Order to the Discovery of the
      Longitude._ London, 1765. 4°.

    It seems to me, that these works could be entered far more
    conveniently under the headings respectively of 'Workhouses,'
    'Banks,' 'Dreams,' 'Prophets,' and 'Longitude.' Now, to take only
    the last case, the book upon the longitude, it should be considered
    that probably a reader would only be directed to that book through
    one of two channels. In the first place, he might desire, by means
    of the Catalogue, to have an opportunity of examining all the
    publications that have appeared on the subject of the longitude; and
    if he do not find these publications collected under the heading
    'Longitude,' in what a labyrinth of perquisitions must he become
    involved![24] Or, secondly, he may have seen the book in question
    referred to by some other writer on science. But in such a case the
    reference is seldom given at full length; it is far more commonly
    comprised in some such words as the following: 'The proceedings to
    discover the longitude up to 1763 are well described in an anonymous
    tract published in the same year;' or, 'An essay, without the
    author's name, published in 1763, gives a good summary of the
    proceedings so far towards the discovery of the longitude;' or
    again, 'For these facts, see the _Proceedings towards the Discovery
    of the Longitude_ (London, 1763).' Now with such a reference, if the
    book in question had been entered under 'Longitude,' it would be
    found readily and at once; but if not, how is the inquirer to know
    that he should seek it under 'Account' rather than under 'Essay,'
    'Treatise,' 'Dissertation,' 'Remarks,' 'Observations,' 'Letter,'
    'History,' 'Narrative,' 'Statement,' or any other similar heading?"
    (p. 812).

Mr. C. Tomlinson referred in his evidence to the effects of rule XXXIV.,
by which the name of a country is adopted as a heading. He instanced the
anonymous work (known, however, to have been written by John Holland)
entitled, _The History and Description of Fossil Fuel; the Collieries
and Coal Trade of Great Britain_. He says: "This book has occasioned me
a great deal of search. I looked under the head of 'Coal,' I looked
under 'Collieries,' and I looked under 'Fuel,' and it is not to be found
under any of those titles, but it is found under 'Great Britain and
Ireland'" (p. 305).

Mr. Panizzi alludes to this in his reply to criticisms. He says that
under his own rule it would appear under "History," but under the system
of taking the main subject it properly comes under "Great Britain" (p.
677).

Mr. John Bruce objected to _L'Art de Vérifier les Dates_, _The Art of
Cookery_, and _The Art of Love_ all coming under the heading of "Art,"
and here I should agree with him; but when he proceeded to suggest that
a book entitled, _Is it Well with You?_ should be entered under "Well"
because that is the emphatic word (p. 423), I think he is wrong. This is
a distinctive title similar to the title of a novel, and likely to be
completely quoted and to remain on the memory, and therefore the book
should be entered under "Is."

I hope enough has been said to show that the system adopted by Mr.
Panizzi, however clear and logical, is not a convenient one for the
person who wishes to discover the title of an anonymous book in the
catalogue.

There seem to have been two reasons for adopting this system: first,
that it was simple; and, secondly, that the other plan of putting a
title under a subject-heading was confusing classification with
alphabetization. Lord Wrottesley put this point as a question: "Any
other system of cataloguing anonymous works than the system which you
recommend does in point of fact confound two different things, a classed
catalogue and an alphabetical catalogue?" To which Mr. Panizzi
answered, "Yes."

With respect to the first reason, I allow that the rule is simple, and
can be rigidly followed by a staff of cataloguers, but a catalogue is
not made for the convenience of the cataloguer. It is intended for the
convenience of the consulter; and if the titles are placed under
headings for which the consulter is not likely to look, the system
signally fails in this respect.

With respect to the second reason, I do not see that the only
alternative to the use of the first substantive or first important word
is classification. And, further, referring to the work on fossil fuel
lately alluded to, is it not as much a classification to make the
heading "Great Britain" as to make it "Coal" or "Fuel"?

The great object should be, not to classify, but to choose as a heading
the word which is likely to remain in the memory, instead of one which
is as likely to escape it.

To give an instance of what I mean. Suppose we had to catalogue a
publication issued during the course of the Crimean War, entitled,
_Whom shall we Hang?_ This I should put under "W," and not under the
Crimean War, because the whole of this sentence is likely to remain in
the memory. Again, in a foreign title, I should take the prominent word
as it stands on the title, and not translate it. It is the title of the
book that we have to deal with, and not the subject of it.

In cataloguing a library, I think the only safe way is to keep all the
anonymous titles together to the last, and then make headings for them
at the same time and upon one system. Errors are likely to occur if the
heading is finally made when the book is first catalogued, and such
errors have crept into the British Museum, as maybe seen from the
following extracts:--

  Champions, Seven Champions of Christendom. See "Seven
    Champions."

  Seven Champions of Christendom. See "Christendom."

  Christendom, Seven Champions of. See "Seven Champions of."

I have not noticed that much remark has been made on rule XXXII., by
which "works published under initials [are] to be entered under the last
of them;" but I think it is one of the most successful modes of hiding
away titles under a heading least likely to be remembered. When titles
are quoted pretty fully and accurately, it is seldom that the initials
on a title are quoted; and if these initials are only at the end of the
preface, they are never likely to be remembered. Thus by placing the
title in the catalogue under the initials (in whatever order they may be
taken), it is buried entirely out of sight, and is practically useless.
The Rev. Dr. Biber remarked upon this point in his evidence. He said:
"The remarks which I made about letter A were merely made incidentally,
because, having noticed the difficulty of finding books which were
catalogued under initials, I wished to satisfy myself as to what
arrangement there was" (p. 577).

I presume that this arrangement under initials has been found
inconvenient at the British Museum, because in the useful _Explanation
of the System of the Catalogue_ I find a note as to special
cross-references, which are to be made to "works under initials from
whatever heading the work would have been entered under, but for the
initials." We are informed, however, that "at present this has not been
fully carried out."

Another point connected with this class of books is one of particular
difficulty. I refer to the treatment of pseudonyms, which are dealt with
in rules XLI., XLII., and XLIII.:--

      "XLI. In the case of pseudonymous publications, the book to
    be catalogued under the author's feigned name; and his real
    name, if discovered, to be inserted in brackets, immediately
    after the feigned name, preceded by the letters '_i.e._'

      "XLII. Assumed names, or names used to designate an office,
    profession, party, or qualification of the writer, to be
    treated as real names. Academical names to follow the same
    rule. The works of an author not assuming any name, but
    describing himself by a circumlocution, to be considered
    anonymous.

      "XLIII. Works falsely attributed in their title to a
    particular person, to be treated as pseudonymous."

There is much to be said for this arrangement under pseudonyms, but
there is also much to be said against it. In the first place, an author
may, and often does, take in the course of his literary life several
pseudonyms, which are merely adopted for a temporary purpose, and thus
the works of the same author will be spread about in several parts of
the alphabet. There does not appear to be any particular advantage in
separating Sir Walter Scott's works under such headings as "Jedediah
Cleishbotham" and "Malachi Malagrowther." Sometimes, also, these
pseudonyms are so unlike real names that they are passed by unquoted,
and the same difficulty occurs as in the case of initials.

When, however, an author takes a name under which he always writes, and
by which he is always known, it seems scarcely worth while to put the
author's works under a practically unknown name, instead of under a
well-known one. This, however, does not often occur in the case of an
author, although it frequently does in the case of an authoress. For
instance, George Eliot has written her name in literature, and is always
known by that name, so that to place her works under Evans or Lewes or
Crosse is to change the known for the unknown. In a lesser degree this
is the case with the novelist known as Sarah Tytler, whose real name is
Henrietta Keddie. Probably not one in a thousand of her readers knows
this fact.

Mr. Cutter makes some very pertinent remarks upon this point. His note
to his rule 5, "Enter pseudonymous works under the author's real name,
when it is known, with a reference from the pseudonym," is as follows:--

    "One is strongly tempted to deviate from this rule in the case of
    writers like George Eliot and George Sand, Gavarni and Grandville,
    who appear in literature only under their pseudonyms. It would
    apparently be much more convenient to enter their works under the
    name by which they are known, and under which everybody but a
    professed cataloguer would assuredly look first. For an
    author-catalogue this might be the best plan, but in a dictionary
    catalogue we have to deal with such people not merely as writers of
    books, but as subjects of biographies or parties in trials, and in
    such cases it seems proper to use their legal names. Besides, if one
    attempts to exempt a few noted writers from the rule given above,
    where is the line to be drawn? No definite principle of exception
    can be laid down which will guide either the cataloguer or the
    reader; and probably the confusion would in the end produce greater
    inconvenience than the present rule. Moreover the entries made by
    using the pseudonym as a heading would often have to be altered. For
    a long time it would have been proper to enter the works of Dickens
    under Boz; the Dutch annual bibliography uniformly use "Boz-Dickens"
    as a heading. No one would think of looking under Boz now. Mark
    Twain is in a transition state. The public mind is divided between
    Twain and Clemens. The tendency is always towards the use of the
    real name; and that tendency will be much helped in the reading
    public if the real name is always preferred in catalogues. Some
    pseudonyms persistently adopted by authors have come to be
    considered as the only names, as Voltaire, and the translation
    Melanchthon. Perhaps George Sand and George Eliot will in time be
    adjudged to belong to the same company. It would be well if
    cataloguers could appoint some permanent committee with authority to
    decide this and similar points as from time to time they occur."

If the French bibliographer had borne in mind the British Museum rule,
that "the works of an author not assuming any name, but describing
himself by a circumlocution [are] to be considered anonymous," he would
not have made this amusing entry in his catalogue: "_Herself_, Memoirs
of a Young Lady by."

The Cambridge rules were largely founded upon those of the British
Museum, and many anomalies crept into the catalogue on account of the
difficulties caused by the rules relating to anonymous works; but a few
years before the lamented death of Mr. Henry Bradshaw[25] these rules
were considerably altered by him, and I think the statement in rules 28
and 29 as they now stand is by far the most satisfactory of any I know
of:--

      "28. Anonymous works which refer to neither person nor
    place, and to which none of the foregoing rules can be
    applied, to be catalogued under the name of the subject
    (whether a single word or a composite phrase) which is
    prominently referred to on the title-page; the primary
    consideration being, under what heading the book will be most
    easily found. When there is no special subject mentioned, and
    the title is a catch-title (as in the case of most novels and
    many pamphlets), the first word not an article to stand at
    the head in capitals, but not to be separated off from the
    title as a heading. When the indication on the title is
    insufficient, the heading understood to be taken, but all
    classification to be avoided, the words of the title being
    exclusively used as far as possible. Works to be catalogued
    under general headings only where such are unavoidable. In
    the case of foreign titles the heading to follow the same
    rule, and to be in the language of the title instead of being
    translated.

      "29. When the author of a pseudonymous or anonymous work is
    ascertained and acknowledged after the title has been
    printed, the name to be added within a bracket at the end of
    the title; and the various titles of works thenceforward
    assigned to such author to be gathered under his name by
    means of written entries on the slips. Cross-references to be
    printed from the pseudonymous or anonymous heading to the
    author's name."

These remarks upon the cataloguing of anonymous works may appear to some
to have run to an inordinate length, but the great importance of the
subject will, I hope, be accepted by the reader as some excuse. I quite
agree with the late Serjeant Parry when he said, during his examination
before the British Museum Commission, that "it is comparatively easy to
catalogue when the author's name appears on the title, but nothing is
more difficult than cataloguing anonymous works."


THE TITLE.

Having dealt with the subject of headings, we may now pass on to
consider the treatment of the title itself.

There has been much discussion on this subject: one party has been in
favour of short titles, and another of long titles. Much has been said
in favour of single-line catalogues, and these often form very useful
keys to a library; but they are perhaps more properly designated
alphabetical lists than catalogues.[26]

On the other side the advocates of full titles, in carrying out their
views, while adding to the size of their catalogues, frequently do not
add to their utility. Here, as in many other things, the medium is the
safest way. The least important works have usually the longest titles,
and it is surely useless to copy the whole title of some trumpery
pamphlet, when it may occupy ten or a dozen lines of print. Here the art
of the cataloguer comes into play, by which he is enabled to choose what
is important and reject the redundant. With respect to standard works by
classical authors, it is well to give the whole title (and these titles
will seldom be found to be long). The classical author will most
probably have weighed the words of his title with care, and left little
that is redundant. When a title is contracted, it is well to insert dots
to show that something has been left out, and if any words are added
they must be placed between square brackets.

It is also necessary to bear in mind the fact that a long title may be
perfectly clear in the book itself, on account of the varied size of the
type used. The cataloguer, however, has not these facilities of
arrangement at his disposal, and in consequence it becomes difficult for
the consulter to distinguish the important parts of the title from the
unimportant.

The following are three titles of books which are not long, and which
could not be curtailed without disadvantage:--

    "1. Pike (Luke Owen). A History of Crime in England, illustrating
    the Changes of the Laws in the Progress of Civilization. Written
    from the Public Records and other Contemporary Evidence. London,
    1873. 2 vols., 8vo.

    "2. Hunter (Joseph). New Illustrations of the Life, Studies, and
    Writings of Shakespeare; Supplementary to all the Editions. London,
    1845. 2 vols., 8vo.

    "3. Rickman (Thomas). An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of
    Architecture in England, from the Conquest to the Reformation, with
    a Sketch of the Grecian and Roman Orders; Seventh Edition, with
    Considerable Additions, Chiefly Historical, by John Henry Parker.
    Oxford, 1881. 8vo."

Now, we may take the instance of a long title, which needs
curtailment:--

                                  "The

                           English Expositor

                               Improv'd:

                            Being a Complete

                              Dictionary,

                                teaching

                The Interpretation of the most Difficult
                 Words, which are commonly made use of
                         in our English Tongue.

              First set forth by J. B., Doctor of Physick.

               And now carefully Revised, Corrected, and
            abundantly Augmented, with a new and very large
             Addition of very useful and significant Words.

                      By R. Browne, Author of the

                       _English School Reform'd_.

                 There is also an Index of Common Words
        (alphabetically set) to direct the Reader or others more
           Learned, and of the same signification with them.
              And likewise a short Nomenclator of the most
         celebrated Persons among the Ancients; with Variety of
        Memorable Things: Collected out of the best of History,
                   Poetry, Philosophy, and Geography.

                          The Twelfth Edition.

                London: Printed for W. Churchill, at the
                 Black Swan in Pater-noster-Row. 1719.

     Where may be had the above-mention'd Spelling-Book, Entituled,
             _The English School Reform'd_: Being a method
         very exact and easy both for the Teacher and Learner."

This long title may be reduced into the following form:--

    "4. B[ullokar] (J[ohn]). The English Expositor Improv'd: Being a
    Complete Dictionary, teaching the Interpretation of the most
    Difficult Words, which are commonly made use of in our English
    Tongue.... Revised, Corrected, and ... Augmented ... by R. Browne,
    ... [with] an Index of Common Words ... and ... a short Nomenclator
    of the most Celebrated Persons among the Ancients, with Variety of
    Memorable Things.... 12th Edition.

                                                   London, 1719. 12mo."

It may be said that all these titles are in English, and present few
difficulties. I therefore add a Latin title, prepared by my brother, the
late Mr. B. R. Wheatley. The full title is as follows:--

               "Speculum Polytechnum Mathematicum novum,
                       tribus visionibus illustre
                              quarum extat

                           Una Fundamentalis
                                Aliquot

                   Numerorum Danielis et Apocalypseos
                         naturæ et proprietatis
                              Consignatio
                         Altera, usus Hactenus
                    incognitus Instrumenti Danielis
               Speccelii, ad altitudinum, profunditatum,
               longitudinum, latitudinumque dimensiones,
                  nec non Planimetricas delineationes
                             accommodatio.

                  Postrema brevis ac luculenta sexies
                     Acuminati Proportionum Circini
                    quibus fructuose iste adhibeatur
                               enarratio
                     In Omnium Mathesin Adamantium
                              Emolumentum
                         prius Germanicè æditum
                                Authore

                     Joanne Faulhabero Arithmetico
                   et Logista Ulmensi ingeniosissimo
                 Posterius vero ne tanto aliæ nationes
                  defraudentur bono, Latine conversum
                                  per

                     Joannem Remmelinum Ph. et Med.
                                Doctorem

                     Impressum Ulmæ, typis Joannis
                                 Mederi

                               M.DC.XII."

This long title may be reduced into the following catalogue form:--

"Faulhaber (Joannes).

    "Speculum Polytechnum Mathematicum novum tribus visionibus ...
    una:... Numerorum Danielis et Apocalypseos naturæ ... consignatio;
    altera: usus.... Instrumenti Danielis Speccelii, ad altitudinum
    [etc.] dimensiones ... accommodatio; postrema:... sexies Acuminati
    Proportionum Circini ... enarratio; ... prius Germanicè æditum,...
    Latine conversum per Joannem Remmelinum....

                                                     Ulmæ, 1612. 4to."

Sometimes it is advisable to repeat the author's name in its proper
place on the title either in full or with initials. This is the case
with Dilke's _Papers of a Critic_, which should appear in the catalogue
as follows:--

    "6. Dilke (Charles Wentworth). The Papers of a Critic. Selected from
    the Writings of the late C. W. D., with a Biographical Sketch by his
    Grandson, Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Bart., M.P. London, 1875. 2
    vols., 8vo."

Mr. Jewett, in his rules, directs that the position of the author's name
on the title-page should be indicated.

For scarce and curious books it is under some circumstances useful to
mark the position of the lines on a title-page thus:--

    "7. Bacon (Francis) Viscount St. Alban. | The | Essayes | or |
    Counsels | Civill and | Morall | of | Francis Lo. Verulam | Viscount
    St. Alban newly written | London | Printed by John Haviland for |
    Hanna Barret | 1625 | 4to."

This is clearly not necessary in the case of common modern books.

It is very important that all indication of edition or editor (as in No.
3) should be made clear on the catalogue slip; and if this information
is not given on the title-page, but can be obtained elsewhere, it should
be added to the catalogue slip, but between square brackets.

Many books have two title-pages, an engraved one and a printed one, and
these frequently differ in the wording. In these cases the printed
title-page is the one to be followed. Sometimes a second title-page will
occur in the middle of a book, and the cataloguer must be careful not to
make two books out of one. When the contents of this second title-page
are noted on the first title-page, it is not necessary to refer to it
specially, unless a collation is given. If, however, this second
title-page contain additional matter, it should be catalogued and added
on the slip, but within parentheses, thus (), to show that it is added,
and that it is not made up by the cataloguer, which would be understood
if it were placed between square brackets, thus [].

Sometimes a title-page not only gives no real indication of the contents
of a book, but is positively misleading. In such a case the cataloguer
will do well to give some indication of the true contents, either in a
note or as an addition to the title within brackets. Both Mr. Cutter and
Professor Otis Robinson refer, in the _Special Report on Public
Libraries in the United States_, to the difficulties caused by these
misleading titles. Professor Robinson gives some amusing instances of
modern clap-trap titles which may well be added to Disraeli's
_Curiosities of Literature_.

"Mr. Parker writes a series of biographical sketches, and calls it
_Morning Stars of the New World_. Somebody prepares seven religious
essays, binds them up in a book, and calls it _Seven Stormy
Sundays_.... An editor, at intervals of business, indulges his true
poetic taste for the pleasure of his friends, or the entertainment
of an occasional audience. Then his book appears, entitled, not
_Miscellaneous Poems_, but _Asleep in the Sanctum_, by A. A.
Hopkins. Sometimes, not satisfied with one enigma, another is added.
Here we have _The Great Iron Wheel; or, Republicanism Backwards and
Christianity Reversed_, by J. R. Graves."

In cataloguing books it is very important to turn carefully over the
leaves to see that a second book, which may have been bound up in the
volume, is not overlooked. It was a frequent practice at one time to
bind up thin books with thicker ones, to save the expense of binding;
and very frequently these thin additions are overlooked altogether, and
never catalogued.


PLACE OF PUBLICATION.

When we have finished with the title proper, we come to consider the
imprint, the date, and the size. These are most commonly arranged thus,
volumes, size, place, date; and this is the best order if this
information is tabulated; but when it remains as a part of the title, it
is better to place the volumes and size at the end, because this is
added information not found in the title-page.

The name of the place of publication[27] should be given exactly as it
occurs on the title-page, and in old and rare books the name of the
printer or publisher may be added with advantage; not necessarily full
as it appears there, but shortened and placed between parentheses.
Sometimes several places are named on a title-page, but in these cases
it is not necessary to notice more than the first.


DATES.

The dates, which usually occur in Roman numerals on the title-pages of
books, should be printed in the catalogue with Arabic numerals, except
in case of very rare books, where it is thought expedient to copy the
original title-page exactly. Every one knows the numerical power of the
letters, and that M stands for 1,000, D = 500, C = 100, L = 50, X = 10,
V, U, = 5, I = 1; but the old printers were fond of playing tricks with
the letters, and they allowed themselves much latitude in the practice
of reducing the numerical power of one letter by placing another before
it. We are used to this in IV and IX; but the following dates, copied
from books, show how varied were the arrangements formerly made use
of:--

MIID. = 1498, MID. = 1499, MCDXCIX. = 1499, MDXXCV. = 1585, MDIC. =
1599, MDCVIV. = 1609, MIIDCC. = 1698.

In one book MVICXXI. was made to stand for 1621; but in this case the
printer must have lacked a D, and replaced it by VI. In old books the
M's and the D's are frequently built up thus, CI<C, I<C.

The date is one of the most important portions of a title, and the
cataloguer must seek for it until he finds it. Sometimes it is to be
found at the end of the preface or dedication, and sometimes it is on
the title-page as a chronogram. Mr. James Hilton for years has searched
over Europe for chronograms, and he has been highly successful in his
search, as is evidenced by his two handsome volumes, _Chronograms, 5,000
and more in Number_ (1882), and _Chronograms Continued and Concluded_
(1885).

The following specimens are from Mr. Hilton's books:--

  "Anagrammata regia in honorem maximi mansuetissimi regis Caroli
      conscripta."

Imprint:--

  "LonDInI regIo prIVILegIo eXaratVM = 1626."

On the last page is:--

  "eXtant Ista In æDIbVs gVLIeLMI stansbIe = 1626"

A curious little book (a chronographic imitation of Thomas à Kempis) is
filled with chronograms, and contains two on the title-page:--

  "De spIrItaLI IMItatIone ChrIstI [1658] aDMonItIones saCræ et
      VtILes [1658] pIIs In LVCeM Datæ [1658]."

  "a R.P. Antonio Vanden Stock Societatis Jesu. Ruræmundæ apud
      Gasparem du Pree."

On the frontispiece is another chronogram:--

  "chrIsto aDhærens non aMbVLat In tenebrIs."

Mr. Hilton has succeeded in finding several additions to the small store
of chronograms in English, and has produced some new ones.

On the back of the title-page of the first book is this inscription:--

  "An eXCeLLent neVV book of ChronograMs gathereD together & noVV
      set forth by I. hILton, F.S.A. = 1882."

On the second book:--

  "Another qVIte neVV book of rIght eXCeLLent chronograMs IssVeD by
      I. hILton, F.S.A." = 1885.

More difficult than chronograms are Greek dates, because each letter in
Greek has a numerical value, and the numbers do not follow in an
uninterrupted series, because certain additional figures are introduced.
It is therefore often necessary in cataloguing Greek books to refer to a
table such as the following:--

    [Greek: A a']    1     [Greek: I i']   10     [Greek: R   r']   100
    [Greek: B b']    2     [Greek: K k']   20     [Greek: S   s']   200
    [Greek: G g']    3     [Greek: L l']   30     [Greek: T   t']   300
    [Greek: D d']    4     [Greek: M m']   40     [Greek: U   u']   400
    [Greek: E e']    5     [Greek: N n']   50     [Greek: Ph ph']   500
      [stigma]'      6     [Greek: X x']   60     [Greek: Ch ch']   600
    [Greek: Z z']    7     [Greek: O o']   70     [Greek: Ps ps']   700
    [Greek: Ê ê']    8     [Greek: P p']   80     [Greek: Ô   ô']   800
    [Greek: Th th']  9     [Qoppa qoppa']  90       [sampi]         900

It will be noticed that the top letters of each series spell "[Greek:
air]," which can be borne in mind. The irregularities in the series are
final [stigma]' for six, and the invented letters, for 90 and 900. The
same series of letters, with the accent beneath instead of above, are
used for thousands, as--

   [Greek: a']  = 1       [Greek: i']  = 10       [Greek: r']  = 100
   [Greek: a,]  = 1,000    [Greek: i,] = 10,000    [Greek: r,] = 100,000

There is considerable difficulty in dating books published in France
between September 1792, when the French Revolutionary Calendar was
introduced, and December 1805, when the Gregorian mode of calculation
was restored by Napoleon, because the Revolutionary year began with the
autumn. It is impossible therefore, as the months are not usually given
in the imprints of books, to tell whether a book dated _an._ 1 was
published in 1792 or 1793. It is usual, however, to reckon from 1792,
and to count _an._ 8, for instance, as 1800, by which means an
approximate date is obtained.


SIZE-NOTATION.

When we come to the last piece of description on our catalogue slip, we
experience considerable difficulty in certain cases. The statement of
the case of size-notation, which has caused so much discussion, and
given rise to so many schemes, is so well put by the late Mr. Winter
Jones, in his inaugural address at the Conference of Librarians held in
London, October 1877, that I shall transfer it to these pages:--

        "One of these points is the designation of the sizes of books. As
    regards modern books, the folding of the sheets of paper is
    generally received as the guide, but it is not a guide which speaks
    to the eye. Some duodecimos may be larger than some octavos, and
    some octavos may be larger than some folios, to say nothing of the
    uncertainty of the quartos. When we come to ancient books the matter
    is still worse. The early printers did not use large sheets of paper
    and fold them twice or more to form quartos, octavos, etc., but
    merely folded their paper once, thus making what is now understood
    by the terms folios or quartos, according to the size of the sheet
    of paper. Three or more of these sheets were laid one within
    another, and formed gatherings or quires, each sheet after the first
    in each gathering being called an inlay.[28] This printing by
    gatherings was adopted for the convenience of binding. The
    consequence of this practice would be that the printer would either
    print one page at a time or two, but no more. If two, he would have
    to divide the matter to be printed into portions sufficient for
    eight, twelve, sixteen, or twenty pages, according to the number of
    inlays in each gathering, and then print, say the first and twelfth,
    then the second and the eleventh, and so on; and the result of this
    practice is occasionally seen in an inequality in the length of the
    pages, particularly in the centre inlay, which would be printed
    last, and would therefore have either too much or too little matter
    if the calculation of the quantity necessary for each page had not
    been exact. It has been suggested that the difficulty might be met
    by adopting the size of the printed page as the guide, but such a
    guide would certainly be fallacious. It would not indicate the size
    of the volume; it would not allow for the many cases of 'oceans of
    margins and rivers of text;' it would not speak to the eye without
    opening the book. The better plan would appear to be to adopt, to a
    certain extent, the system used by bookbinders. As they regulate
    their charges according to the size of the millboard required for
    binding their book, their scale is independent of the folding of the
    printed sheet. It contains twenty-nine divisions or designations of
    different sizes, of which twenty-six represent modifications of the
    five sizes of folio, 4to, 8vo, 12mo, and 18mo, a striking proof of
    the uncertainty of the sizes supposed to be indicated by these five
    terms. I speak, of course, of the measure used by English
    bookbinders. It would certainly be advisable that some rule should
    be laid down, which might apply to all countries, by which the
    general sizes of books might be designated, and minute subdivisions
    be avoided. Why should we designate sizes by paper marks, and talk
    of pot quartos and foolscap octavos? The pot and the foolscap are
    things of the past. It would surely be better to adopt some such
    rule as the following: To designate as 12mo all books not exceeding
    seven inches in height; as 8vo all those above seven and not
    exceeding ten inches in height; as 4to those above ten and not
    exceeding twelve inches in height; and as folio all above twelve
    inches. The folios might be further described, according to the
    fact, as _large_ or _super_, in order to avoid the various
    subdivisions of crown, copy, demy, medium, royal, imperial, elephant,
    and columbier folio."

At the Exhibition of Library Appliances in connection with the London
Conference, Mr. F. Weaklin submitted seven diagrams of eighty-two sizes
given to books, from imperial 4to to demy 48mo, and the matter had
already been under special consideration in the United States. Mr.
Jewett suggested that after the description 8vo, 4to, etc., the exact
height and width in inches and tenths of inches should be added between
brackets. He measured print; but, as pointed out by Mr. Winter Jones in
the above quotation, this measurement overlooks one of the most
important points in respect to the character and value of a book, viz.,
the size of the margin. When the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell
wished to adopt Mr. Jewett's suggestion, I recommended that the width
and height of the actual page should be measured, and this was done in
_An Essay towards a Collection of Books relating to Proverbs, Emblems,
Apophthegms, Epitaphs, and Ana, being a Catalogue of those at Keir_
(1860), which I edited for him.

This system of measurement is not needed in a small library, where the
ordinary nomenclature is sufficient. The real difficulty underlying the
whole subject was pointed out by Mr. Bradshaw in his paper at the
Cambridge Meeting of the Library Association, "A Word on Size Notation
as distinguished from Form Notation." He there states two facts often
overlooked: "(1) That the terms folio, quarto, octavo, etc., represent
strictly not size-notation, but form-notation; and (2) That the modern
methods of making paper and of printing books combine to render any
accurate application of form-notation to such books not so much
difficult as impossible. The logical conclusion from these two facts is,
of course, that the form-notation expressed by the terms folio, quarto,
octavo, etc., should be given up in the case of modern books, to which
it is wholly inapplicable; and that a size-notation which does represent
an undoubted fact, should be adopted in its place. This logical
conclusion was seen, accepted, and acted upon at Cambridge in the year
1854; and I confess that it is difficult to resist the conviction that
this principle must sooner or later be accepted by others, though there
will no doubt be differences of opinion as to the most advisable form of
notation to adopt. A librarian cannot afford to be eccentric in this
matter; whatever method is adopted, it must be adopted by all the great
libraries, and it must commend itself to the general reader. Now I feel
sure that I shall not be taxed with dogmatism or with any predilection
for some crotchet of my own devising, if I say that the complicated and
artificial systems recommended by the Committee and others, are such as
cannot possibly become familiar, even if they become intelligible, to
the general run of readers. In the old Cambridge size-notation of London
1856, 8 × 5 meaning eight inches high by five inches across, the second
number denoting the breadth very soon fell out of use, except in
writing, and for years we always spoke of books as eights, sevens,
sixes, etc., meaning that they were eight, seven, or six inches high."

To this passage is added the following note:--

    "The practice in use with us has been to measure the height of the
    book from the top to the bottom of the page, disregarding the cover.
    We compute inches as we compute a man's age; a book is eight inches
    until it is nine inches, only, seeing that bound books are so often
    cut not quite square, anything short of the number used in the
    size-notation by the eighth of an inch or less, we call by that
    number for ordinary purposes. I have said above that in our General
    Library Catalogue we have reverted to the common form-notation, 8vo,
    12mo, etc., but pure size-notation is still retained in other
    departments, while in Trinity College Library it has never been
    given up since it was first adopted in 1856 or thereabouts."

The committee referred to by Mr. Bradshaw was the Size-Notation
Committee of the Library Association, of which my brother, the late Mr.
B. R. Wheatley, was a member. He took great interest in this subject,
and drew up a scale of sizes which might be marked upon an ordinary
two-foot rule. He was anxious that "a system should be adopted based on
the well-known terms hitherto employed of folio, 4to, 8vo, 12mo, etc.,
and their qualifying varieties of imperial, royal, etc., with an
approximate height and width in inches affixed to each size."

I think that Mr. Bradshaw's argument is convincing against making any
arbitrary rule of this kind, and affixing a definite size to every
variety of form-designation. But at the same time we must remember that
the form-notation has very largely been used for a size-notation, and
that bibliographers alone cannot make this change, because publishers,
booksellers, and bookbinders all use the notation as well as
cataloguers. After all I cannot help thinking that the difficulty has
been very greatly exaggerated. Folio and quarto are almost entirely used
as terms of form-notation, and they are usually found sufficient except
in the case of atlas or elephant folios, which seem to require some
distinguishing designation. Nowadays a large number of library books are
in what is called demy octavo. This I would distinguish as octavo, and
all below that size I would call small octavos, and all above large
octavos. Very few modern books are styled duodecimos; therefore that
form will not give the cataloguer much trouble. It is clearly useless
for the latter to distinguish books by such meaningless terms as
foolscap octavo, post octavo, etc., like the publisher. Of course there
is the difference in size between old and new books. The ordinary octavo
of the old books is a smaller size than the modern octavo, but this will
be settled by the date, and among the old books there will be no
difficulty in finding duodecimos.

Mr. Nicholson has entered very fully into this question of size-notation
in his Bodleian Rules, where he gives two tables as guides for correct
description. Rule 57 is: "The size of a book printed on water-marked
paper is to be described in accordance with Table I., on unwater-marked
paper with Table II."


COLLATION.

In most catalogues the note of the size will finish the entry, but it is
a very useful addition when the number of pages of all books in single
volumes is given. Sometimes the pages of the book itself only are noted
without reference to the preliminary matter, and sometimes the Roman
numerals are added on to the Arabic numerals and given as one total; but
this latter practice is not to be commended. The best plan is to set
down the pages thus--pp. xv, 421 (some put this pp. xv + 421, but the
plus sign is not necessary); or if the preliminary matter is not paged,
thus--half-title, title, five preliminary leaves, pp. 467.

In the case of very rare and valuable works, a full collation becomes
necessary, and such collation should be drawn up according to the plan
accepted among bibliographers, which can be seen in the standard
bibliographies of early printed books, and such a model bibliography as
Upcott's _Bibliographical Account of the Principal Works relating to
English Topography_ (3 vols., 8vo, 1818).

Even when it is not thought necessary to give a collation, it will be
well to notice if a book contains a portrait, or plates.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[21] _Quarterly Review_, vol. lxxii., p. 8.

[22] "On the Alphabetical Arrangement of the Titles of Anonymous Books"
(_Transactions and Proceedings of the Conference of Librarians_, 1877,
pp. 97-9).

[23] Referring to my remarks on the use of the word "anonym," I may
point out that this is not the correct title of Barbier's work. He used
_Anonymes_ as an adjective (_ouvrages anonymes_), and not as a
substantive.

[24] This point weakens Lord Mahon's arguments, because the same
objection would apply to all the books with authors' names.

[25] I had the privilege of talking over these rules with Mr. Bradshaw
for many consecutive days, when I inspected the University Library in
1878.

[26] For useful notes on short titles and booksellers' catalogues, Mr.
Charles F. Blackburn's amusing _Hints on Catalogue Titles and on Index
Entries_ (1884) may be consulted.

[27] The names of places as they appear in a Latin form are frequently
much disguised. A list of some of the most common of these names will be
found in the Appendix.

[28] It was this practice which confused a correspondent of the
_Athenæum_, who published his discovery that the first folio of
Shakespeare was not a folio at all.




[Decoration]

CHAPTER V.

REFERENCES AND SUBJECT INDEX.


I suppose it may be conceded that in the abstract the most useful kind
of catalogue is that which contains the titles and subject references in
one alphabet; but in the particular case of a large library this system
is not so convenient, because the subject references unnecessarily swell
the size of the catalogue, and by their frequency confuse the title
entries. For instance, it is something appalling to conjecture what
would be the size of the British Museum Catalogue if subject references
were included in the general alphabet. In the case of a large library it
will be more convenient to have an index of subjects forming a separate
alphabet by itself, and this cannot be made until the catalogue of
authors is completed. Taking a somewhat arbitrary limit, it may be said
that in libraries containing more than ten thousand volumes it will be
found more useful to have a distinct index of subjects, while in
catalogues of libraries below that number it will generally be advisable
to include the subject references with the titles in one general
alphabet.

If all the subject references are reserved for an index, there will
still remain a large number of references in the general alphabet which
are required for the proper use of the catalogue; and here it may be
well to say something as to the nomenclature of references. Mr. Cutter,
in the valuable series of definitions prefixed to his _Rules for a
Dictionary Catalogue_, has the following:--

    "_Reference_, partial registry of a book (omitting the imprint)
    under author, title, subject, or kind, referring to a more full
    entry under some other heading; occasionally used to denote merely
    entries without imprints, in which the reference is implied. The
    distinction of entry and reference is almost without meaning for
    Short, as a title-a-liner saves nothing by referring unless there
    are several references.

    "_Analytical reference_, or simply an analytical registry of some
    part of a book or of some work contained in a collection, referring
    to the heading under which the book or collection is entered.

    "_Cross reference_, reference from one subject to another.

    "_Heading reference_, from one form of a heading to another.

    "_First-word reference_, _catch-word reference_, _subject-word
    reference_, same as first-word entry, omitting the imprint and
    referring."

These definitions are important, and it would be well if the distinction
here made as to what a cross-reference really is were borne in mind. It
has become the practice among bibliographers to describe all references
as cross-references. This is the case in the British Museum rules:--

      "LV. Cross-references to be divided into three classes,
    from name to name, from name to work, and from work to work.
    Those of the first class to contain merely the name, title,
    or office of the person referred to as entered; those of the
    second, so much of the title referred to besides as,
    together with the size and date, may give the means of at
    once identifying, under its heading, the book referred to;
    those of the third class to contain moreover so much of the
    title referred from, as may be necessary to ascertain the
    object of the reference."

The public often cause a still further confusion in words, for they cry
out for the shelf-marks to be placed to references. If this be done,
they no longer remain references, but become double entries.

There are many disadvantages in this plan of putting press-marks to
references, but it is adopted at the British Museum, and it certainly is
annoying to have to run from one end of a many-volumed catalogue to
another.

In Mr. Nichols's _Handbook for Readers_ it is said (p. 42) that "a work
is never entered at full length more than once and it is only from the
main entry that the book-ticket must be made out." But if the
press-marks are added to the references, one would imagine that they are
intended to be used, and it is scarcely to be expected that any one will
take the trouble to refer to another place when he has sufficient
information under his eyes.

Catalogue work is different from index work, where the entries may be
duplicated without inconvenience; but in the case of books, if all the
references have press-marks, there is considerable danger of confusion
whenever the position of a book is changed. The main entries will be
corrected, but some of the references will almost certainly be
overlooked. If the books are never moved, there is no great harm in
putting press-marks to the references.

It must, I think, be conceded that when the references are so long as
they often are in the British Museum Catalogue, and as seems to be
contemplated by Mr. Cutter's remark quoted above, they are really
duplicate or subsidiary entries rather than references.

There is no real necessity to copy any part of the titles in the great
majority of references. Take, for instance, the following two modes of
referring from the subject of a biography to the authors:--

  Shakespeare:
    ---- and his Contemporaries.
           Nares. 1822. 4to.      27342
    ---- and his Times. Drake.
           1817. 2 vols. 4to.      7212
    ---- Biography. De Quincey.
           vol. xv. 8vo.           1808
    ---- ---- Knight. 1842.
           8vo.                   13296
    ---- Biographical Memoir.
           1825. 8vo.             21294
    ---- History of. Fullom. 1864.
           8vo.                   29492
    ---- Illustrations of his Life.
           Halliwell. 1874. 4to.  47851
    ---- Life. Chalmers. German
           trans. Leipzig. 8vo.   35270
    ---- ---- Halliwell. 1848.
           8vo.                   10430
    ---- ---- Skottowe. 1824.
           2 vols. 8vo.           21673

These entries are taken from a large heading, and do not come together
as they do here. By following the wording of the title in this way you
do not get a true index. For instance, under this same main heading of
Shakespeare we have in different parts of the sub-alphabet:--

  Illustrated. Lennox. 1753-4.
    3 vols. 12mo.               13861

  Life. Skottowe. 1824. 2 vols.
    8vo.                        21673

  Plots. Simrock. 1850. 8vo.    21617

All these books are on the plots, and should come together. At present
anyone looking at the entry would suppose that there was only one book
on the plots of the plays in the library.

Another way of making the references may be set out thus:--

  Shakespeare:

    Life: _Chalmers_, _De Quincey_, _Fullom_
      (1864), _Halliwell_ (1848), _Knight_
      (1842), _Skottowe_ (1824).
    ---- S. and his Contemporaries: _Nares_
      (1822).
    ---- S. and his Times: _Drake_ (1817).
    Plots of his Plays: _Lennox_ (1753),
      _Simrock_ (1850), _Skottowe_ (1824).

Not only does the second plan take up less space, but it is also the
more convenient, as giving the required information in the clearest
manner.

All references should be in English,[29] and the subject of the book
should be used for the reference rather than the often periphrastic form
of the title. Thus, in making a subject reference for the following
book:--

  Mudie (Robert). The Feathered Tribes of the British Islands.
    1834. 2 vols.

--the reference must be from "Birds" or "Ornithology," as it will be
useless to refer from "Feathered Tribes."

No reference should be made to a title which does not indicate the
information sought for. Thus, if a work contains an account of some
subject which is not specified on the title, this must not be referred
to unless a note is added to the title to show that the book does
contain this information. Sometimes one reference will be sufficient for
a group of titles. Thus, in referring from one form of an author's name
to another, it is not necessary to repeat the titles under that
author's name even in the shortest manner.

It is not well in subject references included in an alphabetical
catalogue or in an alphabetical index of subjects to classify at all.
Thus _Gold_ should be under _G_, and _Silver_ under _S_; and at the end
of the heading of Metals or Metallurgy such cross-references as these
can be added: "See also _Gold_, _Silver_."

It is not easy to calculate the average number of references to a given
number of chief entries. If we exclude subject references, it may be
roughly put at about a third. If subject references are included, it
will be about two to one, or twice as many references as titles. Many
titles will only require one reference, but others will help to turn the
balance,--as, for instance, the following, which will require ten
references:--

    The Life of Haydn, in a Series of Letters written at Vienna
      [originally written in Italian by G. Carpani], followed by
      the Life of Mozart [by A. H. F. von Slichtegroll], with
      Observations on Metastasio, and on the Present State of
      Music in France and Italy. Translated from the French of L.
      A. C. Bombet, with Notes by the Author of the Sacred
      Melodies [W. Gardiner]. London, 1817. 8vo.

In the first place, Bombet is a pseudonym for Henri Beyle; therefore,
according to the rule adopted in the catalogue, there must be a
different reference. If the title is placed under Beyle, then there must
be a reference from Bombet; and if under the pseudonym, there must be a
reference from Beyle. There must be references from Haydn, Mozart, and
Metastasio, from Slichtegroll, Carpani, and Gardiner, from Music, and
possibly from France and Italy.

The specimen page here given will show how a subject index may be
incorporated in one alphabet with an author's catalogue:--

    ==================================================================
    | Case. | Shelf.|                                | Size. | Date. |
    |-------+-------+--------------------------------+-------+-------|
    |  II   |   2   | SHUTTLEWORTH (Philip N.).      |       |       |
    |       |       | The Consistency of the         |       |       |
    |       |       | whole scheme of Revelation     |       |       |
    |       |       | with itself and with           |       |       |
    |       |       | Human Reason.                  |       |       |
    |       |       |                        London. |  12°  | 1832  |
    |  LL   |   3   | -- Paraphrastic Translation    |       |       |
    |       |       |  of the Apostolical Epistles,  |       |       |
    |       |       |  with Notes.                   |       |       |
    |       |       |                        London. |   8°  | 1840  |
    |       |       |                                |       |       |
    |       |       | SIBERIA                        |       |       |
    |       |       |    Travels: _Dobell_ (1830)    |       |       |
    |       |       |                                |       |       |
    |       |       | SICILY                         |       |       |
    |       |       |    Travels, etc.: _Brydone_    |       |       |
    |       |       |    (1790), _Hoare_ (1819),     |       |       |
    |       |       |    _Swinburne_ (1783), _Smyth_ |       |       |
    |       |       |    (1824)                      |       |       |
    |       |       |                                |       |       |
    |       |       | -- Volcanoes of: _Hamilton_    |       |       |
    |       |       |    (1772)                      |       |       |
    |       |       |                                |       |       |
    |       |       | -- Vestiges of Ancient Manners:|       |       |
    |       |       |    _Blunt_ (1823)              |       |       |
    |       |       |                                |       |       |
    |       |       | SIDMOUTH (Viscount) Life:      |       |       |
    |       |       |    _Pellew_ (1847)             |       |       |
    |       |       |                                |       |       |

It will be noticed that in the case of references the word _see_ is
omitted. If the names to be referred to, which follow a colon, are
printed in italic, or, in the case of a manuscript catalogue, are
underscored with red ink, they will be clearly distinguishable without
the word _see_, and a wearisome repetition will be avoided. In the case
of cross-references at the end to some other heading [see also], it will
be more convenient to use the word than to omit it.

Panizzi was an advocate for a Subject Index, or "Index of Matters," as
he called it,[30] but he did not venture to recommend such a work
officially to the trustees.[31] He was fully examined on this subject
before the Commission in 1849, and he referred to a memorandum which he
had submitted to the Council of the Royal Society when employed upon
their catalogue. He there writes:--

    "A catalogue of a library is intended principally to give an
    accurate inventory of the books which it comprises; and is in
    general consulted either to ascertain whether a particular book is
    in the collection, or to find what works it contains on a given
    subject. To obtain these ends, classed catalogues have been
    compiled, in which the works are systematically arranged according
    to their subjects. Many distinguished individuals in different
    countries have drawn up catalogues of this description, but no two
    of them have agreed on the same plan of classification; and even
    those who have confessedly followed the system of another person
    have fancied it necessary to depart in some particulars from their
    model.... Those who want either to consult a book, of which they
    only know the subject, or to find what books on a particular subject
    are in the library, can obtain this information (as far as it can be
    collected from a title-page, which is all that can be expected in a
    catalogue) more easily from an index of matters to an alphabetical
    catalogue than by any other means. Here also nothing is left to
    discretion as far as concerns order. Entries, being short
    cross-references, are in a great measure avoided; and repetitions,
    far from being inconvenient, will save the time and trouble of
    looking in more places than one in order to find what is wanted....
    The plan which is proposed was adopted by Dr. Watt in his
    _Bibliotheca Britannica_, the usefulness of which work must be
    acknowledged by every one conversant with bibliography. That it
    would not be so useful had any systematical arrangement been
    followed seems undeniable. The vast plan of the _Bibliotheca
    Britannica_, however, did not allow its author to give, either to
    the titles of the books or to the index, that extent which ought to
    be given to both in the Catalogue of the Library of the Royal
    Society" (_Minutes of Evidence_, p. 704).

Although here Panizzi makes the sound remark that the information to be
expected in a catalogue is that which is found in the title-page, he had
previously expressed a considerably more comprehensive opinion. He
wrote:--

    "The catalogue of a library like that of the Royal Society should
    be as complete as possible; that is, it should give all the
    information requisite concerning any book which may be the object of
    inquiry. Whether a work be printed separately, or in a
    collection--whether it extend to the greater part of a folio volume,
    or occupy only part of a single leaf--no distinction should be made;
    the title of each should be separately entered. Hence every one of
    the _Memoirs_ or papers in the acts of academies; every one of the
    articles in scientific journals or collections, whatever they may
    be, should have its separate place in the catalogue. Thus, for
    instance, all the letters in Hanschius' Collection should be entered
    in their proper places under the writers' names. It is only by
    carrying this principle to the FULLEST extent that a catalogue can
    be called COMPLETE, and a library, more particularly of books
    relating to science, made as useful as it is capable of being. This,
    however, would make a great difference in the expense, and take
    considerable time."

A little consideration will show that such an extensive principle of
action could not be practically carried out, and we may well ask whether
it would be advisable to adopt such a plan even if it could be carried
out. We regret the waste of labour spent in cataloguing the same book
over and over again, but how much greater would be the waste of labour
and money if the managers of every library which contained the
_Philosophical Magazine_ thought it necessary to include the whole
contents of that periodical in its catalogue! The labour of cataloguing
these series is the work of bibliographers, and such valuable books of
reference as the _Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers_ and
Poole's _Index of Periodical Literature_ are suitable for all libraries.

To return to the mode of carrying out a subject index, it may be again
remarked that it is not necessary to follow the titles textually, and if
the titles are so followed there can be no advantage in making the
references longer than in Watt's _Bibliotheca_. In primary entries the
titles must be accurately followed, but in references it is often much
more convenient to dispense with the wording chosen by the author. Two
books with totally different titles are often identical in subject, and
the indexer saves the time of the consulter by realizing this fact and
acting upon it.

I think that any one who compares the system adopted in the indexes to
the Catalogues of the Library of the Athenæum Club and of the London
Library with that of, say, the Catalogue of the Manchester Free Library,
1881, will at once see how much more readily the former can be used.

Mr. Parry, in his answer 7351 (_Minutes_, p. 470), advocates the plan of
having a separate index of subjects, and in spite of all that has been
said in favour of dictionary catalogues, I hold that this is the
simplest and most useful for students; although for popular libraries
there is much to be said in favour of dictionary catalogues. One of the
most elaborate indexes I know is that by my brother, Mr. B. R. Wheatley,
for the Catalogue of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society. By this
plan he who knows what he wants finds it without being confused by, to
him, useless references, while he who does not know can consult the
index.

In an index the headings will of course be in alphabet, and the
sub-headings may be so also; but often some system of classification
will be better. No hard-and-fast rule can be made for all cases. But it
is usually better to bring the subjects of the books together,
regardless of the wording of the title.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[29] Always use the word _see_ in preference to _vide_.

[30] This expression is often used, although it can scarcely be
considered as English.

[31] See his answer to question 9892, _Minutes of Evidence, Commission_
1849.




[Decoration]

CHAPTER VI.

ARRANGEMENT.


Rule II. of the British Museum is: "Titles to be arranged
alphabetically, according to the English alphabet only (whatever be the
order of the alphabet in which a foreign name might have been entered in
its original language);" and this rule has been generally followed. Mr.
Cutter (rule 169) adds to this, "Treat I and J, U and V, as separate
letters;" and every consulter of the British Museum Catalogue must wish
that this rule was adopted there, for anything so confusing as this
unnecessary mixing of the letters I and J and U and V it is scarcely
possible to imagine. Mr. Cutter goes on: "ij, at least in the olden
Dutch names, should be arranged as y; do not put Spanish names beginning
with Ch, Ll, Ñ, after all other names beginning with C, L, and N, as is
done by the Spanish Academy."

The Museum rule (XIII.) is: "German names in which the letters ä, ö, or
ü occur, to be spelt with the diphthong æ, oe, and ue respectively."

Mr. Cutter follows this, and adds to it (rule 25):--

      "In Danish names, if the type å is not to be had, use its
    older equivalent _aa_; in a manuscript catalogue the modern
    orthography ä should be employed. Whatever is chosen should
    be uniformly used, however the names may appear in the books.
    The diphthong æ should not be written ae, nor should ö be
    written oe; ö, not oe, should be used for ø.

      "In Hungarian names write ö, ü, with the diæresis (not oe,
    ue), and arrange like the English o, u.

      "The Swedish names, ä, å, ö, should be so written (not ae,
    oe), and arranged as the English a, o."

The Cambridge rule (10) is as follows: "German and Scandinavian names,
in which the forms ä, ö, ü, å, occur, to be treated, for the purpose of
alphabetical sequence, as if spelt with ae, oe, and ao respectively. In
German names ä, ö, ü, to be printed ae, oe, ue."

The Library Association rule (44) is: "The German ä, ö, ü, are to be
arranged as if written out in full ae, oe, ue."

The first part of the Cambridge rule and the whole of that of the
Library Association is likely to lead to confusion. The only safe way to
deal with these letters is either to spell them out, or to arrange them
as if they were English letters. The English alphabet must be
pre-eminent in an English catalogue.

The rule that M', Mc, St., etc., should be arranged as if spelt Mac,
Saint, etc., stands on a different basis from the above, and the reason
is, as stated by Mr. Cutter (rule 173), "because they are so
pronounced." When we see St., we at once say Saint, and therefore look
under Sa.

The Index Society rule enters fully into this point, and explains what
is a difficulty to some: "6. Proper names with the prefix St., as St.
Albans, St. John, to be arranged in the alphabet as if written in full,
_Saint_. When the word _Saint_ represents a ceremonial title, as in the
case of St. Alban, St. Giles, and St. Augustine, these names to be
arranged under the letters A and G respectively; but the places St.
Albans, St. Giles, and St. Augustine will be found under the prefix
_Saint_. The prefixes M' and Mc to be arranged as if written in full,
Mac."

When several titles follow one heading, it is necessary to use a dash in
place of repeating the heading, and there are one or two points worthy
of attention in respect to this dash.

The Library Association rule is: "35. The heading is not to be repeated;
a single indent or dash indicates the omission of the preceding heading
or title."

The Index Society rule is rather fuller: "17. A dash, instead of an
indentation, to be used as a mark of repetition. The dash to be kept for
entries exactly similar, and the word to be repeated when the second
differs in any way from the first. The proper name to be repeated when
that of a different person. In the case of joint authors the Christian
names or initials of the first, whose surname is arranged in the
alphabet, to be in parentheses, but the Christian names of the second to
be in the natural order, as _Smith_ (John) and Alexander _Brown_, not
_Smith_ (John) and _Brown_ (Alexander)."

The reason for the last direction is that the Christian name is only
brought back in order to make the alphabetical position of the surname
clear; and as this is not necessary in respect to the second person, the
names should remain in their natural order.

Dashes should be of a uniform length, and that length should not be too
great. It is a great mistake to suppose that the dash is to be the
length of the line which is not repeated. If it is necessary to mark the
repetition of a portion of the title as well as the author, this should
be indicated by another dash, and not by the elongation of the former
one; thus:--

Milton (John), Works in Verse and Prose, Printed from the
      Original Editions, with Life by the Rev. John Mitford. 8
      vols. 8vo. London, 1851.

 ---- Poetical Works, with Notes, Life, etc., by the Rev. H. J.
       Todd. 6 vols. 8vo. London, 1801.

 ---- ---- ---- Second Edition. 7 vols. royal 8vo. London, 1809.

 ---- ---- with Notes, edited by Sir Egerton Brydges. 6 vols.
       small 8vo. London, 1853.

All the dashes except the first, which represents the author's name, can
be got rid of by using the words [the same] or [another edition], etc.

In the alphabetization of a catalogue the prefixes in personal names,
even when printed separately, are to be treated as if they were joined;
thus:--

    De Montfort.       De Quincey.
    Demophilus.        Des Barres.
    De Morgan.         Du Chaillu.
    Demosthenes.

In the case of compound words a different plan, however, is to be
adopted. Each word is to be treated as separate, and arranged
accordingly. The Index Society rule is as follows: "4. Headings
consisting of two or more distinct words are not to be treated as
integral portions of one word; thus the arrangement should be:--

    Grave, John      }     { Grave at Kherson
    Grave at Kherson }     { Grave, John
    Grave of Hope    } not { Gravelot
    Grave Thoughts   }     { Grave of Hope
    Gravelot         }     { Gravesend
    Gravesend        }     { Grave Thoughts"

Mr. Cutter enters very fully into this point of arrangement in his
rules.

It is a very frequent mistake to overlook the fact that the Christian
name placed after a surname is merely there for the sake of convenience,
and to make it take its place with the words that follow in their
natural position. For instance, in the above examples John Grave stands
at the head, because Grave is the only portion that can be considered in
the alphabet. If, however, there was a Charles or a Henry Grave, they
would take their position above John Grave, because their Christian
names are all in the same category.

The order in which the entries under an author's name should be arranged
is dealt with in the British Museum rules LXIX. to LXXVII., but it is
not necessary to quote all these in this place.

The Library Association rules put the matter very succinctly:--

      "38. The works of an author are to be arranged in the
    following order:--

      "_a._ Collected works.

      "_b._ Partial collections.

      "_c._ Individual works in alphabetical order of titles,
    under the first word not an article or a preposition having
    the meaning of 'concerning.'

      "Translations are to follow the originals in alphabetical
    order of languages."

The Cambridge Rule is as follows:--

      "38. The works of an author to be entered in the following
    order:--

     "(1) Collected works in the original language.

     "(2) Translations of collected works.

     "(3) Collections of two or more works.

     "(4) Separate works.

     "(5) Entire portions of a separate work to follow that
    work.

     "(6) Selections or collected fragments."

This question of arrangement is distinctly one which may be modified
according to the special needs of a particular library. It only becomes
a question of importance in a very large library, because in a small
library the number of entries under one author are not often very
numerous. I should take exception to the arrangement of separate works
in alphabetical order, because in the case of titles other than those of
plays, poems, novels, etc. (which have arbitrary titles), there is
little that is suitable for such arrangement, and it is practically no
order at all. I should prefer the chronological order as the most useful
for reference. In the case of those authors whose works are voluminous,
some system of classification of the separate works is needed. Thus
Milton's prose works should be arranged separately from his poems.

It is also a question whether translations should not be kept together
at the end. Abstracts of the contents of collected editions of an
author's works greatly add to the convenience of a catalogue. It is
almost a necessity in a lending library, as by this means you can send
for the particular volume you require. The adoption of the plan at the
British Museum would save a reader from sending for a whole set of books
when he only wants one volume. Mr. Parry, in his evidence before the
Commission, alludes to this point. He said: "I remember there was one
rule as to collected works, that each separate work in the collection
was to be expressed upon the title that we wrote, and afterwards printed
separately under the collected heading in the catalogue; that was
abandoned, I remember, and I certainly thought it was an important
abandonment: it was the abandonment, as it seemed to me, of a useful
principle; but it was abandoned, I believe, for the purpose of
expediting the catalogue; and in all respects we endeavoured as much as
possible to shorten our labour consistently with accuracy" (p. 467).

Mr. Cutter deals with this point in his rule 197: "Arrange _contents_
either in the order of the volumes or alphabetically by the titles of
the articles." After giving an example, he adds: "It is evident how much
more compendious the second method is. But there is no reason why an
alphabetical 'contents' should not be run into a single paragraph.

"The titles of novels and plays contained in any collection ought to be
entered in the main alphabet; it is difficult then to see the advantage
of an alphabetical arrangement of the same titles under the collection.
Many other collections are composed of works for which alphabetical
order is no gain, because the words of their titles are not mnemonic
words, and it is not worth while to take the trouble of arranging them;
but there are others composed of both classes in which such order may be
convenient."

We have been considering the arrangement of the titles of ordinary
books, but here it will be necessary to go back somewhat, and ask what
we have to catalogue. We may have printed books, newspapers,
manuscripts (including autographs), prints and drawings, and maps.
Newspapers may be included with printed books, but the rest must,
without doubt, be kept distinct. When these different classes are small,
they can with advantage be catalogued separately at the end of the
general catalogue; but when any or all of them are large, they must be
treated as distinct subjects, and catalogued according to special rules
which cannot be given here.

What is a printed book? Some have made a distinction between tracts (or
pamphlets) and books; but any definition of the former, intended to
distinguish them from the latter, which has been attempted has always
failed to satisfy the bibliographer. It is only necessary to imagine the
confusion that would be caused in the library of the British Museum if
the titles were thus sorted to see the futility of any such distinction.
The only excuse for a separate catalogue of pamphlets is in the case of
those libraries which possess a large number of ephemeral pamphlets,
bound up in a long series, and kept distinct. Here, as the pamphlets
are only occasionally required, it may be found unadvisable to fill the
general catalogue with uninteresting entries. It may be supposed that
the last remark, as recognizing the existence of a pamphlet, is
contradictory to that which goes before, but it is not really so. There
is no doubt of the existence of a something which is undoubtedly a
pamphlet, but there is no rule by which some other small book can be
distinguished as a pamphlet or not. The special characteristic of a
pamphlet does not entirely consist in the number of pages, for books in
which the most momentous discoveries have been announced have been made
up of few leaves, and it does not entirely consist in the importance or
otherwise of the subject.

There is one class of pamphlets which gives the cataloguer much trouble,
viz., Extracts from Journals and Transactions. If these are catalogued
without any indication that they are excerpts, readers of the catalogue
are misled into the belief in the existence of separate books which were
never issued. At the same time the catalogue is unnecessarily enlarged
if the full particulars as to the title of the journal from which the
pamphlet has been extracted are given. If there are many of these titles
it will be well to adopt some sign, such as a dagger, at the beginning
of the title to indicate the character of the pamphlet.

When we have decided to arrange in one general alphabet the titles of
ordinary books, both those whose authors are known and those which are
anonymous, we are still left with a large number of books which are
different in character from ordinary books. We then have to decide how
to deal with journals and transactions, ephemerides, observations,
reports, etc. These classes of works are generally kept distinct, but
are included in the general alphabet as academies or transactions,
periodical publications or journals. In the case of comparatively small
private libraries, there is no need for the separation at all, as these
seldom contain many journals or transactions; but if it be advisable to
make the distinction, I think the balance of advantage is on the side
of keeping the class outside the alphabet, chiefly for the reason that
inner alphabets are confusing and disadvantageous.

There are two main reasons in favour of the separation of serials,
periodicals, or whatever other name we may give the class. The
theoretical reason is, that they are not like other books, and that the
rules for one will not apply to the other. It is agreed, on all hands,
that MSS. should be separated from printed books, and yet a MS. is often
more like a printed book than a journal is like a distinct treatise. I
mean that in the one case the difference is merely one of
production,--print or writing,--and in the other it is a structural
difference of the mode of composition.

The practical reason is, that you eliminate the chief disturbing
elements of a catalogue. The catalogue of ordinary books, if well made
in the first instance, requires little alteration, and needs only
additions; but the catalogue of serials, by the very nature of its
contents, wants continued change.

Some librarians who have followed the British Museum rules continue the
terms adopted there of _Academies_ and _Periodical Publications_; but I
think the headings _Transactions_ and _Journals_ are in every way
preferable. The word _Academy_ is entirely foreign to our habits, and
most of those academies which exist here are institutions quite distinct
from societies which publish transactions. Almost the only exception to
this rule is the Royal Irish Academy. Even abroad, societies are more
numerous than academies.[32] With respect to the heading _Periodical
Publications_, it may be said that transactions would logically come as
properly under it as journals and magazines, because all are published
periodically.

This subject of the arrangement of periodicals has not been treated of
so exhaustively as it deserves. Mr. J. B. Bailey communicated a paper on
"Some Points to be Considered in Preparing Catalogues of Transactions
and Periodicals" to the Library Association of the United Kingdom in
February 1880,[33] in which he affirms that so little agreement is there
among cataloguers, that the three most recent catalogues of scientific
transactions and periodicals then published were arranged on different
plans. The three catalogues referred to were (1) _Catalogue of
Scientific Serials_, 1633-1876, by S. H. Scudder, Cambridge, U.S., 1879;
(2) _Catalogue of the Library of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical
Society_, London, 1879; (3) _Catalogue of the Library of the Museum of
Practical Geology and Geological Survey_, London, 1878.

At the Cambridge Meeting of the Library Association, 1882, I
communicated a paper entitled "Thoughts on the Cataloguing of Journals
and Transactions." In this paper I discussed some of the open questions
respecting their arrangement, and these points I may recapitulate here.
Mr. Bailey is in favour of Mr. Scudder's union of journals and
transactions in one catalogue, but he is not so satisfied that the plan
of arranging these under the names of the places of publication adopted
by that bibliographer is the best.

The two chief questions which arise, after we have settled the point
that these serials shall be kept distinct from the general alphabet, are
these:--

    (1) Shall journals and transactions be treated as one and the same
    class, or shall they be arranged in separate alphabets?

    (2) If journals and transactions are kept distinct, how shall they be
    arranged?


I.

Mr. Scudder, as already mentioned, treats journals and transactions as
one and the same class, and arranges both together, according to a
combined geographical and alphabetical system. This is, I think, an
inconvenient arrangement for a catalogue, for the following reason:
Transactions are nearly always known by the names of the places where
they are issued, but journals are not known by the name of the place of
publication. For instance, suppose a reader comes to the librarian for
the _Jahrbuch_ of the _Physikalischer Verein_, the librarian would
naturally ask, Which one of these societies? and the reader might answer
Frankfort; but if the _Canadian Journal_ were required it is probable
that neither reader nor librarian would remember whether it were
published at Toronto or at Montreal. The society of its very nature has
a local habitation, while the journal has a name, but is not necessarily
associated with the place where it is published. It therefore follows
that if the titles of the two kinds of periodicals are arranged on
different systems, it will be better to keep them distinct than to unite
them in one alphabet. In the British Museum Catalogue the two classes
are kept distinct, but both are arranged under the names of places, so
that they might quite as well have been united in one alphabet. The
reason for separation entirely depends, it seems to me, upon the
difference of arrangement adopted for each.


II.

Mr. Cutter's rules on this question of arrangement may be considered
best under the respective headings of Transactions and Journals.

_Transactions._

Mr. Cutter says (rule 40):--

      "Societies are authors of their journals, memoirs,
    proceedings, transactions, publications.... The chief
    practices in regard to societies have been to enter them (1.
    British Museum) under a special heading--_Academies_--with a
    geographical arrangement; (2. Boston Public Library, printed
    catalogue) under the name of the place where they have their
    headquarters; (3. Harvard College Library and Boston Public
    Library, present system) under the name of the place, if it
    enters into the legal name of the society, otherwise under
    the first word of that name not an article; (4. Boston
    Athenæum) English societies under the first word of the
    society's name not an article; foreign societies under the
    name of the place. Both 3. and 4. put under the place all
    purely local societies, those whose membership or objects
    are confined to the place. The first does not deserve a
    moment's consideration; such a heading is out of place in an
    author-catalogue, and the geographical arrangement only
    serves to complicate matters, and render it more difficult to
    find any particular academy. The second is utterly unsuited
    to American and English societies. The third practice is
    simple; but it is difficult to see the advantage of the
    exception which it makes to its general rule of entry under
    the society's name; the exception does not help the
    cataloguer, for it is just as hard to determine whether the
    place enters into the _legal_ name as to ascertain the name;
    it does not help the reader, for he has no means of knowing
    whether the place is part of the legal name or not. The
    fourth is simple and intelligible; it is usually easy for
    both cataloguer and reader to determine whether a society is
    English or foreign....

      "Fifth Plan, Rule 1. Enter academies, associations,
    institutes, universities, libraries, galleries, museums,
    colleges, and all similar bodies, both English and foreign,
    according to their corporate name, neglecting an initial
    article when there is one.

      "_Exception 1._ Enter the royal academies of Berlin,
    Göttingen, Leipzig, Lisbon, Madrid, Munich, St. Petersburg,
    Vienna, etc., and the 'Institut' of Paris under those cities.
    An exception is an evil; this one is adopted because the
    academies are usually known by the name of the cities, and
    are hardly ever referred to by the name Königliches, Real,
    etc."

I cannot agree with Mr. Cutter's remarks in the above extracts. After a
pretty extensive experience of the cataloguing of transactions, I have
found plan No. 2 far and away the most convenient for reference; it has
its own peculiar difficulties, but these are really much fewer than in
any of the other plans, and I entirely fail to see why it should be
stigmatized as "utterly unsuited to American and English societies." No
doubt a large number of societies come under the heading of London, but
most large towns in the country have their societies, and the societies
of Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Manchester all find their
proper places in the alphabet.

The fourth plan may be simple, but it is far from logical, and some good
reason is required for the adoption of separate rules for English and
foreign societies.

Exception 1 is surely unnecessary, for the publications of the Société
Météorologique de France have just as much right to appear under "Paris"
as the publications of the "Institut" (which, by the way, is the
"Institut" of France, not of Paris).

The difficulties of this first word (not an article) arrangement are
numerous. For instance, all the French societies will be under
_Société_, and a large number of the English societies under _Royal_.
Then, again, how many German and Swiss towns have a _Naturforschende
Gesellschaft_--the confusion of which is obviated by arranging them
under the names of the towns. This is one reason; but another is, that
many of these societies have double titles, with the designation of the
society in different languages. For instance, the _Neue Denkschriften_
of the "Allgemeine Schweizerische Gesellschaft für die gesammten
Naturwissenschaften," at Zürich, is also styled _Nouveaux Mémoires de la
Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles_; and this at once confuses
the society with "Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft," which is
also named "Allgemeine Schweizerische Gesellschaft" and "Société
Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles." Several of the Scandinavian
societies have a Latin as well as a native name. Thus the "Kongl.
Vetenskaps Societet," of Upsala, is also called "Regia Societas
Scientiarum Upsaliensis," and its publications are known as _Acta_ and
_Nota Acta_. Again, the publications of the "Kongelige Norske
Videnskabers Selskab," of Trondhjem, have been in German as well as in
Danish, and in the former language the style of the society has taken
the two forms of "Drontheimische Gesellschaft" and of "Königl.
Norwegische Gesellschaft." Again, Bohemian societies have both a German
and a Bohemian title, and the cataloguer must choose which he will take.

It cannot be said that by arranging the societies under the names of the
places where they meet all difficulties are overcome, but it may safely
be said that they are found with much greater ease by the consulter of
the catalogue, than if they were spread about in the alphabet under the
first words of their titles (not an article), and this, I think, is the
greatest advantage that can be claimed for any cataloguing scheme.
Another good reason for placing the societies under their place of
meeting is that their transactions are most commonly referred to as the
"Paris Mémoires," the "Berlin Abhandlungen," or the "Copenhagen
Skrifter;" and therefore it is most objectionable that the reader who
knows what he wants should have, before consulting the catalogue, to
seek for the exact wording of the society's name.

The London Mathematical Society would come under _London_ by Cutter's
rule, although it is always spoken of as the Mathematical Society
simply; while some of the publications of the Meteorological Society
would be arranged under B (British Meteorological Society) and others
under M (Meteorological Society). Those who have little to do with
transactions can scarcely guess the confusion that occurs in catalogues
when the references are not arranged upon a sound system.

There are two very serious objections to the geographical arrangement of
the places where societies are seated rather than the alphabetical. One
is, that you have to think what country the place is in before looking
for it; and the other, that the boundaries of Europe are constantly
being altered. If every society is placed under the name of the town
where it holds its meetings, and the towns are arranged in one general
alphabet, we have an arrangement that is simplicity itself.

It is of paramount importance to place all the publications of a society
under one heading, even when the place of meeting may have been changed;
and in such a case as this the only safe plan is to arrange all under
the name of the last place of meeting, with cross-references from the
other places. A good instance of this is the well-known set of
transactions which is almost invariably quoted as the _Nova Acta_. The
"Kaiserliche Leopoldino-Carolinische Deutsche Akademie der
Naturforscher" published their Acta at Nuremberg between 1730 and 1754,
and their _Nova Acta_ at the same place between 1757 and 1791. The _Nova
Acta_ has subsequently been published at Erlangen, Breslau, and Bonn,
and the present seat of the academy is at Dresden.

There is of course a difficulty in the case of peripatetic societies
both national (such as the British Association) and international (such
as the Congress of Prehistoric Archæology); but these societies have
usually permanent headquarters, and these may be treated as the
headings.

No mention has been made of what we rather vaguely style "Publishing
Societies," because these require special rules. They should be
catalogued with a general entry under the division of Transactions, but
the separate books published by each society must be catalogued in the
general catalogue.

_Journals._

Mr. Cutter's rule, No. 54 (_Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue_, p. 53),
is as follows: "Periodicals are to be treated as anonymous, and entered
under the first word. Ex. _Popular_ Science Monthly, _Littell's_ Living
Age.

    "When a periodical changes its title, the whole may be catalogued
    under the original title, with an explanatory note there, and a
    reference from the new title to the old; or each part may be
    catalogued under its own title, with references: 'For a continuation
    _see_   ;' 'For ten previous volumes _see_   .'

    "Make a reference from the name of the editor when the periodical is
    commonly called by his name, as is the case with Silliman's _Journal
    of Science_...."

I agree, generally, with this rule, but I think that we must arrange
somehow that the whole of a journal should appear in one place in the
catalogue, however much the title may have been changed. Thus the title
of the well-known _Philosophical Magazine_ has undergone many changes,
but all should appear under the heading of "_Philosophical Magazine_"
The first series is known as _Tilloch's Philosophical Magazine_, and the
current series as the _London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical
Magazine and Journal_.

Although the rule should be to place the titles under the first word not
an article, some judgment must be displayed. Thus the _New Monthly
Magazine_ should be placed under "New," because it was a rival and not a
continuation of the _Monthly Magazine_; but the _Neue Notizen_ of
Froriep must come under "Notizen," of which it is a second series.

As a rule, it is objectionable to place journals under their editors'
names, because editors are continually changing. For instance, the
famous German scientific journal (_Annalen der Physik_) which was for so
many years associated with the name of Poggendorff no longer bears the
name of that distinguished man. After his death his name entirely
disappeared from the title-page.

Something must also be said respecting astronomical and meteorological
observations, reports of various institutions, surveys, etc. These are
not strictly transactions; but the same principle which makes it
expedient to take transactions out of the general alphabet applies to
these books. Observations are sometimes catalogued under the name of the
observer; but this is a bad practice, because the observer changes, and
it is only the observatory which is permanent, and this should be
arranged under the place where the observatory is situated, as
Greenwich, Paris, etc. The treatment of reports is a more difficult
matter, and here again judgment must be called into play. A particular
report on a special subject must be treated as a book; but the series of
reports of commissions, or the annual reports of an institution as
serials, may well be brought under a separate division.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[32] Was it not Christopher North's Shepherd who said, "Open a school
and call it an academy"?

[33] _Monthly Notices_, No. 2.




[Decoration]

CHAPTER VII.

SOMETHING ABOUT MSS.


Very little need be said here about the cataloguing of manuscripts,
because it is a distinct art from the cataloguing of printed books; but
most libraries contain a few manuscripts, and therefore it is needful to
say something.

What a large collection of MSS. really is, is partly answered by Mr.
Maunde Thompson, late Keeper of the MSS., and now Principal Librarian,
British Museum, in an interesting paper, "On the Arrangement and
Preservation of Manuscripts," read before the Library Association in
1886. Mr. Thompson writes:--

    "While in foreign countries it is the custom to subdivide and
    deposit in different custodies the several classes of MSS. after
    their kind, in England the Museum is the only national institution
    where MSS. of all descriptions are purchased for the public use. In
    the Department of MSS., accordingly, may be found every kind of MS.,
    from papyri dating back to the second century before Christ down to
    the correspondence of our own day on which the ink is scarcely dry.
    Papyri, ancient and mediæval MSS. of all periods and in all
    languages from the fifth to the fifteenth century and later,
    illuminated MSS., literary works of all periods, state papers and
    literary and private correspondence, charters and rolls, seals,
    casts of seals, and bullæ--all these are brought together under the
    custody of the keepers."[34]

Now very few of these rare objects will be found in ordinary libraries.
The manuscripts to be found there will probably be literary works,
historical and literary correspondence, and perhaps some deeds or family
documents. If the manuscripts consist only of a few unprinted literary
works or original manuscripts afterwards printed, these may well be
included in the general catalogue of printed books. When there are
autograph letters and miscellaneous MSS., these must be kept separate.
The cataloguer must then consult the best catalogues of collections of
manuscripts, and choose the plan best suited to his particular purpose.
A collection of autograph letters will best be catalogued under the
names of the writers, arranged in alphabetical order; while a series of
historical documents will often be more conveniently arranged in
chronological order.

The usual mode of cataloguing adopted is to register the contents of the
particular collection of manuscripts in the order which it stands, and
then to make a full index. The result of this plan is the production of
a series of volumes of great interest to the reader. Many a pleasant and
instructive hour may be spent in the turning over of the pages of such
catalogues as that of the Harleian Collection, or of the various volumes
which contain the descriptions of the additional manuscripts in the
British Museum.

There is, however, a great want of a general catalogue or general index
to the vast collections of the British Museum. The production of such a
work would cause so large an expenditure of labour that perhaps we can
scarcely expect it to be produced; but I venture to think that something
might be done to bring the very miscellaneous collection of catalogues
into some more uniform system than it is at present. The subject index
which can be referred to in the MS. room is a work of the greatest
value, and he who turns over a few pages of a few of the volumes of
which this subject catalogue consists will obtain a more vivid idea of
the exceeding richness of the MS. Department of the British Museum than
by any other means. This classified catalogue we owe to Mr. Bond,
formerly Keeper of the MSS., and late Principal Librarian, and every
scholar must feel deep gratitude to him for this great gift of
knowledge. If this were printed, it would form a work of immense value;
but probably before this could be done it would be necessary to
re-catalogue on one system a large number of the entries.

With the present catalogues at the Reading Room table, when a certain
known manuscript is required, the searcher goes at once to the special
catalogue, and he has little or no difficulty. If he wants to find a
manuscript upon a particular subject, he can look at the subject
catalogue; but if he wants to find all the manuscripts of a given book,
he will have to look up the separate indexes of the different
collections. This will be a long and tedious undertaking, and the
searcher will usually need the assistance of the gentlemen of the
Department--assistance which is always freely and courteously rendered.

Catalogues of certain classes of manuscripts have been produced which
are of monumental value; but I think a great desideratum is a catalogue
of all the distinct works in the Manuscript Department, with information
respecting the printing of such as have been printed. Possibly such a
work, by which can be found the MS. copies of the works of our great
authors,--and, for the matter of that, of our small ones too,--is being
prepared. It will be a work of great labour, and if the Department
prepare it, the learning of the country will be placed under a lasting
obligation.

We may look forward to a time when a national bibliography of our
literature shall be produced, in which manuscripts will be registered as
well as printed books. One great characteristic of manuscripts is the
permanence of their reference numbers. Printed books are moved and
change their shelf-marks, but the number of a manuscript is always the
same. Sometimes the manuscript is known by the name of the collection
with its number, and sometimes the reference is to a former shelf-mark;
but if originally a shelf-mark, it is continued as a part of the
manuscript, however much the original position in the library may have
been changed.

Catalogues of manuscripts are more distinctly literary works than are
catalogues of printed books. Thus Mr. G. F. Warner's _Catalogue of the
Manuscripts and Muniments of Alleyn's College of God's Gift at Dulwich_
(1881) forms an indispensable portion of any Shakespearian or dramatic
library. The various catalogues of manuscripts in the Bodleian Library,
and the Catalogue of the Cambridge University Manuscripts,[35] are
additions to general literature of a very high character.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[34] _Library Chronicle_, vol. iv., pp. 33-9.

[35] _Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the
University of Cambridge._ Edited for the Syndics of the University
Press, vol. i., 1856; vol. ii., 1857; vol. iii., 1858; vol. iv., 1861;
vol. v., 1867. _Index_ by H. R. Luard, 1867. 8vo.




[Decoration]

CHAPTER VIII.

RULES FOR A SMALL LIBRARY.[36]


HEADINGS.

    _AUTHOR._--1. All books to be entered under their authors' surnames;
    when there are two or more authors, the first is to be taken as the
    leading name. [75]

    2. Foreign compound names to be arranged under the first name.
    English compound names under the last, except in those cases where
    the first is known to be a true surname. [76]

    3. Proper names of foreigners to be alphabetically arranged under
    the prefixes Dal, Del, Della, Des, Du, Le, La; but not under the
    prefixes D', Da, De, Von, Van, Van der. English names to be
    arranged under the prefixes De, De la, Van, Mac, O', etc. [80]

    4. Peers to be arranged under their titles, and not under their
    family names, except in such cases as that of Horace Walpole, where
    a man is seldom known by his title. Bishops, deans, etc., to be
    sought under their family names. [87]

    5. Sovereigns, saints, and friars to be registered under their
    Christian names. [91]

    6. Latin authors to be registered under their nomens, except in
    those cases where the agnomen has been popularly adopted. [101]

    7. Oriental names to be registered in accordance with the system
    adopted by a recognized authority on the subject. [95]

    8. When an author has changed his name, he is to be registered by
    the last one adopted. [97]

    9. Married women to be registered under their married name, except
    in those cases where they have only written under their maiden name.
    [98]

    10. When an author has adopted several pseudonyms at various times,
    all are to be brought together under the author's true name. When
    an author has consistently used one pseudonym, and is solely known
    by that name, he can be registered under it, with a reference from
    his true name. [146]

    11. Christian names of authors are to follow their surnames, within
    parentheses, and are always to be written in full. [95]

_Non-Author Headings._

    12. Trials to be entered under the name of the defendant in a
    criminal suit, and of the plaintiff in a civil suit. Trials relating
    to vessels to be entered under the name of the vessel. [122]

    13. Catalogues to be arranged under the heading of "Catalogues," and
    subdivided under the sub-headings of the objects catalogued. [123]

    14. Records of voyages not entirely written by one author to be
    brought under the name of the vessel. [127]

    15. All anonymous books whose authors are certainly known are to be
    registered under those authors' names. [130]

    16. When an author is unknown, and the initials only are given on
    the title-page of a book, or at the end of the preface, dedication,
    or other preliminary matter, the book is to be considered as
    anonymous, and treated in accordance with the following rules
    respecting anonymous works. [145]

    17. Anonymous works relating to a person or a place to be registered
    under the name of that person or place. [131]

    18. Anonymous works with a catch-title, such as the title of a
    novel, to be registered under the first word of that title. [131]

    19. Other anonymous works to be registered under the name of the
    subject which is prominently referred to on the title-page, and in
    the language of the title-page. An adjective is frequently to be
    preferred to a substantive as a heading. For instance, when it
    contains the point of the compound, as _Alimentary_ Canal, _English_
    History, etc. [131]


THE TITLE.

    20. The title of a book when not long is to be taken in its
    entirety. When long curtailment must be undertaken with care, and
    dots should be inserted where words have been omitted. [133]

    21. Information respecting the edition and the editor, and any
    additional matter, should be included in the catalogue slip. [160]


PLACE OF PUBLICATION.

    22. The place of publication must always be given, and if it be not
    found on the title-page, it must be added between brackets whenever
    known. The name always to be given as it appears on the title-page.
    Sometimes the place of printing, when different from that of
    publication, is added, but this is only necessary in rare cases.
    [163]


DATE.

    23. Dates are always to be given in a catalogue in Arabic numerals.
    It is important that the date should be discovered when it does not
    occur on the title-page. The date may sometimes occur as a
    chronogram, which should not be overlooked. [164]

     24. Greek dates require special attention. For a table of these
    see Chapter IV., p. 167.


SIZE-NOTATION.

    25. In books published before the use of machine-made papers, the
    size of books is to be distinguished by the signatures and the fold
    of the water-mark of the hand-made paper. In modern books demy
    octavo is to be considered as the standard of an octavo. All above
    that size to be styled large octavo, and all below small octavo.
    Quartos and folios to be so designated, except in those cases where
    they are either specially large or specially small, when they should
    respectively be described as large quarto or small folio. [168]


COLLATION.

    26. In the case of rare books a collation should be added to the
    title slip; but all books, when only in one volume, should have the
    number of their pages added. [178]


ABSTRACTS OF CONTENTS.

    27. When the contents of a set of works are very varied, a short
    abstract of the contents of each volume may be added with
    advantage. When the contents are of a similar character, like a
    collection of plays, it will be more convenient to throw the titles
    into alphabetical order, and add the number of the volume to each
    entry. [206]


REFERENCES.

    28. All references should be in English, and the subject of a book
    must be referenced, even if it is not clearly expressed on the
    title-page. [187]

    29. When a book contains something which is not mentioned on the
    title-page, it must be added either between brackets or in a note,
    and then a reference can be made to it; but no reference must be
    made to a title which does not contain the information required.
    [187]

    30. References in an alphabetical catalogue should not be
    classified. Thus Gold should be under G, and Silver under S, instead
    of being grouped under Metals. Cross-references may be given from
    Metals to Gold and Silver. [188]

    31. It is not necessary to follow the exact wording of a title in
    the reference but it will be often more convenient for the
    cataloguer to make a heading which may include several references.
    [187]


ARRANGEMENT.

    32. Before arranging the entries of a catalogue it will be necessary
    to decide whether all the books are to be included in one alphabet;
    and if not, what are to be excluded. [209]

    33. Pamphlets or tracts should not be catalogued separately from the
    other books, except in very special cases. [210]

    34. If a library contains many magazines or journals, transactions
    of societies, or astronomical and other observations, it will be
    well to keep these distinct from the general catalogue; but if they
    are few, they can be included in the general alphabet. [211]

    35. Transactions of societies should be arranged under the name of
    the place where the society holds its meetings, and these names
    should be arranged in alphabetical order. [219]

    36. When a society has shifted its place of meeting, all its
    publications should be entered under the name of the existing
    place, with references from the names of the previous places of
    meeting. [223]

    37. Journals should be arranged in alphabetical order under the
    first word of the title not an article. [225]

    38. Journals not to be placed under the editors' names. [226]

    39. Astronomical and meteorological observations should be kept
    distinct from transactions of societies, but they may be arranged in
    the same way under the names of the places where the observatories
    are situated. [226]

_Alphabet._

    40. The arrangement to be according to the order of the English
    alphabet. I and J, U and V, to be treated as separate letters. [198]

    41. In German names ä, ö, ü to be treated as if written a, o, u. If
    it be desired to arrange them as ae, oe, ue, they must be so
    written. [199]

    42. The prefixes Mr., Mc, St., etc., should be arranged as if spelt
    Mister, Mac, Saint, etc. [200]

    43. When the word _Saint_ represents a ceremonial title, as in the
    case of St. Alban, St. Giles, and St. Augustine, these names are to
    be arranged under the letters A and G respectively; but the places
    St. Albans, St. Giles, and St. Augustines should be found under the
    prefix Saint. [201]

    44. Prefixes in proper names, even when printed separately, are to
    be treated as if they were joined. Thus De Morgan will come before
    Demosthenes, and De Quincey after Demosthenes. [205]

    45. Headings consisting of two or more distinct words are not to be
    treated as integral portions of one word. [205]

_Order of Sub-Entries._

  46. The works of an author should be arranged in the following order:--

  _a._ Collected works.

  _b._ Partial collections.

  _c._ Separate works in chronological order, except in the case of
plays or novels, which may be in alphabetical order.

  _d._ Translations in the same order as that adopted for the original
works.                                                            [205]


MANIPULATION.

    47. Slips of paper or thick cards should be used for writing the
    titles upon. A convenient size is that of a page of note paper used
    lengthways. The shelf-mark can be placed at the top of the
    right-hand corner. The author's name or heading should be written on
    a line by itself at the left-hand side, about an inch from the top
    of the paper.

    48. The references may be written upon similar slips, so as to range
    with the titles.

    49. Various directions as to sorting have been given, but the worker
    will soon find out for himself the most convenient mode. The
    arrangement should be made in regular sequence. Thus the slips must
    be sorted into first letters, then into second letters, and so on.

    50. When the slips are sorted, it will be necessary to place them in
    boxes or drawers for safety.

    51. If the slips are sent to the printer, they must be numbered; but
    when there are a large number, it is not necessary to put the full
    number on each slip. It will be sufficient to number up to one
    hundred, and then begin again, marking down each additional hundred.
    The alphabetical order of the slips will check the numbering.

    52. When a catalogue is printed, lines of repetition must be used if
    the author's name or other heading is the same in several entries.
    This line should not be too long, as it is a mistake to vary its
    length to denote the length of that which is repeated. [201]

    53. The usual form for the library copy of a catalogue is folio. If
    the catalogue is in manuscript, the left-hand page should in all
    cases be left vacant for additions, and the entries on the
    right-hand page should not be too closely written, as it is
    difficult to tell how many additions may be required before the
    catalogue is worn out. In the case of a printed catalogue, two pages
    of print can be pasted on one page, and here the right-hand column
    should be left blank for additions.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTE:

[36] The number at the end of each rule refers to the page of this book
where the reason for the particular rule is more fully discussed.




[Decoration]

APPENDIX.

LIST OF LATIN NAMES OF PLACES.


The cataloguer will often find it difficult to tell where a book was
printed in those cases where the name of the place is given in its Latin
form. Although books have been compiled to give this information, they
are not always at hand, and a list of the Latin names of some of the
most important places where books have been printed will probably be
found useful. The same place has often several Latin forms, as will be
seen by this list:--

  _Aberdonia_, Aberdeen.
  _Abredea_, Aberdeen.
  _Abredonia_, Aberdeen.
  _Amsteloedamum_, _Amstelodamum_, or _Amstelredamum_,
      Amsterdam.
  _Andegavum_, Angers.
  _Andoverpa_, Antwerp.
  _Andreapolis_, St. Andrews.
  _Antverpia_, Antwerp.
  _Ardmacha_, Armagh.
  _Argentina_, _Argentoratum_, Strasburg.
  _Athenæ Rauracæ_, Basel.
  _Augusta Taurinorum_, Turin.
  _Augusta Trebocorum_, Strasburg.
  _Augusta Trevirorum_, Treves.
  _Augusta Vindelicorum_, Augsburg.
  _Aurelia_, _Aureliacum_, Orleans.
  _Aurelia Allobrogum_, Geneva.

  _Bamberga_, _Babenberga_, Bamberg.
  _Barchino_, _Barcino_, or _Barxino_, Barcelona.
  _Basilea_, Basel.
  _Bathonia_, Bath.
  _Berolinum_, Berlin.
  _Bipontium_, Zweibrücken.
  _Bisuntia_, or _Bisuntium_, Besançon.
  _Bononia_, Bologna.
  _Brixia_, Breschia.
  _Brugæ_, Bruges.
  _Bruxellæ_, Bruxelles.
  _Burdigala_, Bordeaux.
  _Burgi_, Burgos.
  _Buscum Ducis_, Bois le Duc, or Hertogenbosch.

  _Cadomum_, Caen.
  _Cæsar Augusta_, Saragossa.
  _Cæsarodunum Turonum_, Tours.
  _Cameracum_, Cambray.
  _Cantabrigia_, Cambridge.
  _Casurgis_, Prague.
  _Cluniacum_, Cluni.
  _Coburgum_, Coburg.
  _Codania_, Copenhagen.
  _Colonia Agrippina_, _C. Claudia_, _C. Ubiorum_ or
      _Colonia_ simply, Cologne.
  _Colonia Allobrogum_, Geneva.
  _Colonia Julia Romana_, Seville.
  _Colonia Munatiana_, Basel.
  _Complutum_, Alcala de Henares, famous as the place of printing of
      the Polyglott Bible of Cardinal Ximenes, called the "Complutensian
      Bible."
  _Confluentes_, Coblentz.
  _Cracovia_, Cracow.
  _Curia Rhetorum_, Coire.

  _Dantiscum_, Dantzig.
  _Daventria_, Deventer, in Holland.
  _Derbia_, Derby.
  _Dordracum_, Dordrecht, or Dort.
  _Dresda_, Dresden.
  _Duacum_, Douay.
  _Dublinum_, Dublin.
  _Durocorturum_, Rheims.

  _Eboracum_, York.
  _Edinburgum_, Edinburgh.
  _Erfordia_, _Erphordia_, or _Erfurtum_, Erfurt.
  _Etona_, Eton.
  _Exonia_, Exeter.

  _Florentia_, Florence.
  _Forum Livii_, Forli.
  _Francofurtum ad Moenum_, _Francofortium_, _Francphordia_,
      Frankfort-on-the-Maine.
  _Francofurtum ad Oderam_, or _Francophordia cis Oderam_, or
      _Francofurtum Marchionum_, Frankfort-on-the-Oder.
  _Freiberga Hermundurorum_, Freiberg, Saxony.
  _Friburgum Brisgoviæ_, Freiburg im Breisgau.
  _Friburgum Helvetiorum_, Fribourg, Switzerland.

  _Ganabum_, Orleans.
  _Gandavum_, Gand, or Ghent.
  _Gedanum_, Dantzig.
  _Genua_, Genoa.
  _Gippesvicum_, Ipswich.
  _Glascua_, Glasgow.
  _Granata_, Granada.
  _Gratianopolis_, Grenoble.
  _Gravionarium_, Bamberg.

  _Hafnia_, Copenhagen.
  _Haga Comitum_, The Hague.
  _Hala Saxonum_, _Hala Hermundurorum_, _Hala Soraborum_,
      or _Hala Magdeburgica_, Halle, in Saxony.
  _Hamburgum_, or _Hammona_, Hamburg.
  _Harlemum_, Haarlem.
  _Heidelberga_, Heidelberg.
  _Helenopolis_, Frankfort-on-the-Maine.
  _Herbipolis_, Würzburg.
  _Hispalis_, Seville.
  _Holmia_, Stockholm.

  _Insulæ_, Lisle.

  _Juliomagum_, Angers.

  _Koburgum_, Coburg.

  _Leida_, Leyden.
  _Leodicum Eburonum_, Liege.
  _Leodium_, Liege.
  _Lipsia_, Leipzig.
  _Londinum_, _Londinium_, London.
  _Lovanium_, Louvain.
  _Lugdunum_, Lyons.
  _Lugdunum Batavorum_, Leyden.
  _Lutetia Parisiorum_, Paris.

  _Madritum_, or _Matritum_, Madrid.
  _Mediolanum_, Milan.
  _Moguntia_, Mentz, or Mayence.
  _Monachium_, Munich.
  _Mons Regius_, Königsberg.
  _Moscua_, Moscow.
  _Mutina_, Modena.

  _Neapolis_, Naples.
  _Neocomum_, Neuchatel.
  _Norimberga_, Nuremberg.

  _Oenipons_, Innsbruck.
  _Olyssipo_, Lisbon.
  _Oxonia_, or _Oxonium_, Oxford.

  _Panormum_, Palermo.
  _Papia_, Pavia.
  _Parisii_, Paris.
  _Patavium_, Padua.
  _Pons Oeni_, Innsbruck.
  _Portus Lusitaniæ_, Oporto.
  _Praga_, Prague.

  _Regiomontum_, Königsberg.
  _Remi_, or _Rhemi_, Rheims.
  _Rhedones_, Rennes.
  _Rhodopolis_, Rostock.
  _Roma_, Rome.
  _Rostochium_, Rostock.
  _Rothomagum_, Rouen.

  _S. Albani_, St. Albans.
  _Sanctandrois_, St. Andrews.
  _Sylva Ducis_, or _Sylva Ducalis_, Bois le Duc, or Hertogenbosch.

  _Tarvisium_, Treviso.
  _Taurinum_, Turin.
  _Thermæ Antoninæ_, Baden-Baden.
  _Ticinum_, Pavia.
  _Tigurum_, Zürich.
  _Toletum_, Toledo.
  _Trajectum ad Mosam_, or _Trajectum superius_, Maestricht.
  _Trajectum ad Rhenum_, or _Trajectum inferius_, Utrecht.
  _Trajectum ad Viadrum_, Frankfort-on-the-Oder.
  _Trecæ_, or _Tricasses_, Troyes.
  _Tridentum_, Trent.
  _Treviri_, Treves.
  _Tubinga_, Tubingen.
  _Turones_, Tours.

  _Ubii_, Cologne.
  _Ultrajectum_, Utrecht.
  _Ulyssipo_, Lisbon.
  _Urbs vetus_, Orvieto.

  _Vallisoletum_, Valladolid.
  _Venetiæ_, Venice.
  _Vesontio_, Besançon.
  _Vicentia_, Vicenza.
  _Vienna Austriæ_, Vienna.
  _Vienna in Delphinatu_, Vienne, France.
  _Vigornia_, Worcester.
  _Vindobona_, Vienna.
  _Vratislavia_, Breslau.

  _Westmonasterium_, Westminster.
  _Wirceburgum_, Wurzburg.

These names have mostly been taken from Dr. Cotton's valuable lists:--

_A Typographical Gazetteer_, attempted by the Rev. Henry Cotton, D.C.L.
The Second Edition. Oxford, 1831. 8vo.

At page 332 is an index of disguised, falsified, or fictitious places.

At page 336, a list of the names of certain academies, etc., which
sometimes are found on the titles of books (particularly on academical
dissertations), without further specification of the place to which they
belong.

_A Typographical Gazetteer_, attempted by the Rev. Henry Cotton, D.C.L.
Second Series. Oxford, 1866. 8vo.

At page 335 is a revised list of fictitious places.

[Decoration]




[Decoration]

INDEX.


  Abstracts of contents, 206.
  ----Rules for a small library, 240.

  Academical dissertations, authorship of, 105.

  "Academies" not a good heading, 213.

  Alphabet, order of English, 198.
  ----Rules for a small library, 243.

  "Anonym" an objectionable term, 129, 136 (_note_).

  Anonymous and pseudonymous books, 128-53.
  ----Definition of an anonymous work, 129.
  ----Headings for, 130, 143.
  ----Bodleian rule, 134.
  ----British Museum rule, 130.
  ----Cambridge rule, 150.
  ----Cutter's rule, 132.
  ----Proposed rules, 133, 237.
  ----Headings to be made on one system, 144.
  ----Rules for a small library, 237.

  Arabic numerals to be used for dates in cataloguing, 164.

  Arrangement, 198-227.
  ----Rules for a small library, 242.

  Asterisk, use of, to denote academical dissertation, 121.

  Athenæum Club Catalogue, 61.

  Author of a book, 75.
  ----Not to be invented by misreading the title, 84.
  ----Rules for a small library, 235.

  Authors to be placed under the name they are best known by, 85.


  Baber's (Rev. H. H.) rules, 26.

  Bailey (J. B.), his objection to double-columned pasted-down
      catalogue, 60 (_note_).
  ----On the preparation of catalogues of _Transactions_ and
      periodicals, 213.

  Barbier's definition of an anonymous work, 129-30.

  Becket (Thomas à) or St. Thomas, 94.

  Bentham (Jeremy), his name printed "Jéréme" in the British Museum
      Catalogue, 32.

  Biber (Rev. Dr.) on use of initials as a heading, 145.

  Bibliographies _v_. Catalogues, 4.

  Bibliography, uses of a, 5.

  _Bibliotheca Cooperiana_, 19.

  Billings (J. S.), _Index Catalogue of the Library of the
      Surgeon-General's Office_, 18.

  Bishops and deans to be arranged under their family names, 87.

  Blackburn's _Hints on Catalogue Titles_ noticed, 153 (_note_).

  Board of Trade Catalogue, 16.

  Bodleian Library, rules, 46.
  ----Card catalogues at, 63.

  Bodleian Library, Catalogues of MSS., 233.

  Bond (Mr.), bestower of the boon of a printed catalogue for the British
      Museum, 53.

  Bradshaw (H.), his views as to the index to a catalogue, 12.
  ----On size-notation, 173.
  ----Rule for anonymous works, 151.

  British Museum, _Report_ of the Commissioners on the Constitution
      and Government of the, _quoted_ 26, 32.
  ----Rules, 25; their triumph, 48.
  ----Printing of first volume of Catalogue in 1841, 28, 49-51.
  ---- ----Owing to a blunder, 29.
  ----Various printed catalogues, 31.
  ----Catalogues of MSS., 230.
  ----Classified catalogue of MSS., 231.

  Bruce (John) on the British Museum Catalogue, 36.
  ----On the cataloguing of anonymous works, 141.

  Bullen (G.) in favour of printing the British Museum
    Catalogue, 53 (_note_).


  Calendar, French Revolutionary, 168.

  Cambridge Libraries, treatment of size-notation in, 174.
  ----University Library rules, 45.
  ---- ----Catalogue of MSS., 234.

  Card catalogues, their spread in America, 62.

  Cards, use of, for variety of classification, 64.

  Carlyle (Thomas), his objection to the British Museum regulations, 34.

  Catalogue, uses of a, 5.
  ----What it is, 1.
  ----To make one not an easy task, 2.
  ----Dangers of division of labour, 2.
  ----Medium between too short and too long, 4.
  ----To be made direct from the books themselves, 14.
  ----How to keep one in print for years, 57.

  Catalogue, Alphabetical, the most useful, 10.
  ---- ----of subjects, 15.
  ----Card, its spread in America, 62.
  ----Classed, nearly useless, 9, 11.
  ----Dictionary, rules for, 47.
  ----Raisonné, what it is, 10.
  ----Universal, widespread desire for one, 6.

  Cataloguer always to think of the wants of the consulter, 3.

  Catalogues, treatment of, 123.
  ---- ----British Museum rule, 123.
  ---- ----Cambridge rule, 124.
  ---- ----Cutter's rule, 125.
  ---- ----Library Association rule, 125.
  ----Not true books, 126.
  ----Rules for a small library, 237.

  Catalogues v. Bibliographies, 4.
  ----Manuscript, for small private libraries, 71.

  Cataloguing, ignorance of the art of, 33.
  ----Scientific, a modern invention, 13.

  Christian names, not to be contracted, 95.
  ----Mr. Cutter's plan of contraction, 95.
  ----Alphabetical order of, 96.
  ----Rules for a small library, 237.

  Christian names, foreign, turned into surnames, 96.

  Chronograms on titles, 165.

  Cochrane (J. G.) before the British Museum Commission, 33.
  ----His opinion on rules, 34.

  Collation, 178-79.
  ----Rules for a small library, 240.

  Collier (J. Payne), his unfortunate catalogue titles, 39.

  Compound names, treatment of, 76.
  ----British Museum rule, 78.
  ----Cambridge rule, 79.
  ----Cutter's rule, 78.
  ----Library Association rule, 79.
  ----Rules for a small library, 235.

  Concordances, treatment of, 127.

  Contents, abstracts of, need of, 206.
  ----Rules for a small library, 240.

  Cooper's (Charles Purton) sale catalogues, 19.

  Co-operative cataloguing, 69.

  Cotton's _Typographical Gazetteer_, 254.

  Crestadoro (Mr.) proposes index to an inventorial catalogue, 11.

  Croker (Rt. Hon. J. W.) on the British Museum Catalogue, 36.
  ----Plan for pasting down British Museum Catalogue, 71.

  Cross-references, 182.

  Cutter (Mr.) on card catalogues, 62 (_note_).
  ----On the advantages and disadvantages of printed or manuscript
      catalogues, 54.
  ----On the history of the _Dictionary Catalogue_, 11.
  ----Classification of libraries, 8.
  ----Definition of an anonymous work, 130.
  ----Definition of an author, 75.
  ----Definition of references, 181.
  ----Rules for the cataloguing of _Journals_, 224.
  ----Rules for the cataloguing of _Transactions_, 217.
  ----Rules for a dictionary catalogue, 47.
  ----Rules for pseudonyms, 148.


  Dash as a sign of repetition, 201.
  ----Index Society rule, 201.
  ----Library Association rule, 201.
  ----Rules for a small library, 246.

  Dates, 164-68.
  ----Rules for a small library, 239.

  De Morgan (A.) on the blunders of bibliographers, 14.
  ----On the uselessness of a classed catalogue, 9.

  _Dictionary Catalogue_, history of, 11, 17.
  ----Rules for, 47.

  Dissertations, academical, authorship of, 105.
  _Dublin Review_, _quoted_ 9-11, 14.


  Edition and editor always to be inserted on catalogue slip, 160.

  Editor of a book, 75, 103.

  Edwards (Edward) one of Committee for British Museum Rules, 26.

  Ellis and Baber's Catalogue of the British Museum, 31.


  Fagan's _Life of Panizzi_, _quoted_ 29.

  French Revolutionary Calendar, 168.

  Friars under their Christian names, 91.
  ----Rules for a small library, 236.


  Garnett (Dr.) on the printing of the British Museum Catalogue, 7, 51.

  Geology, Museum of Practical, catalogue of periodicals in the
      library, 214.

  Governments to supply catalogue slips, 69.

  Gray (Dr. J. E.) on the British Museum Catalogue, 35, 37.

  Greek and Roman names, 100.

  Greek numerals, table of, 167.

  Gruner's _Delectus Dissertationum Medicorum Jenensium_, 116.

  Guildhall Library, card catalogue at, 63.


  Haller's _Collections of Dissertations_, 115.

  _Hampshire_ (_History of_), wrongly attributed to R. Warner, 102.

  Headings, author, rules for a small library, 235.
  ----Other than author headings, 122.
  ---- ----Rules for a small library, 257.

  Hilton's works on chronograms, 165.


  Index of subjects, 191.
  ----to catalogue of Athenæum library, 196.
  ---- ----of London library, 196.

  Initials of authors as a heading, 145.
  ----Rules for a small library, 237.


  Jewett (C. C.), his rules for the Smithsonian Institution, 44.
  ---- His scheme for stereotyping catalogue titles, 65.
  ----Suggestion for size-notation, 172.

  Jones (J. Winter), one of Committee for British Museum Rules, 26.
  ----His report on Payne Collier's catalogue titles, 39.
  ----On size-notation, 169.

  _Journals_, cataloguing of, 224.
  ----Extracts from, 210.
  ----and _Transactions_, whether they shall be catalogued separately
      or together, 215.


  Langbaine (Gerard), his projected general catalogue, 6.

  Latin names of places, 247-54.

  Library Association Rules, 46.

  List _v._ Catalogue, 1.

  Liturgies, treatment of, 127.

  London Institution Catalogue, 15.


  Madden (Sir Frederick) on the cataloguing of anonymous works, 137.

  Manchester Free Library Catalogue Index, 196.

  Manipulation rules for a small library, 245.

  Manuscript catalogues for small private libraries, 70.

  "Manuscripts, Something About," 228-34.

  Married women, their change of name, 99.
  ----Rules for a small library, 236.

  Married women, British Museum rule, 100.
  ----Cutter's rule, 99.
  ----Library Association rule, 99.

  Medical and Chirurgical Society, Catalogue of Periodicals in the
      Library, 214.
  ----Index to Catalogue of Library, 196.


  Name, change of, 97.
  ----British Museum rule, 97.
  ----Cambridge rule, 98.
  ----Cutter's rule, 98.
  ----Rules for a small library, 236.

  Observations, astronomical and meteorological, cataloguing of, 226.

  O'Donovan's (D.) Catalogue of the Library of the Parliament of
      Queensland, 17.

  Official publications, 105.

  Order of sub-entries, rules for a small library, 244.

  Oriental names, treatment of, 95.
  ----Rules for a small library, 236.

  Oxford libraries, Langbaine's projected catalogue of, 6.


  Panizzi (Sir Anthony), his code of rules, 25.
  ----Objection to print, 49.
  ----On a complete index of a library catalogue, 191.
  ----Views as to the cataloguing of anonymous works, 134.
  ---- ----convert the Commissioners, 135.

  Parry (John H.), one of Committee for British Museum Rules, 26.
  ----in favour of print, 49.
  ----On the cataloguing of anonymous works, 136, 152.
  ----On Dr. Gray's suggestions for the British Museum Catalogue, 38.
  ----On an index of subjects, 196.

  Pasting down a catalogue to be done by the librarian, 61.

  Peers to be arranged under their titles, 88.
  ----Bodleian rule, 89.
  ----British Museum rules, 89.
  ----Cambridge rules, 89.
  ----Cutter's rule, 89.
  ----Library Association rule, 89.
  ----Rules for small library, 236.

  "Periodical Publications" not a proper heading for journals alone, 213.

  Periodicals, treatment of, 211.

  Photo-bibliography, Henry Stevens's scheme, 66.

  Place of publication, 163-64.
  ----Rules for a small library, 239.

  Places, Latin names of, 247-54.

  Poole (W. F.) on the difficulties of cataloguing, 13.

  Præses treated as the author of an academical dissertation, 106, 108.

  Prefixes, treatment of, 80.
  ----British Museum rule, 82.
  ----Cambridge rules, 83.
  ----Cutter's rule, 81.
  ----Index Society rule, 83.

  Prefixes, Library Association rule, 82.
  ----Rules for a small library, 235.

  Print _v._ Manuscript, 49, 73.

  Pseudonyms, cataloguing under, 147.
  ----Rules for small library, 236.

  Publishers to supply catalogue slips of their books, 69.


  Queensland, Catalogue of the Library of the Parliament of, 17.


  References--British Museum rules, 182.
  ----Press-marks to, 183.
  ----Different mode of referencing, 184.
  ----To be in English, 187.
  ----The title not necessarily to be copied, 187.
  ----Not to be classified, 188.
  ----The word "see" can be omitted, 191.
  ----Rules for a small library, 241.
  ----and subject index, 180-97.
  ---- Variety of, 181.

  Registration office for books, 70.

  Respondent as the author of an academical dissertation, 106.

  _Richteri Opuscula Medica_, 118.

  Robinson (Otis) on card catalogues, 62.
  ----On co-operative cataloguing, 69.
  ----On misleading titles, 162.

  _Roedereri_ (_J. G._) _Opuscula Medica_, 118.

  Roman and Greek names, 100.

  Roy's (Mr.) plan for pasting down British Museum Catalogue, 71.

  Rules, battle of the, 25-48.
  ----for a small library, 235-46.
  ----Good catalogues made before they were enunciated, 13.

  Rye (W. B.) in favour of printing the British Museum Catalogue, 51.


  Saints under their Christian names, 91.
  ----Rules for a small library, 236.

  Scott's (Sir Walter) pseudonyms, 147.

  Scudder's catalogue of scientific serials, 214-15.

  Serials, treatment of, 211.

  Size-notation, 168-78.
  ----Measurements, 172.
  ----Cambridge system, 173.
  ----Bodleian plan, 177.
  ----Committee of the Library Association on, 176.
  ----Rules for a small library, 240.

  Smithsonian Institution scheme for stereotyping catalogue titles, 65.

  Sovereigns, saints, and friars to be registered under their Christian
      names, 91.
  ----British Museum rule, 91.
  ----Cambridge rule, 92.
  ----Cutter's rule, 92.
  ----Library Association rule, 92.
  ----Rules for a small library, 236.

Stanhope (Earl) on the cataloguing of anonymous works, 138.

Stereotyping catalogue titles, Jewett's scheme, 65.

Stevens (Henry), his scheme of photo-bibliography, 66.

Stevens (Henry), Catalogue of the American books in the British
    Museum, 43.

Stirling-Maxwell (Sir William), his adoption of Jewett's suggestion for
    size-notation, 172.

Surgeon-General's Office, United States army, Index Catalogue of the
    Library of, 18.


Thompson's (Mr. Maunde) paper on the arrangement and preservation of
    manuscripts, 228.

Title, treatment of the, short or long, 153-63.
----Rules for a small library, 238.

Title-page, how to treat a, 74.
----of rare books, reduced photographs of, 68.
----Second, 161.

Titles, misleading, 102, 161.

Tomlinson (C.) on the cataloguing of anonymous works, 141.

Tracts not to be distinguished from books, 209.
----Rules for a small library, 242.

_Transactions_, cataloguing of, 217.
----Extracts from, 210.
----Treatment of, 104.
----and _Journals_, whether they should be catalogued separately or
    together, 215.

Translations, position of, in list of author's works, 206.

Trials, reports of, 122.
----British Museum rule, 122.
----Cutter's rule, 122.
----Rules for a small library, 237.

_Trilleri Opuscula_, 118.

Type, varieties of, in a catalogue, 64.


Voltaire or Arouet, the disputed question of arrangement, 85.

Voyages, reports of, 127.
----under the name of the vessel, 128.
----Rules for a small library, 237.


Warner's Catalogue of Dulwich MSS., 233.

Watt's _Bibliotheca Britannica_, 193.

Watts (Thomas), one of Committee for British Museum Rules, 26.

Wheatley's (B. R.) paper on the authorship of Academical
    dissertations, 105.
----Plan for keeping a catalogue in print for years, 57.
----Views on size-notation, 176.

Women, married, their change of name, 98.
----Rules for a small library, 236.

Wrapper, catalogue title not to be taken from, 74.

Wrottesley (Lord) on the cataloguing of anonymous works, 142.

[Decoration]




       *       *       *       *       *




Transcriber's note:

  Punctuation and spelling were made consistent where obvious, as
  noted below. Where there is not an obvious choice and unless noted,
  the forms found in the original have been retained.

  Changes made in text:
    Page xii: em-dash added "--Manipulation (52)"
    Page 84: acknowleged to acknowledged "an acknowledged principle"
    Page 85: Moliere to Molière "viz., Voltaire and Molière;"
    Page 106: The saurus to Thesaurus "Pritzel's Thesaurus, Hallers"
    Page 139: 8' to 8° "London, 1725. 8°."
    Page 140: double quote to single quote "following: 'The proceedings"
    Page 157: Spceulum to Speculum ""Speculum Polytechnum Mathematicum"..."
    Page 157: full stop to ellipsis "Corrected, and ... Augmented"
    Page 166: added opening quote before De ""De spIrItaLI"
    Page 167: added equal sign following i' and i_' "i_' = 10" and
        "i_' = 10,000"
    Page 172: added comma following demy "copy, demy, medium"
    Page 172: added comma following royal "royal, imperial, elephant,"
    Page 190: antient to ancient "Vestiges of Ancient Manners"
    Page 204: added " after Thoughts "{ Grave Thoughts"
    Page 220: Deukschiften to Denkschriften "_Neue Denkschriften_"
    Page 221: gesamurten to gesammten "Gesellschaft für die gesammten
        Naturwissenschaften"
    Page 221: Konigl. to Königl. ""Königl. Norweigche Gesellschaft.""
    Page 231: o to of "vivid idea of the exceeding"
    Page 244: [205] to [203] at end of rule 44
    Page 244: [205] to [204] at end of rule 45
    Page 254: Wurzburg to Würzburg "_Wirceburgum_, Würzburg."
    Page 256: Jérème to Jéréme "his name printed "Jéréme""
    Page 262: Smithsonia to Smithsonian "the Smithsonian Institution, 44."
    Page 267: army to Army "United States Army,"

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 41813 ***