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 Const.i.tution 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 x.x.xIV., 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) ent.i.tled, _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 t.i.tles, 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 Verifier 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 ent.i.tled, _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 t.i.tle similar to the t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle under a subject-heading was confusing cla.s.sification 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 cla.s.sed 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 t.i.tles 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 cla.s.sification. And, further, referring to the work on fossil fuel lately alluded to, is it not as much a cla.s.sification to make the heading "Great Britain" as to make it "Coal" or "Fuel"?
The great object should be, not to cla.s.sify, 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, ent.i.tled, _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 t.i.tle, I should take the prominent word as it stands on the t.i.tle, and not translate it. It is the t.i.tle 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 t.i.tles 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 x.x.xII., 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 t.i.tles under a heading least likely to be remembered. When t.i.tles are quoted pretty fully and accurately, it is seldom that the initials on a t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 cla.s.s 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. a.s.sumed 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 a.s.suming any name, but describing himself by a circ.u.mlocution, to be considered anonymous.
"XLIII. Works falsely attributed in their t.i.tle 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 pa.s.sed 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 auth.o.r.ess. 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 a.s.suredly 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 d.i.c.kens under Boz; the Dutch annual bibliography uniformly use "Boz-d.i.c.kens"
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 a.s.suming any name, but describing himself by a circ.u.mlocution [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 t.i.tle-page; the primary consideration being, under what heading the book will be most easily found. When there is no special subject mentioned, and the t.i.tle is a catch-t.i.tle (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 t.i.tle as a heading. When the indication on the t.i.tle is insufficient, the heading understood to be taken, but all cla.s.sification to be avoided, the words of the t.i.tle being exclusively used as far as possible. Works to be catalogued under general headings only where such are unavoidable. In the case of foreign t.i.tles the heading to follow the same rule, and to be in the language of the t.i.tle instead of being translated.
"29. When the author of a pseudonymous or anonymous work is ascertained and acknowledged after the t.i.tle has been printed, the name to be added within a bracket at the end of the t.i.tle; and the various t.i.tles of works thenceforward a.s.signed 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 t.i.tle, but nothing is more difficult than cataloguing anonymous works."
THE t.i.tLE.
Having dealt with the subject of headings, we may now pa.s.s on to consider the treatment of the t.i.tle itself.
There has been much discussion on this subject: one party has been in favour of short t.i.tles, and another of long t.i.tles. 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 t.i.tles, 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 t.i.tles, and it is surely useless to copy the whole t.i.tle 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 cla.s.sical authors, it is well to give the whole t.i.tle (and these t.i.tles will seldom be found to be long). The cla.s.sical author will most probably have weighed the words of his t.i.tle with care, and left little that is redundant. When a t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle from the unimportant.
The following are three t.i.tles of books which are not long, and which could not be curtailed without disadvantage:--
"1. Pike (Luke Owen). A History of Crime in England, ill.u.s.trating 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 Ill.u.s.trations of the Life, Studies, and Writings of Shakespeare; Supplementary to all the Editions. London, 1845. 2 vols., 8vo.