Chapter I: Part 1

AGGRAVATING LADIES

BEING
A LIST OF WORKS PUBLISHED UNDER THE PSEUDONYM OF
“A LADY,” WITH PRELIMINARY SUGGESTIONS
ON THE ART OF DESCRIBING BOOKS
BIBLIOGRAPHICALLY.

BY

OLPHAR HAMST

“The time is coming when really learned men will again be ashamed of
not seeing the value of all the uses of mind: when nothing but
thoughtlessness or impudence, mercurial brain or brazen forehead,
will aver that no knowledge is practical, except that which ends in
the use of material instruments.”—Prof. De Morgan (Arithmetical
Books 1847, p. 54).

LONDON
BERNARD QUARITCH 15 PICCADILLY
1880.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS.

-------

PAGE.

Preface 5

Preliminary Remarks 7

How to describe a Book 9

Cataloguing 10

Of different descriptions of books 14

Matters to be attended to in Cataloguing 21

Style of Printing 27

Punctuation 29

The beginning and the end 30

Of errors 32

On the means of identifying the authors of 35
anonymous and pseudonymous publications

List of Works by a Lady 40

Advertisements 52

Index 54

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFACE.

-------

In the course of collecting materials for my “Handbook of Fictitious Names of Authors of the Nineteenth Century,” I came across the titles of a number of works purporting to be written by “A Lady,” the authorship of which appeared to be unknown.

It occurred to me that I might probably ascertain the names of many of the authors, and also proper descriptions of such of the books as I had not seen, and was unable to see, if I printed a list of them. As however, the essential points to be attended to, in the proper description of a book, are little understood, I thought it would be desirable to prefix to the list a few suggestions on the way to supply correct information. These gradually developed, so that I soon found the subject required more space, more time, and more consideration than I at first imagined.

In the hope that I might obtain assistance from others, and with a view to getting hints and exciting discussion, I wrote an article for “Notes and Queries,” which was printed in the numbers for January and April of 1872, entitled, “How to describe a Book.” I now go more fully into the matters that I consider require attention in the proper description of a book.

An explanation of the title of this essay will no doubt be looked for in the preface. It is very simple. In my searches for the Authors’ names, the ladies in this list have resisted all enquiry in the most aggravating manner. Therefore I took the title of Aggravating Ladies as being concise and appropriate.

The information asked for relates only to English Literature of the 19th century, to which period I confine myself entirely. The anonymous and pseudonymous writers during this century being more than sufficient to occupy a whole life of laborious application.

I have not included in the list any phrases such as:—A Lady of Rank—A Lady of Distinction—A Lady of Hebrew faith—A Banished Lady—A Young Lady—A too generous Young Lady—nor, A Lady of distinction, who has witnessed and attentively studied what is esteemed truly graceful and elegant amongst the most refined nations of Europe (!) The pseudonym of the author of The Mirror of the Graces, or an English lady’s costume [treating of] ... taste ... grace; modesty ... dress ...; rank ... in life; ... of accomplishments; ... the mind ... means of preserving beauty ...; by a lady, &c. London, Crosby & Co., 1811.

On the other hand I have inserted some titles which have been entered in different catalogues as by “a lady,” when those words do not occur on the title. Such works probably being really written by a lady, the publisher naturally desired they should go forth with that impress of good faith and with all the prestige attaching to that talismanic little word.

As I have already explained, my list comprises only works published in the present century, whose authors are unknown to me. I have a longer list of works by “a lady,” whose names are known, and who have therefore ceased to be aggravating. I do not give the title when I know the name of the author because I am now seeking not supplying information.

Another list as long as that I give at the end I have not printed, not having been able to see the books themselves so as to describe them from actual inspection.

I shall be grateful for information as to any of the works, or the lives of these Aggravating Ladies.

38, Doughty Street, W.C.

July, 1880.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

-------

What’s in a name?

Ask the booksellers, and they will tell you, _much_ in
the title-page of a new book....

The making up of a taking title-page, seems to have been
the peculiar province of the bookseller, time out of
mind.—_Fly leaves.... London_ [published and edited
by] _John Miller_, 1854.

After a perusal of my list I think every gentleman will agree with me that Ladies really are very aggravating. It would be curious to hear the exclamation of any lady who has written as “A lady,” upon looking it over. She would probably exclaim that when she wrote as “A lady,” she thought she was the only one, or at all events one of the first.

The authoress of: “How to dress on £15 a year as a lady, by a lady,” would no doubt be surprised to find such a long list for the present century alone. I mention this flowing and somewhat vigorously written little work; but it is of too recent a date for me to make any enquiry for the author’s name, especially as it is a secret that, from the present popularity of the book, is not likely to be long kept.[1] For I have remarked that though these ladies do not like placing their names on their books, yet there is little desire to disguise the authorship, and enquiries are generally soon satisfied if a work has attained any success. They like to see themselves in print, so long as there is no infringement of the patent of modesty.

Footnote 1:

Since this was written (1875) the author’s name has been divulged, and
there has also been a Chancery Suit in relation to the work. I have
put the book in the list which follows as an illustration of some of
my remarks.

The inference from this is that my list is composed chiefly of works that have not become famous or popular, which is the fact. If secresy were their object, it has to the present time been attained, for they have defied my researches. Nevertheless I believe that to some one of the author’s friends or relations she has been known, but “no man is a prophet in his own country,” and friends and relations very often care too little for what literary ladies are doing to follow Captain Cuttle’s advice and “make a note” of an author’s name. Knowledge is often the greatest enemy to the recording of facts. People often know so well whom a book is by, that they are not even aware of its pseudonimity. The majority of novel readers never know the name of the author, nor do they care to enquire, and much prefer reading a novel “By the author of” some previous work which has interested them.

In many cases I am asking for information which the authoresses do not conceal, and which is well known though unknown to me.

Thus I ascribe my not knowing the name of the author rather to the fact of there being no one to make a note of it when found, than any desire on the fair writer’s part to remain unknown. When a lady has written her first work as “a lady” she seldom adopts that denomination in her second work; but more frequently uses the term “By the author of” the previous work, or “By a lady, author of,” etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO DESCRIBE A BOOK.

-------

“If you are troubled with a pride of accuracy, and
would have it completely taken out of you, print a
catalogue.” (Author unknown).

Dr. Aikin used to say, that nothing is such an obstacle
to the production of excellence as the power of
producing what is pretty good with ease and rapidity.
_The Circulator_ [1825] quoted in the Manual of
Laconics by John Taylor, 1838, p. 361.

Practice is the best, if not the only way to learn how to describe a book. Simply reading descriptions of what to do is of little use. Indeed practice is found to teach so much, that we often find authors of bibliographical books cancelling the early portions of their works in order to correct those defects and deficiencies which experience has brought forcibly to their notice. Such was the case with the first part of Quérard’s France Littéraire, which was called in and cancelled; and the Bibliotheca Cornubiensis of Boase and Courtney, published by Longmans in 1874.

Every one must be guided by their particular requirements; but must never lose sight of the absolute necessity there is of following a system rigidly, and of being accurate.

With these preliminary remarks I will now proceed to give some hints derived from my own experience.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CATALOGUING.

-------

“The sheet-anchor of cataloguing-work, as of all other
true work that a man has to do, is accuracy.”—_Edward
Edwards_ (Memoirs of Libraries, 1859, vol. II. 868).

... “l’exactitude est le meilleur fondment du succès
des livres de bibliographie.”—Quérard, Omissions et
bévues du livre intitulé La Littérature Française
contemporaine ... 1848, p. xv.

“As bibliographers, we cannot indeed but wish, that the
catalogue of every library were a bibliographical
dictionary of its books.... There is no species of
literary labor so arduous, or which makes so extensive
demands upon the learning of the author, as that of
the preparation of such works.”—Smithsonian Report on
the construction of catalogues.... By C. C. Jewett....
1853, p. 10.

“It is impossible to labor 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
labors will be mortifying and unprofitable.”—Ibid, p.
17.

I have used the word Bibliography, but I must warn the student that it is meaningless, or, rather, its meanings are so numerous and varied, being used for every sort of thing connected with books, that for any scientific purpose the word is useless. Bibliotheca also is used amongst other things to express a miscellaneous collection of titles; whether good, bad, or indifferent, matters little.

What is wanted is a short word which shall express that a book is accurately described. The word catalogue is worse for its indefinite meaning than bibliotheca or bibliography. The science or art of describing books has no technical term.[2]

Footnote 2:

The reader can refer to Notes and Queries, 4 Series IX, p. 8, for some
remarks on the inconvenient length of bibliographical words.

In describing books, accuracy is the one thing to attain. And the object should be so to describe the book, that anybody else shall be certain from the description that a particular book they have in hand is the one described.

So difficult did Prof. De Morgan consider this, with regard to early printed books that he said if he had to do his work on “Arithmetical Books” over again he would invariably describe some defect or error in the printing.

I now propose to give some hints on this subject, premising that there is at present no “Grammar” of Bibliography—nothing settled, no recognized authority.

Supposing a person were about to make a catalogue of a library, or even of a few books, the first thing to do is to lay down certain rules, to be strictly adhered to, or adopt rules laid down by another for that purpose. This has been done for many years past by the librarians of our National Library. So that there at least we have a Catalogue that we can depend upon so far as it goes: how far that is the rules inform us. Several of them simply provide against the prevailing loose notions of cataloguing. Rules for example to tell us that titles are written straight on as they are found, or in the language in which the book is written and not in another, read like satires on ignorance. And yet how necessary they are.

These rules, invaluable as a guide to every catalogue maker, will be found printed in the: Catalogue of printed books in the British Museum, volume 1. London, printed by order of the trustees, MDCCCXLI, in folio; the Preface is signed by the editor Sir Antonio Panizzi, and examples of the rules will be found in: A handbook for Readers at the British Museum, by Thomas Nichols, assistant in the British Museum, London, Longman, 1866, p. 51. This useful little work unfortunately has no index. A catalogue drawn up according to the rules of the Museum will be found in: “A list of the books of reference in the Reading room of the British Museum.”

The rules are ninety-one in number but for small libraries where provision is not required for every language under the sun, a smaller number would be sufficient.[3]

Footnote 3:

Since the above was written a most exhaustive and useful work
rendering a reference to any other almost superfluous has been
published, entitled “Rules for a printed dictionary catalogue by
Charles A. Cutter,” forming part II of the Special Report on public
libraries in the United States, Washington, 1876.

Whatever rules are determined upon should be printed in the catalogue, so that those who consult it may know at once whether or not they are likely to find what they want and how.

-------

The first question that arises is the amount of title page information to be given. To abbreviate or not abbreviate becomes the difficult question. It generally resolves itself into one of expense, and abbreviated titles are determined upon.

I now therefore treat of the matter as it is, and not as it should be, for if I treated it as it should be, namely with full titles, I should have little to say.

He must have been a bold man who first began to abbreviate titles for a catalogue. It is a most unsatisfactory practice, though now having long precedent for its use. It is like cutting off a leg or an arm, the body can still go on, it is true, but it is nevertheless mutilated.

The more title page information a bibliotheca gives the greater will be its usefulness. Everything, however, is subordinate to the proper description of the book. If that is done upon certain principles and rules, the cataloguer will at least be consistent, which few of the present day are.

Every word of a title may be given and yet be inaccurate, on the other hand half the title may be left out and yet be accurate[4] though not perfect as I shall presently show.

Footnote 4:

Instead of “inaccurate” and “accurate,” I had written the words
“unbibliographical” and “bibliographical,” but as I have already
explained that word does not at present necessarily include accuracy,
which word will better explain what I wish to impress on the student.

The ordinary and most popular way of referring to or describing a book is to reverse everything and alter the title. For example, let us suppose it is stated that in 1868 Messrs. Longman published an octavo volume of 800 pages by George Brown, entitled a Treatise on the best mode of ventilation. Here everything is topsy turvy, besides being incorrectly called a treatise instead of an essay.[5] The proper title being: An historical essay on ventilation, by George Brown, London, Longman, 1868, octavo, pp. xv. 786.

Instances of this kind of thing the student will find at every turn, in every publication, periodical or otherwise.

Footnote 5:

Refer to the remarks of Bolton Corney “On the new general Biographical
dictionary”, p. 33.

Another bad practice is cutting short the title page and explaining in a note what the book is about almost in the words of the author, so that all the necessary information is given, only incorrectly instead of correctly, an example of which, taken from Lowndes, will be found in my list.

The difficulty is not to find instances of looseness in describing books, but to find instances where they are properly described. I know of few bibliothecas, English or foreign, that can be relied on.

Probably these will appear to some trivial matters. Yet what thought and anxious consideration do most authors give to the titles of their works, before they finally suit their fancy; frequently, indeed, not being satisfied with them as sent forth to the world. How has the author considered whether he will put his own name, or whether he will write under a fictitious name, or his initials, or simply call himself “A Gentleman,” or designate himself by the office he holds as “A Magistrate.” Then, with what difficulty has he at last settled upon a publisher, and for what a number of reasons may he have done so. And yet some ruthless barbarian, who is totally ignorant of all the trouble that has been taken, and who knows nothing of the subject, cuts down our author’s title without hesitation. Or perhaps, what is still more astonishing, an author himself, although he has given the matter so much thought, will sometimes on being asked, send a list of his works, in which not a single title shall be correct, in which he will leave out all the first words, erroneously state the subject as in the book instead of as it appears on the title page: omit to say when published, whether with his own name or not; and, finally, and almost invariably, leave out the publisher’s name, which cost him so much pains to decide on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

OF DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF BOOKS.

-------

Catalogues must have nothing to do with distinctions
between celebrity and obscurity. They must aim at
serving the tyro no less than the professor.—_Edward
Edwards_ (Memoirs of Libraries, 1859, II., p. 836).

Books may be classed under four heads, namely (1) Autonymous—(2) Polyonymous—(3) Pseudonymous, and—(4) Anonymous.

1. Autonymous, the first and most common is with the author’s name either on the title-page, or if not on the title-page, signed to a preface, introduction, letter, or dedication, or in some part of the book, or at the end. Speeches though usually anonymous with regard to the reporting or editing, are frequently catalogued under the name of the speaker as autonymous.

2. Polyonymous, is with several authors’ names. It is usual to enter them under the name of the first author, with cross references from the others.

3. Pseudonymous, without the author’s name, but with a fictitious name or designation, thus giving some indication as to the author, though possibly a very slight one. No matter in what part of the book the pseudonym appears, the work is pseudonymous.[6]

In cataloguing, the pseudonym should no more be left out, than the author’s name. If an author uses a pseudonym on the title, but gives his real name in the book, it is not pseudonymous, but must be catalogued as autonymous. In this case, as in all others, the pseudonym should be given, even if the title is abbreviated. In fact the pseudonym for bibliographical purposes takes the place of the author’s name. I have not space here to enumerate the different classes of pseudonyms, of which there are many varieties.[7]

Footnote 6:

For a curious instance see the Handbook of Fictitious Names, p. 94.
One who is BUT an attorney; and One who thinks for himself _i.e._ T.
Truewit.

Footnote 7:

A list, unfortunately containing many errors, will be found at the end
of “A notice of the life and works of J. M. Quérard by Olphar Hamst:
London, J. R. Smith, 1867.” This list is adopted by John Power in his
“Handy-book about books,” with all my errors and a good stock of his
own to boot. There is an extended treatise on pseudonyms in the
introduction to either edition of Quérard’s “Supercheries Littéraires
Devoilées.” The subject is also treated of in M. Octave Delepierre’s
“Supercheries littéraires, pastiches,” Londres, Trübner, 1872.
Probably the earliest treatise is that entitled “Auteurs déguisez,”
Paris, 1690, by Adrien Baillet, but published without his name.

4. Lastly an Anonymous book is one without the author’s name, whether on the title page, or any part of the book. The word anonymous has been and still is very indiscriminately used to include pseudonymous. The cataloguer must be careful not to be betrayed into this error so fruitful of inaccuracy. This class of books has resisted the most strenuous efforts of the learned to bring it within rules, every rule for cataloguing such books requiring an exception. With anonymous works having simple titles, such as “Aggravating Ladies” (supposing a work to be published anonymously with such a title) the task is easy. Though even this example will illustrate the difficulty of the subject, for there are only two words and there are two ways of cataloguing, each having advantages. By one system it would come under “Aggravating” and by the other under “Ladies.” According to the system of Audiffredi[8] and of Barbier[9] and of a similar work on English authors[10], it would be catalogued by the first word, and for such works this is the most approved method[11]. According to the Rules of the British Museum it would be catalogued under Ladies.

Footnote 8:

Audiffredi’s work, referred to in the Report on the British Museum
(1850, p. 469), it is entitled “Bibliothecæ Casanatensis catalogus
librorum typis impressorum,” tom 1-4, A-K. Roma, 1761-1788, fol., and
is quoted by Barbier at p. xlviii of the work referred to in the next
note.

Footnote 9:

Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes ... par A. A.
Barbier ... Paris, 1806, 4 vols, 8o. It is curious to note that
Barbier had not settled in his own mind at the date of the above the
first edition, what was an anonymous work. He describes it as one upon
the title page of which the author is not named, and he then states
that sometimes the author’s name is found in the work; but he says it
is the custom to class them all as anonymous and not to distinguish
different degrees of anonymity. In the second edition in 1826 he very
properly eliminated so far as he was able such works as contained the
authors’ names. For many things the first edition is better than the
second, in which many of the titles we are told were abbreviated. In
the third and last and best edition, part of which was published in
1872, his son, (see p. xxix., note) has so far as he was able,
re-instated such titles because so many editors and others still
continue to consider a work anonymous if the author’s name does not
occur on the title page. This is a step backwards, and the sooner M.
Olivier Barbier throws the editors and others overboard the better.

Footnote 10:

A prospectus was issued in 1872, with the title: A dictionary of the
anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain by the late
Samuel Halkett.—See Notes and Queries 4 s. IX., p. 403.

Footnote 11:

And is recommended in a pamphlet entitled: Hints on the formation of
small libraries, by W. E. A. Axon, London, Trübner [1869] reprinted
in: A handy book about books, by J. Power, Lond., J. Wilson, 1870, p.
156, and he adopts it in: The literature of the Lancashire dialect, a
bibliographical essay, by W. E. A. Axon, 1870.

It affords matter for consideration when we find it stated that “An anonymous work is seldom read with confidence or quoted as an authority.”[12]

Footnote 12:

Bolton Corney, “On the new general Biographical dictionary,” 1839, p.
15.

Many publications intended expressly for youth, and therefore requiring some guarantee that they are fit for the purpose, are published without the author’s name, though frequently with an indication of sex.

It may probably be that little as is the credit given to the anonymous or pseudonymous work, for in the above quotation both are meant, it would obtain less if it had the author’s real name[13].

Footnote 13:

For examples see Notes and Queries 3rd s. XII, 394, and the Handbook
of Fictitious Names.

To shew that a book was published without the author’s name, whether anonymous or pseudonymous, some bibliographers have put an asterisk or star at the beginning of the title. I am not aware that this, or indeed any plan has systematically been adopted in any English work, except within the last few years. In his learned Essay On the Literature of Political economy, p. x, J. R. McCulloch says: “When the name of the author of a work is included between brackets, it shows that it was published anonymously.” He uses anonymous here in the sense of without the author’s name, and to include pseudonymous. I made use of the star in the Handbook of Fictitious Names in 1868, but only to indicate anonymity, and not as Quérard uses it. In Notes and Queries for the 6th April, 1872, I suggested the adoption of a line — to shew that a book was published pseudonymously. And I made use of both signs in my Bibliographical list of Lord Brougham’s publications. These signs have the advantage of attracting the eye, and declaring at once the class of book. On the other hand they cannot be used for foot notes, are likely to be overlooked in printing, and there is always great difficulty in getting readers to find out what signs mean. On the whole after much consideration I have determined for the future to use simply abbreviations of the words anonymous and pseudonymous which everybody understands without explanation.

As in describing a book the principal object is to enable the student to identify it, so that there may be no doubt that the cataloguer’s remarks upon a certain book apply to that for which the reader is searching. It is less important that autonymous works should be catalogued so fully as anonymous, because the author’s name is at once a guide. For though two autonymous works bear the same title their authors’ names would be different. But not so with two anonymous works having the same title.

Pseudonymous works, in which the pseudonym is a name and not a phrase or denomination, would come in the same category.

For anonymous, and frequently for pseudonymous works it is not only desirable to give the full title, but to supplement it with any further information that will help identification. As for example, if the book is printed at a different place to that of sale or publication[14] or if dated and addressed from what would appear to be the author’s residence, or if there is any allusion in the work or the advertisements[15] to other publications of the same author. Examples of all will be found in my list. Though a book be anonymous so far as the title page informs us, yet if pseudonymous from the preface or introduction being signed with a fictitious name, or with initials or denomination, or other qualification, it should be catalogued as pseudonymous. Thus following the rule with regard to autonyms. Except when signed:—The Author, The Editor, The Translator, Himself, or Herself, of which it is best to take no notice, even if on the title. Such works should be considered anonymous without even giving cross-references from those words.

Footnote 14:

Many London publishers have printing houses out of town, in such cases
the place of printing is no guide.

Footnote 15:

Advertisements should generally be preserved. If, however, a book has
been through a binder’s hands there is little chance of their
surviving. Never send a book to the binder without special
instructions to preserve the advertisements and covers or wrappers,
and mark every page intended to be kept, otherwise there is a
barbarous custom amongst binders, arising from ignorance or cupidity,
of denuding every pamphlet of the covers and advertisements which
frequently teem with matter useful in after years. Binders like to
treat books like convicts, and shave their heads.

Of whatever description, whether autonymous, or anonymous, or pseudonymous, the first words of the title, or the half title, should be quoted correctly, and exactly as they occur, and to this rule there should be no exception, whether for bibliographical lists, or for the purpose of citation as an authority. For in the latter case, however familiar the work cited may be, there are sure to be readers unfamiliar with it, to whom a loose reference will cause trouble. The half title or any abbreviation of the title, if used by the author of the book may be adopted.

Few things cause greater waste of time amongst literary men than the habitually careless manner in which they give references. Not only should a book be correctly described, but the edition or date and page ought to be added. Bibliographers (which term I here use to mean persons who have concerned themselves with the description of books) have sinned terribly in this respect by giving descriptions of books at second, or even third-hand, and repeating the mistakes and blunders of the original authority. Title pages are like rumours, the oftener they are repeated the more incorrect they become. The student should never rely upon a catalogue for the description of a book, unless the compiler has adhered strictly to rules. A statement in bibliothecas, biographical dictionaries, or catalogues, that a work is anonymous, can never be relied upon[16].

Footnote 16:

Those who desire to see examples of several classes of errors to be
avoided can refer to the following works. On the new general
Biographical dictionary: a specimen of amateur criticism in letters
[signed Bolton Corney] to Mr. Sylvanus Urban [motto] London: Shoberl,
1839, 8o. A remarkable piece of criticism indispensable to every
biographer or bibliographer.

Arithmetical books ... being brief notices of a large number of works
drawn up from actual inspection by Augustus de Morgan ... London,
1847. See the preface and introduction to this valuable and
interesting work. The English catalogue of books, 1864, makes an
edition of this work with the date 1853, at 2s 6d. Being desirous of
possessing this, I wrote to the learned Professor to know where it was
to be obtained, and what difference there was, he replied:—“The
difference between the 1st and 2nd edition of my Arithmetical Books,
is the difference between something and nothing, which, let Hegel say
what he will, is a very great difference. There is not any second
edition, nor I think, will be.” Refer also to an article by De Morgan
in the Companion to the Almanac for 1853, entitled “On the difficulty
of correct description of books,” pp. 5 to 19, full of various and
useful matter.

Handbook of Fictitious names of authors of the XIXth Century ... by
Olphar Hamst ..., 1868, p. xi.

Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes par A. A. Barbier, 3e. ed., 1872,
see the note by Olivier Barbier on the second page of the
advertisement to the first volume.

After the first few words of the title every abbreviation or omission should be indicated by three dots ... close together not thus. . . . This is a better method than using an “etc.,” a sign which from the carelessness of authors is frequently found on title-pages of books, and if used by both authors and cataloguers we should never know which. As few authors could explain the meaning of an “&c.” on the title, it is not likely that readers can guess.

It has been customary to omit mottoes without any indication of the omission, and this has been done in one of the most bibliographical works published in England[17]. I only know of one work of importance where special notice is taken of such omissions.[18]

Footnote 17:

A descriptive catalogue of Friends’ books, ... by Joseph Smith, in two
vols, ... 1867.

Footnote 18:

This is the: Catalogue of the Manchester free library, reference
department, prepared by A. Crestadoro, ... 1864, where the omission is
indicated by three stars.

In my “List of works on Swimming,” I give full titles, including
mottoes of all the books I was able to see. In my “Bibliographical
list of Lord Brougham’s publications,” I indicate the place of the
motto on the title.

If a title page has a motto its omission should be shewn thus [motto].

To print mottoes when numerous or lengthy in an extensive work seems quite out of the question. When short it is a luxury the bibliographer may occasionally indulge in. I confess that this is one of the points I have felt extremely puzzled about. I never abbreviate or omit anything from a title-page without fear and trembling, which is intensified in the case of mottoes. They frequently in one short verse, or sentence, give the pith of a book, and my fear is that some one in the future should wonder how I could be so stupid as to suggest their omission.

All additions should be indicated with the same care by placing them between brackets [ ]. Additions in titles should be as few and as short as possible, all explanatory matter can be given in a note.

Sometimes authors use brackets or parentheses on the title pages. When this is the case, if of no use or unimportant, they should be left out by the cataloguer. For instance, when an author has the words [Reprinted from, &c.] in the title. To omit the brackets is the least misleading, for if left in it would look as if this information were not supplied by the author, and if (_sic_) were put it would not be understood as referring to the brackets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

MATTERS TO BE ATTENDED TO IN CATALOGUING.

-------

In arranging a number of rules, it is difficult to
please every reader. I have frequently been unable to
satisfy myself; and therefore, cannot expect that the
arrangement which I have at last adopted will give
universal satisfaction.—W. LENNIE, The principles of
English grammar ... 34th ed., Edinb., 1854, p. 4.

Cataloguers may comment upon, but should never alter
what it has been deemed right to state on the title
page of a book by those who have framed it.—Art of
making catalogues, &c. [by A. Crestadoro], 1856, p.
14.

In cataloguing or describing a book six points at least should be kept in view as necessary to its identification.[19]

(1.) Title.

(2.) Name of author, and sometimes description.

(3.) Place of publication.

(4.) Publisher’s name, and sometimes address.

(5.) The date of publication.

(6.) The size.

Footnote 19:

The student may refer to the useful little pamphlet above quoted,
entitled: The art of making catalogues of libraries, or a method to
obtain in a short time, a most perfect, complete, and satisfactory
printed catalogue of the British Museum library, by a reader therein
[Dr. Crestadoro], Lond. 1856, p. 38.

If full titles (that is, an exact transcript of the title from beginning to the end), are given, it will only be necessary for the cataloguer to supply in its proper, or most suitable place, such of the above information as is not on the title-page.

If abbreviations be adopted several considerations arise.

(1.) As to so much of the title as occurs before the author’s name we have already said that the first few words should be copied word for word, and afterwards every omission should be denoted by dots.

(2.) The name of the author should not be abbreviated, if it renders it difficult to distinguish between two with the same initials. If the author’s qualifications are omitted or abbreviated, dots ... of omission should be inserted. A description after a name is often very important and useful in determining the degree of credit to be attached to the work, but they are frequently so numerous that they are too long for most catalogues.

Works in more than one volume generally have the number on the title, as “In three volumes, vol 1.” Take no notice of “Vol I.,” but invariably state the number of volumes in the order in which it occurs on the title-page. The number of volumes, however, is not always stated; in some works each volume simply has “Vol I,” or “Vol II,” on the title, when this is so, the number of volumes should be stated after the date thus: “1873, in three volumes, octavo.” The reader would then know whether the number of volumes was stated on the title or not.

There will be cases where this rule will not sufficiently indicate the fact, as for instance, when the first does not, but the second does, state the number of volumes. A note will meet this case, if necessary.

It may appear to some that so trifling a matter is unworthy of note, but with this the cataloguer has nothing to do. His business is to note facts however trivial, whether anybody should ever require them is not in his province.

(3.) Place of publication. Several places of publication are frequently given in the imprint of a book, when this is the case, the first place should, at all events, be given, and if the book is not printed as well as published there, the place where it is printed should be stated.

(4.) The Publisher’s name we seldom find in any list of books. I never recollect to have seen it in any catalogue of a library, and in very few bibliographical works. And yet it is often of great importance. In cataloguing works without the author’s name it should seldom if ever be omitted, however much the title is abbreviated. The publisher’s address may often be added with advantage, especially in cases where he is little known. For many firms who have been issuing works from the same house for a century or even longer, it seems superfluous.[20]

Footnote 20:

I must remind the student that I am only writing for present century
books, I have no experience of cataloguing old books.

Both name and address of publishers may be abbreviated without marks of omission, a rule having been made to that effect, so that the reader may be apprised of the fact. Some small elementary works have as many as ten or fifteen places and double that number of publishers in the imprint, these of course would not be given in full unless with some special object.

The publisher’s name when well known is also important as frequently giving a character, or guarantee, if not of the literary worth of a book, at all events of its sincerity.

If the publisher is also the author, but does not signify that fact, the book must be considered anonymous. The publisher’s name (that is the author’s) must be repeated, as would be the case if written by another person.

Privately printed[21] works are frequently issued without the name of a publisher or bookseller, though less frequently without that of a printer, which if not on the title should be supplied in parenthesis or in a note.

Footnote 21:

For examples the student can refer to the only English work on the
subject, of which two editions have been issued, viz., Martin’s
Bibliographical catalogue of privately printed books. It is necessary
to have both editions in consequence of the death of the author,
unfortunately interrupting the completion of the second.

(5.) The date of publication, if not on the title, will like the author’s name, be frequently found in some other part of the book. It should then be supplied after the last word on the title in parenthesis. If not in the book, it should be put between brackets [ ], and if uncertain with a note of interrogation.

Stereotyped books are generally without dates of publication for certain commercial reasons. Only superficial readers are duped by the artifice, for the first object of the literary student would be to determine approximately the date of issue. When the preface is not dated it is no doubt as often through thoughtlessness as intention.

In quoting a work that has passed through numerous editions, it is often useful to give the date of the first.

There is a practice amongst publishers of post dating books issued towards the end of a year.[22] This practice will account for the dates of books in some bibliothecas, biographies and catalogues, sometimes being a year earlier than the date on the book. The title having been copied from an advertisement or a review of the work apparently before publication. When known to the cataloguer the actual year of issue should be supplied in brackets immediately after the date of the title.

Footnote 22:

See the article referred to (p. 19) by Prof. De Morgan, in the
Companion to the Almanac.

(6.) With the different descriptions of sizes of books Professor De Morgan was so exasperated that after giving descriptions of how the sheets of a book are folded he says, “The words _folio_, _quarto_, _octavo_, _duodecimo_, _decimo-octavo_, refer (in his book) entirely to size, as completely as in a modern sale catalogue, the maker of which never looks at the inside of a book to tell its form. All the very modern distinctions of _imperial_, _royal_, _crown_, _atlas_, _demy_, &c., &c., &c., I have relinquished to paper-makers and publishers, who alone are able to understand them.”[23]

Footnote 23:

Arithmetical Books, p. xii.

All the words in use to describe sizes are useless. They convey no definite idea to the reader, for the simple reason that nothing definite as to size is meant. The only definite meaning is that the paper is folded into certain divisions, and not that the paper or print is of a particular size. A quarto is often the size of an octavo, and an octavo the size of a quarto, duodecimo, or anything else. Nevertheless though not certain, the terms do in most cases, enable us to guess at the probable or approximate size. The only way to be certain of the size is to state it in inches.[24] Probably few literary men would put up with the trouble of measuring.

Footnote 24:

This plan is advocated in a work I cannot too strongly recommend. It
is indispensable to every librarian. The learned author thoroughly
studied all the various systems in vogue, and founds almost a code for
the cataloguer upon them. It is the:—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, second edition.
Washington, published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1853, 8vo, pp.
xii., 96. Since the above was written Mr. Cutter’s Rules have appeared
(see p. 11), and should be referred to.

Compilers of Catalogues of modern books may content themselves in most cases with the terms at present in use.[25]

Footnote 25:

For what these are, and how to know them, I must refer the reader to
the Smithsonian Report, previously quoted, or to a note by Charles
Naylor on “the size of a book” in Notes and Queries for 10 Feb., 1872,
4th s., ix. p. 122.

Novels are generally described in the advertisements as “post octavo,” which is not octavo at all, but duodecimo. The mis-description is of little importance, for everybody knows about the size of the modern three volume novel, a little larger now than at the beginning of the century.

It is annoying that so small a matter as the size of a book should occupy so much space. It has always been a subject of difficulty. A bookseller as such, in his sale catalogues, will describe a book as 12mo, but when he compiles a bibliographical list he will describe it correctly as octavo, though the actual size is what is looked upon as duodecimo.

These points are strictly necessary for ordinary catalogues, but they will not satisfy all enquiries, for we cannot tell from them whether it is a book or a pamphlet that is described. It is therefore desirable to add the number of pages. In the paging we have as much variety as in the sizes, authors, publishers, and printers, not having the slightest thought for bibliographers, and the infinite trouble of collation.

A book should be paged in as simple a manner as possible. This is a rule that has never been attended to, and so long as authors do not know their own minds never can be. If the printer begins the paging regularly, and the author thinks irregularly, and recollects something that has been left out, irregular paging will be the result.[26]

Footnote 26:

The most disorderly book I know in this respect is:—A universal
alphabet grammar and language, ... by George Edmonds, ... [1856]
quarto:—The following is the collation. Its length would generally
preclude its being given in a bibliotheca. First we have the preface
vii pages, then a table of contents vii pages; the introduction 34
pages, a half-title unpaged, then 152 pages, then another half-title
unpaged, then pp. 44 and iii., then corrigenda pp. ix., then a
half-title and “the Dictionary,” forming a third of the book entirely
unpaged, then the addenda paged separately pp. 3. Sometimes the
figures of paging are at the side, sometimes in the middle, sometimes
at the top and sometimes at the bottom! Timperley in his “Printer’s
Manual” (1838) p. 18, says, “Running titles may be set to an index,
but folios are seldom put unless with a view to recommend the book for
its extraordinary number of pages; for as an index does not refer to
its own matter by figures, they are needless in this case.” When the
trouble that a variety of pagings gives the bibliographer, is
considered, it is to be hoped that the simplicity I recommend will be
adopted as much as possible.

Always count from the very first printed page belonging to the book, excluding advertisements. Give the paging as printed, that is, in the same characters. If leaves occur unpaged, either before those paged or after, use arabian numerals to denote those unpaged.

Sometimes an octavo book begins with, say xii. numbered pages and then occur four unnumbered, and then we have page 1 on signature B, numbered consecutively to page 253, and three pages of appendix and errata beyond. Describe it thus: octavo pp. xii., and 4, and 253, and 3. But if 4 and 3 are numbered with roman numerals, it should be thus:—octavo, pp. xii., and iv., 253, iii., because this is more accurate. We use the same kind of numerals used in the book. It is, however, not a matter of much moment, provided the correct number of pages is given in the collation.

I do not use the sign plus (xii.+iv.+iii.) because it makes the figures look more uninteresting, and signs enough occur in the titles themselves.

The price at which a book is published is often unascertainable, and it is useful to insert it, though it has nothing to do with its literary or scientific value. But in this as in every other particular it is impossible to say what the student may require, and its omission might make a man of genius waste precious hours which it is the special object of the true bibliographer to save.

If the price is mentioned on the title page, accuracy requires that it be given in its regular order, whether at the beginning or end of the title. Instances will be found in the list of works by a lady at the end.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

STYLE OF PRINTING.

-------

I now come to a few minor points of printing, for in a catalogue nothing is so trivial as not to require attention.

In the previous observations I have treated of things that are invariable, they must be attended to, in any list of books, there is no room for exercise of taste, they go to the very root of a good catalogue, and are laws dictated by accuracy.

But the manner in which a title is printed in a list or catalogue, or biography is a matter of taste, and we therefore give the following hints merely as suggestions[27], hoping that they will commend themselves to all who print title-pages. Have as few capitals as possible in the title, none except for names of persons or places. Titles of persons may well be printed without capitals, as prince, marquess, lord, not Prince, Marquess, Lord.

Footnote 27:

Most of which have been acted on, if not carried to their fullest
extent in my study, already referred to: “A bibliographical list of
lord Brougham’s publications,” printed in Lord Brougham’s Works, ...
Edinb., A. and C. Black, 1873, vol XI., pp. 463 to 486.

Take for example the following title, which, printed according to the usual method would be:—

“Speeches by the Lord Chancellor; Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham; and Lord Campbell, in The House of Lords, on Tuesday the 9th, August, 1842, at giving Judgment in the Appeal, the Rev. John Ferguson and others, Appellants, against the Earl of Kinnoull, and the Rev. R. Young, Respondents, with the Judgments appended, from Mr. Gurney’s Shorthand notes,” &c.

I prefer this title-page for catalogue purposes to be printed thus:

Speeches by the lord chancellor [Lyndhurst], lord Brougham, lord Cottenham, and lord Campbell in the house of lords, on tuesday the 9th august, 1842, at giving judgment in the appeal, the rev. John Ferguson and others, appellants, against the earl of Kinnoull and the rev. R. Young, respondents; with the judgment appended from Mr. Gurney’s shorthand notes. Edinb. James Gall and son [1842], 8o, pp. 36, 1s. The improvement in appearance of this title and the facility in reading, counterbalance all such objections as that we are accustomed to Lord, and not lord, or Tuesday, and not tuesday. The compilers of the [English] Law List have long since discarded capitals for the names of streets with great advantage, for example they print, “gray’s-inn-square,” not Gray’s Inn Square: “court of exchequer”; “house of lords,” &c. The Catalogue of the Advocates library, lately printed, is a good example; refer for instance to the title under Bullion, vol I., 1867, p. 763, a title that in ordinary catalogues would bristle with capitals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUNCTUATION.

-------

The punctuation should also be carefully considered. Everything in bibliography is at present very much over punctuated, half, if not two thirds, might be dispensed with to the lessening of the expense, and the great advantage in the appearance.

Imagine you are copying a sentence instead of a title page, and punctuate and put capitals accordingly. If writing that a work was by an author, nobody would write By, neither need it have a capital for a copy of a title.

Mr. Henry Stevens has advocated and adopted this method in his later catalogues and notably in the:—“Bibliotheca geographica and historica or a catalogue of a nine days sale of rare & valuable ... books ... et cetera ... with an essay upon the Stevens system of photobibliography by Henry Stevens GMB [_i.e._ gatherer of musty books] ... [with a photograph of] Ptolemy’s World by Mercator 1578 Part I. to be dispersed by auction by Messrs Puttick and Simpson ... London Henry Stevens at the Nuggetory 4 Trafalgar square July 25 1872.”

The title, which I have abbreviated nearly one third, has upwards of two hundred words in it without a single mark of punctuation, except after “Part I.” where it seems to have got in by accident. Throughout his titles, he uses stops very sparingly. Any word which is complete requires no stop. Thus: “vols” requires no stop after it, because it is a finished abbreviation, but vol. does[28].

Footnote 28:

Mr. Stevens’ work contains an essay on catalogues, teeming with useful
suggestions, as indeed might be expected from one who has had such
long and varied experience.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BEGINNING AND THE END.

-------

The unwise seem to be of opinion that any fool can
index, but we have already seen that the wise think
differently.—Wheatley’s What is an index? 1879, p. 41.

The beginning of every book should be a table of contents, or an analytical table, or both, and the end a good index.

I can scarcely over estimate the importance which I attach to the index. A book may almost as well be unwritten, as be without an index.

The publications by “a lady,” are exceedingly deficient in indexes. It is amazing that authors who must have felt the want of indexes in the works of others should publish their own without such helps.