Chapter IV: How to Treat a Title-Page (1)

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."