Chapter IV: How to Treat a Title-Page (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANONYMOUS AND PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seven Champions of Christendom. See "Christendom."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The

English Expositor

Improv'd:

Being a Complete

Dictionary,

teaching

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

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

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

By R. Browne, Author of the

_English School Reform'd_.

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

The Twelfth Edition.

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

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

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

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

London, 1719. 12mo."

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

"Speculum Polytechnum Mathematicum novum,
tribus visionibus illustre
quarum extat

Una Fundamentalis
Aliquot

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

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

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

Joannem Remmelinum Ph. et Med.
Doctorem

Impressum Ulmæ, typis Joannis
Mederi

M.DC.XII."

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

"Faulhaber (Joannes).

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

Ulmæ, 1612. 4to."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLACE OF PUBLICATION.

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

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

DATES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imprint:--

"LonDInI regIo prIVILegIo eXaratVM = 1626."

On the last page is:--

"eXtant Ista In æDIbVs gVLIeLMI stansbIe = 1626"

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

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

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

On the frontispiece is another chronogram:--

"chrIsto aDhærens non aMbVLat In tenebrIs."

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

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

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

On the second book:--

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIZE-NOTATION.

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

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

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

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

To this passage is added the following note:--

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

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

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

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

COLLATION.