How to Catalogue a Library Part 7

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 authors.h.i.+p following each.

And that when a collection of theses or dissertations is published under the name of a praeses 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 t.i.tle. 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 ent.i.tled to be considered an author any more than a type-setter."

The British Museum rule is as follows:--

"x.x.xVII. Reports of civil actions to be catalogued under the name of that party to the suit which stands first upon the t.i.tle-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.

"Lx.x.xV. Anonymous catalogues, whether bearing the t.i.tle '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 t.i.tle-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 t.i.tle) 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 inst.i.tutions, the name of the town and inst.i.tution to be subjoined in italics to the word 'catalogue' in the superior heading. In the t.i.tle 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 a.s.sociation rule is:--

"Catalogues are to be entered under the name of the inst.i.tution, 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 a.s.serted. Entering these only under the form-heading CATALOGUES belongs to the dark ages of cataloguing. Put the catalogue of a library under the library's name."

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

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

The t.i.tle of a true book is an individual ent.i.ty, the outcome of an author's mind; but this is not the case with a catalogue. Its t.i.tle, 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 t.i.tle-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 cla.s.s 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 a.n.a.logy. It may be a convenient word, but it is incorrect. A pseudonym is an ent.i.ty--a false name under cover of which an author chooses to write; but an anonymous book has a t.i.tle 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 t.i.tles 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 nomme."

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 t.i.tle."

The Bodleian rule (16) also is:--"If the name of a writer occur in a work, but not on the t.i.tle-page, the work is also to be regarded for the purpose of headings as anonymous, except in the case of works without separate t.i.tle-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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle-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 t.i.tles 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 t.i.tle (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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle-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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle, 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 t.i.tle 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 lat.i.tude, 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 t.i.tles of anonymous works with a second heading or cross reference, when advisable under or from any other noticeable word or catch-t.i.tle."

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 princ.i.p.al 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 ma.s.s 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 t.i.tle 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 circ.u.mstances 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 t.i.tle. I am quite aware that the plan seems almost absurd upon the face of it. For example, supposing there was such a t.i.tle 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.