Bishops usually omit their family name, canons their forename, on their title-pages, as “by Canon Liddon,” “by the Bishop of Ripon,” “by Henry Edward, archbishop of Westminster,” i. e., H: E: Manning. Care must be taken not to treat Canon as a forename or Edward as a family name. {22}
c. Married women, using the last well-known form. Refer.
Wives often continue writing, and are known in literature, only under their maiden names (as Miss Freer or Fanny Lewald), or after a second marriage retain for literary purposes the first husband’s name. The cataloguer should not hurry to make a change in the name as soon as he learns of a marriage. Let him rather follow than lead the public.
21. Put under the title:
British [14] and foreign [15] noblemen, referring from earlier titles by which they have been known, and, in the case of British noblemen, from the family name.
Ex.
Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of. Refer from Stanhope.
Saint-Simon, Louis de Rouvroi, duc de.
[14] The British Museum and Mr. Jewett enter British noblemen under the family name; Mr. Perkins prefers entry under titles for British noblemen, in which I agree with him, although the opposite practice is now so well established. The reasons for entry under the title are that British noblemen are always so 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 Thymne), 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 favor of the Museum rule is that it is well-established and that it is desirable that there should be some uniform rule. Ecclesiastical dignitaries stand on an entirely different footing. There is much more use of the family name and much more change of title. In the first edition I followed the British Museum rules, but I am now in favor of the more popular method of entry of noblemen, namely, under their titles, except when the family name is decidedly better known (Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Horace Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford). In such cases enter under the family name and refer from the title. This rule was adopted by the committee of the American Library Association (Lib. jnl., 3: 12–19; 8: 251–254). The reasons pro and con were discussed in Lib. jnl., 3: 13, 14. The gist of them is: “Authors should be put under their names. The definition of a name is ‘that by which a person or thing is known.’ British noblemen are known by their titles, not by their family names.”
[15] Put the military nobles and princes of the French Empire under their family names, with references from their titles, e. g., Lucien Bonaparte, Prince de Canino, MacMahon, duc de Magenta.