Art:
See also Architecture. Painting. Sculpture.
For the art of particular countries see
their names as Greece, Italy, Japan.

Though not quite in the same category, by far the most troublesome names the cataloguer has to contend with are the Oriental, both of the far and near East. They are increasingly coming under notice, not only attached to translations, but to books written in English, and have to be reckoned with for the catalogues of even comparatively small libraries. If the cataloguer should stumble in his selection of the name under which he makes the entry, he has the satisfaction of knowing that he errs in good company, with the further consolation of believing that there will be few who know enough to discover his mistake, though these facts will be no justification, and should only serve to put him on his guard. In Abdullah Yusuf-Ali's Life and labour of the people of India (1907) we read:—

"If Miss Toru Dutt were to come to life again, and had nothing better to do than go to the British Museum, she would never be able to trace her own book from the Catalogue. Her name is to be found neither under Dutt nor under Toru, but as Tarulata Datta. Mrs. Naidu's name appears under S. as Sarojini Nayadu. Perhaps some sympathy might be extended to the Frenchman who never could understand why names were treated so badly in England; there was one he knew which they wrote as Marjoribanks and pronounced as Chumley! To be consistent the British Museum Catalogue ought (especially after the recent spelling crusade) to spell the names of the President of the United States "Rôs-felt" and classify it under T as Theodoros—Theodore being only a modern corruption of a good Greek name."

This is quoted for what it is worth, though coming as it does from a native source and from one who can also write in English, it is entitled to great respect. The following paragraph taken from The Westminster Gazette is helpful in this connection:—

"The usually full telegrams from India during the past week have furnished several examples of that perpetual puzzle the proper use of Indian names. Both the home and the Anglo-Indian Press are apt to stumble, and to an Indian reader their mistakes must be as amusing as the 'Lord Balfour' and 'Sir Morley' of certain French newspapers are to us. As a rule, the blunders occur in reference to Parsee or Bengali names. Roughly speaking, every Bengali man has three names. The first is his given name, the second is conventional or honorific, the third is the patronymic, analogous to an Irish or Scottish clan-name. For example, Dr. Rash Behari Ghose (who should have been president of this year's National Congress), Mr. Romesh Chandra Dutt (the historian and ex-Civil servant), Bepin Chandra Pal (the well-known agitator). In each case the important names are the first and third; the second cannot be used without the first, though in certain forms of address the third is omitted. Thus, while it is permissible to speak of Dr. Rash Behari, Reuter is quite wrong with his 'Dr. Behari Ghose.' Similarly, the Times should not speak of 'Mr. Chandra Pal,' nor the Morning Post of 'Babu Banerjea.' We may say 'Bepin Babu' or 'Mr. Pal,' 'Surendra Babu,' or Mr. Banerjea; but it is safer to give the full names. Parsee names are another matter, and a more intricate one."

We may take a book by way of illustration, and examine it for cataloguing. The title-page of that chosen reads

The Tarikh-i-Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát. A history of the Moghuls of Central Asia. An English version edited, with commentary, notes, and map by N. Elias. The translation of E. Denison Ross. London, Sampson Low, &c. 1895

Upon somewhat general principles—too general to be always reliable—the entry in such names is usually made under the first name, which in this instance is Mirza, the author being referred to throughout the preface as Mirza Haidar, though it appears that other European writers have called him Haidar Mirza. In some parts of Asia the reversal of the name in this way makes considerable difference; when "Mirza" leads it means simply "Mr." or "Esq.," but at the end of the name it is equivalent to "Prince," and is so used only by persons who belong to a reigning family. As the writer was a prince, his name could properly be given either way. Mirza being a title and not a name, cannot be the entry-name, yet it is so entered, with other Mirzas, in the Catalogue of the London Library. The British Museum enters the name as "Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát." For most libraries an entry to the following effect will prove sufficient

Muhammad Haidar, Mirza. The Tarikh-i-Rashidi:
a history of the Moghuls of Central Asia;
ed. by N. Elias. 1895950