MANUAL
OF
Library Cataloguing

BY
J. HENRY QUINN,
LIBRARIAN, CHELSEA PUBLIC LIBRARIES, LONDON.
(Formerly Principal Cataloguing Assistant, Liverpool Free Libraries.)

LONDON.
LIBRARY SUPPLY COMPANY,
4, Ave Maria Lane, E.C.
1899

Printed by Marlborough, Pewtress & Co., London, E. C.

PREFACE

This little book does not claim to be a comprehensive treatise on the art of cataloguing books, nor is it intended for the use of the expert in bibliography. The rules embodied are those generally recognized as necessary for the proper cataloguing of a collection of books. By simple illustrations the author has endeavoured to deal with those difficulties which he has found most frequently arise and call for careful consideration. Information concerning the printing of catalogues has been added in order to make the book more complete.

If this Manual should prove a help to the better understanding of the true principles of cataloguing, and is found to be of practical assistance to those engaged in library work, the object of its compilation will have been attained.

J. H. Q.

March, 1899.

CONTENTS.

Manual of Library Cataloguing.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.

1.—Most people are satisfied to believe that there is no department of a librarian’s work so easily managed as that of compiling catalogues. The catalogue of a library is often regarded as a mere list of books, calling for no more mental effort in its production than is required in that of a furniture auctioneer, or similar trade list. Professor John Fiske, in his essay on “A Librarian’s Work,”[1] says “Generally I find a library catalogue is assumed to be a thing that is somehow ‘made’ at a single stroke, as Aladdin’s palace was built, at intervals of ten or a dozen years, or whenever a ‘new catalogue’ is thought to be needed,” instead of, as he proceeds to show, being a never-ending work calling for the exercise of all the power and knowledge at the command of the cataloguer.

2.—There are varieties of library catalogues, from the simple inventories made by private persons for their own collection of books, to the mammoth “Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum,” so great in its size and extensive in the field it covers that its entries have to be almost exclusively limited to a single item for each book.

The catalogues to be compiled upon the lines laid down in this work come between these two extremes, and are intended to serve as a key to the treasure-house of knowledge and disclose its contents in a ready, but orderly, manner to all inquirers. Carlyle says, “a big collection of books, without a good catalogue, is a Polyphemus with no eye in his head.”

3.—A good library is virtually useless without an adequate and properly compiled catalogue, but even an indifferent collection of books can be made to render good service by means of a good catalogue. In order to compile such a catalogue it is necessary that certain particulars be given descriptive of the books, but in such a way that, while the entries afford all needful information to the person well-versed in books, they shall at the same time be so simple in character as to be understood with very little effort by anyone of average intelligence. At the same time the particulars given should be so comprehensive that a searcher in the catalogue may be able to obtain a clear idea of the nature and scope of the book described without actually examining it, though the descriptions in this respect are not expected to be of the very full order looked for in special bibliographies intended only for the use of experts.

The value of a good catalogue does not depend upon its extent or size any more than does a good book, but rather upon the exactness of the method by which the information given is digested and concentrated. There are library catalogues so elaborately compiled that they are most imposing in appearance, and very often, as a consequence, are considered to be most erudite productions by those who do not understand the art of cataloguing, whereas the persons who have to use them too often find out that they are so ill-arranged as to be little better than a hotch-potch of book titles—pedantic without being learned. “Infinite riches in a little room” might, on the other hand, be often adopted as the motto for many an insignificant-looking catalogue.

4.—It is a common occurrence to find a small library with quite a big catalogue. This does not always arise from the wish to make the most of the library, but often from the fact that the compilation has been undertaken by some over-zealous member of a committee who fancied he had a penchant for such work, or that it has been compiled by an amateur with no experience, whose friends have secured him his appointment as librarian. Such people do not know that it is as easy, if not easier, to over-catalogue a library as to do it judiciously, and a fearful and wonderful work is often the result. There would not be much trouble in giving illustrative examples of this, but that catalogue may be cited where Green’s “Short History of the English People” obtained five entries, viz., under Green, Short, History, English History, and People (English), instead of the two entries that would have sufficed. Many of the first catalogues of the smaller free libraries are of this order. This, however, is not always the result of the above-named causes, but as often as not is brought about by committees of new libraries postponing the appointment of a librarian, to save his salary, until a few weeks before the library is announced to be opened, and then expecting him to purchase the books and produce a printed catalogue in the meantime. The conception of the matter is, far too often, that books can be selected, arranged, and listed in bulk, as groceries are bought, displayed, and ticketed, and in as short a time. The result, of course, is that the librarian, being rushed, must select and buy the books as quickly as he can, and relegate the work of cataloguing them to an assistant, who most likely has no training, and the best has to be made of a bad job. In very few instances can it be considered that the first catalogue of a new library fairly represents the ability of the librarian as a cataloguer.

5.—With the rapid rise of the standard of education more exact and better work is at present demanded in libraries than was the case during the first quarter of a century after the Public Libraries’ Act came into operation. The slipshod rule-of-thumb cataloguing at one time in vogue does not pass muster unnoticed now, as it did then, and consequently there is less use than ever before for the bald lists of books, compiled upon no principle in particular, sent forth to bewilder and hinder rather than help an inquiring public. The student, and that interesting personage, “the general reader,” are each year coming to a better understanding of the uses and peculiarities of books, and so look for more precise information concerning them. No better evidence is needed of the manner in which the demand for information about books has grown than is found in the large place which the reviewing of them now takes in the columns of the newspaper press, so that even minor journals cannot afford to ignore it. The dictum that a cataloguer has no right to go behind the information contained on the title-page of a book does not now find acceptance, as it did in the past.

Those persons who are possessed of even a little experience in the matter know that it is impossible to compile a catalogue in a hap-hazard fashion, and that clear and definite rules must be laid down before any part of the work is attempted, otherwise confusion and want of proportion will result. Happily of late years the rules governing the proper compilation of catalogues have been codified, particularly those for the form at present in most general use, known as the “dictionary catalogue.”

CHAPTER II.
THE DICTIONARY CATALOGUE.

6.—The dictionary catalogue is not the idea or invention of any individual, but has developed gradually from the requirements of librarians in dealing with readers. The earlier catalogues were limited to entries given under the authors’ names, as in the British Museum Catalogue, or were in classified form, either under the large classes into which a library was divided, or with very little other sub-division. These were followed by what may be termed “dictionary index catalogues” containing the first principles of the dictionary catalogue as now understood. They consisted of very brief entries under authors, and the simple turning about of a title to bring a certain word in it to the front as conveying its subject, in this manner:—

England under Victoria. Michelsen.

Englefield (Sir H. C.) Walk through Southampton.

English Antiquities. Eccleston. 1847.

Ennui. Edgeworth.

Entomology, Exotic. Drury. 1837.

Episodes of Insect Life. 1851.

Errand to the South. Malet.

By this method the real subject of the book was often missed, more especially if the author had made use of a fanciful title, and one subject would be found under many different entries, according to the word used on the title-page, and without cross references to bind them together. It must be confessed that to-day many of the dictionary catalogues of public libraries are no more than this “index catalogue” under the newer name. The entries may be a little fuller, but the principles of compilation remain the same.

7.—Prior to 1876 there was no complete code of rules for the preparation of a subject as well as author catalogue, though Prof. C. C. Jewett’s “On the construction of Catalogues of Libraries” (Washington, 1853), with its subsequent modifications, was a step in this direction. There were rules for author catalogues, for the most part based upon the British Museum rules, as well as schemes of classification for classified catalogues. In that year was published the now well-known “Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue,” by Charles A. Cutter, Librarian of the Boston Athenæum. It appeared as the second part of the “Special Report on the Public Libraries in the United States of America,” issued under the auspices of the United States Bureau of Education. A second edition of these rules was separately issued in 1889. The third edition, with further corrections and additions, appeared in 1891, and has been most liberally distributed by the United States Government to the libraries of the world. Since 1876 other rules have been formulated, principally with Cutter’s as a basis. A consensus of these will be found in the “Eclectic Card Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries,” by K. A. Linderfelt, Librarian of the Milwaukee Public Library, Boston (Charles A. Cutter) 1890. This most useful compilation, “based on Dziatzko’s ‘Instruction’ compared with the rules of the British Museum, Cutter, Dewey, Perkins, and other authorities,” is not as well known to English librarians as it should be. The present Manual is intended to serve as an introduction to these two codes, and the instructions contained in it are based upon them. When these have not been adhered to the changes made have obtained authority in library practice. Mr. Henry B. Wheatley’s interesting little book, “How to Catalogue a Library” (Stock, 1889), must also be mentioned, and should be read as an introduction to the subject.

8.—The great merit of the dictionary catalogue is that it can be made to supply most of the information usually asked for by those using libraries, and by immediate reference without any preliminary study of its arrangement. It obtains its name from the circumstance that all the entries, irrespective of their nature, are put into a single alphabetical sequence, and consulted as one would consult a dictionary. It is considered to be the most acceptable form to the majority of those making use of popular libraries, and experience has proved it to be so.

The dictionary catalogue is intended to answer all of the following questions:

What books are contained in the library by a given author, as, Hall Caine? The answer to this is called the author-entry.

What books have you upon a specific subject, as the dynamo; or upon a particular topic, as the Eastern question? The entries answering such enquiries are the subject-entries.

Have you a book called, “A Daughter of Eve?” The entry supplying this information would be the title-entry.

Have you any volume of a series, as, “English men of letters?” This it will also answer, and the reply may be termed the series-entry.

There are questions, however, that the dictionary catalogue does not ordinarily answer. It would not tell what books were in the library in a particular language, say French, and it will not provide a complete and definite list of books in a particular form, as fiction, or poetry; or in a class of literature as distinct from subject. For example, it will not group together all the theological works, or the scientific books, but will distribute them throughout the entire alphabet, according to the divisions of these subjects, and these divisions will in their turn be distributed according to lesser divisions and monographs.

A catalogue compiled upon the lines requisite to group such classes completely, so that a general treatise and a monograph upon a minute division will follow in natural order, would be a classified catalogue, and that form is dealt with separately in Chapter XII.

To effect a combination of both forms in such a way that they would answer any question, reasonable or otherwise, would necessitate so large a number of entries for each book that its compilation would be barely feasible, and if carried out it would be unsatisfactory, because the simplicity of the alphabetical order would be destroyed, and the result would not be worth the labour expended, to say nothing of its size and costliness.

9.—Therefore choice must be made at the very outset between the two forms, dictionary or classified. The point to be first considered is, which form is most likely to best suit the needs of the particular class who use the library; as a catalogue which would be most useful for a college library, or that of a scientific society, would be unsuitable for a free library in the midst of a working-class population. Then the question of cost enters into the matter, and here the classified form has the advantage, as apart from the brief index entries, one entry per book mostly suffices, whereas in the dictionary form the average is three entries. There is a still more important matter which materially affects the older libraries, and that is the impossibility of keeping the dictionary form within reasonable compass, even with curtailed entries and closely-printed pages of small type. Borrowers from a public lending library prefer to carry their catalogues with them when exchanging books, but they cannot do so if it is in two or three volumes, or so bulky as not to be portable. For this reason librarians with unbounded belief in the superior advantages of the dictionary catalogue have been compelled, against their will, to adopt the classified form. They had no alternative, except the very unsatisfactory one of extensively weeding their stock of books, and only those who have undertaken that responsibility know how difficult it is to decide whether a book is worth retaining or not. A very judicial statement of the merits of the two styles of catalogues will be found in a paper by Mr. F. T. Barrett, of the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, entitled “The Alphabetical and Classified Forms of Catalogues Compared,” in the “Transactions of the Second International Library Conference,” 1897. Mr. J. D. Brown’s views, as set forth in Chapter v. of his “Manual of Library Classification” (Library Supply Co., 1898), should also be carefully considered.

PRELIMINARIES.

10.—Presuming that the student is for the first time undertaking the work of cataloguing a library, he will require to provide himself with a supply of cards or slips of paper cut uniform in size. Almost any size will do, but the most convenient and more commonly used measures 5 inches by 3 inches. If the catalogue is to be written for the use of readers, then cards are necessary as they are more convenient for turning over than the paper slips which serve well enough for “copy” for a printed catalogue. If the cards or slips are to be written upon with a pen they should be ruled “feint” across and have marginal rulings to mark the “indent.” These rulings are only upon one side, as in no case should an entry be continued to the other side. If an entry is so long that it cannot be put on one card then it must be continued on the face of a second, with the author or other heading repeated. For the cataloguer’s own use or as printer’s copy, the card or slip may be lengthened as required by pasting to it a strip of paper of the same width, and folding it up within the compass of the size of the card, but exposing the heading. This cannot be done when the cards are held in place by a rod running through them. It need hardly be pointed out that for a card catalogue meant for the use of many persons the quality of the cards is of great importance, as those of a cheap, inferior material will not bear much turning over without tearing. Card catalogues are not invariably appreciated by the public, as some persons seem to experience difficulty in turning over the cards. For this reason some librarians prefer the sheaf form because it maintains the book shape, which everyone understands, and it has the same advantages as the card catalogue in allowing the insertion of additions in proper order at any time, and permits unlimited expansion, besides taking up less room.

Upon each card or slip a separate entry of each book is made, and by “book” is meant a work that may be in a single volume or in many volumes. Two works even by the same author, appearing under his name, should be entered on separate cards, as, if written together, it is usually found that another book will later have to be inserted between them.

11.—Printers are acknowledged, as a class, to be the most exact and patient of men, but to those beginners who have not any large experience of their ways it is well to say “be careful to write boldly and plainly,” remembering always that it is a much more difficult work for a compositor to set a catalogue than probably any other form of book, because the matter does not “run on” and various types and languages commonly enter into it. Apart from the mistakes easily made when the “copy,” as the manuscript is called, is not clear and distinct, there is the risk incurred of an extra charge for “author’s corrections”—a well-known item in all printers’ bills. To write clearly is of even more importance if the catalogue is to remain in manuscript for use by readers. A handy little brochure upon this subject is “Library Handwriting,” issued by the New York State Library School, April 1898, and the style of handwriting therein shown should be studied and imitated. The specimen on the next page is taken from it.

12.—It is in the preparation of “copy” and in writing card catalogues for public use that the great value of the typewriter is experienced, as clearness and uniformity are insured by its use as well as economy of space. While it is hardly within the scope of this Manual to say anything by way of recommendation of any particular make of typewriter, yet experience shows that it would be a mistake to overlook the “Hammond” when considering the merits of different machines. In cataloguing it is found useful because a variety of types of a distinctive character, including the accented letters most commonly required, can be used upon a single machine.

SPECIMEN ALPHABETS AND FIGURES

Joined hand

Disjoined hand

CHAPTER III.
THE PRINCIPAL ENTRY.—THE AUTHOR ENTRY, I.

13.—Whatever difference of opinion may exist upon various points that arise in cataloguing books all authorities are agreed that the principal or main entry giving the most particulars concerning a book should be that under its author’s name. This, then, is the first entry to be made, and the cataloguer having selected the book to be dealt with ignores any title upon the binding and, passing by the preliminary, or “half title,” turns to the title page proper, that containing the most information and with the imprint (place of publication, publisher, and date) at foot, and copies from it the following particulars, adding those not given upon the title-page by an examination of the book, and in this order, viz.—

1. The author’s surname.

2. The author’s Christian name (or prenom).

3. Titles of the author (when required for distinctive or distinguishing purposes).

4. The title of the book.

5. The editor’s name (if not the author or compiler) or the translator’s name (if to be given).

6. The edition.

7. The name of series (if any), or, if part of a book, the name of the book it is contained in.

8. The collation (if to be given), or

9. The number of volumes, when more than one.

10. The size (if to be given).

11. The place of publication.

12. The place of printing or name of printer (when the book is typographically interesting only).

13. The date of publication.

14. The shelf, press, or other location or finding mark.

15. Descriptive or explanatory note (when thought desirable).

16. Contents (if set out).

The order is that most usually adopted, but Nos. 8 to 13 may be varied at pleasure, if such variation is made at the commencement of the work and adhered to in all cases afterwards.

14.—As the surname of the author leads, the Christian name must follow, either enclosed in parentheses, as

Dickens (Charles),

or preceded by a comma, as

Emerson, Ralph Waldo.

The parentheses are more commonly used, but they have not so good an appearance as the comma, and their use necessitates what a printer calls “a run on sorts”—that is the use of a particular piece of type to such an extent as to require a special supply beyond that ordinarily furnished with a fount of type. This, after all, resolves itself more into a question of taste than of expediency, and the cataloguer will choose as he thinks best. It may be remarked in passing that the “cult of the trivial” is not to be altogether despised in cataloguing, as careful attention to apparently minor details ensures good and exact work.

15.—The points to be observed in copying the title-page and preparing the author-entry can be shown more clearly by illustration than by description. Let it be supposed that the title-page of the book in hand reads in full:

The Personal History of David Copperfield. By Charles Dickens. With eight illustrations. London: Chapman & Hall, Piccadilly.

We proceed to write the principal entry to read:—

Dickens, Charles. The personal history of David Copperfield.

From the “fly-title” we learn that this is the “Charles Dickens’ edition.” We examine the book, and find it contains six prefatory pages, these being paged in Roman numerals, and 533 others paged in Arabic, with a portrait and seven other illustrations. This statement of the number of pages and illustrations is known as the “collation,” as to examine a book for the purpose of ascertaining that it is perfect is to collate it. As the place of publication is London, it is the practice in English catalogues to omit it from the entry, such omission signifying that London is understood. The date of publication not being given, and as there are no means of finding it out with certainty, the initials “n.d.,” meaning “no date,” are added, and the full catalogue entry will be:

DICKENS, Charles.

The personal history of David Copperfield. (Charles Dickens’ ed.) pp. vi., 533, port., illus. 8vo. n.d.

K 1200

The author’s name should be written at the outside left hand of the card at the top, the rest of the entry following with an indent at each side, the press mark alone coming outside at the right hand, as shown in the printed entry above.

16.—It is of the utmost importance that care be taken in transcribing a title, as it is much easier to make a mistake than to detect it afterwards, even at the time of printing. Errors of the hand and of the eye creep in imperceptibly. Besides, a mistake having once been made is likely to be repeated in all other entries, when copied from the first one. A very common cause of error is to let the mind become so absorbed in the consideration of a book in hand, that when a second comes to be dealt with some word from the first will unwittingly be written into its title, and if the result is not very obvious from its absurdity it escapes notice altogether until printed, and bears permanent witness against the cataloguer.

17.—The signs and abbreviations of words made use of in the above illustration, and all others to follow, are those customary in cataloguing, and as there is a number of well-understood abbreviations used in connection with books, a list of the most useful of these is given in [Appendix A].

It is a commendable plan to take note of those it is intended to use, and to keep a list of them written on a card always at hand for reference. The list could then be put in the preface to the catalogue when printed, as a help to its better understanding by those not versed in book abbreviations. It is as well to remember that there is not very much gained in the long run by abbreviating too closely, as “illus.” is easier understood than “il.” or “ill.” and “transl.” than “tr.”

18.—In copying a title-page it is required that the spelling of it should be closely followed, more especially if peculiar, but not the punctuation. The punctuation in the illustrative entries throughout this Manual is that most frequently made use of in catalogues, and will be found convenient in practice. But if personal preference for other forms comes in, and a change is made, all that is needed is that such change should be uniformly carried out. Besides the ordinary rules of punctuation there are but four well-defined which can be considered to govern the matter, and these are:—

A.—That alternative titles take a semi-colon after the first title, and a comma after the word “or;” as

St. Winifred’s; or, the world of school.

B.—That explanatory sub-titles be preceded by a colon; as

The foundation of death: a study of the drink question.

C.—When additional matter in the book occupies a subsidiary place in the title-page, in order not to detach it altogether from the rest of the title, that the word “with” be preceded by a semi-colon; as

Life of Luther; with an account of the Reformation.

D.—That when an editor’s or translator’s name appears upon the title-page the word “ed.” or “transl.” be preceded by a semi-colon, as

Epictetus. Discourses; transl. by George Long.

Green fairy book; ed. by Andrew Lang.

It is necessary to point out that in cataloguing it must not be left to the printer to supply the punctuation, as is customary with other books, and therefore the cataloguer must carefully supply it as he proceeds, and not when the time comes to prepare the work for the press.

19.—The same rule holds good with respect to the use of capital letters. Until recently it was the general fashion in printing book-titles to give every word, or almost every word, an initial capital, but the custom has fallen into disuse. Like other old-fashioned customs it dies hard, and if not advised that the “copy” must be closely followed in this respect, the printer will as likely as not put in the capitals all the same, and this in spite of the fact that he may have to wait until he has one sheet printed off before he can set another, on account of the run on the capitals. All that is now expected is that capital letters should be used in catalogue entries as they would be in any ordinary book, viz., to proper names; to words coming after a full stop; and to words derived from proper names. In the last-named a lower-case (i.e. small) initial letter is sometimes used in catalogues, but such words as “christian,” “pauline,” “lutheran,” “darwinism,” “ibsenism,” have not a good appearance and should be avoided. In foreign titles the usage of the language should be followed, so that there will be fewer capitals used in Latin, French, or Italian than in English, and more in German.

20.—All dates and numbers should be transcribed in Arabic figures, even if they are in Roman numerals upon the title-page. Thus, “from the XVIIth Century to the Present Time” becomes “from the 17th century to the present time;” “MDCCCXCIX” becomes “1899;” and “Volume xliv.” is simply “v. 44.” The only reasonable exception to this rule is that numbers to the names of potentates be always in Roman, though in American catalogues these also are put into Arabic. We on this side of the Atlantic are not yet well enough accustomed to “Charles 2,” or even “Edward 6th,” to adopt it.

21.—Sometimes figures form part of the title of a book, when it is desirable for the sake of appearance to write them out in words: the transcript, of course, being kept in the language of the title-page, though “50 études pour le piano” has been seen entered in a catalogue as “Fifty études pour le piano.”

22.—So far as languages printed in Roman are concerned, it is the invariable rule to adhere to the language of the title-page, and not to make a translation. In ordinary libraries Greek is usually transliterated into Latin; if a Greek classic has both Greek and Latin titles, as is commonly the case, then the Latin title is taken rather than the Greek.

23.—Upon this point of the translation of title-pages the question of utility, in popular libraries especially, might very well be considered. It does not often happen, but it is possible, that a person may be a capable musician and not know a word of French, German, or Italian, and it is likely therefore that many of the lesser-known compositions would be made acceptable if a translation of the title-page were given as well as the original. It is very certain that in the public libraries there are many valuable foreign books upon ornament and the decorative arts, consisting almost exclusively of illustrations, that are not used as they should be. The catalogue entries of such books convey no meaning whatever to many an artisan or craftsman, and a free translation might very well be given for their benefit. If such a translation is not given, a note descriptive of the nature of the book should be added.

24.—It is a safe rule that the date of publication should be given in every case and in every entry, as it serves in some measure to show the particular edition of the book, and more important still in scientific and technical works, to show if the editions in a library are of recent date or obsolete. It will, however, be found quite useless in popular libraries to give the dates of publication in the entries of works of fiction, for the simple reason that many of the books in this class of literature are so often worn out and then replaced with new copies, which are very seldom of the same dates as those printed in the catalogue, and it soon becomes incorrect in this respect. Happily it is a matter of no importance, as very few fiction readers are concerned about the date of publication, and therefore it may be safely omitted from all entries. This statement does not apply to first or other editions of novels of special value, such as the first edition of “David Copperfield,” as these would be fully described as well as carefully preserved.

25.—A suggestion worthy of consideration has been made that the original dates of publication should be added to the entries of reprints. This would increase the information given, and might prevent persons mistaking an old book for a new one, though librarians are familiar with the fact that old books are read with as much pleasure as the newest, if got up with modern attractive illustrations and pretty bindings.

26.—In the illustrative entry we have marked the book as 8vo.—that is octavo in size. This we learn either by experience in the sizes of books, or by actual measurement, and it may be at once admitted that the question of size notation is a vexed one and no absolute rule can be laid down for guidance. Those who have studied the matter know that there is no satisfactory solution of the difficulty beyond that of measuring the book and giving its size in centimetres or in inches. But this encumbers the catalogue entry too much, and for ordinary every-day purposes the old signs suffice of 8vo. (octavo), 4to. (quarto), and fo. (folio), and they give a rough idea of the size. These may be qualified, if thought necessary, by la. (large), sm. (small), or obl. (oblong), if the books are of a special size. The terms 12ᵒ., 16ᵒ., 32ᵒ., &c. are sometimes used, but they do not convey any very precise information and the additional terms of “demy,” “royal,” “imperial,” and others have varying meaning nowadays, as there is no fixed standard in the sizes of paper or books. [Appendix B] consists of a table taken from the “Report of the Committee on Size Notation of the Library Association of the United Kingdom,” and this may be studied as an introduction to the subject, but is not to be taken as decisive. The full report of the Committee is to be found in the Library Association Monthly Notes, vol. 3, 1882, pp. 130-133. A scale made from this table will be found convenient to cataloguers, as will also the handy and better known book-size scale prepared by Mr. Madeley of the Warrington Museum. The pages of books are to be measured and not their bindings. The sizes of books are not always shown in the printed catalogues of free libraries and if they were it is most likely that the signs would confuse rather than help, as the majority of the public do not understand anything of the matter, besides the proportion of books other than octavos is not large in a lending library. The reference library usually contains a considerable number of quartos and folios and the information upon this point would be more useful in the catalogue of that department.

27.—The immense value of occasional explanatory or descriptive notes to the entries in a catalogue is well known, but they are not as often inserted as they might be. They should be added to author, subject, or title entry, where necessary, desirable, or in any way helpful, as far as possible briefly and to the point, and printed under the entry in a smaller type, to show they are not part of the title. The following are a few examples taken from various catalogues:

Albert, Mary. Holland and her heroes. 1878

Adapted from Motley’s “Dutch Republic.”

Ball (Sir Robert S.) Elements of astronomy. 1886. ill.

Knowledge of mathematics required for the study of this book.

Ball, (William P.) Are the effects of use and disuse inherited? 1890. Nature series.

Note.—The author taken a negative view and attempts to prove that no improvement in mankind can take place without the aid of natural or artificial selection.

Boccaccio, Giovanni. Il decamerone; nuovamente correto et con diligentia stampato. pp. xii, 568. 8o. Firenze, 1527 [Venice, 1729.]

This is the counterfeit of the Giunta or “Ventisetana” Decameron of 1527.

Dupont-Auberville, M. Art industrial: L’ornement des tissus. 1877

Coloured designs suitable for all purposes taken from textile fabrics.

Mariette, A. E., called Mariette-Bey. Outlines of ancient Egyptian history. 1890

The best brief manual.

Persia.

Morier, J. Hajji Baba. 1895

Remains yet a standard book upon Persian life and manners.

In adding notes of this nature it is a wise plan to keep to statements of fact, and not indulge in expressions of opinion.

CHAPTER IV.
THE PRINCIPAL ENTRY.—THE AUTHOR ENTRY, 2.

28.—Having laid down some of the general principles to be followed in making the author-entry in a complete form, we proceed to take further examples selected because they happen to be at hand and not for any difficulty they present. Any batch of ordinary books will contain some that are troublesome to the beginner in cataloguing, and for this reason nothing that can be regarded as of an out-of-the-way character has been taken in illustration.

The next book is:

Historic survey of German poetry, interspersed with various translations. By W. Taylor, of Norwich. London: Treuttel, &c.

The work is in three volumes, the first being dated 1828, the second 1829, and the third 1830. We ascertain by reference to a biographical dictionary, or other likely work, that the author’s name is William, and as Wm. Taylor is a somewhat common name we retain the description “of Norwich,” so that he may be distinguished from any other author of the same name. The author-entry then is:

Taylor, William (of Norwich).

Historic survey of German poetry, interspersed with various translations. 3 v. 8o. 1828-30

This book being in more than one volume a collation of each is not given, as the statement of the number of volumes is considered to give sufficient idea of its extent. If the work were illustrated this fact would still be stated, not usually as “3 v., illus.” but “Illus. 3 v.” or “illus. 3 v.” It will be seen that the date of publication of each volume is not given but the first and last dates only. It is necessary to point out that the earliest and latest dates are not always those of the first and last volumes of a set, as it sometimes happens that they are not the first or last issued. Often enough the volumes of a set are made up of two or more editions with long intervals between the dates. In all cases the earliest and latest dates are to be given, and any peculiarities of the edition can be stated in the form of a note at the end of the entry.

Taking another book we find that the title-page reads:

Life of Ralph Waldo Emerson, by Richard Garnett, LL.D. London, Walter Scott, &c. 1888

and after an exhaustive examination the entry comes out as

Garnett, Richard.

Life of Ralph Waldo Emerson. (Great writers.) pp. 200, xiv. sm. 8o. 1888

With a bibliography by John P. Anderson.

29.—The desirability, or otherwise, of using initials instead of giving the Christian name in full in an author-entry depends largely upon the requirements of the library and the space taken up.

There seems to be a growing practice to search out from any available source all the names that an author was ever saddled with. The object of this for catalogues, other than those of great libraries of national importance, is not very obvious, and it should not concern the cataloguer why Dickens chose to be known as Charles simply instead of Charles John Huffam, or Du Maurier preferred to be called George rather than George Louis Palmela Busson, or even why Hall Caine has dropped the use of Thomas Henry from the fore part of his name. Yet these and other persons have appeared with all the names set out at length even in minor catalogues, and sometimes with the titles of the books cut down to the finest limit in order that the whole name might be got in. The spirit of infinite research is not always an advantage to the cataloguer.

30.—On the other hand, bare initials have a meagre appearance, and the middle course should be adopted even when expense is a consideration, as it adds very little to the cost of printing to give at least one name in full. It must be admitted that in many instances where there are two or more Christian names, the initials are distinctive enough for all reasonable purposes, as E. A. Abbott, A. K. H. Boyd, E. A. Freeman, and can be so used. Well-understood abbreviations, like Chas. Dickens, Geo. R. Sims, Robt. Browning, Thos. Carlyle, can also be used, but the gain is so trifling as not to be worth consideration. The first Christian name in use should be given in full, unless it happens that some other is better or specially known, as W. H. Davenport Adams, J. Percy Groves, J. Cotter Morison, R. Bosworth Smith.

31.—With the commoner surnames, as Smith, Brown, Jones, and the rest, there will be a number of authors who will have also the same Christian name, when particular care must be exercised not to mix the works together, and so attribute books to a wrong author. Some distinction must be given, like that shown in the “Taylor of Norwich” entry (p. 27), and these are better printed in italics. Examples of these, taken from a catalogue, are

Smith, John, A. L. S.

Smith, John, of Kilwinning.

Smith, John, of Malton.

Thomson, James (poet, 1700-48).

Thomson, James (“B. V.”)

Thomson, James (Traveller).

When father and son with the same name are authors, and the difference between them appears in the book as “the elder,” “jun.,” “fils,” “aîné,” &c., it should be given at the time the entry is made, even though not then required for distinguishing purposes, the library only possessing the works of one or the other. Frequently such a distinction is not shown on the book, and the cataloguer must add it. Strange to say, entries like the following have been seen in catalogues:—

Frères, P. Modes et costumes historiques.

Nassau, W., sen. Journals kept in France and Italy.

The first book being by the Paquet frères, and the other by Nassau W. Senior.

32.—Biographical dictionaries of all kinds are useful to the cataloguer, but for making distinctions like those referred to above, and for general use, the most serviceable and handiest, because concise and comprehensive, is “The dictionary of biographical reference, containing one hundred thousand names,” by Lawrence B. Phillips (Sampson Low, 1871.) There is a later edition of this work, but it is merely a reprint with no new matter. It should be superfluous to name the valuable and indispensable “Dictionary of national biography” for British names. Allibone’s “Critical dictionary of English literature and British and American authors,” with its supplement by Kirk, is an every-day book of reference for cataloguers. For German biography the “Allgemeine deutsche Biographie” (Leipzig, 1875-98), is the most important, and for French names the “Biographie universelle” (Paris, 1842-65) is very serviceable, as well as for names generally. It should be supplemented by Vapereau’s “Dictionnaire des contemporains.”

33.—The form for author-entry is clear and simple enough, and seems easy to put into practice, but difficulties soon arise, and the amount of knowledge the cataloguer possesses upon men in general and authors in particular will be early put to the test. The next book coming before us is

Vice versâ; or, a lesson to fathers. By F. Anstey. New and revised ed. London, Smith, Elder, &c., 1883.

The author’s name in this instance is a pseudonym, and the mode of treating such names has given rise to differences of opinion, and consequently of practice. In many catalogues the real name of the author, when known, is taken for the author-entry, and a reference given from the pseudonym to it. This may be a good rule to follow in very special catalogues, but there is no doubt that it is against the convenience of the great majority of persons who use libraries; and therefore the best, because most convenient and useful, plan is to make the entry under the best known name, whether it be assumed or real. It has been often said, and with much truth, that it is not the business of librarians to discover the identity of an author by proving his use of an alias unless for some sufficient reason. It has become quite a mania with some cataloguers to hunt and pry until they find out whether a name is real or not, and their zeal in this direction sometimes misleads them, as witness the fact that “George Eliot” has been entered as Mrs. Lewes in quite a number of catalogues, and Marie Corelli is called Marion Mackay. The cataloguer, besides putting himself to the bother of being ever on the look-out for real names, gives readers the trouble and vexation of looking in several places in the catalogue before they can find the author’s works they are in search of. People wanting books by “Ouida” do not care to be told on turning to that name to “see De la Ramé,” or “Ramée, L. de la,” or even “La Ramé.” It would be equally absurd, on the other hand, to refer from Dickens to “Boz,” or Thackeray to “Titmarsh;” therefore use the best known names. When the pseudonym is the most familiar name, and the principal entry is accordingly given under that form, then it is desirable, but not absolutely essential, to also give the real name, when known with certainty, enclosing it in parentheses, as

Anstey, F. (T. Anstey Guthrie).

Hobbes, John Oliver (Mrs. P. M. T. Craigie).

Sometimes the pseudonym is printed in italics in all entries, but this only serves to emphasise the name, without indicating that it is a known pseudonym. If it is wished to point out that the name is assumed, then the customary form of printing it in inverted commas is better understood, as

“Twain, Mark” (Samuel L. Clemens),

but this need only be in the author-entry. Upon these lines the book before us appears as

“Anstey, F.” (T. Anstey Guthrie).

Vice versâ; or, a lesson to fathers. New ed. 1883

To perfectly complete the author-entry and to prevent any possibility of mistake, we require a cross-reference pointing from the real name to the pseudonym under which the entry is found, thus:

Guthrie, T. Anstey. See Anstey, F.

If space is of no consideration, and it is wished to make the entry as exact as possible, then the form is

Anstey, F. (pseudonym of T. Anstey Guthrie),

and the reference reads

Guthrie, T. Anstey. See Anstey F. (pseud.)

34.—Before leaving this question of the treatment of pseudonymous books attention may be directed to other phases of it. There is the difficulty that occasionally arises of an author publishing under a pseudonym and under his real name and being equally as well-known under both. Instances of this would be the Rev. John M. Watson, whose theological works appear under his own name, and his stories under “Ian Maclaren;” and J. E. Muddock, who publishes some stories under that name and, it is said, his detective stories under the name of “Dick Donovan.” Common-sense might offer the suggestion to adhere to the rule already laid down and enter under both names, but this violates one of the first principles of dictionary cataloguing, viz., that all works by an author must be brought together under a single name. Therefore in such cases there is no option but to adopt the real name, at the same time taking care to remove all occasion of difficulty by giving cross-references, as

“Maclaren, Ian.” See Watson, John M.

“Donovan, Dick.” See Muddock, J. E.

35.—Then there are books that have a phrase for the pseudonym, like “One who has kept a diary,” or “A whistler at the plough.” These, while nominally pseudonyms, are virtually anonyms, and it is customary in full and special catalogues to make the entry under the first word not an article of such a phrase-name. It may be considered as very likely that such an entry in the majority of catalogues would be quite superfluous. Books like:

“Five years penal servitude, by One who has endured it.”

“Three in Norway, by Two of them.”

would be better dealt with if the title-entries, such as these, were taken as the principal entries and the pseudonym ignored. This is a case where the cataloguer will use his discretion as to the best course to pursue, being guided by the requirements of the library, but it is a mistake on the right side to give both forms if there is the least doubt.

36.—Books with initials only instead of the author’s name come between the pseudonymous and anonymous. The initials may be those of a name or indicate a title or profession. In all cases where the name veiled by the initials cannot be discovered, or their meaning ascertained, then the entry is given under the last letter, but if the letters stand for a known pseudonym, as “A.L.O.E.,” or a title or degree, as “by an M.P.,” or “M.A. (Oxon),” then the first letter is taken instead of the last. Occasionally an initialism will be given like, “by B.H.W., D.D.,” when, the meaning being clear, the entry will be under the W., as

W., B.H., D.D.

If it is known what the name is that is covered by the initials, as A.K.H.B., or L.E.L., then the entry is given under the name in full,

Boyd, A.H.K.

Landon, L.E.

but it is requisite that cross-references be given from the initialism, as

B., A.K.H. See Boyd, A.K.H.

L., L.E. See Landon, L.E.

The remark as to whether it is worth while in minor catalogues to give an entry under a phrase-pseudonym applies equally to the initials, and is open to the same doubts.

37.—In arranging the entries in alphabetical order it should be noted that initials take precedence of all other names in each particular letter, as

B., A.K.H.

B., G.W.

Baar, Thomas.

“Bab.”

The works most useful to the cataloguer in revealing real names are Halkett and Laing’s Dictionary of the anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain, Cushing’s Initials and pseudonyms, and Les supercheries littéraires dévoilées, par Quérard. A list of pseudonyms, mostly modern instances, with the real names, will be found in [Appendix C], by those who may require it.

38.—The next illustration is selected because it is distinctly anonymous, that is the author is not shown in any form in the book, either by a pseudonym or initialism, and the ordinary sources of information do not enable the authorship to be discovered.

Times and days: being essays in romance and history, pp. viii, 215. sm. 8o. 1889

Upon such books, if they are worth it, the industry of the cataloguer may very well be exercised, as librarians and the public feel that they are fully justified in finding out who the author is if they can. If the book is of any importance the name of the author is sure to be revealed for general information sooner or later, and the possibility of this adds zest to the search for the name at the moment it is needed by the cataloguer. Besides the works of reference mentioned already, Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica should be consulted (for the older books), Barbier’s Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes, and any special bibliographies or catalogues within reach, not forgetting the great British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books. Local catalogues often prove valuable in this work, as the identity of an author may be well-known locally but not further. It is as well to point out that if a work is merely “ascribed,” or “said to be” by a particular person it is better to regard the book as altogether anonymous. To name a case in point, Halkett and Laing ascribe the authorship of the, at one time, celebrated “red pamphlets” on the Mutiny of the Bengal Army to a Major Bunbury, whereas the author is now known to have been the late Colonel G. B. Malleson.

In the event of the search after the author’s name proving futile, the rule is that the principal entry be given under the first word of the title not an article, in the same way as the entries follow in the work of Halkett and Laing. Should the library be a small one of a general character it would be somewhat pedantic to adhere rigidly to this rule, more especially if the subject of the book is clearly stated upon its title-page. For example, books like, A short history of Poland, and The rambler’s guide to Harrogate, would be amply and satisfactorily dealt with if entries were alone given under “Poland” and “Harrogate” respectively, instead of under “Short” and “Rambler’s,” as required by the rule.

39.—When books are said to be “by the author of —” and it cannot be ascertained who the author is, then they are treated as altogether anonymous and dealt with accordingly, as

N. or M., by the author of “Honor bright.”

No entry would be made under “Honor bright” except, of course, for that book itself if it happened to be in the library.

CHAPTER V.
THE PRINCIPAL ENTRY—THE AUTHOR-ENTRY, 3.

40.—There are further difficulties that arise from time to time in making the author-entry owing to the great variety in the form of authors’ names. The first book we take to illustrate one of these is:

M. Tullii Ciceronis Orationes; with a commentary by George Long. (Bibliotheca classica; ed. by George Long and A. J. Macleane.) 4 v. la. 8o. 1855-62

The rule is to transcribe Greek and Latin names either into the English form, as Cicero, Horace, Livy, Ovid, or into the Latin nominative as M. Tullius Cicero, and therefore the entry will be:

Cicero, M. Tullius. Orationes; with a commentary, by George Long. (Bibliotheca classica). 4 v. la. 8o. 1855-62

Greek names are not simply transcribed in Roman characters, as Homeros, but into the English or Latin form, as Homer, Homerus. All forms of the name, irrespective of the language of the original book or its translations, must be concentrated under the form adopted; thus the following three books,

The odes of Horace; transl. into English by the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. pp. xvi., 154. 8o. 1894

Quinti Horatii Flacci Opera omnia; with a commentary by the Rev. Arthur John Macleane, M.A. 4th ed., revised by George Long, M.A. (1869). (Bibliotheca classica.) pp. xxxii, 771. la. 8o. 1881

Q. Orazio Flacco. Odi, epistole, satire; traduzione di Diocleziano Mancini. pp. 64. sm. 8o. Castello, 1897

are entered either under Horace or Horatius Flaccus (Quintus), and therefore would appear as

Horace. Opera omnia; with a commentary, by Arthur J. Macleane. 4th ed., revised by Geo. Long (1869). (Bibliotheca classica.) pp. xxxii, 771. la. 8o. 1881

⸻ Odi, epistole, satire; trad. di Diocleziano Mancini. pp. 64. sm. 8o. Castello, 1897

⸻ Odes; transl. into English by W. E. Gladstone, pp. xvi, 154. 8o. 1894

It is very rarely required to give cross-references from the one form of name to the other, especially in the case of the classical authors. It should be noted that absolute uniformity is necessary in the style of such names in a single catalogue, be the form Latin or English, as it would be inconsistent to have, say Virgilius in one place, and Livy in another—in other words, it should be Virgil and Livy or Livius and Virgilius, popular libraries adopting the English form as most suitable.

41.—The customary mode of arranging the entries in such a case as the Horace given above, is to give first the whole works in the original, then the whole works in translations, afterwards the portions in the original followed by translations of these in their turn, the greater parts taking precedence of the lesser, and those in the language of the original coming before translations without regard to alphabetical order.

42.—There are classes of persons whose names come oftener under the notice of the cataloguer for subject-than for author-entry, such as sovereigns, princes, saints, and popes; but as one rule governs both forms of entry, it may be referred to at this point. All such personages are entered under the Christian names by which they are known and not under family or titular names. With these names are included those of ancient or mediæval use before the days of fixed surnames, or when they were merely sobriquets. Omitting titles of books in illustration examples of all these with the correct form would be:

Albert, Prince Consort.

Albert Edward, Prince of Wales.

Augustine, St.

Giraldus Cambrensis.

Leo XIII., Pope.

Paul, St.

Thomas a’Becket.

Thomas a’Kempis.

Victoria, Queen.

William of Malmesbury.

It would be safer to provide cross-references for such names as Thomas a’ Becket and Thomas a’ Kempis, thus:

Becket, Thomas a’. See Thomas a’ Becket.

Kempis, Thomas a’. See Thomas a’ Kempis.

43.—Strange to say, it is quite a common mistake in catalogues to enter all the saints together under “Saint,” instead of under their names, and it has even been attempted to justify such an obvious absurdity by the contention that people naturally turn to the word “Saint” for such names. This is very likely, but it would be just as reasonable to expect to find Lord Beaconsfield’s books under “Lord” or “Earl,” and Mr. Gladstone’s under “Mr.” Besides, if such a rule were logically carried out in the case of every person canonized, Sir Thomas More would now be entered under “Blessed,” and Thomas a’ Becket under “Saint.”

44.—In the case of noblemen who are authors, the entry should be under the title, and not under the family name, though it may be necessary in some instances to give a cross-reference from the family name. Illustrative examples of these would be:

Beaconsfield, Earl of. Coningsby.

Disraeli, Benjamin. See Beaconsfield.

Argyll, Duke of. The reign of law.

In full catalogues it is usual to give more particulars, as

Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of.

Argyll, George D. Campbell, 8th Duke of.

but even in concise catalogues, if the library happens to possess books by noblemen of the same title, the distinction must be clearly shown as

Albemarle, 6th Earl of. Fifty years of my life.

Albemarle, 8th Earl of. Cycling.

or fuller still, as

Derby, Edward, 14th Earl of. The Iliad of Homer, translated.

Derby, Edward H., 15th Earl of. Speeches and addresses.

45.—In some exceptional and well-defined cases, it is better to place the entries under the family name, for the reason that it is more in common use and so is better known, as

Bacon, Francis, Lord Verulam.

Walpole, Horace, Earl of Orford.

It is important to remember that the title of the author to be used is not that of the time when the book happened to be published, but the highest attained to at the time the catalogue is prepared or issued.

46.—This brings us to the question as to the extent in which titles of honour, of professional rank, or of scholastic attainment are to be used in cataloguing, particularly in connection with authors’ names. This is a matter that has been settled more by convenience and usage than by fixed rules. It is usual to omit all titles of rank below that of a knight, all such distinctions to a name as “Baronet,” “Knight,” “Right Honourable,” and “Honourable,” as well as the initials of the various orders of knighthood, as K.G., K.C.B., C.B., &c. University degrees and initials of membership of learned or other societies, as D.D., M.A., F.R.S., F.R.Hist.S., &c., are ignored, and so are professional titles, as Professor, Colonel, Doctor, Barrister-at-Law. For example, in the “republic of letters,” as exemplified in cataloguing,

The Right Honourable Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Bart., M.P.

becomes simply

Dilke, Sir Charles W.

and

The Right Honourable Professor F. Max Müller.

is

Müller, F. Max.

Upon the same plan most of the ecclesiastical titles are passed over, or at anyrate all under the rank of a dean, and all the prefixes as “Right Reverend,” “Rev.” are left out. Thus

The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton, D.D., &c.

is reduced to

Creighton, Mandell, Bp. of London.

or shorter still, if desired, to

Creighton, Mandell, Bp.

It has been found that simple treatment of this kind meets every requirement, and it is quite unnecessary to waste space in a catalogue by adding superfluous matter of this kind, besides the line must be drawn somewhere, and, as the cataloguer has no reason, even for politic motives, to indulge in snobbery, there is no occasion to swell a catalogue to undue proportions.

47.—If it is desired, however, to include degrees or other distinctive affixes, they must follow the Christian name, as

Jones, Thomas, LL.D.

and not

Jones, LL.D., Thomas.

Prefixes would be inserted in their proper order, as

Jones, Dr. Thomas.

Anything not actually part of the author’s name should be made distinctive by being printed in italics as here shown.

48.—It cannot be too often impressed on the young cataloguer how important it is to keep himself well posted in all changes occurring in the world around, and, more particularly, in the literary and social world. While many sources of information are available in a well-equipped library, yet none of these can compensate for a retentive memory and a mind keenly alive even for the comparatively trivial affairs that need to be constantly noted if error is to be avoided, or at least if the catalogue is to show the latest information. For instance, as each New Year and Queen’s Birthday comes round the lists of new honours gazetted have to be read, as an author or two may be among those raised to the peerage or be made baronets or knights and their style in the catalogue has to be altered accordingly. This may be considered unnecessary advice because catalogues of libraries are supposed to, and do, cover the whole field of human knowledge in all directions, and it is part of the cataloguer’s business to keep his knowledge modernized if his services are to be worth much. It is as well, however, to point this out to beginners, otherwise, if attention be not paid to such details, they will very soon find, or others will for them, that they have books written by the same person under two names, sometimes three, in a single catalogue. Many examples could be given of how this can be brought about, but it will suffice to give one. The first edition, 1887, of the book on cycling in the “Badminton Library” series has the names of Viscount Bury and G. L. Hillier as the authors, and the new edition of 1895 is by the Earl of Albemarle and G. L. Hillier. It would not do for a library possessing the first edition only to now enter it under “Bury,” nor for a library with both editions to enter one under “Bury” and the other under “Albemarle.”

49.—This point may be further emphasized by stating that ecclesiastical changes in the higher orders of the clergy have to be carefully observed from time to time, so that the very latest office is shown at the time the catalogue is printed, or that the alteration is made if in manuscript. It would not look well to continue to describe Frederick Temple as Bishop of Exeter or even as Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton as Bishop of Peterborough, or Frederick W. Farrar as Archdeacon, though their names may so appear upon the books being catalogued.

Occasionally books will be found by authors whose ecclesiastical office and not their names appear upon the title-pages, as “by William, Bishop of Chester,” “by the Archbishop of York,” when the name must be sought out and care taken to give the credit of the book to the right person. For instance, there is a book upon the Riviera, published in 1870, “by the Dean of Canterbury,” which might easily be credited to Dean Payne Smith instead of Dean Alford, and a very careless or unthinking cataloguer might even add it to Dean Farrar’s books. In this connection a very useful book of reference is The book of dignities, by Joseph Haydn, continued by Horace Ockerby, 1894, and of course any back volumes available of clerical directories or diocesan calendars will prove useful.

50.—But the ladies have to be watched with much greater care, as they are so much more apt to change their name, and that without any evidence of such change being given upon the title-page. Many examples might be given of ladies who have written under both their maiden and their married names. If the ladies continue writing under their maiden names, then the rule given for pseudonymous books would fitly apply, and the more familiar name should be used, as M. E. Braddon, and not Mrs. Maxwell, Florence Warden, and not Mrs. James. Where women authors are better known under their husbands’ names with the prefix “Mrs.,” as Mrs. Humphry Ward, Mrs. Coulson Kernahan, &c., it will be found that the best known form is also the best for use in a general or popular catalogue, though it would be more exact to give the ladies’ own names. If exactness is of prime importance, then the distinction can very well be shown, as

Ward, Mary A. (Mrs. Humphry Ward).

Kernahan, Jeanie G. (Mrs. Coulson Kernahan).

When both the maiden and married names are given upon a title-page, as “Katharine Tynan (Mrs. H. A. Hinkson),” then it is better to adopt the married name for the entry, but a cross-reference should be given, especially if books have been issued under the maiden name alone. Accordingly the entry would be

Hinkson, Katharine (Katharine Tynan).