Part 4 (2/2)

”_c._ In all other languages, under the name following the prefix, as _Gama_, Vasco de, with references whenever the name has been commonly used in English with the prefix, as _Del Rio_, _Vandyck_, _Van Ess_.”

This is all the Library a.s.sociation have to say:--

”31. English and French surnames beginning with a prefix (except the French _De_ and _D'_) are to be recorded under the prefix; in other languages, under the word following.”

The British Museum rule stands thus:--

”12. Foreign names, excepting French, preceded by a preposition and article, or by both, to be entered under the name immediately following. French names preceded by a preposition only, to follow the same rule: those preceded by an article, or by a preposition and an article, to be entered under the initial letter of the article. English surnames, of foreign origin, to be entered under their initial, even if originally belonging to a preposition.”

The Cambridge rules are as follows:--

”8. German and Dutch names, preceded by a preposition or an article, or both, to be catalogued under the name, and not under the preposition or article.

”9. French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese names, preceded by a preposition only, to be catalogued under the name; those preceded by an article, or by a preposition and an article forming one word, to be catalogued under the article or combined preposition and article.”

The point was fully considered by the Index Society; and as the rule laid down by the Council is full and clear, I venture to give it here in addition to those above.

”5. Proper names of foreigners to be alphabetically arranged under the prefixes

_Dal._ as _Dal Sie._ _Del._ _Del Rio._ _Della._ _Della Casa._ _Des._ _Des Cloiseaux._ _Du._ _Du Bois._ _La._ _La Condamine._ _Le._ _Le Sage._

but not under the prefixes

_D'._ as _Abbadie_ not _D'Abbadie._ _Da._ _Silva_ _Da Silva._ _De._ _La Place_ _De La Place._ _Von._ _Humboldt_ _Von Humboldt._ _Van._ _Beneden_ _Van Beneden._ _Van der._ _Hoeven_ _Van der Hoeven._

It is an acknowledged principle that when the prefix is a preposition it is to be rejected, but when an article it is to be retained. When, however, as in the case of the French _Du_, _Des_, the two are joined, it is necessary to retain the preposition. This also applies to the case of the Italian _Della_, which is often rejected by cataloguers. English names are, however, to be arranged under the prefixes _De_, _Dela_, _Van_, etc., _as De Quincey_, _Delabeche_, _Van Mildert_, because these prefixes are meaningless in English and form an integral part of the name.”

We must be careful not to invent an author by misreading a t.i.tle, as was done by the cataloguer who entered the _Relatio felicis agonis_ of certain martyrs as the work of one Felix Ago.[21] This is by no means an unnecessary caution, for several imaginary authors have found their way into biographical dictionaries by the blundering of t.i.tle-readers.

The British Museum rule by which Voltaire is entered under _Arouet_ and Moliere under _Poquelin_ has been so often criticised that I scarcely like to refer to it here; but as these are very striking examples of an irritating rule, I feel bound to allude to them. Mr. Jewett, in forming his rules, felt bound to place Arouet le jeune and Poquelin under the only names by which they are known, viz., Voltaire and Moliere; and to cover his departure from rules he was following, he made this note: ”The family name of an individual is to be considered that which he has or adopts for himself and his descendants rather than that which he received from his ancestors--his family name, not his father's.” This, to a great extent, covers the case; for we are bound to take for our catalogue the name by which an author decides to be known, and by which he always is known. It is not for us to rake up his family history.

Panizzi, however, specially answered the objection made to his treatment of Voltaire. He said that Lelong, in his _Bibliotheque Historique de la France_, while Voltaire was alive, entered him under Arouet; and in answer to the question, ”Mr. Tomlinson states that the family name of Voltaire was Arouet, a name which the writer himself never used, and by which he was scarcely known?” Panizzi added, ”The first thing that occurred in his life was, that he was sent to prison as Arouet, as the supposed writer of certain satirical verses against the Regent; and if you look at the index to the best edition of St. Simon, you will not find Voltaire at all. You will find M. Arouet. We put it under Arouet, but there is a cross-reference from Voltaire. I believe Mr. Milnes pointed out the advantage of this, because, he said, the greatest harm that can arise is, that if you look under 'Voltaire' you find that you are sent to 'Arouet,' but if we are not consistent we mislead every one” (p. 675). This is an answer, but I do not think it will be accepted as a satisfactory one. The reference could as easily be made the other way, and no one would be misled. References should be from the little known to the better known, and not the reverse way. We may pay too high a price for consistency in cataloguing.

By the rule that an author should be placed under the name by which he is best known, Melanchthon will be under that name and not under Schwartzerde, Oecolampadius not under Hausschein, Xylander not under Holzmann, Regiomonta.n.u.s not under Muller. The tersest reason I know for this rule is that of Professor De Morgan: ”As the butchers' bills of these eminent men are lost, and their writings only remain, it is best to designate them by the name which they bear on the latter rather than on the former.”

We shall sometimes come upon a t.i.tle in which the author appears as the Bishop of Carlisle, or the Dean of Chichester; and before making the heading for our catalogue slip we shall have to look in a book of dignities, or almanac, or directory to find out the surname of the bishop or the dean. These t.i.tles can no more be treated as names than could the Mayor or Recorder of Brighton be registered under the name of that place. This rule is clear, and one that is universally adopted; but in another case, which is supposed to be similar, the lawgivers have, I think, gone very wrong. It has become general to place peers under their family names instead of under their t.i.tles. This rule is in direct opposition to the clear principle of placing an author under the name by which he is best known, and under which he is most likely to be sought for. The majority of peers are known only by their t.i.tles, and therefore if they are placed under their family names they are placed under the worst possible heading. Readers of history know that the great Duke of Marlborough began to make a figure as Colonel Churchill, but most persons know him only as Marlborough, and when they wish to find whether a certain catalogue contains his Despatches, they do not wish either to be referred to Churchill or to have to look for his family name in a peerage. The t.i.tles of n.o.blemen and the names of the sees of bishops have really little in common. The t.i.tle is practically the man's name, and he has no other for use; but a bishop never loses his name.

The British Museum rules, and those of the Cambridge University Library, direct that n.o.blemen shall be placed under their family names. At Cambridge there is the further rule that, ”in the case of dukes of the blood royal who have no surname, the t.i.tle is to be taken as the leading word.” The necessity for this exception condemns the original rule.

The Library a.s.sociation and Bodleian rules adopt the common-sense plan of entering n.o.blemen under their t.i.tles; and Mr. Cutter gives some excellent reasons for doing this, although he cannot make up his mind to run counter to a supposed well-established rule.

Mr. Cutter writes:--

”STANHOPE, Philip Dormer, _4th Earl of Chesterfield_.... This is the British Museum rule and Mr. Jewett's. Mr. Perkins prefers entry under t.i.tles for British n.o.blemen also, in which I should agree with him if the opposite practice were not so well established. The reasons for entry under the t.i.tle are that British n.o.blemen are always spoken of, always sign by their t.i.tles only, and seldom put the family name upon the t.i.tle-pages of their books, so that ninety-nine in a hundred readers must look under the t.i.tle first.

The reasons against it are that the founders of n.o.ble families are often as well known--sometimes even better--by their family name as by their t.i.tles (as Charles Jenkinson, afterwards Lord Liverpool; Sir Robert Walpole, afterwards Earl of Orford); that the same man bears different t.i.tles 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 Thynne), which last argument would be more to the point in planning a family history. The same objections apply to the entry of French n.o.blemen under their t.i.tles, about which there can be no hesitation. The strongest argument in favour of the Museum rule is that it is well established, and that it is desirable that there should be some uniform rule.”

Sovereigns, saints, and friars are to be registered under their Christian names. Upon this point all the authorities are agreed. The British Museum rule is:--

<script>