With respect to the translation of foreign titles, the historian Freeman made a curious statement which is quoted in one of the American Q.P. indexes. Freeman wrote:
"No man was ever so clear [as Macaulay] from the vice of thrusting in foreign words into an English sentence. One sees this in such small matters as the accurate way in which he uses foreign titles. He speaks, for instance, of the 'Duke of Maine,' the 'Count of Avaux,' while in other writers one sees the vulgarism of the _Court Circular_, 'Duke de Maine,' 'Duc de Maine,'--perhaps 'Duc of Maine.'"
Duke de Maine and Duc of Maine may be vulgar, they are certainly incorrect; but I fail to see how it can be vulgar to call a man by his right name--"Duc de Maine." I do not venture to censure Macaulay, but for lesser men it is certainly a great mistake to translate the names of foreigners, in spite of Freeman's expression of his strong opinion.
6. _Proper names with the prefix St., as St. Albans, St. John, to be arranged in the alphabet as if written in full--Saint. When the word Saint represents a ceremonial title, as in the case of St. Alban, St. Giles, and St. Augustine, these names are to be arranged under the letters A and G respectively; but the places St. Albans, St. Giles's, and St. Augustine's will be found under the prefix Saint. The prefixes M' and Mc to be arranged as if written in full--Mac._
This rule is very frequently neglected, more particularly in respect to the neglect of the difference between Saint Alban the man and St. Albans the place.
7. _Peers to be arranged under their titles, by which alone in most cases they are known, and not under their family names, except in such a case as Horace Walpole, who is almost unknown by his title of Earl of Orford, which came to him late in life. Bishops, deans, etc., to be always under their family names._
About this rule there is great difference of opinion. The British Museum practice is to catalogue peers under their surnames, and the same plan has been adopted in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. It is rather difficult to understand how this practice has come into being. There are difficulties on both sides; but the great majority of peers are, I believe, known solely by their titles, and when these noblemen are entered under their family names cross references are required because very few persons know the family names of peers. The Library Association and Bodleian rules adopt the common-sense plan of entering noblemen under their titles, 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: