This applies very slightly to entries under first words, because it is easy and sufficient to arrange them by the alphabet.

There is such confusion in the use of terms in the various prefaces to catalogues—a confusion that at once springs from and leads to confusion of thought and practice—that it is worth while to propose a systematic nomenclature.

Strictly a book is not anonymous if the author’s name appears anywhere in it, but it is safest to treat it as anonymous if the author’s name does not appear in the title.

Note that the words are “in the title,” not “on the title-page.” Sometimes in Government publications the author’s name and the title of his work do not appear on the title-page but on a page immediately following. Such works are not anonymous.

Books are classified by bringing together those which have the same characteristics. [6] Of course any characteristics might be taken, as size, or binding, or publisher. But as nobody wants to know what books there are in the library in folio, or what quartos, or what books bound in russia or calf, or what published by John Smith, or by Brown, Jones, and Robinson, these bases of classification are left to the booksellers and auctioneers and trade sales. Still, in case of certain unusual or noted bindings, as human skin or Grolier’s, or early or famous publishers, as Aldus and Elzevir, a partial class-list is sometimes very properly made. But books are most commonly brought together in catalogues because they have the same authors, or the same subjects, or the same literary form, or are written in the same language, or were given by the same donor, or are designed for the same class of readers. When brought together because they are by the same author, they are not usually thought of as classified; they form the author-catalogue, and need no further mention here except in regard to arrangement. The classes, i. e., in this case the authors, might of course be further classified according to their nations, or their professions (as the subjects are in national or professional biographies), or by any other set of common characteristics, but for library purposes an alphabetical arrangement according to the spelling of their names is universally acknowledged to be the best.

The classification by language is not generally used in full. There are catalogues in which all the English books are separated from all the foreign; in others there are separate lists of French books or German books. The needs of each library must determine whether it is worth while to prepare such lists. It is undeniably useful in almost any library to make lists of the belles lettres in the different languages; which, though nominally a classification by language, is really a classification by literary form, the object being to bring together all the works with a certain national flavor—the French flavor, the German flavor, or it may be a classing by readers, the German books being catalogued together for a German population, the French for the French, and so on. Again, it is useful to give lists not of the belles lettres alone, but of all the works in the rarer languages, as the Bodleian and the British Museum have published separate lists of their Hebrew books. Here too the circumstances of each library must determine where it shall draw the line between those literatures which it will put by themselves and those which it will include and hide in the mass of its general catalogue. Note, however, that some of the difficulties of transliterating {10} names of modern Greek, Russian authors, etc., are removed by putting their original works in a separate catalogue, though translations still remain to puzzle us.

The catalogue by donors or original owners is usually partial (as those of the Dowse, Barton, Prince, and Ticknor libraries). The catalogues by classes of readers are also partial, hardly extending beyond Juvenile literature and Sunday-school books. Of course many subject classes amount to the same thing, the class Medicine being especially useful to medical men, Theology to the theologians, and so on.

Classification by subject and classification by form are the most common. An example will best show the distinction between them. Theology, which is itself a subject, is also a class, that is, it is extensive enough to have its parts, its chapters, so to speak (as Future Life, Holy Spirit, Regeneration, Sin, Trinity), treated separately, each when so treated (whether in books or only in thought) being itself a subject; all these together, inasmuch as they possess this in common, that they have to do with some part of the relations of God to man, form the class of subjects Theology. Class, however, is applied to Poetry in a different sense. It then signifies not a collection of similar subjects, but a collection of books resembling one another in being composed in that form and with that spirit, whatever it is, which is called poetical. In the subject-catalogue class it is used in the first sense—collection of similar subjects; in the form-catalogue it is used in the second—list of similar books.

Most systems of classification are mixed, as the following analysis of one in actual use in a small library will show:

Confining ourselves now to classification by subjects, the word can be used in three senses:

1. Bringing books together which treat of the same subject specifically.

That is, books which each treat of the whole of the subject and not of a part only.

2. Bringing books together which treat of similar subjects.

Or, to express the same thing differently:

  Bringing subjects together so as to form a class.

A catalogue so made is called a classed catalogue.

3. Bringing classes together so as to form a system.

A catalogue so made should be called a systematic catalogue.

The three steps are then

• 1. Classifying the books to make subject-lists.
• 2. Classifying the subject-lists to make classes.
• 3. Classifying the classes to make a systematic catalogue.

The dictionary stops in its entries at the first stage, in its cross-references at the second.

The alphabetico-classed catalogue stops at the second stage.

The systematic alone advances to the third.

Classification in the first sense, it is plain, is the same as “entry;” in the second {11} sense it is the same as “class-entry;” and in the third sense it is the same as the “logical arrangement” of the table on p. 12, under “Classed catalogue.”

It is worth while to ascertain the relation of subject and class in the subject-catalogue. Subject is the matter on which the author is seeking to give or the reader to obtain information; Class is, as said above, a grouping of subjects which have characteristics in common. A little reflection will show that the words so used partially overlap, [7] the general subjects being classes [8] and the classes being subjects, [9] but the individual subjects [10] never being classes.

[6] This note has little direct bearing on practice, but by its insertion here some one interested in the theory of cataloguing may be saved the trouble of going over the same ground.

[7]

[8] The subjects Animals, Horses, Plants are classes, a fact which is perhaps more evident to the eye if we use the terms Zoology, Hippology, Botany. The subdivisions of Botany and Zoology are obvious enough; the subdivisions of Hippology may be themselves classes, as Shetland ponies, Arabian coursers, Barbs, or individual horses, as Lady Suffolk, Justin Morgan.

[9] Not merely the concrete classes, Natural history, Geography, Herpetology, History, Ichthyology, Mineralogy, but the abstract ones, Mathematics, Philosophy, are plainly subjects. The fact that some books treat of the subject Philosophy and others of philosophical subjects, and that others treat in a philosophical manner subjects not usually considered philosophical, introduces confusion into the matter, and single examples may be brought up in which it seems as if the classification expressed the form (Crestadoro’s “nature”) or something which a friend calls the “essence” of the book and not its subject, so that we ought to speak of an “essence catalogue” which might require some special treatment; but the distinction can not be maintained. It might be said, for example, that “Geology a proof of revelation” would have for its subject-matter Geology but for its class Theology—which is true, not because class and subject are incompatible but because this book has two subjects, the first Geology, the second one of the evidences of revealed religion, wherefore, as the Evidences are a subdivision of Theology, the book belongs under that as a subject-class.

[10] It is plain enough that Mt. Jefferson, John Milton, the Warrior Iron-clad are not classes. Countries, however, which for most purposes it is convenient to consider as individual, are in certain aspects classes; when by the word “England” we mean “the English” it is the name of a class.

E. g., a book on repentance has class entry under Theology; its specific entry would be under Repentance.

A dictionary catalogue contains class-headings, inasmuch as it contains the headings of extensive subjects, but under them there is no class entry, only specific entry. The syndetic dictionary catalogue, however, recognizes their nature by its cross-references, which constitute it in a certain degree an alphabetico-classed (not a systematic) catalogue. Moreover, the dictionary catalogue, without ceasing to be one, might, if it were thought worth while (which it certainly is not), not merely give titles under specific headings but repeat them under certain classes or under all classes in ascending series, e. g., not merely have such headings as Rose, Geranium, Fungi, Liliaceæ, Phænogamia, Cryptogamia, but also under Botany include all the titles which appeared under Rose, Geranium, etc.; provided the headings Botany, Cryptogamia, Fungi, etc., were arranged alphabetically. The matter may be tabulated thus:

• Alphabetical arrangement.
  • Dictionary catalogue.
    • Specific entry. (Common dict. catal.)
    • Specific entry and class reference. (Bost. Pub. Lib., Boston Athenæum.)
    • Specific and class entry. (No example.)
  • Alphabetico-classed catalogue.
    • Class entry with specific or class subentry. (Noyes.)
    • Class entry with chiefly class subentry. (Abbot.) {12}
• Logical arrangement.
  • Systematic catalogue.
    • Class entry. (Undivided classed catal.)
    • Class entry and subentry and finally specific subentry. (Subdivided classed catal.)

• A, Specific dictionary.
• B, Specific dict. by its cross-references and its form-entries. Alphabetico-classed catalogue.
• C, Classed catalogue without subdivisions.
• D, Classed catalogue with subdivisions.
• A, B are alphabetical.
• C, D are classed.
• A, B, D contain specific subjects.
• B, C, D contain classes.

The specific entries of A and the classes of B, though brought together in the same catalogues (the class-dictionary and the alphabetico-classed), simply stand side by side and do not unite, each preserving its own nature, because the principle which brings them together—the alphabet—is external, mechanical. But in D the specific entries and the classes become intimately united to form a homogeneous whole, because the principle which brings them together—the relations of the subjects to one another—is internal, chemical, so to speak.

Even the classed catalogues often have specific entry. Whenever a book treats of the whole subject of a class, it is specifically entered under that class. A theological encyclopædia is specifically entered under Theology, and theology is an unsubordinated class in many systems. The alphabetico-classed catalogues have specific entry in many more cases, because they have many more classes. Professor Abbot has such headings as Ink, Jute, Lace, Leather, Life-savers, Locks, Mortars, Perfumery, Safes, Salt, Smoke, Snow, Varnish, Vitriol. Mr. Noyes has scores of similar headings; but neither of them permits individual entry, which the dictionary-catalogue requires. The alphabetico-classed catalogue enters a life of Napoleon and a history of England under Biography and History; the dictionary enters them under Napoleon and England. This is the invariable and chief distinction between the two.

A cataloguer who should put “The insect,” by Michelet, under Entomology would be making a subject-entry; Duncan’s “Introduction to entomology” entered under the same head would be at once a subject-entry and a subject-word-entry.

Will the convenience of this word excuse the twist given to the meaning of τόπος in its formation? Polygraphic might serve, as the French use polygraphe for a miscellaneous writer; but it will be well to have both words,—polygraphic denoting (as now) collections of several works by one or many authors, polytopical denoting works on many subjects.

E. g., registering “The art of painting” under Painting, or a description of the cactus under Cactus. Putting them under Fine arts and Botany would be class-entry. “Specific entry,” by the way, has nothing to do with “species.”

It is worth noting that subjects are of two sorts: (1) the individual, as Goethe, Shakespeare, England, the Middle Ages, the ship Alexandra, the dog Tray, the French Revolution, all of which are concrete; and (2) general, as Man, History, Horse, Philosophy, which may be either concrete or abstract. Every general subject is a class more or less extensive. (See note on Class.) Some mistakes have also arisen from not noting that certain words, Poetry, Fiction, Drama, etc., are subject-headings for the books written about Poetry, Fiction, etc., and form-headings for poems, novels, plays, etc.

A title may be either the book’s name (as “&c.”) or its description (as “A collection of occasional sermons”), or it may state its subject (as “Synonyms of the New {15} Testament”), or it may be any two or all three of these combined (as description and subject, “Brief account of a journey through Europe;” name and description, “Happy thoughts;” name and subject, “Men’s wives;” all three, “Index of dates”).

Bibliographers have established a cult of the title-page; its slightest peculiarities are noted; it is followed religiously, with dots for omissions, brackets for insertions, and uprights to mark the end of lines; it is even imitated by the fac-simile type or photographic copying. These things may concern the cataloguer of the Lenox Library or the Prince collection. The ordinary librarian has in general nothing to do with them; but it does not follow that even he is to lose all respect for the title. It is the book’s name and should not be changed but by act of legislature. Our necessities oblige us to abbreviate it, but nothing obliges us to make additions to it or to change it without giving notice to the reader that we have done so. Moreover, it must influence the entry of a book more or less; it determines the title-entry entirely; it affects the author-entry (see § 3) and the subject-entry (see § 104). But to let it have more power than this is to pay it a superstitious veneration.

This is the bibliographic use of the word, sanctioned by the British Museum rules. That is, it is in this sense only that it applies to all the copies of an edition as it comes from the printer. But there is also a bibliopegic and bibliopolic use, to denote a number of pages bound together, which pages may be several volumes in the other sense, or a part of a volume or parts of several volumes. To avoid confusion I use “volume” in the present treatise as defined in the Rules of the British Museum catalogue, and I recommend this as the sole use in library catalogues, except in such phrases as 2 v. bd. in 1. which means 2 volumes in the bibliographical sense united by binding so as to form one piece of matter.

In the present treatise I am regarding the dictionary catalogue as consisting of an author-catalogue, a subject-catalogue, a more or less complete title-catalogue, and a more or less complete form-catalogue, all interwoven in one alphabetical order. The greater part, however, of the rules here given would apply equally to these catalogues when kept separate.

These rules are written primarily for a printed catalogue; almost all of them would apply equally to a card catalogue.

In regard to the author-entry it must be remembered that the object is not merely to facilitate the finding of a given book by an author’s name. If this were all, it might have been better to make the entry under the professed name (pseudonym), or under the form of name mentioned in the title (Bulwer in one book, Lytton in another, Bulwer Lytton in a third; Sherlock, Th., in that divine’s earlier works; Bangor, Th. [Sherlock], Bp. of, in later ones; Salisbury, Th. [Sherlock], Bp. of, in the next issues; London, Th. [Sherlock], Bp. of, in his last works; Milnes, R. Monckton, for “Good night and good morning,” and the nine other works published before 1863, and Houghton, Rich. M. M., Baron, for the 1870 edition of “Good night and good morning,” and for other books published since his ennoblement), or under the name of editor or translator when the author’s name is not given, as proposed by Mr. Crestadoro. This might have been best with object A; but we have also object D to provide for—the finding of all the books of a given author—and this can most conveniently be done if they are all collected in one place.

If it is not known with certainty the entry may be made under the person to whom the work is attributed, with an explanatory note and a reference from the first word, or the book may be treated as anonymous and entered under the first word, with a note “Attributed to ——,” and a reference from the supposed author. The degree of doubt will determine which method is best. {17}

The writers of a correspondence and the participants in a debate are to be considered as joint authors.

Ex.

Schiller, J: Christoph F: v. Briefwechsel zwischen S. und Cotta; herausg. von Vollmar.

 — Briefwechsel zw. S. und Goethe. Stuttg., 1829. 6 v. S.

 — Briefwechsel zw. S. und W: v. Humboldt. Stuttg., 1830. S.

Cotta. Briefwechsel. See Schiller, J: C. F: v.

Goethe, J: W. v. Briefwechsel. See Schiller, J: C. F: v.

Humboldt, K: W:, Freiherr v. Briefwechsel. See Schiller, J: C. F: v.

Many catalogues adopt the form of heading

Schiller, J: Christoph F: v., and Humboldt, K: W:, Freiherr v. Briefwechsel. Stuttg., 1830. S.

Humboldt, K: W:, Freiherr v. Briefwechsel. See Schiller, J: C. F: v., and Humboldt, K: W: v. But see § 240.

When countries are joint authors it is better to make full entries under each and arrange them as if the country under consideration were the only one. Each country puts its own name first in its own edition of a joint work; and the arrangement proposed avoids an additional complexity under countries, which are confusing enough at the best.

Whether the joint authorship appears in the title or not should make no difference in the mode of entry; if one name appears on the title, that should be chosen for the entry; if none, take the most important.

Ex. “The works of Shelley and Keats” would be entered in full under Shelley (both names being mentioned in the title, but Shelley alone in the heading), and analytically (§ 127) under Keats. In such cases a double heading would often mislead.

For universities where the old custom was kept up beyond 1750, as the Swedish, Rule I applies till the change was made. {18}

Where there are two respondents, neither specified as author, enter under the first, without reference from the second.

In the first edition this rule was without limitation, and I added the following note “One is strongly tempted to deviate from this rule in the case of writers like George Eliot and George Sand, Gavarni and Grandville, who appear in literature only under their pseudonyms. It would apparently be much more convenient to enter their works under the name by which alone they are known and under which everybody but a professed cataloguer would assuredly look first. For an author-catalogue this might be the best plan, but in a dictionary catalogue we have to deal with such people not merely as writers of books, but as subjects of biographies or parties in trials, and in such cases it seems proper to use their legal names. Besides, if one attempts to exempt a few noted writers from the rule given above, where is the line to be drawn? No definite principle of exception can be laid down which will guide either the cataloguer or the reader; and probably the confusion would in the end produce greater inconvenience than the present rule. Moreover, the entries made by using the pseudonym as a heading would often have to be altered. For a long time it would have been proper to enter the works of Dickens under Boz; the Dutch annual bibliography uniformly uses Boz-Dickens as a heading. No one would think of looking under Boz now. Mark Twain is in a transition state. The public mind is divided between Twain and Clemens. The tendency is always toward the use of the real name; and that tendency will be much helped in the reading public if the real name is always preferred in catalogues. Some pseudonyms persistently adopted by authors have come to be considered as the only names, as Voltaire (see § 23), and the translation Melanchthon. Perhaps George Sand and George Eliot will in time be adjudged to belong to the same company. It would be well if cataloguers could appoint some permanent committee with authority to decide this and similar points as from time to time they occur.”

I am now in favor of frequent entry under the pseudonym, with reference from the real name. I should recommend the pseudonym as heading in the case of any popular writer who has not written under his own name, provided he is known to the public chiefly by his pseudonym, and in the subject catalogue for any person who is so known. Examples are George Eliot, George Sand, Gavarni, Grandville, Cagliostro, Cham, Pierre Loti, Daniel Stern, in some doubtful cases a card catalogue might profitably make entry both under the real and the false name. This elastic practice will give a little more trouble to the cataloguer than a rigid rule of entry under the real name, but it will save trouble to those who use the catalogue, which is more important.

But entry should not be made under a pseudonym which is used only once or a few times; if the author writes also under his real name, if he is known to the contemporary public or in literary history under his real name, that is to be used for entry. It may sometimes happen that an author is well known under a pseudonym and afterwards is better known by his real name. In that case change the entries from the false to the real name. If any author uses two different pseudonyms enter under each the works written under it, with references both ways, and from the real name, until the real name becomes better known.

It is plain that this practice of entering under the best known name, whether real or false, puts an end to uniformity of entry between different catalogues, leads to inconsistency of entry in the same catalogue, and will often throw the cataloguer into perplexity to decide which name is best known; but for the last objection it must be remembered that the catalogue is made for the reader, not for the cataloguer, and {19} for the first two that references will prevent any serious difficulty; and in the few cases of nearly equal notoriety, double entry is an easy way out of the difficulty.

Such works are: Walton’s Welsh scenery, with text by Bonney; Wolf’s “Wild animals,” with text by Elliot. Which shall be taken as author in the subject or form entry depends upon the work and the subject. Under Water-color drawings it would be Walton; under Wood-engravings, Wolf; under Wales and Zoölogy, the cataloguer must decide which illustrates the subject most, the writer or the artist. E. g., under Gothic Architecture Pugin is undoubtedly to be considered the author of his “Examples,” though “the literary part” is by E. J. Willson; for the illustrator was really the author and the text was subsidiary to the plates. It was to carry out Pugin’s ideas, not Willson’s, that the work was published.

Short and Medium will generally enter only under the composer; Don Giovanni, for example, only under Mozart and not under Da Ponte. This economy especially applies to songs.

Entering these only under the form-heading Catalogues belongs to the dark ages of cataloguing. Put the catalogue of a library under the library’s name. (§ 56.)

In a majority of cases this difference in the title will correspond to a difference in the character of the works and in the expectation of the public; if in any particular case the commentary preponderates in a title of the second of the forms above, a reference can be made from the commentator’s name. {20}

Ex. “The boy’s King Arthur” under Sir Thomas Malory, with a reference from Sidney Lanier.

There will often be doubt on this point. To determine it, notice whether the revision is counted as one of the editions of the original work, and whether it is described on the title-page as the work of the original author or the reviser, and read and weigh the prefaces. Refer in all doubtful cases.

Ex. Urlichs’ Chrestomathia Pliniana goes under Plinius, with a reference from Urlichs.

Ex. Cleveland’s Concordance to the poetical works of Milton, Brightwell’s Concordance to Tennyson, Mrs. Furness’s Concordance to Shakespeare’s poems.

Ex. Thomas [a Becket], Saint.

Ex. Paolino da S. Bartolomeo [J. P. Wesdin].

Ex. Paulus Diaconus, Thomas Heisterbacensis.

Similarly are to be treated a few persons known almost entirely by the forename, as Michelangelo Buonarroti, Raffaello Santi (refer from Raphael), Rembrandt van Rhijn. Refer always from the family name.

Ex. Abu Bakr ibn Badr. This rule has exceptions. Some Oriental writers are known and should be entered under other parts of their name than the first, as “Abu-l-Kasim, Khalaf ibn Abbas,” or under some appellation as “al-Masudi,” “at-Tabari.” Grässe’s “Lehrbuch einer allgemeinen Literärgeschichte” is a convenient guide in this matter; he prints that part of the name by which Arabic writers are commonly known in a heavier type than the rest.

In Arabic names the words of relationship Abu (father), Umm (mother), Ibn, Bin (son), Ahu (brother), though not to be treated as names by themselves, are yet not to be disregarded, as proposed by Dr. Dziatzko. They form a name in conjunction with the word following (e. g., Abu Bakr) and determine the alphabetical place of the entry. But the article al (changed by assonance to ad-, ar-, as-, at-, az-, according to the letter it precedes) is neglected (al-Masudi).

In all Oriental names the cataloguer must be careful not to take titles, as Emir, Bey, Pasha, Sri, Babu, Pundit, for names.

In regard to East Indian names, Dr. Feigl (Centralbl. f. Bibl., 4: 120) gives the rule: If there are two names, enter under the first, which is the individual name, with a reference from the second; if there are three, enter under the third, which is the family name, with a reference under the second.

In a few cases, chiefly of artists, a universally-used sobriquet is to be taken in place of the family or forename, as Tintoretto (whose real name was Giacomo Robusti). Similar cases are Canaletto (Antonio Canale and also B. Belotto), Correggio (Ant. Allegri), Garofalo (Benvenuto Piero Tisi), Il Sodoma (Giov. Ant. Bazzi), Spagnoletto (José Ribera), Uccello (Paolo Doni). Always refer from the family name.

Ex.

Kaye, John, Bishop of Lincoln.

Lincoln, John, Bishop of. See Kaye.

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}

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.

Ex.

Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of. Refer from Stanhope.

Saint-Simon, Louis de Rouvroi, duc de.

Do not worry about the proper form of changed and transliterated names, nor spend much time in hunting up facts and deciding. If the necessary references are made, it is of little importance which form is chosen for the main entry, provided, of course, that the library always chooses the same heading.

If the change consist in the addition of a name the new name is to be treated by the next rule. {23}

Ex. Gould, Sabine Baring-; but Halliwell (afterwards Halliwell-Phillipps), J. O., because the author wrote much under the first name.

This rule secures uniformity; but, like all rules, it sometimes leads to entries under headings where nobody would look for them. Refer.

Both such compound names as Gentil-Bernard and such as Gentil de Chavagnac. There are various exceptions, when a name has been more known under the last part, as Fénelon, not Salignac de Lamothe Fénelon; Voltaire, not Arouet de Voltaire; Sternberg, not Ungern-Sternberg. Moreover, it is not always easy to determine what is a compound surname in French. A convenient rule would be to follow the authority of Hœfer (Biog. gén.) and Quérard, in such cases, if they always agreed; unfortunately, they often differ. References are necessary whichever way one decides each case, especially when the second part of a foreign compound name has been used alone, as Merle d’Aubigné (enter under Merle with a reference from Aubigné).

In French a forename is sometimes joined to a surname by a hyphen. In such cases make the entry under the family name with a reference from the forename, e. g., entry, Rochette, Désiré Raoul; reference, Raoul-Rochette. See Rochette.

Ex. Rivé-King, with cross-reference from King, born Rivé.

When the name is printed by the author as one word the entry is made under the preposition, as Debucourt, Decamps.

But when the author prints his name as one word entry is made under the prefix, as Vanderhaeghen.

Thus German names preceded by von when belonging to Russians are to be entered under Von. E. g., Фонь Визин is to be entered as Von Vizin (not Vizin, von), as this is the Russian custom. So when Dutch names compounded with van are adopted into French or English (as Van Laun) the Van is treated as part of the family name.

Prefixes are d’, de, de La (the name goes under La not de), Des, Du, L’, La, Le, Les, St., Ste. (to be arranged as if written Saint, Sainte), Van, A’, Ap, O’, Fitz, Mac (which is to be printed as it is in the title, whether M’, or Mc, or Mac, but to be arranged as if written Mac). {24}

Ex. Cod, Cape; George, Lake; Washington, Mt.; Moultrie, Fort; but Cape Breton Island. When the name of a fort becomes the name of a city, of course the inversion must be abandoned, as Fort Wayne.

Of course, great care must be taken not to enter separately works in which an author spells his name differently, as Briant and Bryant, Easterbrookes and Estabrook, Erdmann and Erdtmann. On the other hand, different people who spell their names differently should be separated, as Hofmann and Hoffmann, Maier, Mair, Majer, Mayer, Mayr, Meier, Meir, Mejer, Meyer, Meyr, Schmid, Schmidt, Schmied, Schmiedt, Schmit, Schmitt. (On the arrangement of such names in a card catalogue see § 218.)

In German Christian names there is a want of uniformity in the use of C and K (Carl, Conrad, Karl, Konrad) and f and ph (Adolf, Adolph). Occasionally an author uses both forms in different books, or writing only in Latin (Carolus, Rudolphus), does not show which form he prefers. Where the author thus leaves the point undecided, K and f should be preferred to C and ph (except in Christoph). Swedish f is to be preferred to v, as Gustaf, not Gustav.

Munich not Muenchen or München, Vienna not Wien, Austria not Oesterreich.

I. e., a (not ah) for the sound of a in father, e (not a) for the sound of e in heir or of a in hate, i (not e) for the sound of i in mien, u (not oo nor ou) for the sound of u in true or of oo in moon. This practice makes transliterations that are likely to be pronounced in the main correctly by anyone who knows any language but his own (who would naturally give foreign vowel sounds to foreign names), and will give transliterations agreeing at least in part with those of other nations. In some points, however, we must be careful not to be misled by the practice of foreigners, and when we take a name from Russian, for instance, through the French or German, must see to it that the necessities of their alphabet have not led them to use letters that do not suit our system. A Frenchman writes for Turgenief Tourguénef, and for Golovin {26} Golovine, and uses ou for u, ch for sh, dj for j, j for zh, gu for g, and qu for k. A German for Dershavin writes Derschawin, and, worse than that, is obliged to use the clumsy dsch where an Englishman can use j, as Dschellaleddin for Jalal-ad-Din, and uses tsch for ch or tch, j for y or i (Turgenjew), w for v or f in the ending of Russian names.

In Arabic names I am advised by good scholars to uniformly write a where our ordinary Anglicized names have e, except for Ebn and Ben, which become Ibn and Bin; also i for ee, and u where o has been commonly used; in other words, to uniformly represent the vowel fatha by a, kasra by i, and dhamma by u. Thus Mohammed becomes Muhammad, Abou ed-Deen becomes Abu ad-Din. Of course references must be made from the corrupt forms under which various Arabic authors have become known in the West, unless it is thought that the altered form has been so commonly used that it must be taken for the entry, as perhaps Avicenna from Ibn Sina, Averroes from Ibn Roshd.

In Danish names if the type å is not to be had, use its older equivalent aa; in a manuscript catalogue the modern orthography, å, should be employed. Whichever is chosen should be uniformly used, however the names may appear in the books. The diphthong æ should not be written ae, nor should ö be written oe; ö, not œ, should be used for ø.

In old Dutch names write y for the modern ij and arrange so.

In German names used as headings, use ä, ö, ü, not ae, oe, ue, and arrange accordingly.

For ancient Greek names use the Latinized form, as Democritus not Demokritos, Longinus not Logginos. This holds good of translated works as well as of the originals. It will not do to enter an Italian version of the Odyssey under Omero, or of the Euterpe under Erodoto, or a French version of the Noctes Atticæ under Aulu-Gelle. A college literary catalogue may safely use the more nearly transliterated forms which are coming into use, like Aiskulos, Homeros, but used in a town-library catalogue they would only puzzle and mislead its readers. For that I should prefer the English forms, as Homer, Horace.

For modern Greek names Professor Abbot proposes the following plan: Works in Romaic to be entered in a supplement, the names not transliterated but printed in the Greek type. Translations of works of modern Greek authors to be put under their Greek names in the supplement, with references in the main catalogue under the forms (whatever they may be) which their names assume in the translation. Original works written in French, German, English, etc., by modern Greek authors may be treated in the same way if their authors have not become French, German, or English by residence and literary labors, in which case they should be entered under the French, German, or English forms which they have chosen for their names, with cross-references, if necessary, from the Greek supplement to these names. If, however, transliteration is attempted the following table of equivalents may be used:

When Hindus themselves transliterate their names, use their form, whether or not according to our rules. (Appendix II.)

In Hungarian names write ö, ü, with the diæresis (not oe, ue), and arrange like the English o, u.

In Spanish names use the modern orthography i and j rather than the ancient y and x.

In Swedish names ä, å, ö, should be so written (not ae, oe), and arranged as the English a, o.

Ballhorn’s Grammatography (London, 1861) will be found very useful on such points. {27}

Ex. Bikelas, Demetrius, with reference from Vikelas, Dmitri.

Ex. Šifner. See Schiefner.

The chief difficulty with regard to bodies of men is to determine (1) what their names are, and (2) whether the name or some other word shall be the heading. In regard to (2) the catalogues hitherto published may be regarded as a series of experiments. No satisfactory usage has as yet been established. Local names have always very strong claims to be headings; but to enter the publications of all bodies of men under the places with which the bodies are connected is to push a convenient practice so far that it becomes inconvenient and leads to many rules entirely out of harmony with the rest of the catalogue.

These are to be entered under the name of the country, city, or town, and not in the main alphabet under the word Congress, Parliament, City Council, or the like.

Ex. Tilsley’s “Digest of the stamp acts” would appear both under Great Britain and Tilsley. {28}

Ex. Green, Mrs. M.. Anne Everett (Wood). Calendar of state papers, domestic, Charles II. The series-entry is under Great Britain. Master of the Rolls.

Some libraries may refer always; most will refer only when the report has exceptional importance (1) from its subject, (2) from the treatment of its subject, (3) from its literary merits, (4) from the fame of its author, or (5) from having been separately published. Horace Mann’s reports, for example, should be catalogued under Massachusetts. Board of Education, to which heading a reference should be made from Mann. Presidents’ messages should appear under United States. President. Proclamations and all other official writings of kings should appear under the name of the country (division King or Crown), arranged by reigns, as,

Ex. York, Archdeaconry of. Articles to be enquired of within the A. of Y. {29}

Gould’s “Mollusca and shells” and Cassin’s “Mammalogy and ornithology of the United States Exploring Expedition under Wilkes” are of this nature; so is “Memorial ceremonies at the graves of our soldiers, collected under authority of Congress, by Frank Moore.” (Compare § 43.)

Ex. The Congress of London, of Paris, of Verona.

Ex. Treaty of Versailles, Barrier treaty, Jay’s treaty.

Ex. “Application to Parliament by the merchants of London” should go under
London. Merchants.

The chief practices in regard to societies have been to enter them (1. British Museum) under a special heading—Academies—with a geographical arrangement; (2. Boston Public Library, printed catalogue) under the name of the place where they have their headquarters; (3. Harvard College Library and Bost. Pub. Lib., present system) under the name of the place, if it enters into the legal name of the society, otherwise under the first word of that name not an article; (4. Boston Athenæum) English societies under the first word of the society’s name not an article, foreign societies under the name of the place. Both 3 and 4 put under the place all purely local societies, those whose membership or objects are confined to the place. The 1st does not deserve a moment’s consideration; such a heading is out of place in an author-catalogue, and the geographical arrangement only serves to complicate matters and render it more difficult to find any particular academy. [27] The 2d is utterly unsuited to American and English societies. The 3d practice is simple; but it is difficult to see the advantage of the exception which it makes to its general rule of entry under the society’s name; the exception does not help the cataloguer, for it is just as hard to determine whether the place enters into the legal name as it is to ascertain the name; it does not help the reader, for he has no means of knowing whether the place is part of the legal name or not. The 4th is simple and intelligible; it is usually easy for both cataloguer and reader to determine whether a society is English or foreign. I shall mention two other possible plans, well aware that there are strong objections to both.

5TH PLAN. Rule 1. Enter academies, [28] associations, institutes, universities, societies, libraries, galleries, museums, colleges, and all similar bodies, and churches that {31} have an individual name, both English and foreign, according to their corporate name, neglecting an initial article when there is one.

Exception 1. Enter the universities and the royal academies of Berlin, Göttingen, Leipzig, Lisbon, Madrid, Munich, St. Petersburg, Vienna, etc., and the “Institut” of Paris, under those cities. An exception is an evil. This one is adopted because the universities and academies are almost universally known by the names of the cities, and are hardly ever referred to by the name Königliche, Real, etc.

Exception 2. Enter London guilds under the name of the trade; e. g., “Stationers’ Company,” not “Master and Keepers or Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery and Art of Stationers of the City of London,” which is the corporate title. This exception is adopted because (1) it gives a heading easier to find, and (2) it would be difficult in many cases to ascertain the real names of the London companies.

Exception 3. Enter bodies whose legal name begins with such words as Board, Corporation, Trustees under that part of the name by which they are usually known.

E. g. Trustees of the Eastern Dispensary. Corporation of the Chamber of Commerce in the City of New York. Proprietors of the Boston Athenæum. Contributors to the Asylum for the Relief of Persons deprived of their Reason. Refer from the first word of the legal name.

Exception 4. Enter orders of knighthood under the significant word of the English title; as, Garter, Order of the; Malta, Knights of; Templars, Knights; Teutonic Order.

Exception 5. Enter American State historical and agricultural societies under the name of the State.

Rule 2. a. Enter churches which have no individual name and all purely local benevolent or moral or similar societies under the name of the place.

b. Young men’s Christian associations, mercantile library associations, and the like are to be considered local.

c. Business firms or corporations (except national banks numbered as First National Bank, etc.), libraries, galleries, museums, are not to be considered local, nor are private schools local, but go under their corporate name, or, if they are not corporate, under the name of the proprietor.

d. National libraries museums, and galleries and libraries, museums, and galleries instituted or supported by a city go under the name of the city provided they have not a name of their own. (E. g., the Boston Public Library goes under Boston; but the Reuben Hoar Library of Littleton goes under Hoar.) American public schools should in any case go under the name of the city. (Rule 2, h.)

e. If college societies limited to one college are considered local, they would be entered not under the name of the place but of the college; if they are treated by rule 1, as all general college societies must be, reference (6) must be made. College libraries go under the name of the college. The colleges of an English university and the schools of an American university go under the name of the university.

Refer

• (1) from all the varying forms of the society’s name.
• (2) from important words in the society’s name, when the first word is unlikely to be thought of.
• (3) from the name of the city where the society is situated.
• (4) from the motto in the names of Dutch societies.
• (5) from the names of the royal societies of Berlin, etc.
• (6) from colleges to college societies.
• (7) from such words as Gallery, Museum, etc., to all the galleries, museums, etc., contained in the catalogue. {32}

f. Universities, galleries, etc., called merely Imperial, Royal, National and the like are not to be considered as having individual names, except the National Gallery of London.

g. Buildings are for the most part provided for in the above rules as museums, galleries, libraries, churches, etc. Any others should be entered under their names, with a reference from the city.

h. If a firm’s name is in the form Raphael Friedlander und Sohn it might be put as it reads, i. e., under R, or reversed, i. e., Friedlander und Sohn, Raphael. I prefer the latter, because the consulter is much more likely to remember the family than the Christian name. Whether the Christian name is written at the end or thus, Town (John) and Bowers (Henry), all firms should be arranged after all the other entries of the first family name, i. e., Friedlander und Sohn after all the Friedlanders. The same reason applies to other bodies whose legal name begins with a forename.

The plan might be tabulated thus:

Ex.

Amiens. Académie des Sciences, Agriculture, Commerce, Belles-Lettres, et Arts du Départment de la Somme. (Rule 1, exc. 1.)

Association Scientifique Algérienne, Algiers. (Rule 1.)

Athenée de Vaucluse, Avignon. (Rule 1.)

Barbers and Surgeons of London (Mystery and Commonalty of), afterwards Royal College of Surgeons. See Royal College of Surgeons.

Boston (Mass.) Public Library. (Rule 2, d.)

Boston. Wells School. (Rule 2, d.)

Boston Athenæum. (Rule 1, exc. 3, Rule 2, c.)

Boston, First Church of. (Rule 2, d.)

British Museum. (Rule 2, d.)

Cambridge (Mass.), First Church of. (Rule 2.)

Chauncy Hall School, Boston, Mass. (Rule 2 c.)

Chemins de Fer de Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée, Comp. des. (Rule 2, c.)

Christiania. Videnskabs-Selskab. (Rule 1, exc. 1.)

Clarke (W. B.), & Co. (Rule 2, c.)

Congrès International des Américanistes. (Rule 1.)

Firenze. Galleria Imperiale. (Rule 2, f.)

Freemasons in Iowa. (§ 51³.)

Genootschap “Oefening kweekt Kunst,” Amsterdam. (Rule 1, and ref. 4.)

Geschichts- und Alterthumsforschende Gesellschaft des Osterlandes, Altenburg. (Rule 1.)

Göttingen. K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. (Rule 1, exc. 1.)

Great Britain. Parliament. (§ 41.)

Harvard College. (Rule 1.)

Harvard College. Lawrence Scientific School. (Rule 1, 2, e.)

Harvard College. Library. (Rule 1, 2, e.) {33}

Hermitage, Gallerie de l’, St. Petersburg. (Rule 2, d.)

Houghton & Mifflin. (Rule 2, c.)

L’Internationale. (Rule 1.)

Intime Club, Paris. (Rule 1.)

London. Merchants. (§ 55.)

Louvre, Gallerie du, Paris. (Rule 2, d.)

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass. (Rule 2, c.)

Madrid. R. Academia de la Historia. (Rule 1, exc. 1.)

National Gallery, London. (Rule 2, f.)

3d National Quarantine and Sanitary Convention. (§ 52¹.)

New England Trust Co., Boston, Mass. (Rule 2, c.)

New York. Chamber of Commerce. (Rule 1, exc. 3, Rule 2, c.)

New York. First National Bank. (Rule 2, c.)

New York. Young Men’s Christian Association. (Rule 2, b.)

Or San Michele, Chiesa di, Florence. (Rule 1.)

Paris. Bibliothèque Nationale. (Rule 2, d, f.)

ΦΒΚ. A of Harvard. (Rule 2, e.)

Prado, Museo del, Madrid. (Rule 2, d.)

Pratt (Enoch) Free Library, Balt., Md. (Rule 2, d, h.)

San Francisco. Mercantile Library Assoc. (Rule 2, b.)

Société de l’Agriculture de l’Orne, Alençon. (Rule 1.)

Stationers’ Company, London. (Rule 1, exc. 2.)

Templars, Knights. (Rule 2, exc. 4.)

Tübingen. Eberhard-Karls Universität. (Rule 1, exc. 1.)

L’Union Générale, Paris. (Rule 2, c.)

United States. Library of Congress. (§ 40.)

Vatican Council. (§ 53.)

Verona, Congress of. (§ 49.)

Versailles, Treaty of. See ——. (§ 50.)

Wisconsin, State Historical Society of. (Rule 1, exc. 5.)

The 6TH PLAN has the same rules as the 5TH, and no exceptions. It may be preferred by those who think the advantage of having a single uniform rule greater than the inconvenience of unusual headings.

Perhaps from habit I prefer the 4TH PLAN. Of the other plans experience confirms me in the belief that the 5TH PLAN is the best. The A. L. A. adopted the 6TH PLAN. I have used it ever since in the Library journal, and I do not think it works well.

Ex. For a book “by J. B. Far...,” or “by L. M. P.,” or “by Ddg.,” or “by —lsd—,” the entry is to be made under Far..., J. B., P., L. M., Ddg., —lsd—. If the last initials are evidently, from the style of printing, those of a title, the entry will be under the initial preceding them; thus for books “by B. F., D.D.,” or “by M. P. R., Gent.,” or “by X. Y. Z., D.D.,” the entry is to be made under F., B., D.D., and R., M. P., Gent., and Z., X. Y., D.D. In such case it is safest to have also a reference from the last initial to the one chosen, as D., X. Y. Z. D. See Z., X. Y., D.D. It is often well to make a reference from the first word (title-reference). This mode of entry ensures the easy finding of a particular book and brings together all of an author’s works in which the same letters are used, and sometimes leads to the discovery of a real name.

Even mere printer’s marks, as *** or ..., or !!!, unaccompanied by any letters, though they can not be considered as names, may be used as headings for a reference {34} for the sake of bringing together all the works of an author using them; but each work should also have title entry if anonymous.

If the author’s real name is known, make the entry under that, with a reference from the pseudonym; but if the writer is much better known by the pseudonym, enter under that, with a reference from the real name. (See note under § 6.)

A phrase—“One who loves his country,” “A friend to peace”—or even a shorter appellation—“A lawyer”—is not a name. References might be made from these to the word under which the book is entered, but they would swell the catalogue and rarely be of use. Appellatives beginning with the definite article, like “The Prig,” “The Old Shekarry,” “The Duchess,” are not vague like “A lover of justice,” and when constantly used should be treated as names in the way either of entry or reference. Latin phrases, like “Amator patriæ,” should be treated as names and the entry made under the last word; as, Patriæ, Amator. But it should not be made under patronymic adjectives, or certain words like junior, senior, evidently intended to qualify the name, not to be taken as the name; i. e., the heading for a book “by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis” would not be Lipsiensis, Phileleutherus, but Phileleutherus Lipsiensis; Vanity Fair Album by Jehu Junior would go under Jehu junior, not Junior, Jehu. In such cases a reference from the word which is not taken as the heading will be an additional safeguard.

Pseudonyms like Aunt Jane, Cousin Mary, Uncle John, should be entered under the second word, although it is evidently not a family name but a forename; it is all the name that we have.

The word Anonymus may be considered as a pseudonym when used as follows: “Anonymi introductio in,” etc.

A foreign article beginning a pseudonym used in an English work is considered as a part of the name; as, El-Mukattem, pseud.

That is, the one who is responsible for the existence of a collection. A collection is made by putting together, with a collective title, three or more works by different authors, so as to make one work.

Examples: Johnson’s “Little classics,” Buchon’s “Collection des mémoires.”

Thus, “The fraternitye of vacabondes, by J. Awdeley; A caueat for common cursetors, by T. Harman; A sermon in praise of thieves, by Parson Haben or Hyberdyne; those parts of The groundworke of conny-catching that differ from Harman’s Caueat; ed. by E. Viles and F. J. Furnivall,” should be entered not under Viles, E., and Furnivall, F. J., but under Awdeley; but if it had been entitled “Early tracts on vagabonds and beggars; edited by E. Viles and F. J. Furnivall,” it would properly be put under the editors.

The older collections, like Graevius’s Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum, Gronovius’s Thesaurus Graecarum antiquitatum, are known and referred to by their collectors’ names but of late years a swarm of series (American statesmen series, etc.) has arisen which are known wholly by their titles, under which they should be entered in full, with contents, to save the time of the searcher. The entry under the editor is necessary because he is really the author of the series, but it may be brief, with a reference for the “Contents” to the title-entry.

But every such work filling one or more volumes should be entered separately under its author or title as if it were published independently, and should have the same subject-entry. (See § 125.) Works that fill part of a volume are to be entered analytically, (See § 126.) Of course any volume consisting of three or more treatises, put together with a collective title by the society, should be entered under it as collector, if no collector’s name is given.

Ex. Some translations from the German by Mrs. Wister are wrongly lettered as if she were the author, and are therefore asked for by her name.

As, “Claimant, The.” The Diary of the Shah of Persia, catalogued under Nassr-ad-Din, requires a reference from Shah.

Ex. From Vandyck to Dyck, A. van, from Degerando to Gerando, and De Candolle to Candolle.

This should be done whether the rejected form occurs in the title of a book in the library or not. The object of a reference is to enable the reader to find the works of an author, not merely a particular book, and the reader may have seen the author referred to under the rejected form whether the library has a book with that form or not.

Ex. From Lawyer, when an anonymous work is said to be “by a lawyer.” For Full only.

If it is thought worth while to give a complete view of the literary and artistic activity of every author so far as it is represented in the library, of course references from editors, translators, illustrators, cartographers, engravers, etc., must be made. But this completeness is not usually sought even in large libraries. Such references {37} are also undeniably a help in finding books. But they increase the bulk and the cost of a catalogue so much and are comparatively of so little use that ordinary libraries must content themselves with a selection, though the best-made selection is certain to occasion complaints that the really useful ones have been omitted and the least important made. The chief classes of necessary references of this sort are—

• (1.) From the editors of periodicals to the title-entry, when the periodical is commonly called by the editor’s name, as Poggendorff’s Annalen, Silliman’s Journal.
• (2.) From the names of editors and translators which are habitually mentioned in connection with a work, so that it is as likely to be looked for under the editor’s name as under the author’s name. When the form is a combination of author’s and editor’s name, as Heyne’s Virgil, Leverett’s Cicero, the reference, though convenient, is certainly not necessary, inasmuch as a person of ordinary intelligence could hardly fail, not finding what he wanted under one name, to try the other.
• (3.) From the names of those who have made poetical versions, on the ground that their work is something more than mere translation.
• (4.) From the translators of anonymous works, because the title of the original will generally be unknown to the searcher. This is less necessary for famous works; thus J. Scott’s version of the Arabian Nights would probably be looked for under Arabian nights rather than under Scott; but it makes assurance doubly sure.
• (5.) From the names of translators, editors, etc., of Oriental works, because Occidental readers are much more likely to remember these names than those of the authors.

It may be thought that an excessive number of references is recommended, but it is plain that wherever there can be a reasonable doubt among cataloguers under what head a book ought to be entered, it should have at least a reference under each head. The object of an author-catalogue is to enable one to find the book; if that object is not attained the book might as well not be catalogued at all.

Collected reports of trials will of course (§ 59) go under the collector: for subject-entry they come under the place over which the court has jurisdiction, and if they relate to a single crime (as murder), under that also. {38}

By this practice many famous authors, of whom no small library is likely to contain more than one work (such as Boswell, Dante, Gibbon, Lamb, Macaulay, Milton, indeed almost any of the English poets), will not appear in the catalogue; while the man who has written both a First class reader and a Second class reader, or a Mental arithmetic and a Written arithmetic, or two Sunday-school books, must be included. It is not necessary to say more to show the absurdity of the rule. If some authors must be omitted, let it be those who the librarian knows are never called for, whether they have written one or fifty works.

Ex.

New testament. See Bible.

Die Klage. See Nibelungenlied.

Ex. Gisli’s saga. Story of Gish the outlaw, from the Icelandic, by G. W. Dasent.

So Perron’s translation, called by him “Glaive des couronnes,” would appear under Saif-al-tidjan; and the Arabian nights’ entertainments under Alif laila. Criticisms of anonymous works must be put under the heading of the work criticised.

Ex. Popular science monthly, Littell’s living age.

When a periodical changes its title the whole may be catalogued under the original title, with an explanatory note there and a reference from the new title to the old; or each part may be catalogued under its own title, with references, “For a continuation, see   ,” “For the previous volumes, see   .”

Treat almanacs and other annuals as periodicals. Do not confound periodicals with serials. The four characteristics of a periodical are: (1) that it be published at intervals usually but not necessarily regular; (2) in general that the publication be intended to continue indefinitely; (3) that it be written by a number of contributors under the supervision of one or more editors; (4) that it consist of articles on various subjects, so that a set of the work does not form an organic whole. The 2d, 3d, and 4th criteria exclude works like Trollope’s “The way we live now,” and the “Encyclopædia Britannica.” There are some exceptions to the 3d, as “Brownson’s quarterly review.” {41}

Make a reference from the name of the editor when the periodical is commonly called by his name, as in the case of Silliman’s Journal of science.

The Memoirs, Proceedings, Transactions of a society are periodicals in point of (1) occasional publication, (2) indefinite continuance, and—so far as they contain anything beyond the record of the society’s meetings—of (4) variety of subject; but they lack the 3d characteristic, variety of authorship, inasmuch as the memoirs or other papers given in addition to “proceedings” proper may be considered as the work of the society acting through its members; the society, therefore, is the author, and the Transactions, etc., need not have title-entry. There are, however, some “Journals” published by or “under the auspices of” societies which are really periodicals, and should be so treated in entry, the society being not the author but the editor. Again, there are works which occupy a borderland between the two classes, in regard to which the puzzled cataloguer should remember that it is not of much importance which way he decides, provided he is careful to make all necessary references. Examples of such doubtful cases are “Alpine journal: a record of mountain adventure and scientific observation. By members of the Alpine Club;” which contains nothing of or about the Club itself;—“Journal of the American Institute, a monthly publication devoted to the interest of agriculture, commerce, etc. Edited by a committee, members of the Institute,” and “Journal of the Society of Arts and of The Institutions in Union,” both of which are journals both in the sense of record of proceedings and of periodical publication.

Newspaper titles are troublesome. It is not uncommon for the name of the place to be included in the name on the first page (as The Boston Ægis), but to be dropped over the editorial column, or vice versa, or to be used for some years and afterwards dropped, or vice versa. The searcher can not always remember whether it is used or not. It would be well, therefore, to give under each name of a city the title of every newspaper published there which the library has.

Ex.

Life, Verses from.

Punch, A bowl of.

Ex.

Daughter of Heth; novel, by W. Black. London, 1874. 3 v. O.

The reason is that novels are known more by their titles than by their authors’ names. Whether to make an entry or a reference depends on the space at command. An entry means giving the book-marks for every edition. With a reference this may be done; but a reference without them obliges the reader to turn to the author-entry for such details, which is objectionable. It is better to give all the book-marks with the title.

If the name of the hero or heroine enters into the title the entry should be made under that; ex., David Copperfield, Life and adventures of, by C. Dickens.

Ex. Centaur, The, not fabulous, not The centaur not fabulous. The entry has commonly been made under the first word “not an article or preposition.” But it is found to work badly to except the preposition in the titles of novels and plays, and it is awkward to omit or transpose it in any case. One reason for excepting the article—that there would be an immense accumulation of titles under the unimportant words A, The, Le, Der, Uno, etc.—is not so strong in the case of prepositions; the other—that it is difficult to remember with what article a given title begins—hardly applies at all to prepositions. The preposition is full as likely to fasten itself in the {42} memory as the word that follows it. The strongest argument in favor of confining preposition-entry to fiction and the drama is that in other cases the word following the preposition will probably be a subject-word, so that one entry will do the work of two. This will occasionally be true, but not often enough, I think, to make much difference.

Ex. El Fureidis should have references to Cummins both under E and F; L’arratiata both under L’ and A to Heyse.

Ex. Collection of papers, 8th, not Eighth collection. Letter, 1st and 2d, to the Ministry, not First letter, etc., under F, and Second letter under S. When the numeral comes after a word like Book or Part (as frequently in Latin after Liber, Pars, Tomus, Volumen) both are to be neglected and the word following put into the nominative and used as a heading; e. g., “Pars prima epistolarum” is to be entered under Epistolæ. Similarly Evening, Morning, Daily, and Weekly should be disregarded in titles of newspapers, otherwise we should have the morning edition at one end of the catalogue and the evening at the other. So “Appendix to,” “Continuation of” “Supplement to” (but not “Reply to”), are to be disregarded when they are followed by the title of the work continued. “Reply to” and similar beginnings are to be put under Reply, etc., with a subject-entry under the author of the work replied to.

Ex. The hystorie of the saints would be entered—

History.] The hystorie of the saints.

We enter under the common spelling (1) in order to get all editions of a work together, (2) because the reader can not be expected to know exactly how the word is misspelled in the title, and will generally look first under the correct spelling.

Of two spellings equally correct, choose one and refer from the other.

Ex. Put Monumentorum antiquae sculpturae quae supersunt under Monumenta.

See the example in § 68.

Ex.

All’s well that ends well. See Shakespeare, W.

Nothing to wear. See Butler, W. A.

Of course entries are better than references for the reader; the latter are recommended here merely for economy, which will be found to be considerable when there are many editions of a play. It is much better to distribute these like any other title-references, through the alphabet, than, as some have done, to collect the titles of novels together in one place and of plays in another. A man not unfrequently wishes to find a book whose title he has heard of without learning whether it was a novel, a play, a poem, or a book of travels.

If the catch-word of the title of a novel, poem, or play is the name of a real person who is its subject, it is optional to make a reference, as in § 86, or a biographical entry under the family name, or both.

Ex.

Paul Revere’s ride. See Longfellow, H. W.

or

Revere, Paul. LONGFELLOW, H. W. (In his Tales of a way-side inn.)

In a majority of cases, when a subject-word entry is made, no first-word reference is needed; but, if the title is striking, there should be a first-word reference, or a reference from that part of the title which is striking. Title-references should not generally be made from certain common titles, as “Sermons on various subjects,” “Essays, historical and literary,” and should be made from less common collective words, as “Century of painters,” “Century of praise,” etc. References should be liberally made to the works of such authors as Brown, Jones, Schmidt, Smith, Wilson; if one has forgotten the Christian name, it is a work of too much time to find the book under the author, and one looks at once for a subject- or a title-entry or reference. And a reference will facilitate the finding of many collections entered properly under the editor; for it is easy to forget an editor’s name, and often difficult to determine the subject-entry of a collection.

To sum up, then, make a title-reference when the author’s name is common, the title memorable, or the subject obscure.

Ex. Scarlet gowns, True and exact account of the. See True. Here Cardinals is the subject, but the word does not occur in the title; True is the first word and is therefore taken for the heading; but Scarlet gowns is a phrase very likely to remain {44} in the memory of anyone who had seen the title, and therefore the reference is made. Books published under a comparatively unknown pseudonym should have either a first-word or a catch-word reference, unless their subject-entry can be easily inferred from the title.

Ex. The fac-simile of the Laurentian ms. of Sophocles might be spoken of or referred to as “The Laurentian ms.” simply.

It is not easy to decide when to make such entries nor how many to make. “An account of the baronial mansions of England in the olden time” may be asked for as “Baronial halls” or as “English baronial halls” or perhaps as “Mansions of the olden time.” If references are made from all possible headings which might occur to an inaccurate memory, there will be no end to the catalogue.

Ex.

Cromwell, Oliver. PERFECT politician, The; life of Cromwell. London, 1681. 8º.

 — TREASON’S masterpiece; or, Conference between Oliver and a committee of Parliament. London, 1680. 8º.

For greater security this latter ought to have also a first-word reference.

When the subject-word is the same as the heading of the subject-entry this reference need not be made; but it will not do to omit an important title-entry when there are many titles under the subject-heading or they are much subdivided, so that it would be difficult to find the title-entry there. Thus an anonymous book, “France and the Pope,” would no doubt have a subject-entry under some subdivision of France, but as this in a large catalogue would be little help towards finding the book, it should also have a reference among the titles which follow the subject France. Of course if there were only a dozen titles under France one entry would be enough.

In this case, however, a cross-reference, which will answer for all titles, is to be preferred to a collection of subject-word references, being more economical and nearly as convenient to the inquirer. Suppose, for instance, that Insects is preferred as a subject-name to Entomology. It will be better and more sparing of space to say once for all “Entomology. See Insects,” referring a man to a part of the catalogue where he will find not only the book he seeks but many similar ones, than to make number of references like these:

Entomologie, Cours de. See Latreille, P. A.

Entomologique, Bibliographie. See Percheron, A.

Entomology, Dialogues on. See Dialogues.

Entomology, Elements of. See Dallas, W. S.; Ruschenberger, W. S. W.

Entomology, Introduction to. See Duncan, J.; Kirby, W.

which will serve his turn only for the particular book he has in mind, and serve it very little better than the general reference. {45}

Ex. Consular reports. See U. S. Consular Service.

The reason for this is that the inquirer might not think of looking for such works under those headings or might be unable to find them in the mass of titles under the larger countries, France, Great Britain, United States. But in view of the room which such references would fill, if made from all governmental titles, it seems best to state the rule for the entry of governmental and society publications very distinctly in the preface and then to require and presuppose a certain acquaintance with the plan of the catalogue on the part of those who use it, and omit all reference for ordinary official reports, making them only for works which have become part of literature, and are likely to be much inquired for: as, the “Astronomical exploring expedition,” “Connaissance des temps,” “Description de l’Égypte,” “Documents inédits,” “Philosophical transactions,” etc. Of course absolute uniformity can not be secured in this way, but absolute uniformity is not very important. Even if occasionally a reference of this kind fails to be made which might reasonably be required, those which are made will be useful. It is easy to add the reference wanted in a manuscript catalogue or in the inevitable supplement of a printed catalogue.

Because some books are known and referred to by them rather than by the full title. For the same reason the binder’s title, used on the original binding, may deserve a reference (never an entry); and also titles commonly given to books though not appearing anywhere in them, as Breeches Bible, Speaker’s commentary.

This occurs especially in German books. The rule above should be followed even when the library has only one of the parts. But under the subject-heading the subtitle which corresponds to that subject may be used, the general title being given in a parenthesis after the imprint, so as to preserve the connection of the subject- and title-entries. Ex. Saxony, House of. VEHSE, E. Geschichte der Höfe des Hauses Sachsen. Hamburg, 1854. 7 v. 8º. (Vol. 28–34 of his Gesch. d. deut. Höfe.)

In a dictionary catalogue some books can not profitably have subject-entry, because they not only have no one subject but do not even belong to any class of subjects.

A collection is to be entered under the word which expresses its subject or its general tendency. The memoirs, transactions, proceedings, etc., of a society should be entered under name of the object for which the society is founded. When there are many societies under one head, it is economical to refer merely; as, from Agriculture or Agricultural societies to the various names.

The importance of deciding aright where any given subject shall be entered is in inverse proportion to the difficulty of decision. If there is no obvious principle to guide the cataloguer, it is plain there will be no reason why the public should expect to find the entry under one heading rather than another, and therefore in regard to the public it matters not which is chosen. But it is better that such decisions should be made to conform when possible to some general system, as there is then more likelihood that they will be decided alike by different cataloguers, and that a usage will grow up which the public will finally learn and profit by, as a usage has grown up in regard to the author-entry of French names containing De, Du, La, etc.

Ex. Put Lady Cust’s book on “The cat” under Cat, not under Zoölogy or Mammals, or Domestic animals; and put Garnier’s “Le fer” under Iron, not under Metals or Metallurgy.

This rule of “specific entry” is the main distinction between the dictionary-catalogue and the alphabetico-classed.

Some subjects have no name; they are spoken of only by a phrase or by several phrases not definite enough to be used as a heading. A book may be written on the movements of fluids in plants, a very definite object of investigation, but as yet nameless; it must be put under Botany (Physiological). But if several works were written on it and it was called, let us say, Phythydraulics, it would be seen that, under this rule, it no more ought to be under Botany than Circulation of the blood under Zoölogy. Thirty years ago “Fertilization of flowers” could hardly have been used as a heading; but late writings have raised it to the status of a subject. There are thousands of possible matters of investigation, some of which are from time to time discussed, but before the catalogue can profitably follow its “specific” rule in regard to them they must attain a certain individuality as objects of inquiry, and be given some sort of name, otherwise we must assign them class-entry.

And it is not always easy to decide what is a distinct subject. Many catalogues have a heading Preaching. Is Extempore preaching a sufficiently distinct matter to have a heading of its own? There are a number of books on this branch of the {47} subject. In this particular case the difficulty can be avoided by making the heading “Preaching without notes.” Many such questions may be similarly solved, with perhaps more satisfaction to the maker of the catalogue than to its users; but many questions will remain.

Then, mixed with this, and sometimes hardly distinguishable from it, is the case of subjects whose names begin within an unimportant adjective or noun,—Are of the meridian, Capture of property at sea, Segment of a circle, Quadrature of the circle. All that can be said in such cases is that, if the subject be commonly recognized and the name accepted or likely to be accepted by usage, the entry must be made under it. For the fuller discussion of compound headings, see §§ 106, 107.

On the other hand, difficulty arises from the public, or a part of it, being accustomed to think of certain subjects in connection with their including classes, which especially happens to those persons who have used classed catalogues or the dictionary catalogues in which specification is only partially carried out; so that there is a temptation to enter certain books doubly, once under the specific heading to satisfy the rule, and once under the class to satisfy the public. The dictionary principle does not forbid this. If room can be spared, the cataloguer may put what he pleases under an extensive subject (a class), provided he puts the less comprehensive works also under their respective specific headings. The objection to this is that, if all the specifics are thus entered, the bulk of the catalogue is enormously increased; and that, if a selection is made, it must depend entirely upon the “judgment,” i. e., the prepossessions and accidental associations, of the cataloguer, and there will be an end to all uniformity, and probably the public will not be better satisfied, not understanding why they do not find class-entry in all cases.

The first part of this rule is analogous to that by which the works of a king of a private nature are put under his name, and all his public writings under the country; putting histories of the reign under the king is partly subject- and partly title-entry. Books of this sort have really two subjects and ought to be entered twice (e. g., Boutaric’s “La France sous Philippe le bel”); the rule above is simply an economical device to save room at the expense of convenience. Perhaps a better practice would be to enter all lives of kings as well as histories of their reigns under the country only, with a reference from the king.

Similarly there are some biographies and autobiographies which have such a very large proportion of history that they ought to appear both under the man and the country. In general we merely refer from the country, but occasionally nothing but double entry will suffice. Whether they shall appear by way of entry or merely be mentioned in a note, must be determined by circumstances.

Ex. Put Flagg’s “Birds and seasons of New England” under New England, and under Ornithology say See also New England. As New England ornithology and Ornithology of New England are merely different names of the same specific subject, it may be asked why we prefer the first. Because entry under Ornithology of New England, though by itself specific entry, is when taken in connection with the entries that would be grouped around it (Ornithology, Ornithology of America, Ornithology of Scotland, etc.), in effect class-entry; whereas the similar grouping under New England does not make that a class, inasmuch as New England botany, New England history, New England ornithology are not parts of New England, but simply the individual New England considered in various aspects. Of course the dictionary catalogue in choosing between a class and an individual prefers the latter. Its object is to show at one view all the sides of each object; the classed catalogue shows together the same side of many objects.

There is not as yet much uniformity in catalogues, nor does any carry out this principle so absolutely as the more obvious “specific” rule is obeyed. The Boston Public Library Supplement of 1866, for instance, has under the country Antiquities, Coinage, Description and History, Language, Religion (subjects), and Literature, and even Elocution and Poetry (forms), but not Ballads nor Periodicals, which appear under those words. Yet when Ballads are called Volkslieder they appear under the country Germany,—an instance of the independence of the title produced by foreign languages, the English title being entered by form-word, the foreign works having national classification, regardless of the title. There are many other classes that in most catalogues at present, instead of being confined to general works, absorb books which should rather have local entry, as Vases, Gems, Sculpture, Painting, and other branches of the fine arts, Ballads, Epigrams, Plays, and other forms of literature. In catalogues of merely English libraries this is perhaps as well (see § 122), but the multiplication of books and the accession of foreign literatures render more system necessary.

To show the procedure under this rule, suppose we have a collection of books on coins. Let the general works go under Numismatics; let works on any particular coin, as a Pine-tree shilling or a Queen Anne’s farthing, go under the name of the coin; let works on the coins of a country be put under its name; refer from the country to all the particular coins on which you have monographs, and from Numismatics both to all the separate coins and to all the countries on whose coinage you have treatises. {49}

Ex. Any complete treatise on domestic animals will cover a large part of the ground of veterinary medicine; but it is unnecessary to enter all the works on domestic animals under Veterinary medicine; a note to this effect is sufficient. Astronomy and Geology overlap in regard to the origin of the earth, Geology and Physical geography in regard to its present condition. Any particular book must be classified with one or the other subject according as the geological or geographical treatment prevails.

Ex. Écorcheurs, Émigrés, Raskolnik. Many terms of the Roman or civil law are not exactly translatable; neither Fault nor Crime gives the idea of Culpa; the Debitor inops is not our bankrupt or insolvent; he would have been very glad to have the privileges of a bankrupt. Some other technical terms, and some names of bodies, sects, events, should be left in the original language. The use of the Latin names of Greek deities (Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, in place of Zeus, Poseidon, Aphrodite) is a manifest inaccuracy. Yet it may be defended on the plea: (1) that the Latin names are at present more familiar to the majority of readers; (2) that it would be difficult to divide the literature, or if it were done, many books must be put both under Zeus and Jupiter, Poseidon and Neptune, etc., filling considerable room with no practical advantage.

On the language of place names, see § 33, 35.

Ex. Poisons and Toxicology; Antiquities and Archæology; Insects and Entomology; Warming and Heating; Pacific Ocean and South Sea. There are some cases in which separate headings (Hydraulics and Mechanics of Fluids), which can not be combined, cover books almost identical in character, so that the inquirer must look under both. This is an evil; but there is no reason for increasing the evil by separating headings that are really synonymous, certainly not for dividing a subject in this way for verbal causes and giving no hint that it has been divided.

It sometimes happens that a different name is given to the same subject at different periods of its history. When the method of study of the subject, or its objects, or the ideas connected with it, are very different at those two periods (as in the case of Alchemy and Chemistry), of course there must be two headings. There is not so much reason for separating Fluxions and Differential calculus, which differ only in notation. And there is no reason at all for separating Natural Philosophy and {50} Physics. I am told that medical nomenclature has changed largely three times within the present century. How is the cataloguer, unless he happens to be a medical man, to escape occasionally putting works on one disease under three different heads?

To arrive at a decision in any case one must balance the advantages on the one hand of having all that relates to a subject together, and on the other of making that economical conjunction of title-entry and of subject-entry which comes from following the titles of the books in selecting names for their subjects.

In choosing between synonymous headings prefer the one that—

(a) is most familiar to that class of people who consult the library; a natural history society will of course use the scientific name, a town library would equally of course use the popular name—Butterflies rather than Lepidoptera, Horse rather than Equus caballus. But the scientific may be preferable when the common name is ambiguous or of ill-defined extent.

(b) is most used in other catalogues.

(c) has fewest meanings other than the sense in which it is to be employed.

(d) comes first in the alphabet, so that the reference from the other can be made to the exact page of the catalogue.

(e) brings the subject into the neighborhood of other related subjects. It is, for instance, often an advantage to have near any art or science the lives of those who have been famous in it; as, Art, Artists; Painters, Painting; Historians, History. If one were hesitating between Conjuring, Juggling, Legerdemain, Prestidigitation, and Sleight of hand, it would be in favor of Conjuring or Prestidigitation that one could enter by their side Conjurors or Prestidigitators.

Sometimes one and sometimes another of these reasons must prevail. Each case is to be decided on its own merits.

Ex. Culture and Civilization, Culture and Education.

Ex. Temperance and Intemperance, Free Trade and Protection, Authority (in religion) and Private judgment. Reasons for choice the same as between synonyms.

To this rule there may be exceptions. It may be best that works on theism and atheism should be put together, perhaps under the heading God; but Theists and Atheists as bodies of religious believers ought certainly to go under those two headings, and therefore it is appropriate to put works in defence of theistic doctrines and those in defence of atheistic doctrines under Theism and Atheism.

It is strange that the delusion ever should have arisen that “a catalogue must of necessity confine itself to titles only of books.” If it does, it can not enter that very considerable number of books whose titles make no mention or only an obscure or a defective mention of their subjects (§ 85), and it is at the mercy of deceptive titles (e. g., Channing’s sermon “On a future life,” which treats of Heaven only, Irving’s History of New York, Gulliver’s Travels). A man who is looking up the history of the Christian church does not care in the least whether the books on it were called by their authors church histories or ecclesiastical histories; and the cataloguer also should not care if he can avoid it. The title rules the title-catalogue; let it confine itself to that province. {51}

E. g., it will not do to confound works on the vegetable kingdom with works on vegetables, in the sense of kitchen-garden plants; the first would be properly entered under Botany. Ottley’s “Italian school of design” or a work on “Wagner and his school” are not to be put under Education. Special care is of course needed with foreign titles; the cataloguer may be easily misled by the sound if he is not on his guard. I have seen Lancelot’s “Jardin des racines grecques” classed with works on Gardening, Stephanus Byzantinus “De Dodone [urbe Molossidis]” put under Dodo with a reference from Ornithology, and Garnier “Sur l’autorité paternelle” among the works on the Christian Fathers.

(a) A single word, as Botany, Ethics.

Or several words taken together, either—

(b) A noun preceded by an adjective, as Ancient history, Capital punishment, Moral philosophy.

(c) A noun preceded by another noun used like an adjective, as Death penalty, Flower fertilization.

(d) A noun connected with another by a preposition, as Penalty of death, Fertilization of flowers.

(e) A noun connected with another by “and,” as Ancients and moderns.

(f) A sentence, as in the titles “Sur la règle Paterna paternis materna maternis” and “De usu paroemiae juris Germanici, Der Letzte thut die Thüre zu;” where the whole phrase would be the subject of the dissertation.

There are three main courses open:

(1) We can consider the subject to be the phrase as it reads, as Agricultural chemistry, Survival of the fittest, which is the only possible method in (a) and undoubtedly the best method in (c), (e), and (f), and in most cases of proper names, as Democratic Party, White Mountains, Missouri River (but see § 26).

(2) We can make our entry in (b), (c), and (d) under what we consider the most significant word of the phrase, inverting the order of the words if necessary; as, Probabilities (instead of Theory of probabilities); Earth, Figure of the; Species, Origin of the, the word Origin here being by itself of no account; Alimentary canal, Canal being by itself of no account; Political economy, Political being here the main word and economy by itself having a meaning entirely different from that which it has in this connection.

(3) We can take the phrase as it reads in (c), (d), (e), and (f), but make a special rule for a noun preceded by an adjective (b), first, that all such phrases shall when possible be reduced to their equivalent nouns, as Moral philosophy to Ethics or to Morals, Intellectual; or Mental philosophy to Intellect; or Mind, Natural philosophy to Physics, Sanitary science; or Hygiene, Scientific men to Scientists; or Social science to Sociology; and, secondly, that in all cases where such reduction is impossible the words shall be inverted and the noun taken as the heading, as Chemistry, Agricultural; Chemistry, Organic; Anatomy, Comparative; History, Ancient; History, Ecclesiastical; History, Modern; History, Natural; History, Sacred. [40] {52}

The objection to (1) is that it may be pushed to an absurd extent in the case (b). A man might plausibly assert that Ancient Egypt is a distinct subject from Modern Egypt, having a recognized name of its own, as much so as Ancient history, and might therefore demand that the one should be put under A (Ancient) and the other under M (Modern) [41] and similar claims might be made in the case of all subject-names to which an adjective is ever prefixed, which would result in filling the catalogue with a host of unexpected and therefore useless headings. Nevertheless the rule seems to me the best if due discrimination be used in choosing subject-names.

The objection to (2) is that there would often be disagreement as to what is “the most important word of the phrase,” so that the rule would be no guide to the reader. But in connection with (1) and as a guard against its excesses (2) has its value. The combined rule might read:

Ex. Special providences and Providence, Proper names and Names.

It must be confessed that this rule is somewhat vague and that it would be often of doubtful application, and that on the other hand (3) is clear and easy to follow. But there are objections to (3). It would put a great many subjects under words where nobody unacquainted with the rule would expect to find them.

Another objection is that in most cases the noun expresses a class, the adjective limits the noun, and makes the name that of a subclass (as International law, Remittent disease, Secret societies, Sumptuary laws, Typhoid fever, Venemous insects, Whig party, Woolen manufactures), and to adopt the noun (the class) as the heading is to violate the fundamental principle of the dictionary catalogue. The rule is urged, however, not on the ground of propriety or congruity with the rest of the system but simply as convenient, as a purely arbitrary rule which once understood will be a certain guide for the reader. “If he is told that he shall always find a subject arranged under its substantive form and never under an adjective he can hardly fail to find it. If, on the other hand, he is told that Comparative anatomy is under C and Morbid anatomy under A, that Physical geography is under P and Mathematical geography under G, he will only be bewildered, and accuse the cataloguer of making distinctions that it requires too much study to appreciate. Theoretically the distinctions may be justified, but practically the simpler way of using the noun only is more {53} easily grasped by the common mind. And the system of classifying names under the surname is precisely analogous; [42] thus

Smith, John,

Smith, Joseph,

Smith, William,

seems to me to be arranged on the same principle as

History, Ancient,

History, Ecclesiastical,

History, Modern,

History, Sacred.” [43]

This is plausible. If the public could ever get as accustomed to the inversion of subject-names as they are to the inversion of personal names the rule would undoubtedly be very convenient; but it might be difficult to teach the rule. The catalogue treatment of personal names is familiar to every one, because it is used in all catalogues, dictionaries, directories, and indexes. But there are less than three hundred subject-names consisting of adjective and noun in a catalogue which has probably over 50,000 names of persons. The use of the rule would be so infrequent that it would not remain in the memory. And it should be observed that the confusion caused by the different treatment of Morbid anatomy and Comparative anatomy would only occur to a man who was examining the system of the catalogue, and not to the ordinary user. A man looks in the catalogue for treatises on Comparative anatomy; he finds it, where he first looks, under C. He does not know anything about the disposition of works on Morbid anatomy, and is not confused by it. Another man looks for works on Morbid anatomy and under M he is referred to Anatomy, Morbid. [44] He finds there what he wants and does not stop to notice that Comparative anatomy is not there, but under C, consequently he is not puzzled by that. And even those who are taking a general survey of all that the library possesses on anatomy would probably be too intent upon their object to pause and criticise the arrangement, provided the reference from Anatomy to Comparative Anatomy were perfectly clear, so that they ran no risk of overlooking it and had no difficulty in finding the subject referred to.

The specific-entry rule is one which the reader of a dictionary catalogue must learn if he is to use it with any facility; it is much better that he should not be burdened with learning an exception to this, which the noun rule certainly is.

It ought also to be noticed that this plan does not escape all the difficulties of the others. In reducing, for instance, Intellectual philosophy or Moral philosophy, will you say Mind or Intellect, Morals or Ethics? And the reader will not always know what the equivalent noun is,—that Physics = Natural Philosophy, for example, and Hygiene = Sanitary science. Nor does it help us at all to decide whether to prefer Botanical morphology or Morphological botany. These difficulties, which beset any rule, are only mentioned here lest too much should be expected from a plan which at first sight seems to solve all problems.

The practice of reducing a name to the substantive form is often a good one; but should not be insisted upon as an invariable rule, as it might lead to the adoption of some very out-of-the-way names. As a mere matter of form Nebulæ is to be preferred for a heading to Nebular hypothesis, Pantheism to Pantheistic theory, Lyceums to Lyceum system, etc. {54}

In (b), (c), and (d) the same subject can often be named in different ways; as,

Is there any principle upon which the choice between these three can be made, so that the cataloguer shall always enter books on the same subject under the same heading? I see none. When there is any decided usage (i. e., custom of the public to designate the subjects by one of the names rather than by the others) let it be followed; that is to say, if, in the examples given above, the more customary phrases are Capital punishment, Fertilization of flowers, then we must use those names, preferring in the first case the name which begins with an adjective to its equivalent beginning with a noun, and in the other the name beginning with a noun to its equivalent beginning with an adjective. As is often the case in language, usage will be found not to follow any uniform course.

If usage manifests no preference for either name, we can not employ the two indifferently; we must choose one; and some slight guide to choice in certain cases may perhaps be found. On examination of the phrases above, it appears that they are not all of the same composition. In Comparative anatomy, Capital punishment, the noun is the name of a general subject, one of whose subdivisions is indicated by the adjective. And Capital, Comparative have only this limiting power; they do not imply any general subject. But Ancient history, Mediæval history, etc., may be viewed not only in this way (History the class, Ancient history and Mediæval history the subdivisions) but also as equivalent to Antiquity: History, Middle Ages: History (as we say Europe: History), in which case the adjectives (Ancient, Mediæval) imply a subject and the noun (History) indicates the aspect in which the subject is viewed. Here, then, we choose Ancient and Mediæval as the heading, on the principle of § 68. So in (b) and (c) each of the nouns in turn may be considered as expressing the more general idea and the other as limiting it; e. g., we can have various headings for Death considered in different lights, among others as a penalty; and we can have headings of various sorts of penalties, among others death. It is evident that this collection of penalties taken together makes up a class, and therefore this belongs to a style of entry which the dictionary catalogue is expected to avoid; but the series of headings beginning with the word Death would not make a class, being merely different aspects of the same thing, not different subordinate parts of the same subject.

When an adjective implies the name of a place, as in French literature, German philosophy, Greek art, it is most convenient on the whole to make the subject a division under the country. In this way all that relates to a country is brought together and arranged in one alphabetical series of subjects under its name (see § 258). It is not of the slightest importance that this introduces the appearance of an alphabetico-classed catalogue, so long as the main object of a dictionary, ready reference, is attained. Of course Hebrew language, Latin language, Latin literature, and Punic language can not be so treated; it is the custom and is probably best not to put English language and English literature under England, as they have extended far beyond the place of their origin; books on the language spoken in the United States go with those on the English language except the few on Americanisms, which are separated, like accounts of any other dialect. Our literature can not be treated satisfactorily. It is never called United States literature, and no one would expect to find it under United States. On the other hand the name American properly should include Canadian literature and all the Spanish literature of South America. It is, however, the best name we have.

And this is necessary if the various objects enumerated on p. 8 are to be attained quickly. But inasmuch as the extent and therefore the cost of the catalogue increases in direct proportion with the multiplication of entries, it becomes worth while to inquire whether some of these can not be dispensed with by devices which will suit the inquirer as well or nearly as well. Such economies are mentioned in §§ 93–97, 113, 114.

Ex. “An art journey in Italy and Greece;” “The history of France and England compared;” “Handbook of drawing and engraving.”

But some of the subjects may be omitted if their treatment is so slight that it is not worth while to take any notice of them, which is occasionally the case even when they are mentioned on the title-page. Sometimes an analytical can take the place of a full entry for the less important topics. The points to be considered are; (1) Would this book be of any use to one who is looking up this subject? (2) Is the entry or reference necessary as a subject-word entry or reference (that is, to one who is looking for this book)?

Some books are polytopical which do not appear to be so at first sight. A collection of portraits of Germans, for example, has the subject Germans, and so far as it has any artistic value might be quoted as one of the illustrative works under the subject Portrait painting or Portrait engraving. [45] If the biographical interest were all, the general collections would be put under Portraits and the national collections (as “American portrait gallery,” “Zwei Hundert Bildnisse deutscher Männer”) under countries, with references from the general heading to the various countries, as directed in § 97. If the artistic interest were alone considered, the general titles would be put under Portraits, and collections by painters or engravers of particular schools would be put under the names of the schools; which would amount to nearly the same arrangement as the previous.

So in regard to Hymns; there are three sources of interest, the devotional, the literary (which would lead to national subdivision), and the denominational; a similar treatment would place general collections under Hymns, collections in any language under the national heading, with either double entry under the name of the denomination or a reference from that to the national heading, specifying which of the collections there enumerated belong to the denomination. But the devotional interest so decidedly preponderates that it has been customary to collect everything under the form-heading Hymns.

In Full, almanacs will have form-entry under Almanacs and subject-entry under the district about which they give information.

Sometimes if an ordinary reference be made from one subject to another the title referred to can not easily be found. A reference from Architecture to Spain. Architecture, is convenient, but a reference to the same heading from Gothic architecture is not, because it obliges the inquirer to look through the whole list of Spanish architecture to find perhaps one title on the Gothic. In like manner there would be few entries of works on vases under most countries, so that no division Vases would be made, and the inquirer must search for his book among a number of titles on Art. And if the reference were made the other way—from the country to Vases—the inquirer would be in the same plight. There is no need, however, of double entry. If merely the name of the particular author or authors referred to under any subject be inserted in the reference, the whole difficulty vanishes.

Ex. Gothic architecture. [Various titles.] See also Spain; Architecture (STREET).

It is to be noted that herein Short has a great advantage; it does not lose so much {56} by double entry and can afford to make it in many cases where Medium must for economy put the reader to some trouble. The notes, too, in such catalogues as the Quincy or the Boston Public history-list afford a convenient way of briefly inserting considerable double entry where it is thought expedient without any apparent inconsistency.

E. g., “A treatise on anatomy, physiology, pathology, and therapeutics,” which might be put under each of those four headings, ought rather to be entered under Medicine, in which case, if the separate parts are by different authors, analyticals might very well be made under the four headings; and at any rate an analytical under the first would occasionally be useful as equivalent to a subject-word reference.

On the other hand, if in printing it were noticed that under any subject only one or two titles were covered by the cross-references to countries (as from Sculpture to Greece, Italy, Denmark), it may be thought that double entry under nation and subject would be preferable. A man is provoked if he turns to another part of the catalogue to find there only one title. However, it should be remembered that one or two titles repeated under each of many subjects will amount to a considerable number in the whole. The want of uniformity produced by this mixture of reference and double entry is of less importance.

Ex.

Jeune Eugénie. MASON, W. P. Report. Boston, 1822. 8º.

Herald, H. M. S., Voyage of the. See Seemann, B.

In Short (and in Medium and Full, if the report is anonymous) this will be the only entry,—unless the case illustrates some subject, in which case entry or reference under that will be needed. Patent cases furnish the most common examples of subject-entry {57} of trials, but everyone will remember trials in which points of ecclesiastical law, of medical jurisprudence, etc., have been so fully discussed as to compel reference from those subjects.

Here are seven questions on nearly the same subject-matter, and there are six names for them. (It will be found, by the way, that although there are some books treating of each separately, many of the works overlap as the subjects do, and that the titles are no guide whatever to the contents of the books.) Two main courses are open to the cataloguer:

1st. To make one heading, as Future life, cover the whole, with subdivisions. In this way the catalogue becomes classed to a certain extent. No matter, if that is on the whole the more convenient arrangement;

2d. More consistently, to make four headings: Eschatology (covering the 1st question, four last things, with references to each of them), Future life (its nature, including retribution both for good and evil, 2d and 4th questions), Future punishment (existence, nature, duration, and so including universalism, with references to Purgatory and Hell, covering the 5th, 6th, and 7th questions), Immortality (is there any? 3d question).

Cross-references should be made by Full from Classes of persons (Merchants, Lawyers, Artists, Quakers, etc.) to individuals belonging to those classes; from Cities to persons connected with them by birth or residence, or at least to those who have taken part in the municipal affairs or rendered the city illustrious; from Countries to their colonies, provinces, counties, cities, etc. (unless their number is so great or the divisions are so well known that reference is useless); also, under the division History to rulers and statesmen, under Literature to authors, under Art to artists, and so on; from other Subjects to all their parts, and to the names of persons distinguished for discoveries in them or knowledge of them. Short and Medium will make such of these references as seem most likely to be useful.

The construction of this system may be carried on simultaneously with the ordinary cataloguing of the library, each book as it goes through the cataloguer’s hands not merely receiving its author- and subject-entries, but also suggesting the appropriate cross-reference; but when all the books are catalogued the system will not be complete. References are needed not merely to the specific from the general but to the general from the more general and to that from the most general. There must be a pyramid of references, and this can be made only by a final revision after the completion of the cataloguing. The best method is to draw off in a single column a list of all the subject-headings that have been made, to write opposite them their including classes in a second column and the including classes of these in a third column; then to write these classes as headings to cards and under them the subjects that stood respectively opposite to them in the list, to arrange the cards alphabetically, verify the references, and supplement them by thinking of all likely subordinate headings and ascertaining whether they are in the catalogue, and also by considering what an inquirer would like to be told or reminded of if he were looking up the subject under consideration. In this way a reasonably complete list may be made.

It will, however, often happen that there is no entry under the including subject. Take a simple instance. The catalogue, we will suppose, contains twenty histories of towns belonging to seven counties in Connecticut. In the revision described above references have been made both from Connecticut to these counties and to the towns from the counties, but only three of the counties have any titles under them. The others would not make their appearance in the catalogue at all if there were no cross-references. And as this will happen continually, it follows that the system will very greatly increase the number of headings and therefore the length of the catalogue. Such fullness may be allowable in regard to the state which contains the library, which, of course, should be treated with exceptional completeness. It may possibly be worth while for all the States of the Union and for England, but to attempt to do the same for all countries and all subjects is too much. A modification of the plan must be introduced which will make it much less complete but still useful. With many subjects the next heading in the ascending series must be skipped, and the references massed under one still higher; in the supposed case, for example, the references to all the towns will be made under Connecticut and under those counties alone which have any other entry under them.

Of course much information about limited topics is to be found in more general works; the very best description of a single plant or of a family of plants may perhaps be contained in a botanical encyclopædia. This fact, however, must be impressed upon the inquirer in the preface of the catalogue or in a printed card giving directions for its use; it is out of the question to make all possible references of the ascending kind. From Cathedrals, for example, one would naturally refer to Christian art and to Ecclesiastical architecture, because works on those subjects will contain more or less on cathedrals. But so will histories of architecture and {59} histories of English, French, German, or Spanish architecture; so will travels in England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. And anyone who desired to take an absolutely complete survey of the subject, or who was willing to spend unlimited time in getting information on some detail, would have to consult such books. Yet the cataloguer may very excusably not think of referring to those subjects, or if he thinks of it may deem the connection too remote to justify reference, and that he should be overloading the catalogue with what would be generally useless.

There are many things that are seldom used, and then perhaps but for an instant, and yet their existence is justified because when wanted they are indispensable, or because they make useful what is otherwise useless: a policy of insurance, life-preservers in a steamer, the index of a book, large parts of the catalogue of a library, among others the cross-references. Of such a nature, but much less useful, more easily dispensed with, is a

I mention its possibility here; I do not advise its construction, because there is little chance that the result would compensate for the immense labor.

National entry has already been discussed under SUBJECTS (§ 97).

In the catalogues of libraries consisting chiefly of English books, if it is thought most convenient to make form-entries under the headings Poetry, Drama, Fiction, it may be done, because for those libraries Poetry is synonymous with English poetry, and so on; but if a library has any considerable number of books in foreign languages the national classification should be strictly followed; that is to say, entries should be made under English drama, English fiction, English poetry, Latin poetry, etc.; only those collections of plays, novels, poems that include specimens of several literatures being put under Drama, Fiction, Poetry. Or the English plays, novels, poems, etc., may be entered under Drama, Fiction, Poetry, etc., and the dramatic works, etc., of foreign literatures under the names of the several literatures.

The rule above confines itself to collections. It would be convenient to have full lists of the single works in the library in all the various kinds of literature, and when space can be afforded they ought to be given; if there is not room for them, references must be made under these headings to the names of all the single authors; an unsatisfactory substitute, it is true, but better than entire omission. Note, however, that there is much less need of these lists in libraries which give their frequenters access to the shelves than where such access is denied, so that borrowers must depend entirely on the catalogue. In the case of English fiction a form-list is of such constant use that nearly all libraries have separate fiction catalogues.

It has been objected that such lists of novels, plays, etc., do not suit the genius of the dictionary catalogue. The objection is of no importance if true; if such lists are useful they ought to be given. There is nothing in the dictionary plan which makes them hard to use if inserted. But the objection is not well founded. Under the names of certain subjects we give lists of the authors who have treated of those subjects; under the names of certain kinds of literature we give lists of the authors who have written books in those forms; the cases are parallel. The divisions of fiction, it must be understood, are not the authors who have written novels but the different kinds of novels which they have written; they are either such varieties as “Historical fiction,” “Sea stories,” “Religious novels,” or such as “English fiction,” “French fiction.” The first divisions we do not make for single works because it would be very difficult to do so and of little use; but if there were collections in those classes we should certainly introduce such headings. The second division (by language) is made as it is in Poetry and Drama, both for single works and collections. {60}

There is no reason but want of room why only collections should be entered under form-headings. The first entries of collections were merely title-entries, and Mr. Crestadoro is the only person who has thought that plays, etc., deserve two title-entries, one from the first word, the other from what we might call the form-word. It is not uninteresting to watch the steps by which the fully organized quadruple syndetic dictionary catalogue is gradually developing from the simple subject-word index.

References can be substituted, if necessary.

Thus an agricultural dictionary will not be entered under Dictionaries, but under Agriculture, in a little division Dictionaries. Now and then some one asks for “a grammar,” “the dictionary.” It does not follow that it would be well to jumble together, under a form-heading, Grammars or Dictionaries, all grammars and lexicons in all languages. Those who inquire so vaguely must be made to state their wishes more definitely. The cataloguer does his part if he inserts a note under such headings explanatory of the practice of the catalogue; as

Grammar. [First a list of works on general grammar, then]

Note. For grammars of any language, see the name of the language.

Ex. Colombo, C. Select letters rel. to his four voyages to the New World; tr. and ed. by R. H. Major. London, 1847. 8º. (Vol. 2 of the Hakluyt Soc.)

Ex. Fairholt, F. W. The civic garland; songs from London pageants, with introd. and notes. (In Percy Society, v. 19. 1845.)

Full must and Medium may make a full entry in this case also. That is to say, Full will draw the line at a separate title-page, Short and perhaps Medium at filling a volume. Those catalogues which give no imprints at all and those which give no imprints under subjects will of course give none for analyticals.

Ex. Dickens, C. J. F. Little Dorrit. (In Harper’s mag., v. 12–15, 1855–57.)

Absolute uniformity is unattainable; probably no one will be able to draw the line always at the same height. It is most desirable—and fortunately easiest—to make analysis when the subject is well marked, as of biographies or histories of towns, or monographs on any subject. General treatises or vague essays are much harder to classify and much less valuable for analysis. In analyzing collections of essays original articles should be brought out in preference to reviews, which are commonly not worth touching (except in a very full catalogue) either under the author of the work reviewed or under its subject. Of course exception may be made for famous reviews or for good reviews of famous works. A work giving a careful literary estimate of an author may be an exception to this remark; reviews of the “Works” of any author are most likely to contain such an estimate. Many reviews, like Macaulay’s, are important for their treatment of the subject and not worth noticing under the book reviewed, which is merely a pretext for the article.

Sometimes it is better to give full entry under two headings than to make the second analytical. Ex. A “Short account of the application to Parliament by the merchants of London, with the substance of the evidence as summed up by Mr. Glover,” is to be entered under London. Merchants, as first author, but as Glover’s part is two-thirds of the whole, it should also be entered under him, the entry in each case being made full enough not to mislead.

Either heavy-faced (best, if it can be had not too black), small capitals (handsome), or italics (least pleasing); never capitals (ugly and hard to read). Christian names should be in ordinary type; to make them like the heading is confusing, to have a special type for them would be extravagant.

Earl, Mrs., Rev., of Paris, Alexandrinus, etc., also the name of a country or state following the name of a town, as Wilton, N. H., Cambridge, Eng.  These words are to be italicized only in the headings and not in the title. They are italicized in the heading to distinguish the name and bring it out clearly; there is no need of such distinction in titles. Do not print Badeau, Gen. A. Life of Gen. Grant. If the heading is italicized, the words Mrs., Earl, etc., must be distinguished from it in some other way.

In some indexes a distinction is made between persons and places or between authors and subjects, but in a catalogue varieties of type must be reserved for more important distinctions. The Catalogue of the Library of the Interior Department uses a heavy-faced title type for authors and a light-faced antique for other entries, with very satisfactory effect; but such typographical luxuries are not within general reach.

Ex. Cervantes Saavedra, Varnhagen von Ense, Cape of Good Hope, Bicknell & Goodhue, American Antiquarian Society, Comparative anatomy, Political economy; Chasteillon (Lat. Castalio or Castellio), S.; Craik, G. L., and Knight, C.; Manchester, W. Drogo Montagu, 7th Duke of.

Ex. Rough diamond. But compound words, whether hyphened or not, should be printed wholly in the heading type; as, Out of door amusements. London, 1864. 8º. This is merely for looks; the kind of type has nothing to do with the arrangement.

So much is necessary to prevent mistake on the part of the public; but it is a waste of time for the cataloguer to rack his brains to discover which of the ingenious names invented by Pierquin de Gembloux (cryptonym, geonym, phrenonym, etc.) is applicable to each case; for the only result is that readers are puzzled. A list of these terms may be found in the Notice of Quérard by Olphar Hamst [i. e., R. Thomas], London, 1867.

The unauthorized assumption of any name should be indicated by such phrases as called, calling himself, dit, soi disant, se dicente or che si dice, que se dice or se dicendiose, genannt, genoemd, etc.

Ex.

Clemens, S. C. (pseud. Mark Twain).

Godwin, Wm. The looking-glass; by T. Marcliffe [pseud.]. {64}

The title usually shows this fact clearly enough without ed. Short would omit to note the fact, and in Full, perhaps even in Medium, it is better to state it in the title than in the heading. The distinction, after all, is rarely of practical value.

Ex.

Smith, Caleb. Sermon.

Smith, Charles. Address.

Smith, Conrad. Narrative.

not

Smith, Caleb. Sermon.

 —, Charles. Address.

 —, Conrad. Narrative.

In a card catalogue the names should always be given in full; in printing, initials are often used to save room; but the saving is small, and the advantages of full names are so considerable that any cataloguer who is relieved from the necessity of the greatest possible compression ought to give them. For the more common forenames fullness can be combined with economy by the use of the colon abbreviations (C: = Charles, etc. See Appendix V.) Under subjects it is rare that two persons of even the same family name come together and initials are sufficient; but here also the colon initials should be used. An exception may well be made in the case of men always known by a double name; as, Sydney Smith or Bayard Taylor. Nobody talks of Smith or Taylor. Taylor, B., conveys no idea whatever to most readers. Taylor, Bayard, they know. When one name alone is usual, as Gladstone, Shakespeare, and when both forms are used, as Dickens and Charles Dickens, initials will suffice. Of course there can be no uniformity in such practice, but there will be utility, which is better.

Forenames used by the author in a diminutive or otherwise varied form may be given in that form.

Ex. Carleton, Will; McLean, Sally; Reuter, Fritz.

Ex. Collins, (Wm.) Wilkie; Gérard, (Cécile) Jules (Basile). This is of practical use. The consulter running over the Collinses is puzzled by the unusual name unless some generally accepted sign shows him that it is unusual. He does not quickly recognize Charles Dickens in Dickens, Charles John Huffam; or Leigh Hunt in Hunt, James Henry Leigh; or Max Müller in Müller, Friedrich Max. Besides, the eye finds the well-known name more quickly if the others are, as it were, pushed aside. The most common methods of distinction are inclosure in parentheses and spacing: Guizot, (François Pierre) Guillaume, or Guizot, F r a n ç o i s  P i e r r e Guillaume. The latter is objec­tion­able as unusual, as taking too much room, and as making emphatic the very part of the name which one wants to hide. I prefer the style, Dickens, Charles (in full C: J: Huffam). See § 221. But in those catalogues in which all Christian names are inclosed in parentheses, some other sign must of course be used to mark the less usual names.

Ex. Bp., C. E., Capt., Col., D.D., F.R.S., etc., always to be printed in italics.

In a manuscript catalogue, in preparing which of course one never knows how many new names may be added, such titles should be given to every name. In {65} printing, if room is an object, they may be omitted except when needed for the distinction of synonymous authors. Note, however, that many persons are commonly known and spoken of by a title rather than by their first name, and it is a convenience for the man who is looking, for instance, for the life of Gen. Greene, whose Christian name he does not know, to see at once, as he runs his eye over the list of Greenes, which are generals, without having to read all the titles of books written by or about the Greenes in order to identify him. For the same reason Mrs. should always be given with the name of a married woman, whether the forename which follows is her own or her husband’s; even when the following form is adopted, “Hall, Mrs. Anna Maria (Fielding), wife of S. C.,” which is always to be done when in her titles she uses her husband’s initials. In this case a reference should be made from Hall, Mrs. S. C., to Hall, Mrs. A. M., and so in similar cases. If forenames are represented under subjects by their initials, it is well to give Miss or Mrs. with the names of female authors. The reader who would like to read a book by Miss Cobbe on a certain subject may not feel sure that Cobbe, F. P., is Miss Cobbe.

As late as 1760 unmarried women were usually styled Mrs.; as, Mrs. Lepel, Mrs. Woffington, Mrs. Blount, and among writers Mrs. Hannah More. There is no objection to following this practice in cataloguing, as the object of the cataloguer is not to furnish biographical information but to identify the people catalogued.

That is, she is Baroness, Viscountess, Marchioness, etc. In cataloguing, say Brassey, Annie (Allnutt), Baroness; not Brassey, Annie (Allnutt), Lady.

That is, if Lady Mary Smith marries Sir John Brown (either knight or baronet), she is Lady Mary Brown, also if Hon. Mary Smith marries Sir John Brown (knight or baronet) she is Lady Mary Brown; but if Miss Mary Smith marries Sir John Brown (knight or baronet), she becomes Mary, Lady Brown.

Thus, if she marries a baronet she is the Hon^ble Lady Brown, if a peer the Lady So and So, in either case as though she had been a peer’s daughter.

None of these courtesy titles are inherited by the children of those who bear them, the third generation of even the highest peer being simply commoners unless raised in rank by marriage or merit.

Ex. Kniaz, Fürst von, Freiherr zu, duc de Magenta, Bishop of Lincoln, évêque de Meaux; but Emperor of Germany, King of France, not Kaiser and roi, because names of sovereign princes are given in English. Treat in the same way patronymics habitually joined with a person’s name; as, Clemens Alexandrinus.

Hereditary titles generally follow the Christian name, as Derby, Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of; but British courtesy titles (i. e., those given to the younger sons of dukes and marquesses) precede, as Wellesley, Lord Charles (2d son of the Duke of Wellington). In other languages than English, French, and German the title usually precedes the forename; as, Alfieri, Conte Vittorio. Occasionally a French nobleman uniformly places his title before his forenames; as, Gasparin, Comte Agénor de.

Lord should be replaced by the exact title in the names of English noblemen, e. g., Lord Macaulay should be entered as Macaulay, 1st Baron. Lord in the title of Scotch judges follows the family name; as, Kames, H. Home, afterwards Lord.

The title Baronet is given in the form Scott, Sir Walter, Bart.

Patronymic phrases, as of Dedham, follow all the names; but they must immediately follow the family name when they are always used in close connection with it, as Girault de St. Farjeau, Eusèbe; similarly aîné, fils, jeune, as Dumas fils, Alexandre; Didot fils, Ambroise. Latin appellatives should not in general be separated from their nouns by a comma; as, Cæsar Heisterbacensis.

Ex.

Calculus (in mathematics).

Calculus (in medicine).

Indention takes as much room as the dash and is much less clear. There should always be at least a hair-space between the end of the dash and the next letter; indeed that is the rule of all good printing. Under a subject the repetition of the {67} author’s name is indicated by a second dash. [48] (The repetition of the title is shown by the word Same.)

Cobbett, Wm. Emigrant’s guide.

 — A little plain English. London, 1795. 8º.

 — Same. Phila., 1795. 8º.

 — Porcupine’s works.

Atheism. Beecher, L. Lectures, etc.

 — Bentley, R. Confutation of A.

 — – Folly of A. and deism.

 — – Matter and motion.

 — – Fotherby, M. Atheomastix.

After See or In, or when in a note some book contained in the catalogue is referred to; as, “For a discussion of the authorship, see Graesse’s Lehrbuch.”

Short will depart from the order whenever it can not otherwise abridge the title; Medium and Full will do the same, but they will bracket all words introduced out of their original place as much as if they did not occur in the title at all.

Ex. American commonwealths. Virginia; a history of the people, by John Esten Cooke, would be entered Cooke, J: E. Virginia; a history of the people. Boston, 1883. D. (Amer, commonwealths.)

It will not do even for Short to catalogue “On the true, the beautiful, and the good” thus:

Cousin, V. True, beautiful, good;

but a list of Buckstone’s plays may as well be printed

 — Breach of promise, comedy.

 — Christening, farce.

 — Dead shot, farce.

 — Dream at sea.

 — Kiss in the dark, farce.

 — Lesson for ladies, com.,

though the meaning of “Christening” and “The christening” is slightly different, and “Kiss in the dark” might be taken for an injunction, whereas “A kiss in the dark” is evidently only a title. Still neither Short nor Medium should hesitate to omit even in these cases. Besides the economy, the alphabetical order is brought out more clearly by this omission. That can also be done awkwardly by transposing the article; as,

 — Breach of promise, The; com.

 — Christening, The; farce.

 — Dead shot, The; farce.

 — Dream at sea, The.

Ex. “Observations upon an alteration of the charter of the Bank of England” is abridged: “Alteration of charter of Bank of England,” which is certainly not euphonious, but is as intelligible as if it were. Medium usually indulges in the luxury of good English. Perhaps in time a catalogue style will be adopted in which these elisions shall be not merely allowed, but required. It may be possible to increase the number of cataloguing signs. We have now 8º where we once had octavo, then 8vo. Why not insist upon N. Y. for New York, L. for London, P. for Paris, etc., as a few adventurous libraries have done? Why not make free substitution of commas for words, and leave out articles and prepositions in titles wherever the sense will still remain gleanable?

In the following examples I use the double (( )) to indicate what every catalogue ought to omit, the single ( ) to indicate what may well be omitted.

Ed. alt. (priore emendatior).

2^e éd. (augmentée).

2d ed. (with additions and improvements).

with ((an appendix containing)) problems.

((a collection of)) papers relating to the war in India.

((a series of)) letters.

((On the)) brick architecture of the north of Italy.

(debate) on ((the subject of)) the impressment bill.

on ((the question of)) a financial agent.

((being some)) account of his travels.

in ((the year)) 1875.

Sermons ((on various subjects)). N. B. Must occasionally be retained to distinguish different collections of sermons by the same author.

The grounds of infant damnation ((considered in)) (a) sermon ((preached)) Nov. 5, (1717). Boston, 1717. O.

Sermon (the Lord’s day after the) interment of.

Opera ((quæ extant)) (omnia).

Geology ((of the State)) of Maine.

Tables for ((the use of)) civil engineers.

Reflections ((suggested by a perusal of)) [55] J. H. Palmer’s ((pamphlet on the)) “Causes (and consequences) of the war.”

Occasioned by his ((book entitled)) “True narrative.”

defended against ((the cavils of)) G. Martin.

Howe during his command (of the King’s troops) in North America.

So a “Discourse in Albany, Feb. 27, 1848, occasioned by the death of John Quincy Adams, etc. Albany, 1848. O.,” would become Disc., Albany, Feb. 27, death of J. Q. Adams. Albany, 1848. O., in Medium; and Short would probably omit “Albany, Feb. 27.”

Ex. For “from the accession of Edward III. to the death of Henry VIII.,” say [1327–1547].

Ex. Write “Life of L. V. Bell,” “ed. by F. J. Furnivall,” but “Lives of Cicero, Milton, Tell, Washington;” and distinguish by initials the Bachs, Grimms, Humboldts, Schlegels. Short may as well omit the initials of editors, translators, etc.

E. g.

Dante. Divine comedy; tr. by Cayley. London, 1851–54. 4 v. S.

 — Same. Tr. by Wright. London, Bohn, 1854. O.

 — Same. Tr. by Longfellow. Boston, 1867. 3 v. O. {70}

Abbreviations should suggest the word for which they are used, and should not, if it can be avoided, suggest any other. When one abbreviation is used for two words, if the context does not determine the sense the abbreviation must be lengthened. The most common and useful are Abp. (Archbishop), a. d. Lat. (aus dem Lateinischen), add. (additions), Amer. or Am. (American), anon. (anonymous), app. (appendix), Aufl., Ausg., or even A. (Auflage, Ausgabe), bibl. (biblical, bibliographical, bibliotheca, etc.), biog. (biographical, biography), Bp. (Bishop), B. S. L., etc. (Bohn’s scientific library, etc.), Chr. (Christian), class. (classical), col. or coll. (collections, college), com. (commerce, committee), comp. (compiled, compiler), conc. (concerning), dept. (department), dom. (domestic), ed. (edited, edition, editor), encyc. (encyclopædia), ff. (folios or leaves), geog., geol., geom. (geology, geography, geometry), ges. (gesammelte), Ges. or Gesch. (Geschichte), Gr. (Great, Greek), H. F. L. (Harper’s family library), hrsg. (herausgegeben), imp. (imperfect), incl. (including), int. (intorno), lib. (library), mem. (memoir), mis. or miscel. (miscellaneous), nat. (natural), n. d. (no date of publication), n. p. (no place), n. s. (new series), n. t.-p. (no title-page), nouv. (nouvelle), obl. (oblong), p. pp. (page, pages), pseud. (pseudonym, pseudonymous), pt. (part), pub. (published), rec. (recensuit), rel. (relating, relative), rept. (report), rev. (review, revised), s. or ser. (series), sämm. (sämmtlich), sm. (small), soc. (society), t.-p. mut., t.-p. w. (title-page mutilated, wanting), tr. (translated, traduit, tradotto, etc.), trans. (transactions), u. (und), übers. (übersetzt), v. (volume), v. (von, but give van in full), w. (wanting). For others see Appendix V., pp. 119–126.

Ex. With 30,000 (not thirty thousand) men; but Charles II., in place of King Charles the Second.

Ex. In a title-entry

and in a subject-entry

If this is thought too disagreeable, use an initial for the heading when it is repeated in the title; as:

Ex.

Chaucer, G. Canterbury tales; [ed.] by T. Tyrwhitt. London, 1822. 5 v. 8º.

 —  Same. Ed. by T. Wright. London, 1847–51. 3 v. 8º.

The word following Same should generally begin with a capital.

The preface of an excellent catalogue remarks that “the primary object of subject-entries is to inform the reader who have written upon a given topic rather than what has been written.” This is a mistake. The inquirer wishes to know both; in fact he wants to know who have written about it because their character will suggest to him what they have written. {71}

Ex. Knights and sea-kings; or, The Middle Ages.

The reason is that the book may be referred to by either title.

Because (1) it facilitates library work, by rendering the identification of the book quicker and surer; (2) if there is no part of the title which must be given, two persons may abridge so differently that not a single word shall be the same in the two abridged titles, so that two works will be made out of one (I have often known this to happen); (3) books are frequently referred to by the first word of the title (Grassi’s “Notizie sullo stato presente degli Stati Uniti” may be quoted as Grassi: Notizie). Short, however, can probably not afford to retain first words in all cases. Half the phrases used at the beginning of titles add little or nothing to the meaning, such as “Treatise on,” “System of,” “Series of lectures on,” “Practical hints on the quantitative pronunciation of Latin” (here “Practical hints” belongs in the preface, not in the title, to which it really adds nothing whatever). “History of” must often be retained under the subject. One can say

YOUNG, Sir W. Athens. 3d ed. London, 1804;

but under Athens that would not be enough; it would be necessary to write

YOUNG, Sir W. History of Athens,

to distinguish it from such works as Stuart’s “Antiquities of Athens,” and Leake’s “Topography of Athens.” But if there are enough titles under Athens to admit of the subheadings Art, Antiquities, History, the words “History of” again become unnecessary. Medium ought always to retain first words under author, and may omit them under subject; but such phrases as “Manual of,” “Lectures on,” do much to explain the character of the book, and for that reason ought often to be retained.

Mottoes, however, at the top of the title-page (often separated by a line from the real title) may be neglected. Sometimes such superscriptions are important, generally not.

When the author’s name alone or his name and titles are first on the title-page, as is frequently the case in old Latin and modern French books, omit them. Example: Jani Jacobi Boissardi Vesuntini de divinatione.

A custom has grown up of late, particularly in French publications, of putting at the top of the title-page, before the title proper, the name of the series to which the work belongs or else what might be called the classification of the book. The name of the series should be given in parentheses after the imprint. The cataloguer may retain or omit the classification at his discretion. To avoid all possibility of mistake Full will mark the omission of these words by ...

A word or two is enough [56] and those abbreviated if possible; [57] but sometimes, when the article has an insufficient or no title it is well to give more of the title of the book in which it is contained, if that is more communicative; e. g., Wordsworth, J. Grammatical introduction. (In his Fragments of early Latin. 1874.), where “of early Latin” explains “grammatical introduction.” The date should always be given to show in what edition of the work the passage is contained and also to what period the ideas belong. Giving the pages facilitates reference. {72}

Ex.

Aelianus. De natura animalium [Gr. et Lat.].

Aeschines. Orations on the crown [Gr.], with Eng. notes.

Ex.

Beckford, Wm. Vathek; [tr. fr. the French].

Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. Laocoon; tr. by E. Frothingham.

Euripides. Ἱππόλυτος στεφανηφόρος.

 —  Eng. The crowned Hippolytus; tr. by M. P. Fitz-Gerald.

This is for the good of persons unacquainted with the original language, who would not know the book by the foreign title, and also to identify the book, different translations not always having the same title.

Sand, George. Le château des désertes.

 — Eng. The castle in the wilderness.

 — L’homme de neige.

 — Eng. The snow man.

Dante. Divina commedia.

 — Eng. Vision of hell, purgatory, and paradise; tr. by Cary.

 — – Divine comedy; tr. by Cayley.

Ex. Ame en peine, Une, not Ame, Une, en peine. {73}

Enclosing the dash in brackets is ugly [ — ]; enclosing the title in brackets is misleading, as if the title were false. Stars (*) or daggers (†) are sometimes prefixed to the title, but they are often used for other purposes and they throw the titles out of line. [Anon.] may be used between the title and the imprint; † in the same position would take less room and as soon as accepted would be equally intelligible; it has occasionally been used.

Ex. “By the Bishop of Ripon,” “M. Tullii oratio;” meaning M. Tullii Ciceronis oratio, or Cat. used in old editions for Catullus.

Ex. Colloquies of Edw. Osborne; [by M. A. Manning]. London, 1860. S.

Ex. [Pisni Russkaho naroda; Songs of the Russian people.]

When the title is in Greek, followed by a Latin translation, it is customary to use the latter alone, and the same may be done in the case of other languages. But for identification it is necessary that some part of the book’s own title should be printed. It is not enough to give merely a made title or a translation.

Ex. 4th ed., 10th thous., New ed., ed. by T. Good, (Bohn’s standard library), (Weale’s series, v. 20), (Camden Soc., v. 3). It is shorter and nearly as useful to give Bohn, Weale, etc., as publishers in the imprint,—London, Bohn, 1867. O.

The various editions of different volumes may be stated thus:

Hales, Stephen. Statical essays. (Vol. 1, 3d ed.) London, 1738, 33. 2 v. O.

The specification of edition is necessary: (1) for the student, who often wants a particular edition and cares no more for another than he would for an entirely different work; (2) in the library service, to prevent the rejection of works which are not really duplicates. And the number of the edition is a fact in the literary history of the author worth preserving under his name; under the subject it is some guarantee for the repute, if not for the value, of the work.

Washington, 1875. 2 v. 7, 441, (12); 4, 424 p. O. ; 20 engr., 24 photographs, 4 maps. The imprint proper consists merely of place, date, form, and number of volumes (Wash., 1875. 2 v. O). The other details are given by Medium in particular cases. Full gives them always, but it may be doubted whether their use is frequent enough to pay for the very considerable increase in the trouble of cataloguing. It is worth while to show by some sign (as pm.) that the pages are less than 100 or than 50 (40 is the limit of the French Bibliothèque Nationale), for the fact is easily ascertained, and the mark fills little space and may prevent some one sending for a book he does not care to look at. It is not an exact designation, but many things are useful which are not exact. On the other hand an inquirer might occasionally fail to see the best treatise on his subject, thinking it too short to be of any value. Neither Short nor Medium should give the exact number of maps, plates, etc., but it is well worth while, especially for a popular library, to add the word illus. to the titles of books in which the illustrations are at all prominent, and, under Biography, to note the presence of portraits.

Imprints are indispensable in a catalogue designed for scholars, that is for college libraries, for historical or scientific libraries, and for large city libraries. They may not be of much use to nine persons in ten who use those libraries, but they should be inserted for the tenth person. But in the majority of popular city and town libraries neither the character of the readers nor of the books justifies their insertion. Their place may be much better filled (as in the Quincy catalogue) with more important matter—with “Illus.” or “Portraits,” or a word or two explaining an obscure title. But the number of volumes should invariably be given. And the year of publication is important under subjects.

Epithets like “Large paper,” which are applicable, generally, to only a part of the copies of a book, should be mentioned after all the details which apply to the whole edition (place, date, number of volume, etc.).

Göttingen, not Gottingen; München, not Munich; Wien, not Vienna; Londini, not London; Lisboa, not Lisbon, when the first are the forms on the title-page. So [Moskva], Moskau, Moscou, Moscow, according as the imprint is in Russian, German, French, or English.

Ex. Balt., Berl., Bost., Camb., Cin., Cop. or Copenh., Göt., L. (London), Lisb., Lpz., Madr., N. O., N. Y., Oxf., P. (Paris), Phila., St. P. (St. Petersburg), Ven., Wash.; and use the ordinary abbreviations for state names. (A list is given in Appendix V.)

If the places are connected by “and,” as London and Edinburgh, New York and London, take the first; if they are unconnected, as

take that which proves on examination to be the real place of publication. In this economy there is some danger of cataloguing the same book at different times with {75} different imprints, and making two editions out of one; but a little watchfulness will prevent this.

Ex. History of England. Vol. 1–2, Boston; 3–5, N. Y., 1867–69. 5 v. O.

Ex. London, Pickering, 1849; Antwerpen, bi mi Claes die Graue. The publisher’s name must not be mistaken for the place. I have seen a dozen books catalogued as Redfield, 185–. D; Redfield being a New York publisher who had a fancy for making his name the most prominent object in the imprint of his books.

Ex.

Augsb., 1525 [colophon Nuremb., 1526].

Lpz., [col. 1571].

Ex. 5834 [1834]. O.

Ex. Me DuCit ChrIstVs = 1704.

Ex.

London, 1975 [1775]. O. Boston, 1887 [1886]. O.

Paris, 1884 [mistake for 1874]. O. En Suisse [Paris], 1769.

Ex. n. p., n. d. O.

Ex.

London, [17—]. Q.

Phila., [182–?] O.

Ex. 1517 for MDXVII or CI I XIIIX.

When the subarrangement of the catalogue is by dates (as in that of the Amer. Philos. Society), it may be well to place the date uniformly at the end of the line in this order: O. Wash., 1864. Otherwise the best order is to put the place and date immediately after the title, because like it they are taken from the title-page. The form, which is not copied but is the cataloguer’s own assertion, then comes last. The dates can be made prominent in a chronological arrangement by printing them in heavy type, as in Prof. Abbot’s “Literature of the doctrine of a future life.” In Very Short the German style of printing dates should be adopted, 742 (i. e., 1742), 875 (i. e., 1875). {76}

Ex. Paris, 1840–42. O. Sometimes Vol. 1 is of the 2d ed. and its date is later than that of Vol. 2. This is in Medium: (Vol. 1, 2d ed.) 1874, 69–73. 5 v. O; in Short merely 1869–74.

Ex. Ascham, R. Toxophilus, 1545. London, 1870. O. (Arber’s reprints.)

or 3d ed. London, 1857 [1st ed. 1542]. O.

The labor of always hunting up the original date is so great that Medium may be allowed to give it when it can easily be ascertained and omit it in other cases.

In a printed catalogue, if the first edition is in the library, of course its date need not be given with the subsequent editions.

The date, if it be that of original publication, tends to show the style of treatment; if it be that of a reprint or of “Works” it shows which of the various editions in the library is meant. The number of pages will help the reader to decide whether the reference is worth looking up.

The Birmingham Free Library has an ingenious way of printing analyticals. The title is in long primer type, the parenthesis is in pearl, of which two lines will justify with one of the long primer.

By this arrangement the analytical nature of the reference is made much clearer and often a line is saved. But it is very troublesome to the printer.

An imperfect set can be catalogued thus:

Vol. 2–4, 6–7. Bost., 1830. 5 v. O,  or

Bost., 1830. 7 v. (v. 5 w.). O.

7 v. O means Vol. 1–7 if nothing is said to the contrary, and any number of missing volumes can be enumerated in the second of these forms; but as the first volumes of periodicals are often missing, the exception may be made of always cataloguing them in the first form. Whatever Short may be forced to do by its system of charging books, Medium and Full ought to give the number of volumes bibliographically, that is to say, they should count only that a volume which has its own title, paging, and register. If the parts of a work have a continuous register or a continuous paging they form one volume; but if they are called Vol. 1, Vol. 2 on the title-page they may be described as 1 v. in 2. For the bibliographical cataloguer binding has nothing to do with the matter. That the binder has joined two or more thin volumes or divided a thick one ought to be recorded in the accessions-book and in the shelf-list, but is not worth notice in the catalogue; if mentioned at all it should be in such a way that the description of the accidental condition of a single copy in a particular library shall not be mistaken for an assertion applicable to a whole edition (thus, 1 v. bd. in 2, or 2 v. bd. in 1, as the case may be). A work which has a title-page, but is connected with another work by mention on its title-page as part of the volume, or by continuous paging or register, is said to be appended to that work.

In the older books this is important, and in modern books the distinction between the octavo and the duodecimo series is so easily ascertained that it is not worth while {77} to be inaccurate. The size may be more exactly indicated, if it is thought worth while, by l. or sm., sq., obl., prefixed to the fold, as l. 8º, sm. 4º. The “vo” or “mo” should be represented by a superior º if it can be had, otherwise a degree-mark °, though manifestly improper, must be employed; it has abundant usage in its favor.

Another method of giving the form is fº (8), 4º (2), 8º (4), in which fº, 4º, 8º indicate the apparent form of the book as the terms folio, quarto, octavo are generally understood, and the figures within the parentheses show the number of leaves intervening between the successive signatures.

“In the folio the sheet of paper makes two leaves or four pages, in the 4º four leaves, in the 8º eight, in the 12º twelve, and so on. When a sheet of paper is folded into six leaves, making what ought to be a 6º book, it is called a 12º printed in half sheets, because such printing is always done with half-sized paper, or with half-sheets, so as to give a 12º size. From a very early period it has been universal to distinguish the sheets by different letters called signatures. At present a sheet has A on the first leaf or A1 on the first leaf and A2 on the second, which is enough for the folder’s purpose. But in former times the signatures were generally carried on through half the sheet, and sometimes through the whole. Again, in modern times, no sheet ever goes into and forms part of another; that is, no leaf of any one sheet ever lies between two leaves of another. But in the sixteenth century, and even later in Italy, it was common enough to print in quire-fashion, the same letter being used for the whole quire, and the leaves of the quire distinguished as they were successively placed inside of one another by the figures 2, 3, 4, so that a book actually printed in folio might have the signatures of a modern octavo. In exact bibliography such books are sometimes described as ‘folio in twos,’ ‘folio in fours.’ Rules are given for determining the form of printing by the water-lines of the paper and by the catchwords. It is supposed that the latter are always at the end of the sheet, and also that the water-lines are perpendicular in folio, octavo, and decimo-octavo books, horizontal in quarto and duodecimo. But in the first place a great many old books have catchwords at the bottom of every page, many have none at all; and as to the rule of water-lines, there are exceptions to every case of it.” [62]

The measure (in centimeters) should be taken from the inner margin of the degrees, unless the map extends beyond it, in which case measure to the farthest point; pictures at the side are not to be included in the measure unless they come within the degree-mark. The perpendicular measure to be stated first, then the horizontal. {78}

Object, that the inquirer may know which volume he wants; application, chiefly to dictionaries and historical works; method, in general, giving dates and letters of the alphabet, which take little room. It is particularly important also to fully describe in this way very bulky works; Walton’s Polyglott is a good example, in consulting which, without such a guide, one may have to handle ten gigantic folios.

This is particularly desirable in works with an insufficiently descriptive title which treat of several subjects, for which under each heading will be given its appropriate part of the contents. For example, Hugo’s “Jus civile Antejustinianeum” contains the originals of Antejustinian law, but this does not appear from its title, and if it did, it would be hardly worth while to save a few lines by obliging the reader to turn to Hugo to ascertain just what is in the book. On the other hand, the contents of Pertz’s “Monumenta Germaniae historica” is so long that only Fullest can afford to give it under Germany as well as under Pertz. In such a case the reader feels it to be more reasonable that he should be referred.

The contents is often more useful under subject-heading than under author; but it is best that there should be one uniform place where it can always be found, and where the whole of it can be found, and that place should be the author-catalogue.

Notes have several objects:

1. To give any information about the author, the form of his name, his pseudonyms, etc., about the different editions or places of publication, or about the gaps in a set (especially of periodicals), which can not be included in the title without making it disproportionately long. Short, especially if without imprints, can get many of these into the title; which it is well to do, for a short note is not economical.

2. To explain the title or correct any misapprehension to which it might lead. In a popular library the boys take out “The cruise of the Betsy,” imagining it to be another “Cruise of the Midge.”

3. To direct the attention of persons not familiar with literature to the best books. The main principles of such annotating are simple. (a.) The notes should characterize the best books only; to insert them under every author would only confuse and weary; if few they will arrest attention much better. Dull books and morally bad books should be left in obscurity. Under some of the poorer works which have attained unmerited popularity a brief protest may be made; it will probably be ineffectual; but it can do no harm to call Mühlbach unreliable or Tupper commonplace. (b.) They should be brief and pointed. Perhaps after this direction it is necessary to add that they should be true.

4. To lay out courses of reading for that numerous class who are desirous of “improving their minds,” and are willing to spend considerable effort and time but know neither where to begin or how to go on.

5. To state what is the practice of the catalogue in the entry of the publications of Congress, Parliament, Academies, Societies, etc., the notes to be made under those words.

Ex.

Death penalty. See Capital punishment.

Horticulture. LINDLEY, J. Theory of H.
See also Flowers;—Fruit.

Not Vide; the language of an English catalogue should be English.

Yet the convenience of the public must not be sacrificed to brevity. If, for instance, several authors had used the same pseudonym, the titles of their respective works should be given in the references that the reader may know under which of the authors he will find the work he is in search of, and not have to turn to all three.

Detlef, Carl, pseud. See Baur, C.

is the usual form of reference; but it is not enough for Hamilton.

Hamilton, pseud. Essay on a congress of nations. See Whitman, G. H.

Hamilton, pseud. Hamilton. No. 1, etc. See Carey, M.

Analytical references to treatises of the same author or on the same subject, contained in different volumes of the same work, may be made thus:

Charles, A. O. Reformatory and refuge union. (In National Assoc. Prom. Soc. Sci. Trans., 1860.)—Reformatory legislation. (In Trans., 1861.)—Punishment and reformation in America. (In Trans., 1863.)

Comets. PEIRCE, B. Connection of comets with the solar system. (In Amer. Assoc., Proc., v. 2. 1850.)—HUBBARD, J. S. Biela’s double comet. (In v. 8.)—KIRKWOOD, D. Mean distances of the periodic comet. (In v. 12. 1859.)

The signs   have been used instead of ( ) in analytical references to mean “contained in.” They are more conspicuous,—unnecessarily so. {80}

References are frequently printed in smaller type than the rest of the catalogue. This is well when there are enough not to be overlooked; but a single reference from one form of a name to another, or from one subject-name to its synonym, should be in the title type, not in the note type, e. g.

Similarly notes explaining the practice of the catalogue (§§ 61, 201 no. 5) should be made typographically conspicuous.

Therefore all notes, explanations, and such words as in, see, see also, note, contents, and (between joint authors), and others, n. p., n. d., should be English; however, etc., q. v., and sic may be used.

For the language of HEADINGS, see §§ 27–36. In the entry of Government publications the name of the country or city will have the English form (§§ 33, 34), but the name of the department should usually be in the language of the country, e. g.:

But for countries like Russia, Turkey, Japan, where the vernacular name could not easily be ascertained, an English form may be used.

For titles see §§ 165–169, 175; put the specifications of the EDITION in the language of the title, also the IMPRINT (§ 179), CONTENTS, NOTES, and REFERENCES.

N. B. This does not include names of genera, species, etc., in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, which in an ordinary catalogue should not be capitalized; as digitalis purpurea, raia batis, the horse.

Ex.

• 1b. Reply to the Essay on the discovery of America.
• 1c. Institutio legalis; or, Introduction to the laws of England. But it is better, when the sense will permit, to omit the “or” and consider the second title as a clause explanatory of the first, as Institutio legalis; introduction to the laws of England.
• 2b. Society for Promoting the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.
• 2c. Boston Massacre, French Revolution, Gunpowder Plot, Middle Ages.
• 4. The Earl of Derby, but John Stanley, earl of Derby. {81}

Ex.

• 6a. Die Homerische Frage, but Die griechischen Scholien. In many German books capitals are not used even for adjectives derived from personal names.
• 6b. Les Français, but le peuple français.
• 7. Société de l’Histoire de France.
• 8. Le Moyen Âge, la Révolution Française, Die französische Revolution. The French, however, now generally print le moyen âge, la révolution française. Capitals are to be avoided, because in the short sentences of which a catalogue consists they confuse rather than help the eye. For this reason it is better not to capitalize names in natural history whether English or Latin (bee, rana pipiens, liliaceæ, etc.). Several libraries following the lead of the Congress catalogue have discarded capitals for German nouns. Grimm’s authority is alleged in justification, but Grimm’s example is followed by a very small minority even of German scholars, and the titles so printed still have an awkward look to most readers. The Boston Public Library also goes to an extreme in its avoidance of capitals, not using them for such proper names as methodists, protestant episcopal church, royal society, etc.

The names of languages are not to be capitalized in the Romance languages, as “traduit de l’anglais,” “in francese.”

Titles of honor are not to be capitalized in the Romance languages, as comte, conte, marchese. But Monsieur, Madame, Signor, Don, Donna always begin with capitals.

Use capitals (or, better, small capitals) for numbers after the names of kings (Charles III. or Henry IV.) and for single-letter abbreviations (A. D., B. C., H. M. S., F. R. S. E., etc., or A. D., F. R. S. E., etc.). But n. p. no place, n. t. p. no title-page, may be in lower-case letters or small capitals, and b. born, d. died, ms. manuscript, should be in lower case.

Separate by a ; the title proper from the phrase relating to the editor, translator, etc. This requires a minimum of capitals. It will occasionally happen that the title can not be thrown into one sentence, but that should always be done when possible. It is usual to separate 4 and 5. The French, however, make one sentence of them (Paris, 1864, in–12). This has the advantage of agreeing with the best form of quoting a title (“see his Memoirs, London, 1874, O. in which,” etc.). It is useless for one who abridges titles to make any attempt to follow the punctuation. The spelling should be retained, but it is hardly worth while for Short or Medium to imitate the old printers in their indiscriminate use of i and j, u and v.

A library may have a collection of books or a few volumes which from their rarity deserve to be catalogued with every bibliographical nicety, with the most exact copying of punctuation, spelling, and forms of letters, and even with marks to show where the lines of the title end. Such collections are the Prince and the Ticknor books in the Boston Public Library, such single books are fifteeners or the rarest Americana. Yet it may be questioned whether a library does well to redescribe books already fully described by Hain, Harrisse, Thiele, Trömmel, Stevens, or Sabin. A simple reference to these works will generally suffice (§ 261).

In French and Greek titles printed in capitals the accents are often omitted. In the titles of rare books, copied exactly, accents should not be supplied.

Ex.

Talbot, E. A. Five years’ residence in Canada, [1818–23].

Maguire, J. F. Canada. (In his Irish in America. 1868.)

Bale, J. Kinge John, a play; ed. by J. P. Collier. Westm., 1838. 4º. (Camden Soc., v. 2.)

One sign should never be used to express two things, if that can be avoided; each should have one definite meaning. Also alter — into , or ; or . as the context may require.

Anyone will recoil from the labor of looking through a long undivided mass of small type; moreover the reader ought to be able to determine at once in what volume any article whose title he is reading is contained. {83}

Treat I and J, U and V, as separate letters; ij, at least in the older Dutch names, should be arranged as y; do not put Spanish names beginning with Ch, Ll, Ñ, after all other names beginning with C, L, and N, as is done by the Spanish Academy, nor ä, å, æ, ö, ø, at the end of the alphabet, as is done by the Swedes and Danes, nor the German ä, ö, ü, as if written ae, oe, ue (except Goethe). If two names are spelled exactly alike except for the umlaut (as Müller and Muller) arrange by the forenames.

Arrangement must be arbitrary. This order is easy to remember, because it follows the course of cataloguing; we put down first the author, then the title. The subject and form, expressed sometimes in more than one word, and the title, almost always having more than one word, must be arranged among themselves by the usual rules. Of course, the person considered as a subject can not be separated from the person as author. As the place may be either author or subject or both, it may come between the two.

Ex.

Washington, George. (person)

Washington, D. C. (place)

Homes, H. A. (person)

Homes family. (persons)

Homes. (subject)

Homes and shrines. (title)

Ex.

Christian II.

Christian, James.

Christian art.

Francis II.

Francis, Abraham.

Francis and Jane.

Ex.

Peter, Saint.

Peter, Pope.

Peter the Great, Emperor of Russia.

Peter II. of Aragon.

Peter III. of Aragon.

Peter I. of Portugal.

Peter, Duke of Newcastle.

Peter, of Groningen, enthusiast. See Pieter.

Peter, John Henry.

Peter, Lake.

Peter, Mt.

Peter Lewis, a true tale.

Peter-Hansen, Erik.

When there are two appellatives coming in different parts of the alphabet, refer from the rejected one, as Thomas Cantuariensis. See Thomas Becket.

Because they are so pronounced. But L’ is not arranged as La or Le, nor O’ as if it stood for Of, because they are not so pronounced.

Ex. Clark and Clarke, and the French names beginning with Saint and Sainte. The names should be spelled correctly, but the difference of spelling disregarded by the arranger. But the exceptional order should be clearly indicated. A guide block should have the inscription Clark and Clarke, and there should be a reference guide block, Clarke. See Clark. The most common spelling should go first; if the forms are equally used, let that precede that comes first in alphabetical order.

No attention is to be paid to prefixes, as Bp., Capt., Dr., Hon., Sir, Fräulein, Miss, Mlle., Mme., Mrs., or to suffixes, as D.D., F.R.S., LL.D., etc. In regard to Hungarian names, observe that the name appears on the title-page as it does in a catalogue, the family name first, followed by the Christian name; as, “Elbeszélések; irta báró Eötvös Jozsef.”

Again, no attention is to be paid to the titles Sir, etc. The alphabetical principle is of no use here because no one can know beforehand which of many possible titles we have taken to arrange by, whereas some one may know when the author whom he is seeking lived. Of course

Brown, T. L., comes before

Brown, Thomas, for the same reason that

Brown comes before

Browne.

When an author is generally known by one of several forenames he will be looked for by that alone, and that alone should determine the arrangement, at least in a card catalogue. Instances are: Agassiz, (J:) L: (Rudolph), Cleveland, (Stephen) Grover, Collins, (W:) Wilkie, Cook, (Flavius Josephus known as) Joseph, Dobson, (H:) Austin, Doré, (Paul) Gustav. The form should be

Harte, Bret (full name Francis Bret), or Harte, Bret (in full Francis Bret).

Make references whenever the omission of a name will change the alphabetical arrangement, as from Müller, F: Max, to Müller, Max.

But if they are counted in arranging they should be spaced or parenthesized, because when there are several persons with the same family name the spacing or parenthesizing assists the eye in picking out the right one. Thus if we have

Franklin, John, d. 1759,

Franklin, Sir John, d. 1863,

Franklin, John Andrew,

Franklin, John Charles,

Franklin, John D a v i d,

the reader not knowing of the name David would expect to find the last among the simple Johns, but seeing the David spaced would understand that it was a rarely used name. This supposes that he knows the system, but one can not have a condensed catalogue without obliging the reader to learn how to use it. (See § 140.) {85}

Ex. Müller, Max (in full F: Max). Otherwise give and arrange by all the names.

Ex.

London, Alfred.

London, David, Bp. of.

London, John.

London, Conn.

London, Eng.

not

London, John.

London, David, Bp. of.

London, Conn.

nor

London, John.

London, Conn.

London, David, Bp. of.

London, Eng.

Danby, John.

Danby, Thomas Osborne, Earl of.

Danby, Wm.

Danby, Eng.

Holland, C.

Holland, H: E. Fox-Vassal, 4th Baron.

Holland, H: R. Fox-Vassal, 3d Baron.

Holland [the country].

The alphabet demands this, and I see no reason to make an exception which can not be made in foreign languages.

Bride of Lammermoor.

Brides and bridals.

Bride’s choice.

Boys’ and girls’ book.

Boy’s King Arthur.

Boys of ’76.

Ex.

Dionysius.

Dionysius Areopagita.

Dionysius Chalcidensis.

Dionysius Genuensis.

Ex.

Demonstration.

De Montfort.

Demophilus.

De Morgan.

Demosthenes.

Other such names are Ap Thomas, Des Barres, Du Chaillu, Fitz Allen, La Motte Fouqué, Le Sage, Mac Fingal, O’Neal, Saint-Réal, Sainte-Beuve, Van Buren.

This is the universal custom, founded on the fact that the prefixes are often not separated in printing from the following part of the name. It would, of course, be wrong to have Demorgan in one place and De Morgan in another. {86}

Ex.

Fonte, Bart. de.

Fonte Resbecq, Auguste.

Fontenay, Louis.

Fontenay Mareuil, François.

The reason is (1) that authors do not always use the second part of their names, and (2) that the single alphabet is easier to use in a card catalogue.

Ex.

Halliwell (afterwards Halliwell-Phillipps), James Orchard.

Ex.

New, John.

New Hampshire.

New legion of Satan.

New Sydenham Society.

New York.

Newark.

Newfoundland.

Newspapers.

not

New, John.

New legion of Satan.

Newark.

Newfoundland.

New Hampshire.

Newspapers.

New Sydenham Society.

New York.

See New Sydenham Society in the list above.

Ex. Bookseller, Bookplates. Sometimes such words are printed on title-pages as two words; in such case do the same in copying the title, but if the word is used as a heading follow the authority of a dictionary; each library should select some one dictionary as its standard.

Ex.

Happy home.

Happy-Thought Hall.

Happy thoughts.

Home and hearth.

Home rule.

Homely traits.

Homer.

Sing, pseud.

Sing, James.

Sing, James, pseud.

Sing-Sing Prison.

Singapore.

Singing.

Grave and Reverend Club.

Grave County.

Grave Creek.

Grave-digger.

Grave-mounds.

Grave objections.

Grave de Mézeray, Antoine.

Gravel.

Gravestone.

Graveyard.

Out and about.

Out in the cold, a song.

Out-of-door Parliament.

Outer darkness, The. {87}

Ex.

Andrew, pseud.

Andrew, St.

Andrew, St., pseud.

Andrew, John.

Andrew, John, pseud.

Andrew, John Albion.

Ex.

Far from the world.

Far...

Far***

Far***, B.F.

Far..., J. B.

Farr, John.

Ex.

Uncovenanted mercies.

Under a cloud.

Under the ban.

Under the greenwood tree; a novel.

Under the greenwood tree; a poem.

Under which king.

Undone task, The.

Undone task done.

Here the transposed The is non-existent for the arranger.

It makes no difference whether the words are connected with one another in sense or not; the searcher should not be compelled to think of that. Let the arrangement be by words as ordinarily printed. Thus Home rule is one idea but it is two words, and its place must be determined primarily by its first word Home, which brings it before Homeless. If it were printed Homerule it would come after Homeless. Similarly Art amateur is one phrase, but as the first word Art is followed by a word beginning with am, it must come before Art and artists, although its parts are more closely connected than the parts of the latter phrase.

The French d’ and l’ are not to be treated as part of the following word:

Ex.

Art d’économiser.

Art d’être grandpère.

Art d’instruire.

Art de faire.

Art de l’instruction.

Art de linguistique.

Art des mines.

Art digne.

not

Art de faire.

Art de linguistique.

Art de l’instruction.

Art d’économiser.

Art des mines.

Art d’être grandpère.

Art digne.

Art d’instruire. {88}

Ex. 100 deutscher Männer = Ein hundert deutsche Männer; 1812 = Mil huit cent douze.

Ex. Dr., M., Mlle., Mme., Mr., Mrs., as Doctor, Monsieur, etc.

But

Who’d be a king?

Who killed Cock Robin?

Who’s to blame?

 The arrangement recommended in §§ 227–232 suits the eye best and requires as little knowledge or thought as any to use. The exception made in § 227 is required by universal practice and by the fact that a very large part of the personal names beginning with prefixes are commonly printed as one word. Names of places beginning with New, Old, Red, Blue, Green, etc. (which might be likened to the prefixes De, Des, Du, etc., and made the ground of a similar exception), are much less frequently printed as one, and when they are the accent is different. Moreover the words New, Old, etc., have an independent meaning and occur as personal names, first words of titles, or of the names of societies, as in the examples in § 230. The reason for separating New Hampshire and Newark in the first example is patent to every consulter at a glance; the reason for the different positions of New legion and New York in the second example would not be clear and would have to be thought out; and it is not well to demand thought from those who use the catalogue if it can be avoided.

Nos. 1–3 come first as belonging to the author-catalogue; 4 comes last as belonging to the subject-catalogue.

It is better to let the smaller collections come in their alphabetical place with the single works. The single works of a voluminous author (as Aristotle, Cicero, Homer, Shakespere) should be so printed that the different titles will strike the eye readily. If the “contents” of the collected words are not printed alphabetically, it is well to insert under the titles of the chief single works a reference to the particular volumes of the collections in which they are to be found. (See Boston Athenæum catal., art. Goethe.) Two works published together are arranged by the first title, with reference from the second.

Extracts from single works come immediately after the respective works.

A spurious work is arranged with the single works, but with a note stating the spuriousness. But if the author’s name is used as a pseudonym the entry should have a separate heading after all the works; as, Browne, H. History. Browne, H., pseud. Stones from the old quarry. See Ellison, H.

If there are only two joint authors both may appear in the heading, but the entry should be arranged among the works written by the first author alone; if there are more than two the heading may be made in the form Smith, John, and others. The usual practice hitherto has been to arrange entries by joint authors after the works written by the first author alone, and this was recommended in the first edition in regard both to the form of the heading and the arrangement; but although it is pleasing to a classifying mind, it is practically objectionable because a reader, not knowing that the book he is looking for is a joint production, and not finding it in the first {89} series of titles, may suppose that it is not in the library. This danger is greatest in a card catalogue, where it entirely overweighs the somewhat visionary advantage of the separate arrangement. The arrangement of a card catalogue should be as simple as possible, because the reader having only one card at a time under his eyes can not easily see what the arrangement is. On the printed page, where he takes in many titles at a glance, more classification can be ventured upon; there the danger is confined to the more voluminous authors; where there are few titles the consulter will read them all and so will not miss any. On the printed page, too, the mixing in of joint authors interrupts to the eye the alphabetical order of titles; e. g.,

Dod, T. Anamites and their country.

 — and others. Barracouta.

 — Carriboo, a voyage to the interior.

 — and White, E. Dahomey and the slave trade.

 — Elephanta, its caves and their images.

This trifling inconvenience can be easily avoided, however, by including the second name in the title; e. g.,

Dod, T. Anamites.

 — Barracouta, by D. [and others].

 — Carriboo.

 — Dahomey, by Dod and E. White.

 — Elephanta.

When the form Smith, John, and others is used, Full will give a list of the “others” in a note. They are not put into a heading merely because there is not room for many names on the first line of a card, and in a printed catalogue the information seems more in place in a note than in a very long heading.

Ex.

Address of Southern delegates in Congress.

Address of the people of Great Britain.

Address of twenty thousand loyal Protestant apprentices.

Address on national education.

Address to a provincial bashaw.

Address to Christians, recommending the distribution.

Husson, F. Vie d’une grande dame.

 — Vie dans le Sahel.

Mason, T. The corner stone.

 — A wall of defence.

Ex.

Homerus. Carmina [Gr.]; cum annot., cur. C. G. Heyne. Lips., 1802. 8 v. 8º.

 — Same. [Gr.]; cum notis et proleg. R. P. Knight. Londini, 1820. 4º.

 — Same. [Gr.]; ed. J. Bekker. Bonnae, 1858. 2 v. 8º.

Bartlett, John. Collection of familiar quotations. 3d ed. Camb., 1860. 12º.

 — Same. 4th ed. Boston, 1863. 12º.

 — Same. 8th ed. Boston, 1882. 16º.

Not

First report,

Fourth report,

General account,

Second report.

but

General account.

1st, 2d, 4th report. {90}

Ex.

Cicero. De officiis. [Various editions, arranged chronologically.]

 — Same. Erkl. von O. Heine. Berlin, 1857. 8º.

 — Eng. Offices; tr. by C. R. Edmonds. London, 1850. 8º.

 — French. Les offices; tr. par [G. Dubois]. Paris, 1691. 8º.

If the original is not in the library the translation may be arranged either by the first words of its own title or by the first words of the original title prefixed in brackets. The latter order is to be preferred when most of the other titles are in the original language. When the list of entries is long a reference should be made from any title of a translation which is alphabetically much separated from its original back to the original title under which it is to be found.

Ex.

Hofland, Mrs. B. (W. H.). [The son of a genius. French:] Ludovico; tr. par Mme. de Montolieu.

Dudevant. L’homme de neige.

 — Eng. The snow man.

[58 titles interposed.]

 — The snow man. See, back, L’homme de neige.

An original text with a translation is to be arranged as if alone, but if there are many editions make a reference from among the translations to the original. If there are translations into two languages in a volume, arrange by the first, and, if necessary, refer from the second.

Polyglots precede all other editions.

Ex. Pretty, F. Prosperous voyage of Sir T. Cavendish. (In Purchas, S. Pilgrims, v. 1, b. 2. 1625; — Harris, J. Col., v. 1. 1705; and v. 1. 1764; — Callander, J. Terra Austr., v. 1. 1768; — Hakluyt, R. Col., v. 4. 1811.)

Ex.

Cutter, C: A. Common sense in libraries. (In Library journal, v. 14. 1889.)

 — Same. (In American Library Assoc. Proceedings at St. Louis, 1889.)

 — Same, separated.

 — Same. [Boston, 1889.] Q.

That is, put first the country’s own works (governmental publications), then the works about the country; and as we put the criticisms on a voluminous author after the separate writings to which they respectively apply, so we put accounts of or attacks upon any branch of government after the entry of the branch.

It is much clearer—and it is the dictionary plan—to make the parts of a division themselves independent divisions, referring from the including division to the subordinate one. E. g. (to take part of the headings under United States):

• Subordination.
  • United States.
    • Department of the Interior.
      • Bureau of Indian Affairs.
      • Patent Office.
      • Pension Office.
      • Public Land Office.
    • Department of the Navy.
      • Bureau of Navigation.
        • Hydrographic Office.
        • Naval Academy.
        • Naval Observatory.
      • Bureau of Navy-Yards and Docks.
        • Naval Asylum.
    • Department of War.
      • Adjutant-General’s Office.
      • Bureau of Engineers.
      • Bureau of Topographical Engineers.
      • Commissary-General’s Office.
      • Freedmen’s Bureau.
      • Military Academy.

• Better order.
  • U. S.
    • Adjutant-General.
    • Bureau of Engineers.
    • Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    • Bureau of Navigation.
    • Bureau of Navy Yards and Docks.
    • Bureau of Topographical Engineers.
    • Commissary-General.
    • Department of the Interior.
    • Department of the Navy.
    • Department of War.
    • Freedmen’s Bureau.
    • Hydrographic Office.
    • Military Academy.
    • Naval Academy.
    • Naval Asylum.
    • Naval Observatory.
    • Patent Office.
    • Pension Office.
    • Public Lands.

The subordination of bureaus and offices to departments is adopted simply for convenience, and is changed from time to time as the exigencies of the public service demand. There is no corresponding convenience in preserving such an order in a catalogue, but inconvenience, especially in the case of the above-mentioned changes. The alphabetical arrangement has here all its usual advantages without its usual disadvantage of wide separation.

This applies chiefly to the larger countries (as France, Great Britain, United States), the more voluminous authors (as Cicero, Shakespeare), one title-entry (Bible), and possibly some subjects not national. The arrangement of titles under Bible will be governed by §§ 240, 242, 245, and 247; but it can be best understood from an example in some catalogue which has many titles under that heading. The synopsis in the Boston Athenæum catalogue is as follows:

• Whole Bibles (first Polyglots, then single languages arranged alphabetically).
• Works illustrating the whole Bible (under the heads Analysis, Antiquities, Bibliography, Biography, Canon, Catechisms, historical and theological, Commentaries, Concordances, Criticism, Dictionaries, Evidences, authority, etc., Geography, Hermeneutics, History, Inspiration, Introductions, Natural history, Science and the Bible, Theology, morals, etc., Miscellaneous illustrative works).
• Selections from both Testaments.
• Prophetical books of both Testaments.
• Old Testament.
• Illustrative works. {92}
• Parts of the Old Testament (arranged in the order of the English version), and works severally illustrating them.
• Apocrypha.
• New Testament.
• Illustrative works.
• Parts of the New Testament, and works illustrating them.

Under each part the order is: Editions of the original texts chronologically arranged;—Versions, in the alphabetical order of the languages;—Illustrative works.

• Alphabetical order.
  • Contents.
    • Argentile and Curan; a legendary drama, v. 2.
    • Art of painting, by Du Fresnoy, v. 3.
    • Caractacus; a dramatic poem, v. 2.
    • Chronological list of painters to 1689, v. 3.
    • Dryden’s preface to his translation of Du Fresnoy, v. 3.
    • Elegies, v. 1.
    • Elfrida; a dramatic poem, v. 2.
    • English garden, The, v. 1.
    • Epitaphs and inscriptions, v. 1.
    • Essay on the meaning of the word angel, as used by St. Paul, v. 4.
    • Essays on English church music, v. 3.
    • Examination of the prophecy in Matthew 24th, v. 4.
    • Hymns and psalms, v. 1.
    • Musæus: a monody to the memory of Mr. Pope, v. 1.
    • Odes, v. 1.
    • Pygmalion; a lyrical scene, v. 2.
    • Religio clerici, v. 1.
    • Sappho; a lyrical drama, v. 2.
    • Sermons, v. 4.
    • Sonnets, v. 1.

• Volume order.
  • Contents.
    • Vol. 1. Musæus, a monody to the memory of Mr. Pope. — Odes, sonnets, epitaphs and inscriptions, elegies. — The English garden. — Religio clerici. — Hymns and psalms. 2. Elfrida, a dramatic poem. — Caractacus, a dramatic poem. — Sappho. — Argentile and Curan, a legendary drama. — Pygmalion, a lyrical scene. 3. Du Fresnoy’s art of painting. — Dryden’s preface to his translation of Du Fresnoy. — Chronological list of painters to 1689. — Essays on English church music. 4. Sermons. — Essay on the meaning of the word angel, as used by St. Paul. — Examination of the prophecy in Matthew 24th.

It is evident how much much more compendious the second method is. But there is no reason why an alphabetical “contents” should not be run into a single paragraph.

The titles of novels and plays contained in any collection ought to be entered in the main alphabet; it is difficult then to see the advantage of an alphabetical arrangement of the same titles under the collection. Many other collections are composed of works for which alphabetical order is no gain, because the words of their titles are not mnemonic words, and it is not worth while to take the trouble of arranging them; but there are others composed of both classes, in which such order is very convenient. {93}

Thus Grace before meals, Grace of body, Grace the musical term, and Grace the theological term, must be four distinct headings.

Alphabetical arrangement by authors’ names is useful when a subject-entry is a substitute for a title-entry, but otherwise is as useless as it is inappropriate. If the author’s name is known the book should be looked for under that, not under the subject; if it is not known, what good can an arrangement by authors do? Sometimes, if one has forgotten the Christian name of an author, it may be easier to find him under a subject than in a crowd of Smiths or Joneses or Müllers, and this use of a subject-heading is impaired by grouping or by chronological order; but such use is infrequent, and the main design of a subject-entry should not be subordinated to this side advantage.

It is even urged that it is harder to find a work treating of the subject in any special way among subdivisions than when there is only one alphabet, which is absurd. On the one hand one must look over a list of books embracing five or six distinct divisions of a subject and select from titles often ambiguous or provokingly uncommunicative those that seem likely to treat of the matter in the way desired. On the other plan he must run over five or six headings given by another man, and representing that man’s ideas of classification, and decide under which of them the treatise he is in search of is likely to be put. Which system gives the least trouble and demands the least brain-work? Plainly the latter. In three cases out of four he can comprehend the system at a glance. And if in the fourth there is a doubt, and he is compelled after all to look over the whole list or several of the divisions, he is no worse off than if there were no divisions; the list is not any longer. The objection then to subdivisions is not real, but fanciful. The reader at first glance is frightened by the appearance of a system to be learned, and perversely regards it as a hinderance instead of an assistance. But if anyone has such a rooted aversion to subdivisions it is very easy for him to disregard them altogether, and read the list as if they were not there, leaving them to be of service to wiser men.

As the number of titles under each heading increases in number so does the opportunity and need of division. The first and most usual groups to be made are Bibliography and its companion History, and the “practical-form” groups Dictionaries and Periodicals Under countries the first grouping will be Description and Travels, History and Politics, Language and Literature, followed by Natural history, etc. For examples of further subdivisions see the longer catalogues. It is not worth while in a printed catalogue to make very minute divisions. The object aimed at,—enabling the enquirer to find quickly the book that treats of the branch of the subject which he is interested in,—is attained if the mass of titles is broken up into sections containing from half a dozen to a score. Of course there are masses of titles which can not be so broken up because they all treat of the same subject in the same way, or at least show no difference of treatment that admits of classification. The general works on the Fine Arts in a library of 100,000 volumes may number 100 titles, even after Periodicals and Dictionaries have been set aside.

There is one objection to grouping,—that books can seldom be made to fill any classification exactly, their contents overrunning the classes, so that they must be entered in several places, or they will fail to be found under some of the subdivisions of which they treat. Thus in the chronological arrangement of History, whether we arrange by the first date, the average, or the last date of each work, the books cover periods of such various length that one can never get all that relates to one period together. {94}

There is another objection,—that it is much harder to make a catalogue with subdivisions, which of course require a knowledge of the subject and examination of the books; and the difficulty increases in proportion to the number of the books and the minuteness of the divisions.

Thus under countries the division History will be arranged according to the period treated of, the earliest first; so under Description, for England as seen by foreigners in the days of Elizabeth was a very different country from the England seen by Prince Pückler-Muskau in 1828, or satirized by Max O’Rell in 1883. So Statistics and Literature, and other divisions, should be treated when they are long enough.

Ex. Architecture. See also Arches;—Baths;—Bridges;—Cathedrals;—Fonts;—[and many other things built];

also Carpentry;—Drawing;—Metal-work;—Painting;—[and many other means or methods of building];

also Athens;—Berlin;—Boston;—Milan;—Rome;—Venice;—Verona;—[and many other cities whose buildings are described];

also Arabia;—Assyria;—Egypt;—France;—Greece;—India;—Italy;—[and many other countries whose architecture is described].

It may not be best to adopt strictly the same method in the subdivisions under countries that was recommended for government publications. There are advantages in both the following plans. The second is the dictionary plan pure and simple; the first is a bit of classification introduced for special reasons into a dictionary catalogue, and perhaps out of place there. It is, however, the one which I have adopted for the catalogue of the Boston Athenæum.

• [(1.) Dictionary Catalogue with a Bit of Classification]
  • [Name of country.]
    • Administration.
    • Agriculture.
    • Antiquities.
    • Architecture.
    • Army.
    • Art.
    • Biography.
    • Botany.
    • Calendar.
    • Ceremonies.
    • Charities.
    • Climate.
    • Colonies.
    • Commerce and Trade.
    • Costume.
    • Description and Travels.
    • Ecclesiastical history.
    • Education.
    • Entomology.
    • Finance.
    • Folk-lore.
    • Foreign relations.
    • Geology.
    • Heraldry.
    • Herpetology.
    • History.
      • Bibliography.
      • General works.
      • Chronological arrangement.
    • Ichthyology.
    • Industry.
    • Language.
      • Bibliography.
      • General and miscellaneous works.
      • Composition.
      • Conversation and Phrases.
      • Correspondence.
      • Dialects.
      • Dictionaries.
      • Epithets.
      • Etymology.
      • Exercises.
      • Grammar.
      • Historical grammars.
      • History.
      • Homonyms.
      • Pronunciation and spelling.
      • Prosody.
      • Readers (for foreign languages).
      • Rhymes.
      • Synonyms.
    • Law.
      • Bibliography.
      • History.
      • General works.
    • Literature.
      • General
        • Bibliography.
        • History (including lives of authors).
        • Collections.
        • Manuals.
        • Selections for reading and speaking.
      • Ballads and songs.
      • Dialogues.
      • Drama.
      • Eloquence or oratory.
      • Epigrams.
      • Epitaphs.
      • Essays.
      • Fables.
      • Fairy tales.
      • Fiction.
      • Legends.
      • Letters.
      • Parodies.
      • Periodicals.
      • Poetical romances.
      • Poetry.
      • Popular literature. [68]
      • Prose romances. [69]
      • Satire.
      • Sonnets.
      • Wit and humor.
    • Malacology.
    • Manufactures.
    • Medicine.
    • Mineralogy.
    • Money.
    • Music.
    • Names.
    • Natural history.
    • Navy.
    • Naval history.
    • Numismatics.
    • Ornithology.
    • Palæontology.
    • Philosophy.
    • Politics.
    • Population.
    • Public works.
    • Registers.
    • Religion.
    • Sanitary affairs.
    • Science.
    • Social distinctions.
    • Social life, Manners and customs.
    • Social science.
    • Statistics.
    • Technology.
    • Theatre.
    • Theology.
    • Zoölogy.
    • Etc.

• [(2.) Dictionary Catalogue Pure and Simple]
  • [Name of country.]
    • Administration.
    • Agriculture.
    • Antiquities.
    • Architecture.
    • Army.
    • Art.
    • Ballads and songs.
    • Bibliography.
    • Botany.
    • Calendar.
    • Ceremonies.
    • Charities.
    • Climate.
    • Colonies.
    • Commerce.
    • Composition.
    • Conversation and Phrases.
    • Correspondence.
    • Costume.
    • Description and Travels.
    • Dialects.
    • Dialogues.
    • Dictionaries.
    • Drama.
    • Ecclesiastical history.
    • Education.
    • Eloquence or oratory.
    • Entomology.
    • Etymology.
    • Epigrams.
    • Epitaphs.
    • Epithets.
    • Exercises.
    • Fables.
    • Fairy tales.
    • Fiction.
    • Finance.
    • Foreign relations.
    • Geology.
    • Grammar.
    • Heraldry.
    • Herpetology.
    • History.
      • Bibliography.
      • General works.
      • Chronological arrangement.
    • Homonyms.
    • Ichthyology.
    • Language.
      • Bibliography.
      • History.
      • General and miscellaneous works.
    • Law.
      • Bibliography.
      • History.
      • General and miscellaneous works.
    • Legends.
    • Letters.
    • Literature.
      • Bibliography.
      • History.
      • General and miscellaneous works.
      • Collections.
    • Malacology.
    • Manufactures.
    • Medicine.
    • Mineralogy.
    • Money.
    • Music.
    • Names.
    • Natural history.
    • Navy.
    • Naval history.
    • Numismatics.
    • Ornithology.
    • Palæontology.
    • Parodies.
    • Periodicals.
    • Philosophy.
    • Poetical romances.
    • Poetry.
    • Politics.
    • Popular literature. [68]
    • Population.
    • Pronunciation.
    • Prose romances. [69]
    • Prosody.
    • Public works.
    • Registers.
    • Religion.
    • Rhymes.
    • Sanitary affairs.
    • Satire.
    • Science.
    • Social distinctions.
    • Social life, Manners and customs.
    • Social science.
    • Sonnets.
    • Spelling.
    • Statistics.
    • Synonyms.
    • Technology.
    • Theatre.
    • Theology.
    • Wit and humor.
    • Zoölogy.
    • Etc.

Note, however, that if the subordination under Language and Literature is objected to, it is very easy to make them independent headings in the main alphabet, having

• instead of
  • Italy.
    • Description.
    • History.
    • Language.
    • Literature.
    • Natural history.
• the headings
  • Italian
  • language.
  • Italian
  • literature.
  • Italy.
    • Description.
    • History.
    • Natural history.

Of course different countries will require different divisions, e. g., Ecclesiastical history, Mythology, Religion, Theology will not often be required for the same {97} country. And often it will be expedient to combine those divisions in which there are very few titles into one more general; thus Botany, Herpetology, Ichthyology, Zoölogy, would join to give Natural history a respectable size, and Geology, Mineralogy, Palæontology, Physical geography would combine, or in very small countries all these would go together under Description. Under some countries other divisions will be required; in the list are given only those in actual use; but the arrangement is elastic and admits of new divisions whenever they are needed. In regard to a few (such as Epitaphs, Fables, Names, Proverbs) there is room for doubt whether they ought to be under countries; whether the subject cohesion is not much stronger than the national cohesion. Many others are not usually put here (as Numismatics, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Theology, Zoölogy). The former usage was to put under the country only its history, travels in it, and the general descriptive works; and books that treated of the Art, Architecture, Ballads, Botany, Drama, etc., of that land were put with the general works on Art, Architecture, etc. But the tendency of the dictionary catalogue is towards national classification; that is, in separating what relates to the parts of a subject, as is required by its specific principle, it necessarily brings together all that relates to a country in every aspect, as it would what relates to any other individual.

It may be asked (1) why the parts of Natural history are here separated and the parts of Language and Literature not; and (2) why we do not divide still more (following out the dictionary plan fully), so as to have divisions like Liliaceæ, Cows, Horses. As to (2), in a library catalogue of a million volumes it would no doubt be best to adopt rigidly this specific mode of entry for the larger countries; for a catalogue of one or two hundred thousand, arrangement in classes is as well suited to quick reference and avoids the loss of room occasioned by numerous headings. With few books minute division has a very incomplete appearance, specialties occurring only here and there, and most of the titles being those of general works. This may be compared to the division of a library into alcoves. One of from 10,000 to 20,000 volumes has an alcove for Natural History; from 20,000 to 50,000 it has alcoves for Botany and for Zoölogy; from 50,000 to 100,000 it has alcoves for Birds, Fishes, Insects, Mammals, Reptiles, but it must be either very large or very special before it allows to smaller divisions of Zoölogy separate apartments. On an expansive system it is easy to make new alcoves as they are wanted; a similar multiplication by fission is possible in the successively enlarging editions of a printed catalogue. A card catalogue, designed for continuous growth, should have more thorough division than can be put into print, because it must look into the future, while the printed catalogue has no future.

As to (1) I can only say that the divisions of Language seem to me too intimately connected to be dispersed in catalogues of the present size, but that those of Literature have a more substantive existence and ought to be separated sooner. A double subdivision, however, ought to be avoided. Under Language there should be only one alphabet. It is better to arrange

• Greece.
  • Language.
    • Accents.
    • Dictionaries.
    • Ellipses.
    • Etymology.
    • Grammar.
    • History.
    • Particles.
    • Pleonasms.
    • Pronunciation.
    • Syntax.

than

• Dictionaries.
• Etymology.
• Grammar.
  • Accents.
  • Ellipses.
  • Particles.
  • Pleonasms.
  • Pronunciation.
  • Syntax.
• History.

Any subdivision of the groups under countries has been strongly opposed as being troublesome to make, useless, and even confusing, or as being an unlawful mixture of classed and dictionary cataloguing. But suppose you have four or five hundred {98} titles under France. History. Will you break them up into groups with such headings as House of Bourbon, Revolution, Empire, Restoration, etc., with references and other devices for those works which treat of several periods, all of which it must be confessed is a little formidable at first glance, or will you leave them in one undivided mass, so that he who wants to find the history of the last half of the 15th century must read through the 500 titles, perhaps, to find even one and certainly to find all? You would divide of course. It is true that grouping may mislead. The inquirer must still be careful to look in several places. The history of France during the ascendency of the House of Valois is to be found not merely under that heading but in the comprehensive histories of the country. The inquirer may be a little less likely to think of this because the titles of these two groups are separated from the many other titles which have nothing to do specially or generally with the House of Valois, but if he does think of it he is greatly assisted by such segregation.

Ex. If v. 1–4 are in the catalogue and v. 5–10 are received later, enter all 10 v. in the supplement. It takes no more room, and it is useless to make the reader look in two places to ascertain how much of the work the library has. But this should not be done when it will take up much space, as would often be the case with periodicals, owing to details of change of name, number of volumes missing, etc. Nor should Contents be repeated; it is enough to refer.

Much space may thus be saved at little inconvenience to the reader.

Ex. Gaul. CÆSAR, C. J. Commentarii [B.C. 58–49]. See Cæsar, C. J. (pp. 441, 442); here two lines do the work of forty.

American libraries and especially town libraries seldom have any books sufficiently rare to deserve great particularity of description. If for any reason it is thought necessary to give a minute account of a book or of a collection good models may be found in Trömel’s Biblioth. amér., Lpz., 1861, 8º, Stevens’s Historical nuggets, Lond., 1862, 2 v. 16º, Weller’s Repertorium bibliographicum, Nördlingen, 1864, 8º, Harrisse’s Biblioth. Amer. vetustissima, N. Y., 1866, 8º, Tiele’s Mém. bibliog. sur les journaux des navig. néerlandaises, Amst., 1867, 8º, and the titles of the rarer books in Sabin’s Dict. of books rel. to America, N. Y., 1868, etc. For the convenience of those who have not these works at hand a few examples are given here.

Leonardus de Utino or de Belluno. F1. Sermones aurei de sanctis. [Colophon:] Expliciūt Sermones aurei | de sanctis per totū annum ^s | cōpilauit magister Leonar | dus de Vtino sacre theologie | doctor . . . | . . . Ad instantiam & cō|placentiā magnifice coītatis | Vtinensis . . . | . . . | M. cccc. xlvi . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . | [Coloniæ per Ulr. Zell,] M. cccc. Lxxiij. fº. Registrum (47) pp., (4) pp. blank, Tabula (1) p., (244) ll. In 2 coll. of 36 lines.

This copy has the leaves numbered in ms. and a Tabula prefixed to the 2d part by a contemporary hand. The work being very thick was probably in general bound in two parts and is rarely complete; Santander describes only the 1st part, the due de la Vallière had only the 2d. The name of the printer, Zell, is found in only three or four of his numerous publications. This is shown to be his by the type, which is the same as that used in the Sermones of R. Caracciolus de Litio issued in the same year. The present work went through 10 editions in 8 years. According to Graesse it is {99} probably the first book printed out of Italy which contains a line of Italian poetry, “Trenta foglie ha la rosa”, at the end of the 1st part.

Brunet v. 1022, Graesse vi. ii. 232, Hain no. 16128.

(47) pp. means 47 unnumbered pages, ll. means leaves. Italicizing the um in Registrum signifies that those letters are expressed in the caption by a contraction which the printer of the catalogue has no type for.

Huon de Bordeaux. Les gestes et faictz | merueilleux du no|ble Huon de Bor|deaulx Per de France, Duc de Guyenne. Nouuellement redige en bon | Francoys: et Imprime nouuellement a Paris pour Jean Bonfonds | . . . | . . . | [Woodcut] [Ending] Lequel liure & | hystoire a este mis de rime en prose | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . lequel fut fait & parfait le vinte | neufiesme iour de Januier. Lan | mil. cccc. liiii | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . | . . . Imprime a Paris pour Jan | Bonfons . . . | . . . n. d. 4º. (8), 264 ll. @ 40 lines. With 14 woodcuts in the text, and the printer’s mark.

On the eighth leaf is written “Jehan Moynard me possidet 1557,” which is probably not far from the date of publication. The 1st dated edition appeared in 1516. Brunet mentions two other editions before recording the present, one 1556, one undated.

Sold, Essling 95 fr., Giraud 199 fr.

[This is like the A. L. A., but differently expressed.]

N. B. The principles of arrangement in the preceding paragraphs are to be used where applicable, in other articles.

A Special Committee on Book Sizes of the American Library Association reported (Library journal, 3: 19, 20) the following rule:

Mr. J. Edmands, in “Rules for alfabeting,” read at the meeting of the American Library Association in August, 1887, and published in the Library journal, 12: 326–341, discussed the subject carefully. A committee of the Association was directed to prepare a code of rules, to be reported in the Library journal; for their report see 14: 273–274. Their code coincides with mine (§§ 214–239), except (1) that they adopt my former order, “person, place, title, subject (except person and place), form,” and not the present rule (§ 214), “person, place, followed by subject (except person and place), form and title,” an arrangement which probably was not proposed to the committee; and (2) that when two or more names are spelled exactly alike except for the umlaut in names in which the German ä, ö, or ü may occur, the committee put all the names having the umlaut last, e. g., all the Müllers after the Mullers. I arrange by the forenames.

Mr. Edmands correctly states as the principle of alphabeting “Something follows nothing; or, conversely, Nothing before something; thus in

Art of living

Arthur

In clover

Incas

the art, in the first case, and the in, in the second, ar followed by a space, i. e., by nothing, and so precede the single word in which the t and the n are followed by a letter; i. e., by something.”

His Rules agree with those stated or implied in § 214 and following sections, with three exceptions. The first is this:

The reason is not strong enough to justify interfering with the alphabetical order, which demands that amateur shall precede and. It is needless to compel the searcher to stop and think whether the word “art” in the phrase he is hunting for is a noun {117} or an adjective; indeed, it is not only a useless refinement, but positively dangerous, as likely occasionally to lead him to overlook an entry which is out of its alphabetical order.

The same objection applies to the practice of some cataloguers of putting the plural immediately after the singular, even when the alphabet demands that it should precede (as Charities, Charity), or when many entries might come between (as between Bank and Banks). This practice Mr. Edmands condemns.

The second exception is this:

This plainly contradicts the principle “nothing before something.” A period is too trifling a matter to arrange by, and neglecting that

The third exception is this:

(See the argument in the note to § 240.)

The rules which agree are in substance as follows: