Of course, references of any kind must never be made in anticipation, but at the moment when the book to which they refer is being catalogued; otherwise a series of references will be the result that lead nowhere, as would be the case in the above example if the library had no books upon Algæ or the other subjects named.

80.—Taylor, Wm. (of Norwich). Historic survey of German poetry. 8 v. 8o. 1828-30

The subject-entries for a book such as this call for careful consideration. A title-entry under “Historic” is uncalled for, as the subject is clearly defined in the full title. But a choice of headings must be made under which the entries are to be given. The mind will waver between some of these:

and upon a right decision hangs the usefulness and correctness of the catalogue, as it is possible that other entries will be affected by it later. An exact analysis shows that the book is specifically upon the first-named subject, but it is so clearly a part of the third-named as to be entitled to come under it in some form, either by way of entry or cross-reference. It is true that, if treated logically, the book has no absolute right of inclusion under a heading “German literature,” inasmuch as it only deals with poetical literature, but it may be taken for granted that a book with the title of “Historic survey of German prose” would be placed under such a heading without much questioning; and therefore, as concentration and convenience count for something, and are often of more moment than literal exactness, the entries might very well be

Catalogued in strict observance of rule, the entries would be

with a possible reference:

The second and fourth headings would not be chosen, for the reason that the book is neither upon “Poetry” nor “Literature” generally or in the abstract, and it is much better to reserve those headings for books of that nature or of a miscellaneous kind, putting books upon the literature of particular countries under their distinctive name. An inquirer wanting a book upon German literature is more likely to turn to “German” than to “Literature.” A general cross-reference will put the matter beyond possibility of mistake, as

81.—The fifth heading is merely another form of the third heading, but it is given among the rest because in the larger catalogues of reference libraries the whole of the books upon a particular country are often grouped together under the name of the country, these again being sub-divided for convenience of reference according to the number of entries under the heading, in divisions like these:

82.—The next book coming under notice is

Whether a title-entry is needed is open to doubt, but as the title of the book is enigmatical it is safer to give one. The rule for all title-entries is to give them under the first word not an article, and it would accordingly be

but the probability is that nine men out of ten would remember the book as “Darkest England,” and look for it under “Darkest,” and therefore it might be more useful if the entry were

83.—The subject of the book requires that it be entered under whatever heading may be adopted for the social question, say

No entry is called for under “England,” unless everything relating directly or indirectly to the home-country is to be brought together under that heading or “Great Britain.” If this is so, and it is to be faithfully and literally carried out, it will become so large as to need very elaborate sub-division, and even then, in the catalogue of a British library at anyrate, its extent will make it of little practical value. In large catalogues page after page would be filled to no great advantage, and therefore the best course to adopt is to make the entry under the exact subject, as shown, ignoring “England” if the book deals with the country generally and not a particular corner of it. By this plan a book upon the “Poor of Essex” would be entered both under “Essex” and “Poor,” but books like

are sufficiently dealt with if, apart from the author-entry, they appear under “Art,” “Law,” “Mosses,” “Costume,” “English literature,” and “English history,” respectively, leaving the headings “England” and “Great Britain” for books descriptive of the country generally and not some special aspect of it. As already shown, books upon even special features of other countries should be entered under the name of the country. In most cases it is also desirable, even necessary, to enter under the subject likewise. Thus the double subject-entries of books, like

would be under “Japan” and “Religions,” “Italy” and “Sculpture,” and “Scotland” and “Birds.” If space cannot be afforded for both entries, judgment would then have to be exercised in making choice of the best single subject-heading, and it would be found that for the above the most useful are “Japan,” “Sculpture,” and “Birds.”

In catalogues of the larger libraries a heading like “Birds” would have so many items to it that it should be sub-divided to facilitate reference, first the books upon birds generally, followed by those upon the birds of particular countries or localities like that above-named upon the birds of the West of Scotland. The arrangement under the general division would be alphabetically by authors, but it has been found convenient to arrange the “local” by the name of the place, also alphabetically, after this manner

84.—The desirability, or otherwise, of using scientific terms for subject-headings in catalogues is governed altogether by the people for whom the library is intended. In a library used by all classes of the community, the simpler and more widely known term is the best, and therefore “Birds” is preferable to “Ornithology,” “Fishes” to “Ichthyology,” and “Insects” to “Entomology.” In a library of a college or scientific institution the reverse method would possibly prove the best, but it is essential that perfect uniformity be maintained whatever form is decided upon, as it would be somewhat ridiculous to use scientific terms in some cases and popular names in others. The cross-reference comes in most usefully in any style of catalogue as it removes all doubt, thus

Catalogues compiled upon very exact lines occasionally reserve the popular name for books of a popular or miscellaneous nature, and the scientific for those intended for the scientist, but the dividing line between the two classes of books cannot always be clearly seen, and it is much better to bring all together under the same heading, marking there any differences in the character of the books by means of sub-division.

In some few instances the use of the scientific term is unavoidable as there may be no popular name that meets the case. For example, it would not be correct to put a book upon the fresh-water algæ under a heading “Sea-weeds,” and a book upon the tunicata cannot be put under any other name. The fact may be again emphasised that in a dictionary catalogue a book is entered under its definite subject and never under its class or general subject. Thus a book like

does not go under “Insects,” or even “Hymenoptera,” but directly under “Ants,” though such a book as

would be sufficiently entered in the catalogue of a scientific library, if placed under “Hymenoptera,” but in the catalogue of a popular library should go under all three names, “Ants,” “Bees,” and “Wasps,” just as a book like

is better placed under “Butterflies” and “Moths” with a cross-reference

It would be a waste of space, however, to enter a work so comprehensive in character as

under each of these as, even though it omits the butterflies, moths, and beetles, it would be well enough dealt with if entered under “Insects.”

As it is a well-understood principle that a book must be entered under the exact subject of which it treats, so a work upon the natural history of animals while coming within the popular notion of “natural history,” and may be so called by its author, as

yet from the cataloguer’s standpoint it would not be altogether correct to enter it under “Natural History,” as that term is properly held to include the flora as well as fauna, and therefore the heading should be either “Zoology” or “Animals.” This last term is frequently reserved for books dealing only with animals, and apart from birds, reptiles, etc., and for books upon animals, not written from the naturalist’s point of view. Correctness is again ensured by cross-references, as

85.—The next books are selected for the purpose of showing the difference in treatment of works similar in character:

Those upon buildings of a more national than local character situated in London are entered under the name of the buildings and not the locality, as

unless the locality is embodied in the title as

Neither of these books should be placed under a heading “London,” but a cross-reference may be given:

The other books should lead off with the name of the place where the building is situated, though not entered under the place-heading, as they are not books upon Chester or Canterbury. Therefore the form is

or in shorter fashion:

Upon the same principle a history of a London parish is not entered under “London,” but under its particular name with a cross-reference from London to the places, as

Monographs upon buildings of national importance in foreign countries are however always entered under the name of the city where situated and not under the name of the building. Works upon St. Mark’s, Venice, or Notre Dame de Paris being entered under Venice and Paris respectively, as

To give heed to details of this kind is not “hair-splitting,” as the novice may be disposed to imagine—it is the very essence of good cataloguing. Even with most careful attention the cataloguer may well congratulate himself if at the conclusion of his work, and especially when in print, it comes out faultless, because the perfect catalogue absolutely free from error has not yet been seen.

CHAPTER IX.
SUBJECT, TITLE, AND SERIES ENTRIES (continued).

86.—There remain other varieties of double or treble entries to consider. A book such as

has no appearance of difficulty, as it is so obviously upon intemperance, but the question of concentration of books pro and con upon such a subject as this must be looked into. It is most undesirable to send an inquirer to a number of headings to find all the books upon the “drink question.” To effectively group them together, developes the heading into a class rather than subject, but even so, it has more justification than the grouping of say “Natural history” would have, because it is more distinctly a single subject regarded from several standpoints, and while “temperance” cannot be “intemperance,” yet to bring the two aspects of the question together adds more to the utility of the catalogue than to separate books with these words upon their title-pages under different headings. In looking into this matter, the subject was followed up in a good catalogue compiled upon strictly orthodox lines, and was found up and down under headings like Alcohol, Drink, Inebriety, Teetotalism, Temperance, Total Abstinence, Licensed Victuallers, Public Houses, Sunday Drinking. Most of the books under these various headings might have been brought together with advantage under a general term-heading like “Drink question,” with cross-references from the other topics to bind the whole together beyond possibility of mistake. There are other questions that admit of concentration in this way, as for example books upon Free Trade, Fair Trade, Reciprocity, and Protection can all safely be entered under “Free Trade” with references from the others.

Some books, on the other hand, must have several entries, as

requires three entries, viz., under “Medicine,” “Surgery,” “Homœopathy.” The only method of avoiding this would be to enter the book under “Homœopathy,” with cross-references from the other headings, as

In a small general library it would be possible to bring together all books upon subjects so closely allied as medicine and surgery under that heading, with a cross-reference,

Another example of a book needing several entries, is

As this is not a work upon Monkeys generally, or even upon Apes, the correct procedure is to enter it under “Gorillas” and “Chimpanzees” respectively, as

In a small library there would most likely be other books upon Gorillas, but hardly a second upon Chimpanzees, therefore the second entry would be

To bring this book fully under the notice of those interested in the monkey tribe cross-references are necessary. Presuming that there were already entries under “Monkeys” (generally) and “Apes” (particularly), then all the entries would be bound together by

No cross-reference being called for to “Chimpanzees,” as they are included in the title of the book under “Gorillas.” In the event, however, of there being a second book upon Chimpanzees, then the cross-reference becomes

87.—At the risk of repetition, and to make the matter clear, it may be again stated that a book must not be entered under every important word appearing upon its title-page. There is much rule-of-thumb cataloguing done that would cause a book like

to be entered under “Evolution,” whereas not even a title-entry under the word “evolution” is required, and the single subject-entry is

It may be considered unnecessary advice to say that a book so unmistakably upon the Aryan peoples should not be put under “Evolution,” when the accepted meaning of that term as a subject has nothing to do with it, yet there are catalogues at present in force of important town libraries with much worse forms. One has a heading “Natural history,” under which there are sixteen items that include such diverse matters as “Natural method of curing diseases,” “Natural theology,” “Natural philosophy,” “Nature and art,” “Drawing from nature,” because the word “natural” or “nature” happened to occur in the titles of the books. Another has a heading “School, Schoolmasters, and Schools,” which includes Molière’s “School for wives” and his “School for husbands.” Any number of examples equally ridiculous could be quoted from present-day catalogues to prove the contention that this is a common form of error. Therefore the advice to “get at the subject of the book, and never mind the particular words used on the title-page,” cannot be too often impressed upon the cataloguer.

88.—Books in a number of languages dealing with a single subject must all be entered under the English name for that subject. Books like

are to be found entered in a catalogue under Deutschen, Germany, and Allemagne, without a single binding reference. Another has books upon the United States under America, États-Unis, and United States. In one catalogue there is a reference in the following form:

which is most flattering to our American cousins. In this connection it should be observed that references of this kind are quite wrong. In the first place there is no occasion for a reference or entry of any kind under “États-Unis” in an English catalogue, and in the second the principle of referring from a lesser to a greater subject is incorrect; the reference must always be from a greater to a lesser. In the same catalogue there are numbers of references from subjects to authors, which are also wrong in principle, as a reference should never be given in this form:

or its reverse, equally erroneous:

otherwise the curious humour of references of this kind will soon show itself. In both cases entries were required and not references. Therefore the only references to be used are

89.—The next illustration is

No entry is needed under the word “Life,” or under “Biographies,” as that is a class-heading and not a subject, and the book goes under the name of its direct subject, making a heading of it, as the library will contain Emerson’s works as well as other biographies of him, as

An entry is required under the name of the series, and to be strictly accurate the name of the author should lead, as

though it will be found more useful in the case of a series of a biographical nature to lead off with the subject, instead of the author, as

References to complete the matter fully may be given as

In case of series like the Bampton, Hulsean, and Hibbert Lectures, the most convenient method is to arrange them in chronological order of the delivery of the lectures (not the date of publication) after this style:

The question is raised now and then as to whether it is worth while giving the list of works forming a series under the first word, other than an article, of the title of the series instead of under some other leading word. There is no occasion to lay down a hard and fast rule in the matter, but all things considered, it will be found safer to treat all series in the manner indicated and to enter them uniformly under this first word as Great artists, Great writers, Story of the nations, Leaders of religion, International scientific series, under “Great,” “Story,” “Leaders,” and “International” respectively rather than under “Artists,” “Writers,” “Nations,” “Religion,” or “Scientific.” The fact cannot be overlooked that the entry is only given because it is a series-entry and not as a make-shift form of subject-entry, and for this very reason it would be as erroneous to enter all the series of “Great artists” under the subject-heading “Artists” as to put the “Leaders of religion” under “Religion.” The difficulty is fully met by cross-references where required, as

If the series-entry is to be converted into a semi-subject entry, it should be by the simple transposition of the title of the series and then kept altogether apart from the subject-heading.

In a library catalogue, as distinct from a bookseller’s, it is only those series of a special and limited character that receive entries under the names of the series, and this form should not be extended so as to include long lists of books in series under publisher’s names, as Weale’s series, Pitt Press series, Macmillan’s Manuals for students. Where very full information is given, these names may be added to the principal entry and not carried further.

90.—Already it has been stated that in many libraries it is of the utmost importance that a catalogue should be compiled with short entries and within narrow limits so as to reduce both the size and the cost of production. To do this judiciously does not interfere in the least with the principles of good and adequate cataloguing, care only being required in curtailing the entries so as not to lose their correct character. The majority of readers in popular libraries are little concerned with precise bibliographical information provided they get a list of the books by the author, or upon the subject they want. The title of Dr. Garnett’s book mentioned above can, for example, be shortened into entries like these:—

The references from Robertson and Anderson can be dispensed with. Shorter entries than the foregoing would not be looked for, and would be worthless. Very brief entries imply little or no information, as witness the following complete entries from the catalogue of a large library:

91.—The next illustration is taken to further show the method of regarding a book for its subject-entry:

This is neither a book upon literature generally nor in the abstract, nor upon English literature as a whole, but only upon a particular period of it. Such a book could very properly be placed under “Elizabethan literature” with a reference from “English literature.” It might even go under the name of Elizabeth where all books pertaining to her reign in every particular could be gathered, but this is not so satisfactory. After all the most useful place for a book of this kind would be under “English literature,” and its inclusion could be better justified if the books under such a heading were sub-divided, if sufficient in number, into periods arranged chronologically as a heading like “English History” is often usefully divided. This would necessitate a cross-reference like

To further illustrate this point it may be said that a book like

is better treated in the reverse way and entered under the name of the monarch, in common with other books of a strictly historical nature dealing with a particular reign. In the first case the book is thought to be more usefully catalogued as a contribution to the larger subject of “English literature,” and in the second the book is looked upon as being more particularly concerned with Henry VIII. than with “English history”—hence the difference in the treatment. In this last instance the safe-guarding cross-reference is

92.—The following group is given (in brief form) in order to show the difference of treatment of books apparently alike in subject:

The first entry would be placed under a heading “Poems,” because it is an anthology. This heading “Poems” should be reserved for collections of miscellaneous poems by many authors and would not include a book like the Keats, which should be entered under the name of the author only. It does not require any entry under “Poetical works,” as that is simply a form, and can no more be justified than a heading “Prose works” could be. If, however, the book has a definite title, like the Tennyson, then a title-entry must be given as

Librarians sometimes consider it necessary to give a series of references under the heading “Poems” or “Poetry” to the names of the authors represented in the catalogue, but this is on an equality with the practice of grouping all the fiction under a heading “Novels.” These being class-headings are not strictly accurate but, no doubt, are a convenience to a section of readers. So much cannot be said for all such grouping in a dictionary catalogue, and it is better to avoid it if possible. A catalogue of a very important library has a heading “Essays,” under which an attempt has been made to enter all books written in the form of essays, as well as with the word “essay” upon the title-pages, and the result is a mere jumble of titles, absolutely useless, including as it does works so widely apart in character as Baring Gould’s Old country life, Barrie’s Auld licht idylls, Doran’s In and about Drury Lane, and Lang’s Books and bookmen. To attempt this in a classified catalogue would be bad enough, but in a dictionary catalogue it shows that the first principles governing its compilation are wholly misunderstood.

The book by Henry James would be fitly placed under “French literature” and the words “poets” and “novelists” ignored. Dr. Johnson’s book should go under “Poets,” together with any other lives of poets in collected form, but the life of an individual poet, like that of Shelley, would not be so entered, as lives of individuals are entered under their names, and not under the class to which they belong. Shairp’s book being upon “Poetry” in the abstract would accordingly go under that heading, as would any book of a miscellaneous character upon poetry which could not well be placed under a more definite subject-heading.

93.—Sometimes in the case of biographies it will be found unnecessary to give both author and subject-entries because the biographies are written or edited by a son or other relative bearing the same name, and accordingly both entries come together in the catalogue, therefore, while it is quite correct to give both entries, yet one suffices. If the single entry is adopted it is better to make choice of the subject for the entry, not the author, as

94.—Volumes of sermons are dealt with in the same manner as poetical works, avoiding, as far as possible, an entry under the form “Sermons.” An illustration is

The first and last of these simply require title-entries, as

The second, instead of receiving a title-entry, is better placed as a contribution to its subject, as

The third and fourth will also require title-entries unless there happens to be a general reference under the word, “Sermons,” after this fashion

If this form is not considered suitable then there is no alternative but to give title-entries, because a heading cannot be correctly made. The form then is:

The arrangement is alphabetically by the words of the titles as in the case of any other title-entries, and not by the names of the authors.

95.—Dramas, Dramatic Works, are also forms calling for similar treatment to Poems, Essays, or Sermons. Collections of letters by individuals are simply entered under the names of the writers with references from the editors.

96.—There is a form of entry occasionally seen in catalogues that is so obviously absurd that it scarcely needs to be more than referred to, viz., a heading “Pamphlets.” Here, presumably, all the thin or unbound books in a library are entered. Under an arrangement of this description, work should be facilitated, as but two headings would be requisite—one “Books” and the other “Pamphlets”—the dividing line between the two to be fixed by the number of pages.

Almost in a line with such a ridiculous heading is the lazy cataloguer’s method of taking volumes consisting of a number of pamphlets bound together, whether upon the self-same subject or as many different subjects as there are pamphlets in the volumes, and lumping them with entries like these:

Of course, each pamphlet must be dealt with in precisely the same way as if it were a separate book, the fact that it is a thin book not entering into the question, unless it happens to be of so very trifling or ephemeral a character as to be unworthy of an entry, when it should either be withdrawn from the library (unless the fact of its being bound up with others prevents) or properly catalogued.

97.—The prolix titles of many pamphlets, especially the polemical tracts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, often need abbreviation. For example:

may very well be cut down to

and

may be safely curtailed in most cases to

Pamphlets are frequently collected and stored in libraries for some special reason—perhaps because they are of local interest—when this fact should be brought out in the catalogue. Accordingly a pamphlet entitled

would be entered under

this entry being additional to that under “Knaggs” and another under “Roberts,” if the person happened to be of some local importance in her day.

CHAPTER X.
TITLE-ENTRIES AND REPETITION DASHES.

98.—The extent to which title-entries, as distinct from subject-entries, are called for in a dictionary catalogue has in some measure been already shown. Works of fiction, plays, poems, volumes of essays, and sometimes sermons, nearly all demand such entries, they being for the most part sought for by their titles. Examples of each of these are