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 CIↃ IↃ 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}