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.