Manual of Library Cataloguing

This little book does not claim to be a comprehensive treatise on the art of cataloguing books, nor is it intended for the use of the expert in bibliography. The rules embodied are those generally recognized as necessary for the proper cataloguing of a collection of books. By simple illustrations the author has endeavoured to deal with those difficulties which he has found most frequently arise and call for careful consideration. Information concerning the printing of catalogues has been added in order to make the book more complete.

If this Manual should prove a help to the better understanding of the true principles of cataloguing, and is found to be of practical assistance to those engaged in library work, the object of its compilation will have been attained.

J. H. Q.

March, 1899.

1.—Most people are satisfied to believe that there is no department of a librarian’s work so easily managed as that of compiling catalogues. The catalogue of a library is often regarded as a mere list of books, calling for no more mental effort in its production than is required in that of a furniture auctioneer, or similar trade list. Professor John Fiske, in his essay on “A Librarian’s Work,”[1] says “Generally I find a library catalogue is assumed to be a thing that is somehow ‘made’ at a single stroke, as Aladdin’s palace was built, at intervals of ten or a dozen years, or whenever a ‘new catalogue’ is thought to be needed,” instead of, as he proceeds to show, being a never-ending work calling for the exercise of all the power and knowledge at the command of the cataloguer.

2.—There are varieties of library catalogues, from the simple inventories made by private persons for their own collection of books, to the mammoth “Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum,” so great in its size and extensive in the field it covers that its entries have to be almost exclusively limited to a single item for each book.

The catalogues to be compiled upon the lines laid down in this work come between these two extremes, and are intended to serve as a key to the treasure-house of knowledge and disclose its contents in a ready, but orderly, manner to all inquirers. Carlyle says, “a big collection of books, without a good catalogue, is a Polyphemus with no eye in his head.”

3.—A good library is virtually useless without an adequate and properly compiled catalogue, but even an indifferent collection of books can be made to render good service by means of a good catalogue. In order to compile such a catalogue it is necessary that certain particulars be given descriptive of the books, but in such a way that, while the entries afford all needful information to the person well-versed in books, they shall at the same time be so simple in character as to be understood with very little effort by anyone of average intelligence. At the same time the particulars given should be so comprehensive that a searcher in the catalogue may be able to obtain a clear idea of the nature and scope of the book described without actually examining it, though the descriptions in this respect are not expected to be of the very full order looked for in special bibliographies intended only for the use of experts.

The value of a good catalogue does not depend upon its extent or size any more than does a good book, but rather upon the exactness of the method by which the information given is digested and concentrated. There are library catalogues so elaborately compiled that they are most imposing in appearance, and very often, as a consequence, are considered to be most erudite productions by those who do not understand the art of cataloguing, whereas the persons who have to use them too often find out that they are so ill-arranged as to be little better than a hotch-potch of book titles—pedantic without being learned. “Infinite riches in a little room” might, on the other hand, be often adopted as the motto for many an insignificant-looking catalogue.

4.—It is a common occurrence to find a small library with quite a big catalogue. This does not always arise from the wish to make the most of the library, but often from the fact that the compilation has been undertaken by some over-zealous member of a committee who fancied he had a penchant for such work, or that it has been compiled by an amateur with no experience, whose friends have secured him his appointment as librarian. Such people do not know that it is as easy, if not easier, to over-catalogue a library as to do it judiciously, and a fearful and wonderful work is often the result. There would not be much trouble in giving illustrative examples of this, but that catalogue may be cited where Green’s “Short History of the English People” obtained five entries, viz., under Green, Short, History, English History, and People (English), instead of the two entries that would have sufficed. Many of the first catalogues of the smaller free libraries are of this order. This, however, is not always the result of the above-named causes, but as often as not is brought about by committees of new libraries postponing the appointment of a librarian, to save his salary, until a few weeks before the library is announced to be opened, and then expecting him to purchase the books and produce a printed catalogue in the meantime. The conception of the matter is, far too often, that books can be selected, arranged, and listed in bulk, as groceries are bought, displayed, and ticketed, and in as short a time. The result, of course, is that the librarian, being rushed, must select and buy the books as quickly as he can, and relegate the work of cataloguing them to an assistant, who most likely has no training, and the best has to be made of a bad job. In very few instances can it be considered that the first catalogue of a new library fairly represents the ability of the librarian as a cataloguer.

5.—With the rapid rise of the standard of education more exact and better work is at present demanded in libraries than was the case during the first quarter of a century after the Public Libraries’ Act came into operation. The slipshod rule-of-thumb cataloguing at one time in vogue does not pass muster unnoticed now, as it did then, and consequently there is less use than ever before for the bald lists of books, compiled upon no principle in particular, sent forth to bewilder and hinder rather than help an inquiring public. The student, and that interesting personage, “the general reader,” are each year coming to a better understanding of the uses and peculiarities of books, and so look for more precise information concerning them. No better evidence is needed of the manner in which the demand for information about books has grown than is found in the large place which the reviewing of them now takes in the columns of the newspaper press, so that even minor journals cannot afford to ignore it. The dictum that a cataloguer has no right to go behind the information contained on the title-page of a book does not now find acceptance, as it did in the past.

Those persons who are possessed of even a little experience in the matter know that it is impossible to compile a catalogue in a hap-hazard fashion, and that clear and definite rules must be laid down before any part of the work is attempted, otherwise confusion and want of proportion will result. Happily of late years the rules governing the proper compilation of catalogues have been codified, particularly those for the form at present in most general use, known as the “dictionary catalogue.”

6.—The dictionary catalogue is not the idea or invention of any individual, but has developed gradually from the requirements of librarians in dealing with readers. The earlier catalogues were limited to entries given under the authors’ names, as in the British Museum Catalogue, or were in classified form, either under the large classes into which a library was divided, or with very little other sub-division. These were followed by what may be termed “dictionary index catalogues” containing the first principles of the dictionary catalogue as now understood. They consisted of very brief entries under authors, and the simple turning about of a title to bring a certain word in it to the front as conveying its subject, in this manner:—

By this method the real subject of the book was often missed, more especially if the author had made use of a fanciful title, and one subject would be found under many different entries, according to the word used on the title-page, and without cross references to bind them together. It must be confessed that to-day many of the dictionary catalogues of public libraries are no more than this “index catalogue” under the newer name. The entries may be a little fuller, but the principles of compilation remain the same.

7.—Prior to 1876 there was no complete code of rules for the preparation of a subject as well as author catalogue, though Prof. C. C. Jewett’s “On the construction of Catalogues of Libraries” (Washington, 1853), with its subsequent modifications, was a step in this direction. There were rules for author catalogues, for the most part based upon the British Museum rules, as well as schemes of classification for classified catalogues. In that year was published the now well-known “Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue,” by Charles A. Cutter, Librarian of the Boston Athenæum. It appeared as the second part of the “Special Report on the Public Libraries in the United States of America,” issued under the auspices of the United States Bureau of Education. A second edition of these rules was separately issued in 1889. The third edition, with further corrections and additions, appeared in 1891, and has been most liberally distributed by the United States Government to the libraries of the world. Since 1876 other rules have been formulated, principally with Cutter’s as a basis. A consensus of these will be found in the “Eclectic Card Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries,” by K. A. Linderfelt, Librarian of the Milwaukee Public Library, Boston (Charles A. Cutter) 1890. This most useful compilation, “based on Dziatzko’s ‘Instruction’ compared with the rules of the British Museum, Cutter, Dewey, Perkins, and other authorities,” is not as well known to English librarians as it should be. The present Manual is intended to serve as an introduction to these two codes, and the instructions contained in it are based upon them. When these have not been adhered to the changes made have obtained authority in library practice. Mr. Henry B. Wheatley’s interesting little book, “How to Catalogue a Library” (Stock, 1889), must also be mentioned, and should be read as an introduction to the subject.

8.—The great merit of the dictionary catalogue is that it can be made to supply most of the information usually asked for by those using libraries, and by immediate reference without any preliminary study of its arrangement. It obtains its name from the circumstance that all the entries, irrespective of their nature, are put into a single alphabetical sequence, and consulted as one would consult a dictionary. It is considered to be the most acceptable form to the majority of those making use of popular libraries, and experience has proved it to be so.

The dictionary catalogue is intended to answer all of the following questions:

There are questions, however, that the dictionary catalogue does not ordinarily answer. It would not tell what books were in the library in a particular language, say French, and it will not provide a complete and definite list of books in a particular form, as fiction, or poetry; or in a class of literature as distinct from subject. For example, it will not group together all the theological works, or the scientific books, but will distribute them throughout the entire alphabet, according to the divisions of these subjects, and these divisions will in their turn be distributed according to lesser divisions and monographs.

A catalogue compiled upon the lines requisite to group such classes completely, so that a general treatise and a monograph upon a minute division will follow in natural order, would be a classified catalogue, and that form is dealt with separately in Chapter XII.

To effect a combination of both forms in such a way that they would answer any question, reasonable or otherwise, would necessitate so large a number of entries for each book that its compilation would be barely feasible, and if carried out it would be unsatisfactory, because the simplicity of the alphabetical order would be destroyed, and the result would not be worth the labour expended, to say nothing of its size and costliness.

9.—Therefore choice must be made at the very outset between the two forms, dictionary or classified. The point to be first considered is, which form is most likely to best suit the needs of the particular class who use the library; as a catalogue which would be most useful for a college library, or that of a scientific society, would be unsuitable for a free library in the midst of a working-class population. Then the question of cost enters into the matter, and here the classified form has the advantage, as apart from the brief index entries, one entry per book mostly suffices, whereas in the dictionary form the average is three entries. There is a still more important matter which materially affects the older libraries, and that is the impossibility of keeping the dictionary form within reasonable compass, even with curtailed entries and closely-printed pages of small type. Borrowers from a public lending library prefer to carry their catalogues with them when exchanging books, but they cannot do so if it is in two or three volumes, or so bulky as not to be portable. For this reason librarians with unbounded belief in the superior advantages of the dictionary catalogue have been compelled, against their will, to adopt the classified form. They had no alternative, except the very unsatisfactory one of extensively weeding their stock of books, and only those who have undertaken that responsibility know how difficult it is to decide whether a book is worth retaining or not. A very judicial statement of the merits of the two styles of catalogues will be found in a paper by Mr. F. T. Barrett, of the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, entitled “The Alphabetical and Classified Forms of Catalogues Compared,” in the “Transactions of the Second International Library Conference,” 1897. Mr. J. D. Brown’s views, as set forth in Chapter v. of his “Manual of Library Classification” (Library Supply Co., 1898), should also be carefully considered.

10.—Presuming that the student is for the first time undertaking the work of cataloguing a library, he will require to provide himself with a supply of cards or slips of paper cut uniform in size. Almost any size will do, but the most convenient and more commonly used measures 5 inches by 3 inches. If the catalogue is to be written for the use of readers, then cards are necessary as they are more convenient for turning over than the paper slips which serve well enough for “copy” for a printed catalogue. If the cards or slips are to be written upon with a pen they should be ruled “feint” across and have marginal rulings to mark the “indent.” These rulings are only upon one side, as in no case should an entry be continued to the other side. If an entry is so long that it cannot be put on one card then it must be continued on the face of a second, with the author or other heading repeated. For the cataloguer’s own use or as printer’s copy, the card or slip may be lengthened as required by pasting to it a strip of paper of the same width, and folding it up within the compass of the size of the card, but exposing the heading. This cannot be done when the cards are held in place by a rod running through them. It need hardly be pointed out that for a card catalogue meant for the use of many persons the quality of the cards is of great importance, as those of a cheap, inferior material will not bear much turning over without tearing. Card catalogues are not invariably appreciated by the public, as some persons seem to experience difficulty in turning over the cards. For this reason some librarians prefer the sheaf form because it maintains the book shape, which everyone understands, and it has the same advantages as the card catalogue in allowing the insertion of additions in proper order at any time, and permits unlimited expansion, besides taking up less room.

Upon each card or slip a separate entry of each book is made, and by “book” is meant a work that may be in a single volume or in many volumes. Two works even by the same author, appearing under his name, should be entered on separate cards, as, if written together, it is usually found that another book will later have to be inserted between them.

11.—Printers are acknowledged, as a class, to be the most exact and patient of men, but to those beginners who have not any large experience of their ways it is well to say “be careful to write boldly and plainly,” remembering always that it is a much more difficult work for a compositor to set a catalogue than probably any other form of book, because the matter does not “run on” and various types and languages commonly enter into it. Apart from the mistakes easily made when the “copy,” as the manuscript is called, is not clear and distinct, there is the risk incurred of an extra charge for “author’s corrections”—a well-known item in all printers’ bills. To write clearly is of even more importance if the catalogue is to remain in manuscript for use by readers. A handy little brochure upon this subject is “Library Handwriting,” issued by the New York State Library School, April 1898, and the style of handwriting therein shown should be studied and imitated. The specimen on the next page is taken from it.

12.—It is in the preparation of “copy” and in writing card catalogues for public use that the great value of the typewriter is experienced, as clearness and uniformity are insured by its use as well as economy of space. While it is hardly within the scope of this Manual to say anything by way of recommendation of any particular make of typewriter, yet experience shows that it would be a mistake to overlook the “Hammond” when considering the merits of different machines. In cataloguing it is found useful because a variety of types of a distinctive character, including the accented letters most commonly required, can be used upon a single machine.

Joined hand

Disjoined hand

13.—Whatever difference of opinion may exist upon various points that arise in cataloguing books all authorities are agreed that the principal or main entry giving the most particulars concerning a book should be that under its author’s name. This, then, is the first entry to be made, and the cataloguer having selected the book to be dealt with ignores any title upon the binding and, passing by the preliminary, or “half title,” turns to the title page proper, that containing the most information and with the imprint (place of publication, publisher, and date) at foot, and copies from it the following particulars, adding those not given upon the title-page by an examination of the book, and in this order, viz.—

The order is that most usually adopted, but Nos. 8 to 13 may be varied at pleasure, if such variation is made at the commencement of the work and adhered to in all cases afterwards.

14.—As the surname of the author leads, the Christian name must follow, either enclosed in parentheses, as

or preceded by a comma, as

The parentheses are more commonly used, but they have not so good an appearance as the comma, and their use necessitates what a printer calls “a run on sorts”—that is the use of a particular piece of type to such an extent as to require a special supply beyond that ordinarily furnished with a fount of type. This, after all, resolves itself more into a question of taste than of expediency, and the cataloguer will choose as he thinks best. It may be remarked in passing that the “cult of the trivial” is not to be altogether despised in cataloguing, as careful attention to apparently minor details ensures good and exact work.

15.—The points to be observed in copying the title-page and preparing the author-entry can be shown more clearly by illustration than by description. Let it be supposed that the title-page of the book in hand reads in full:

We proceed to write the principal entry to read:—

From the “fly-title” we learn that this is the “Charles Dickens’ edition.” We examine the book, and find it contains six prefatory pages, these being paged in Roman numerals, and 533 others paged in Arabic, with a portrait and seven other illustrations. This statement of the number of pages and illustrations is known as the “collation,” as to examine a book for the purpose of ascertaining that it is perfect is to collate it. As the place of publication is London, it is the practice in English catalogues to omit it from the entry, such omission signifying that London is understood. The date of publication not being given, and as there are no means of finding it out with certainty, the initials “n.d.,” meaning “no date,” are added, and the full catalogue entry will be:

The author’s name should be written at the outside left hand of the card at the top, the rest of the entry following with an indent at each side, the press mark alone coming outside at the right hand, as shown in the printed entry above.

16.—It is of the utmost importance that care be taken in transcribing a title, as it is much easier to make a mistake than to detect it afterwards, even at the time of printing. Errors of the hand and of the eye creep in imperceptibly. Besides, a mistake having once been made is likely to be repeated in all other entries, when copied from the first one. A very common cause of error is to let the mind become so absorbed in the consideration of a book in hand, that when a second comes to be dealt with some word from the first will unwittingly be written into its title, and if the result is not very obvious from its absurdity it escapes notice altogether until printed, and bears permanent witness against the cataloguer.

17.—The signs and abbreviations of words made use of in the above illustration, and all others to follow, are those customary in cataloguing, and as there is a number of well-understood abbreviations used in connection with books, a list of the most useful of these is given in Appendix A.

It is a commendable plan to take note of those it is intended to use, and to keep a list of them written on a card always at hand for reference. The list could then be put in the preface to the catalogue when printed, as a help to its better understanding by those not versed in book abbreviations. It is as well to remember that there is not very much gained in the long run by abbreviating too closely, as “illus.” is easier understood than “il.” or “ill.” and “transl.” than “tr.”

18.—In copying a title-page it is required that the spelling of it should be closely followed, more especially if peculiar, but not the punctuation. The punctuation in the illustrative entries throughout this Manual is that most frequently made use of in catalogues, and will be found convenient in practice. But if personal preference for other forms comes in, and a change is made, all that is needed is that such change should be uniformly carried out. Besides the ordinary rules of punctuation there are but four well-defined which can be considered to govern the matter, and these are:—

It is necessary to point out that in cataloguing it must not be left to the printer to supply the punctuation, as is customary with other books, and therefore the cataloguer must carefully supply it as he proceeds, and not when the time comes to prepare the work for the press.

19.—The same rule holds good with respect to the use of capital letters. Until recently it was the general fashion in printing book-titles to give every word, or almost every word, an initial capital, but the custom has fallen into disuse. Like other old-fashioned customs it dies hard, and if not advised that the “copy” must be closely followed in this respect, the printer will as likely as not put in the capitals all the same, and this in spite of the fact that he may have to wait until he has one sheet printed off before he can set another, on account of the run on the capitals. All that is now expected is that capital letters should be used in catalogue entries as they would be in any ordinary book, viz., to proper names; to words coming after a full stop; and to words derived from proper names. In the last-named a lower-case (i.e. small) initial letter is sometimes used in catalogues, but such words as “christian,” “pauline,” “lutheran,” “darwinism,” “ibsenism,” have not a good appearance and should be avoided. In foreign titles the usage of the language should be followed, so that there will be fewer capitals used in Latin, French, or Italian than in English, and more in German.

20.—All dates and numbers should be transcribed in Arabic figures, even if they are in Roman numerals upon the title-page. Thus, “from the XVIIth Century to the Present Time” becomes “from the 17th century to the present time;” “MDCCCXCIX” becomes “1899;” and “Volume xliv.” is simply “v. 44.” The only reasonable exception to this rule is that numbers to the names of potentates be always in Roman, though in American catalogues these also are put into Arabic. We on this side of the Atlantic are not yet well enough accustomed to “Charles 2,” or even “Edward 6th,” to adopt it.

21.—Sometimes figures form part of the title of a book, when it is desirable for the sake of appearance to write them out in words: the transcript, of course, being kept in the language of the title-page, though “50 études pour le piano” has been seen entered in a catalogue as “Fifty études pour le piano.”

22.—So far as languages printed in Roman are concerned, it is the invariable rule to adhere to the language of the title-page, and not to make a translation. In ordinary libraries Greek is usually transliterated into Latin; if a Greek classic has both Greek and Latin titles, as is commonly the case, then the Latin title is taken rather than the Greek.

23.—Upon this point of the translation of title-pages the question of utility, in popular libraries especially, might very well be considered. It does not often happen, but it is possible, that a person may be a capable musician and not know a word of French, German, or Italian, and it is likely therefore that many of the lesser-known compositions would be made acceptable if a translation of the title-page were given as well as the original. It is very certain that in the public libraries there are many valuable foreign books upon ornament and the decorative arts, consisting almost exclusively of illustrations, that are not used as they should be. The catalogue entries of such books convey no meaning whatever to many an artisan or craftsman, and a free translation might very well be given for their benefit. If such a translation is not given, a note descriptive of the nature of the book should be added.

24.—It is a safe rule that the date of publication should be given in every case and in every entry, as it serves in some measure to show the particular edition of the book, and more important still in scientific and technical works, to show if the editions in a library are of recent date or obsolete. It will, however, be found quite useless in popular libraries to give the dates of publication in the entries of works of fiction, for the simple reason that many of the books in this class of literature are so often worn out and then replaced with new copies, which are very seldom of the same dates as those printed in the catalogue, and it soon becomes incorrect in this respect. Happily it is a matter of no importance, as very few fiction readers are concerned about the date of publication, and therefore it may be safely omitted from all entries. This statement does not apply to first or other editions of novels of special value, such as the first edition of “David Copperfield,” as these would be fully described as well as carefully preserved.

25.—A suggestion worthy of consideration has been made that the original dates of publication should be added to the entries of reprints. This would increase the information given, and might prevent persons mistaking an old book for a new one, though librarians are familiar with the fact that old books are read with as much pleasure as the newest, if got up with modern attractive illustrations and pretty bindings.

26.—In the illustrative entry we have marked the book as 8vo.—that is octavo in size. This we learn either by experience in the sizes of books, or by actual measurement, and it may be at once admitted that the question of size notation is a vexed one and no absolute rule can be laid down for guidance. Those who have studied the matter know that there is no satisfactory solution of the difficulty beyond that of measuring the book and giving its size in centimetres or in inches. But this encumbers the catalogue entry too much, and for ordinary every-day purposes the old signs suffice of 8vo. (octavo), 4to. (quarto), and fo. (folio), and they give a rough idea of the size. These may be qualified, if thought necessary, by la. (large), sm. (small), or obl. (oblong), if the books are of a special size. The terms 12ᵒ., 16ᵒ., 32ᵒ., &c. are sometimes used, but they do not convey any very precise information and the additional terms of “demy,” “royal,” “imperial,” and others have varying meaning nowadays, as there is no fixed standard in the sizes of paper or books. Appendix B consists of a table taken from the “Report of the Committee on Size Notation of the Library Association of the United Kingdom,” and this may be studied as an introduction to the subject, but is not to be taken as decisive. The full report of the Committee is to be found in the Library Association Monthly Notes, vol. 3, 1882, pp. 130-133. A scale made from this table will be found convenient to cataloguers, as will also the handy and better known book-size scale prepared by Mr. Madeley of the Warrington Museum. The pages of books are to be measured and not their bindings. The sizes of books are not always shown in the printed catalogues of free libraries and if they were it is most likely that the signs would confuse rather than help, as the majority of the public do not understand anything of the matter, besides the proportion of books other than octavos is not large in a lending library. The reference library usually contains a considerable number of quartos and folios and the information upon this point would be more useful in the catalogue of that department.

27.—The immense value of occasional explanatory or descriptive notes to the entries in a catalogue is well known, but they are not as often inserted as they might be. They should be added to author, subject, or title entry, where necessary, desirable, or in any way helpful, as far as possible briefly and to the point, and printed under the entry in a smaller type, to show they are not part of the title. The following are a few examples taken from various catalogues:

In adding notes of this nature it is a wise plan to keep to statements of fact, and not indulge in expressions of opinion.

28.—Having laid down some of the general principles to be followed in making the author-entry in a complete form, we proceed to take further examples selected because they happen to be at hand and not for any difficulty they present. Any batch of ordinary books will contain some that are troublesome to the beginner in cataloguing, and for this reason nothing that can be regarded as of an out-of-the-way character has been taken in illustration.

The next book is:

The work is in three volumes, the first being dated 1828, the second 1829, and the third 1830. We ascertain by reference to a biographical dictionary, or other likely work, that the author’s name is William, and as Wm. Taylor is a somewhat common name we retain the description “of Norwich,” so that he may be distinguished from any other author of the same name. The author-entry then is:

This book being in more than one volume a collation of each is not given, as the statement of the number of volumes is considered to give sufficient idea of its extent. If the work were illustrated this fact would still be stated, not usually as “3 v., illus.” but “Illus. 3 v.” or “illus. 3 v.” It will be seen that the date of publication of each volume is not given but the first and last dates only. It is necessary to point out that the earliest and latest dates are not always those of the first and last volumes of a set, as it sometimes happens that they are not the first or last issued. Often enough the volumes of a set are made up of two or more editions with long intervals between the dates. In all cases the earliest and latest dates are to be given, and any peculiarities of the edition can be stated in the form of a note at the end of the entry.

Taking another book we find that the title-page reads:

and after an exhaustive examination the entry comes out as

29.—The desirability, or otherwise, of using initials instead of giving the Christian name in full in an author-entry depends largely upon the requirements of the library and the space taken up.

There seems to be a growing practice to search out from any available source all the names that an author was ever saddled with. The object of this for catalogues, other than those of great libraries of national importance, is not very obvious, and it should not concern the cataloguer why Dickens chose to be known as Charles simply instead of Charles John Huffam, or Du Maurier preferred to be called George rather than George Louis Palmela Busson, or even why Hall Caine has dropped the use of Thomas Henry from the fore part of his name. Yet these and other persons have appeared with all the names set out at length even in minor catalogues, and sometimes with the titles of the books cut down to the finest limit in order that the whole name might be got in. The spirit of infinite research is not always an advantage to the cataloguer.

30.—On the other hand, bare initials have a meagre appearance, and the middle course should be adopted even when expense is a consideration, as it adds very little to the cost of printing to give at least one name in full. It must be admitted that in many instances where there are two or more Christian names, the initials are distinctive enough for all reasonable purposes, as E. A. Abbott, A. K. H. Boyd, E. A. Freeman, and can be so used. Well-understood abbreviations, like Chas. Dickens, Geo. R. Sims, Robt. Browning, Thos. Carlyle, can also be used, but the gain is so trifling as not to be worth consideration. The first Christian name in use should be given in full, unless it happens that some other is better or specially known, as W. H. Davenport Adams, J. Percy Groves, J. Cotter Morison, R. Bosworth Smith.

31.—With the commoner surnames, as Smith, Brown, Jones, and the rest, there will be a number of authors who will have also the same Christian name, when particular care must be exercised not to mix the works together, and so attribute books to a wrong author. Some distinction must be given, like that shown in the “Taylor of Norwich” entry (p. 27), and these are better printed in italics. Examples of these, taken from a catalogue, are

When father and son with the same name are authors, and the difference between them appears in the book as “the elder,” “jun.,” “fils,” “aîné,” &c., it should be given at the time the entry is made, even though not then required for distinguishing purposes, the library only possessing the works of one or the other. Frequently such a distinction is not shown on the book, and the cataloguer must add it. Strange to say, entries like the following have been seen in catalogues:—

The first book being by the Paquet frères, and the other by Nassau W. Senior.

32.—Biographical dictionaries of all kinds are useful to the cataloguer, but for making distinctions like those referred to above, and for general use, the most serviceable and handiest, because concise and comprehensive, is “The dictionary of biographical reference, containing one hundred thousand names,” by Lawrence B. Phillips (Sampson Low, 1871.) There is a later edition of this work, but it is merely a reprint with no new matter. It should be superfluous to name the valuable and indispensable “Dictionary of national biography” for British names. Allibone’s “Critical dictionary of English literature and British and American authors,” with its supplement by Kirk, is an every-day book of reference for cataloguers. For German biography the “Allgemeine deutsche Biographie” (Leipzig, 1875-98), is the most important, and for French names the “Biographie universelle” (Paris, 1842-65) is very serviceable, as well as for names generally. It should be supplemented by Vapereau’s “Dictionnaire des contemporains.”

33.—The form for author-entry is clear and simple enough, and seems easy to put into practice, but difficulties soon arise, and the amount of knowledge the cataloguer possesses upon men in general and authors in particular will be early put to the test. The next book coming before us is

The author’s name in this instance is a pseudonym, and the mode of treating such names has given rise to differences of opinion, and consequently of practice. In many catalogues the real name of the author, when known, is taken for the author-entry, and a reference given from the pseudonym to it. This may be a good rule to follow in very special catalogues, but there is no doubt that it is against the convenience of the great majority of persons who use libraries; and therefore the best, because most convenient and useful, plan is to make the entry under the best known name, whether it be assumed or real. It has been often said, and with much truth, that it is not the business of librarians to discover the identity of an author by proving his use of an alias unless for some sufficient reason. It has become quite a mania with some cataloguers to hunt and pry until they find out whether a name is real or not, and their zeal in this direction sometimes misleads them, as witness the fact that “George Eliot” has been entered as Mrs. Lewes in quite a number of catalogues, and Marie Corelli is called Marion Mackay. The cataloguer, besides putting himself to the bother of being ever on the look-out for real names, gives readers the trouble and vexation of looking in several places in the catalogue before they can find the author’s works they are in search of. People wanting books by “Ouida” do not care to be told on turning to that name to “see De la Ramé,” or “Ramée, L. de la,” or even “La Ramé.” It would be equally absurd, on the other hand, to refer from Dickens to “Boz,” or Thackeray to “Titmarsh;” therefore use the best known names. When the pseudonym is the most familiar name, and the principal entry is accordingly given under that form, then it is desirable, but not absolutely essential, to also give the real name, when known with certainty, enclosing it in parentheses, as

Sometimes the pseudonym is printed in italics in all entries, but this only serves to emphasise the name, without indicating that it is a known pseudonym. If it is wished to point out that the name is assumed, then the customary form of printing it in inverted commas is better understood, as

but this need only be in the author-entry. Upon these lines the book before us appears as

To perfectly complete the author-entry and to prevent any possibility of mistake, we require a cross-reference pointing from the real name to the pseudonym under which the entry is found, thus:

If space is of no consideration, and it is wished to make the entry as exact as possible, then the form is

and the reference reads

34.—Before leaving this question of the treatment of pseudonymous books attention may be directed to other phases of it. There is the difficulty that occasionally arises of an author publishing under a pseudonym and under his real name and being equally as well-known under both. Instances of this would be the Rev. John M. Watson, whose theological works appear under his own name, and his stories under “Ian Maclaren;” and J. E. Muddock, who publishes some stories under that name and, it is said, his detective stories under the name of “Dick Donovan.” Common-sense might offer the suggestion to adhere to the rule already laid down and enter under both names, but this violates one of the first principles of dictionary cataloguing, viz., that all works by an author must be brought together under a single name. Therefore in such cases there is no option but to adopt the real name, at the same time taking care to remove all occasion of difficulty by giving cross-references, as

35.—Then there are books that have a phrase for the pseudonym, like “One who has kept a diary,” or “A whistler at the plough.” These, while nominally pseudonyms, are virtually anonyms, and it is customary in full and special catalogues to make the entry under the first word not an article of such a phrase-name. It may be considered as very likely that such an entry in the majority of catalogues would be quite superfluous. Books like:

would be better dealt with if the title-entries, such as these, were taken as the principal entries and the pseudonym ignored. This is a case where the cataloguer will use his discretion as to the best course to pursue, being guided by the requirements of the library, but it is a mistake on the right side to give both forms if there is the least doubt.

36.—Books with initials only instead of the author’s name come between the pseudonymous and anonymous. The initials may be those of a name or indicate a title or profession. In all cases where the name veiled by the initials cannot be discovered, or their meaning ascertained, then the entry is given under the last letter, but if the letters stand for a known pseudonym, as “A.L.O.E.,” or a title or degree, as “by an M.P.,” or “M.A. (Oxon),” then the first letter is taken instead of the last. Occasionally an initialism will be given like, “by B.H.W., D.D.,” when, the meaning being clear, the entry will be under the W., as

If it is known what the name is that is covered by the initials, as A.K.H.B., or L.E.L., then the entry is given under the name in full,

but it is requisite that cross-references be given from the initialism, as

The remark as to whether it is worth while in minor catalogues to give an entry under a phrase-pseudonym applies equally to the initials, and is open to the same doubts.

37.—In arranging the entries in alphabetical order it should be noted that initials take precedence of all other names in each particular letter, as

The works most useful to the cataloguer in revealing real names are Halkett and Laing’s Dictionary of the anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain, Cushing’s Initials and pseudonyms, and Les supercheries littéraires dévoilées, par Quérard. A list of pseudonyms, mostly modern instances, with the real names, will be found in Appendix C, by those who may require it.

38.—The next illustration is selected because it is distinctly anonymous, that is the author is not shown in any form in the book, either by a pseudonym or initialism, and the ordinary sources of information do not enable the authorship to be discovered.

Upon such books, if they are worth it, the industry of the cataloguer may very well be exercised, as librarians and the public feel that they are fully justified in finding out who the author is if they can. If the book is of any importance the name of the author is sure to be revealed for general information sooner or later, and the possibility of this adds zest to the search for the name at the moment it is needed by the cataloguer. Besides the works of reference mentioned already, Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica should be consulted (for the older books), Barbier’s Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes, and any special bibliographies or catalogues within reach, not forgetting the great British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books. Local catalogues often prove valuable in this work, as the identity of an author may be well-known locally but not further. It is as well to point out that if a work is merely “ascribed,” or “said to be” by a particular person it is better to regard the book as altogether anonymous. To name a case in point, Halkett and Laing ascribe the authorship of the, at one time, celebrated “red pamphlets” on the Mutiny of the Bengal Army to a Major Bunbury, whereas the author is now known to have been the late Colonel G. B. Malleson.

In the event of the search after the author’s name proving futile, the rule is that the principal entry be given under the first word of the title not an article, in the same way as the entries follow in the work of Halkett and Laing. Should the library be a small one of a general character it would be somewhat pedantic to adhere rigidly to this rule, more especially if the subject of the book is clearly stated upon its title-page. For example, books like, A short history of Poland, and The rambler’s guide to Harrogate, would be amply and satisfactorily dealt with if entries were alone given under “Poland” and “Harrogate” respectively, instead of under “Short” and “Rambler’s,” as required by the rule.

39.—When books are said to be “by the author of —” and it cannot be ascertained who the author is, then they are treated as altogether anonymous and dealt with accordingly, as

No entry would be made under “Honor bright” except, of course, for that book itself if it happened to be in the library.

40.—There are further difficulties that arise from time to time in making the author-entry owing to the great variety in the form of authors’ names. The first book we take to illustrate one of these is:

The rule is to transcribe Greek and Latin names either into the English form, as Cicero, Horace, Livy, Ovid, or into the Latin nominative as M. Tullius Cicero, and therefore the entry will be:

Greek names are not simply transcribed in Roman characters, as Homeros, but into the English or Latin form, as Homer, Homerus. All forms of the name, irrespective of the language of the original book or its translations, must be concentrated under the form adopted; thus the following three books,

are entered either under Horace or Horatius Flaccus (Quintus), and therefore would appear as

It is very rarely required to give cross-references from the one form of name to the other, especially in the case of the classical authors. It should be noted that absolute uniformity is necessary in the style of such names in a single catalogue, be the form Latin or English, as it would be inconsistent to have, say Virgilius in one place, and Livy in another—in other words, it should be Virgil and Livy or Livius and Virgilius, popular libraries adopting the English form as most suitable.

41.—The customary mode of arranging the entries in such a case as the Horace given above, is to give first the whole works in the original, then the whole works in translations, afterwards the portions in the original followed by translations of these in their turn, the greater parts taking precedence of the lesser, and those in the language of the original coming before translations without regard to alphabetical order.

42.—There are classes of persons whose names come oftener under the notice of the cataloguer for subject-than for author-entry, such as sovereigns, princes, saints, and popes; but as one rule governs both forms of entry, it may be referred to at this point. All such personages are entered under the Christian names by which they are known and not under family or titular names. With these names are included those of ancient or mediæval use before the days of fixed surnames, or when they were merely sobriquets. Omitting titles of books in illustration examples of all these with the correct form would be:

It would be safer to provide cross-references for such names as Thomas a’ Becket and Thomas a’ Kempis, thus:

43.—Strange to say, it is quite a common mistake in catalogues to enter all the saints together under “Saint,” instead of under their names, and it has even been attempted to justify such an obvious absurdity by the contention that people naturally turn to the word “Saint” for such names. This is very likely, but it would be just as reasonable to expect to find Lord Beaconsfield’s books under “Lord” or “Earl,” and Mr. Gladstone’s under “Mr.” Besides, if such a rule were logically carried out in the case of every person canonized, Sir Thomas More would now be entered under “Blessed,” and Thomas a’ Becket under “Saint.”

44.—In the case of noblemen who are authors, the entry should be under the title, and not under the family name, though it may be necessary in some instances to give a cross-reference from the family name. Illustrative examples of these would be:

In full catalogues it is usual to give more particulars, as

but even in concise catalogues, if the library happens to possess books by noblemen of the same title, the distinction must be clearly shown as

or fuller still, as

45.—In some exceptional and well-defined cases, it is better to place the entries under the family name, for the reason that it is more in common use and so is better known, as

It is important to remember that the title of the author to be used is not that of the time when the book happened to be published, but the highest attained to at the time the catalogue is prepared or issued.

46.—This brings us to the question as to the extent in which titles of honour, of professional rank, or of scholastic attainment are to be used in cataloguing, particularly in connection with authors’ names. This is a matter that has been settled more by convenience and usage than by fixed rules. It is usual to omit all titles of rank below that of a knight, all such distinctions to a name as “Baronet,” “Knight,” “Right Honourable,” and “Honourable,” as well as the initials of the various orders of knighthood, as K.G., K.C.B., C.B., &c. University degrees and initials of membership of learned or other societies, as D.D., M.A., F.R.S., F.R.Hist.S., &c., are ignored, and so are professional titles, as Professor, Colonel, Doctor, Barrister-at-Law. For example, in the “republic of letters,” as exemplified in cataloguing,

becomes simply

and

is

Upon the same plan most of the ecclesiastical titles are passed over, or at anyrate all under the rank of a dean, and all the prefixes as “Right Reverend,” “Rev.” are left out. Thus

is reduced to

or shorter still, if desired, to

It has been found that simple treatment of this kind meets every requirement, and it is quite unnecessary to waste space in a catalogue by adding superfluous matter of this kind, besides the line must be drawn somewhere, and, as the cataloguer has no reason, even for politic motives, to indulge in snobbery, there is no occasion to swell a catalogue to undue proportions.

47.—If it is desired, however, to include degrees or other distinctive affixes, they must follow the Christian name, as

and not

Prefixes would be inserted in their proper order, as

Anything not actually part of the author’s name should be made distinctive by being printed in italics as here shown.

48.—It cannot be too often impressed on the young cataloguer how important it is to keep himself well posted in all changes occurring in the world around, and, more particularly, in the literary and social world. While many sources of information are available in a well-equipped library, yet none of these can compensate for a retentive memory and a mind keenly alive even for the comparatively trivial affairs that need to be constantly noted if error is to be avoided, or at least if the catalogue is to show the latest information. For instance, as each New Year and Queen’s Birthday comes round the lists of new honours gazetted have to be read, as an author or two may be among those raised to the peerage or be made baronets or knights and their style in the catalogue has to be altered accordingly. This may be considered unnecessary advice because catalogues of libraries are supposed to, and do, cover the whole field of human knowledge in all directions, and it is part of the cataloguer’s business to keep his knowledge modernized if his services are to be worth much. It is as well, however, to point this out to beginners, otherwise, if attention be not paid to such details, they will very soon find, or others will for them, that they have books written by the same person under two names, sometimes three, in a single catalogue. Many examples could be given of how this can be brought about, but it will suffice to give one. The first edition, 1887, of the book on cycling in the “Badminton Library” series has the names of Viscount Bury and G. L. Hillier as the authors, and the new edition of 1895 is by the Earl of Albemarle and G. L. Hillier. It would not do for a library possessing the first edition only to now enter it under “Bury,” nor for a library with both editions to enter one under “Bury” and the other under “Albemarle.”

49.—This point may be further emphasized by stating that ecclesiastical changes in the higher orders of the clergy have to be carefully observed from time to time, so that the very latest office is shown at the time the catalogue is printed, or that the alteration is made if in manuscript. It would not look well to continue to describe Frederick Temple as Bishop of Exeter or even as Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton as Bishop of Peterborough, or Frederick W. Farrar as Archdeacon, though their names may so appear upon the books being catalogued.

Occasionally books will be found by authors whose ecclesiastical office and not their names appear upon the title-pages, as “by William, Bishop of Chester,” “by the Archbishop of York,” when the name must be sought out and care taken to give the credit of the book to the right person. For instance, there is a book upon the Riviera, published in 1870, “by the Dean of Canterbury,” which might easily be credited to Dean Payne Smith instead of Dean Alford, and a very careless or unthinking cataloguer might even add it to Dean Farrar’s books. In this connection a very useful book of reference is The book of dignities, by Joseph Haydn, continued by Horace Ockerby, 1894, and of course any back volumes available of clerical directories or diocesan calendars will prove useful.

50.—But the ladies have to be watched with much greater care, as they are so much more apt to change their name, and that without any evidence of such change being given upon the title-page. Many examples might be given of ladies who have written under both their maiden and their married names. If the ladies continue writing under their maiden names, then the rule given for pseudonymous books would fitly apply, and the more familiar name should be used, as M. E. Braddon, and not Mrs. Maxwell, Florence Warden, and not Mrs. James. Where women authors are better known under their husbands’ names with the prefix “Mrs.,” as Mrs. Humphry Ward, Mrs. Coulson Kernahan, &c., it will be found that the best known form is also the best for use in a general or popular catalogue, though it would be more exact to give the ladies’ own names. If exactness is of prime importance, then the distinction can very well be shown, as

When both the maiden and married names are given upon a title-page, as “Katharine Tynan (Mrs. H. A. Hinkson),” then it is better to adopt the married name for the entry, but a cross-reference should be given, especially if books have been issued under the maiden name alone. Accordingly the entry would be

and the reference

51.—Peculiarities of form in surnames will next demand consideration, and probably the first of these will be names with patronymic or other prefixes. If the author is English, or has virtually become so (and “English” is to be here understood in its widest sense), then the prefix is simply regarded as a part of the name, and as such it will lead off. The following are some examples of names in this form:

52.—In French names the entry should not be made under the prefix “de,” but under the name next following it, unless the “de” has become so much embodied in the surname as to be an integral part of it rather than a prefix. If the prefix happens to be the definite article “le” or “la,” or the article is comprised in it, as “du,” then the entry is to be given under the prefix. The following names show the part of the name which leads off:

In arranging such names for alphabetical order they are placed as if the prefix were part of the name, and the last five would come in place as Labr., Lasi., Lemo., Dubo., Duca. The English names are treated in much the same manner, but contractions are to be placed as if spelt out in full, and letters omitted by elision are to be ignored. In this way the English names given above would come in order: St. John as Saint John (not as Saintj, however, but before Sainte, as Sainte-Beuve), De Crespigny as Decre., D’Israeli as Disra., Le Gallienne as Legall., L’Estrange as Lestr., M’Crie as Maccrie, Mac Donald as Macdon., O’Brien as Obri., Ap John as Apjohn, and Van Dyck as Vandyck. Of course, the names must in no wise be altered from the form appearing upon the title-pages even for the purpose of harmonising them with neighbouring names in the alphabetical sequence.

53.—In German and Dutch names the “von” and “van” are entered after the name similarly to the French “de” as:

Some cataloguers keep these and the French “de” in their place as prefixes, at the same time ignoring them for alphabetical order, thus:

of course, placing them under Ewald, Beneden, Cuvier. The effect is not wholly satisfactory and it breaks the running line in the alphabet.

54.—The next difficulty is that of the compound names. It has been already hinted that stereotyped uniformity is not always to be recommended, but in dealing with names of this type it is as well to fix a rule and adhere rigidly to it. In the case of English compound names the best course to adopt is to give the entries under the last name in all cases. Examples of such names would be

These are so well known to most people as changed names, that it would not be quite correct to give merely an initial for the first name, as

though in most cases of compound names, this would not signify.

Under some rules for cataloguing, it is recommended that where the author has added to his name at a late period of his life, as the above-named persons have, then the entry should be given under the first part of the name. The objection to adopting this course is that two methods would be in use, and they would likely lead to confusion, for the reason that it is not always clearly or generally known that a compound name consists in reality of the addition of a name to the original surname. It is more frequently the case, owing to fashion or foible, that two names already belonging by right to a person have simply been joined by a hyphen, and so become “compounded.” Again, it is not always shown or known that a new name has been taken, as for instance J. F. B. Firth so described himself upon his books on London Government, and not as J. F. Bottomley-Firth, though he was born Bottomley, and took the name of Firth afterwards. Therefore, all things considered, it is wiser to adhere to the last name, more especially as it is so easy to safeguard it in doubtful cases by the useful cross-reference, such as

Even these cross-references are seldom necessary, as it may reasonably be presumed that if a person fails to find the entries under the one name he turns to the other, thus if he wants books by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, and fails to find them under Baring, it is unlikely that he will conclude they are not in the library without first looking under Gould.

55.—But while this rule for making use of the last part of a compound name holds good for English authors, the reverse method must be adopted as correct for foreign compound names, and the entry given accordingly under the first part of such a name, as

It will be seen that this form is principally governed by the custom of the country to which the author happens to belong, and cataloguers will make themselves acquainted with the usages of each country as far as they can, either by reading or by constant reference to native biographical dictionaries and authoritative catalogues.

56.—In an average British library oriental names will only occasionally come under the notice of the cataloguer, and then for the most part attached to English books. A general rule may be laid down that the first part of such names should be taken for the author-entry, as

but a rule of this kind must not be blindly followed, as it is sure to have exceptions. Some other part of the name may be the best known or even correct form, as:

remembering always that the surname according to Western ideas, handed on from one generation to another does not exist in the East. In every case it is a wise plan to consult any available catalogues that have been compiled by experts in oriental language and custom. Care is also necessary in dealing with these names lest it should be found when too late that the entry has been given under a title and not a name. On pages 76-97 of Linderfelt’s Eclectic card catalog rules will be found a list of oriental titles and occupations with their signification, and the use of this will do much to prevent mistakes of the kind. Beale’s Oriental biographical dictionary; revised by H. G. Keene (W. H. Allen, 1894) is also a helpful work in this connection.

57.—When books are written in collaboration, the customary procedure is to make the entry under the first-named author, if not more than two are given on the title-page, followed by the name of the second. If there are more than two authors, then the name of the first only is given, followed by “and others,” or “&c.,” as

It is desirable to give a cross-reference from every joint-author to the name under which the entry is placed, but it depends greatly upon the style of the catalogue whether this is done or not. In most cases it will be found that the references can be dispensed with if more than two authors, and often enough from the second when but two. It is unlikely, for example, that a reference is necessary from Rice to Besant for the novels by Besant and Rice, or from Chatrian for those by Erckmann-Chatrian. If, however, the second-named author is also the single author of other books in the library, the reference is unavoidable and must be given. In the principal entry it is unnecessary to reverse the names of any author but the first, though this is sometimes done, as

but the better form is

58.—The order of arrangement for books written by an author who is also a joint-author is to give first those books written by him alone; then those books in which he has collaborated, with his name occupying the leading place upon the title-page; and lastly the references to other authors with whom he has joined, but with his name in a secondary place. The entries would be separately alphabetical in each of these divisions. The following illustrates this point:—

59.—As in this illustration the repeat dash has been used, it may be here stated that its purpose is to save the repetition of the author’s name in each entry after the first, and, as shown in the case of “The wrecker,” it is unnecessary to give more than a single dash in any instance, as the position of the entry denotes that it is by the same authors as the preceding book. It was owing to the misuse of this dash that the old catalogue joke arose of

and others equally ridiculous are to be found in catalogues where the dash is not limited in use as a repeat for authors’ names, or as a repeat to a subject-heading, but this point is further dealt with under subject-cataloguing (Section 102). It must be noted that in the case of authors’ or editors’ names the dash is strictly limited in use as a repeat for second and further books by the same author, and not to repeat all authors with the same surname, as

This bad form should be avoided, and the surname of each person given in full, as

60.—Music is not usually treated upon the supposition that the librettist is joint-author with the composer. The latter is always regarded as the author and the entry given under his name only. The reason for this is that in the case of operas, oratorios, and the like the libretto is a mere secondary matter and the books are placed in libraries for the music only, and in the vocal scores of operas there is seldom a complete libretto. In this way the Gilbert-Sullivan operas are entered only under Sullivan, and if thought desirable a reference may be given from Gilbert, but it is not essential. The following is from the title-page of one of these operas.

Properly adapted this would appear in the catalogue as

It is hardly necessary to say that if on the other hand the libretto only of an opera or similar work were in the library, the entry would be given under the librettist, and the composer would be ignored, as there would be none of his work in the book.

Occasionally an exception to these rules will arise, and would be found in a book like

because it is likely enough that an edition of Moore’s Melodies with music would be called for without regard to the composer, though the book may have been placed in the library more on account of the music. Therefore, both entries must be given, that under the arranger’s name being the principal, as

61.—When a book consists of a collection of essays or articles by a number of authors, gathered together by an editor, it is proper to give the principal entry under the editor’s name rather than under that of the first-named author in the contents. If a book of this nature is of sufficient importance, each of its divisions can be treated as a separate work, and author-entries given, each author being credited with his share only. As to how far books of the kind are to be so dealt with must rest entirely with the cataloguer, space and utility being the two important points for his consideration. It frequently happens that a single essay or section of a book contains the essence of many volumes, and to a busy man such essays may be of more real value than a whole book. Again, if a person is interested in the work of a particular author, he will be glad not only to have the complete books, but also his contributions to miscellaneous works as well, and these are shown by indexing the contents. To do this will add to the extent and cost of a catalogue, but it will, at the same time, add to its value and usefulness. Of course there are many volumes of this miscellaneous nature, the contents of which are of a very slight or ephemeral value, and to so index them would be a waste of energy and of space. It is quite as easy to overdo this indexing of contents as to carry it out judiciously, as witness the fact that some librarians have gone to the trouble of indexing the principal contents of such obvious works of reference as the Encyclopædia Britannica, and the Dictionary of National Biography. In this matter, then, it will be seen that no fixed rule can be laid down. Sometimes the setting out of the contents under the principal entry will be sufficient. This does not imply that the contents of volumes of magazines, reviews, and the like should be so treated, as is sometimes seen attempted, of course with sorry results so far as completeness is concerned, because at best but a selection can be given, and even this necessitates wading through pages of closely-set small type; in fact, the only real purpose it serves is to show what serial stories are in a particular volume. No one can gainsay the fact that an enormous quantity of valuable material lies hidden away in back volumes of magazines, but librarians must depend upon such works as Poole’s Index to Periodical Literature, with its supplements, and the Review of Reviews’ Annual Index to Periodicals to reveal it.

62.—In some libraries the contents of miscellaneous books are set out as well as indexed, but it is doubtful if it is worth while doing both in the majority of cases. The following entries show a well-known book fully treated in this way so far as the principal and author entries only are concerned:—

As these items would each require at least one subject entry besides, it will be seen that this book must have fifteen distinct entries to be effectually catalogued.

63.—The contents of collected works in more than one volume must be set out in order that the catalogue may show in what volume a particular work is to be found, in this way:—

and so on through the rest of the volumes. Wherever possible, the tabulated contents of such works should be summarised when considered sufficient for all reasonable purposes, as

To give a list of the essays contained in the first volume is unnecessary, as all Gray’s miscellaneous essays are in that volume.

64.—There are books, or rather editions of books, of a composite nature, where an editor has joined together works by different authors into one volume. Examples of these are

To be exact, the cataloguer may give the principal entry under the editor, as already stated, but it does not obviate the necessity under any circumstances of a separate entry under the name of each author. There is no need to include the names of the other authors in the entries, and just the same principle would apply as illustrated in the Essays and reviews above. It is as well, however, to add the name of the editor to each author-entry, as it shows the particular edition. The entries in full would appear as

The second book would be dealt with after the same manner, but with the Christian names supplied to the sub- or author-entries, as

and similar entries under Wm. Congreve, Sir John Vanbrugh, and George Farquhar. The entries may be made a little more concise, as

It will be observed that neither of the above books would properly admit of a principal entry under the first-named author, as it would bring the authors’ names together in such a way as to lead to the supposition that they were joint-authors, as

It is true that any person with the least knowledge of English literature would know better than that these authors had collaborated, but the cataloguer has to put himself in the position of the man who knows nothing of the matter. Cross-references from one author’s name to the other in such a case would be absurd.

65.—Anthologies or other compilations are to be entered under the names of the editors or compilers, with the abbreviation Ed. (Editor) or Comp. (Compiler) following the name, as

The artist of a collection of drawings or other illustrations is to be regarded as the author, and the writer of any descriptive text accompanying them placed subordinately, as

It would be as well to give cross-references from the writers of the text, as

66.—The difference in references between “See” and “See also” must be noted. If there are entries of any kind already in the catalogue under the names of the persons referred from, then the reference is “See also,” and not “See.” The best form for writing a cross-reference is

and, if it should happen that by the time the “copy” of the catalogue is being got ready for printing there was no other entry under this author’s name, it would be altered to

67.—It occasionally happens that both the work of the artist and of the writer of the text are of sufficient importance to warrant separate entries, but only one of the entries should be the principal entry giving the fullest particulars. A book of this kind is Ruskin’s edition of Turner’s Harbours of England. As this particular edition is published as one of Ruskin’s works, and Turner is more subject than author, then the main entry is

and the subordinate entry is

68.—When a word not on the title-page is added to an entry by the cataloguer, it is customary to show this by enclosing it in brackets [ ] as the word “text” in the above example. On the other hand, if words have been left out from the transcript of the title-page as unnecessary the omission is denoted by three points … as shown in the Ruskin entry where the word “thirteen” has been passed over. In the smaller libraries it will be found that it is unnecessary to denote either additions or omissions in this way, but where perfect exactness is of importance this is the understood form for the purpose.

This Ruskin entry also shows that if it is already stated in the title that the book is illustrated there is no occasion to repeat “illus.” in the collation. There are many books of which the value lies more in the illustrations than in the text, such as those illustrated by Blake, Bewick, Cruikshank, “Phiz,” and others. It is often found sufficient in such cases to give a cross-reference from the artist to the author illustrated, like

it being, of course, understood that it is stated in the author-entry that the particular edition is illustrated by the artist from whose name the reference is given, as

otherwise the reference would be worthless.

The extent to which these references are given depends altogether upon the editions, as the cheap modern reprints of books like Ainsworth’s novels do not call for notice of the illustrations, and there are not many illustrators of books—especially in these days of “process” reproduction—whose work calls for the special attention of the cataloguer.

In making references like the foregoing, or of any kind, care should be exercised to give all the names necessary, and not, as is sometimes done, but two or three, and then finishing with a comprehensive “&c.” which is less than no use, inasmuch as it only serves to show that there are other books in the library illustrated by this particular artist, but what they are the cataloguer has neglected to state and the inquirer is thus left in vexatious doubt.

69.—In cataloguing the transactions, memoirs, proceedings and other publications of the learned societies, the societies in their corporate capacity are regarded as the authors and so treated, the principal entry being placed under the first word of their names not an article, provided they are societies of a national or general character, as

Societies of a strictly local character are to be entered under the name of the place of meeting or publication, as for example the publications of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle-on-Tyne are not entered under “Literary,” but

such an entry of course being kept quite apart from the subject-heading Newcastle-on-Tyne.

There are antiquarian and other societies whose work covers a much larger area than the particular locality in which they hold meetings or their offices happen to be situated, and they could not be fitly entered under the name of the place. For instance, the publications of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire emanate from Liverpool, but the place of meeting or publication might be changed to Manchester or Chester without in any way affecting the nature or scope of the Society’s work. Therefore the entry in such a case should not be under Liverpool or even “Historic,” but

Almost similar are the publishing societies dealing with a limited area, as the Chetham and Surtees Societies, but the specially distinctive name settles the matter, and the entries would accordingly be under those names. Societies of this class, however, are simply the publishers of collections of books, and so, in addition to the entries under the societies’ names, each book must have a separate author-entry. The entries would be after this manner:—

(The first eight volumes would be set out in the same way in their place as are the contents of collected works).

It would be within the scope of most catalogues to separately enter under authors and subjects any exceptionally important monographs published with or supplementary to, the transactions of scientific or other societies, but to go further than this and to catalogue in this way each separate contribution to such transactions opens up so vast a field of work that it need not be attempted. Special libraries used only by special classes of the community will have to settle the length to which they can go in this direction according to their several requirements and the means at their disposal. Something towards this end of making available the contents of transactions, proceedings, and the like has been accomplished in the Royal Society’s Catalogue of Scientific Papers, but there is infinitely more yet to be done and the majority of libraries will choose to wait for the promised great International Catalogue of Scientific Literature rather than attempt to index the contents of whatever transactions they happen to possess in their libraries, though this great catalogue has up to the present got no further than the conference-and-dinner stage of compilation.

The publications of foreign societies are usually entered under the names of the countries if of national importance, or places where they meet if of local importance, unless they have a specially distinctive title. Government publications are entered under the names of the countries or places, as

The publications of the home government cannot be grouped under one head or title in this way, and must be distributed under the names of the various departments as Board of Trade, Local Government Board, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Charity Commission, &c.

The reports of Church Councils and official publications of religious denominations occasionally call for some consideration. Important ecclesiastical councils as the Council of Trent or the Westminster Assembly of Divines are entered under the names of the places of meeting, but in the case of denominational assemblies where the place of meeting is a mere incident, the entry is to be made under the name of the denomination, and not the place of meeting. Examples of such publications are

and the form of entry is

In the same way reports or publications of particular societies meeting in annual or occasional congress as Freemasons, Good Templars, Trades Unions, or professional associations are entered under the names of the societies irrespective of the places of meetings.

70.—There is still one form of principal entry to be considered, and that is when there is no author, editor, or compiler whose name can be used and a title-entry becomes a principal entry. The commonest form is that of newspapers, magazines, and periodicals. These are invariably entered under the first word of the title not an article, and never under the editor’s name. The first and last volumes of the series contained in the library with the earliest and latest dates (i.e. years) are given, as

If the series is incomplete then the volumes wanting must be shown by the entry, as

this showing that volumes 1 to 8, 16, and 18 are not in the library.

71.—Another form of principal title-entry is that for the sacred books, especially for the Bible in its various editions and translations. It is customary to enter all editions in all languages of the complete scriptures, or of portions of them, under the word “Bible,” arranging the entries in this order in the first place—

Each of these divisions are then arranged according to language, and each of the languages again chronologically according to the edition. When a library contains a fair collection of versions and editions of the scriptures it is as well to keep to the rule to place those first which are in the original languages, but in the average English library it will be found most convenient to lead off with the English versions, followed by those in the original texts, and afterwards with those in modern languages other than English. The entries would be after the following style, but with such distinctive bibliographical particulars as may be desirable according to the importance and interest of the collection.

This arrangement and sub-division is only applicable to the text, and then only if the edition is simply a version or translation and is not accompanied by a commentary. Commentaries are treated as any other original work would be and entered under the author’s name, unless they happened to be of a collective character, as The Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges; ed. by Perowne, when the principal-entry would be under “Bible” (Subject sub-division “Commentaries”) preferably to “Cambridge Bible,” with the contents of each volume of the series set out, not alphabetically, but in the order of the books of the Bible, as

A cross-reference would be necessary from

and, if it were deemed desirable, references could be given from the editors’ names in this form

72.—Sometimes the commentaries in a series are of sufficient importance, or of such a character, that each is virtually a book quite apart from its place as one of the series. The volumes of the Expositor’s Bible, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, are of this class, and, while they should in the first place be dealt with as shown in the Cambridge Bible above, yet a mere reference under the author’s names hardly suffices—they are not merely editors as in the Cambridge Bible series—therefore, besides this principal-entry under Bible, entries are required, as

or in a style more concise

Though coming more correctly under the remarks on subject-headings it may be here noted in passing that commentaries in a series are regarded as a single book and not entered separately under the name of each book of the Bible throughout the catalogue, therefore the above items would not have entries under “Kings” or “Daniel.” If, however, Dean Farrar had written a separate work dealing with the Book of Daniel, it should be entered under “Daniel,” and not under “Bible.” So commentaries, or any other works upon the whole Bible, like the entire series of the Expositor’s Bible, go under “Bible,” but if the commentaries deal with the Old or New Testament, or any particular book of the Bible separately, such works are placed under the headings of “Old Testament,” “New Testament,” or under the name of the particular book dealt with, as the case may be, and not under the heading “Bible,” as in the case of the text alone, or any portion of it. There are exceptions even to this rule with regard to translations, if special, and more particularly if accompanied by an exposition, as in a case like

This work would not be put under “Bible” as its subject, but would be entered either under “Paul, St.” (where all books upon his Epistles, not part of a general commentary or including any other parts of the Bible, might very well be grouped), or under the names of the churches to which the Epistles were addressed, as

In either case a cross-reference would be needed under the heading “Bible,” sub-division “Commentaries,” thus:

or

73.—The extent to which editors and translators are to be noticed in cataloguing is a very important one, but it also depends largely upon the requirements of the case. It should be taken for granted in large reference libraries intended principally for use by scholars that every name appearing upon a title-page, whether as author, editor, translator, compiler, or adapter, would be noticed and receive an entry, either in full or by way of cross-reference. But for an average library, and particularly lending libraries, it would be waste of energy and of space to adopt this system and fully carry it out. Thus, a work like

would in the former case have references from Phillpotts and Jerram to Xenophon, under which the principal entry should appear. But in most cases a single entry will be found ample, as

On the other hand, there are famous translations or editions that should have in every case entries under the translator’s or editor’s name, as

These are instances where two principal entries might be given with advantage, firstly under “Homer” and “Plato,” and secondly under “Chapman” and “Jowett,” as above.

Almost in the same category come those books which have been revised and enlarged by an editor to such an extent as to leave but little of the original author’s work. Sometimes the revision and additions may not be so extensive, but still be important enough to command a separate entry under the reviser’s name. Examples of these are

these entries being in addition to those under “Robertson” and “Watts.”

74.—It occasionally occurs that a prefatory essay or biographical or critical introduction to a book is of so much value as to be worth a separate entry, as

The careful cataloguer will rarely overlook these important points, though it too often happens that sets of books are lumped into a catalogue without the least attention to details of this kind, leaving it incomplete and so making the library less useful.

75.—The form of author-entry, or its equivalent, having been settled, the subject-entry now commands attention. The importance of the author-entry is recognised, but it is well known to librarians that, leaving fiction out of the question, most inquiries are made in libraries for books upon a particular subject, or for a special class of literature, rather than for the works of a particular writer, the people who know many authors not being so numerous as might be supposed. Therefore it is essential in all cataloguing work that the utmost attention be paid to the subjects. Every volume dealt with should be thoroughly examined for the purpose of ascertaining generally the nature of its contents, and definitely the subject or subjects of which it treats. This course should be pursued in every case, even if the subject is so clearly defined upon the title-page that to go beyond the statement there made would seem to be a sheer waste of time, otherwise the “pitfalls” that lie in the cataloguer’s way cannot be avoided. Besides, there may be some particularly valuable feature of the book hidden away in an appendix, or even a separate book bound up in the same cover, which the first title-page will not reveal.

76.—When the subject of the book has been clearly ascertained, an entry taken from the book itself or from the principal entry already written, is made under the name of the direct and definite subject of the book, not under the class of literature to which it belongs or even the form in which it is written. It is of the first importance that the cataloguer should definitely decide the particular subject-name he will adopt in order to avoid the somewhat common blemish in catalogues of synonymous headings. Having so decided, it will prevent future mistakes if a cross-reference is immediately written and sorted into place with the first lot of slips alphabetized when it at once serves as a pointer in the right direction by preventing books upon a single subject being placed under two headings. Thus if the book in hand is

and the cataloguer has decided in favour of the heading “Physics,” he will at once write a cross-reference

which when put in its alphabetical sequence will point out if slips have been inadvertently written under “Natural Philosophy” that the chosen heading is “Physics,” and that the entries must be so altered and arranged. The subject-entry in this instance would be

It will be here noted that under the subject-heading the author’s surname leads off as it directs to the principal entry where the fullest particulars concerning the book are to be found, and consequently it is most unusual to give the collation, size, and other information in all sub-entries. It is advisable, however, to give the date of publication in every entry excepting in the case of works of fiction under the circumstances referred to in paragraph 24.

77.—The forms of subject entries in dictionary catalogues can be much better shown by means of example with explanations than by statement alone, and for this reason a number of ordinary books, not selected for any difficulty they present, are given. These have been fully worked out in the dictionary system, and are accompanied in each case by the principal entry, so that the complete series of entries can be seen. The styles of types in printing commonly made use of to mark distinctions are also shown.

It is an excellent rule to follow that a subject must have at least two books upon it before it is entitled to a “heading,” such as the second of the above entries has. In the event of the library possessing but this one book upon the subject by the time the “copy” has to be sent to the printer, it would then be reduced to title form, as

78.—The third entry is under the name of the series. Where space is a consideration, and only brief entries can be given, the cataloguer can omit either the name of the series from the principal entry and retain the entries under the title heading of the series, or he may reverse the process and leave out this third entry, as he may deem most expedient, but if possible both should be retained, as they afford useful information—in the first entry showing that the book is one of a particular series, and thereby giving some idea of its character and scope, indeed it would not be amiss for the same reason to include it in the second entry, and the third entry form furnishes a list of the books of this particular series in the library.

79.—Baillon, Henry E. The natural history of plants; transl. by Marcus M. Hartog. Illus. 8v. la. 8o. 1871-88

This work should neither be placed under “Natural History” nor “Plants,” as some might suppose, as its subject is “Botany,” and the further entries would therefore be

Besides the curtailment of information given in the principal entry already shown, the Christian names of authors are reduced to simple initials, and the names of translators and editors are omitted in all sub-entries. It is important to notice the difference between “See” and “See also” in cross-references; the first would prevent any entries being placed under the subject-heading where it is given, as already stated, but the second is intended to guide to lesser or closely-related divisions of the subject under which it appears. There may be a number of these see alsos under a single heading by the time the catalogue is ready for printing, when they are to be embodied into one entry, as in the following illustration, where nine are so amalgamated

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.

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.

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

These are apart from the title-as-subject entries, such as

There are very few books outside the above classes that really require title-entries, and, as a rule, this feature of cataloguing is overdone. Books like

do not require entries under “Lotos,” “My Lifetime,” “Maid of Orleans,” or “Lectures,” besides those necessary under “Japan,” “Hollingshead,” “Joan of Arc,” and “English language,” yet it is quite customary to see such entries.

99.—It must be carefully noted that in title-entries the articles (A, An, The) are absolutely ignored, and any other first word is the leading word under which the entry is to be given. It is often desirable to include the article, especially the definite article, in such entry, when it must be got in as soon as it can be consistent with sense and sound, or at the end of the phrase, as

The articles are occasionally left out of such entries as

but this applies only to the article preceding the first word of the title and no other.

cannot be correctly entered as

The general omission of the leading article means very little, if any, saving of space, and has a bald effect, reading often like the wording of a telegram. Besides losing the clearness which its inclusion gives, it may alter the sense, as

In transposing the article or any other leading word from the beginning of the title the capital initial letter must be retained, as shown in the above entries, and not in this way,

In order to prevent a break in the alphabetical sequence, the articles are sometimes transposed under the authors’ names, as

but so little is gained by this form of entry that it hardly compensates for the awkwardness of it.

It is incorrect in any form, author or title, to leave out the article in foreign languages, and to do so can only be justified by usage rather than exactness. As in English the entry-word is never under the article, as

100.—Many works of fiction with proper names in their titles are better known by those names, and are rarely looked for under the first word of the title. Books so well known as,

will oftener be sought for under “David,” “Midshipman,” “Pendennis,” “Harry,” and “Huckleberry,” than “Personal,” “Mr.” “History,” “Confessions,” “Adventures,” therefore judgment should be exercised, and either a single entry given under the most likely place, or both title-entries given. If space is a consideration always omit the less-known entry. It will be seen that names in fiction are never regarded as real names, and entries must not be given under the surnames as “Copperfield,” “Easy,” “Lorrequer,” “Finn.”

101.—For the sake of brevity title-entries are sometimes given with the surname only of the author, after this manner

and occasionally in this style:

In works of fiction like these there is no very great objection to the plan other than the bald appearance of the entries, but to carry it into effect with all other title and subject entries is to revert to the dark ages of cataloguing. The following selected specimens prove that such entries can have very little value for the uninitiated. The complete entry other than the shelf mark is given:

102.—This leads to the matter of repetition dashes, to which some reference has already been made in paragraph 59 upon the author-entry, and no better advice can be given to the young cataloguer than that to avoid repetition dashes wherever possible, and, at most, only use them in one of the following instances:

Illustrations of the second form are

and of the third form:

but most cataloguers are dispensing with this form, as the indent under the heading is sufficient to denote that all the entries belong to such heading. If it is used, a second dash will occasionally be needed in cases similar to this:

Nothing is lost by avoiding this dash under headings, and some find that the indent alone, even under author’s names, is so clear that the dash can be altogether discarded, and that this will be no disadvantage the following typical and genuine examples of what has been sarcastically called the “dot and dash system” of cataloguing will show:

These are quite as absurd in their way as that from a recent index to publishers’ catalogues, viz.:

and attention is drawn to them simply for the purpose of showing how ridiculous such entries can be made, and that they are more hindrance than help to the users of a catalogue needs no further demonstration. Therefore it can be confidently recommended to the cataloguer to make a very limited use of these dashes, in all cases of doubt it being much better to repeat the word. The eleven dashes under “Workshop” above are unnecessary, and the proper form of entry is:

103.—The mode of setting-out the contents of books of a miscellaneous or collective character has been referred to in sections 61-62 and it has been pointed out that frequently an essay or article is more useful—even more valuable—than a whole book, as it may give the pith of the matter it deals with, and be sufficiently full for the needs of most people. Under these circumstances, it is most desirable that not only shall each subject-heading in a catalogue have all the books in the library set out under it, but also portions of books, within reasonable limits. How far these limits are to extend is a nice question, and it is certainly one that demands the consideration of English librarians, with a view to co-operation in the production of a work upon the lines of the “A. L. A.” Index: an index to general literature, by Wm. I. Fletcher, with the coöperation of many librarians (Boston, 1893), to fill the place for this class of literature that Poole’s and other indexes do for periodical literature. The “A.L.A. Index” is distinctly American, and does not fit in so well with the collections in English libraries, though its value cannot be gainsaid. Pending the settlement of this question librarians must do what they can to open up for the use of their readers the valuable material hidden away in volumes of essays and others of a miscellaneous character. All the rules previously laid down for cataloguing come into application in dealing with books of this kind, because they sometimes consist of sections by a number of authors upon one subject, or of many authors upon many subjects, or by a single author on many subjects. The method usually employed of completely carrying out this indexing is shown in the following series of examples:

The sixth, seventh, and eighth entries are in title form, upon the presumption that the library will have no other items upon these persons or books by them. The remainder are headings, because the probability is that there will be other books by or upon these authors.

There are alternative methods of treating books of this nature. It has already been said that the list of contents can be omitted under the principal entry, and thereby effect a slight saving. It would also be quite possible to give only the title of the whole book under the subject-heading, omitting the title of the particular essay or article, as

The fact that the entry is given under Hugo would show that there was something in the book about him, but not that it concerned his romances only. There is also the reverse process of giving simply the title of the essay, as

The disadvantage of this form is that it would be taken for a whole book instead of an essay, but this difficulty could be got over by inserting the explanatory word “essay,” as

There is also the cross-reference form, like

which is the least desirable because it is vague and also extravagant so far as space is concerned.

The next illustration is

The fact that these essays are principally reviews of books necessitates a consideration of their interest in this respect as well as that which attaches to their value as contributions to the subjects, and after examination it will be found that the essays are best placed under “Dryden,” “Symonds, J. A.”; “Chesterfield”; “Theobald, Lewis”; and “Menander,” in this manner:

If it were thought necessary to give the second and fourth essays under “Shakespeare” also, they could be amalgamated into one entry in this form:

A further book of the kind is

The word “contents” may be changed to “contains” or “containing,” or even omitted altogether, as the position or style of type would sufficiently indicate that the list was that of the contents. Due regard being paid to the exact subject of each of the essays, the entries would be given under “Sonnet” (title-entry); “Germ, The”; “Hunt, Leigh”; “Pope, Alex.”; “Buchanan, Robert”; “Hawker, Robert S.”

104.—It must be clearly understood that while there is a certain option in indexing the contents of books like the above, there is none whatever in dealing with collected works. That a library happens to possess say the set of the Ashburton edition of Carlyle’s Works does not imply that they are sufficiently entered if set out under “Carlyle,” and therefore they must be fully catalogued in precisely the same manner as if each book had been purchased separately in various editions. Under the author’s name they would be entered as shown in the Hawthorne illustration (section 63), and each book dealt with upon the lines already laid down, as for example

105.—There is a well understood though not formulated rule, that the contents of the great classical works do not require indexing, and upon this principle a work, say upon “Hamlet,” would simply be entered under “Shakespeare,” and not even a cross-reference is needed from “Hamlet.” So with the ancient classics. The Iliad or Odyssey, the Æneid, or the Agamemnon are not usually entered in any other place than under Homer, Virgil, and Æschylus respectively. This rule would also be extended according to the nature of the library. One that had a particular collection say of editions of More’s Utopia would not require any entry under Utopia further than a cross-reference to More, where all the editions would be set out with every necessary particular.

106.—The remarks made in section 103 upon the need for a co-operative index to essays and the like also applies to the need, which is probably not so much felt, for an index to plays, and further indexes might even be looked for to volumes of sermons arranged under subjects and texts. More pressing still is the want of an index to the many portraits contained in books.

107.—The difference between the dictionary and classified forms of catalogues already referred to in sections 8 and 9 may be further demonstrated by taking the two well-known railway guides, “Bradshaw” and the “A.B.C.,” in illustration. Both guides have merits of their own, yet are very unlike. The “A.B.C.” will show by ready reference and without any previous study of its arrangement, the times of departure for and arrival at a particular railway station, but it does not show the stoppages at intervening stations on the journey, or supply the exhaustive information that “Bradshaw” does. But before “Bradshaw” can be satisfactorily used its arrangement and order must be studied, and so it is with the classified catalogue. Its arrangement, that is the system of classification adopted, must first be understood, and then the order of sub-division of the classes must be ascertained before it can be properly used, unless such division happens to be alphabetical rather than natural or logical. Having mastered the classification and arrangement, the user of the classified catalogue has the advantage of an exhaustive list of a whole class of literature, then of a particular subject in the aggregate and afterwards in detail, and with all its collateral subjects brought together. That at least is the theory of its compilation. This form has the further advantage, already alluded to, of economy in production, as a book seldom calls for more than a single entry other than a reference in the index, whereas the number of entries to each book in a dictionary catalogue is seldom less than three.

Again a classed catalogue can be issued in sections, a class or more at the same time, and in large or small editions of each section, according to the demand for them. To be of any real service the dictionary catalogue must be published complete, as if issued in instalments it is of no value until completed because each section is not complete in itself as a class-list is.

Having said so much for the classed catalogue, it may be pointed out that the whole of the books contained in a library by a particular author cannot be ascertained by it without some trouble, unless it has a brief-title author-index as shown in section 112, nor can the books upon a stated country, say China, be found together in one place, those upon the religions of China would not be grouped with those upon its social customs, those upon its natural history would not be with either of these, and a book dealing with all of these together, inclusive of a description of the country, would be in a separate place.

108.—The arguments for and against the two styles of catalogue being carefully weighed, more especially from the point of view of general usefulness to the public concerned, and with due regard to cost of production, and choice having been made of the classified form of catalogue, the cataloguer will first decide upon the scheme of classification to be adopted, presuming that the library in hand is not already classified or its system of main classes is unsatisfactory for cataloguing purposes. This having been accomplished by means of Brown’s Manual of Library Classification, which summarises all the various systems, the author-entry is made upon the general principles already laid down in Chapters III. to VII. of the present work which are all equally applicable.

A line or two must be left at the top of the slip on which the entry is written for the purpose of marking the classification, division, and sub-division either by their names or by numbers, if the scheme adopted has a numerical notation. Supposing for example the book is

the slip or card would be marked as follows on the right hand top corner, as being the most convenient for sorting,

or if the well-known Dewey Classification[2] is used, the number 745 would be written in the same place, signifying the class “Fine Arts,” the division “Drawing, Decoration, Design,” and the sub-division or definite subject, “Ornamental design.”

Under Brown’s Adjustable Classification,[3] the entry would be marked C 76, denoting the class, “Fine Arts,” the division “Decoration,” and the sub-division “General practice and examples.” In the dictionary catalogue this book would be entered under “Ward” and “Ornament.”

Another example is

This would be marked “Literature,” division “English Literature,” sub-division “Poetry,” and left for more detailed sub-division when it comes to be arranged with kindred works at the time of preparation for the press. The Dewey number would be 821.08 or according to Brown’s method of marking J 12.

A further illustration is

This would be marked “Theology” or “Religion,” division “Bible,” sub-division “Christ”; the Dewey number being 232.9, and that in Brown’s notation E168.

109.—The next illustration is one of some difficulty, inasmuch as it can be placed in three classes:

Having regard to the series in which the book appears, it cannot very well be placed under “Natural History,” nor is there much contained in it that appeals to the scientific naturalist, though a reference from the division “Game birds” in that class would be most desirable. As the pheasant has first to be shot before it can be cooked, and there are many more pages devoted to the shooting than to the cooking, the book is placed among sporting books: class “Fine Arts,” division “Recreative Arts,” sub-division “Field Sports,” further division “Shooting.” The Dewey number is accordingly 799, and the Brown mark C632.

In the dictionary catalogue a book like

is readily dealt with, as it is simply entered under “Apodidæ” for the subject. In the classified catalogue, however, it must be worked out to its full limits, as class “Science,” section “Natural History,” division “Zoology,” sub-division “Arthropoda” or “Articulata,” lesser division “Crustacea.” The Dewey number is 595.3, and the Brown notation is A152.

Upon a like principle, a book upon a very different subject, viz.,

is treated in the same manner. The class is “History,” the division “Europe,” sub-division “British Isles,” further division “England,” and lesser division “London”; the Dewey number being 942.1, and that of Brown is F742. This arrangement is upon the presumption that the book is written from the historical and topographical standpoint. It is, however, written as much from the architectural point of view, and the heading might be entirely different; as then the class would be “Fine Arts,” the division “Architecture,” and the sub-division “Ecclesiastical Architecture,” with a further section devoted to “Monographs.” This is one of those books of a composite character that can be very suitably placed in two classes, so far as the catalogue is concerned, as against shelf arrangement.

Even in cataloguing it is unusual and not easy to split up into classes and sub-divisions those books of a miscellaneous character, as volumes of essays, which are “indexed” section by section in the dictionary catalogue. These, therefore, are brought together in one place, unless the whole or the greater number of the essays or sections are upon a particular subject, when they are placed in their proper class. Though there may be no division of the contents of miscellaneous books, as distinct from collected works, this in no wise obviates the necessity for setting out in full the contents of such books in the entry under the main class. Apart from the little difficulty and it not being customary, there is no very sufficient reason why these contents should not be split up in classified cataloguing and inserted in the proper classes throughout, even as they would be treated to subject-entries in the dictionary catalogue; indeed, fairly looked at, it is the only right method of procedure to adopt.

The under-mentioned books are grouped together because they are all comprised in the single class of “History” under the Dewey classification. By the Brown method “Biography and Correspondence” is separated from “History and Geography” and made into another class, though it is often very difficult to find the dividing line between history and biography in the lives of monarchs and other historical memoirs. The classes and divisions are given to each item in the form which it is advised that the catalogue slips should be marked for sorting until the time arrives for them to be prepared for printing.

If the Dewey or Brown classifications were in use, instead of marking with class and subject headings as above, the entry would simply be marked 919 or F1356.

110.—As already pointed out, the principal difficulty with classified catalogues, more especially if the classification is extended to its fullest limits, is that persons using the catalogue must familiarise themselves with its arrangement before they can make an adequate use of it. Thus to find a book upon Russia, the geographical order has to be thought out, and to find a life of Sterne it must first be remembered that as he was an author he will come into the literary division of biography, or if a life of William Penn is wanted, it must be found out whether it is placed in the biography of religion or of history according to the point of view from which it is regarded.

Mr. Brown’s system removes some of these difficulties, as he for the most part arranges his countries alphabetically under continents, and his biographies of individuals altogether alphabetically by the subjects. In some recent classified catalogues this idea has been carried further, and all continents and countries of the world arranged in one alphabet, as Abyssinia, Afghanistan, Africa, Algeria, Asia, and so on with such suitable sub-division under each as may be called for. This alphabetical arrangement has also been carried out under the main divisions of the classes “Fine Arts” and “Useful Arts,” and it certainly facilitates reference, though it must be admitted that it breaks away from the important principle of giving a complete view of a subject in all its bearings, first generally, then in particular down to its finest limits. This principle may very well be waived in dealing with individual biography, and in such case the form of entry would be reversed, as

By the Dewey system works of fiction fall into place under languages, epochs, and authors in the main class “Literature” as they should, but most libraries have to make a separate class for this kind of literature. This has been allowed for in the Brown Adjustable Classification, the arrangement being alphabetically by authors with a separate section of books for juveniles, this being further divided for books specially written for boys and again for books for girls. These two main divisions of works of fiction (i.e. novels) and story books for children will be found sufficient in cataloguing, the entries being alphabetically by authors. The dictionary principle of a title-entry may be added with advantage, and the titles given either in separate alphabetical order or more conveniently in their place in the same alphabet with the author-entries, of course keeping all the entries together in their particular class.

111.—The more elaborate the classification in a classified catalogue the more need there is for an adequate index to authors and subjects. The index may be a simple reference under the author’s name to the page upon which the entry is to be found, as

but this necessitates a hunt from page to page, and almost from line to line on each page if the author has written a number of books which appear in different parts of the catalogue. For example, this is the index-entry to a catalogue so indexed:

The only method of obviating this is to give a brief title of each book, just sufficient to identify it, and while it must be admitted this method takes up some space, yet it is worth it. The following is the form referred to:

The same difficulty would not arise in indexing subjects because the whole subject would be grouped in one place or almost so, and reference to the page or pages would be easy enough. An example of this subject-index entry taken from the same catalogue is

With the Dewey and Brown notations the indexing would be by class and topic number, and not by pages, as

Irrespective of the system of classification made use of each separate section of a class could be numbered consecutively for indexing purposes (as this present book is) and unless the sections were unusually large, reference would thereby be much simpler and more direct than by the page.

If the section or class of prose fiction were arranged under authors alphabetically, there would be no occasion to include the authors of that section in the index, and a mere general statement at the commencement of the index, pointing to the fact that they were not so included would meet the case. Upon a similar principle it would hardly be necessary to index the subjects of individual biography if they were arranged alphabetically as suggested, though it must be remembered that many of these would appear in the index as authors.

It is customary to keep the author and subject-indexes separate, sometimes printing one at the beginning and the other at the end of the catalogue. There does not seem to be any important reason for adopting this course, and both indexes might very well be amalgamated, and so add one feature of the dictionary form to the classified catalogue, besides it would be easier to refer to. In no case should a summary of the classification adopted, showing the order of its arrangement, be omitted, and this is better placed at the beginning than at the end where the index will be.

The index entries can be made, if desired, at the time of writing the main entry for the catalogue, when a smaller-sized slip should be used for them; but it is found convenient to compile the index from the printer’s proofs as the work passes through the press. With the Dewey and Brown numbering there is no occasion to wait until the work is so far advanced, and the index can be as easily compiled before any portion of the “copy” is sent to the printer as when it is in type.

112.—It may be necessary to add that the main entries of a classified catalogue are arranged by class and topic names or numbers, as shown in the examples, and not by authors, as in the dictionary catalogue, though the authors of books coming together under a single definite topic would be arranged alphabetically as a matter of course.

113.—On the face of it, it seems a simple affair to arrange slips in alphabetical order—“as easy as a, b, c”—but, judging by the mistakes made, and the small number of persons who when put to it can alphabetise properly, it is not so simple as it appears. The arrangement is, of course, to be according to the English alphabet, and irrespective of the language of the entries, I and J and U and V to be kept apart as distinct letters, and then by each separate word.

One of the first principles is to arrange all entries leading off with the same word in accordance with what is understood as precedence and importance of entry, viz., (1) author and other personal names; (2) subject names; (3) titles of books; as, for example:

It has already been shown that initial letters precede all words with the same initial, and under the same rule all names with a particular initial for the Christian name are placed before those with the Christian name in full, as

Where there are a number of persons of the same surname and initial in the catalogue it is as well, for the sake of clearness, to try and find out the full name for which the initial stands and give it. When this cannot be done it is very important to take care and not attribute books by different authors to one, or by an individual to different authors. These are mistakes much more commonly made than might be supposed.

Monarchs, as authors or as subjects, having similar names are arranged in chronological order, but with British sovereigns leading, as

These would be followed by persons with a single name, as

and then by other persons with William as a surname, arranged in order alphabetically by their Christian names or initials. When titles are used and appear in the name, as Lord, Lady, Sir, Rev., Dr., they are ignored and not allowed to affect the arrangement in the least, not even if it happens that there is no other means of distinguishing a person, and if the Christian name cannot be ascertained such a name would be placed before that of all others of the same name and treated in precisely the same way as if the surname only were known and no title existed, as

If two noblemen of the same title have the same Christian name they should be placed in order of succession with their order shown, as

and parents and children with similar names are arranged according to seniority, like

It is sometimes recommended to place distinctions of this nature with the surname, as

but this is not a very happy form.

Names of a person in different forms must not be alphabetised under those forms, but one selected and all concentrated under it, as it would be foolish to have separate entries under say Shakspere, Shakespeare, Shakspear, Shakspeare, though the variety in the name can be shown in the different entries under the form adopted.

114.—It has already been shown that different editions of the same work are to be arranged in order of publication as far as possible, and that editions in the language of the original are placed before translations, and complete works before parts or selections. These would in turn be followed by works upon the author as subject, i.e., biographical and critical, when there is no occasion to repeat his name as a subject-heading, as the repeat dash may be omitted to show that he is not the author of a book upon himself, a mistake that is not likely to be made by the dullest person if the name of the author of the book upon the author in question leads off, thus

This order of arrangement may be tabulated in full in this way:—

As already stated in section 52, names with prefixes are taken as part of the name, and arranged accordingly. If the prefix is abbreviated as M’, or Mc, or St., it is placed in order as if spelled out Mac or Saint. This does not imply that the name must be so altered in the catalogue, and refers to the order only. Names like Müller should be arranged as Muller, taking care that other entries are not under Mueller, but this is a matter that can be best dealt with according to the circumstances of the case, as, for instance, Goethe should be so alphabetised, and not as Göthe. Diphthongs are alphabetised as separate letters.

115.—Abbreviated words in title-entries are also treated as if given in full, and consequently “Dr. Thorne” and “Mr. Isaacs” do not come immediately before “Drab” and “Mud,” but with “Doctor” and “Mister” respectively. It need hardly be said that “Mrs. Bligh” or any other Mrs. is not alphabetised in either the abbreviated or colloquial form, but as “Mistress,” and therefore does not come between “Mozley” and “Muddock.” Other abbreviated words are arranged upon the same plan. “Fo’c’s’le yarns” appearing as “Forecastle,” though the exception to this rule is found in other elisions contained in such entries, as

which are alphabetised as here shown, and not under “It,” “between,” or “Who is.”

Compound words, whether divided by a hyphen or printed as one word, are arranged to follow the single word, after this fashion:

When numerals lead off in a title-entry they are alphabetised as if written or printed in words; thus

are put in order as, “One million,” “Ninety-seventh,” and “Two hundred” respectively.

116.—It is necessary to repeat the instructions to ignore the articles “A,” “An” and “The” in alphabetical arrangement, when they lead in a title or are transposed for alphabetical purposes, but not otherwise. In the middle of a title they must be reckoned with, and therefore “Under a strange mask” comes before “Under Drake’s flag,” and “Mr. and Mrs. Faulconbridge” before “Mr. Baker’s money.” The possessive is to be treated as spelled, and so “Miners and their works” comes before “Miner’s right, The,” and “Boys’ and Girls’ Book of Games” comes between “Boys’ adventures” and “Boys and I.”

Sometimes entries upon quite different subjects, which are spelled alike are, in the work of sorting, inadvertently amalgamated under a single heading, and so books like “The Great Seals of England” by Wyon; “Seals of the British Seas” by Southwell; and “Catalogue of seals in the British Museum” by Birch, are brought together to the confusion of the naturalist or the antiquarian. Fortunately there are not many such subjects, or the rule-of-thumb mechanical cataloguer would oftener create laughter than he now does.

Occasionally it will be found advisable to ignore the alphabetical order of the titles of the books under an author’s name, as in the case where a number of books with varying titles are intended to be read in a particular order when it is of more advantage to so arrange them than to adhere to the alphabetical order. A note should be added, stating that the arrangement is according to sequence.

117.—The slips being sorted into alphabetical order if a dictionary catalogue, or into classes and divisions if a classified catalogue, are to be laid down on sheets of paper to send to the printer. These sheets of paper should be thin, tough, and uniform in size, but the colour and quality is of little importance and brown or cheap printing paper will do. The slips are first prepared by cutting away any part of the entry not to be printed, as the author’s name from the second and subsequent entries under his name, and in the same way cutting off the subject-heading from those slips where there are more entries than one under the subject. This is better than laying all down, and then afterwards marking out what is not to be printed. The sheets of paper should be first pasted all over, the slips laid upon them in order, usually in two columns, and then all pressed over. A little marginal space should be left for the insertion of additional entries.

If the entries are written upon cards, and it is wished to avoid the work of laying them down on sheets of paper, the names and headings not to be printed should be scored through, and the cards strung together in batches of a hundred or so by means of the hole usually perforated in them, numbering them through from beginning to end for order and safety. If the “copy” consists of the printed pages of a former catalogue with new additions to be inserted, the page should first be laid down on the sheet and the new entries below, these being numbered consecutively on each sheet separately with a corresponding number marked upon the page at the exact place where the new entry goes. Should there be a comparatively large number of such insertions, it is a much safer plan and fairer to the printer to cut up the printed page and place the additional entries in their correct order before laying them down on the sheet of paper.

118.—The sheets as they are got ready must be consecutively numbered throughout with a bold figure on the right hand top corner, and before sending them to the printer they should be finally looked through for revision. This is the most convenient time for marking the “copy,” for variations in type. The marking is usually as follows:

Before the catalogue can be sent to be printed, its form must be decided upon as to the size of pages, quality and colour of paper, the types to be used, and the style of binding, and these being settled, a specification must be prepared to guide the printer in his work, or to obtain tenders upon if the work of printing is open to competition, as is most usual with all work done for public bodies. Personal preferences govern many matters in connection with the “get up” of a catalogue, though in most instances there is a limit imposed by the necessity for economy in cost of printing, just as there so often is for economy of compilation. The styles ordinarily adopted in the catalogues of the lending departments of the rate-supported libraries may be referred to.

119.—The most economical and commonest form is royal octavo in size, printed with two columns on the page in brevier type, with the subject-headings in a heavier type, and notes and list of contents in nonpareil. Sometimes the authors’ names in the principal entry are printed in capitals and small capitals, and this serves very well for distinctive purposes. Occasionally a catalogue is seen in which the subject-headings are in capitals and the authors’ names printed in heavier type, with the result that the authors are too prominent and the subjects not prominent enough. If the authors’ names in all entries are printed in blacker type and the shelf or other finding numbers as well, the appearance is greatly marred, the page having a spotted look most unrestful to the eye, and the purpose for which the heavy type is adopted is defeated. Altogether it will be found that the heavier type to be effective must be used sparingly, and as subject-headings are much less numerous than authors’ names, the most dignified and satisfactory page is obtained by the use of heavier type for the headings rather than for the authors’ names. While this refers mainly to the dictionary catalogue, it is also the best style to adopt for the classified catalogue. All type used should be as plain as possible, either old or modern-faced, without fancy letters, and the heavier type should be similar in style and size to that used in the body of the catalogue. When two sizes of type are used for distinctive purposes, it is customary to pass over a size in order that the distinction may be clearer, thus if the body type were long primer, the contents and notes should be set in brevier and not bourgeois, and nonpareil should be used with brevier, and not minion. The following specimens of types will be found useful, especially as it shows the line space occupied by each size:

SIZES OF TYPE.

120.—Another style of catalogue often seen is demy octavo in size, printed across the page in long primer with “Clarendon” or “De Vinne” subject-headings and brevier notes and contents. This is a very effective form for a class-list or for the first catalogue of a new library, as it has the advantage of giving an imposing appearance to the catalogue, no matter how poor the collection of books is. Of course it is much easier to read and altogether gives a better page, but it adds considerably to the bulk and cost of the catalogue, besides giving the printer more “fat,” as the white or unprinted portions of the page are called. This style is preferable for the reference library, where the size of the catalogue is unimportant, as it has not to be carried about.

There are variations from these sizes and types ranging from a super royal octavo and crown quarto down to duodecimo, with type from small pica to nonpareil. The number of copies in the edition depends upon the number or probable number of purchasers of the catalogue during a given term of years, local circumstances alone deciding in this matter.

121.—Before sending out a specification for printing estimates, it is a safer, more satisfactory, and fairer plan to all concerned to have a specimen page set up, containing in it all the types to be used in something near their proportionate quantities. The cost of such a page is trifling, but the librarian then knows precisely what he is asking for and what to expect, and the printer better understands what he is tending for. All other points it is thought are included in the following illustrative specification, which is not taken from that of any particular library, but embodies concisely what are considered to be the best features of several specifications.

122.—The printer and price having been fixed a supply of “copy” is sent and in due time proofs in “galley,” i.e. in long columns before the matter is “broken up” into pages, are received. The first proofs will not comprise the title-page, preface, and other preliminary pages, which are invariably printed last though first in order when the work is completed, and therefore the copy for this part of the catalogue need not be sent to the printer until the work is nearing its completion. The manuscript or other “copy” will be returned with the proofs and should be carefully and clearly read aloud by some qualified person to the cataloguer, who will correct the proofs by marking the corrections on the margin. When the proofs in hand have been so read over, it is advisable for the cataloguer to again read them carefully through apart from the copy before returning to the printer, as it is a much simpler matter to correct in galley than in page. At this point any additions to be inserted must be given, as they cannot be added to proofs in page without very great trouble, entailing the upsetting of work done, and consequently delay. The proofs after being fully corrected, will be returned by the printer with a clean proof (or “revise” as a proof after correction is termed) in page when all the corrections marked on the galley must be compared with the entries or the revise, to see that they have been properly attended to. At this time the headings, catch words, and numbering of the pages must be checked, and when the entries under a subject-heading have been divided by the end of a page or column the repeated headings upon the next column or page must be carefully examined. When books under an author’s name are so divided, his name should be repeated in the same way at the top of the next column or page.

These being attended to, the whole sheet should again be read through before finally sending it to press, and even with the care already expended, it is remarkable how many mistakes will then be discovered for the first time. If the corrections in page are somewhat numerous, or if any doubt exists as to their receiving proper attention, or a particular correction is one of some moment, it is as well to have another “pull” of the sheet when corrected, and make quite certain before marking it to “go to press.”

123.—In correcting proofs there are other mistakes to look for besides the misspelling, misplacing, or omission of words. It is of the utmost importance that the numbers or other marks whereby the books are asked for or found should be as correct as possible, as mistakes of this kind lead to vexation both on the part of the readers and officials. Attention is also required to the proper dividing of words in turning over lines, the use of letters of the right fount of type as others get sorted in, and if not changed mar the look of the page when printed, the removal of broken letters, the correct guage for indents and parts “standing clear,” the removal of quadrats or space pieces, so that they do not stand up in evidence on the printed page, and other items of this nature. The column of catalogue matter given in Appendix D has most of the errors usually made upon it with the signs used in correcting it, and is accompanied by explanations of them. The corrections are to be marked in the margins as shown in the specimen, and not upon the printed matter, else they will be overlooked. The same page as corrected is given.

If after due attention to all these details the cataloguer is enabled to produce a work free from blemish of compilation or printing he may heartily congratulate himself, though the public who use the library having such a catalogue will even then not fully appreciate the care and anxiety expended on it, and will soon after prove this by asking when “a new one will be out.”