Part 7

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

(_b._) _Choice between person and country._

94. Put under the name of a king or other ruler all his biographies, and works purporting to be histories of his reign; but enter under the country all histories which include more than his reign and accounts of events which happened during the reign, and all political pamphlets not directly criticising his conduct.

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

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

(_c._) _Choice between event and country._

95. Events[37] or periods[38] in the history of a country which have a proper name may be entered under that name with a reference from the country; those whose name is common to many countries[39] should be entered under the country.

[note] 37. St. Bartholomew’s day.[/note]

[note] 38. Fronde.[/note]

[note] 39. Revolution; Restoration; Civil war.[/note]

{48}

(_d._) _Choice between subject (or form) and country._

96. The only satisfactory method is double entry under the local and the scientific subject—to put, for instance, a work on the geology of California under both «California» and «Geology», and to carry out this practice through the catalogue, so that the geographical student shall not be obliged to search for works on California under «Botany», «Geology», «Natural history», «Palæontology», «Zoölogy», and a dozen similar headings, and the scientist shall not be sent to «California», «England», «Russia», and a score of other places to find the various treatises on geology. But as this profusion of entry would make the catalogue very long, we are generally obliged to choose between country and scientific subject.

97. A work treating of a general subject with special reference to a place is to be entered under the place, with merely a reference from the subject.

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

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

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

(_e._) _Between subjects that overlap._

98. Among subjects that overlap choose the one that preponderates, with a reference from the other.

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

(ii.) CHOICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT NAMES.

99. General rules, always applicable, for the choice of names of subjects can no more be given than rules without exception in grammar. Usage in both cases is the supreme arbiter,—the usage, in the present case, not of the cataloguer but of the public in speaking of subjects.

(_f._) _Language._

100. When possible let the heading be in English, but a foreign word may be used when no English word expresses the subject of a book.

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

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

(_g._) _Synonyms._

101. Of two exactly synonymous names choose one and make a reference from the other.

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

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

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

In choosing between synonymous headings prefer the one that—

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

(_b_) is most used in other catalogues.

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

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

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

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

102. In choosing between two names not exactly synonymous, consider whether there is difference enough to require separate entry; if not, treat them as synonymous.

_Ex._ «Culture» and «Civilization», «Culture» and «Education».

103. Of two subjects exactly opposite choose one and refer from the other.

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

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

(_h._) _Subject-word and subject._

104. Enter books under the word which best expresses their subject, whether it occurs in the title or not.

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

(_i._) _Homonyms._

105. Carefully separate the entries on different subjects bearing the same name, or take some other heading in place of one of the homonyms.

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

(_j._) _Compound subject-names._

106. The name of a subject may be—

(_a_) A single word, as «Botany», «Ethics».

Or several words taken together, either—

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

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

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

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

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

There are three main courses open:

(1) We can consider the subject to be the phrase _as it reads_, as «Agricultural chemistry», «Survival of the fittest», which is the only possible method in (_a_) and undoubtedly the best method in (_c_), (_e_), and (_f_), and in most cases of proper names, as «Democratic Party», «White Mountains», «Missouri River» (but see § 26).

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

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

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

[note] 40. This rule is proposed by Mr. Schwartz and carried out, with some exceptions, in his catalogue of the New York Apprentices’ Library.[/note]

[note] 41. Which would be much like putting Williams’s “Shakespeare’s Youth” under «Youthful» Shakespeare. Individuals should not be divided.[/note]

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

107. Enter a compound subject-name by its first word, inverting the phrase only when some other word is decidedly more significant or is often used alone with the same meaning as the whole name.

_Ex._ «Special providences» and «Providence», «Proper names» and «Names».

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

Works on the would hardly be looked for under Alimentary canal Canal. Dangerous classes Classes. Digestive organs Organs. Dispensing power Power. Domestic economy Economy. Ecclesiastical polity Polity. Final causes Causes. Gastric juice Juice. Laboring classes Classes. Military art Art. Parliamentary practice Practice. Political economy Economy. Solar system System. Suspended animation Animation. Zodiacal light Light.

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

«Smith», John, «Smith», Joseph, «Smith», William,

seems to me to be arranged on the same principle as

«History», Ancient, «History», Ecclesiastical, «History», Modern, «History», Sacred.”[43]

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

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