Part 8

It ought also to be noticed that this plan does not escape all the difficulties of the others. In reducing, for instance, Intellectual philosophy or Moral philosophy, will you say Mind or Intellect, Morals or Ethics? And the reader will not always know what the equivalent noun is,—that Physics = Natural Philosophy, for example, and Hygiene = Sanitary science. Nor does it help us at all to decide whether to prefer Botanical morphology or Morphological botany. These difficulties, which beset any rule, are only mentioned here lest too much should be expected from a plan which at first sight seems to solve all problems.

The practice of reducing a name to the substantive form is often a good one; but should not be insisted upon as an invariable rule, as it might lead to the adoption of some very out-of-the-way names. As a mere matter of form Nebulæ is to be preferred for a heading to Nebular hypothesis, Pantheism to Pantheistic theory, Lyceums to Lyceum system, etc. {54}

In (_b_), (_c_), and (_d_) the same subject can often be named in different ways; as,

(_b_) «Capital punishment.» «Floral fertilization.» (_c_) «Death penalty.» «Flower fertilization.» (_d_) «Penalty of death.» «Fertilization of flowers.»

Is there any principle upon which the choice between these three can be made, so that the cataloguer shall always enter books on the same subject under the same heading? I see none. When there is any decided usage (_i. e._, custom of the public to designate the subjects by one of the names rather than by the others) let it be followed; that is to say, if, in the examples given above, the more customary phrases are «Capital punishment», «Fertilization of flowers», then we must use those names, preferring in the first case the name which begins with an adjective to its equivalent beginning with a noun, and in the other the name beginning with a noun to its equivalent beginning with an adjective. As is often the case in language, usage will be found not to follow any uniform course.

If usage manifests no preference for either name, we can not employ the two indifferently; we must choose one; and some slight guide to choice in certain cases may perhaps be found. On examination of the phrases above, it appears that they are not all of the same composition. In «Comparative anatomy», «Capital punishment», the noun is the name of a general subject, one of whose subdivisions is indicated by the adjective. And Capital, Comparative have only this limiting power; they do not imply any general subject. But «Ancient history», «Mediæval history», etc., may be viewed not only in this way (History the class, Ancient history and Mediæval history the subdivisions) but also as equivalent to «Antiquity»: _History_, «Middle Ages»: _History_ (as we say «Europe»: «History»), in which case the adjectives (Ancient, Mediæval) imply a subject and the noun (History) indicates the aspect in which the subject is viewed. Here, then, we choose «Ancient» and «Mediæval» as the heading, on the principle of § 68. So in (_b_) and (_c_) each of the nouns in turn may be considered as expressing the more general idea and the other as limiting it; _e. g._, we can have various headings for Death considered in different lights, among others as a penalty; and we can have headings of various sorts of penalties, among others death. It is evident that this collection of penalties taken together makes up a class, and therefore this belongs to a style of entry which the dictionary catalogue is expected to avoid; but the series of headings beginning with the word Death would not make a class, being merely different aspects of the same thing, not different subordinate parts of the same subject.

When an adjective implies the name of a place, as in «French literature», «German philosophy», «Greek art», it is most convenient on the whole to make the subject a division under the country. In this way all that relates to a country is brought together and arranged in one alphabetical series of subjects under its name (see § 258). It is not of the slightest importance that this introduces the _appearance_ of an alphabetico-classed catalogue, so long as the main object of a dictionary, ready reference, is attained. Of course «Hebrew language», «Latin language», «Latin literature», and «Punic language» can not be so treated; it is the custom and is probably best not to put «English language» and «English literature» under «England», as they have extended far beyond the place of their origin; books on the language spoken in the United States go with those on the English language except the few on «Americanisms», which are separated, like accounts of any other dialect. Our literature can not be treated satisfactorily. It is never called United States literature, and no one would expect to find it under United States. On the other hand the name American properly should include Canadian literature and all the Spanish literature of South America. It is, however, the best name we have.

[note] 42. But if analogies are to have any weight, why should we follow that of names of persons, which are inverted, more than that of names of places, which are not? We do not say «Mountains», White; «Regions», Antarctic; «Sea», Red; why should we say «Anatomy», Comparative; «Arts», fine; «System», Brunonian?—C.[/note]

[note] 43. Schwartz, slightly altered.[/note]

[note] 44. This is on the supposition that Morbid Anatomy has been considered by the cataloguer not to be a distinct subject, entitled to a name of its own.[/note]

(_k._) _Double entry._

108. It is plain that almost every book will appear several times in the catalogue:

Under author, if he is known. Under first word of title, if the book is anonymous or the title is memorable. {55} Under each distinct subject. Under form-heading in many cases. Under many other headings by way of cross-reference.

And this is necessary if the various objects enumerated on p. 8 are to be attained quickly. But inasmuch as the extent and therefore the cost of the catalogue increases in direct proportion with the multiplication of entries, it becomes worth while to inquire whether some of these can not be dispensed with by devices which will suit the inquirer as well or nearly as well. Such economies are mentioned in §§ 93–97, 113, 114.

109. Enter a polytopical book under each distinct subject.

_Ex._ “An art journey in «Italy» and «Greece»;” “The history of «France» and «England» compared;” “Handbook of «drawing» and «engraving».”

But some of the subjects may be omitted if their treatment is so slight that it is not worth while to take any notice of them, which is occasionally the case even when they are mentioned on the title-page. Sometimes an analytical can take the place of a full entry for the less important topics. The points to be considered are; (1) Would this book be of any use to one who is looking up this subject? (2) Is the entry or reference necessary as a subject-word entry or reference (that is, to one who is looking for this book)?

Some books are polytopical which do not appear to be so at first sight. A collection of portraits of Germans, for example, has the subject «Germans», and so far as it has any artistic value might be quoted as one of the illustrative works under the subject «Portrait painting» or «Portrait engraving».[45] If the biographical interest were all, the general collections would be put under «Portraits» and the national collections (as “American portrait gallery,” “Zwei Hundert Bildnisse deutscher Männer”) under countries, with references from the general heading to the various countries, as directed in § 97. If the artistic interest were alone considered, the general titles would be put under «Portraits», and collections by painters or engravers of particular schools would be put under the names of the schools; which would amount to nearly the same arrangement as the previous.

So in regard to «Hymns»; there are three sources of interest, the devotional, the literary (which would lead to national subdivision), and the denominational; a similar treatment would place general collections under «Hymns», collections in any language under the national heading, with either double entry under the name of the denomination or a reference from that to the national heading, specifying which of the collections there enumerated belong to the denomination. But the devotional interest so decidedly preponderates that it has been customary to collect everything under the form-heading «Hymns».

In Full, almanacs will have form-entry under «Almanacs» and subject-entry under the district about which they give information.

Sometimes if an ordinary reference be made from one subject to another the title referred to can not easily be found. A reference from «Architecture» to «Spain». _Architecture_, is convenient, but a reference to the same heading from «Gothic architecture» is not, because it obliges the inquirer to look through the whole list of Spanish architecture to find perhaps one title on the Gothic. In like manner there would be few entries of works on vases under most countries, so that no division _Vases_ would be made, and the inquirer must search for his book among a number of titles on _Art_. And if the reference were made the other way—from the country to «Vases»—the inquirer would be in the same plight. There is no need, however, of double entry. If merely the name of the particular author or authors referred to under any subject be inserted in the reference, the whole difficulty vanishes.

_Ex._ «Gothic architecture.» [Various titles.] _See also_ «Spain»; _Architecture_ (STREET).

It is to be noted that herein Short has a great advantage; it does not lose so much {56} by double entry and can afford to make it in many cases where Medium must for economy put the reader to some trouble. The notes, too, in such catalogues as the Quincy or the Boston Public history-list afford a convenient way of briefly inserting considerable double entry where it is thought expedient without any apparent inconsistency.

[note] 45. It also belongs to the class «Portraits», but that is in the Form-catalogue, not the Subject-catalogue.[/note]

110. If a book purports to treat of several subjects, which together make the whole or a great part of one more general, it may be put either under each of the special subjects, or under the general subject, and in the latter case it may or may not have analytical references from the specific subjects, according as the treatises are more or less distinct and more or less important.

_E. g._, “A treatise on anatomy, physiology, pathology, and therapeutics,” which might be put under each of those four headings, ought rather to be entered under «Medicine», in which case, if the separate parts are by different authors, analyticals might very well be made under the four headings; and at any rate an analytical under the first would occasionally be useful as equivalent to a subject-word reference.

111. When a considerable number of books might all be entered under the same two or more headings, entry under one will be sufficient, with a reference from the others.

On the other hand, if in printing it were noticed that under any subject only one or two titles were covered by the cross-references to countries (as from «Sculpture» to «Greece», «Italy», «Denmark»), it may be thought that double entry under nation and subject would be preferable. A man is provoked if he turns to another part of the catalogue to find there only one title. However, it should be remembered that one or two titles repeated under each of many subjects will amount to a considerable number in the whole. The want of uniformity produced by this mixture of reference and double entry is of less importance.

112. When there are many editions of a book, it is allowable to merely refer under the subject to the author-entry. In a college library, for instance, the full entry of all the editions of the classics under their appropriate subjects (as of the Georgics under «Agriculture», of Thucydides under «Greek history», and Polybius under «Roman history») would be a waste of room; it is enough to mention the best edition and refer for other editions and translations to the author’s name.

(_l._) _Miscellaneous rules and examples._

113. Trials relating to a vessel should be put under its name; Short would make no other entry. Exploring expeditious or voyages in a named vessel should have at least a reference from the name.

_Ex._ «Jeune Eugénie.» MASON, W. P. Report. Boston, 1822. 8º. «Herald», _H. M. S._, Voyage of the. _See_ «Seemann», B.

114. A civil action is to be entered under that party to it who is first named on the title-page, with a reference from the other.

In Short (and in Medium and Full, if the report is anonymous) this will be the only entry,—unless the case illustrates some subject, in which case entry or reference under that will be needed. Patent cases furnish the most common examples of subject-entry {57} of trials, but everyone will remember trials in which points of ecclesiastical law, of medical jurisprudence, etc., have been so fully discussed as to compel reference from those subjects.

115. Enter “Review of,” “Remarks on,” “Comments on” under the author reviewed (as a combined subject and subject-word entry), and, if worth while, under the subject of the book reviewed.

116. The distinction between «Bibliography» and «Literary history» is, with reference to the books on those subjects, a distinction of more or less; the two classes of books run into each other and it is hard to draw the line between them.

117. Any theological library will probably contain books which treat—

(1) of the four last things, death, judgment, heaven, and hell. (2) of the nature of the life after death, a much more extensive question than (1). (3) whether there is any future life, without regard to its nature. (4) of the retribution after death for the good and for the evil deeds done in this life. (5) whether there is any retribution for evil in a future life. (6) what is its nature. (7) how long does it last.

Here are seven questions on nearly the same subject-matter, and there are six names for them. (It will be found, by the way, that although there are some books treating of each separately, many of the works overlap as the subjects do, and that the titles are no guide whatever to the contents of the books.) Two main courses are open to the cataloguer:

1st. To make one heading, as «Future life», cover the whole, with subdivisions. In this way the catalogue becomes classed to a certain extent. No matter, if that is on the whole the more convenient arrangement;

2d. More consistently, to make four headings: «Eschatology» (covering the 1st question, four last things, with references to each of them), «Future life» (its nature, including retribution both for good and evil, 2d and 4th questions), «Future punishment» (existence, nature, duration, and so including universalism, with references to Purgatory and Hell, covering the 5th, 6th, and 7th questions), «Immortality» (is there any? 3d question).

(b.) ENTRIES CONSIDERED AS PARTS OF A WHOLE.

118. The systematic catalogue undertakes to exhibit a scientific arrangement of the books in a library in the belief that it will thus best aid those who would pursue any extensive or thorough study. The dictionary catalogue sets out with another object and a different method, but having attained that object—facility of reference—is at liberty to try to secure some of the advantages of classification and system in its own way. Its subject-entries, individual, general, limited, extensive, thrown together without any logical arrangement, in most absurd proximity—«Abscess» followed by «Absenteeism» and that by «Absolution», «Club-foot» next to «Clubs», and «Communion» to «Communism», while «Christianity» and «Theology», «Bibliography» and «Literary history» are separated by half the length of the catalogue—are a mass of utterly disconnected particles without any relation to one another, each useful in itself but only by itself. But by a well-devised net-work of cross-references the mob becomes an army, of which each part is capable of assisting many other parts. The effective force of the catalogue is immensely increased. {58}

119. Make references from general subjects to their various subordinate subjects and also to coördinate and illustrative subjects.

Cross-references should be made by Full from «Classes» of persons (Merchants, Lawyers, Artists, Quakers, etc.) to individuals belonging to those classes; from «Cities» to persons connected with them by birth or residence, or at least to those who have taken part in the municipal affairs or rendered the city illustrious; from «Countries» to their colonies, provinces, counties, cities, etc. (unless their number is so great or the divisions are so well known that reference is useless); also, under the division _History_ to rulers and statesmen, under _Literature_ to authors, under _Art_ to artists, and so on; from other «Subjects» to all their parts, and to the names of persons distinguished for discoveries in them or knowledge of them. Short and Medium will make such of these references as seem most likely to be useful.

The construction of this system may be carried on simultaneously with the ordinary cataloguing of the library, each book as it goes through the cataloguer’s hands not merely receiving its author- and subject-entries, but also suggesting the appropriate cross-reference; but when all the books are catalogued the system will not be complete. References are needed not merely to the specific from the general but to the general from the more general and to that from the most general. There must be a pyramid of references, and this can be made only by a final revision after the completion of the cataloguing. The best method is to draw off in a single column a list of all the subject-headings that have been made, to write opposite them their including classes in a second column and the including classes of these in a third column; then to write these classes as headings to cards and under them the subjects that stood respectively opposite to them in the list, to arrange the cards alphabetically, verify the references, and supplement them by thinking of all likely subordinate headings and ascertaining whether they are in the catalogue, and also by considering what an inquirer would like to be told or reminded of if he were looking up the subject under consideration. In this way a reasonably complete list may be made.

It will, however, often happen that there is no entry under the including subject. Take a simple instance. The catalogue, we will suppose, contains twenty histories of towns belonging to seven counties in Connecticut. In the revision described above references have been made both from Connecticut _to_ these counties and to the towns _from_ the counties, but only three of the counties have any titles under them. The others would not make their appearance in the catalogue at all if there were no cross-references. And as this will happen continually, it follows that the system will very greatly increase the number of headings and therefore the length of the catalogue. Such fullness may be allowable in regard to the state which contains the library, which, of course, should be treated with exceptional completeness. It may possibly be worth while for all the States of the Union and for England, but to attempt to do the same for all countries and all subjects is too much. A modification of the plan must be introduced which will make it much less complete but still useful. With many subjects the next heading in the ascending series must be skipped, and the references massed under one still higher; in the supposed case, for example, the references to all the towns will be made under Connecticut and under those counties alone which have any other entry under them.

120. Make references occasionally from specific to general subjects.

Of course much information about limited topics is to be found in more general works; the very best description of a single plant or of a family of plants may perhaps be contained in a botanical encyclopædia. This fact, however, must be impressed upon the inquirer in the preface of the catalogue or in a printed card giving directions for its use; it is out of the question to make all possible references of the ascending kind. From «Cathedrals», for example, one would naturally refer to «Christian art» and to «Ecclesiastical architecture», because works on those subjects will contain more or less on cathedrals. But so will histories of architecture and {59} histories of English, French, German, or Spanish architecture; so will travels in England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. And anyone who desired to take an absolutely complete survey of the subject, or who was willing to spend unlimited time in getting information on some detail, would have to consult such books. Yet the cataloguer may very excusably not think of referring to those subjects, or if he thinks of it may deem the connection too remote to justify reference, and that he should be overloading the catalogue with what would be generally useless.

There are many things that are seldom used, and then perhaps but for an instant, and yet their existence is justified because when wanted they are indispensable, or because they make useful what is otherwise useless: a policy of insurance, life-preservers in a steamer, the index of a book, large parts of the catalogue of a library, among others the cross-references. Of such a nature, but much less useful, more easily dispensed with, is a

121. Synoptical table of subjects.

I mention its possibility here; I do not advise its construction, because there is little chance that the result would compensate for the immense labor.

IV. FORM-ENTRY.

National entry has already been discussed under SUBJECTS (§ 97).

122. Make a form-entry for collections of works in any form of literature.

In the catalogues of libraries consisting chiefly of English books, if it is thought most convenient to make form-entries under the headings «Poetry», «Drama», «Fiction», it may be done, because for those libraries Poetry is synonymous with English poetry, and so on; but if a library has any considerable number of books in foreign languages the national classification should be strictly followed; that is to say, entries should be made under «English drama», «English fiction», «English poetry», «Latin poetry», etc.; only those collections of plays, novels, poems that include specimens of several literatures being put under «Drama», «Fiction», «Poetry». Or the English plays, novels, poems, etc., may be entered under Drama, Fiction, Poetry, etc., and the dramatic works, etc., of foreign literatures under the names of the several literatures.