Part 9

The rule above confines itself to collections. It would be convenient to have full lists of the single works in the library in all the various kinds of literature, and when space can be afforded they ought to be given; if there is not room for them, references must be made under these headings to the names of all the single authors; an unsatisfactory substitute, it is true, but better than entire omission. Note, however, that there is much less need of these lists in libraries which give their frequenters access to the shelves than where such access is denied, so that borrowers must depend entirely on the catalogue. In the case of English fiction a form-list is of such constant use that nearly all libraries have separate fiction catalogues.

It has been objected that such lists of novels, plays, etc., do not suit the genius of the dictionary catalogue. The objection is of no importance if true; if such lists are useful they ought to be given. There is nothing in the dictionary plan which makes them hard to use if inserted. But the objection is not well founded. Under the names of certain subjects we give lists of the authors who have treated of those subjects; under the names of certain kinds of literature we give lists of the authors who have written books in those forms; the cases are parallel. The divisions of fiction, it must be understood, are not the authors who have written novels but the different kinds of novels which they have written; they are either such varieties as “Historical fiction,” “Sea stories,” “Religious novels,” or such as “English fiction,” “French fiction.” The first divisions we do not make for single works because it would be very difficult to do so and of little use; but if there were collections in those classes we should certainly introduce such headings. The second division (by language) is made as it is in Poetry and Drama, both for single works and collections. {60}

There is no reason but want of room why only collections should be entered under form-headings. The first entries of collections were merely title-entries, and Mr. Crestadoro is the only person who has thought that plays, etc., deserve two title-entries, one from the first word, the other from what we might call the form-word. It is not uninteresting to watch the steps by which the fully organized quadruple syndetic dictionary catalogue is gradually developing from the simple subject-word index.

123. Make a form-entry for single works in the rarer literatures, as Japanese, or Kalmuc, or Cherokee.

References can be substituted, if necessary.

124. Make a form-entry of encyclopædias, indexes, and works of similar practical form, the general ones under the headings «Encyclopædias», etc., the special ones in groups under their appropriate subjects.

Thus an agricultural dictionary will not be entered under «Dictionaries», but under «Agriculture», in a little division _Dictionaries_. Now and then some one asks for “a grammar,” “the dictionary.” It does not follow that it would be well to jumble together, under a form-heading, «Grammars» or «Dictionaries», all grammars and lexicons in all languages. Those who inquire so vaguely must be made to state their wishes more definitely. The cataloguer does his part if he inserts a note under such headings explanatory of the practice of the catalogue; as

«Grammar.» [First a list of works on general grammar, then]

_Note._ For grammars of any language, see the name of the language.

V. ANALYSIS.

125. Enter in full every work, forming a part of a set, which fills a whole volume or several volumes.

_Ex._ «Colombo», C. Select letters rel. to his four voyages to the New World; tr. and ed. by R. H. Major. London, 1847. 8º. (Vol. 2 of the Hakluyt Soc.)

126. Enter analytically, that is without imprint—

_a._ Every work, forming part of a set, which has a separate title-page and paging, but forms only part of a volume of the set.

_Ex._ «Fairholt», F. W. The civic garland; songs from London pageants, with introd. and notes. (_In_ «Percy Society», v. 19. 1845.)

Full must and Medium may make a full entry in this case also. That is to say, Full will draw the line at a separate title-page, Short and perhaps Medium at filling a volume. Those catalogues which give no imprints at all and those which give no imprints under subjects will of course give none for analyticals.

_b._ Every work which, though not separately paged or not having a title-page, has been published separately, whether before or since its publication in the work under treatment.

_Ex._ «Dickens», C. J. F. Little Dorrit. (_In_ «Harper’s» mag., v. 12–15, 1855–57.)

_c._ Under _author_, (1) every separate article or treatise over [46] pages in length; (2) treatises of noted authors; (3) noted works even if by authors otherwise obscure. {61}

_d._ Under _subject_ treatises important either (1) as containing the origin of a science or a controversy or developing new views, or (2) as treating the subject ably or giving important information, or (3) for length.

Absolute uniformity is unattainable; probably no one will be able to draw the line always at the same height. It is most desirable—and fortunately easiest—to make analysis when the subject is well marked, as of biographies or histories of towns, or monographs on any subject. General treatises or vague essays are much harder to classify and much less valuable for analysis. In analyzing collections of essays original articles should be brought out in preference to reviews, which are commonly not worth touching (except in a very full catalogue) either under the author of the work reviewed or under its subject. Of course exception may be made for famous reviews or for good reviews of famous works. A work giving a careful literary estimate of an author may be an exception to this remark; reviews of the “Works” of any author are most likely to contain such an estimate. Many reviews, like Macaulay’s, are important for their treatment of the subject and not worth noticing under the book reviewed, which is merely a pretext for the article.

_e._ Make analytical _title_-references for stories in a collection when they are likely to be inquired for separately.

[note] 46. This limit must be determined by each library for itself, with the understanding that there may be occasional exceptions.[/note]

127. Make analyticals for the second and subsequent authors of a book written (_but not conjointly_) by several authors. (See § 4.)

Sometimes it is better to give full entry under two headings than to make the second analytical. _Ex._ A “Short account of the application to Parliament by the merchants of London, with the substance of the evidence as summed up by Mr. Glover,” is to be entered under «London». _Merchants_, as first author, but as Glover’s part is two-thirds of the whole, it should also be entered under him, the entry in each case being made full enough not to mislead.

128. In analyticals it is well to give the date of the book referred to and also, though less necessary, to state the pages which contain the article. Many readers will not notice these details, but they will do no one any harm and will assist the careful student.

STYLE.

CATALOGUE.

A. HEADINGS.

Type, 130–134. Italics, 131. Pseud., 135, 136. Ed., 137. Family name, 138. Christian name, 139, 140. To distinguish authors of the same name, 139–144. To distinguish subject headings, 145. Dashes, 146. References, 147.

B. TITLES.

Order, 148, 149. Abridgment, 150–160. Articles, 151, 152. Unnecessary words, 153, 153½. Dates, 154. Initials, 155. Abbreviations, 156. Numbers, 157. Position, 158. “Same,” 159. Words to be retained, 160–164. Analyticals, 164. Exact copying, 165. Language, 167, 168. {62} Translations, 168, 169. Transposition of the article, 170. Anon., 171–173. Lord, Gen., ed., 174. Transliteration, 175.

C. EDITIONS, 176, 177.

D. IMPRINTS.

The parts of an imprint and their order, 178. Transliteration, 179. Abbreviations, 180. Two or more places, 181, 182. Publisher’s name, 183. Colophon, 184. Dates, 185–194. Number of volumes, 195. Typographical form, 196. Maps, 197.

E. CONTENTS, 198–200, AND NOTES, 201.

F. REFERENCES, 202, 203.

FF. LANGUAGE, 204.

G. CAPITALS, 205, 206.

H. PUNCTUATION, ACCENTS, BRACKETS AND PARENTHESES, ITALICS, _etc._, 207–212.

I. ARRANGEMENT.

Order of the English alphabet, 213. Headings, 214–239. Person, place, title, subject, form, 214. Forenames, 215, 216. M’, _etc._, 217. Family names nearly alike, 218. Family names the same, 219. Forenames the same, 220. Forenames not generally used, 221, 222. Forenames changed, 223. Titles, Sees, 224. Possessive case, 225. Greek and Latin names, 226. Compound names, 227–232. Pseudonyms, 233. Incomplete names, 234. Signs, 235. Every word regarded, 236. Abbreviations, 237. Titles, 240–252. Under an author, 240–248. Editions, 242, 243. Numerals, 244. Translations, 245. Biographies, etc., 246. Criticisms, 247. Analyticals, 248, 249. Under countries, 250–252. Synopsis, 252. Bible, 252. Contents, 253. Subjects, 254–258. Homonyms, 254. Topical arrangement, 255. Chronological arrangement, 256. Cross-references, 257. Divisions, 258.

J. ETC.

Supplement, 259. An economy, 260. Incunabula and other rare books, 261.

VI. STYLE.

129. Uniformity for its own sake is of very little account; for the sake of intelligibility, to prevent perplexity and misunderstanding, it is worth something. And it is well to be uniform, merely to avoid the question, “Why were you not consistent?” {63}

A. HEADINGS.

130. Print headings in some marked type.

Either heavy-faced (best, if it can be had not too black), small capitals (handsome), or italics (least pleasing); never capitals (ugly and hard to read). Christian names should be in ordinary type; to make them like the heading is confusing, to have a special type for them would be extravagant.

131. Italicize titles of honor and similar distinguishing words.

_Earl_, _Mrs._, _Rev._, _of Paris_, _Alexandrinus_, etc., also the name of a country or state following the name of a town, as Wilton, _N. H._, Cambridge, _Eng._ ☞ These words are to be italicized only in the headings and not in the title. They are italicized in the heading to distinguish the name and bring it out clearly; there is no need of such distinction in titles. Do not print «Badeau», _Gen._ A. Life of _Gen._ Grant. If the heading is italicized, the words _Mrs._, _Earl_, etc., must be distinguished from it in some other way.

132. Print the headings of all the four kinds of entry (author, title, subject, form) in the same kind of type.

In some indexes a distinction is made between persons and places or between authors and subjects, but in a catalogue varieties of type must be reserved for more important distinctions. The Catalogue of the Library of the Interior Department uses a heavy-faced title type for authors and a light-faced antique for other entries, with very satisfactory effect; but such typographical luxuries are not within general reach.

133. Print the whole of an author-, title-, or form-heading in the special type; also an alternative family name and the family name of the second of joint authors, if both authors are put into the heading (§ 240), and the family names of British noblemen.

_Ex._ «Cervantes Saavedra», «Varnhagen von Ense», «Cape of Good Hope», «Bicknell & Goodhue», «American Antiquarian Society», «Comparative anatomy», «Political economy»; «Chasteillon» (_Lat._ «Castalio» _or_ «Castellio»), S.; «Craik», G. L., _and_ «Knight», C.; «Manchester», W. Drogo «Montagu», _7th Duke of_.

134. Print the first word of a title-entry in the special type.

_Ex._ «Rough» diamond. But compound words, whether hyphened or not, should be printed wholly in the heading type; as, «Out of door» amusements. London, 1864. 8º. This is merely for looks; the kind of type has nothing to do with the arrangement.

135. Add _pseud._ to the heading for all sorts of false names of whatever origin.

So much is necessary to prevent mistake on the part of the public; but it is a waste of time for the cataloguer to rack his brains to discover which of the ingenious names invented by Pierquin de Gembloux (cryptonym, geonym, phrenonym, etc.) is applicable to each case; for the only result is that readers are puzzled. A list of these terms may be found in the Notice of Quérard by Olphar Hamst [_i. e._, R. Thomas], London, 1867.

The unauthorized assumption of any name should be indicated by such phrases as _called_, _calling himself_, _dit_, _soi disant_, _se dicente_ or _che si dice_, _que se dice_ or _se dicendiose_, _genannt_, _genoemd_, etc.

136. When an author uses a single pseudonym add it to his name, unless the entry is made under the pseudonym; when the pseudonym is used only in one work, and different ones in other works, include it in that title, followed by [_pseud._].

_Ex._ «Clemens», S. C. (_pseud._ Mark «Twain»).

«Godwin», Wm. The looking-glass; by T. Marcliffe [_pseud._]. {64}

137. Add _ed._ to the heading when it is needed to show that a book is merely put together, not written, by the author in hand.

The title usually shows this fact clearly enough without _ed._ Short would omit to note the fact, and in Full, perhaps even in Medium, it is better to state it in the title than in the heading. The distinction, after all, is rarely of practical value.

138. Repeat the family name for each person.

_Ex._ «Smith», Caleb. Sermon. «Smith», Charles. Address. «Smith», Conrad. Narrative. not «Smith», Caleb. Sermon. — , Charles. Address. — , Conrad. Narrative.

139. Distinguish authors whose family name is the same by giving the forename in full or by initials.

In a card catalogue the names should always be given in full; in printing, initials are often used to save room; but the saving is small, and the advantages of full names are so considerable that any cataloguer who is relieved from the necessity of the greatest possible compression ought to give them. For the more common forenames fullness can be combined with economy by the use of the colon abbreviations (C: = Charles, etc. See Appendix V.) Under subjects it is rare that two persons of even the same family name come together and initials are sufficient; but here also the colon initials should be used. An exception may well be made in the case of men always known by a double name; as, Sydney Smith or Bayard Taylor. Nobody talks of Smith or Taylor. «Taylor», B., conveys no idea whatever to most readers. «Taylor», Bayard, they know. When one name alone is usual, as Gladstone, Shakespeare, and when both forms are used, as Dickens and Charles Dickens, initials will suffice. Of course there can be no uniformity in such practice, but there will be utility, which is better.

Forenames used by the author in a diminutive or otherwise varied form may be given in that form.

_Ex._ «Carleton», Will; «McLean», Sally; «Reuter», Fritz.

140. Mark in some way those forenames which are usually omitted by the author, and neglect them in the arrangement.

_Ex._ «Collins», (Wm.) Wilkie; «Gérard», (Cécile) Jules (Basile). This is of practical use. The consulter running over the Collinses is puzzled by the unusual name unless some generally accepted sign shows him that it is unusual. He does not quickly recognize Charles Dickens in «Dickens», Charles John Huffam; or Leigh Hunt in «Hunt», James Henry Leigh; or Max Müller in «Müller», Friedrich Max. Besides, the eye finds the well-known name more quickly if the others are, as it were, pushed aside. The most common methods of distinction are inclosure in parentheses and spacing: «Guizot», (François Pierre) Guillaume, or «Guizot», F r a n ç o i s P i e r r e Guillaume. The latter is objectionable as unusual, as taking too much room, and as making emphatic the very part of the name which one wants to hide. I prefer the style, «Dickens», Charles (_in full_ C: J: Huffam). _See_ § 221. But in those catalogues in which all Christian names are inclosed in parentheses, some other sign must of course be used to mark the less usual names.

141. Distinguish authors whose family and forenames are the same by the dates of their birth and death, or, if these are not known, by some other label.

_Ex._ _Bp._, _C. E._, _Capt._, _Col._, _D.D._, _F.R.S._, etc., always to be printed in italics.

In a manuscript catalogue, in preparing which of course one never knows how many new names may be added, such titles should be given to every name. In {65} printing, if room is an object, they may be omitted except when needed for the distinction of synonymous authors. Note, however, that many persons are commonly known and spoken of by a title rather than by their first name, and it is a convenience for the man who is looking, for instance, for the life of Gen. Greene, whose Christian name he does not know, to see at once, as he runs his eye over the list of Greenes, which are generals, without having to read all the titles of books written by or about the Greenes in order to identify him. For the same reason _Mrs._ should always be given with the name of a married woman, whether the forename which follows is her own or her husband’s; even when the following form is adopted, “«Hall», _Mrs._ Anna Maria (Fielding), _wife of_ S. C.,” which is always to be done when in her titles she uses her husband’s initials. In this case a reference should be made from «Hall», _Mrs._ S. C., to «Hall», _Mrs._ «A. M.», and so in similar cases. If forenames are represented under subjects by their initials, it is well to give _Miss_ or _Mrs._ with the names of female authors. The reader who would like to read a book by Miss Cobbe on a certain subject may not feel sure that «Cobbe, F. P.», is «Miss» Cobbe.

As late as 1760 unmarried women were usually styled _Mrs._; as, Mrs. Lepel, Mrs. Woffington, Mrs. Blount, and among writers Mrs. Hannah More. There is no objection to following this practice in cataloguing, as the object of the cataloguer is not to furnish biographical information but to identify the people catalogued.

142. Titles of Englishwomen are to be treated by the following rules:[47]

In the matter of titles an Englishwoman in marrying has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If she marries above her own rank she takes her husband’s title in exchange for her own, if below her own rank she keeps her own title.

_Titles of married women._

_a._ The wife of a peer takes her husband’s style.

That is, she is Baroness, Viscountess, Marchioness, etc. In cataloguing, say «Brassey», Annie (Allnutt), Baroness; not «Brassey», Annie (Allnutt), _Lady_.

_b._ The wife of a knight or baronet is Lady. Whether this title precedes or follows her forename depends upon whether she had a title before her marriage.

That is, if Lady Mary Smith marries Sir John Brown (either knight or baronet), she is Lady Mary Brown, also if Hon. Mary Smith marries Sir John Brown (knight or baronet) she is Lady Mary Brown; but if Miss Mary Smith marries Sir John Brown (knight or baronet), she becomes Mary, Lady Brown.

_c._ A maid of honor retains her Hon. after marriage, unless, of course, it is merged into a higher title.

Thus, if she marries a baronet she is the Hon^{ble} Lady Brown, if a peer the Lady So and So, in either case as though she had been a peer’s daughter.

_d._ The wife of an earl’s (or higher peer’s) younger son is never the Hon^{ble} Lady; if she used the Lady before marriage in her own right she does not, of course, add anything by such marriage, but the wife of a younger son of a lower peer than an earl is Hon^{ble} Mrs. (not Lady)—the younger children of all peers using, of course, the family name, with or without their forenames, according to their rank. {66}

_e._ If the lady to whom the title Hon. belongs in virtue of her father’s rank marries a commoner, she retains her title, becoming Hon. Lady, if she marries a knight or baronet; and Hon. Mrs., if her husband has no title.

None of these courtesy titles are inherited by the children of those who bear them, the third generation of even the highest peer being simply commoners unless raised in rank by marriage or merit.

_Titles of unmarried women._

_f._ The title Lady belongs to daughters of all noblemen not lower than earl.

_g._ The title Hon. belongs to daughters of viscounts and barons; also to an untitled woman who becomes maid of honor to the Queen, and this title is retained after she leaves the service. If a woman who has the title Lady becomes maid of honor she does not acquire the title Hon.

[note] 47. Prepared by Miss May Seymour and Mr. F. Wells Williams (_Lib. jnl._, 13: 321, 361).[/note]

143. Distinctive epithets to be in the same language as the name.

_Ex._ _Kniaz_, _Fürst von_, _Freiherr zu_, _duc de Magenta_, _Bishop of Lincoln_, _évêque de Meaux_; but _Emperor of Germany_, _King of France_, not _Kaiser_ and _roi_, because names of sovereign princes are given in English. Treat in the same way patronymics habitually joined with a person’s name; as, «Clemens» _Alexandrinus_.

144. Prefixes (_i. e._, titles which in speaking come before the name), as, _Hon._, _Mrs._, _Rev._, etc., should be placed before the Christian name (as «Smith», _Capt._ John), and suffixes as _Jr._, _D.D._, _LL.D._, after it (as «Channing», James Ellery, _D.D._).

Hereditary titles generally follow the Christian name, as «Derby», Thomas «Stanley», 1_st_ _Earl of_; but British courtesy titles (_i. e._, those given to the younger sons of dukes and marquesses) precede, as «Wellesley», _Lord_ Charles (2d son of the Duke of Wellington). In other languages than English, French, and German the title usually precedes the forename; as, «Alfieri», _Conte_ Vittorio. Occasionally a French nobleman uniformly places his title before his forenames; as, «Gasparin», _Comte_ Agénor de.

_Lord_ should be replaced by the exact title in the names of English noblemen, _e. g._, Lord Macaulay should be entered as «Macaulay», 1_st_ _Baron_. _Lord_ in the title of Scotch judges follows the family name; as, «Kames», H. «Home», _afterwards Lord_.

The title Baronet is given in the form «Scott», _Sir_ Walter, _Bart_.

Patronymic phrases, as _of Dedham_, follow all the names; but they must immediately follow the family name when they are always used in close connection with it, as «Girault» _de St. Farjeau_, Eusèbe; similarly _aîné_, _fils_, _jeune_, as «Dumas» _fils_, Alexandre; «Didot» _fils_, Ambroise. Latin appellatives should not in general be separated from their nouns by a comma; as, «Cæsar» _Heisterbacensis_.

145. Distinguish two subject-headings which are spelled alike by italicized phrases in parentheses.

Ex. «Calculus» (_in mathematics_). «Calculus» (_in medicine_).

146. Medium avoids the repetition of the heading with all titles after the first by using a dash. Short usually employs indention.

Indention takes as much room as the dash and is much less clear. There should always be at least a hair-space between the end of the dash and the next letter; indeed that is the rule of all good printing. Under a subject the repetition of the {67} author’s name is indicated by a second dash.[48] (The repetition of the title is shown by the word _Same_.)

«Cobbett», Wm. Emigrant’s guide. — A little plain English. London, 1795. 8º. — _Same_. Phila., 1795. 8º. — Porcupine’s works.

«Atheism». Beecher, L. Lectures, _etc_. — Bentley, R. Confutation of A. — – Folly of A. and deism. — – Matter and motion. — – Fotherby, M. Atheomastix.

[note] 48. After trying several experiments I have settled upon the following as producing the best effect: