E-text prepared by MWS, RichardW, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)
Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file which includes the original illustrations. See 59215-h.htm or 59215-h.zip: (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/59215/pg59215-images.html) or (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59215/59215-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive. See https://archive.org/details/rulesfordictiona00cuttuoft
Transcriber’s note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (italics).
Text enclosed by angle quotation marks is in bold face («bold»).
A caret character is used to denote superscription. A single character following the caret is superscripted (example: 51^3). Multiple superscripted characters are enclosed by curly brackets (example: Hon^{ble}).
Original small capitals are now uppercase.
Original printed page numbers are shown enclosed by curly brackets (example: {52}).
Footnotes and other anchored notes have been relabeled 1–73, and moved from within paragraphs to nearby locations between paragraphs. In this text edition, each note is by [note] . . . [/note].
U. S. Bureau Of Education
Special Report On Public Libraries—Part II
RULES FOR A DICTIONARY CATALOGUE
by
CHARLES A. CUTTER
Librarian Of The Boston Athenæum
Third Edition With Corrections and Additions and an Alphabetical Index
Washington
Government Printing Office
1891
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, by Charles A. Cutter, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
{3}
PREFATORY NOTE.
There are plenty of treatises on classification, of which accounts may be found in Edwards’s Memoirs of Libraries and Petzholdt’s Bibliotheca Bibliographica. The classification of the St. Louis Public School Library Catalogue is briefly defended by W. T. Harris in the preface (which is reprinted, with some additions, from the Journal of Speculative Philosophy for 1870). Professor Abbot’s plan is explained in a pamphlet printed and in use at Harvard College Library, also in his “Statement respecting the New Catalogue” (part of the report of the examining committee of the library for 1863), and in the North American Review for January, 1869. The plan of Mr. Schwartz, librarian of the Apprentices’ Library, New York, is partially set forth in the preface to his catalogue; and a fuller explanation is preparing for publication. For an author-catalogue there are the famous 91 rules of the British Museum[1] (prefixed to the Catalogue of Printed Books, Vol. 1, 1841, or conveniently arranged in alphabetical order by Th. Nichols in his Handbook for Readers at the British Museum, 1866); Professor Jewett’s modification of them (Smithsonian Report on the Construction of Catalogues, 1852); Mr. F. B. Perkins’s further modification (in the American Publisher for 1869), and a chapter in the second volume of Edwards.[2] But for a dictionary-catalogue as a whole, and for most of its parts, there is no manual whatever. Nor have any of the above-mentioned works attempted to set forth the rules in a systematic way or to investigate what might be called the first principles of cataloguing. It is to be expected that a first attempt will be incomplete, and I shall be obliged to librarians for criticisms, objections, or new problems, with or without solutions. {4} With such assistance perhaps a second edition of these hints would deserve the title—Rules.[3]
[note] 1. Compiled by a committee of five, Panizzi, Th. Watts, J. Winter Jones, J. H. Parry, and E. Edwards, in several months of hard labor.[/note]
[note] 2. To these may now be added: Condensed rules for an author and title catalogue, prepared by the co-operation committee, A. L. A. (printed in the Appendix of the present Rules); F: B. Perkins’s San Francisco cataloguing (1884); C: Dziatzko’s Instruction für die Ordnung der Titel im alphabetischen Zettelkatalog der Univ. Bibliothek zu Breslau (1886), of which an adaptation by Mr. K. A: Linderfelt will shortly be published; Melvil Dewey’s Condensed rules for a card catalogue, with 36 sample cards (published in the Library notes, v. 1, no. 2, 1886, and reprinted as “Rules for author and classed catalogs;” with changes, additions, and a “Bibliography of catalog rules” by Mary Salome Cutler, Boston, 1888, and again as “Library School rules,” Boston, 1889); G. Fumagalli’s Cataloghi di biblioteche (1887); H: B. Wheatley’s How to catalogue a library (1889); and various discussions in the Library journal, the Neuer Anzeiger, and the Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen.[/note]
[note] 3. In this second edition I have retained the discussions of principles of the first edition and added others, because it seems to me to be quite as important to teach cataloguers the theory, so that they can catalogue independently of rules, as to accustom them to refer constantly to hard and fast rules. The index, which will be published separately, has been enlarged so as to form an alphabetical or “dictionary” arrangement of the rules.[/note]
{5}
CONTENTS.
PREFATORY NOTE • 3
CONTENTS • 5
GENERAL REMARKS • 7
OBJECTS • 8
MEANS • 8
REASONS FOR CHOICE AMONG METHODS • 8
DEFINITIONS (with a note on classification) • 8
ENTRY (Where to enter) • 15
I. AUTHOR-ENTRY • 15
CATALOGUE • 15
A. AUTHORS • 16
(a.) Personal • 17
(i.) Who is to be considered author • 17
(ii.) What part of the name is to be used • 20
(iii.) What form of the name is to be used • 24
(b.) Corporate • 27
B. SUBSTITUTES FOR AUTHORS • 33
C. REFERENCES • 35
D. ECONOMIES • 37
II. TITLE-ENTRY • 38
CATALOGUE • 38
TITLES • 38
III. SUBJECT-ENTRY • 45
CATALOGUE • 45
SUBJECTS • 46
(a.) Entries considered separately • 49
(i.) Choice between different subjects • 49
(ii.) Choice between different names • 49
(b.) Entries considered as parts of a whole • 57
IV. FORM-ENTRY • 59
V. ANALYSIS • 60
STYLE (How to enter) • 61
CATALOGUE • 61
VI. STYLE • 62
A. HEADINGS • 63
B. TITLES (Abridgment, etc.) • 67
C. EDITIONS • 73
D. IMPRINTS • 74
E. CONTENTS AND NOTES • 78
F. REFERENCES • 79
G. LANGUAGE • 80
H. CAPITALS • 80
I. PUNCTUATION, etc. • 81
J. ARRANGEMENT • 83
(a.) Headings • 83
(b.) Titles • 88
(c.) Contents • 92
(d.) Subjects • 93
K. Etc. (Sets, Rare books, etc.) • 98
APPENDICES
I. Condensed Rules for an Author and Title Catalog.
A. American Library Association • 99
B. Library Association of the United Kingdom • 103
C. Bodleian • 104
D. Dewey’s Rules • 107
II. Transliteration.
A. American Library Association • 108
B. Sanskrit • 112
C. Semitic • 113
D. Russian • 114
III. Book sizes (American Library Association) • 115
IV. Alphabetical Order (Edmands) • 116
V. Abbreviations • 119
VI. Other Catalogues for Librarians • 126
VII. Bibliographical aids in cataloguing • 128
INDEX • 135
{7}
RULES
FOR A
DICTIONARY CATALOGUE.
No code of cataloguing could be adopted in all points by every one, because the libraries for study and the libraries for reading have different objects, and those which combine the two do so in different proportions. Again, the preparation of a catalogue must vary as it is to be manuscript or printed, and, if the latter, as it is to be merely an index to the library, giving in the shortest possible compass clues by which the public can find books, or is to attempt to furnish more information on various points, or finally is to be made with a certain regard to what may be called style. Without pretending to exactness, we may divide dictionary catalogues into short-title, medium-title, and full-title or bibliographic; typical examples of the three being, 1º, the Boston Mercantile (1869) or the Cincinnati Public (1871); 2º, the Boston Public (1861 and 1866), the Boston Athenæum (1874–82); 3º, the author-part of the Congress (1869) and the Surgeon-General’s (1872–74) or least abridged of any, the present card catalogue of the Boston Public Library. To avoid the constant repetition of such phrases as “the full catalogue of a large library” and “a concise finding list,” I shall use the three words Short, Medium, and Full as proper names, with the preliminary caution that the Short family are not all of the same size, that there is more than one Medium, and that Full may be Fuller and Fullest. Short, if single-columned, is generally a title-a-liner; if printed in double columns, it allows the title occasionally to exceed one line, but not, if possible, two; Medium does not limit itself in this way, but it seldom exceeds four lines, and gets many titles into a single line. Full usually fills three or four lines and often takes six or seven for a title.
The number of the following rules is not owing to any complexity of system, but to the number of cases to which a few simple principles have to be applied. They are especially designed for Medium, but may easily be adapted to Short by excision and marginal notes. The almost universal practice of printing the shelf-numbers or the class-numbers renders some of them unnecessary for town and city libraries. {8}
OBJECTS.[4]
1. To enable a person to find a book of which either
(A) the author,
(B) the title, or
(C) the subject is known.
2. To show what the library has
(D) by a given author
(E) on a given subject
(F) in a given kind of literature.
3. To assist in the choice of a book
(G) as to its edition (bibliographically). (H) as to its character (literary or topical).
MEANS.
1. Author-entry with the necessary references (for A and D). 2. Title-entry or title-reference (for B). 3. Subject-entry, cross-references, and classed subject-table (for C and E). 4. Form-entry[5] (for F). 5. Giving edition and imprint, with notes when necessary (for G). 6. Notes (for H).
[note] 4. Note to second edition. This statement of Objects and Means has been criticized; but as it has also been frequently quoted, usually without change or credit, in the prefaces of catalogues and elsewhere, I suppose it has on the whole been approved.[/note]
[note] 5. Here the whole is designated by its most important member. The full name would be form-and-language entry. Kind-entry would not suggest the right idea.[/note]
REASONS FOR CHOICE
among the several possible methods of attaining the OBJECTS.
Other things being equal, choose that entry
(1) That will probably be first looked under by the class of people who use the library;
(2) That is consistent with other entries, so that one principle can cover all;
(3) That will mass entries least in places where it is difficult to so arrange them that they can be readily found, as under names of nations and cities.
This applies very slightly to entries under first words, because it is easy and sufficient to arrange them by the alphabet.
DEFINITIONS.
There is such confusion in the use of terms in the various prefaces to catalogues—a confusion that at once springs from and leads to confusion of thought and practice—that it is worth while to propose a systematic nomenclature.
Analysis. See Reference, Analytical. {9}
Anonymous, published without the author’s name.
Strictly a book is not anonymous if the author’s name appears anywhere in it, but it is safest to treat it as anonymous if the author’s name does not appear in the title.
Note that the words are “in the title,” not “on the title-page.” Sometimes in Government publications the author’s name and the title of his work do not appear on the title-page but on a page immediately following. Such works are not anonymous.
Asyndetic, without cross-references. See Syndetic.
Author, in the narrower sense, is the person who writes a book; in a wider sense it may be applied to him who is the cause of the book’s existence by putting together the writings of several authors (usually called the editor, more properly to be called the collector). Bodies of men (societies, cities, legislative bodies, countries) are to be considered the authors of their memoirs, transactions, journals, debates, reports, etc.
Class, a collection of objects having characteristics in common.
Books are classified by bringing together those which have the same characteristics.[6] Of course any characteristics might be taken, as size, or binding, or publisher. But as nobody wants to know what books there are in the library in folio, or what quartos, or what books bound in russia or calf, or what published by John Smith, or by Brown, Jones, and Robinson, these bases of classification are left to the booksellers and auctioneers and trade sales. Still, in case of certain unusual or noted bindings, as human skin or Grolier’s, or early or famous publishers, as Aldus and Elzevir, a partial class-list is sometimes very properly made. But books are most commonly brought together in catalogues because they have the same authors, or the same subjects, or the same literary form, or are written in the same language, or were given by the same donor, or are designed for the same class of readers. When brought together because they are by the same author, they are not usually thought of as classified; they form the author-catalogue, and need no further mention here except in regard to arrangement. The classes, i. e., in this case the authors, might of course be further classified according to their nations, or their professions (as the subjects are in national or professional biographies), or by any other set of common characteristics, but for library purposes an alphabetical arrangement according to the spelling of their names is universally acknowledged to be the best.
The classification by language is not generally used in full. There are catalogues in which all the English books are separated from all the foreign; in others there are separate lists of French books or German books. The needs of each library must determine whether it is worth while to prepare such lists. It is undeniably useful in almost any library to make lists of the belles lettres in the different languages; which, though nominally a classification by language, is really a classification by literary form, the object being to bring together all the works with a certain national flavor—the French flavor, the German flavor, or it may be a classing by readers, the German books being catalogued together for a German population, the French for the French, and so on. Again, it is useful to give lists not of the belles lettres alone, but of all the works in the rarer languages, as the Bodleian and the British Museum have published separate lists of their Hebrew books. Here too the circumstances of each library must determine where it shall draw the line between those literatures which it will put by themselves and those which it will include and hide in the mass of its general catalogue. Note, however, that some of the difficulties of transliterating {10} names of modern Greek, Russian authors, etc., are removed by putting their original works in a separate catalogue, though translations still remain to puzzle us.
The catalogue by donors or original owners is usually partial (as those of the Dowse, Barton, Prince, and Ticknor libraries). The catalogues by classes of readers are also partial, hardly extending beyond «Juvenile literature» and «Sunday-school books». Of course many subject classes amount to the same thing, the class «Medicine» being especially useful to medical men, «Theology» to the theologians, and so on.
Classification by subject and classification by form are the most common. An example will best show the distinction between them. «Theology», which is itself a subject, is also a class, that is, it is extensive enough to have its parts, its chapters, so to speak (as «Future Life», «Holy Spirit», «Regeneration», «Sin», «Trinity»), treated separately, each when so treated (whether in books or only in thought) being itself a subject; all these together, inasmuch as they possess this in common, that they have to do with some part of the relations of God to man, form the class of subjects «Theology». Class, however, is applied to «Poetry» in a different sense. It then signifies not a collection of similar subjects, but a collection of books resembling one another in being composed in that form and with that spirit, whatever it is, which is called poetical. In the subject-catalogue class it is used in the first sense—collection of similar subjects; in the form-catalogue it is used in the second—list of similar books.
Most systems of classification are mixed, as the following analysis of one in actual use in a small library will show:
Art, science, and natural history. Subj. History and biography. Subj. Poetry. Form (literary). Encyclopædias and books of reference. Form (practical). Travels and adventures. Subj. (Has some similarity to a Form-class.) Railroads. Subj.
Fiction. Form. (Novels, a subdivision
of Fiction, is properly
a Form-class; but the
differentia of the more
extensive class Fiction
is not its form, but its
untruth; imaginary voyages
and the like of course
imitate the form of the
works which they parody.)
Relating to the rebellion. Subj.
Magazines. Form (practical).
General literature, essays, and
religious works. A mixture: 1. Hardly a class;
that is to say, it probably
is a collection of books
having only this in common,
that they will not fit into
any of the other classes; 2.
Form; 3. Subj.
Confining ourselves now to classification by subjects, the word can be used in three senses:
1. Bringing books together which treat of the same subject specifically.
That is, books which each treat of the whole of the subject and not of a part only.
2. Bringing books together which treat of similar subjects.
Or, to express the same thing differently:
Bringing subjects together so as to form a class.
A catalogue so made is called a classed catalogue.
3. Bringing classes together so as to form a system.
A catalogue so made should be called a systematic catalogue.
The three steps are then
1. Classifying the books to make subject-lists. 2. Classifying the subject-lists to make classes. 3. Classifying the classes to make a systematic catalogue.
The dictionary stops in its entries at the first stage, in its cross-references at the second.
The alphabetico-classed catalogue stops at the second stage.
The systematic alone advances to the third.
Classification in the first sense, it is plain, is the same as “entry;” in the second {11} sense it is the same as “class-entry;” and in the third sense it is the same as the “logical arrangement” of the table on p. 12, under “Classed catalogue.”
It is worth while to ascertain the relation of subject and class in the subject-catalogue. Subject is the matter on which the author is seeking to give or the reader to obtain information; Class is, as said above, a grouping of subjects which have characteristics in common. A little reflection will show that the words so used partially overlap,[7] the general subjects being classes[8] and the classes being subjects,[9] but the individual subjects[10] never being classes.
[note] 6. This note has little direct bearing on practice, but by its insertion here some one interested in the theory of cataloguing may be saved the trouble of going over the same ground.[/note]
[note] 7.
Form Subject General Individual Classes. Subjects.
[/note]
[note] 8. The subjects «Animals», «Horses», «Plants» are classes, a fact which is perhaps more evident to the eye if we use the terms «Zoology», «Hippology», «Botany». The subdivisions of «Botany» and «Zoology» are obvious enough; the subdivisions of «Hippology» may be themselves classes, as «Shetland ponies», «Arabian coursers», «Barbs», or individual horses, as «Lady Suffolk», «Justin Morgan».[/note]
[note] 9. Not merely the concrete classes, «Natural history», «Geography», «Herpetology», «History», «Ichthyology», «Mineralogy», but the abstract ones, «Mathematics», «Philosophy», are plainly subjects. The fact that some books treat of the subject Philosophy and others of philosophical subjects, and that others treat in a philosophical manner subjects not usually considered philosophical, introduces confusion into the matter, and single examples may be brought up in which it seems as if the classification expressed the form (Crestadoro’s “nature”) or something which a friend calls the “essence” of the book and not its subject, so that we ought to speak of an “essence catalogue” which might require some special treatment; but the distinction can not be maintained. It might be said, for example, that “Geology a proof of revelation” would have for its subject-matter «Geology» but for its class «Theology»—which is true, not because class and subject are incompatible but because this book has two subjects, the first «Geology», the second one of the evidences of revealed religion, wherefore, as the «Evidences» are a subdivision of «Theology», the book belongs under that as a subject-class.[/note]
[note] 10. It is plain enough that «Mt. Jefferson», «John Milton», the «Warrior Iron-clad» are not classes. Countries, however, which for most purposes it is convenient to consider as individual, are in certain aspects classes; when by the word “England” we mean “the English” it is the name of a class.[/note]
Class entry, registering a book under the name of its class; in the subject-catalogue used in contradistinction to specific entry.
E. g., a book on repentance has class entry under «Theology»; its specific entry would be under «Repentance».
Classed catalogues are made by class-entry, whether the classes so formed are arranged logically as in the Systematic kind or alphabetically as in the Alphabetico-classed.
A dictionary catalogue contains class-headings, inasmuch as it contains the headings of extensive subjects, but under them there is no class entry, only specific entry. The syndetic dictionary catalogue, however, recognizes their nature by its cross-references, which constitute it in a certain degree an alphabetico-classed (not a systematic) catalogue. Moreover, the dictionary catalogue, without ceasing to be one, might, if it were thought worth while (which it certainly is not), not merely give titles under specific headings but repeat them under certain classes or under all classes in ascending series, e. g., not merely have such headings as «Rose», «Geranium», «Fungi», «Liliaceæ», «Phænogamia», «Cryptogamia», but also under «Botany» include all the titles which appeared under «Rose», «Geranium», etc.; provided the headings «Botany», «Cryptogamia», «Fungi», etc., were arranged alphabetically. The matter may be tabulated thus:
Alphabetical arrangement.
Dictionary catalogue.
Specific entry. (Common dict. catal.)
Specific entry and class reference. (Bost. Pub. Lib., Boston Athenæum.)
Specific and class entry. (No example.)
Alphabetico-classed catalogue.
Class entry with specific or class subentry. (Noyes.)
Class entry with chiefly class subentry. (Abbot.) {12}
Logical arrangement.
Systematic catalogue.
Class entry. (Undivided classed catal.)
Class entry and subentry and finally specific subentry. (Subdivided
classed catal.)
Alphabetical arrangement. +──────────────────────+──────────────────────+ │ Specific headings │ Classes in │ │ in alphabetical │ alphabetical │ │ order. │ order. │ │ │ │ │ A │ B │ Single │ │ │ Classes of subjects. +──────────────────────+──────────────────────+ subjects. │ │ │ │ D │ C │ │ │ │ │ Specific headings │ Classes in logical │ │ arranged logically │ order. │ │ in classes. │ │ +──────────────────────+──────────────────────+ Logical arrangement.
A, Specific dictionary.
B, Specific dict. by its cross-references and its form-entries. Alphabetico-classed catalogue.
C, Classed catalogue without subdivisions.
D, Classed catalogue with subdivisions.
A, B are alphabetical.
C, D are classed.
A, B, D contain specific subjects.
B, C, D contain classes.
The specific entries of A and the classes of B, though brought together in the same catalogues (the class-dictionary and the alphabetico-classed), simply stand side by side and do not unite, each preserving its own nature, because the principle which brings them together—the alphabet—is external, mechanical. But in D the specific entries and the classes become intimately united to form a homogeneous whole, because the principle which brings them together—the relations of the subjects to one another—is internal, chemical, so to speak.
Collector. See Author.
Cross-reference. See Reference.
Dictionary catalogue, so called because the headings (author, title, subject, and form) are arranged, like the words in a dictionary, in alphabetical order.
Dictionary and other alphabetical catalogues. These are differentiated not, as is often said, by the dictionary having specific entry, but (1) by its giving specific entries in all cases and (2) by its individual entry.
Even the classed catalogues often have specific entry. Whenever a book treats of the whole subject of a class, it is specifically entered under that class. A theological encyclopædia is specifically entered under «Theology», and theology is an unsubordinated class in many systems. The alphabetico-classed catalogues have specific entry in many more cases, because they have many more classes. Professor Abbot has such headings as «Ink», «Jute», «Lace», «Leather», «Life-savers», «Locks», «Mortars», «Perfumery», «Safes», «Salt», «Smoke», «Snow», «Varnish», «Vitriol». Mr. Noyes has scores of similar headings; but neither of them permits individual entry, which the dictionary-catalogue requires. The alphabetico-classed catalogue enters a life of Napoleon and a history of England under «Biography» and «History»; the dictionary enters them under «Napoleon» and «England». This is the invariable and chief distinction between the two.
Editor. See Author.
Entry, the registry of a book in the catalogue with the title and imprint.
Author-entry, such registry with the author’s name for a heading.
Title-entry, registry under some word of the title.
First-word-entry, such entry made from the first word of the title not an article. {13}
Important-word or catch-word entry, such entry made from some word of the title other than the first word and not indicative of the subject, but likely to be remembered and used by borrowers in asking for the book.
Series entry, entry of a number of separate works published under a collective title or half-title or title-page caption. Such are “The «English» citizen” series and “«American» statesmen.”
Subject-word-entry, such entry made under a word of the title which indicates the subject of the book.
Subject-entry, registry under the name selected by the cataloguer to indicate the subject.
A cataloguer who should put “The insect,” by Michelet, under «Entomology» would be making a subject-entry; Duncan’s “Introduction to entomology” entered under the same head would be at once a subject-entry and a subject-word-entry.
Form-entry, registry under the name of the kind of literature to which the book belongs.
Form, applied to a variety of classification founded on the form of the book classified, which may be either Practical, as in «Almanacs», «Dictionaries», «Encyclopædias», «Gazetteers», «Indexes», «Tables» (the form in these being for the most part alphabetical), or Literary, as «Fiction», «Plays», «Comedies», «Farces», «Tragedies», «Poetry», «Letters», «Orations», «Sermons» (the latter with the subdivisions Charity, Election, Funeral, Installation, Ordination, Thanksgiving, etc.). There are certain headings which belong both to the Subject and the Form family. “«Encyclopædias»,” inasmuch as the books treat of all knowledge, is the most inclusive of all the subject-classes; inasmuch as (with few exceptions) they are in alphabetic form, it is a form-class.
Heading, the word by which the alphabetical place of an entry in the catalogue is determined, usually the name of the author, of the subject, or of the literary or practical form, or a word of the title.
Imprint, the indication of the place, date, and form of printing.
Polygraphic, written by several authors.
Polytopical, treating of several topics.
Will the convenience of this word excuse the twist given to the meaning of τόπος in its formation? Polygraphic might serve, as the French use polygraphe for a miscellaneous writer; but it will be well to have both words,—polygraphic denoting (as now) collections of several works by one or many authors, polytopical denoting works on many subjects.
Reference, partial registry of a book (omitting the imprint) under author, title, subject, or kind, referring to a more full entry under some other heading; occasionally used to denote merely entries without imprints, in which the reference is implied. The distinction of entry and reference is almost without meaning for Short, as a title-a-liner saves nothing by referring unless there are several references. {14}
Analytical-reference, or, simply, an analytical, the registry of some part of a book or of some work contained in a collection, referring to the heading under which the book or collection is entered.
Cross-reference, reference from one subject to another.
Heading-reference, from one form of a heading to another.
First-word-reference, catch-word-reference, subject-word-reference, same as first-word-entry, etc., omitting the imprint, and referring.
Series-entry. See Entry.
Specific entry, registering a book under a heading which expresses its special subject as distinguished from entering it in a class which includes that subject.
E. g., registering “The art of painting” under «Painting», or a description of the cactus under «Cactus». Putting them under «Fine arts» and «Botany» would be class-entry. “Specific entry,” by the way, has nothing to do with “species.”
Subject, the theme or themes of the book, whether stated in the title or not.
It is worth noting that subjects are of two sorts: (1) the individual, as «Goethe», «Shakespeare», «England», the «Middle Ages», the ship «Alexandra», the dog «Tray», the «French Revolution», all of which are concrete; and (2) general, as «Man», «History», «Horse», «Philosophy», which may be either concrete or abstract. Every general subject is a class more or less extensive. (See note on Class.) Some mistakes have also arisen from not noting that certain words, «Poetry», «Fiction», «Drama», etc., are subject-headings for the books written about Poetry, Fiction, etc., and form-headings for poems, novels, plays, etc.
Subject-entry, Subject-word entry. See Entry.
Syndetic, connective, applied to that kind of dictionary catalogue which binds its entries together by means of cross-references so as to form a whole, the references being made from the most comprehensive subject to those of the next lower degree of comprehensiveness, and from each of these to their subordinate subjects, and vice versa. These cross-references correspond to and are a good substitute for the arrangement in a systematic catalogue. References are also made in the syndetic catalogue to illustrative and coördinate subjects, and, if it is perfect, from specific to general subjects.
Title in the broader sense includes heading, title proper, and imprint; in the narrower (in which it is hereafter used) it is the name of the book given by the author on the title-page, omitting the imprint, but including names of editors, translators, etc. The name of the book put on the leaf preceding the title page is called the half-title; and the same term is applied to lines indicating subdivisions of the book and following the title; the name given at the head of the first page of text is the caption. That given at the back of the book (the binder’s title) should never be used in a catalogue which makes the slightest pretensions to carefulness.
A title may be either the book’s name (as “&c.”) or its description (as “A collection of occasional sermons”), or it may state its subject (as “Synonyms of the New {15} Testament”), or it may be any two or all three of these combined (as description and subject, “Brief account of a journey through Europe;” name and description, “Happy thoughts;” name and subject, “Men’s wives;” all three, “Index of dates”).
Bibliographers have established a cult of the title-page; its slightest peculiarities are noted; it is followed religiously, with dots for omissions, brackets for insertions, and uprights to mark the end of lines; it is even imitated by the fac-simile type or photographic copying. These things may concern the cataloguer of the Lenox Library or the Prince collection. The ordinary librarian has in general nothing to do with them; but it does not follow that even he is to lose all respect for the title. It is the book’s name and should not be changed but by act of legislature. Our necessities oblige us to abbreviate it, but nothing obliges us to make additions to it or to change it without giving notice to the reader that we have done so. Moreover, it must influence the entry of a book more or less; it determines the title-entry entirely; it affects the author-entry (see § 3) and the subject-entry (see § 104). But to let it have more power than this is to pay it a superstitious veneration.
Volume, a book distinguished from other books or other volumes of the same work by having its own title, paging, and register.
This is the bibliographic use of the word, sanctioned by the British Museum rules. That is, it is in this sense only that it applies to all the copies of an edition as it comes from the printer. But there is also a bibliopegic and bibliopolic use, to denote a number of pages bound together, which pages may be several volumes in the other sense, or a part of a volume or parts of several volumes. To avoid confusion I use “volume” in the present treatise as defined in the Rules of the British Museum catalogue, and I recommend this as the sole use in library catalogues, except in such phrases as 2 v. bd. in 1. which means 2 volumes in the bibliographical sense united by binding so as to form one piece of matter.
* * * * *
In the present treatise I am regarding the dictionary catalogue as consisting of an author-catalogue, a subject-catalogue, a more or less complete title-catalogue, and a more or less complete form-catalogue, all interwoven in one alphabetical order. The greater part, however, of the rules here given would apply equally to these catalogues when kept separate.
These rules are written primarily for a printed catalogue; almost all of them would apply equally to a card catalogue.
ENTRY
I. AUTHOR-ENTRY
CATALOGUE
A. AUTHORS.
(a.) PERSONAL.
(i.) Under whom as author.
Author, 1. Anonymous, 2. Joint authors, 3, 4. Theses, 5. Pseudonyms, 6. Illustrators, 7. Designer, Cartographer, Engraver, 8. Musical works, 9. Booksellers and auctioneers, 10, 11. Commentaries, 12. Continuations and indexes, 13. Epitomes, 14. Revisions, 15. Excerpts and chrestomathies, 16. Concordances, 17. Reporters, translators, and editors, 18.
(ii.) Under what part of the name.
Christian name, 19. Surname, 20. Title, 21. Changed names, 22. Compound names, 23. Prefixes, 24. Latin names, 25. Capes, lakes, etc., 26.
(iii.) Under what form of the name.
Vernacular, 27. Several languages, 28. Masculine and feminine, 29. Various spellings, 30, 31. Forenames, 32. Places, 33–35. Transliteration, 36–38.
(b.) CORPORATE.
General principle, 39. Places, 40. Governmental bodies, 41. Laws, 42. Calendars, 43. Works written officially, 44–46. Articles to be inquired after, 47. Reports, 48. Congresses, 49. Treaties, 50. Parties, denominations, orders, 51. Their conventions, conferences, etc., 52. Ecclesiastical councils, 53. Reports of committees, 54. Classes of citizens, 55. Societies, 56.
B. SUBSTITUTES.
Parts of the author’s name, 57. Pseudonyms, 58. Collectors, 59.
C. REFERENCES, 60, 61.
D. ECONOMIES, 62–67.
A. AUTHORS
1. Make the author-entry under (A) the name of the author whether personal or corporate, or (B) some substitute for it.
In regard to the author-entry it must be remembered that the object is not merely to facilitate the finding of a given book by an author’s name. If this were all, it might have been better to make the entry under the professed name (pseudonym), or under the form of name mentioned in the title («Bulwer» in one book, «Lytton» in another, «Bulwer Lytton» in a third; «Sherlock», Th., in that divine’s earlier works; «Bangor», Th. [Sherlock], Bp. of, in later ones; «Salisbury», Th. [Sherlock], Bp. of, in the next issues; «London», Th. [Sherlock], Bp. of, in his last works; «Milnes», R. Monckton, for “Good night and good morning,” and the nine other works published before 1863, and «Houghton», Rich. M. M., Baron, for the 1870 edition of “Good night and good morning,” and for other books published since his ennoblement), or under the name of editor or translator when the author’s name is not given, as proposed by Mr. Crestadoro. This might have been best with object A; but we have also object D to provide for—the finding of all the books of a given author—and this can most conveniently be done if they are all collected in one place.
2. Anonymous books are to be entered under the name of the author whenever it is known.
If it is not known with certainty the entry may be made under the person to whom the work is attributed, with an explanatory note and a reference from the first word, or the book may be treated as anonymous and entered under the first word, with a note “Attributed to ——,” and a reference from the supposed author. The degree of doubt will determine which method is best. {17}
(a.) PERSONAL.
(i.) Under whom as author.
3. Enter works written conjointly by several authors under the name of the one first mentioned on the title-page, with references from the others.
The writers of a correspondence and the participants in a debate are to be considered as joint authors.
Ex. «Schiller», J: Christoph F: v. Briefwechsel zwischen S. und «Cotta»; herausg. von Vollmar.
— Briefwechsel zw. S. und «Goethe». Stuttg., 1829. 6 v. S.
— Briefwechsel zw. S. und W: v. «Humboldt». Stuttg., 1830. S.
«Cotta.» Briefwechsel. See «Schiller», J: C. F: v.
«Goethe», J: W. v. Briefwechsel. See «Schiller», J: C. F: v.
«Humboldt», K: W:, Freiherr v. Briefwechsel. See «Schiller», J: C. F: v.
Many catalogues adopt the form of heading
«Schiller», J: Christoph F: v., and «Humboldt», K: W:, Freiherr v. Briefwechsel. Stuttg., 1830. S.
«Humboldt», K: W:, Freiherr v. Briefwechsel. See «Schiller», J: C. F: v., and «Humboldt», K: W: v. But see § 240.
When countries are joint authors it is better to make full entries under each and arrange them as if the country under consideration were the only one. Each country puts its own name first in its own edition of a joint work; and the arrangement proposed avoids an additional complexity under countries, which are confusing enough at the best.
Whether the joint authorship appears in the title or not should make no difference in the mode of entry; if one name appears on the title, that should be chosen for the entry; if none, take the most important.
4. When double headings are used distinguish between joint authors of one work and two authors of separate works joined in one volume. In the latter case, if there is no collective title, the heading should be the name of the first author alone and an analytical reference should be made from the second. (See § 58 b.)
Ex. “The works of Shelley and Keats” would be entered in full under «Shelley» (both names being mentioned in the title, but Shelley alone in the heading), and analytically (§ 127) under «Keats». In such cases a double heading would often mislead.
5. For university theses or dissertations Dziatzko gives the following rules:
I. Until about 1750
a Unless the respondent is known to be the “auctor” (“auctor et respondens,” “scriptor,” etc.) enter under the name of the præses, without reference.
b If the respondent is “auctor” enter under him, with reference from the præses.
II. After 1750 enter under the respondent, unless it is known that the præses is the author, when his name will be the heading. In neither case refer from the other name.
For universities where the old custom was kept up beyond 1750, as the Swedish, Rule I applies till the change was made. {18}
Where there are two respondents, neither specified as author, enter under the first, without reference from the second.
6. Enter pseudonymous works generally under the author’s real name, when it is known, with a reference from the pseudonym; but make the entry under the pseudonym, with a reference from the real name, when the writer is better known by the false name.
In the first edition this rule was without limitation, and I added the following note “One is strongly tempted to deviate from this rule in the case of writers like George Eliot and George Sand, Gavarni and Grandville, who appear in literature only under their pseudonyms. It would apparently be much more convenient to enter their works under the name by which alone they are known and under which everybody but a professed cataloguer would assuredly look first. For an author-catalogue this might be the best plan, but in a dictionary catalogue we have to deal with such people not merely as writers of books, but as subjects of biographies or parties in trials, and in such cases it seems proper to use their legal names. Besides, if one attempts to exempt a few noted writers from the rule given above, where is the line to be drawn? No definite principle of exception can be laid down which will guide either the cataloguer or the reader; and probably the confusion would in the end produce greater inconvenience than the present rule. Moreover, the entries made by using the pseudonym as a heading would often have to be altered. For a long time it would have been proper to enter the works of Dickens under «Boz»; the Dutch annual bibliography uniformly uses Boz-Dickens as a heading. No one would think of looking under «Boz» now. Mark Twain is in a transition state. The public mind is divided between Twain and Clemens. The tendency is always toward the use of the real name; and that tendency will be much helped in the reading public if the real name is always preferred in catalogues. Some pseudonyms persistently adopted by authors have come to be considered as the only names, as «Voltaire» (see § 23), and the translation «Melanchthon». Perhaps George «Sand» and George «Eliot» will in time be adjudged to belong to the same company. It would be well if cataloguers could appoint some permanent committee with authority to decide this and similar points as from time to time they occur.”
I am now in favor of frequent entry under the pseudonym, with reference from the real name. I should recommend the pseudonym as heading in the case of any popular writer who has not written under his own name, provided he is known to the public chiefly by his pseudonym, and in the subject catalogue for any person who is so known. Examples are George «Eliot», George «Sand», «Gavarni», «Grandville», «Cagliostro», «Cham», Pierre «Loti», Daniel «Stern», in some doubtful cases a card catalogue might profitably make entry both under the real and the false name. This elastic practice will give a little more trouble to the cataloguer than a rigid rule of entry under the real name, but it will save trouble to those who use the catalogue, which is more important.
But entry should not be made under a pseudonym which is used only once or a few times; if the author writes also under his real name, if he is known to the contemporary public or in literary history under his real name, that is to be used for entry. It may sometimes happen that an author is well known under a pseudonym and afterwards is better known by his real name. In that case change the entries from the false to the real name. If any author uses two different pseudonyms enter under each the works written under it, with references both ways, and from the real name, until the real name becomes better known.
It is plain that this practice of entering under the best known name, whether real or false, puts an end to uniformity of entry between different catalogues, leads to inconsistency of entry in the same catalogue, and will often throw the cataloguer into perplexity to decide which name is best known; but for the last objection it must be remembered that the catalogue is made for the reader, not for the cataloguer, and {19} for the first two that references will prevent any serious difficulty; and in the few cases of nearly equal notoriety, double entry is an easy way out of the difficulty.
7. When the illustrations form a very important part of a work, consider both the author of the text and the designer—or in certain cases the engraver—of the plates to be author, and make a full entry under each. Under the author mention the designer’s name in the title, and vice versa.
Such works are: Walton’s Welsh scenery, with text by Bonney; Wolf’s “Wild animals,” with text by Elliot. Which shall be taken as author in the subject or form entry depends upon the work and the subject. Under «Water-color drawings» it would be Walton; under «Wood-engravings», Wolf; under «Wales» and «Zoölogy», the cataloguer must decide which illustrates the subject most, the writer or the artist. E. g., under «Gothic Architecture» Pugin is undoubtedly to be considered the author of his “Examples,” though “the literary part” is by E. J. Willson; for the illustrator was really the author and the text was subsidiary to the plates. It was to carry out Pugin’s ideas, not Willson’s, that the work was published.
8. The designer or painter copied is the author of engravings; the cartographer is the author of maps; the engraver in general is to be considered as no more the author than the printer. But in a special catalogue of engravings the engraver would be considered as author; in any full catalogue references should be made from the names of famous engravers, as Raimondi, Müller, Steinla, Wolle. An architect is the author of his designs and plans.
9. Enter musical works doubly, under the author of the words and also the composer of the music.
Short and Medium will generally enter only under the composer; Don Giovanni, for example, only under «Mozart» and not under Da «Ponte». This economy especially applies to songs.
10. Booksellers and auctioneers are to be considered as the authors of their catalogues, unless the contrary is expressly asserted.
Entering these only under the form-heading «Catalogues» belongs to the dark ages of cataloguing. Put the catalogue of a library under the library’s name. (§ 56.)
11. Put the auctioneer’s catalogue of a public library under the name of the library, of a private library under the name of the owner, unless there is reason to believe that another person made it. In the latter case it would appear in the author catalogue under the maker’s name, and in the subject catalogue under the owner’s name.
12. Enter commentaries with the text complete under the author of the text and also under the author of the commentary, provided that is entitled “Commentary on * * *” and not “* * * with commentary.”
In a majority of cases this difference in the title will correspond to a difference in the character of the works and in the expectation of the public; if in any particular case the commentary preponderates in a title of the second of the forms above, a reference can be made from the commentator’s name. {20}
13. Enter a continuation or an index, when not written by the author of the original work but printed with it, under the same heading, with an analytical reference from its own author (§§ 164, 194); when printed separately, enter it under each author.
14. An epitome should be entered under the original author, with a reference from the epitomator.
Ex. “The boy’s King Arthur” under Sir Thomas «Malory», with a reference from Sidney «Lanier».
15. A revision should be entered under the name of the original author unless it becomes substantially a new work.
There will often be doubt on this point. To determine it, notice whether the revision is counted as one of the editions of the original work, and whether it is described on the title-page as the work of the original author or the reviser, and read and weigh the prefaces. Refer in all doubtful cases.
16. Excerpts and chrestomathies from a single author go under that author, with a reference from the excerptor if his introduction and annotations are extensive, or he has added a lexicon of importance.
Ex. Urlichs’ Chrestomathia Pliniana goes under «Plinius», with a reference from «Urlichs».
17. Enter concordances both under their own author and the author concorded. The latter entry, however, is to be regarded as a subject-entry.
Ex. «Cleveland’s» Concordance to the poetical works of «Milton», «Brightwell’s» Concordance to «Tennyson», Mrs. «Furness’s» Concordance to «Shakespeare’s» poems.
18. Reporters are usually treated as authors of reports of trials, _etc._[11] Translators and editors are not to be considered as authors.[12] (But see References, § 60.)
[note] 11. A stenographic reporter is hardly more an author than the printer is; but it is not well to attempt to make fine distinctions.[/note]
[note] 12. A collection of works should be entered under the translator if he is also the collector (see § 59); but again if he translates another man’s collection it should be put under the name of the original collector; as Dasent’s “Tales from the North” is really a version of part of «Asbjörnsen» and «Moe’s» “Norske Folkeventyr” and belongs under their names as joint collectors, with a reference from «Dasent».[/note]
(ii.) Under what part of the name.
19. Put under the Christian or forename:
a. Sovereigns or princes of sovereign houses.[13] Use the English form of the name except for Greeks and Romans. {21}
b. Persons canonized.
Ex. «Thomas» [«a Becket»], Saint.
c. Friars who by the constitution of their order drop their surname. Add the name of the family in parentheses and refer from it.
Ex. «Paolino da S. Bartolomeo» [J. P. «Wesdin»].
d. Persons known under their first name only, whether or not they add that of their native place or profession or rank.
Ex. «Paulus» Diaconus, «Thomas» Heisterbacensis.
Similarly are to be treated a few persons known almost entirely by the forename, as «Michelangelo Buonarroti», «Raffaello Santi» (refer from «Raphael»), «Rembrandt van Rhijn». Refer always from the family name.
e. Oriental authors, including Jewish rabbis whose works were published before 1700.
Ex. «Abu Bakr ibn Badr.» This rule has exceptions. Some Oriental writers are known and should be entered under other parts of their name than the first, as “«Abu-l-Kasim», Khalaf ibn Abbas,” or under some appellation as “al-«Masudi»,” “at-«Tabari».” Grässe’s “Lehrbuch einer allgemeinen Literärgeschichte” is a convenient guide in this matter; he prints that part of the name by which Arabic writers are commonly known in a heavier type than the rest.
In Arabic names the words of relationship Abu (father), Umm (mother), Ibn, Bin (son), Ahu (brother), though not to be treated as names by themselves, are yet not to be disregarded, as proposed by Dr. Dziatzko. They form a name in conjunction with the word following (e. g., «Abu Bakr») and determine the alphabetical place of the entry. But the article al (changed by assonance to ad-, ar-, as-, at-, az-, according to the letter it precedes) is neglected (al-«Masudi»).
In all Oriental names the cataloguer must be careful not to take titles, as Emir, Bey, Pasha, Sri, Babu, Pundit, for names.
In regard to East Indian names, Dr. Feigl (Centralbl. f. Bibl., 4: 120) gives the rule: If there are two names, enter under the first, which is the individual name, with a reference from the second; if there are three, enter under the third, which is the family name, with a reference under the second.
[note] 13. This must include Popes even before the acquisition and after the loss of the temporal power.
The direction “Use the English form of the name” was a concession to ignorance; when it was given, that form was almost alone employed in English books; since then the tone of literature has changed; the desire for local coloring has led to the use of foreign forms, and we have become familiarized with Louis, Henri, Marguerite, Carlos, Karl, Wilhelm, Gustaf. If the present tendency continues we shall be able to treat princes’ names like any other foreign names; perhaps the next generation of cataloguers will no more tolerate the headings «William» Emperor of Germany, «Lewis» XIV than they will tolerate «Virgil», «Horace», «Pliny». The change, to be sure, would give rise to some difficult questions of nationality, but it would diminish the number of the titles now accumulated under the more common royal names.[/note]
20. Put under the surname:
a. In general, all persons not included under § 19.
In a few cases, chiefly of artists, a universally-used sobriquet is to be taken in place of the family or forename, as «Tintoretto» (whose real name was Giacomo «Robusti»). Similar cases are «Canaletto» (Antonio «Canale» and also B. «Belotto»), «Correggio» (Ant. «Allegri»), «Garofalo» (Benvenuto Piero «Tisi»), Il «Sodoma» (Giov. Ant. «Bazzi»), «Spagnoletto» (José «Ribera»), «Uccello» (Paolo «Doni»). Always refer from the family name.
b. In particular, ecclesiastical dignitaries. Refer.
Ex. «Kaye», John, Bishop of Lincoln.
«Lincoln», John, Bishop of. See «Kaye».
Bishops usually omit their family name, canons their forename, on their title-pages, as “by Canon Liddon,” “by the Bishop of Ripon,” “by Henry Edward, archbishop of Westminster,” i. e., H: E: Manning. Care must be taken not to treat Canon as a forename or Edward as a family name. {22}
c. Married women, using the last well-known form. Refer.
Wives often continue writing, and are known in literature, only under their maiden names (as Miss «Freer» or Fanny «Lewald»), or after a second marriage retain for literary purposes the first husband’s name. The cataloguer should not hurry to make a change in the name as soon as he learns of a marriage. Let him rather follow than lead the public.
21. Put under the title:
British[14] and foreign[15] noblemen, referring from earlier titles by which they have been known, and, in the case of British noblemen, from the family name.
Ex. «Chesterfield», Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of. Refer from «Stanhope». «Saint-Simon», Louis de Rouvroi, duc de.