How to Catalogue a Library Part 11

[23] Referring to my remarks on the use of the word "anonym," I may point out that this is not the correct t.i.tle of Barbier's work. He used _Anonymes_ as an adjective (_ouvrages anonymes_), and not as a substantive.

[24] This point weakens Lord Mahon's arguments, because the same objection would apply to all the books with authors' names.

[25] I had the privilege of talking over these rules with Mr. Bradshaw for many consecutive days, when I inspected the University Library in 1878.

[26] For useful notes on short t.i.tles and booksellers' catalogues, Mr.

Charles F. Blackburn's amusing _Hints on Catalogue t.i.tles and on Index Entries_ (1884) may be consulted.

[27] The names of places as they appear in a Latin form are frequently much disguised. A list of some of the most common of these names will be found in the Appendix.

[28] It was this practice which confused a correspondent of the _Athenaeum_, who published his discovery that the first folio of Shakespeare was not a folio at all.

[Decoration]

CHAPTER V.

REFERENCES AND SUBJECT INDEX.

I suppose it may be conceded that in the abstract the most useful kind of catalogue is that which contains the t.i.tles and subject references in one alphabet; but in the particular case of a large library this system is not so convenient, because the subject references unnecessarily swell the size of the catalogue, and by their frequency confuse the t.i.tle entries. For instance, it is something appalling to conjecture what would be the size of the British Museum Catalogue if subject references were included in the general alphabet. In the case of a large library it will be more convenient to have an index of subjects forming a separate alphabet by itself, and this cannot be made until the catalogue of authors is completed. Taking a somewhat arbitrary limit, it may be said that in libraries containing more than ten thousand volumes it will be found more useful to have a distinct index of subjects, while in catalogues of libraries below that number it will generally be advisable to include the subject references with the t.i.tles in one general alphabet.

If all the subject references are reserved for an index, there will still remain a large number of references in the general alphabet which are required for the proper use of the catalogue; and here it may be well to say something as to the nomenclature of references. Mr. Cutter, in the valuable series of definitions prefixed to his _Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue_, has the following:--

"_Reference_, partial registry of a book (omitting the imprint) under author, t.i.tle, 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 t.i.tle-a-liner saves nothing by referring unless there are several references.

"_a.n.a.lytical reference_, or simply an a.n.a.lytical 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, omitting the imprint and referring."

These definitions are important, and it would be well if the distinction here made as to what a cross-reference really is were borne in mind. It has become the practice among bibliographers to describe all references as cross-references. This is the case in the British Museum rules:--

"LV. Cross-references to be divided into three cla.s.ses, from name to name, from name to work, and from work to work.

Those of the first cla.s.s to contain merely the name, t.i.tle, or office of the person referred to as entered; those of the second, so much of the t.i.tle referred to besides as, together with the size and date, may give the means of at once identifying, under its heading, the book referred to; those of the third cla.s.s to contain moreover so much of the t.i.tle referred from, as may be necessary to ascertain the object of the reference."

The public often cause a still further confusion in words, for they cry out for the shelf-marks to be placed to references. If this be done, they no longer remain references, but become double entries.

There are many disadvantages in this plan of putting press-marks to references, but it is adopted at the British Museum, and it certainly is annoying to have to run from one end of a many-volumed catalogue to another.

In Mr. Nichols's _Handbook for Readers_ it is said (p. 42) that "a work is never entered at full length more than once and it is only from the main entry that the book-ticket must be made out." But if the press-marks are added to the references, one would imagine that they are intended to be used, and it is scarcely to be expected that any one will take the trouble to refer to another place when he has sufficient information under his eyes.

Catalogue work is different from index work, where the entries may be duplicated without inconvenience; but in the case of books, if all the references have press-marks, there is considerable danger of confusion whenever the position of a book is changed. The main entries will be corrected, but some of the references will almost certainly be overlooked. If the books are never moved, there is no great harm in putting press-marks to the references.

It must, I think, be conceded that when the references are so long as they often are in the British Museum Catalogue, and as seems to be contemplated by Mr. Cutter's remark quoted above, they are really duplicate or subsidiary entries rather than references.

There is no real necessity to copy any part of the t.i.tles in the great majority of references. Take, for instance, the following two modes of referring from the subject of a biography to the authors:--

Shakespeare: ---- and his Contemporaries.

Nares. 1822. 4to. 27342 ---- and his Times. Drake.

1817. 2 vols. 4to. 7212 ---- Biography. De Quincey.

vol. xv. 8vo. 1808 ---- ---- Knight. 1842.

8vo. 13296 ---- Biographical Memoir.

1825. 8vo. 21294 ---- History of. Fullom. 1864.

8vo. 29492 ---- Ill.u.s.trations of his Life.

Halliwell. 1874. 4to. 47851 ---- Life. Chalmers. German trans. Leipzig. 8vo. 35270 ---- ---- Halliwell. 1848.

8vo. 10430 ---- ---- Skottowe. 1824.

2 vols. 8vo. 21673

These entries are taken from a large heading, and do not come together as they do here. By following the wording of the t.i.tle in this way you do not get a true index. For instance, under this same main heading of Shakespeare we have in different parts of the sub-alphabet:--

Ill.u.s.trated. Lennox. 1753-4.

3 vols. 12mo. 13861

Life. Skottowe. 1824. 2 vols.

8vo. 21673

Plots. Simrock. 1850. 8vo. 21617

All these books are on the plots, and should come together. At present anyone looking at the entry would suppose that there was only one book on the plots of the plays in the library.

Another way of making the references may be set out thus:--

Shakespeare:

Life: _Chalmers_, _De Quincey_, _Fullom_ (1864), _Halliwell_ (1848), _Knight_ (1842), _Skottowe_ (1824).

---- S. and his Contemporaries: _Nares_ (1822).

---- S. and his Times: _Drake_ (1817).

Plots of his Plays: _Lennox_ (1753), _Simrock_ (1850), _Skottowe_ (1824).

Not only does the second plan take up less s.p.a.ce, but it is also the more convenient, as giving the required information in the clearest manner.

All references should be in English,[29] and the subject of the book should be used for the reference rather than the often periphrastic form of the t.i.tle. Thus, in making a subject reference for the following book:--

Mudie (Robert). The Feathered Tribes of the British Islands.

1834. 2 vols.

--the reference must be from "Birds" or "Ornithology," as it will be useless to refer from "Feathered Tribes."

No reference should be made to a t.i.tle which does not indicate the information sought for. Thus, if a work contains an account of some subject which is not specified on the t.i.tle, this must not be referred to unless a note is added to the t.i.tle to show that the book does contain this information. Sometimes one reference will be sufficient for a group of t.i.tles. Thus, in referring from one form of an author's name to another, it is not necessary to repeat the t.i.tles under that author's name even in the shortest manner.

It is not well in subject references included in an alphabetical catalogue or in an alphabetical index of subjects to cla.s.sify at all.

Thus _Gold_ should be under _G_, and _Silver_ under _S_; and at the end of the heading of Metals or Metallurgy such cross-references as these can be added: "See also _Gold_, _Silver_."