CATALOGUE.

SUBJECTS.

(a.) ENTRIES CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

92. Some questions in regard to the place of entry are common to the author- and the subject-catalogue; because individuals (persons, places, ships, etc.) may be at once authors and subjects. For these questions consult Part I, and also § [100] of the present part.

In a dictionary catalogue some books can not profitably have subject-entry, because they not only have no one subject but do not even belong to any class of subjects.

A collection is to be entered under the word which expresses its subject or its general tendency. The memoirs, transactions, proceedings, etc., of a society should be entered under name of the object for which the society is founded. When there are many societies under one head, it is economical to refer merely; as, from Agriculture or Agricultural societies to the various names.

The importance of deciding aright where any given subject shall be entered is in inverse proportion to the difficulty of decision. If there is no obvious principle to guide the cataloguer, it is plain there will be no reason why the public should expect to find the entry under one heading rather than another, and therefore in regard to the public it matters not which is chosen. But it is better that such decisions should be made to conform when possible to some general system, as there is then more likelihood that they will be decided alike by different cataloguers, and that a usage will grow up which the public will finally learn and profit by, as a usage has grown up in regard to the author-entry of French names containing De, Du, La, etc.

(i.) CHOICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.

(a.) Between general and specific.

93. Enter a work under its subject-heading, not under the heading of a class which includes that subject.

Ex. Put Lady Cust’s book on “The cat” under Cat, not under Zoölogy or Mammals, or Domestic animals; and put Garnier’s “Le fer” under Iron, not under Metals or Metallurgy.

This rule of “specific entry” is the main distinction between the dictionary-catalogue and the alphabetico-classed.

Some subjects have no name; they are spoken of only by a phrase or by several phrases not definite enough to be used as a heading. A book may be written on the movements of fluids in plants, a very definite object of investigation, but as yet nameless; it must be put under Botany (Physiological). But if several works were written on it and it was called, let us say, Phythydraulics, it would be seen that, under this rule, it no more ought to be under Botany than Circulation of the blood under Zoölogy. Thirty years ago “Fertilization of flowers” could hardly have been used as a heading; but late writings have raised it to the status of a subject. There are thousands of possible matters of investigation, some of which are from time to time discussed, but before the catalogue can profitably follow its “specific” rule in regard to them they must attain a certain individuality as objects of inquiry, and be given some sort of name, otherwise we must assign them class-entry.

And it is not always easy to decide what is a distinct subject. Many catalogues have a heading Preaching. Is Extempore preaching a sufficiently distinct matter to have a heading of its own? There are a number of books on this branch of the {47} subject. In this particular case the difficulty can be avoided by making the heading “Preaching without notes.” Many such questions may be similarly solved, with perhaps more satisfaction to the maker of the catalogue than to its users; but many questions will remain.

Then, mixed with this, and sometimes hardly distinguishable from it, is the case of subjects whose names begin within an unimportant adjective or noun,—Are of the meridian, Capture of property at sea, Segment of a circle, Quadrature of the circle. All that can be said in such cases is that, if the subject be commonly recognized and the name accepted or likely to be accepted by usage, the entry must be made under it. For the fuller discussion of compound headings, see §§ [106], [107].

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

(b.) Choice between person and country.

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

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

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

(c.) Choice between event and country.

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

[37] St. Bartholomew’s day.

[38] Fronde.

[39] Revolution; Restoration; Civil war.

(d.) Choice between subject (or form) and country.

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

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

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

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

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

(e.) Between subjects that overlap.

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

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

(ii.) CHOICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT NAMES.

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

(f.) Language.

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

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

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

(g.) Synonyms.

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

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

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

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

In choosing between synonymous headings prefer the one that—

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

(b) is most used in other catalogues.

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

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

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

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

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

Ex. Culture and Civilization, Culture and Education.

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

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

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

(h.) Subject-word and subject.

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

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

(i.) Homonyms.

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

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

(j.) Compound subject-names.

106. The name of a subject may be—

(a) A single word, as Botany, Ethics.

Or several words taken together, either—

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

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

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

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

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

There are three main courses open:

(1) We can consider the subject to be the phrase as it reads, as Agricultural chemistry, Survival of the fittest, which is the only possible method in (a) and undoubtedly the best method in (c), (e), and (f), and in most cases of proper names, as Democratic Party, White Mountains, Missouri River (but see § [26]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex. Special providences and Providence, Proper names and Names.

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

Works on thewould hardly
be looked
for under
Alimentary canalCanal.
Dangerous classesClasses.
Digestive organsOrgans.
Dispensing powerPower.
Domestic economyEconomy.
Ecclesiastical polityPolity.
Final causesCauses.
Gastric juiceJuice.
Laboring classesClasses.
Military artArt.
Parliamentary practicePractice.
Political economyEconomy.
Solar systemSystem.
Suspended animationAnimation.
Zodiacal lightLight.

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

Smith, John,

Smith, Joseph,

Smith, William,

seems to me to be arranged on the same principle as

History, Ancient,

History, Ecclesiastical,

History, Modern,

History, Sacred.” [43]

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

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

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.

[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.

[43] Schwartz, slightly altered.

[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.

(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.

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

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—

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.