V. ANALYSIS.
125. Enter in full every work, forming a part of a set, which fills a whole volume or several volumes.
Ex. Colombo, C. Select letters rel. to his four voyages to the New World; tr. and ed. by R. H. Major. London, 1847. 8º. (Vol. 2 of the Hakluyt Soc.)
126. Enter analytically, that is without imprint—
a. Every work, forming part of a set, which has a separate title-page and paging, but forms only part of a volume of the set.
Ex. Fairholt, F. W. The civic garland; songs from London pageants, with introd. and notes. (In Percy Society, v. 19. 1845.)
Full must and Medium may make a full entry in this case also. That is to say, Full will draw the line at a separate title-page, Short and perhaps Medium at filling a volume. Those catalogues which give no imprints at all and those which give no imprints under subjects will of course give none for analyticals.
b. Every work which, though not separately paged or not having a title-page, has been published separately, whether before or since its publication in the work under treatment.
Ex. Dickens, C. J. F. Little Dorrit. (In Harper’s mag., v. 12–15, 1855–57.)
c. Under author, (1) every separate article or treatise over [46] pages in length; (2) treatises of noted authors; (3) noted works even if by authors otherwise obscure. {61}
[46] This limit must be determined by each library for itself, with the understanding that there may be occasional exceptions.
d. Under subject treatises important either (1) as containing the origin of a science or a controversy or developing new views, or (2) as treating the subject ably or giving important information, or (3) for length.
Absolute uniformity is unattainable; probably no one will be able to draw the line always at the same height. It is most desirable—and fortunately easiest—to make analysis when the subject is well marked, as of biographies or histories of towns, or monographs on any subject. General treatises or vague essays are much harder to classify and much less valuable for analysis. In analyzing collections of essays original articles should be brought out in preference to reviews, which are commonly not worth touching (except in a very full catalogue) either under the author of the work reviewed or under its subject. Of course exception may be made for famous reviews or for good reviews of famous works. A work giving a careful literary estimate of an author may be an exception to this remark; reviews of the “Works” of any author are most likely to contain such an estimate. Many reviews, like Macaulay’s, are important for their treatment of the subject and not worth noticing under the book reviewed, which is merely a pretext for the article.
e. Make analytical title-references for stories in a collection when they are likely to be inquired for separately.
127. Make analyticals for the second and subsequent authors of a book written (but not conjointly) by several authors. (See § [4].)
Sometimes it is better to give full entry under two headings than to make the second analytical. Ex. A “Short account of the application to Parliament by the merchants of London, with the substance of the evidence as summed up by Mr. Glover,” is to be entered under London. Merchants, as first author, but as Glover’s part is two-thirds of the whole, it should also be entered under him, the entry in each case being made full enough not to mislead.
128. In analyticals it is well to give the date of the book referred to and also, though less necessary, to state the pages which contain the article. Many readers will not notice these details, but they will do no one any harm and will assist the careful student.