Emerson, by R. Garnett. 1888
The references from Robertson and Anderson can be dispensed with. Shorter entries than the foregoing would not be looked for, and would be worthless. Very brief entries imply little or no information, as witness the following complete entries from the catalogue of a large library:
“Church’s Lament.”
Conspiracy. Ritualistic.
Workhouse. Union. Bowen.
91.—The next illustration is taken to further show the method of regarding a book for its subject-entry:
Saintsbury, George.
A history of Elizabethan literature. 1887
This is neither a book upon literature generally nor in the abstract, nor upon English literature as a whole, but only upon a particular period of it. Such a book could very properly be placed under “Elizabethan literature” with a reference from “English literature.” It might even go under the name of Elizabeth where all books pertaining to her reign in every particular could be gathered, but this is not so satisfactory. After all the most useful place for a book of this kind would be under “English literature,” and its inclusion could be better justified if the books under such a heading were sub-divided, if sufficient in number, into periods arranged chronologically as a heading like “English History” is often usefully divided. This would necessitate a cross-reference like
Elizabethan literature. See English literature.