CATALOGUES.
Catalogues of libraries are useful to readers in direct proportion to
their fulfilment of three conditions: (1) Quick and ready reference. (2)
Arranging all authors' names in an alphabet, followed by titles of their
works. (3) Subjects or titles in their alphabetical order in the same
alphabet as the authors. This is what is known as a "Dictionary
catalogue"; but why is it preferable to any other? Because it answers
more questions in less time than any other.
The more prevalent styles of catalogues have been, 1. A list of authors,
with titles of their works under each. 2. A catalogue of subjects, in a
classified topical or alphabetical order, the authors and their works
being grouped under each head. 3. A catalogue attempting to combine these
two, by appending to the author-catalogue a classed list of subjects,
with a brief of authors under each, referring to the page on which the
titles of their works may be found; or else, 4. Appending to the
subject-catalogue an alphabet of authors, with similar references to
pages under subjects.
Each of these methods of catalogue-making, while very useful, contrives
to miss the highest utility, which lies in enabling the reader to put his
finger on the book he wants, at one glance of the eye. The catalogue of
authors will not help him to subjects, nor will the catalogue of
subjects, as a rule, give the authors and titles with the fullness that
may be needed. In either case, a double reference becomes necessary,
consuming just twice the time, and in a two-column catalogue, three
times the time required in a dictionary catalogue.
The reader who wants Darwin's "Origin of Species" finds it readily enough
by the author-catalogue; but he wants, at the same time, to find other
works on the same subject, and all the author-catalogues in the world
will not help him to them. But give him a dictionary catalogue, and he
has, in the same alphabet with his Darwin, (if the library is large)
dozens of books discussing the theory of that great naturalist, under
species, evolution, Darwinism, etc.
Thus he finds that there is no key which so quickly unlocks the stores of
knowledge which a library contains, as a dictionary catalogue.
The objections to it are chiefly brought by minds schooled in systems,
who look askance on all innovations, and instinctively prefer round-about
methods to short-hand ones.
Ask such an objector if he would prefer his dictionary of the English
language arranged, not alphabetically, but subjectively, so that all
medical terms should be defined only under medicine, all species of fish
described only under fishes, etc., and he will probably say that there is
no analogy in the case. But the analogy becomes apparent when we find, in
what are called systematic catalogues, no two systems alike, and the
finding of books complicated by endless varieties of classification, with
no common alphabet to simplify the search. The authors of systems
doubtless understand them themselves, but no one else does, until he
devotes time to learn the key to them; and even when learned, the
knowledge is not worth the time lost in acquiring it, since the field
covered in any one catalogue is so small. Alphabetical arrangement, on
the other hand, strictly adhered to, is a universal key to the authors
and subjects and titles of all the books contained in the library it
represents. The devotee of a bibliographical system may be as mistaken as
the slave of a scientific terminology. He forgets that bibliography is
not a school for teaching all departments of knowledge, but a brief and
handy index to books that may contain that knowledge. A student who has
once made a thorough comparative test of the merits, as aids to wide and
rapid research, of the old-fashioned bibliographies and the best modern
dictionary catalogues, will no more deny the superiority of the latter,
than he will contest the maxim that a straight line is the nearest road
between two points. Meantime, "while doctors disagree, disciples are
free;" and the disciples who would follow the latest guides in the art
"how to make and use a catalogue," must get rid of many formulas.
The reader will find in the chapter on bibliography, notes on some
classes of catalogues, with the more notable examples of them. We are
here concerned with the true method of preparing catalogues, and such
plain rules as brevity will permit to be given, will be equally adapted
to private or public libraries. For more ample treatment, with reasons
for and against many rules laid down, reference is made to the able and
acute work, "Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue," by C. A. Cutter,
published by the U. S. Bureau of Education, 3d ed. 1891.
CONDENSED RULES FOR AN AUTHOR AND TITLE CATALOGUE.
_Prepared by the Co-operation Committee of the American Library
Association._
ENTRY.
Books are to be entered under the:
Surnames of authors when ascertained, the abbreviation "_Anon._"
being added to the titles of anonymous works.
Initials of authors' names when these only are known, the last
initial being put first.
Pseudonyms of the writers when the real names are not
ascertained.
Names of editors of collections, each separate item to be at the
same time sufficiently catalogued under its own heading.
Names of countries, cities, societies, or other bodies which are
responsible for their publication.
First word (not an article or serial number) of the titles of
periodicals and of anonymous books, the names of whose authors
are not known. And a motto or the designation of a series may be
neglected when it begins a title, and the entry may be made under
the first word of the real title following.
Commentaries accompanying a text, and translations, are to be
entered under the heading of the original work; but commentaries
without the text under the name of the commentator. A book
entitled "Commentary on ...." and containing the text, should be
put under both.
The Bible, or any part of it (including the Apocrypha), in any
language, is to be entered under the word Bible.
The Talmud and Koran (and parts of them) are to be entered under
those words; the sacred books of other religions are to be
entered under the names by which they are generally known;
references to be given from the names of editors, translators,
etc.
The respondent or defender of an academical thesis is to be
considered as the author, unless the work unequivocally appears
to be the work of the _praeses_.
Books having more than one author to be entered under the one
first named in the title, with a reference from each of the
others.
Reports of civil actions are to be entered under the name of the
party to the suit which stands first on the title page. Reports
of crown and criminal proceedings are to be entered under the
name of the defendant. Admiralty proceedings relating to vessels
are to be put under the name of the vessel.
Noblemen are to be entered under their titles, unless the family
name is decidedly better known.
Ecclesiastical dignitaries, unless popes or sovereigns, are to be
entered under their surnames.
Sovereigns (other than Greek or Roman), ruling princes, Oriental
writers, popes, friars, persons canonized, and all other persons
known _only_ by their first name, are to be entered under this
first name.
Married women, and other persons who have changed their names,
are to be put under the last well-known form.
A pseudonym may be used instead of the surname (and only a
reference to the pseudonym made under the surname) when an author
is much more known by his false than by his real name. In case of
doubt, use the real name.
A society is to be entered under the first word, not an article,
of its corporate name, with references from any other name by
which it is known, especially from the name of the place where
its headquarters are established, if it is often called by that
name.
REFERENCES.
When an author has been known by more than one name, references
should be inserted from the name or names not to be used as
headings to the one used.
References are also to be made to the headings chosen:
asked for by their titles;
from other striking titles;
from noticeable words in anonymous titles, especially from the
names of subjects of anonymous biographies;
from the names of editors of periodicals, when the periodicals are
generally called by the editor's name;
from the names of important translators (especially poetic
translators) and commentators;
from the title of an ecclesiastical dignitary, when that, and not
the family name, is used in the book catalogued;
and in other cases where a reference is needed to insure the ready
finding of the book.
HEADINGS.
In the heading of titles, the names of authors are to be given in
full, and in their vernacular form, except that the Latin form
may be used when it is more generally known, the vernacular form
being added in parentheses; except, also, that sovereigns and
popes may be given in the English form.
English and French surnames beginning with a prefix (except the
French de and d') are to be recorded under the prefix; in other
languages under the word following.
English compound surnames are to be entered under the last part
of the name; foreign ones under the first part.
Designations are to be added to distinguish writers of the same
name from each other.
Prefixes indicating the rank or profession of writers may be
added in the heading, when they are part of the usual designation
of the writers.
Names of places to be given in the English form. When both an
English and a vernacular form are used in English works, prefer
the vernacular.
TITLES.
The title is to be an exact transcript of the title-page, neither
amended, translated, nor in any way altered, except that mottos,
titles of authors, repetitions, and matter of any kind not
essential, are to be omitted. Where great accuracy is desirable,
omissions are to be indicated by three dots (...). The titles of
books especially valuable for antiquity or rarity may be given in
full, with all practicable precision. The phraseology and
spelling, but not necessarily the punctuation, of the title are
to be exactly copied.
Any additions needed to make the title clear are to be supplied,
and inclosed by brackets.
Initial capitals are to be given in English:
noted events, and periods (each separate word not an article,
conjunction, or preposition, may be capitalized in these cases);
to adjectives and other derivatives from proper names when they
have a direct reference to the person, place, etc., from which
they are derived;
to the first word of every sentence and of every quoted title;
to titles of honor when standing instead of a proper name
(_e. g._, the Earl of Derby, but John Stanley, earl of Derby);
In foreign languages, according to the local usage;
In doubtful cases capitals are to be avoided.
Foreign languages.--Titles in foreign characters may be
transliterated. The languages in which a book is written are to be
stated when there are several, and the fact is not apparent from the
title.
IMPRINTS.
After the title are to be given, in the following order, those in
[ ] being optional:
the place of publication;
[and the publisher's name] (these three in the language of
the title);
the year as given on the title-page, but in Arabic figures;
[the year of copyright or actual publication, if known to be
different in brackets, and preceded by c. or p. as the case may be];
the number of volumes, or of pages if there is only one volume;
[the number of maps, portraits, or illustrations not included in the
text];
and either the approximate size designated by letter, or the
exact size in centimeters;
the name of the series to which the book belongs is to be given in
parentheses after the other imprint entries.
After the place of publication, the place of printing may be
given if different. This is desirable only in rare and old books.
The number of pages is to be indicated by giving the last number
of each paging, connecting the numbers by the sign +; the
addition of unpaged matter may be shown by a +, or the number of
pages ascertained by counting may be given in brackets. When
there are more than three pagings, it is better to add them
together and give the sum in brackets.
These imprint entries are to give the facts, whether ascertained
from the book or from other sources; those which are usually
taken from the title (edition, place, publisher's name, and
series) should be in the language of the title, corrections and
additions being inclosed in brackets. It is better to give the
words, "maps," "portraits," etc., and the abbreviations for
"volumes" and "pages," in English.
CONTENTS, NOTES.
Notes (in English) and contents of volumes are to be given when
necessary to properly describe the works. Both notes and lists of
contents to be in a smaller type.
MISCELLANEOUS.
A single dash or indent indicates the omission of the preceding
heading; a subsequent dash or indent indicates the omission of a
subordinate heading, or of a title.
A dash connecting numbers signifies to and including; following a
number it signifies continuation.
A ? following a word or entry signifies probably.
Brackets inclose words added to titles or imprints, or changed in
form.
Arabic figures are to be used rather than Roman; but small
capitals may be used after the names of sovereigns, princes, and
popes.
A list of abbreviations to be used was given in the Library
journal, Vol. 3: 16-20.
ARRANGEMENT.
The surname when used alone precedes the same name used with
forenames; where the initials only of the forenames are given,
they are to precede fully written forenames beginning with the
same initials (_e. g._, Brown, Brown, J.; Brown, J. L.; Brown,
James).
The prefixes M and Mc, S., St., Ste., Messrs., Mr., and Mrs., are
to be arranged as if written in full, Mac, Sanctus, Saint,
Sainte, Messieurs, Mister, and Mistress.
The works of an author are to be arranged in the following order:
2. Partial collections.
3. Single works, alphabetically, by the first word of the title.
The order of alphabeting is to be that of the English alphabet.
The German ae, oe, ue, are always to be written as ä, ö, ü, and
arranged as a, o, u.
Names of persons are to precede similar names of places, which in turn
precede similar first words of titles.
A few desirable modifications or additions to these rules may be
suggested.
1. In title-entries, let the year of publication stand last, instead of
the indication of size.
2. Noblemen to be entered under their family names, with reference from
their titles.
3. Instead of designations of title, profession, residence, or family, to
distinguish authors, let every name be followed by the chronology, as--
James (Henry) 1811-82.
James (Henry) 1843-
It is highly desirable to give this information as to the author's period
in every title-heading, without exception, when ascertainable. If
unknown, the approximate period to be given, with a query.
4. All titles to be written in small letters, and printed in lower case,
whether in English, German, or any other language, avoiding capitals
except in cases named in the rule.
5. Works without date, when the exact date is not found, are to be
described conjecturally, thus:
[1690?] or [about 1840.]
6. In expressing collations, use commas rather than the sign + between
the pagings, as--xvi, 452, vii pp.--not xvi+452+vii pp.
7. Forenames should be separated from the surnames which precede them by
parenthesis rather than commas, as a clearer discrimination: as--
Alembert (Jean Baptiste le Rond d')--not
Alembert, Jean Baptiste le Rond d'.
The printed catalogue of the British Museum Library follows this method,
as well as that in the preceding paragraph.
8. All books of history, travels, or voyages to have the period covered
by them inserted in brackets, when not expressed in the title-page.
9. All collected works of authors, and all libraries or collections of
different works to be analysed by giving the contents of each volume,
either in order of volumes, or alphabetically by authors' names.
Of course there are multitudes of points in catalogue practice not
provided for in the necessarily brief summary preceding: and, as books on
the art abound, the writer gives only such space to it as justice to the
wide range of library topics here treated permits.
Probably the most important question in preparing catalogue titles, is
what space to give to the author's frequently long-drawn-out verbiage in
his title-page. There are two extremes to be considered: (1) Copying the
title literally and in full, however prolix; and (2) reducing all
title-pages, by a Procrustean rule, to what we may call "one-line
titles." Take an example:
"Jones (Richard T.) A theoretical and practical treatise on the benefits
of agriculture to mankind. With an appendix containing many useful
reflections derived from practical experience. iv, 389 pp. 8°. London,
MDCCXLIV." As abridged to a short title, this would read: "Jones (Richard
T.) Benefits of agriculture, iv, 389 pp. 8°. Lond. 1744." Who will say
that the last form of title does not convey substantially all that is
significant of the book, stripped of superfluous verbiage? But we need
not insist upon titles crowded into a single line of the catalogue,
whether written or printed. This would do violence to the actual scope of
many books, by suppressing some significant or important part of their
titles. The rule should be to give in the briefest words selected out of
the title (never imported into it) the essential character of the book,
so far as the author has expressed it. Take another example:
"Bowman (Thomas) A new, easy, and complete Hebrew course; containing a
Hebrew grammar, with copious Hebrew and English exercises, strictly
graduated: also, a Hebrew-English and English-Hebrew lexicon. In two
parts. Part I. Regular verbs. Edinburgh, 1879."
This might be usefully condensed thus:
Bowman, (Thomas) Hebrew course: grammar, exercises, lexicon,
[&c.] Part I. Regular verbs. Edinburgh, 1879.
One objection brought against the dictionary catalogue is that it widely
separates subjects that belong together. In the Boston Athenaeum
catalogue, for example, the topic Banks is found in Vol. 1, while Money
is in Vol. 3; and for Wages, one must go to Vol. 5, while Labor is in
Vol. 3. But there are two valid reasons for this. First, the reader who
wants to know about banks or wages may care nothing about the larger
topics of money or of labor; and secondly, if he does want them, he is
sent to them at once by cross-reference, where they belong in the
alphabet; whereas, if they were grouped under Political Economy, as in
classed catalogues, he must hunt for them through a maze of unrelated
books, without any alphabet at all.
It is often forgotten by the advocates of systematic subject catalogues
rather than alphabetical ones, that catalogues are for those who do not
know, more than for those who do. The order of the alphabet is settled
and familiar; but no classification by subjects is either familiar or
settled. Catalogues should aim at the greatest convenience of the
greatest number of readers.
It is noteworthy that the English Catalogue (the one national
bibliography of the current literature of that country) has adopted,
since 1891, the dictionary form of recording authors, titles and subjects
in one alphabet, distinguishing authors' names by antique type. It is
hoped that the American Catalogue, an indispensable work in all
libraries, will adopt in its annual and quinquennial issues the
time-saving method of a single alphabet.
It is not claimed that the dictionary catalogue possesses fully all the
advantages in educating readers that the best classed catalogues embody.
But the chief end of catalogues being to find books promptly, rather than
to educate readers, the fact that the dictionary catalogue, though far
from perfect, comes nearer to the true object than any other system,
weighs heavily in its favor. Edward Edwards said--"Many a reader has
spent whole days in book-hunting [in catalogues] which ought to have been
spent in book-reading." It is to save this wasted time that catalogues
should aim.
Nothing can be easier than to make a poor catalogue, while nothing is
more difficult than to make a good one. The most expert French
bibliographers who have distinguished themselves by compiling catalogues
have been most severely criticised by writers who no doubt would have
been victimized in their turn if they had undertaken similar work. Byron
says
"A man must serve his time to every trade,
Save censure;--critics all are ready made."
When De Bure and Van Praet, most accomplished bibliographers, published
the catalogue of the precious library of the duke de La Vallière, the
abbé Rive boasted that he had discovered a blunder in every one of the
five thousand titles of their catalogue. Barbier and Brunet have both
been criticised for swarms of errors in the earlier editions of their
famous catalogues. The task of the exact cataloguer is full of
difficulty, constantly renewed, and demanding almost encyclopaedic
knowledge, and incessant care of minute particulars.
The liability to error is so great in a kind of work which, more than
almost any other, demands the most scrupulous accuracy, lest a catalogue
should record a book with such mistakes as to completely mislead a
reader, that rules are imperatively necessary. And whatever rules are
adopted, a rigid adherence to them is no less essential, to avoid
misapprehension and confusion. A singular instance of imperfect and
misleading catalogue work was unwittingly furnished by Mr. J. Payne
Collier, a noted English critic, author, and librarian, who criticised
the slow progress of the British Museum catalogue, saying that he could
himself do "twenty-five titles an hour without trouble." His twenty-five
titles when examined, were found to contain almost every possible error
that can be made in cataloguing books. These included using names of
translators or editors as headings, when the author's name was on the
title-page; omitting christian names of authors; omitting to specify the
edition; using English instead of foreign words to give the titles of
foreign books; adopting titled instead of family names for authors (which
would separate Stanhope's "England under Queen Anne" from the same
writer's "History of England," published when he was Lord Mahon); errors
in grammar, etc. These ridiculous blunders of a twenty-five-title-an-hour
man exemplify the maxim "the more haste, the worse speed," in
catalogue-making.
That our British brethren are neither adapted nor inclined to pose as
exemplars in the fine art of cataloguing, we need only cite their own
self-criticisms to prove. Here are two confessions found in two authors
of books on catalogue-making, both Englishmen. Says one: "We are
deficient in good bibliographies. It is a standing disgrace to the
country that we have no complete bibliography of English authors, much
less of English literature generally." Says another: "The English are a
supremely illogical people. The disposition to irregularity has made
English bibliography, or work on catalogues, a by-word among those who
give attention to these matters."
An American may well add, "They do these things better in France and
Germany," while declining to claim the meed of superiority for the United
States.
Too much prominence should not be given to place-numbers in library
catalogues. The tendency to substitute mere numerical signs for authors
and subjects has been carried so far in some libraries, that books are
called for and charged by class-numbers only, instead of their
distinctive names. An English librarian testifies that assistants trained
in such libraries are generally the most ignorant of literature. When
mechanical or mnemonical signs are wholly substituted for ideas and for
authors, is it any wonder that persons incessantly using them become
mechanical? Let catalogue and classification go hand in hand in bringing
all related books together, and library assistants will not stunt their
intellects by becoming bond-slaves to the nine digits, nor lose the power
of thought and reflection by never growing out of their _a b c's_.
There are two forms of catalogue not here discussed, which are adjuncts
to the library catalogue proper. The accession catalogue, kept in a large
volume, records the particulars regarding every volume, on its receipt by
the library. It gives author, title, date, size, binding, whence
acquired, cost, etc., and assigns it an accession number, which it ever
after retains. The shelf catalogue (or shelf-list) is a portable one
divided into sections representing the cases of shelves in the library.
It gives the shelf classification number, author, brief title and number
of volumes of each book, as arranged on the shelves; thus constituting an
inventory of each case, or stack, throughout the library.
To check a library over is to take an account of stock of all the books
it should contain. This is done annually in some libraries, and the
deficiencies reported. All libraries lose some books, however few, and
these losses will be small or great according to the care exercised and
the safe-guards provided. The method is to take one division of the
library at a time, and check off all books on the shelves by their
numbers on the shelf-list, supplemented by careful examination of all
numbers drawn out, or at bindery, or in other parts of the library. Not a
volume should be absent unaccounted for. Those found missing after a
certain time should be noted on the shelf-list and accession book, and
replaced, if important, after the loss is definitely assured.
The reason for writing and printing all catalogue titles in small
letters, without capitals (except for proper names) is two-fold. First,
there can be no standard prescribing what words should or should not be
capitalized, and the cataloguer will be constantly at a loss, or will use
capitals in the most unprincipled way. He will write one day, perhaps,
"The Dangers of great Cities," and the next, "The dangers of Great
cities"--with no controlling reason for either form. Secondly, the
symmetry of a title or a sentence, whether written or printed, is best
attained by the uniform exclusion of capitals. That this should be
applied to all languages, notwithstanding the habit of most German
typographers of printing all nouns with capitals, is borne out by no less
an authority than the new Grimm's _Deutsches Wörterbuch_, which prints
all words in "lower case" type except proper names. Nothing can be more
unsightly than the constant breaking up of the harmony of a line by the
capricious use of capitals.
To discriminate carefully the various editions of each work is part of
the necessary duty of the cataloguer. Many books have passed through
several editions, and as these are by no means always specified on the
title-page, one should establish the sequence, if possible, by other
means. The first edition is one which includes all copies printed from
the plates or the type as first set; the second, one which is reprinted,
with or without changes in the text or the title. First editions often
acquire a greatly enhanced value, in the case of a noted author, by
reason of changes made in the text in later issues of the work. For
though the latest revision may and should be the author's best improved
expression, his earliest furnishes food for the hunters of literary
curiosities. Every catalogue should distinguish first editions thus [1st
ed.] in brackets.
In the arrangement of titles in catalogues, either of the various works
of the same writer, or of many books on the same subject, some compilers
follow the alphabetical order, while others prefer the chronological--or
the order of years of publication of the various works. The latter has
the advantage of showing the reader the earlier as distinguished from the
recent literature, but in a long sequence of authors (in a
subject-catalogue) it is more difficult to find a given writer's work, or
to detect its absence.
The task of accurately distributing the titles in a catalogue of subjects
would be much simplified, if the books were all properly named. But it is
an unhappy failing of many writers to give fanciful or far-fetched titles
to their books, so that, instead of a descriptive name, they have names
that describe nothing. This adds indefinitely to the labor of the
cataloguer, who must spend time to analyse to some extent the contents of
the book, before he can classify it. This must be done to avoid what may
be gross errors in the catalogue. Familiar examples are Ruskin's Notes on
Sheep-folds (an ecclesiastical criticism) classified under Agriculture;
and Edgeworth's Irish Bulls under Domestic animals.
The work of alphabeting a large number of title-cards is much simplified
and abbreviated by observing certain obvious rules in the distribution.
(1) Gather in the same pile all the cards in the first letter of the
alphabet, A, followed in successive parallel rows by all the B's, and so
on, to the letter Z. (2) Next, pursue the same course with all the
titles, arranging under the second letter of the alphabet, Aa, Ab, Ac,
etc., and so with all the cards under B. C. &c. for all the letters. (3)
If there still remain a great many titles to distribute into a closer
alphabetic sequence, the third operation will consist in arranging under
the third letter of the alphabet, _e. g._, Abb, Abc, Abd, etc. The same
method is pursued throughout the entire alphabet, until all the
title-cards are arranged in strict order.
Too much care cannot be taken to distinguish between books written by
different authors, but bearing the same name. Many catalogues are full of
errors in this respect, attributing, for example, works written by
Jonathan Edwards, the younger, (1745-1801) to Jonathan Edwards the elder,
(1703-58); or cataloguing under Henry James, Jr., the works of his
father, Henry James. The abundant means of identification which exist
should cause such errors to be avoided; and when the true authorship is
fixed, every author's chronology should appear next after his name on
every card-title: _e. g._ James (Henry, 1811-82) Moralism and
Christianity, New York, 1850. James (Henry, 1843- ) Daisy Miller, N. Y.
1879.
The designation of book sizes is a vexed question in catalogues. The
generally used descriptions of size, from folio down to 48mo. signify no
accurate measurement whatever, the same book being described by different
catalogues as 12mo. 8vo, crown 8vo. &c., according to fancy; while the
same cataloguer who describes a volume as octavo to-day, is very likely
to call it a duodecimo to-morrow. Library catalogues are full of these
heterogeneous descriptions, and the size-notation is the _bête noir_ of
the veteran bibliographer, and the despair of the infant librarian. Yet
it is probable that the question has excited a discussion out of all
proportion to its importance. Of what consequence is the size of a book
to any one, except to the searcher who has to find it on the shelves?
While the matter has been much exaggerated, some concert or uniformity in
describing the sizes of books is highly desirable.
A Committee of the American Library Association agreed to a
size-notation, figured below, adopting the metric system as the standard,
to which we add the approximate equivalents in inches.
_Centimetres_
_Size_ _outside_
_Sizes._ _abbreviations._ _height._ _Inches._
Folio, F°. F 40 16
Quarto, 4°. Q 30 12
Octavo, 8°. O 25 10
Duodecimo, 12°. D 20 8
Sixteen mo., 16°. S 17.5 7
Twenty-four mo., 24°. T 15 6
Thirty-two mo., 32°. Tt 12.3 5
Forty-eight mo., 48°. Fe 10 4
It will be understood that the figure against each size indicated
represents the maximum measure: _e. g._ a volume is octavo when above 20
and below 25 centimetres (8 to 10 inches high).
As this question of sizes concerns publishers and booksellers, as well as
librarians, and the metric system, though established in continental
Europe, is in little use in the United States and England, it remains
doubtful if any general adherence to this system of notation can be
reached--or, indeed, to any other. The Publishers' Weekly (N. Y.) the
organ of the book trade, has adopted it for the titles of new books
actually in hand, but follows the publishers' descriptions of sizes as to
others. Librarian J. Winter Jones, of the British Museum, recommended
classing all books above twelve inches in height as folios, those
between ten and twelve inches as quartos, those from seven to ten inches
as octavos, and all measuring seven inches or under as 12mos. Mr. H. B.
Wheatley, in his work, "How to Catalogue a Library," 1889, proposed to
call all books small octavos which measure below the ordinary octavo
size. As all sizes "run into each other," and the former classification
by the fold of the sheets is quite obsolete, people appear to be left to
their own devices in describing the sizes of books. While the metric
notation would be exact, if the size of every book were expressed in
centimetres, the size-notation in the table given is wholly wanting in
precision, and has no more claim to be adopted than any other arbitrary
plan. Still, it will serve ordinary wants, and the fact that we cannot
reach an exact standard is no reason for refusing to be as nearly exact
as we can.
And while we are upon the subject of notation may be added a brief
explanation of the method adopted in earlier ages, (and especially the
years reckoned from the Christian era) to express numbers by Roman
numerals. The one simple principle was, that each letter placed after a
figure of greater equal value adds to it just the value which itself has;
and, on the other hand, a letter of less value placed before (or on the
left of) a larger figure, diminishes the value of that figure in the same
proportion. For example:
These letters--VI represent six; which is the same as saying V+I. On the
contrary, these same letters reversed represent four; thus--IV: that is
V-I=4. Nine is represented by IX, _i. e._, X-I, ten minus one. On the
same principle, LX represents 60--or L+N: whereas XL means 40--being L-X.
Proceeding on the same basis, we find that LXX=L+XX=70; and LXXX or L+XXX
is 80. But when we come to ninety, instead of adding four X's to the L,
they took a shorter method, and expressed it in two figures instead of
five, thus, XC, _i. e._ 100 or C-X=90.
The remarkable thing about this Roman notation is that only six letters
sufficed to express all numbers up to one thousand, and even beyond, by
skilful and simple combinations: namely the I, the V, the X, the L, the
C, and the M, and by adding or subtracting some of these letters, when
placed before or after another letter, they had a whole succession of
numbers done to their hand--thus:
I, 1 XX, 20 CC, 200
II, 2 XXX, 30 CCC, 300
III, 3 XL, 40 CCCC, 400
IV, 4 L, 50 D, 500
V, 5 LX, 60 DC, 600
VI, 6 LXX, 70 DCC, 700
VII, 7 LXXX, 80 DCCC, 800
VIII, 8 XC, 90 CM, 900
IX, 9 C (centum), 100 M, (mille), 1,000
X, 10
Now, when the early printers came to apply dates of publication to the
books they issued, (and here is where their methods of notation become
most important to librarians) they used precisely these methods. For
example, to express the year 1695, they printed it thus: MDCVC, that
is--1000+500+100+100-5. But the printers of the 15th century and later,
often used complications of letters, dictated by caprice rather than by
any fixed principles, so that it is sometimes difficult to interpret
certain dates in the colophons or title-pages of books, without
collateral aid of some kind, usually supplied to the librarian by
bibliographies. One of the simpler methods of departure from the regular
notation as above explained, was to substitute for the letter D (500) two
letters, thus--I[inverted C], an I and a C inverted, supposed to resemble
the letter D in outline. Another fancy was to replace the M, standing for
1,000, by the symbols CI[inverted C]--which present a faint approach to
the outline of the letter M, for which they stand. Thus, to express the
year 1610, we have this combination--CI[inverted C] I[inverted C] CX,
which would be indecipherable to a modern reader, uninstructed in the
numerical signs anciently used, and their values. In like manner, 1548 is
expressed thus: MDXLIIX, meaning 1000+500+40+10-2. And for 1626, we have
CI[inverted C] I[inverted C] C XXVI.
As every considerable library has early printed books, a librarian must
know these peculiarities of notation, in order to catalogue them
properly, without mistake as to their dates. In some books, where a
capricious combination of Roman numerals leaves him without a precedent
to guide him to the true date, reference must be had to the
bibliographies of the older literature, (as Hain, Panzer, etc.), which
will commonly solve the doubt.
As to the mechanics of catalogue-making, widely different usages and
materials prevail. In America, the card or title-slip system is well nigh
universal, while in England it is but slowly gaining ground, as against
the ledger or blank book catalogue. Its obvious advantage lies in
affording the only possible means of maintaining a strict alphabetical
sequence in titles, whether of authors or subjects. The title-cards
should be always of uniform size, and the measure most in vogue is five
inches in length by three inches in breadth. They should not be too
stiff, though of sufficient thickness, whether of paper or of thin card
board, to stand upright without doubling at the edges. They may be ruled
or plain, at pleasure, and kept in drawers, trays, or (in case of a small
catalogue) in such paste-board boxes as letter envelopes come in.
The many advantages of the card system, both for catalogues and indexes,
should not lead us to overlook its palpable defects. These are (1) It
obliges readers to manipulate many cards, to arrive at all the works of
an author, or all the books on any subject, instead of having them under
his eye at once, as in printed catalogues. (2) It can be used only in the
library, and in only one place in the library, and by only one person at
a time in the same spot, while a printed catalogue can be freely used
anywhere, and by any numbers, copies being multiplied. (3) It entails
frequent crowding of readers around the catalogue drawers, who need to
consult the same subjects or authors at the same time. (4) It requires
immeasurably more room than a printed catalogue, and in fact, exacts
space which in some libraries can be ill afforded. (5) It obliges readers
to search the title-cards at inconvenient angles of vision, and often
with inadequate light. (6) It is cumbersome in itself, and doubly
cumbersome to searchers, who must stand up instead of sitting to consult
it, and travel from drawer to drawer, interfering with other searchers
almost constantly, or losing time in waiting. (7) To this is added the
inconvenience of constant insertion of new title-cards by members of the
library staff, and the time-consuming process of working the rods which
keep the cards in place, if they are used, and if not used, the risk of
loss of titles, or misplacement equivalent to loss for a time.
Says Mr. H. B. Wheatley: "I can scarcely imagine anything more maddening
than a frequent reference to cards in a drawer." But it is to be
considered that all systems have defects, and the problem of choosing the
least defective is ever before us. Most of the suggested defects of the
card catalogue, as concerns the readers, can be obviated by making a
two-fold catalogue, the type-written titles being manifolded, and one set
arranged in card-drawers for the use of the library staff, while another
is mounted on large sheets in bound volumes for use of the public. This
would secure the advantages of a printed catalogue, with no more expense
than the manuscript titles would cost. If desired, a number of copies
could be bound up for reading-room use. Accessions of new books could be
incorporated from month to month, by leaving the right-hand pages blank
for that purpose. This would be near enough to alphabetical order for
most readers, with the immense advantage of opening at one glance before
the eye, any author or subject. It would go far to solve the problem how
to unite the flexibility and perfect alphabeting of the card system, with
the superior comfort, safety, and ease of reference of the book. It would
also be a safe-guard against the loss or displacement of titles, a danger
inherent in the card system, as they could be replaced by copying missing
titles from the catalogue volumes.
While the undoubted merits of the card system have been much overrated,
it would be as unwise to dispense with it as the complete official
catalogue of the library, as it would be to tie down the public to its
use, when there is a more excellent way, saving time and patience, and
contributing to the comfort of all.
To print or not to print? is a vital question for libraries, and it is in
most cases decided to forego or to postpone printing, because of its
great expense. Yet so manifest are the advantages of a printed catalogue,
that all public libraries should make every effort to endow their readers
with its benefits. These advantages are (1) Greater facility of reading
titles. (2) Much more rapid turning from letter to letter of the
catalogue alphabet. (3) Ability to consult it outside of the library. (4)
Unlimited command of the catalogue by many readers at once, from the
number of copies at hand, whereas card catalogues or manuscript volumes
involve loss of time in waiting, or interfering with the researches of
others. A part of these advantages may be realized by printing
type-written copies of all titles in duplicate, or by carbon paper in
manifold, thus furnishing the library with several copies of its
catalogue: but why not extend this by multiplying copies through the
ingenious processes now in use, by which the printing of titles can be
effected far more cheaply than in any printing office? Might not every
library become its own printer, thus saving it from the inconvenience and
risk of sending its titles outside, or the great expense of copying them
for the printer?
The titles thus manifolded could be combined into volumes, by cutting
away all superfluous margins and mounting the thin title-slips
alphabetically on paper of uniform size, which, when bound, would be
readily handled. All the titles of an author's works would be under the
eye at a glance, instead of only one at a time, as in the card catalogue.
And the titles of books on every subject would lie open, without slowly
manipulating an infinite series of cards, one after another, to reveal
them to the eye. The classification marks could be readily placed against
each title, or even printed as a part of the manifold card titles.
Not that the card catalogue system would be abolished: it would remain as
the only complete catalogue of the library, always up to date, in a
single alphabet. Daily accessions inserted in it would render it the
standard of appeal as to all that the library contained, and it would
thus supplement the printed catalogue.
Of course, large and increasing accessions would require to be combined
in occasional supplementary volumes of the catalogue; and in no long
number of years the whole might be re-combined in a single alphabet,
furnishing a printed dictionary catalogue up to its date.
The experience of the great British Museum Library in this matter of
catalogues is an instructive one. After printing various incomplete
author-catalogues in the years from 1787 to 1841, the attempt to print
came to a full stop. The extensive collection grew apace, and the
management got along somehow with a manuscript catalogue, the titles of
which (written in script with approximate fullness) were pasted in a
series of unwieldy but alphabetically arranged volumes. To incorporate
the accessions, these volumes had continually to be taken apart by the
binder, and the new titles combined in alphabetical order, entailing a
literally endless labor of transcribing, shifting, relaying and
rebinding, to secure even an imperfect alphabetical sequence. In 1875,
the catalogue had grown to over two thousand thick folio volumes, and it
was foreseen, by a simple computation of the rate of growth of the
library, that in a very few years its catalogue could no longer be
contained in the reading-room. The bulky manuscript catalogue system
broke down by its own weight, and the management was compelled to resort
to printing in self defence. Before the printing had reached any where
near the concluding letters of the alphabet, the MS. catalogue had grown
to three thousand volumes, and was a daily and hourly incubus to
librarians and readers.
This printed catalogue of the largest library in the world, save one, is
strictly a catalogue of authors, giving in alphabetical order the names,
followed by the titles of all works by each writer which that library
possesses. In addition, it refers in the case of biographies or comments
upon any writer found in the index, to the authors of such works; and
also from translators or editors to the authors of the translated or
edited work. The titles of accessions to the library (between thirty and
forty thousand volumes a year) were incorporated year by year as the
printing went on. All claim to minute accuracy had to be ignored, and the
titles greatly abridged by omitting superfluous words, otherwise its cost
would have been prohibitory. The work was prosecuted with great energy
and diligence by the staff of able scholars in the service of the Museum
Library. As the catalogue embraces far more titles of books, pamphlets,
and periodicals than any other ever printed, it is a great public boon,
the aid it affords to all investigators being incalculable. And any
library possessing it may find, with many titles of rare and unattainable
works, multitudes of books now available by purchase in the market, to
enrich its own collection. It is said to contain about 3,500,000 titles
and cross-references. It is printed in large, clear type, double columns,
well spaced, and its open page is a comfort to the eye. Issued in paper
covers, the thin folios can be bound in volumes of any thickness desired
by the possessor.
It has several capital defects: (1) It fails to discriminate authors of
the same name by printing the years or period of each; instead of which
it gives designations like "the elder", "the younger", or the residence,
or occupation, or title of the author. The years during which any writer
flourished would have been easily added to the name in most cases, and
the value of such information would have been great, solving at once many
doubts as to many writers. (2) The catalogue fails to print the
collations of all works, except as to a portion of those published since
1882, or in the newer portions issued. This omission leaves a reader
uncertain whether the book recorded is a pamphlet or an extensive work.
(3) The letters I and J and U and V are run together in the alphabet,
after the ancient fashion, thus placing Josephus before Irving, and Utah
after Virginia; an arrangement highly perplexing, not to say
exasperating, to every searcher. To follow an obsolete usage may be
defended on the plea that it is a good one, but when it is bad as well as
outworn, no excuse for it can satisfy a modern reader. (4) No analysis is
given of the collected works of authors, nor of many libraries made up of
monographs. One cannot find in it the contents of the volumes of any of
Swift's Works, nor even of Milton's Prose Writings. (5) It fails to
record the names of publishers, except in the case of some early or rare
books.
The printing of this monumental catalogue began in 1881, the volumes of
MS. catalogue being set up by the printer without transcription, which
would have delayed the work indefinitely, and it is now substantially
completed. Its total cost will be not far from £50,000. There are about
374 volumes or parts in all. Only 250 copies were printed, part of which
were presented to large libraries, and others were offered for sale at
£3.10 per annum, payable as issued, so that a complete set costs about
£70. One learns with surprise that only about forty copies have been
subscribed for. This furnishes another evidence of the low estate of
bibliography in England, where, in a nation full of rich book-collectors
and owners of fine libraries, almost no buyers are found for the most
extensive bibliography ever published, a national work, furnishing so
copious and useful a key to the literature of the world in every
department of human knowledge.