THE DICTIONARY CATALOGUE.
=6.=--The dictionary catalogue is not the idea or invention of any
individual, but has developed gradually from the requirements of
librarians in dealing with readers. The earlier catalogues were limited
to entries given under the authors’ names, as in the British Museum
Catalogue, or were in classified form, either under the large classes
into which a library was divided, or with very little other sub-division.
These were followed by what may be termed “dictionary index catalogues”
containing the first principles of the dictionary catalogue as now
understood. They consisted of very brief entries under authors, and the
simple turning about of a title to bring a certain word in it to the
front as conveying its subject, in this manner:--
England under Victoria. Michelsen.
Englefield (Sir H. C.) Walk through Southampton.
English Antiquities. Eccleston. 1847.
Ennui. Edgeworth.
Entomology, Exotic. Drury. 1837.
Episodes of Insect Life. 1851.
Errand to the South. Malet.
By this method the real subject of the book was often missed, more
especially if the author had made use of a fanciful title, and one
subject would be found under many different entries, according to the
word used on the title-page, and without cross references to bind them
together. It must be confessed that to-day many of the dictionary
catalogues of public libraries are no more than this “index catalogue”
under the newer name. The entries may be a little fuller, but the
principles of compilation remain the same.
=7.=--Prior to 1876 there was no complete code of rules for the
preparation of a subject as well as author catalogue, though Prof. C. C.
Jewett’s “On the construction of Catalogues of Libraries” (Washington,
1853), with its subsequent modifications, was a step in this direction.
There were rules for author catalogues, for the most part based upon the
British Museum rules, as well as schemes of classification for classified
catalogues. In that year was published the now well-known “Rules for a
Dictionary Catalogue,” by Charles A. Cutter, Librarian of the Boston
Athenæum. It appeared as the second part of the “Special Report on the
Public Libraries in the United States of America,” issued under the
auspices of the United States Bureau of Education. A second edition
of these rules was separately issued in 1889. The third edition, with
further corrections and additions, appeared in 1891, and has been most
liberally distributed by the United States Government to the libraries of
the world. Since 1876 other rules have been formulated, principally with
Cutter’s as a basis. A consensus of these will be found in the “Eclectic
Card Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries,” by K. A. Linderfelt,
Librarian of the Milwaukee Public Library, Boston (Charles A. Cutter)
1890. This most useful compilation, “based on Dziatzko’s ‘Instruction’
compared with the rules of the British Museum, Cutter, Dewey, Perkins,
and other authorities,” is not as well known to English librarians as it
should be. The present Manual is intended to serve as an introduction
to these two codes, and the instructions contained in it are based upon
them. When these have not been adhered to the changes made have obtained
authority in library practice. Mr. Henry B. Wheatley’s interesting little
book, “How to Catalogue a Library” (Stock, 1889), must also be mentioned,
and should be read as an introduction to the subject.
=8.=--The great merit of the dictionary catalogue is that it can be
made to supply most of the information usually asked for by those using
libraries, and by immediate reference without any preliminary study of
its arrangement. It obtains its name from the circumstance that all the
entries, irrespective of their nature, are put into a single alphabetical
sequence, and consulted as one would consult a dictionary. It is
considered to be the most acceptable form to the majority of those making
use of popular libraries, and experience has proved it to be so.
The dictionary catalogue is intended to answer all of the following
questions:
What books are contained in the library by a given author, as,
Hall Caine? The answer to this is called the _author-entry_.
What books have you upon a specific subject, as the dynamo; or
upon a particular topic, as the Eastern question? The entries
answering such enquiries are the _subject-entries_.
Have you a book called, “A Daughter of Eve?” The entry supplying
this information would be the _title-entry_.
Have you any volume of a series, as, “English men of letters?”
This it will also answer, and the reply may be termed the
_series-entry_.
There are questions, however, that the dictionary catalogue does not
ordinarily answer. It would not tell what books were in the library in a
particular language, say French, and it will not provide a complete and
definite list of books in a particular _form_, as fiction, or poetry;
or in a _class_ of literature as distinct from _subject_. For example,
it will not group together all the theological works, or the scientific
books, but will distribute them throughout the entire alphabet, according
to the divisions of these subjects, and these divisions will in their
turn be distributed according to lesser divisions and monographs.
A catalogue compiled upon the lines requisite to group such classes
completely, so that a general treatise and a monograph upon a minute
division will follow in natural order, would be a classified catalogue,
and that form is dealt with separately in Chapter XII.
To effect a combination of both forms in such a way that they would
answer any question, reasonable or otherwise, would necessitate so large
a number of entries for each book that its compilation would be barely
feasible, and if carried out it would be unsatisfactory, because the
simplicity of the alphabetical order would be destroyed, and the result
would not be worth the labour expended, to say nothing of its size and
costliness.
=9.=--Therefore choice must be made at the very outset between the two
forms, dictionary or classified. The point to be first considered is,
which form is most likely to best suit the needs of the particular class
who use the library; as a catalogue which would be most useful for a
college library, or that of a scientific society, would be unsuitable
for a free library in the midst of a working-class population. Then the
question of cost enters into the matter, and here the classified form
has the advantage, as apart from the brief index entries, one entry per
book mostly suffices, whereas in the dictionary form the average is
three entries. There is a still more important matter which materially
affects the older libraries, and that is the impossibility of keeping the
dictionary form within reasonable compass, even with curtailed entries
and closely-printed pages of small type. Borrowers from a public lending
library prefer to carry their catalogues with them when exchanging
books, but they cannot do so if it is in two or three volumes, or so
bulky as not to be portable. For this reason librarians with unbounded
belief in the superior advantages of the dictionary catalogue have
been compelled, against their will, to adopt the classified form. They
had no alternative, except the very unsatisfactory one of extensively
weeding their stock of books, and only those who have undertaken that
responsibility know how difficult it is to decide whether a book is worth
retaining or not. A very judicial statement of the merits of the two
styles of catalogues will be found in a paper by Mr. F. T. Barrett, of
the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, entitled “The Alphabetical and Classified
Forms of Catalogues Compared,” in the “Transactions of the Second
International Library Conference,” 1897. Mr. J. D. Brown’s views, as set
forth in Chapter v. of his “Manual of Library Classification” (Library
Supply Co., 1898), should also be carefully considered.
PRELIMINARIES.
=10.=--Presuming that the student is for the first time undertaking the
work of cataloguing a library, he will require to provide himself with
a supply of cards or slips of paper cut uniform in size. Almost any
size will do, but the most convenient and more commonly used measures
5 inches by 3 inches. If the catalogue is to be written for the use
of readers, then cards are necessary as they are more convenient for
turning over than the paper slips which serve well enough for “copy”
for a printed catalogue. If the cards or slips are to be written upon
with a pen they should be ruled “feint” across and have marginal rulings
to mark the “indent.” These rulings are only upon one side, as in no
case should an entry be continued to the other side. If an entry is so
long that it cannot be put on one card then it must be continued on
the face of a second, with the author or other heading repeated. For
the cataloguer’s own use or as printer’s copy, the card or slip may be
lengthened as required by pasting to it a strip of paper of the same
width, and folding it up within the compass of the size of the card, but
exposing the heading. This cannot be done when the cards are held in
place by a rod running through them. It need hardly be pointed out that
for a card catalogue meant for the use of many persons the quality of
the cards is of great importance, as those of a cheap, inferior material
will not bear much turning over without tearing. Card catalogues are not
invariably appreciated by the public, as some persons seem to experience
difficulty in turning over the cards. For this reason some librarians
prefer the sheaf form because it maintains the book shape, which everyone
understands, and it has the same advantages as the card catalogue in
allowing the insertion of additions in proper order at any time, and
permits unlimited expansion, besides taking up less room.
Upon each card or slip a separate entry of each book is made, and by
“book” is meant a work that may be in a single volume or in many volumes.
Two works even by the same author, appearing under his name, should be
entered on separate cards, as, if written together, it is usually found
that another book will later have to be inserted _between_ them.
=11.=--Printers are acknowledged, as a class, to be the most exact and
patient of men, but to those beginners who have not any large experience
of their ways it is well to say “be careful to write boldly and plainly,”
remembering always that it is a much more difficult work for a compositor
to set a catalogue than probably any other form of book, because the
matter does not “run on” and various types and languages commonly enter
into it. Apart from the mistakes easily made when the “copy,” as the
manuscript is called, is not clear and distinct, there is the risk
incurred of an extra charge for “author’s corrections”--a well-known
item in all printers’ bills. To write clearly is of even more importance
if the catalogue is to remain in manuscript for use by readers. A handy
little brochure upon this subject is “Library Handwriting,” issued by the
New York State Library School, April 1898, and the style of handwriting
therein shown should be studied and imitated. The specimen on the next
page is taken from it.
=12.=--It is in the preparation of “copy” and in writing card catalogues
for public use that the great value of the typewriter is experienced,
as clearness and uniformity are insured by its use as well as economy
of space. While it is hardly within the scope of this Manual to say
anything by way of recommendation of any particular make of typewriter,
yet experience shows that it would be a mistake to overlook the “Hammond”
when considering the merits of different machines. In cataloguing it
is found useful because a variety of types of a distinctive character,
including the accented letters most commonly required, can be used upon a
single machine.
[Illustration: SPECIMEN ALPHABETS AND FIGURES
Joined hand
Disjoined hand]