SUBJECT, TITLE, AND SERIES ENTRIES.
=75.=--The form of author-entry, or its equivalent, having been
settled, the subject-entry now commands attention. The importance of
the author-entry is recognised, but it is well known to librarians
that, leaving fiction out of the question, most inquiries are made in
libraries for books upon a particular subject, or for a special class
of literature, rather than for the works of a particular writer, the
people who know many authors not being so numerous as might be supposed.
Therefore it is essential in all cataloguing work that the utmost
attention be paid to the subjects. Every volume dealt with should be
thoroughly examined for the purpose of ascertaining generally the nature
of its contents, and definitely the subject or subjects of which it
treats. This course should be pursued in every case, even if the subject
is so clearly defined upon the title-page that to go beyond the statement
there made would seem to be a sheer waste of time, otherwise the
“pitfalls” that lie in the cataloguer’s way cannot be avoided. Besides,
there may be some particularly valuable feature of the book hidden away
in an appendix, or even a separate book bound up in the same cover, which
the first title-page will not reveal.
=76.=--When the subject of the book has been clearly ascertained, an
entry taken from the book itself or from the principal entry already
written, is made under the name of the direct and definite _subject_ of
the book, not under the class of literature to which it belongs or even
the form in which it is written. It is of the first importance that the
cataloguer should definitely decide the particular subject-name he will
adopt in order to avoid the somewhat common blemish in catalogues of
synonymous headings. Having so decided, it will prevent future mistakes
if a cross-reference is immediately written and sorted into place with
the first lot of slips alphabetized when it at once serves as a pointer
in the right direction by preventing books upon a single subject being
placed under two headings. Thus if the book in hand is
NEWTH, Samuel. A first book of natural philosophy. pp. viii.,
136, illus. sm. 8o. 1867
and the cataloguer has decided in favour of the heading “Physics,” he
will at once write a cross-reference
Natural philosophy. _See_ Physics.
which when put in its alphabetical sequence will point out if slips
have been inadvertently written under “Natural Philosophy” that the
chosen heading is “Physics,” and that the entries must be so altered and
arranged. The subject-entry in this instance would be
Physics:
Newth, S. First book of natural philosophy. 1867
It will be here noted that under the subject-heading the author’s
surname leads off as it directs to the principal entry where the fullest
particulars concerning the book are to be found, and consequently it is
most unusual to give the collation, size, and other information in all
sub-entries. It is advisable, however, to give the date of publication
in every entry excepting in the case of works of fiction under the
circumstances referred to in paragraph 24.
=77.=--The forms of subject entries in dictionary catalogues can be much
better shown by means of example with explanations than by statement
alone, and for this reason a number of ordinary books, not selected for
any difficulty they present, are given. These have been fully worked
out in the dictionary system, and are accompanied in each case by the
principal entry, so that the complete series of entries can be seen. The
styles of types in printing commonly made use of to mark distinctions are
also shown.
ABNEY, W. de W.
Colour measurement and mixture. (_Romance of science ser._)
pp. 207, illus. sm. 8o. 1891
Colour.
Abney, W. de W. Colour measurement and mixture. 1891
Romance of Science series:
Abney, W. de W. Colour measurement and mixture. 1891
Science.
_See also_ Romance of science series.
It is an excellent rule to follow that a subject must have at least two
books upon it before it is entitled to a “heading,” such as the second of
the above entries has. In the event of the library possessing but this
one book upon the subject by the time the “copy” has to be sent to the
printer, it would then be reduced to title form, as
Colour measurement and mixture. Abney, W. de W. 1891
=78.=--The third entry is under the name of the series. Where space is
a consideration, and only brief entries can be given, the cataloguer
can omit either the name of the series from the principal entry and
retain the entries under the title heading of the series, or he may
reverse the process and leave out this third entry, as he may deem most
expedient, but if possible both should be retained, as they afford
useful information--in the first entry showing that the book is one of
a particular series, and thereby giving some idea of its character and
scope, indeed it would not be amiss for the same reason to include it in
the second entry, and the third entry form furnishes a list of the books
of this particular series in the library.
=79.=--BAILLON, Henry E. The natural history of plants; transl. by Marcus
M. Hartog. Illus. 8v. la. 8o. 1871-88
This work should neither be placed under “Natural History” nor “Plants,”
as some might suppose, as its subject is “Botany,” and the further
entries would therefore be
Botany:
Baillon, H. E. The natural history of plants. 8v. 1871-88.
Plants. _See_ Botany.
HARTOG, Marcus M. (_Transl._) _See_ Baillon, H. E.
Besides the curtailment of information given in the principal entry
already shown, the Christian names of authors are reduced to simple
initials, and the names of translators and editors are omitted in all
sub-entries. It is important to notice the difference between “_See_” and
“_See also_” in cross-references; the first would prevent any entries
being placed under the subject-heading where it is given, as already
stated, but the second is intended to guide to lesser or closely-related
divisions of the subject under which it appears. There may be a number
of these _see alsos_ under a single heading by the time the catalogue is
ready for printing, when they are to be embodied into one entry, as in
the following illustration, where nine are so amalgamated
Botany.
_See also_ Algæ. Cryptogamia. Ferns. Flowers. Fungi. Grasses.
Lichens. Mosses. Trees.
Of course, references of any kind must never be made in anticipation, but
at the moment when the book to which they refer is being catalogued;
otherwise a series of references will be the result that lead nowhere, as
would be the case in the above example if the library had no books upon
Algæ or the other subjects named.
=80.=--TAYLOR, Wm. (_of Norwich_). Historic survey of German poetry.
8 v. 8o. 1828-30
The subject-entries for a book such as this call for careful
consideration. A title-entry under “Historic” is uncalled for, as the
subject is clearly defined in the full title. But a choice of headings
must be made under which the entries are to be given. The mind will waver
between some of these:
German poetry.
Poetry, German.
German literature.
Literature, German.
Germany. (Sub-division Literature)
and upon a right decision hangs the usefulness and correctness of the
catalogue, as it is possible that other entries will be affected by it
later. An exact analysis shows that the book is specifically upon the
first-named subject, but it is so clearly a part of the third-named as
to be entitled to come under it in some form, either by way of entry or
cross-reference. It is true that, if treated logically, the book has
no absolute right of inclusion under a heading “German literature,”
inasmuch as it only deals with poetical literature, but it may be taken
for granted that a book with the title of “Historic survey of German
prose” would be placed under such a heading without much questioning; and
therefore, as concentration and convenience count for something, and are
often of more moment than literal exactness, the entries might very well
be
German literature.
Taylor, W. Historic survey of German poetry. 8 v. 1828-30.
German poetry. _See_ German Literature.
Catalogued in strict observance of rule, the entries would be
German poetry, Historic survey of. Taylor, W. 3 v. 1828-30
with a possible reference:
German literature.
_See also_ German poetry.
The second and fourth headings would not be chosen, for the reason that
the book is neither upon “Poetry” nor “Literature” generally or in the
abstract, and it is much better to reserve those headings for books of
that nature or of a miscellaneous kind, putting books upon the literature
of particular countries under their distinctive name. An inquirer wanting
a book upon German literature is more likely to turn to “German” than
to “Literature.” A general cross-reference will put the matter beyond
possibility of mistake, as
Literature.
_See also the names of national literatures, as_ English,
French, German, Greek, Latin.
=81.=--The fifth heading is merely another form of the third heading,
but it is given among the rest because in the larger catalogues of
reference libraries the whole of the books upon a particular country are
often grouped together under the name of the country, these again being
sub-divided for convenience of reference according to the number of
entries under the heading, in divisions like these:
Antiquities, architecture, and art.
Description and social life.
Education.
History and politics.
Religion.
Miscellaneous.
=82.=--The next book coming under notice is
BOOTH, Wm. (_“General” of the Salvation Army_). In darkest
England, and the way out. pp. 285, xxxi, frontis. la. 8o. [1890]
Whether a title-entry is needed is open to doubt, but as the title
of the book is enigmatical it is safer to give one. The rule for all
title-entries is to give them under the first word not an article, and it
would accordingly be
In darkest England. Booth, W. [1890]
but the probability is that nine men out of ten would remember the book
as “Darkest England,” and look for it under “Darkest,” and therefore it
might be more useful if the entry were
Darkest England, In. Booth, W. [1890]
=83.=--The subject of the book requires that it be entered under whatever
heading may be adopted for the social question, say
Poor and poor relief.
Booth, W. In darkest England. [1890]
No entry is called for under “England,” unless everything relating
directly or indirectly to the home-country is to be brought together
under that heading or “Great Britain.” If this is so, and it is to be
faithfully and literally carried out, it will become so large as to need
very elaborate sub-division, and even then, in the catalogue of a British
library at anyrate, its extent will make it of little practical value. In
large catalogues page after page would be filled to no great advantage,
and therefore the best course to adopt is to make the entry under the
exact subject, as shown, ignoring “England” if the book deals with the
country generally and not a particular corner of it. By this plan a book
upon the “Poor of Essex” would be entered both under “Essex” and “Poor,”
but books like
Ruskin. The art of England.
Stephen. General view of the criminal law of England.
Hobkirk. British mosses.
Fairholt. Costume in England.
Oliphant. Literary history of England.
Green. Short history of the English people,
are sufficiently dealt with if, apart from the author-entry, they
appear under “Art,” “Law,” “Mosses,” “Costume,” “English literature,”
and “English history,” respectively, leaving the headings “England” and
“Great Britain” for books _descriptive_ of the country generally and not
some special aspect of it. As already shown, books upon even special
features of _other countries_ should be entered under the name of the
country. In most cases it is also desirable, even necessary, to enter
under the subject likewise. Thus the double subject-entries of books, like
Griffis. The religions of Japan.
Perkins. Historical handbook of Italian sculpture.
Gray. Birds of the West of Scotland.
would be under “Japan” and “Religions,” “Italy” and “Sculpture,” and
“Scotland” and “Birds.” If space cannot be afforded for both entries,
judgment would then have to be exercised in making choice of the best
single subject-heading, and it would be found that for the above the most
useful are “Japan,” “Sculpture,” and “Birds.”
In catalogues of the larger libraries a heading like “Birds” would
have so many items to it that it should be sub-divided to facilitate
reference, first the books upon birds generally, followed by those upon
the birds of particular countries or localities like that above-named
upon the birds of the West of Scotland. The arrangement under the
general division would be alphabetically by authors, but it has been
found convenient to arrange the “local” by the name of the place, also
alphabetically, after this manner
Birds.
_Countries and local._
Africa, South, Birds of. Layard, E. L.
Asia, Birds of. Gould, J.
British. Our rarer birds. Dixon, C.
History of British birds. Seebohm, H.
Scotland. Birds of the W. of Scotland. Gray, R.
=84.=--The desirability, or otherwise, of using scientific terms for
subject-headings in catalogues is governed altogether by the people
for whom the library is intended. In a library used by all classes of
the community, the simpler and more widely known term is the best,
and therefore “Birds” is preferable to “Ornithology,” “Fishes” to
“Ichthyology,” and “Insects” to “Entomology.” In a library of a college
or scientific institution the reverse method would possibly prove
the best, but it is essential that perfect uniformity be maintained
whatever form is decided upon, as it would be somewhat ridiculous to
use scientific terms in some cases and popular names in others. The
cross-reference comes in most usefully in any style of catalogue as it
removes all doubt, thus
Ornithology. _See_ Birds.
Catalogues compiled upon very exact lines occasionally reserve the
popular name for books of a popular or miscellaneous nature, and the
scientific for those intended for the scientist, but the dividing line
between the two classes of books cannot always be clearly seen, and it is
much better to bring all together under the same heading, marking there
any differences in the character of the books by means of sub-division.
In some few instances the use of the scientific term is unavoidable
as there may be no popular name that meets the case. For example, it
would not be correct to put a book upon the fresh-water algæ under a
heading “Sea-weeds,” and a book upon the _tunicata_ cannot be put under
any other name. The fact may be again emphasised that in a dictionary
catalogue a book is entered under its _definite_ subject and never under
its class or general subject. Thus a book like
White, W. F. Ants and their ways,
does not go under “Insects,” or even “Hymenoptera,” but directly under
“Ants,” though such a book as
Lubbock, Sir John. Ants, bees, and wasps.
would be sufficiently entered in the catalogue of a scientific library,
if placed under “Hymenoptera,” but in the catalogue of a popular library
should go under all three names, “Ants,” “Bees,” and “Wasps,” just as a
book like
Meyrick, E. British lepidoptera.
is better placed under “Butterflies” and “Moths” with a cross-reference
Lepidoptera. _See_ Butterflies. Moths.
It would be a waste of space, however, to enter a work so comprehensive
in character as
Bath, W. H. Ants, bees, dragon-flies, earwigs, crickets and flies.
under each of these as, even though it omits the butterflies, moths, and
beetles, it would be well enough dealt with if entered under “Insects.”
As it is a well-understood principle that a book must be entered under
the exact subject of which it treats, so a work upon the natural history
of animals while coming within the popular notion of “natural history,”
and may be so called by its author, as
Lydekker, Richard (_Ed._) The royal natural history. Illus. 6 v.
la. 8o. 1893-6
yet from the cataloguer’s standpoint it would not be altogether correct
to enter it under “Natural History,” as that term is properly held to
include the flora as well as fauna, and therefore the heading should be
either “Zoology” or “Animals.” This last term is frequently reserved for
books dealing only with animals, and apart from birds, reptiles, etc.,
and for books upon animals, not written from the naturalist’s point of
view. Correctness is again ensured by cross-references, as
Natural history of animals. _See_ Zoology.
Animals, Natural history of. _See_ Zoology.
=85.=--The next books are selected for the purpose of showing the
difference in treatment of works similar in character:
Milman, Henry H., _Dean_. Annals of S. Paul’s Cathedral. 2nd ed.
pp. xiv, 540, ports., illus. 8o. 1869
Loftie, W. J. Kensington Palace, pp. 76, illus. 8o. 1898
Hiatt, Charles. The Cathedral Church of Chester. (_Bell’s
Cathedral ser._) pp. viii, 96, illus. sm. 8o. 1897
Routledge, C. F. The Church of St. Martin, Canterbury. pp. 101,
illus. sm. 8o. 1898
Those upon buildings of a more national than local character situated in
London are entered under the name of the buildings and not the locality,
as
St. Paul’s Cathedral.
Milman, H. H. Annals of S. Paul’s Cathedral. 1869
unless the locality is embodied in the title as
Kensington Palace. Loftie, W. J. 1898
Neither of these books should be placed under a heading “London,” but a
cross-reference may be given:
London.
_See also the names of buildings, as_ Kensington Palace, St.
Paul’s Cathedral.
The other books should lead off with the name of the place where the
building is situated, though not entered under the place-heading, as they
are not books upon Chester or Canterbury. Therefore the form is
Chester, The Cathedral Church of. Hiatt, C. 1897
Canterbury, The Church of St. Martin. Routledge, C. F. 1898
or in shorter fashion:
Chester Cathedral. Hiatt, C. 1897
Canterbury, St. Martin’s Church. Routledge, C. F. 1898
Upon the same principle a history of a London parish is not entered under
“London,” but under its particular name with a cross-reference from
London to the places, as
London.
_See also the names of parishes, as_ Chelsea, Kensington,
Southwark, Westminster.
Monographs upon buildings of national importance in foreign countries are
however always entered under the name of the city where situated and not
under the name of the building. Works upon St. Mark’s, Venice, or Notre
Dame de Paris being entered under Venice and Paris respectively, as
Venice, St. Mark’s.
Paris, Notre Dame.
To give heed to details of this kind is not “hair-splitting,” as the
novice may be disposed to imagine--it is the very essence of good
cataloguing. Even with most careful attention the cataloguer may well
congratulate himself if at the conclusion of his work, and especially
when in print, it comes out faultless, because the perfect catalogue
absolutely free from error has not yet been seen.