ALPHABETISATION AND ARRANGEMENT.
=113.=--On the face of it, it seems a simple affair to arrange slips in
alphabetical order--“as easy as a, b, c”--but, judging by the mistakes
made, and the small number of persons who when put to it can alphabetise
properly, it is not so simple as it appears. The arrangement is, of
course, to be according to the English alphabet, and irrespective of the
language of the entries, I and J and U and V to be kept apart as distinct
letters, and then by each separate word.
One of the first principles is to arrange all entries leading off with
the same word in accordance with what is understood as precedence and
importance of entry, viz., (1) author and other personal names; (2)
subject names; (3) titles of books; as, for example:
Ireland, Alex. (_Ed._) The book-lover’s enchiridion.
(Author.)
Ireland.
Bagwell, R. Ireland under the Tudors.
(Subject.)
Ireland: a tale. Martineau, H.
(Title.)
It has already been shown that initial letters precede all words with the
same initial, and under the same rule all names with a particular initial
for the Christian name are placed before those with the Christian name in
full, as
Fitzgerald, P. F.
Fitzgerald, Percy.
Fitzgerald, S. J. A.
Fitzgerald, Samuel.
Where there are a number of persons of the same surname and initial in
the catalogue it is as well, for the sake of clearness, to try and find
out the full name for which the initial stands and give it. When this
cannot be done it is very important to take care and not attribute books
by different authors to one, or by an individual to different authors.
These are mistakes much more commonly made than might be supposed.
Monarchs, as authors or as subjects, having similar names are arranged in
chronological order, but with British sovereigns leading, as
William I., the Conqueror.
William III., Prince of Orange.
William IV.
William II., Emperor of Germany.
These would be followed by persons with a single name, as
William _of Malmesbury_,
and then by other persons with William as a surname, arranged in order
alphabetically by their Christian names or initials. When titles are used
and appear in the name, as Lord, Lady, Sir, Rev., Dr., they are ignored
and not allowed to affect the arrangement in the least, not even if it
happens that there is no other means of distinguishing a person, and if
the Christian name cannot be ascertained such a name would be placed
before that of all others of the same name and treated in precisely the
same way as if the surname only were known and no title existed, as
Lamb, Lady.
Lamb, Arthur.
Lamb, Charles.
If two noblemen of the same title have the same Christian name they
should be placed in order of succession with their order shown, as
Derby, Edward, 14th Earl of.
Derby, Edward, 15th Earl of.
and parents and children with similar names are arranged according to
seniority, like
Dumas, Alexandre.
Dumas, Alexandre, _fils_.
It is sometimes recommended to place distinctions of this nature with the
surname, as
Johnson _senior_, Thomas.
Johnson _junior_, Thomas.
but this is not a very happy form.
Names of a person in different forms must not be alphabetised under
those forms, but one selected and all concentrated under it, as it would
be foolish to have separate entries under say Shakspere, Shakespeare,
Shakspear, Shakspeare, though the variety in the name can be shown _in
the different entries_ under the form adopted.
=114.=--It has already been shown that different editions of the same
work are to be arranged in order of publication as far as possible,
and that editions in the language of the original are placed before
translations, and complete works before parts or selections. These would
in turn be followed by works _upon_ the author as subject, _i.e._,
biographical and critical, when there is no occasion to repeat his name
as a subject-heading, as the repeat dash may be omitted to show that he
is not the author of a book upon himself, a mistake that is not likely to
be made by the dullest person if the name of the author of the book upon
the author in question leads off, thus
Lamb, Charles. The essays of Elia.
⸻ Mrs. Leicester’s school.
Ainger, A. Charles Lamb.
Martin, B. E. In the footprints of Lamb.
This order of arrangement may be tabulated in full in this way:--
1st. Complete works in the original (by date of publication).
2nd. Complete works in translation (by date of publication).
3rd. Semi-complete works (_i.e._ more than a single work).
4th. Single works, arranged alphabetically by titles, first in
the original, and then translations of each immediately following.
5th. Works where the author is a joint-author.
6th. Works when he is only editor or compiler.
7th. References _from_ the person as _author_.
8th. Works relating to him, alphabetically by authors.
9th. References _from_ the person as _subject_.
As already stated in section 52, names with prefixes are taken as part
of the name, and arranged accordingly. If the prefix is abbreviated as
M’, or Mc, or St., it is placed in order as if spelled out Mac or Saint.
This does not imply that the name must be so altered in the catalogue,
and refers to the order only. Names like Müller should be arranged as
Muller, taking care that other entries are not under Mueller, but this is
a matter that can be best dealt with according to the circumstances of
the case, as, for instance, Goethe should be so alphabetised, and not as
Göthe. Diphthongs are alphabetised as separate letters.
=115.=--Abbreviated words in title-entries are also treated as if given
in full, and consequently “Dr. Thorne” and “Mr. Isaacs” do not come
immediately before “Drab” and “Mud,” but with “Doctor” and “Mister”
respectively. It need hardly be said that “Mrs. Bligh” or any other Mrs.
is not alphabetised in either the abbreviated or colloquial form, but as
“Mistress,” and therefore does not come between “Mozley” and “Muddock.”
Other abbreviated words are arranged upon the same plan. “Fo’c’s’le
yarns” appearing as “Forecastle,” though the exception to this rule is
found in other elisions contained in such entries, as
’Twas in Trafalgar’s Bay.
’Tween snow and fire.
Who was Philip?
Who’s to blame?
which are alphabetised as here shown, and not under “It,” “between,” or
“Who is.”
Compound words, whether divided by a hyphen or printed as one word, are
arranged to follow the single word, after this fashion:
Book for the hammock.
Book of nonsense.
Bookbinding.
Book-buying.
Book-keeping.
Book-plates.
Books.
New South Wales.
New Testament.
New Zealand.
Newcastle.
Newfoundland.
Newgate.
When numerals lead off in a title-entry they are alphabetised as if
written or printed in words; thus
£1,000,000 bank-note, The.
97th Regiment, History of the.
£200 reward.
are put in order as, “One million,” “Ninety-seventh,” and “Two hundred”
respectively.
=116.=--It is necessary to repeat the instructions to ignore the articles
“A,” “An” and “The” in alphabetical arrangement, when they lead in a
title or are transposed for alphabetical purposes, but not otherwise.
In the middle of a title they must be reckoned with, and therefore
“Under a strange mask” comes before “Under Drake’s flag,” and “Mr. and
Mrs. Faulconbridge” before “Mr. Baker’s money.” The possessive is to be
treated as spelled, and so “Miners and their works” comes before “Miner’s
right, The,” and “Boys’ and Girls’ Book of Games” comes between “Boys’
adventures” and “Boys and I.”
Sometimes entries upon quite different subjects, which are spelled alike
are, in the work of sorting, inadvertently amalgamated under a single
heading, and so books like “_The Great Seals of England_” by Wyon;
“_Seals of the British Seas_” by Southwell; and “_Catalogue of seals in
the British Museum_” by Birch, are brought together to the confusion of
the naturalist or the antiquarian. Fortunately there are not many such
subjects, or the rule-of-thumb mechanical cataloguer would oftener create
laughter than he now does.
Occasionally it will be found advisable to ignore the alphabetical order
of the titles of the books under an author’s name, as in the case where
a number of books with varying titles are intended to be read in a
particular order when it is of more advantage to so arrange them than to
adhere to the alphabetical order. A note should be added, stating that
the arrangement is according to sequence.