(a.) ENTRIES CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
92. Some questions in regard to the place of entry are common to the
author- and the subject-catalogue; because individuals (persons,
places, ships, etc.) may be at once authors and subjects. For these
questions consult Part I, and also § 100 of the present part.
In a dictionary catalogue some books can not profitably have
subject-entry, because they not only have no one subject but do not
even belong to any class of subjects.
A collection is to be entered under the word which expresses
its subject or its general tendency. The memoirs, transactions,
proceedings, etc., of a society should be entered under name of
the object for which the society is founded. When there are many
societies under one head, it is economical to refer merely; as, from
«Agriculture» or «Agricultural societies» to the various names.
The importance of deciding aright where any given subject shall be
entered is in inverse proportion to the difficulty of decision. If
there is no obvious principle to guide the cataloguer, it is plain
there will be no reason why the public should expect to find the
entry under one heading rather than another, and therefore in regard
to the public it matters not which is chosen. But it is better that
such decisions should be made to conform when possible to some general
system, as there is then more likelihood that they will be decided
alike by different cataloguers, and that a usage will grow up which
the public will finally learn and profit by, as a usage has grown up
in regard to the author-entry of French names containing De, Du, La,
etc.
(i.) CHOICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
(_a._) _Between general and specific._
93. Enter a work under its subject-heading, not under the heading of a
class which includes that subject.
_Ex._ Put Lady Cust’s book on “The cat” under «Cat», not under
«Zoölogy» or «Mammals», or «Domestic animals»; and put Garnier’s “Le
fer” under «Iron», not under «Metals» or «Metallurgy».
This rule of “specific entry” is the main distinction between the
dictionary-catalogue and the alphabetico-classed.
Some subjects have no name; they are spoken of only by a phrase or
by several phrases not definite enough to be used as a heading. A
book may be written on the movements of fluids in plants, a very
definite object of investigation, but as yet nameless; it must be
put under Botany (Physiological). But if several works were written
on it and it was called, let us say, «Phythydraulics», it would be
seen that, under this rule, it no more ought to be under «Botany»
than «Circulation of the blood» under «Zoölogy». Thirty years ago
“Fertilization of flowers” could hardly have been used as a heading;
but late writings have raised it to the status of a subject. There are
thousands of possible matters of investigation, some of which are from
time to time discussed, but before the catalogue can profitably follow
its “specific” rule in regard to them they must attain a certain
individuality as objects of inquiry, and be given some sort of _name_,
otherwise we must assign them class-entry.
And it is not always easy to decide what is a distinct subject.
Many catalogues have a heading «Preaching». Is Extempore preaching
a sufficiently distinct matter to have a heading of its own? There
are a number of books on this branch of the {47} subject. In this
particular case the difficulty can be avoided by making the heading
“«Preaching without notes.»” Many such questions may be similarly
solved, with perhaps more satisfaction to the maker of the catalogue
than to its users; but many questions will remain.
Then, mixed with this, and sometimes hardly distinguishable from
it, is the case of subjects whose names begin within an unimportant
adjective or noun,—Are of the meridian, Capture of property at sea,
Segment of a circle, Quadrature of the circle. All that can be said in
such cases is that, if the subject be commonly recognized and the name
accepted or likely to be accepted by usage, the entry must be made
under it. For the fuller discussion of compound headings, see §§ 106,
107.
On the other hand, difficulty arises from the public, or a part of
it, being accustomed to think of certain subjects in connection with
their including classes, which especially happens to those persons
who have used classed catalogues or the dictionary catalogues in
which specification is only partially carried out; so that there is
a temptation to enter certain books doubly, once under the specific
heading to satisfy the rule, and once under the class to satisfy the
public. The dictionary principle does not forbid this. If room can
be spared, the cataloguer may put what he pleases under an extensive
subject (a class), provided he puts the less comprehensive works also
under their respective specific headings. The objection to this is
that, if all the specifics are thus entered, the bulk of the catalogue
is enormously increased; and that, if a selection is made, it must
depend entirely upon the “judgment,” _i. e._, the prepossessions and
accidental associations, of the cataloguer, and there will be an
end to all uniformity, and probably the public will not be better
satisfied, not understanding why they do not find class-entry in all
cases.
(_b._) _Choice between person and country._
94. Put under the name of a king or other ruler all his biographies,
and works purporting to be histories of his reign; but enter under the
country all histories which include more than his reign and accounts of
events which happened during the reign, and all political pamphlets not
directly criticising his conduct.
The first part of this rule is analogous to that by which the works of
a king of a private nature are put under his name, and all his public
writings under the country; putting histories of the reign under the
king is partly subject- and partly title-entry. Books of this sort
have really two subjects and ought to be entered twice (_e. g._,
Boutaric’s “La France sous Philippe le bel”); the rule above is simply
an economical device to save room at the expense of convenience.
Perhaps a better practice would be to enter all lives of kings as well
as histories of their reigns under the country only, with a reference
from the king.
Similarly there are some biographies and autobiographies which have
such a very large proportion of history that they ought to appear
both under the man and the country. In general we merely refer from
the country, but occasionally nothing but double entry will suffice.
Whether they shall appear by way of entry or merely be mentioned in a
note, must be determined by circumstances.
(_c._) _Choice between event and country._
95. Events[37] or periods[38] in the history of a country which have a
proper name may be entered under that name with a reference from the
country; those whose name is common to many countries[39] should be
entered under the country.
[note] 37. St. Bartholomew’s day.[/note]
[note] 38. Fronde.[/note]
[note] 39. Revolution; Restoration; Civil war.[/note]
{48}
(_d._) _Choice between subject (or form) and country._
96. The only satisfactory method is double entry under the local and
the scientific subject—to put, for instance, a work on the geology of
California under both «California» and «Geology», and to carry out
this practice through the catalogue, so that the geographical student
shall not be obliged to search for works on California under «Botany»,
«Geology», «Natural history», «Palæontology», «Zoölogy», and a dozen
similar headings, and the scientist shall not be sent to «California»,
«England», «Russia», and a score of other places to find the various
treatises on geology. But as this profusion of entry would make the
catalogue very long, we are generally obliged to choose between country
and scientific subject.
97. A work treating of a general subject with special reference to a
place is to be entered under the place, with merely a reference from
the subject.
_Ex._ Put Flagg’s “Birds and seasons of New England” under «New
England», and under «Ornithology» say _See also_ «New England». As
«New England ornithology» and «Ornithology of New England» are merely
different names of the same specific subject, it may be asked why we
prefer the first. Because entry under «Ornithology of New England»,
though by itself specific entry, is when taken in connection with the
entries that would be grouped around it («Ornithology», «Ornithology
of America», «Ornithology of Scotland», etc.), in effect class-entry;
whereas the similar grouping under New England does not make that a
class, inasmuch as «New England botany», «New England history», «New
England ornithology» are not parts of New England, but simply the
individual New England considered in various aspects. Of course the
dictionary catalogue in choosing between a class and an individual
prefers the latter. Its object is to show at one view all the sides
of each object; the classed catalogue shows together the same side of
many objects.
There is not as yet much uniformity in catalogues, nor does any carry
out this principle so absolutely as the more obvious “specific” rule
is obeyed. The Boston Public Library Supplement of 1866, for instance,
has under the country _Antiquities_, _Coinage_, _Description_ and
_History_, _Language_, _Religion_ (subjects), and _Literature_,
and even _Elocution_ and _Poetry_ (forms), but not _Ballads_ nor
_Periodicals_, which appear under those words. Yet when Ballads are
called Volkslieder they appear under the country Germany,—an instance
of the independence of the title produced by foreign languages, the
English title being entered by form-word, the foreign works having
national classification, regardless of the title. There are many other
classes that in most catalogues at present, instead of being confined
to general works, absorb books which should rather have local entry,
as «Vases», «Gems», «Sculpture», «Painting», and other branches of
the fine arts, «Ballads», «Epigrams», «Plays», and other forms of
literature. In catalogues of merely English libraries this is perhaps
as well (see § 122), but the multiplication of books and the accession
of foreign literatures render more system necessary.
To show the procedure under this rule, suppose we have a collection
of books on coins. Let the general works go under «Numismatics»; let
works on any particular coin, as a «Pine-tree shilling» or a «Queen
Anne’s farthing», go under the name of the coin; let works on the
coins of a country be put under its name; refer from the country
to all the particular coins on which you have monographs, and from
«Numismatics» both to all the separate coins and to all the countries
on whose coinage you have treatises. {49}
(_e._) _Between subjects that overlap._
98. Among subjects that overlap choose the one that preponderates, with
a reference from the other.
_Ex._ Any complete treatise on domestic animals will cover a large
part of the ground of veterinary medicine; but it is unnecessary to
enter all the works on domestic animals under «Veterinary medicine»;
a note to this effect is sufficient. «Astronomy» and «Geology»
overlap in regard to the origin of the earth, «Geology» and «Physical
geography» in regard to its present condition. Any particular book
must be classified with one or the other subject according as the
geological or geographical treatment prevails.
(ii.) CHOICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT NAMES.
99. General rules, always applicable, for the choice of names of
subjects can no more be given than rules without exception in grammar.
Usage in both cases is the supreme arbiter,—the usage, in the present
case, not of the cataloguer but of the public in speaking of subjects.
(_f._) _Language._
100. When possible let the heading be in English, but a foreign word
may be used when no English word expresses the subject of a book.
_Ex._ «Écorcheurs», «Émigrés», «Raskolnik». Many terms of the Roman
or civil law are not exactly translatable; neither Fault nor Crime
gives the idea of Culpa; the Debitor inops is not our bankrupt or
insolvent; he would have been very glad to have the privileges of
a bankrupt. Some other technical terms, and some names of bodies,
sects, events, should be left in the original language. The use of
the Latin names of Greek deities (Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, in place
of Zeus, Poseidon, Aphrodite) is a manifest inaccuracy. Yet it may be
defended on the plea: (1) that the Latin names are at present more
familiar to the majority of readers; (2) that it would be difficult to
divide the literature, or if it were done, many books must be put both
under «Zeus» and «Jupiter», «Poseidon» and «Neptune», etc., filling
considerable room with no practical advantage.
On the language of place names, see § 33, 35.
(_g._) _Synonyms._
101. Of two exactly synonymous names choose one and make a reference
from the other.
_Ex._ «Poisons» and «Toxicology»; «Antiquities» and «Archæology»;
«Insects» and «Entomology»; «Warming» and «Heating»; «Pacific Ocean»
and «South Sea». There are some cases in which separate headings
(«Hydraulics» and «Mechanics of Fluids»), which can not be combined,
cover books almost identical in character, so that the inquirer
must look under both. This is an evil; but there is no reason for
increasing the evil by separating headings that are really synonymous,
certainly not for dividing a subject in this way for verbal causes and
giving no hint that it has been divided.
It sometimes happens that a different name is given to the same
subject at different periods of its history. When the method of study
of the subject, or its objects, or the ideas connected with it, are
very different at those two periods (as in the case of «Alchemy» and
«Chemistry»), of course there must be two headings. There is not so
much reason for separating Fluxions and Differential calculus, which
differ only in notation. And there is no reason at all for separating
«Natural Philosophy» and {50} «Physics». I am told that medical
nomenclature has changed largely three times within the present
century. How is the cataloguer, unless he happens to be a medical
man, to escape occasionally putting works on one disease under three
different heads?
To arrive at a decision in any case one must balance the advantages on
the one hand of having all that relates to a subject together, and on
the other of making that economical conjunction of title-entry and of
subject-entry which comes from following the titles of the books in
selecting names for their subjects.