(_b_) A noun preceded by an adjective, as «Ancient history», «Capital
punishment», «Moral philosophy».
(_c_) A noun preceded by another noun used like an adjective, as
«Death penalty», «Flower fertilization».
(_d_) A noun connected with another by a preposition, as «Penalty of
death», «Fertilization of flowers».
(_e_) A noun connected with another by “and,” as «Ancients and
moderns».
(_f_) A sentence, as in the titles “Sur la règle «Paterna paternis
materna maternis»” and “De usu paroemiae juris Germanici, «Der Letzte
thut die Thüre zu»;” where the whole phrase would be the subject of
the dissertation.
There are three main courses open:
(1) We can consider the subject to be the phrase _as it reads_, as
«Agricultural chemistry», «Survival of the fittest», which is the only
possible method in (_a_) and undoubtedly the best method in (_c_),
(_e_), and (_f_), and in most cases of proper names, as «Democratic
Party», «White Mountains», «Missouri River» (but see § 26).
(2) We can make our entry in (_b_), (_c_), and (_d_) under what we
consider the most significant word of the phrase, inverting the order
of the words if necessary; as, «Probabilities» (instead of «Theory» of
probabilities); «Earth», Figure of the; «Species», Origin of the, the
word Origin here being by itself of no account; «Alimentary» canal,
Canal being by itself of no account; «Political» economy, Political
being here the main word and economy by itself having a meaning
entirely different from that which it has in this connection.
(3) We can take the phrase as it reads in (_c_), (_d_), (_e_), and
(_f_), but make a special rule for a noun preceded by an adjective
(_b_), _first_, that all such phrases shall when possible be reduced
to their equivalent nouns, as «Moral philosophy» to «Ethics» or
to «Morals, Intellectual»; or «Mental philosophy» to «Intellect»;
or «Mind, Natural philosophy» to «Physics, Sanitary science»; or
«Hygiene, Scientific men» to «Scientists»; or «Social science» to
«Sociology»; and, _secondly_, that in all cases where such reduction
is impossible the words shall be inverted and the noun taken as
the heading, as «Chemistry», Agricultural; «Chemistry», Organic;
«Anatomy», Comparative; «History», Ancient; «History», Ecclesiastical;
«History», Modern; «History», Natural; «History», Sacred.[40] {52}
The objection to (1) is that it may be pushed to an absurd extent
in the case (_b_). A man might plausibly assert that Ancient Egypt
is a distinct subject from Modern Egypt, having a recognized name of
its own, as much so as Ancient history, and might therefore demand
that the one should be put under «A» (Ancient) and the other under
«M» (Modern)[41] and similar claims might be made in the case of
all subject-names to which an adjective is ever prefixed, which
would result in filling the catalogue with a host of unexpected and
therefore useless headings. Nevertheless the rule seems to me the best
if due discrimination be used in choosing subject-names.
[note] 40. This rule is proposed by Mr. Schwartz and carried out,
with some exceptions, in his catalogue of the New York Apprentices’
Library.[/note]
[note] 41. Which would be much like putting Williams’s “Shakespeare’s
Youth” under «Youthful» Shakespeare. Individuals should not be
divided.[/note]
The objection to (2) is that there would often be disagreement as to
what is “the most important word of the phrase,” so that the rule
would be no guide to the reader. But in connection with (1) and as a
guard against its excesses (2) has its value. The combined rule might
read:
107. Enter a compound subject-name by its first word, inverting the
phrase only when some other word is decidedly more significant or is
often used alone with the same meaning as the whole name.
_Ex._ «Special providences» and «Providence», «Proper names» and
«Names».
It must be confessed that this rule is somewhat vague and that it
would be often of doubtful application, and that on the other hand (3)
is clear and easy to follow. But there are objections to (3). It would
put a great many subjects under words where nobody unacquainted with
the rule would expect to find them.
Works on the would hardly be looked for under
Alimentary canal Canal.
Dangerous classes Classes.
Digestive organs Organs.
Dispensing power Power.
Domestic economy Economy.
Ecclesiastical polity Polity.
Final causes Causes.
Gastric juice Juice.
Laboring classes Classes.
Military art Art.
Parliamentary practice Practice.
Political economy Economy.
Solar system System.
Suspended animation Animation.
Zodiacal light Light.
Another objection is that in most cases the noun expresses a
class, the adjective limits the noun, and makes the name that of a
subclass (as International law, Remittent disease, Secret societies,
Sumptuary laws, Typhoid fever, Venemous insects, Whig party, Woolen
manufactures), and to adopt the noun (the class) as the heading is to
violate the fundamental principle of the dictionary catalogue. The
rule is urged, however, not on the ground of propriety or congruity
with the rest of the system but simply as convenient, as a purely
arbitrary rule which _once understood_ will be a certain guide for the
reader. “If he is told that he shall always find a subject arranged
under its substantive form and never under an adjective he can hardly
fail to find it. If, on the other hand, he is told that Comparative
anatomy is under «C» and Morbid anatomy under «A», that Physical
geography is under «P» and Mathematical geography under «G», he will
only be bewildered, and accuse the cataloguer of making distinctions
that it requires too much study to appreciate. Theoretically the
distinctions may be justified, but practically the simpler way of
using the noun only is more {53} easily grasped by the common mind.
And the system of classifying names under the surname is precisely
analogous;[42] thus
«Smith», John,
«Smith», Joseph,
«Smith», William,
seems to me to be arranged on the same principle as
«History», Ancient,
«History», Ecclesiastical,
«History», Modern,
«History», Sacred.”[43]
This is plausible. If the public could ever get as accustomed to the
inversion of subject-names as they are to the inversion of personal
names the rule would undoubtedly be very convenient; but it might
be difficult to teach the rule. The catalogue treatment of personal
names is familiar to every one, because it is used in all catalogues,
dictionaries, directories, and indexes. But there are less than
three hundred subject-names consisting of adjective and noun in a
catalogue which has probably over 50,000 names of persons. The use
of the rule would be so infrequent that it would not remain in the
memory. And it should be observed that the confusion caused by the
different treatment of Morbid anatomy and Comparative anatomy would
only occur to a man who was examining the system of the catalogue, and
not to the ordinary user. A man looks in the catalogue for treatises
on «Comparative anatomy»; he finds it, where he first looks, under
«C». He does not know anything about the disposition of works on
Morbid anatomy, and is not confused by it. Another man looks for
works on Morbid anatomy and under «M» he is referred to «Anatomy»,
_Morbid_.[44] He finds there what he wants and does not stop to notice
that «Comparative anatomy» is not there, but under «C», consequently
he is not puzzled by that. And even those who are taking a general
survey of all that the library possesses on anatomy would probably be
too intent upon their object to pause and criticise the arrangement,
provided the reference from «Anatomy» to «Comparative Anatomy» were
perfectly clear, so that they ran no risk of overlooking it and had no
difficulty in finding the subject referred to.
The specific-entry rule is one which the reader of a dictionary
catalogue must learn if he is to use it with any facility; it is much
better that he should not be burdened with learning an exception to
this, which the noun rule certainly is.
It ought also to be noticed that this plan does not escape all the
difficulties of the others. In reducing, for instance, Intellectual
philosophy or Moral philosophy, will you say Mind or Intellect,
Morals or Ethics? And the reader will not always know what the
equivalent noun is,—that Physics = Natural Philosophy, for example,
and Hygiene = Sanitary science. Nor does it help us at all to decide
whether to prefer Botanical morphology or Morphological botany. These
difficulties, which beset any rule, are only mentioned here lest too
much should be expected from a plan which at first sight seems to
solve all problems.
The practice of reducing a name to the substantive form is often a
good one; but should not be insisted upon as an invariable rule, as
it might lead to the adoption of some very out-of-the-way names. As a
mere matter of form Nebulæ is to be preferred for a heading to Nebular
hypothesis, Pantheism to Pantheistic theory, Lyceums to Lyceum system,
etc. {54}
In (_b_), (_c_), and (_d_) the same subject can often be named in
different ways; as,
(_b_) «Capital punishment.» «Floral fertilization.»
(_c_) «Death penalty.» «Flower fertilization.»
(_d_) «Penalty of death.» «Fertilization of flowers.»
Is there any principle upon which the choice between these three can
be made, so that the cataloguer shall always enter books on the same
subject under the same heading? I see none. When there is any decided
usage (_i. e._, custom of the public to designate the subjects by one
of the names rather than by the others) let it be followed; that is
to say, if, in the examples given above, the more customary phrases
are «Capital punishment», «Fertilization of flowers», then we must use
those names, preferring in the first case the name which begins with
an adjective to its equivalent beginning with a noun, and in the other
the name beginning with a noun to its equivalent beginning with an
adjective. As is often the case in language, usage will be found not
to follow any uniform course.
If usage manifests no preference for either name, we can not employ
the two indifferently; we must choose one; and some slight guide
to choice in certain cases may perhaps be found. On examination of
the phrases above, it appears that they are not all of the same
composition. In «Comparative anatomy», «Capital punishment», the
noun is the name of a general subject, one of whose subdivisions is
indicated by the adjective. And Capital, Comparative have only this
limiting power; they do not imply any general subject. But «Ancient
history», «Mediæval history», etc., may be viewed not only in this
way (History the class, Ancient history and Mediæval history the
subdivisions) but also as equivalent to «Antiquity»: _History_,
«Middle Ages»: _History_ (as we say «Europe»: «History»), in which
case the adjectives (Ancient, Mediæval) imply a subject and the
noun (History) indicates the aspect in which the subject is viewed.
Here, then, we choose «Ancient» and «Mediæval» as the heading, on
the principle of § 68. So in (_b_) and (_c_) each of the nouns in
turn may be considered as expressing the more general idea and the
other as limiting it; _e. g._, we can have various headings for Death
considered in different lights, among others as a penalty; and we
can have headings of various sorts of penalties, among others death.
It is evident that this collection of penalties taken together makes
up a class, and therefore this belongs to a style of entry which the
dictionary catalogue is expected to avoid; but the series of headings
beginning with the word Death would not make a class, being merely
different aspects of the same thing, not different subordinate parts
of the same subject.
When an adjective implies the name of a place, as in «French
literature», «German philosophy», «Greek art», it is most convenient
on the whole to make the subject a division under the country. In this
way all that relates to a country is brought together and arranged in
one alphabetical series of subjects under its name (see § 258). It is
not of the slightest importance that this introduces the _appearance_
of an alphabetico-classed catalogue, so long as the main object
of a dictionary, ready reference, is attained. Of course «Hebrew
language», «Latin language», «Latin literature», and «Punic language»
can not be so treated; it is the custom and is probably best not to
put «English language» and «English literature» under «England», as
they have extended far beyond the place of their origin; books on the
language spoken in the United States go with those on the English
language except the few on «Americanisms», which are separated, like
accounts of any other dialect. Our literature can not be treated
satisfactorily. It is never called United States literature, and no
one would expect to find it under United States. On the other hand the
name American properly should include Canadian literature and all the
Spanish literature of South America. It is, however, the best name we
have.
[note] 42. But if analogies are to have any weight, why should we
follow that of names of persons, which are inverted, more than that
of names of places, which are not? We do not say «Mountains», White;
«Regions», Antarctic; «Sea», Red; why should we say «Anatomy»,
Comparative; «Arts», fine; «System», Brunonian?—C.[/note]
[note] 43. Schwartz, slightly altered.[/note]
[note] 44. This is on the supposition that Morbid Anatomy has been
considered by the cataloguer not to be a distinct subject, entitled to
a name of its own.[/note]
(_k._) _Double entry._
108. It is plain that almost every book will appear several times in
the catalogue:
Under author, if he is known.
Under first word of title, if the book is anonymous or the title is
memorable. {55}
Under each distinct subject.
Under form-heading in many cases.
Under many other headings by way of cross-reference.
And this is necessary if the various objects enumerated on p. 8 are to
be attained quickly. But inasmuch as the extent and therefore the cost
of the catalogue increases in direct proportion with the multiplication
of entries, it becomes worth while to inquire whether some of these can
not be dispensed with by devices which will suit the inquirer as well
or nearly as well. Such economies are mentioned in §§ 93–97, 113, 114.