_a._ Every work, forming part of a set, which has a separate title-page
and paging, but forms only part of a volume of the set.
_Ex._ «Fairholt», F. W. The civic garland; songs from London pageants,
with introd. and notes. (_In_ «Percy Society», v. 19. 1845.)
Full must and Medium may make a full entry in this case also. That is
to say, Full will draw the line at a separate title-page, Short and
perhaps Medium at filling a volume. Those catalogues which give no
imprints at all and those which give no imprints under subjects will
of course give none for analyticals.
_b._ Every work which, though not separately paged or not having a
title-page, has been published separately, whether before or since its
publication in the work under treatment.
_Ex._ «Dickens», C. J. F. Little Dorrit. (_In_ «Harper’s» mag., v.
12–15, 1855–57.)
_c._ Under _author_, (1) every separate article or treatise over
[46] pages in length; (2) treatises of noted authors; (3) noted
works even if by authors otherwise obscure. {61}
_d._ Under _subject_ treatises important either (1) as containing the
origin of a science or a controversy or developing new views, or (2) as
treating the subject ably or giving important information, or (3) for
length.
Absolute uniformity is unattainable; probably no one will be able to
draw the line always at the same height. It is most desirable—and
fortunately easiest—to make analysis when the subject is well
marked, as of biographies or histories of towns, or monographs on
any subject. General treatises or vague essays are much harder to
classify and much less valuable for analysis. In analyzing collections
of essays original articles should be brought out in preference to
reviews, which are commonly not worth touching (except in a very full
catalogue) either under the author of the work reviewed or under
its subject. Of course exception may be made for famous reviews or
for good reviews of famous works. A work giving a careful literary
estimate of an author may be an exception to this remark; reviews of
the “Works” of any author are most likely to contain such an estimate.
Many reviews, like Macaulay’s, are important for their treatment of
the subject and not worth noticing under the book reviewed, which is
merely a pretext for the article.
_e._ Make analytical _title_-references for stories in a collection
when they are likely to be inquired for separately.
[note] 46. This limit must be determined by each library for itself,
with the understanding that there may be occasional exceptions.[/note]
127. Make analyticals for the second and subsequent authors of a book
written (_but not conjointly_) by several authors. (See § 4.)
Sometimes it is better to give full entry under two headings than to
make the second analytical. _Ex._ A “Short account of the application
to Parliament by the merchants of London, with the substance of the
evidence as summed up by Mr. Glover,” is to be entered under «London».
_Merchants_, as first author, but as Glover’s part is two-thirds of
the whole, it should also be entered under him, the entry in each case
being made full enough not to mislead.
128. In analyticals it is well to give the date of the book referred to
and also, though less necessary, to state the pages which contain the
article. Many readers will not notice these details, but they will do
no one any harm and will assist the careful student.