Parts of the Old Testament (arranged in the order of the English
version), and works severally illustrating them.
Apocrypha.
New Testament.
Illustrative works.
Parts of the New Testament, and works illustrating them.
Under each part the order is: Editions of the original texts
chronologically arranged;—Versions, in the alphabetical order of the
languages;—Illustrative works.
(c.) CONTENTS.
253. Arrange _contents_ either in the order of the volumes or
alphabetically by the titles of the articles.
_Alphabetical order._
_Contents._
Argentile and Curan; a legendary drama, v. 2.
Art of painting, by Du Fresnoy, v. 3.
Caractacus; a dramatic poem, v. 2.
Chronological list of painters to 1689, v. 3.
Dryden’s preface to his translation of Du Fresnoy, v. 3.
Elegies, v. 1.
Elfrida; a dramatic poem, v. 2.
English garden, The, v. 1.
Epitaphs and inscriptions, v. 1.
Essay on the meaning of the word angel, as used by St. Paul, v. 4.
Essays on English church music, v. 3.
Examination of the prophecy in Matthew 24th, v. 4.
Hymns and psalms, v. 1.
Musæus: a monody to the memory of Mr. Pope, v. 1.
Odes, v. 1.
Pygmalion; a lyrical scene, v. 2.
Religio clerici, v. 1.
Sappho; a lyrical drama, v. 2.
Sermons, v. 4.
Sonnets, v. 1.
_Volume order._
_Contents._
Vol. «1.» Musæus, a monody to the memory of Mr. Pope. — Odes,
sonnets, epitaphs and inscriptions, elegies. — The English garden. —
Religio clerici. — Hymns and psalms. «2.» Elfrida, a dramatic poem.
— Caractacus, a dramatic poem. — Sappho. — Argentile and Curan, a
legendary drama. — Pygmalion, a lyrical scene. «3.» Du Fresnoy’s art
of painting. — Dryden’s preface to his translation of Du Fresnoy. —
Chronological list of painters to 1689. — Essays on English church
music. «4.» Sermons. — Essay on the meaning of the word angel, as used
by St. Paul. — Examination of the prophecy in Matthew 24th.
It is evident how much much more compendious the second method is. But
there is no reason why an alphabetical “contents” should not be run
into a single paragraph.
The titles of novels and plays contained in any collection ought to
be entered in the main alphabet; it is difficult then to see the
advantage of an alphabetical arrangement of the same titles under the
collection. Many other collections are composed of works for which
alphabetical order is no gain, because the words of their titles are
not mnemonic words, and it is not worth while to take the trouble of
arranging them; but there are others composed of both classes, in
which such order is very convenient. {93}
(d.) SUBJECTS.
254. Care must be taken not to mix two subjects together because their
names are spelled in the same way.
Thus «Grace» before meals, «Grace» of body, «Grace» the musical term,
and «Grace» the theological term, must be four distinct headings.
255. Under subject-headings group titles topically when it can be done,
otherwise arrange them by the authors’ names.
Alphabetical arrangement by authors’ names is useful when a
subject-entry is a substitute for a title-entry, but otherwise is as
useless as it is inappropriate. If the author’s name is known the
book should be looked for under that, not under the subject; if it is
not known, what good can an arrangement by authors do? Sometimes, if
one has forgotten the Christian name of an author, it may be easier
to find him under a subject than in a crowd of Smiths or Joneses or
Müllers, and this use of a subject-heading is impaired by grouping
or by chronological order; but such use is infrequent, and the main
design of a subject-entry should not be subordinated to this side
advantage.
It is even urged that it is harder to find a work treating of the
subject in any special way among subdivisions than when there is only
one alphabet, which is absurd. On the one hand one must look over a
list of books embracing five or six distinct divisions of a subject
and select from titles often ambiguous or provokingly uncommunicative
those that seem likely to treat of the matter in the way desired.
On the other plan he must run over five or six headings given by
another man, and representing that man’s ideas of classification,
and decide under which of them the treatise he is in search of is
likely to be put. Which system gives the least trouble and demands
the least brain-work? Plainly the latter. In three cases out of four
he can comprehend the system at a glance. And if in the fourth there
is a doubt, and he is compelled after all to look over the whole
list or several of the divisions, he is no worse off than if there
were no divisions; the list is not any longer. The objection then to
subdivisions is not real, but fanciful. The reader at first glance is
frightened by the appearance of a system to be learned, and perversely
regards it as a hinderance instead of an assistance. But if anyone
has such a rooted aversion to subdivisions it is very easy for him
to disregard them altogether, and read the list as if they were not
there, leaving them to be of service to wiser men.
As the number of titles under each heading increases in number so
does the opportunity and need of division. The first and most usual
groups to be made are _Bibliography_ and its companion _History_,
and the “practical-form” groups _Dictionaries_ and _Periodicals_
Under countries the first grouping will be _Description and Travels_,
_History and Politics_, _Language and Literature_, followed by
_Natural history_, etc. For examples of further subdivisions see the
longer catalogues. It is not worth while in a printed catalogue to
make very minute divisions. The object aimed at,—enabling the enquirer
to find quickly the book that treats of the branch of the subject
which _he_ is interested in,—is attained if the mass of titles is
broken up into sections containing from half a dozen to a score.
Of course there are masses of titles which can not be so broken up
because they all treat of the same subject in the same way, or at
least show no difference of treatment that admits of classification.
The general works on the Fine Arts in a library of 100,000 volumes may
number 100 titles, even after _Periodicals_ and _Dictionaries_ have
been set aside.
There is one objection to grouping,—that books can seldom be made
to fill any classification exactly, their contents overrunning the
classes, so that they must be entered in several places, or they will
fail to be found under some of the subdivisions of which they treat.
Thus in the chronological arrangement of _History_, whether we arrange
by the first date, the average, or the last date of each work, the
books cover periods of such various length that one can never get all
that relates to one period together. {94}
There is another objection,—that it is much harder to make a catalogue
with subdivisions, which of course require a knowledge of the
subject and examination of the books; and the difficulty increases
in proportion to the number of the books and the minuteness of the
divisions.
256. The subarrangement in groups will often be alphabetical by
authors; but in groups or subjects of a historical character it should
be chronological, the order being made clear by putting the dates first
or by printing them in heavy-faced type.
Thus under countries the division _History_ will be arranged according
to the period treated of, the earliest first; so under _Description_,
for England as seen by foreigners in the days of Elizabeth was a very
different country from the England seen by Prince Pückler-Muskau
in 1828, or satirized by Max O’Rell in 1883. So _Statistics_ and
_Literature_, and other divisions, should be treated when they are
long enough.