CHAPTER V._How to Catalogue a Library

REFERENCES AND SUBJECT INDEX.

I suppose it may be conceded that in the abstract the most useful kind

of catalogue is that which contains the titles and subject references in

one alphabet; but in the particular case of a large library this system

is not so convenient, because the subject references unnecessarily swell

the size of the catalogue, and by their frequency confuse the title

entries. For instance, it is something appalling to conjecture what

would be the size of the British Museum Catalogue if subject references

were included in the general alphabet. In the case of a large library it

will be more convenient to have an index of subjects forming a separate

alphabet by itself, and this cannot be made until the catalogue of

authors is completed. Taking a somewhat arbitrary limit, it may be said

that in libraries containing more than ten thousand volumes it will be

found more useful to have a distinct index of subjects, while in

catalogues of libraries below that number it will generally be advisable

to include the subject references with the titles in one general

alphabet.

If all the subject references are reserved for an index, there will

still remain a large number of references in the general alphabet which

are required for the proper use of the catalogue; and here it may be

well to say something as to the nomenclature of references. Mr. Cutter,

in the valuable series of definitions prefixed to his _Rules for a

Dictionary Catalogue_, has the following:--

"_Reference_, partial registry of a book (omitting the imprint)

under author, title, subject, or kind, referring to a more full

entry under some other heading; occasionally used to denote merely

entries without imprints, in which the reference is implied. The

distinction of entry and reference is almost without meaning for

Short, as a title-a-liner saves nothing by referring unless there

are several references.

"_Analytical reference_, or simply an analytical registry of some

part of a book or of some work contained in a collection, referring

to the heading under which the book or collection is entered.

"_Cross reference_, reference from one subject to another.

"_Heading reference_, from one form of a heading to another.

"_First-word reference_, _catch-word reference_, _subject-word

reference_, same as first-word entry, omitting the imprint and

referring."

These definitions are important, and it would be well if the distinction

here made as to what a cross-reference really is were borne in mind. It

has become the practice among bibliographers to describe all references

as cross-references. This is the case in the British Museum rules:--

"LV. Cross-references to be divided into three classes,

from name to name, from name to work, and from work to work.

Those of the first class to contain merely the name, title,

or office of the person referred to as entered; those of the

second, so much of the title referred to besides as,

together with the size and date, may give the means of at

once identifying, under its heading, the book referred to;

those of the third class to contain moreover so much of the

title referred from, as may be necessary to ascertain the

object of the reference."

The public often cause a still further confusion in words, for they cry

out for the shelf-marks to be placed to references. If this be done,

they no longer remain references, but become double entries.

There are many disadvantages in this plan of putting press-marks to

references, but it is adopted at the British Museum, and it certainly is

annoying to have to run from one end of a many-volumed catalogue to

another.

In Mr. Nichols's _Handbook for Readers_ it is said (p. 42) that "a work

is never entered at full length more than once and it is only from the

main entry that the book-ticket must be made out." But if the

press-marks are added to the references, one would imagine that they are

intended to be used, and it is scarcely to be expected that any one will

take the trouble to refer to another place when he has sufficient

information under his eyes.

Catalogue work is different from index work, where the entries may be

duplicated without inconvenience; but in the case of books, if all the

references have press-marks, there is considerable danger of confusion

whenever the position of a book is changed. The main entries will be

corrected, but some of the references will almost certainly be

overlooked. If the books are never moved, there is no great harm in

putting press-marks to the references.

It must, I think, be conceded that when the references are so long as

they often are in the British Museum Catalogue, and as seems to be

contemplated by Mr. Cutter's remark quoted above, they are really

duplicate or subsidiary entries rather than references.

There is no real necessity to copy any part of the titles in the great

majority of references. Take, for instance, the following two modes of

referring from the subject of a biography to the authors:--

Shakespeare:

---- and his Contemporaries.

Nares. 1822. 4to. 27342

---- and his Times. Drake.

1817. 2 vols. 4to. 7212

---- Biography. De Quincey.

vol. xv. 8vo. 1808

---- ---- Knight. 1842.

8vo. 13296

---- Biographical Memoir.

1825. 8vo. 21294

---- History of. Fullom. 1864.

8vo. 29492

---- Illustrations of his Life.

Halliwell. 1874. 4to. 47851

---- Life. Chalmers. German

trans. Leipzig. 8vo. 35270

---- ---- Halliwell. 1848.

8vo. 10430

---- ---- Skottowe. 1824.

2 vols. 8vo. 21673

These entries are taken from a large heading, and do not come together

as they do here. By following the wording of the title in this way you

do not get a true index. For instance, under this same main heading of

Shakespeare we have in different parts of the sub-alphabet:--

Illustrated. Lennox. 1753-4.

3 vols. 12mo. 13861

Life. Skottowe. 1824. 2 vols.

8vo. 21673

Plots. Simrock. 1850. 8vo. 21617

All these books are on the plots, and should come together. At present

anyone looking at the entry would suppose that there was only one book

on the plots of the plays in the library.

Another way of making the references may be set out thus:--

Shakespeare:

Life: _Chalmers_, _De Quincey_, _Fullom_

(1864), _Halliwell_ (1848), _Knight_

(1842), _Skottowe_ (1824).

---- S. and his Contemporaries: _Nares_

(1822).

---- S. and his Times: _Drake_ (1817).

Plots of his Plays: _Lennox_ (1753),

_Simrock_ (1850), _Skottowe_ (1824).

Not only does the second plan take up less space, but it is also the

more convenient, as giving the required information in the clearest

manner.

All references should be in English,[29] and the subject of the book

should be used for the reference rather than the often periphrastic form

of the title. Thus, in making a subject reference for the following

book:--

Mudie (Robert). The Feathered Tribes of the British Islands.

1834. 2 vols.

--the reference must be from "Birds" or "Ornithology," as it will be

useless to refer from "Feathered Tribes."

No reference should be made to a title which does not indicate the

information sought for. Thus, if a work contains an account of some

subject which is not specified on the title, this must not be referred

to unless a note is added to the title to show that the book does

contain this information. Sometimes one reference will be sufficient for

a group of titles. Thus, in referring from one form of an author's name

to another, it is not necessary to repeat the titles under that

author's name even in the shortest manner.

It is not well in subject references included in an alphabetical

catalogue or in an alphabetical index of subjects to classify at all.

Thus _Gold_ should be under _G_, and _Silver_ under _S_; and at the end

of the heading of Metals or Metallurgy such cross-references as these

can be added: "See also _Gold_, _Silver_."

It is not easy to calculate the average number of references to a given

number of chief entries. If we exclude subject references, it may be

roughly put at about a third. If subject references are included, it

will be about two to one, or twice as many references as titles. Many

titles will only require one reference, but others will help to turn the

balance,--as, for instance, the following, which will require ten

references:--

The Life of Haydn, in a Series of Letters written at Vienna

[originally written in Italian by G. Carpani], followed by

the Life of Mozart [by A. H. F. von Slichtegroll], with

Observations on Metastasio, and on the Present State of

Music in France and Italy. Translated from the French of L.

A. C. Bombet, with Notes by the Author of the Sacred

Melodies [W. Gardiner]. London, 1817. 8vo.

In the first place, Bombet is a pseudonym for Henri Beyle; therefore,

according to the rule adopted in the catalogue, there must be a

different reference. If the title is placed under Beyle, then there must

be a reference from Bombet; and if under the pseudonym, there must be a

reference from Beyle. There must be references from Haydn, Mozart, and

Metastasio, from Slichtegroll, Carpani, and Gardiner, from Music, and

possibly from France and Italy.

The specimen page here given will show how a subject index may be

incorporated in one alphabet with an author's catalogue:--

==================================================================

|-------+-------+--------------------------------+-------+-------|

| II | 2 | SHUTTLEWORTH (Philip N.). | | |

| | | London. | 12° | 1832 |

| LL | 3 | -- Paraphrastic Translation | | |

| | | London. | 8° | 1840 |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | (1824) | | |

| | | | | |

| | | (1772) | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

It will be noticed that in the case of references the word _see_ is

omitted. If the names to be referred to, which follow a colon, are

printed in italic, or, in the case of a manuscript catalogue, are

underscored with red ink, they will be clearly distinguishable without

the word _see_, and a wearisome repetition will be avoided. In the case

of cross-references at the end to some other heading [see also], it will

be more convenient to use the word than to omit it.

Panizzi was an advocate for a Subject Index, or "Index of Matters," as

he called it,[30] but he did not venture to recommend such a work

officially to the trustees.[31] He was fully examined on this subject

before the Commission in 1849, and he referred to a memorandum which he

had submitted to the Council of the Royal Society when employed upon

their catalogue. He there writes:--

"A catalogue of a library is intended principally to give an

accurate inventory of the books which it comprises; and is in

general consulted either to ascertain whether a particular book is

in the collection, or to find what works it contains on a given

subject. To obtain these ends, classed catalogues have been

compiled, in which the works are systematically arranged according

to their subjects. Many distinguished individuals in different

countries have drawn up catalogues of this description, but no two

of them have agreed on the same plan of classification; and even

those who have confessedly followed the system of another person

have fancied it necessary to depart in some particulars from their

model.... Those who want either to consult a book, of which they

only know the subject, or to find what books on a particular subject

are in the library, can obtain this information (as far as it can be

collected from a title-page, which is all that can be expected in a

catalogue) more easily from an index of matters to an alphabetical

catalogue than by any other means. Here also nothing is left to

discretion as far as concerns order. Entries, being short

cross-references, are in a great measure avoided; and repetitions,

far from being inconvenient, will save the time and trouble of

looking in more places than one in order to find what is wanted....

The plan which is proposed was adopted by Dr. Watt in his

_Bibliotheca Britannica_, the usefulness of which work must be

acknowledged by every one conversant with bibliography. That it

would not be so useful had any systematical arrangement been

followed seems undeniable. The vast plan of the _Bibliotheca

Britannica_, however, did not allow its author to give, either to

the titles of the books or to the index, that extent which ought to

be given to both in the Catalogue of the Library of the Royal

Society" (_Minutes of Evidence_, p. 704).

Although here Panizzi makes the sound remark that the information to be

expected in a catalogue is that which is found in the title-page, he had

previously expressed a considerably more comprehensive opinion. He

wrote:--

"The catalogue of a library like that of the Royal Society should

be as complete as possible; that is, it should give all the

information requisite concerning any book which may be the object of

inquiry. Whether a work be printed separately, or in a

collection--whether it extend to the greater part of a folio volume,

or occupy only part of a single leaf--no distinction should be made;

the title of each should be separately entered. Hence every one of

the _Memoirs_ or papers in the acts of academies; every one of the

articles in scientific journals or collections, whatever they may

be, should have its separate place in the catalogue. Thus, for

instance, all the letters in Hanschius' Collection should be entered

in their proper places under the writers' names. It is only by

carrying this principle to the FULLEST extent that a catalogue can

be called COMPLETE, and a library, more particularly of books

relating to science, made as useful as it is capable of being. This,

however, would make a great difference in the expense, and take

considerable time."

A little consideration will show that such an extensive principle of

action could not be practically carried out, and we may well ask whether

it would be advisable to adopt such a plan even if it could be carried

out. We regret the waste of labour spent in cataloguing the same book

over and over again, but how much greater would be the waste of labour

and money if the managers of every library which contained the

_Philosophical Magazine_ thought it necessary to include the whole

contents of that periodical in its catalogue! The labour of cataloguing

these series is the work of bibliographers, and such valuable books of

reference as the _Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers_ and

Poole's _Index of Periodical Literature_ are suitable for all libraries.

To return to the mode of carrying out a subject index, it may be again

remarked that it is not necessary to follow the titles textually, and if

the titles are so followed there can be no advantage in making the

references longer than in Watt's _Bibliotheca_. In primary entries the

titles must be accurately followed, but in references it is often much

more convenient to dispense with the wording chosen by the author. Two

books with totally different titles are often identical in subject, and

the indexer saves the time of the consulter by realizing this fact and

acting upon it.

I think that any one who compares the system adopted in the indexes to

the Catalogues of the Library of the Athenæum Club and of the London

Library with that of, say, the Catalogue of the Manchester Free Library,

1881, will at once see how much more readily the former can be used.

Mr. Parry, in his answer 7351 (_Minutes_, p. 470), advocates the plan of

having a separate index of subjects, and in spite of all that has been

said in favour of dictionary catalogues, I hold that this is the

simplest and most useful for students; although for popular libraries

there is much to be said in favour of dictionary catalogues. One of the

most elaborate indexes I know is that by my brother, Mr. B. R. Wheatley,

for the Catalogue of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society. By this

plan he who knows what he wants finds it without being confused by, to

him, useless references, while he who does not know can consult the

index.

In an index the headings will of course be in alphabet, and the

sub-headings may be so also; but often some system of classification

will be better. No hard-and-fast rule can be made for all cases. But it

is usually better to bring the subjects of the books together,

regardless of the wording of the title.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[29] Always use the word _see_ in preference to _vide_.

[30] This expression is often used, although it can scarcely be

considered as English.

[31] See his answer to question 9892, _Minutes of Evidence, Commission_

1849.

[Decoration]