ARRANGEMENT.
Rule II. of the British Museum is: "Titles to be arranged
alphabetically, according to the English alphabet only (whatever be the
order of the alphabet in which a foreign name might have been entered in
its original language);" and this rule has been generally followed. Mr.
Cutter (rule 169) adds to this, "Treat I and J, U and V, as separate
letters;" and every consulter of the British Museum Catalogue must wish
that this rule was adopted there, for anything so confusing as this
unnecessary mixing of the letters I and J and U and V it is scarcely
possible to imagine. Mr. Cutter goes on: "ij, at least in the olden
Dutch names, should be arranged as y; do not put Spanish names beginning
with Ch, Ll, Ñ, after all other names beginning with C, L, and N, as is
done by the Spanish Academy."
The Museum rule (XIII.) is: "German names in which the letters ä, ö, or
ü occur, to be spelt with the diphthong æ, oe, and ue respectively."
Mr. Cutter follows this, and adds to it (rule 25):--
"In Danish names, if the type å is not to be had, use its
older equivalent _aa_; in a manuscript catalogue the modern
orthography ä should be employed. Whatever is chosen should
be uniformly used, however the names may appear in the books.
The diphthong æ should not be written ae, nor should ö be
written oe; ö, not oe, should be used for ø.
"In Hungarian names write ö, ü, with the diæresis (not oe,
ue), and arrange like the English o, u.
"The Swedish names, ä, å, ö, should be so written (not ae,
oe), and arranged as the English a, o."
The Cambridge rule (10) is as follows: "German and Scandinavian names,
in which the forms ä, ö, ü, å, occur, to be treated, for the purpose of
alphabetical sequence, as if spelt with ae, oe, and ao respectively. In
German names ä, ö, ü, to be printed ae, oe, ue."
The Library Association rule (44) is: "The German ä, ö, ü, are to be
arranged as if written out in full ae, oe, ue."
The first part of the Cambridge rule and the whole of that of the
Library Association is likely to lead to confusion. The only safe way to
deal with these letters is either to spell them out, or to arrange them
as if they were English letters. The English alphabet must be
pre-eminent in an English catalogue.
The rule that M', Mc, St., etc., should be arranged as if spelt Mac,
Saint, etc., stands on a different basis from the above, and the reason
is, as stated by Mr. Cutter (rule 173), "because they are so
pronounced." When we see St., we at once say Saint, and therefore look
under Sa.
The Index Society rule enters fully into this point, and explains what
is a difficulty to some: "6. Proper names with the prefix St., as St.
Albans, St. John, to be arranged in the alphabet as if written in full,
_Saint_. When the word _Saint_ represents a ceremonial title, as in the
case of St. Alban, St. Giles, and St. Augustine, these names to be
arranged under the letters A and G respectively; but the places St.
Albans, St. Giles, and St. Augustine will be found under the prefix
_Saint_. The prefixes M' and Mc to be arranged as if written in full,
Mac."
When several titles follow one heading, it is necessary to use a dash in
place of repeating the heading, and there are one or two points worthy
of attention in respect to this dash.
The Library Association rule is: "35. The heading is not to be repeated;
a single indent or dash indicates the omission of the preceding heading
or title."
The Index Society rule is rather fuller: "17. A dash, instead of an
indentation, to be used as a mark of repetition. The dash to be kept for
entries exactly similar, and the word to be repeated when the second
differs in any way from the first. The proper name to be repeated when
that of a different person. In the case of joint authors the Christian
names or initials of the first, whose surname is arranged in the
alphabet, to be in parentheses, but the Christian names of the second to
be in the natural order, as _Smith_ (John) and Alexander _Brown_, not
_Smith_ (John) and _Brown_ (Alexander)."
The reason for the last direction is that the Christian name is only
brought back in order to make the alphabetical position of the surname
clear; and as this is not necessary in respect to the second person, the
names should remain in their natural order.
Dashes should be of a uniform length, and that length should not be too
great. It is a great mistake to suppose that the dash is to be the
length of the line which is not repeated. If it is necessary to mark the
repetition of a portion of the title as well as the author, this should
be indicated by another dash, and not by the elongation of the former
one; thus:--
Milton (John), Works in Verse and Prose, Printed from the
Original Editions, with Life by the Rev. John Mitford. 8
vols. 8vo. London, 1851.
---- Poetical Works, with Notes, Life, etc., by the Rev. H. J.
Todd. 6 vols. 8vo. London, 1801.
---- ---- ---- Second Edition. 7 vols. royal 8vo. London, 1809.
---- ---- with Notes, edited by Sir Egerton Brydges. 6 vols.
small 8vo. London, 1853.
All the dashes except the first, which represents the author's name, can
be got rid of by using the words [the same] or [another edition], etc.
In the alphabetization of a catalogue the prefixes in personal names,
even when printed separately, are to be treated as if they were joined;
thus:--
De Montfort. De Quincey.
Demophilus. Des Barres.
De Morgan. Du Chaillu.
Demosthenes.
In the case of compound words a different plan, however, is to be
adopted. Each word is to be treated as separate, and arranged
accordingly. The Index Society rule is as follows: "4. Headings
consisting of two or more distinct words are not to be treated as
integral portions of one word; thus the arrangement should be:--
Grave, John } { Grave at Kherson
Grave at Kherson } { Grave, John
Grave of Hope } not { Gravelot
Grave Thoughts } { Grave of Hope
Gravelot } { Gravesend
Gravesend } { Grave Thoughts"
Mr. Cutter enters very fully into this point of arrangement in his
rules.
It is a very frequent mistake to overlook the fact that the Christian
name placed after a surname is merely there for the sake of convenience,
and to make it take its place with the words that follow in their
natural position. For instance, in the above examples John Grave stands
at the head, because Grave is the only portion that can be considered in
the alphabet. If, however, there was a Charles or a Henry Grave, they
would take their position above John Grave, because their Christian
names are all in the same category.
The order in which the entries under an author's name should be arranged
is dealt with in the British Museum rules LXIX. to LXXVII., but it is
not necessary to quote all these in this place.
The Library Association rules put the matter very succinctly:--
"38. The works of an author are to be arranged in the
following order:--
"_a._ Collected works.
"_b._ Partial collections.
"_c._ Individual works in alphabetical order of titles,
under the first word not an article or a preposition having
the meaning of 'concerning.'
"Translations are to follow the originals in alphabetical
order of languages."
The Cambridge Rule is as follows:--
"38. The works of an author to be entered in the following
order:--
"(1) Collected works in the original language.
"(2) Translations of collected works.
"(3) Collections of two or more works.
"(4) Separate works.
"(5) Entire portions of a separate work to follow that
work.
"(6) Selections or collected fragments."
This question of arrangement is distinctly one which may be modified
according to the special needs of a particular library. It only becomes
a question of importance in a very large library, because in a small
library the number of entries under one author are not often very
numerous. I should take exception to the arrangement of separate works
in alphabetical order, because in the case of titles other than those of
plays, poems, novels, etc. (which have arbitrary titles), there is
little that is suitable for such arrangement, and it is practically no
order at all. I should prefer the chronological order as the most useful
for reference. In the case of those authors whose works are voluminous,
some system of classification of the separate works is needed. Thus
Milton's prose works should be arranged separately from his poems.
It is also a question whether translations should not be kept together
at the end. Abstracts of the contents of collected editions of an
author's works greatly add to the convenience of a catalogue. It is
almost a necessity in a lending library, as by this means you can send
for the particular volume you require. The adoption of the plan at the
British Museum would save a reader from sending for a whole set of books
when he only wants one volume. Mr. Parry, in his evidence before the
Commission, alludes to this point. He said: "I remember there was one
rule as to collected works, that each separate work in the collection
was to be expressed upon the title that we wrote, and afterwards printed
separately under the collected heading in the catalogue; that was
abandoned, I remember, and I certainly thought it was an important
abandonment: it was the abandonment, as it seemed to me, of a useful
principle; but it was abandoned, I believe, for the purpose of
expediting the catalogue; and in all respects we endeavoured as much as
possible to shorten our labour consistently with accuracy" (p. 467).
Mr. Cutter deals with this point in his rule 197: "Arrange _contents_
either in the order of the volumes or alphabetically by the titles of
the articles." After giving an example, he adds: "It is evident how 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 may be
convenient."
We have been considering the arrangement of the titles of ordinary
books, but here it will be necessary to go back somewhat, and ask what
we have to catalogue. We may have printed books, newspapers,
manuscripts (including autographs), prints and drawings, and maps.
Newspapers may be included with printed books, but the rest must,
without doubt, be kept distinct. When these different classes are small,
they can with advantage be catalogued separately at the end of the
general catalogue; but when any or all of them are large, they must be
treated as distinct subjects, and catalogued according to special rules
which cannot be given here.
What is a printed book? Some have made a distinction between tracts (or
pamphlets) and books; but any definition of the former, intended to
distinguish them from the latter, which has been attempted has always
failed to satisfy the bibliographer. It is only necessary to imagine the
confusion that would be caused in the library of the British Museum if
the titles were thus sorted to see the futility of any such distinction.
The only excuse for a separate catalogue of pamphlets is in the case of
those libraries which possess a large number of ephemeral pamphlets,
bound up in a long series, and kept distinct. Here, as the pamphlets
are only occasionally required, it may be found unadvisable to fill the
general catalogue with uninteresting entries. It may be supposed that
the last remark, as recognizing the existence of a pamphlet, is
contradictory to that which goes before, but it is not really so. There
is no doubt of the existence of a something which is undoubtedly a
pamphlet, but there is no rule by which some other small book can be
distinguished as a pamphlet or not. The special characteristic of a
pamphlet does not entirely consist in the number of pages, for books in
which the most momentous discoveries have been announced have been made
up of few leaves, and it does not entirely consist in the importance or
otherwise of the subject.
There is one class of pamphlets which gives the cataloguer much trouble,
viz., Extracts from Journals and Transactions. If these are catalogued
without any indication that they are excerpts, readers of the catalogue
are misled into the belief in the existence of separate books which were
never issued. At the same time the catalogue is unnecessarily enlarged
if the full particulars as to the title of the journal from which the
pamphlet has been extracted are given. If there are many of these titles
it will be well to adopt some sign, such as a dagger, at the beginning
of the title to indicate the character of the pamphlet.
When we have decided to arrange in one general alphabet the titles of
ordinary books, both those whose authors are known and those which are
anonymous, we are still left with a large number of books which are
different in character from ordinary books. We then have to decide how
to deal with journals and transactions, ephemerides, observations,
reports, etc. These classes of works are generally kept distinct, but
are included in the general alphabet as academies or transactions,
periodical publications or journals. In the case of comparatively small
private libraries, there is no need for the separation at all, as these
seldom contain many journals or transactions; but if it be advisable to
make the distinction, I think the balance of advantage is on the side
of keeping the class outside the alphabet, chiefly for the reason that
inner alphabets are confusing and disadvantageous.
There are two main reasons in favour of the separation of serials,
periodicals, or whatever other name we may give the class. The
theoretical reason is, that they are not like other books, and that the
rules for one will not apply to the other. It is agreed, on all hands,
that MSS. should be separated from printed books, and yet a MS. is often
more like a printed book than a journal is like a distinct treatise. I
mean that in the one case the difference is merely one of
production,--print or writing,--and in the other it is a structural
difference of the mode of composition.
The practical reason is, that you eliminate the chief disturbing
elements of a catalogue. The catalogue of ordinary books, if well made
in the first instance, requires little alteration, and needs only
additions; but the catalogue of serials, by the very nature of its
contents, wants continued change.
Some librarians who have followed the British Museum rules continue the
terms adopted there of _Academies_ and _Periodical Publications_; but I
think the headings _Transactions_ and _Journals_ are in every way
preferable. The word _Academy_ is entirely foreign to our habits, and
most of those academies which exist here are institutions quite distinct
from societies which publish transactions. Almost the only exception to
this rule is the Royal Irish Academy. Even abroad, societies are more
numerous than academies.[32] With respect to the heading _Periodical
Publications_, it may be said that transactions would logically come as
properly under it as journals and magazines, because all are published
periodically.
This subject of the arrangement of periodicals has not been treated of
so exhaustively as it deserves. Mr. J. B. Bailey communicated a paper on
"Some Points to be Considered in Preparing Catalogues of Transactions
and Periodicals" to the Library Association of the United Kingdom in
February 1880,[33] in which he affirms that so little agreement is there
among cataloguers, that the three most recent catalogues of scientific
transactions and periodicals then published were arranged on different
plans. The three catalogues referred to were (1) _Catalogue of
Scientific Serials_, 1633-1876, by S. H. Scudder, Cambridge, U.S., 1879;
(2) _Catalogue of the Library of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical
Society_, London, 1879; (3) _Catalogue of the Library of the Museum of
Practical Geology and Geological Survey_, London, 1878.
At the Cambridge Meeting of the Library Association, 1882, I
communicated a paper entitled "Thoughts on the Cataloguing of Journals
and Transactions." In this paper I discussed some of the open questions
respecting their arrangement, and these points I may recapitulate here.
Mr. Bailey is in favour of Mr. Scudder's union of journals and
transactions in one catalogue, but he is not so satisfied that the plan
of arranging these under the names of the places of publication adopted
by that bibliographer is the best.
The two chief questions which arise, after we have settled the point
that these serials shall be kept distinct from the general alphabet, are
these:--
(1) Shall journals and transactions be treated as one and the same
class, or shall they be arranged in separate alphabets?
(2) If journals and transactions are kept distinct, how shall they be
arranged?
I.
Mr. Scudder, as already mentioned, treats journals and transactions as
one and the same class, and arranges both together, according to a
combined geographical and alphabetical system. This is, I think, an
inconvenient arrangement for a catalogue, for the following reason:
Transactions are nearly always known by the names of the places where
they are issued, but journals are not known by the name of the place of
publication. For instance, suppose a reader comes to the librarian for
the _Jahrbuch_ of the _Physikalischer Verein_, the librarian would
naturally ask, Which one of these societies? and the reader might answer
Frankfort; but if the _Canadian Journal_ were required it is probable
that neither reader nor librarian would remember whether it were
published at Toronto or at Montreal. The society of its very nature has
a local habitation, while the journal has a name, but is not necessarily
associated with the place where it is published. It therefore follows
that if the titles of the two kinds of periodicals are arranged on
different systems, it will be better to keep them distinct than to unite
them in one alphabet. In the British Museum Catalogue the two classes
are kept distinct, but both are arranged under the names of places, so
that they might quite as well have been united in one alphabet. The
reason for separation entirely depends, it seems to me, upon the
difference of arrangement adopted for each.
II.
Mr. Cutter's rules on this question of arrangement may be considered
best under the respective headings of Transactions and Journals.
_Transactions._
Mr. Cutter says (rule 40):--
"Societies are authors of their journals, memoirs,
proceedings, transactions, publications.... The chief
practices in regard to societies have been to enter them (1.
British Museum) under a special heading--_Academies_--with a
geographical arrangement; (2. Boston Public Library, printed
catalogue) under the name of the place where they have their
headquarters; (3. Harvard College Library and Boston Public
Library, present system) under the name of the place, if it
enters into the legal name of the society, otherwise under
the first word of that name not an article; (4. Boston
Athenæum) English societies under the first word of the
society's name not an article; foreign societies under the
name of the place. Both 3. and 4. put under the place all
purely local societies, those whose membership or objects
are confined to the place. The first does not deserve a
moment's consideration; such a heading is out of place in an
author-catalogue, and the geographical arrangement only
serves to complicate matters, and render it more difficult to
find any particular academy. The second is utterly unsuited
to American and English societies. The third practice is
simple; but it is difficult to see the advantage of the
exception which it makes to its general rule of entry under
the society's name; the exception does not help the
cataloguer, for it is just as hard to determine whether the
place enters into the _legal_ name as to ascertain the name;
it does not help the reader, for he has no means of knowing
whether the place is part of the legal name or not. The
fourth is simple and intelligible; it is usually easy for
both cataloguer and reader to determine whether a society is
English or foreign....
"Fifth Plan, Rule 1. Enter academies, associations,
institutes, universities, libraries, galleries, museums,
colleges, and all similar bodies, both English and foreign,
according to their corporate name, neglecting an initial
article when there is one.
"_Exception 1._ Enter the royal academies of Berlin,
Göttingen, Leipzig, Lisbon, Madrid, Munich, St. Petersburg,
Vienna, etc., and the 'Institut' of Paris under those cities.
An exception is an evil; this one is adopted because the
academies are usually known by the name of the cities, and
are hardly ever referred to by the name Königliches, Real,
etc."
I cannot agree with Mr. Cutter's remarks in the above extracts. After a
pretty extensive experience of the cataloguing of transactions, I have
found plan No. 2 far and away the most convenient for reference; it has
its own peculiar difficulties, but these are really much fewer than in
any of the other plans, and I entirely fail to see why it should be
stigmatized as "utterly unsuited to American and English societies." No
doubt a large number of societies come under the heading of London, but
most large towns in the country have their societies, and the societies
of Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Manchester all find their
proper places in the alphabet.
The fourth plan may be simple, but it is far from logical, and some good
reason is required for the adoption of separate rules for English and
foreign societies.
Exception 1 is surely unnecessary, for the publications of the Société
Météorologique de France have just as much right to appear under "Paris"
as the publications of the "Institut" (which, by the way, is the
"Institut" of France, not of Paris).
The difficulties of this first word (not an article) arrangement are
numerous. For instance, all the French societies will be under
_Société_, and a large number of the English societies under _Royal_.
Then, again, how many German and Swiss towns have a _Naturforschende
Gesellschaft_--the confusion of which is obviated by arranging them
under the names of the towns. This is one reason; but another is, that
many of these societies have double titles, with the designation of the
society in different languages. For instance, the _Neue Denkschriften_
of the "Allgemeine Schweizerische Gesellschaft für die gesammten
Naturwissenschaften," at Zürich, is also styled _Nouveaux Mémoires de la
Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles_; and this at once confuses
the society with "Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesellschaft," which is
also named "Allgemeine Schweizerische Gesellschaft" and "Société
Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles." Several of the Scandinavian
societies have a Latin as well as a native name. Thus the "Kongl.
Vetenskaps Societet," of Upsala, is also called "Regia Societas
Scientiarum Upsaliensis," and its publications are known as _Acta_ and
_Nota Acta_. Again, the publications of the "Kongelige Norske
Videnskabers Selskab," of Trondhjem, have been in German as well as in
Danish, and in the former language the style of the society has taken
the two forms of "Drontheimische Gesellschaft" and of "Königl.
Norwegische Gesellschaft." Again, Bohemian societies have both a German
and a Bohemian title, and the cataloguer must choose which he will take.
It cannot be said that by arranging the societies under the names of the
places where they meet all difficulties are overcome, but it may safely
be said that they are found with much greater ease by the consulter of
the catalogue, than if they were spread about in the alphabet under the
first words of their titles (not an article), and this, I think, is the
greatest advantage that can be claimed for any cataloguing scheme.
Another good reason for placing the societies under their place of
meeting is that their transactions are most commonly referred to as the
"Paris Mémoires," the "Berlin Abhandlungen," or the "Copenhagen
Skrifter;" and therefore it is most objectionable that the reader who
knows what he wants should have, before consulting the catalogue, to
seek for the exact wording of the society's name.
The London Mathematical Society would come under _London_ by Cutter's
rule, although it is always spoken of as the Mathematical Society
simply; while some of the publications of the Meteorological Society
would be arranged under B (British Meteorological Society) and others
under M (Meteorological Society). Those who have little to do with
transactions can scarcely guess the confusion that occurs in catalogues
when the references are not arranged upon a sound system.
There are two very serious objections to the geographical arrangement of
the places where societies are seated rather than the alphabetical. One
is, that you have to think what country the place is in before looking
for it; and the other, that the boundaries of Europe are constantly
being altered. If every society is placed under the name of the town
where it holds its meetings, and the towns are arranged in one general
alphabet, we have an arrangement that is simplicity itself.
It is of paramount importance to place all the publications of a society
under one heading, even when the place of meeting may have been changed;
and in such a case as this the only safe plan is to arrange all under
the name of the last place of meeting, with cross-references from the
other places. A good instance of this is the well-known set of
transactions which is almost invariably quoted as the _Nova Acta_. The
"Kaiserliche Leopoldino-Carolinische Deutsche Akademie der
Naturforscher" published their Acta at Nuremberg between 1730 and 1754,
and their _Nova Acta_ at the same place between 1757 and 1791. The _Nova
Acta_ has subsequently been published at Erlangen, Breslau, and Bonn,
and the present seat of the academy is at Dresden.
There is of course a difficulty in the case of peripatetic societies
both national (such as the British Association) and international (such
as the Congress of Prehistoric Archæology); but these societies have
usually permanent headquarters, and these may be treated as the
headings.
No mention has been made of what we rather vaguely style "Publishing
Societies," because these require special rules. They should be
catalogued with a general entry under the division of Transactions, but
the separate books published by each society must be catalogued in the
general catalogue.
_Journals._
Mr. Cutter's rule, No. 54 (_Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue_, p. 53),
is as follows: "Periodicals are to be treated as anonymous, and entered
under the first word. Ex. _Popular_ Science Monthly, _Littell's_ Living
Age.
"When a periodical changes its title, the whole may be catalogued
under the original title, with an explanatory note there, and a
reference from the new title to the old; or each part may be
catalogued under its own title, with references: 'For a continuation
_see_ ;' 'For ten previous volumes _see_ .'
"Make a reference from the name of the editor when the periodical is
commonly called by his name, as is the case with Silliman's _Journal
of Science_...."
I agree, generally, with this rule, but I think that we must arrange
somehow that the whole of a journal should appear in one place in the
catalogue, however much the title may have been changed. Thus the title
of the well-known _Philosophical Magazine_ has undergone many changes,
but all should appear under the heading of "_Philosophical Magazine_"
The first series is known as _Tilloch's Philosophical Magazine_, and the
current series as the _London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical
Magazine and Journal_.
Although the rule should be to place the titles under the first word not
an article, some judgment must be displayed. Thus the _New Monthly
Magazine_ should be placed under "New," because it was a rival and not a
continuation of the _Monthly Magazine_; but the _Neue Notizen_ of
Froriep must come under "Notizen," of which it is a second series.
As a rule, it is objectionable to place journals under their editors'
names, because editors are continually changing. For instance, the
famous German scientific journal (_Annalen der Physik_) which was for so
many years associated with the name of Poggendorff no longer bears the
name of that distinguished man. After his death his name entirely
disappeared from the title-page.
Something must also be said respecting astronomical and meteorological
observations, reports of various institutions, surveys, etc. These are
not strictly transactions; but the same principle which makes it
expedient to take transactions out of the general alphabet applies to
these books. Observations are sometimes catalogued under the name of the
observer; but this is a bad practice, because the observer changes, and
it is only the observatory which is permanent, and this should be
arranged under the place where the observatory is situated, as
Greenwich, Paris, etc. The treatment of reports is a more difficult
matter, and here again judgment must be called into play. A particular
report on a special subject must be treated as a book; but the series of
reports of commissions, or the annual reports of an institution as
serials, may well be brought under a separate division.
[Decoration]
FOOTNOTES:
[32] Was it not Christopher North's Shepherd who said, "Open a school
and call it an academy"?
[33] _Monthly Notices_, No. 2.
[Decoration]