I. The Titles are to be transcribed ~in full~, including the names
of Authors, Editors, Translators, Commentators, Continuators, &c.,
precisely as they stand upon the title-page.
~Exceptions.~ There are many titles from which much may well
be omitted. But to make omissions without prejudice to ready
investigation is an extremely difficult and delicate task, in the
performance of which, uniformity is highly important; it is therefore
desirable that all abridgments be made by the same person. To this
end, the rule should stand without exception, so far as the writing
out of the titles is concerned. The abridgments for printing should
all be made by the superintendent, and only in the following cases:
Additions to names of authors, &c., not necessary for their
identification; mottoes, repetitions, or expletives not essential to
a full and clear titular description of the book, may be omitted.
Omissions of mottoes and devices are to be denoted by three stars; of
other matter, by three dots, placed thus ...
No omission is to be made which requires any change in, or addition
to, the phraseology of that part of the title which is retained. Not
even an improvement of the title, by any change, is to be allowed.
~Remark 1.~ This rule is understood to apply only to the principal
entry. It is supposed that each title will be entered in full only
once. All other entries will refer to this full entry. They will be
called _Cross-References_; and rules for their preparation are given
hereafter.
~Remark 2.~ It is necessary (in this plan) to give the name of the
Author, in connection with the title, although it be but a repetition
of the heading; for the heading will be stereotyped separate from the
title, and, therefore, the title should contain all that is necessary
to indicate its proper position, in the alphabetical order, in case
of displacement.
~Remark 3.~ Experience shows that it takes less time to transcribe
titles in full, than to abridge them with any tolerable degree
of accuracy. It requires, too, less learning and experience in
the cataloguer. That a catalogue can be made more rapidly, more
economically, and more satisfactorily by transcribing the titles
faithfully and fully, without the omission of a single letter or
point, than by any proper plan of abridgment, cannot be denied by any
one who has fairly tried the experiment.[3] If the catalogue were
not to be printed, this rule should have no exception whatever. The
printing, however, introduces two considerations to modify the rule,
namely, the _expense_ of printing, and the _bulk_ of the catalogue.
The force of the former consideration is much diminished by the plan
of stereotyping the titles. It is but a first expense that we have to
meet, not a repetition of it. Besides, no library but the first has
to print all its titles. The saving, even to the second library, by
the use of those already stereotyped, would doubtless far more than
counterbalance the extra expense of printing long titles. The bulk
of the catalogue is certainly a matter of considerable importance,
though of less than might, at first, be supposed. It does not make
much difference, in convenience of use, whether such a work as an
Encyclopædia be in a hundred volumes or in ten, though it is, of
course, more convenient to refer to one volume than to ten. The
proposed general catalogue would doubtless exceed one volume, even
with short titles. But convenience should not be allowed to have more
influence than the demands of learned investigators. The bulk of
catalogues should not be considered in opposition to their accuracy,
and to such a degree of fulness of title, as may be necessary to
identify the book, and to give all such particulars of information,
as may justly be expected from a titular description.
[3] A very complete discussion of the comparative advantages
of long and short titles is contained in the Report of the
Commissioners on the British Museum, with Minutes of Evidence,
1850, particularly in Mr. Panizzi's Letter to the Earl of
Ellesmere, in Appendix No. 12.
~Remark 4.~ It is deemed unnecessary to prescribe any particular
form of card or paper for use in copying the titles. If they are to
be printed at once, it will be found most convenient to write them
on one side only of common foolscap paper. Cross references should
immediately follow the titles to which they belong. If cards have
already been adopted in the library to be catalogued, their form
need not be changed. They may be placed in the hands of the printer
without being transcribed. A manuscript catalogue for constant use
should generally be upon cards. A very convenient method of keeping
them is that employed by Mr. Folsom in the Boston Athenæum. The cards
are long and narrow; are so perforated that they may be strung upon
cords, which, being elastic, allow free motion without displacement;
and are kept in cases, made to resemble folio volumes, one side of
which opens like the cover of a book.