Wheatley Henry Benjamin
How to Catalogue a Library
The date is one of the most important portions of a title, and the cataloguer must seek for it until he finds it. Sometimes it is to be found at the end of the preface or dedication, and sometimes it is on the title-page as a chronogram. Mr. James Hilton for years has searched over Europe for chronograms, and he has been highly successful in his search, as is evidenced by his two handsome volumes, Chronograms, 5,000 and more in Number (1882), and Chronograms Continued and Concluded (1885).
The following specimens are from Mr. Hilton's books:—
"Anagrammata regia in honorem maximi mansuetissimi regis Caroli conscripta."
Imprint:—
"LonDInI regIo prIVILegIo eXaratVM = 1626."
On the last page is:—
"eXtant Ista In æDIbVs gVLIeLMI stansbIe = 1626"
A curious little book (a chronographic imitation of Thomas à Kempis) is filled with chronograms, and contains two on the title-page:—
De spIrItaLI IMItatIone ChrIstI [1658] aDMonItIones saCræ et VtILes [1658] pIIs In LVCeM Datæ: [1658]."
"a R.P. Antonio Vanden Stock Societatis Jesu. Ruræmundæ apud Gasparem du Pree."
On the frontispiece is another chronogram:—
"chrIsto aDhærens non aMbVLat In tenebrIs."
Mr. Hilton has succeeded in finding several additions to the small store of chronograms in English, and has produced some new ones.
On the back of the title-page of the first book is this inscription:—
"An eXCeLLent neVV book of ChronograMs gathereD together & noVV set forth by I. hILton, F.S.A. = 1882."
On the second book:—
"Another qVIte neVV book of rIght eXCeLLent chronograMs IssVeD by I. hILton, F.S.A." = 1885.
More difficult than chronograms are Greek dates, because each letter in Greek has a numerical value, and the numbers do not follow in an uninterrupted series, because certain additional figures are introduced. It is therefore often necessary in cataloguing Greek books to refer to a table such as the following:—
It will be noticed that the top letters of each series spell "αιρ," which can be borne in mind. The irregularities in the series are final ςʹ for six, and the invented letters, for 90 and 900. The same series of letters, with the accent beneath instead of above, are used for thousands, as—
There is considerable difficulty in dating books published in France between September 1792, when the French Revolutionary Calendar was introduced, and December 1805, when the Gregorian mode of calculation was restored by Napoleon, because the Revolutionary year began with the autumn. It is impossible therefore, as the months are not usually given in the imprints of books, to tell whether a book dated an. 1 was published in 1792 or 1793. It is usual, however, to reckon from 1792, and to count an. 8, for instance, as 1800, by which means an approximate date is obtained.
Size-Notation
When we come to the last piece of description on our catalogue slip, we experience considerable difficulty in certain cases. The statement of the case of size-notation, which has caused so much discussion, and given rise to so many schemes, is so well put by the late Mr. Winter Jones, in his inaugural address at the Conference of Librarians held in London, October 1877, that I shall transfer it to these pages:—
"One of these points is the designation of the sizes of books. As regards modern books, the folding of the sheets of paper is generally received as the guide, but it is not a guide which speaks to the eye. Some duodecimos may be larger than some octavos, and some octavos may be larger than some folios, to say nothing of the uncertainty of the quartos. When we come to ancient books the matter is still worse. The early printers did not use large sheets of paper and fold them twice or more to form quartos, octavos, etc., but merely folded their paper once, thus making what is now understood by the terms folios or quartos, according to the size of the sheet of paper. Three or more of these sheets were laid one within another, and formed gatherings or quires, each sheet after the first in each gathering being called an inlay.28 This printing by gatherings was adopted for the convenience of binding. The consequence of this practice would be that the printer would either print one page at a time or two, but no more. If two, he would have to divide the matter to be printed into portions sufficient for eight, twelve, sixteen, or twenty pages, according to the number of inlays in each gathering, and then print, say the first and twelfth, then the second and the eleventh, and so on; and the result of this practice is occasionally seen in an inequality in the length of the pages, particularly in the centre inlay, which would be printed last, and would therefore have either too much or too little matter if the calculation of the quantity necessary for each page had not been exact. It has been suggested that the difficulty might be met by adopting the size of the printed page as the guide, but such a guide would certainly be fallacious. It would not indicate the size of the volume; it would not allow for the many cases of 'oceans of margins and rivers of text;' it would not speak to the eye without opening the book. The better plan would appear to be to adopt, to a certain extent, the system used by bookbinders. As they regulate their charges according to the size of the millboard required for binding their book, their scale is independent of the folding of the printed sheet. It contains twenty-nine divisions or designations of different sizes, of which twenty-six represent modifications of the five sizes of folio, 4to, 8vo, 12mo, and 18mo, a striking proof of the uncertainty of the sizes supposed to be indicated by these five terms. I speak, of course, of the measure used by English bookbinders. It would certainly be advisable that some rule should be laid down, which might apply to all countries, by which the general sizes of books might be designated, and minute subdivisions be avoided. Why should we designate sizes by paper marks, and talk of pot quartos and foolscap octavos? The pot and the foolscap are things of the past. It would surely be better to adopt some such rule as the following: To designate as 12mo all books not exceeding seven inches in height; as 8vo all those above seven and not exceeding ten inches in height; as 4to those above ten and not exceeding twelve inches in height; and as folio all above twelve inches. The folios might be further described, according to the fact, as large or super, in order to avoid the various subdivisions of crown, copy, demy, medium, royal, imperial, elephant, and columbier folio."
At the Exhibition of Library Appliances in connection with the London Conference, Mr. F. Weaklin submitted seven diagrams of eighty-two sizes given to books, from imperial 4to to demy 48mo, and the matter had already been under special consideration in the United States. Mr. Jewett suggested that after the description 8vo, 4to, etc., the exact height and width in inches and tenths of inches should be added between brackets. He measured print; but, as pointed out by Mr. Winter Jones in the above quotation, this measurement overlooks one of the most important points in respect to the character and value of a book, viz., the size of the margin. When the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell wished to adopt Mr. Jewett's suggestion, I recommended that the width and height of the actual page should be measured, and this was done in An Essay towards a Collection of Books relating to Proverbs, Emblems, Apophthegms, Epitaphs, and Ana, being a Catalogue of those at Keir (1860), which I edited for him.
This system of measurement is not needed in a small library, where the ordinary nomenclature is sufficient. The real difficulty underlying the whole subject was pointed out by Mr. Bradshaw in his paper at the Cambridge Meeting of the Library Association, "A Word on Size Notation as distinguished from Form Notation." He there states two facts often overlooked: "(1) That the terms folio, quarto, octavo, etc., represent strictly not size-notation, but form-notation; and (2) That the modern methods of making paper and of printing books combine to render any accurate application of form-notation to such books not so much difficult as impossible. The logical conclusion from these two facts is, of course, that the form-notation expressed by the terms folio, quarto, octavo, etc., should be given up in the case of modern books, to which it is wholly inapplicable; and that a size-notation which does represent an undoubted fact, should be adopted in its place. This logical conclusion was seen, accepted, and acted upon at Cambridge in the year 1854; and I confess that it is difficult to resist the conviction that this principle must sooner or later be accepted by others, though there will no doubt be differences of opinion as to the most advisable form of notation to adopt. A librarian cannot afford to be eccentric in this matter; whatever method is adopted, it must be adopted by all the great libraries, and it must commend itself to the general reader. Now I feel sure that I shall not be taxed with dogmatism or with any predilection for some crotchet of my own devising, if I say that the complicated and artificial systems recommended by the Committee and others, are such as cannot possibly become familiar, even if they become intelligible, to the general run of readers. In the old Cambridge size-notation of London 1856, 8 × 5 meaning eight inches high by five inches across, the second number denoting the breadth very soon fell out of use, except in writing, and for years we always spoke of books as eights, sevens, sixes, etc., meaning that they were eight, seven, or six inches high."
To this passage is added the following note:—
"The practice in use with us has been to measure the height of the book from the top to the bottom of the page, disregarding the cover. We compute inches as we compute a man's age; a book is eight inches until it is nine inches, only, seeing that bound books are so often cut not quite square, anything short of the number used in the size-notation by the eighth of an inch or less, we call by that number for ordinary purposes. I have said above that in our General Library Catalogue we have reverted to the common form-notation, 8vo, 12mo, etc., but pure size-notation is still retained in other departments, while in Trinity College Library it has never been given up since it was first adopted in 1856 or thereabouts."
The committee referred to by Mr. Bradshaw was the Size-Notation Committee of the Library Association, of which my brother, the late Mr. B. R. Wheatley, was a member. He took great interest in this subject, and drew up a scale of sizes which might be marked upon an ordinary two-foot rule. He was anxious that "a system should be adopted based on the well-known terms hitherto employed of folio, 4to, 8vo, 12mo, etc., and their qualifying varieties of imperial, royal, etc., with an approximate height and width in inches affixed to each size."
I think that Mr. Bradshaw's argument is convincing against making any arbitrary rule of this kind, and affixing a definite size to every variety of form-designation. But at the same time we must remember that the form-notation has very largely been used for a size-notation, and that bibliographers alone cannot make this change, because publishers, booksellers, and bookbinders all use the notation as well as cataloguers. After all I cannot help thinking that the difficulty has been very greatly exaggerated. Folio and quarto are almost entirely used as terms of form-notation, and they are usually found sufficient except in the case of atlas or elephant folios, which seem to require some distinguishing designation. Nowadays a large number of library books are in what is called demy octavo. This I would distinguish as octavo, and all below that size I would call small octavos, and all above large octavos. Very few modern books are styled duodecimos; therefore that form will not give the cataloguer much trouble. It is clearly useless for the latter to distinguish books by such meaningless terms as foolscap octavo, post octavo, etc., like the publisher. Of course there is the difference in size between old and new books. The ordinary octavo of the old books is a smaller size than the modern octavo, but this will be settled by the date, and among the old books there will be no difficulty in finding duodecimos.
Mr. Nicholson has entered very fully into this question of size-notation in his Bodleian Rules, where he gives two tables as guides for correct description. Rule 57 is: "The size of a book printed on water-marked paper is to be described in accordance with Table I., on unwater-marked paper with Table II."
Collation
In most catalogues the note of the size will finish the entry, but it is a very useful addition when the number of pages of all books in single volumes is given. Sometimes the pages of the book itself only are noted without reference to the preliminary matter, and sometimes the Roman numerals are added on to the Arabic numerals and given as one total; but this latter practice is not to be commended. The best plan is to set down the pages thus—pp. xv, 421 (some put this pp. xv + 421, but the plus sign is not necessary); or if the preliminary matter is not paged, thus—half-title, title, five preliminary leaves, pp. 467.
In the case of very rare and valuable works, a full collation becomes necessary, and such collation should be drawn up according to the plan accepted among bibliographers, which can be seen in the standard bibliographies of early printed books, and such a model bibliography as Upcott's Bibliographical Account of the Principal Works relating to English Topography (3 vols., 8vo, 1818).
Even when it is not thought necessary to give a collation, it will be well to notice if a book contains a portrait, or plates.
CHAPTER V.
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:
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:—
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:—
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.
