Part 1 (2/2)
It is a common mistake to speak of a cla.s.sified catalogue as a Catalogue Raisonne. A Catalogue Raisonne is a catalogue with bibliographical details and notes, in which the merits or demerits of the books are discussed. Therefore a Catalogue Raisonne can be alphabetical as well as cla.s.sified. An alphabetical catalogue can be either one of authors, or of subjects, or what the Americans have styled the Dictionary Catalogue.
A catalogue of authors will contain the description of anonymous books under headings in the same alphabet, and it may either have an index of subjects, or subject cross-references included in the general alphabet.
But as the rules to be considered later on relate chiefly to the catalogue of authors, it is not necessary to say more on this point here. Again, De Morgan has made some excellent remarks on the catalogue of authors:--
”An alphabetical catalogue has this great advantage, that all the works of the same author come together. Those who have had to hunt up old subjects know very well that of all lots which it is useful to find in one place, the works of one given author are those which occur most frequently. Again, those who go to a library to read upon a given subject generally know what authors they want; and an alphabetical catalogue settles the question whether the library does or does not contain the required work of the author wanted. We believe that of those who go into a place where books are collected, whether to read, buy, borrow, (or even steal), nineteen out of twenty know what author they want; and to them an alphabetical catalogue is all-sufficient.”[3]
Mr. Cutter has written the history of the Dictionary Catalogue in the _United States Special Report_ (pp. 533-39), and he traces it back in America to about the year 1815.
Mr. Crestadoro, in his pamphlet, _The Art of Making Catalogues of Libraries_, 1856, recommended an inventorial catalogue of unabridged t.i.tles arranged in no order, but numbered, and an alphabetical index to the numbers of this inventory. The index thus formed was somewhat similar to the Dictionary Catalogue (_United States Special Report_, p.
535). Mr. Bradshaw held very strongly the view that an alphabetical catalogue was an index, and that a full shelf catalogue was the real catalogue; and few things he enjoyed more than to read through a list of the books as they stood on the shelves.[4] In a letter to me, dated September 9th, 1879, he wrote:--
”It is a cardinal point with me that an alphabetical catalogue of a library is really an index, or should be so, to any other kind of catalogue you choose to make; while if you once lose sight of this fact you are quite sure to c.u.mber the catalogue up with bibliographical details which are entirely out of place.”
Scientific cataloguing is of modern invention, and to the British Museum it is that we owe the origination of a code of rules--rules which form the groundwork of all modern cataloguing. Good catalogues were made before rules were enunciated, but this is accounted for by the fact that bibliographers, like poets, are more often born than made.
Carefulness must be one of the chief characteristics of the cataloguer, for he will frequently find himself beset with difficulties. Mr. W. F.
Poole, the author of that most useful work the _Index to Periodical Literature_, states this very forcibly when he writes:--
”The inexperienced librarian will find the cataloguing of his books the most difficult part of his undertaking, even after he has made a diligent theoretical study of the subject. He will find after he has made considerable progress that much of his work is useless, and scarcely any of it correct.”[5]
The cataloguer must not jump to conclusions upon insufficient authority, or, as some persons have proposed, take a short list from the books and amplify the t.i.tles from bibliographies. Such a course will lead to endless blunders, and create confusion like that described by Professor De Morgan:--
”Lalande, in his _Bibliographie Astronomique_, wrote from his own knowledge the t.i.tle of the second edition of the work of Regiomonta.n.u.s on Triangles, Basle, folio, 1561. He knew that the first edition was published about thirty years before, and so he set it down with the same t.i.tle-page as the second, including the announcement of the table of Sines, Basle, 1536. Now, as it happened, it was published at Nuremberg in 1533, and there was no table of Sines in it. The consequence is that Apian and Copernicus are deprived of their respective credits, as being very early (the former the earliest) publishers of Sines to a decimal radius. No one can know how far an incorrect description of a book may produce historical falsehood; but there are few writers who have the courage to say exactly how much they know, and how much they presume.”[6]
Before concluding this Introduction it may be well to say something about a few catalogues that have been issued in the different styles.
One of the best cla.s.sified catalogues ever published in England is that of the London Inst.i.tution, which was first printed in 1835, and completed in 1852.[7] This has indexes of subjects, and of authors and books. The catalogue is very useful as a bibliography; and as the library was well selected, the reading of its pages is very instructive; but what shows the general uselessness of a cla.s.sified catalogue for the work of a library is that in actual practice an alphabetical finding index has been in more constant use than the fuller catalogue.
Of an alphabetical catalogue of subjects an example may be found in that of the Library of the Board of Trade, which was published in 1866. Here the authors are relegated to an index, and all the t.i.tles are arranged under the main subject. This may be convenient under some circ.u.mstances, but it is not satisfactory for general use. The idea of the scheme was due to the late Mr. W. M. Bucknall, then librarian to the Board of Trade; but the catalogue itself was made by the author of this book. The system adopted was to use the subject-word of the t.i.tle as a heading; but an exception was made in the case of foreign words which were translated. For instance, there is a heading of Wool. Under this first come all the English works; then the French works under sub-headings of _Laine_, _Laines_, and _Lainiere_; then German under _Schafwollhandel_ and _Wollmarkt_. From these foreign words in the alphabet there are references to WOOL. There is, however, no more cla.s.sification than is absolutely necessary; and it may be said that if all the books had been anonymous the scheme would have been an admirable one.
The Dictionary Catalogue mostly flourishes in America; but a very satisfactory specimen of the cla.s.s was prepared by Mr. D. O'Donovan, Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland. It is ent.i.tled, _a.n.a.lytical and Cla.s.sified Catalogue of the Library of the Parliament of Queensland_ (Brisbane: 1883. 4to). The books are entered under author and subject with full cross-references, and all the entries are arranged in one alphabet. There are abstracts of the contents of certain of the books, and references to articles in reviews. In the preface Mr. O'Donovan writes:--
”I have made a catalogue of authors, and index of t.i.tles, and an index of subjects, a partial index of forms, and having thrown the whole together into an alphabetical series, the work may be referred to as an ordinary dictionary.”
Of the usefulness of the Dictionary Catalogue there cannot be two opinions, but the chief objection is that it is a waste of labour to do for many libraries what if done once in the form of a bibliography would serve for all.
A most important example of this cla.s.s of catalogue is the _Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, United States Army_, of which nine large volumes have been issued. This owes its existence to Dr. J. S. Billings, and the publication was commenced in 1880. An enthusiastic friend is inclined to describe it as the best of published catalogues.
Authors' catalogues are the most common, and it would be invidious to point out any one in particular for special commendation.
It is rather curious that the United States, which is now to the fore in all questions of bibliography, should have produced in former times many singularly bad catalogues. There is one cla.s.sified catalogue which may be mentioned as a typical specimen of bad work. There is an index of authors, with such vague references that in some cases you have to turn over as many as seventy pages to find the book to which you are referred.[8]
The oddities of catalogue-making would form a prolific subject, and we cannot enter into it at the end of this chapter; but s.p.a.ce may be found for two odd catalogues which owe their origin to the Secretary of the old Record Commission.
<script>