Part 13 (1/2)
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 a.s.sociation 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 t.i.tles, 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 t.i.tles other than those of plays, poems, novels, etc. (which have arbitrary t.i.tles), 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 cla.s.sification 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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tles 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.