John Henry Quinn

98.—The extent to which title-entries, as distinct from subject-entries, are called for in a dictionary catalogue has in some measure been already shown. Works of fiction, plays, poems, volumes of essays, and sometimes sermons, nearly all demand such entries, they being for the most part sought for by their titles. Examples of each of these are

Far from the madding crowd. Hardy, T.

Michael and his lost angel: a play. Jones, H. A.

Aurora Leigh: poem. Browning, E. B. 1890

Obiter dicta. Birrell, A. 2v. 1887-96

Discipline, and other sermons. Kingsley, C. 1890

These are apart from the title-as-subject entries, such as

Miners and their works underground. Holmes, F. M. n.d.

Moravian Church, Short history of the. Hutton, J. E. 1895.

There are very few books outside the above classes that really require title-entries, and, as a rule, this feature of cataloguing is overdone. Books like

Finck, H. T. Lotos-time in Japan. 1895

Hollingshead, John. My lifetime. 2 v. 1895

Adams, W. H. D. The Maid of Orleans. 1889

Marsh, George P. Lectures on the English language. 1874

do not require entries under “Lotos,” “My Lifetime,” “Maid of Orleans,” or “Lectures,” besides those necessary under “Japan,” “Hollingshead,” “Joan of Arc,” and “English language,” yet it is quite customary to see such entries.

99.—It must be carefully noted that in title-entries the articles (A, An, The) are absolutely ignored, and any other first word is the leading word under which the entry is to be given. It is often desirable to include the article, especially the definite article, in such entry, when it must be got in as soon as it can be consistent with sense and sound, or at the end of the phrase, as

Guardian angel, The. Not Guardian, The, angel.

Clyde, The, to the Jordan. Not Clyde to the Jordan, The.

Noble life, A. Not Noble, A, life.

Evil, The genesis of. Not Evil, genesis of, The.

The articles are occasionally left out of such entries as

but this applies only to the article preceding the first word of the title and no other.

cannot be correctly entered as

The general omission of the leading article means very little, if any, saving of space, and has a bald effect, reading often like the wording of a telegram. Besides losing the clearness which its inclusion gives, it may alter the sense, as

In transposing the article or any other leading word from the beginning of the title the capital initial letter must be retained, as shown in the above entries, and not in this way,

In order to prevent a break in the alphabetical sequence, the articles are sometimes transposed under the authors’ names, as

but so little is gained by this form of entry that it hardly compensates for the awkwardness of it.

It is incorrect in any form, author or title, to leave out the article in foreign languages, and to do so can only be justified by usage rather than exactness. As in English the entry-word is never under the article, as

100.—Many works of fiction with proper names in their titles are better known by those names, and are rarely looked for under the first word of the title. Books so well known as,

will oftener be sought for under “David,” “Midshipman,” “Pendennis,” “Harry,” and “Huckleberry,” than “Personal,” “Mr.” “History,” “Confessions,” “Adventures,” therefore judgment should be exercised, and either a single entry given under the most likely place, or both title-entries given. If space is a consideration always omit the less-known entry. It will be seen that names in fiction are never regarded as real names, and entries must not be given under the surnames as “Copperfield,” “Easy,” “Lorrequer,” “Finn.”

101.—For the sake of brevity title-entries are sometimes given with the surname only of the author, after this manner

and occasionally in this style:

In works of fiction like these there is no very great objection to the plan other than the bald appearance of the entries, but to carry it into effect with all other title and subject entries is to revert to the dark ages of cataloguing. The following selected specimens prove that such entries can have very little value for the uninitiated. The complete entry other than the shelf mark is given:

102.—This leads to the matter of repetition dashes, to which some reference has already been made in paragraph 59 upon the author-entry, and no better advice can be given to the young cataloguer than that to avoid repetition dashes wherever possible, and, at most, only use them in one of the following instances:

Illustrations of the second form are

and of the third form:

but most cataloguers are dispensing with this form, as the indent under the heading is sufficient to denote that all the entries belong to such heading. If it is used, a second dash will occasionally be needed in cases similar to this:

Nothing is lost by avoiding this dash under headings, and some find that the indent alone, even under author’s names, is so clear that the dash can be altogether discarded, and that this will be no disadvantage the following typical and genuine examples of what has been sarcastically called the “dot and dash system” of cataloguing will show:

These are quite as absurd in their way as that from a recent index to publishers’ catalogues, viz.:

and attention is drawn to them simply for the purpose of showing how ridiculous such entries can be made, and that they are more hindrance than help to the users of a catalogue needs no further demonstration. Therefore it can be confidently recommended to the cataloguer to make a very limited use of these dashes, in all cases of doubt it being much better to repeat the word. The eleven dashes under “Workshop” above are unnecessary, and the proper form of entry is: