103.—The mode of setting-out the contents of books of a miscellaneous or collective character has been referred to in sections 61-62 and it has been pointed out that frequently an essay or article is more useful—even more valuable—than a whole book, as it may give the pith of the matter it deals with, and be sufficiently full for the needs of most people. Under these circumstances, it is most desirable that not only shall each subject-heading in a catalogue have all the books in the library set out under it, but also portions of books, within reasonable limits. How far these limits are to extend is a nice question, and it is certainly one that demands the consideration of English librarians, with a view to co-operation in the production of a work upon the lines of the “A. L. A.” Index: an index to general literature, by Wm. I. Fletcher, with the coÖperation of many librarians (Boston, 1893), to fill the place for this class of literature that Poole’s and other indexes do for periodical literature. The “A.L.A. Index” is distinctly American, and does not fit in so well with the collections in English libraries, though its value cannot be gainsaid. Pending the settlement of this question librarians must do what they can to open up for the use of their readers the valuable material hidden away in volumes of essays and others of a miscellaneous character. All the rules previously laid down for cataloguing come into application in dealing with books of this kind, because they sometimes consist of sections by a number of authors upon one subject, or of many authors upon many subjects, or by a single author on many subjects. The method usually employed of completely carrying out this indexing is shown in the following series of examples:

The sixth, seventh, and eighth entries are in title form, upon the presumption that the library will have no other items upon these persons or books by them. The remainder are headings, because the probability is that there will be other books by or upon these authors.

There are alternative methods of treating books of this nature. It has already been said that the list of contents can be omitted under the principal entry, and thereby effect a slight saving. It would also be quite possible to give only the title of the whole book under the subject-heading, omitting the title of the particular essay or article, as

The fact that the entry is given under Hugo would show that there was something in the book about him, but not that it concerned his romances only. There is also the reverse process of giving simply the title of the essay, as

The disadvantage of this form is that it would be taken for a whole book instead of an essay, but this difficulty could be got over by inserting the explanatory word “essay,” as

There is also the cross-reference form, like

which is the least desirable because it is vague and also extravagant so far as space is concerned.

The next illustration is

The fact that these essays are principally reviews of books necessitates a consideration of their interest in this respect as well as that which attaches to their value as contributions to the subjects, and after examination it will be found that the essays are best placed under “Dryden,” “Symonds, J. A.”; “Chesterfield”; “Theobald, Lewis”; and “Menander,” in this manner:

If it were thought necessary to give the second and fourth essays under “Shakespeare” also, they could be amalgamated into one entry in this form:

A further book of the kind is

The word “contents” may be changed to “contains” or “containing,” or even omitted altogether, as the position or style of type would sufficiently indicate that the list was that of the contents. Due regard being paid to the exact subject of each of the essays, the entries would be given under “Sonnet” (title-entry); “Germ, The”; “Hunt, Leigh”; “Pope, Alex.”; “Buchanan, Robert”; “Hawker, Robert S.”

104.—It must be clearly understood that while there is a certain option in indexing the contents of books like the above, there is none whatever in dealing with collected works. That a library happens to possess say the set of the Ashburton edition of Carlyle’s Works does not imply that they are sufficiently entered if set out under “Carlyle,” and therefore they must be fully catalogued in precisely the same manner as if each book had been purchased separately in various editions. Under the author’s name they would be entered as shown in the Hawthorne illustration (section 63), and each book dealt with upon the lines already laid down, as for example

105.—There is a well understood though not formulated rule, that the contents of the great classical works do not require indexing, and upon this principle a work, say upon “Hamlet,” would simply be entered under “Shakespeare,” and not even a cross-reference is needed from “Hamlet.” So with the ancient classics. The Iliad or Odyssey, the Æneid, or the Agamemnon are not usually entered in any other place than under Homer, Virgil, and Æschylus respectively. This rule would also be extended according to the nature of the library. One that had a particular collection say of editions of More’s Utopia would not require any entry under Utopia further than a cross-reference to More, where all the editions would be set out with every necessary particular.

106.—The remarks made in section 103 upon the need for a co-operative index to essays and the like also applies to the need, which is probably not so much felt, for an index to plays, and further indexes might even be looked for to volumes of sermons arranged under subjects and texts. More pressing still is the want of an index to the many portraits contained in books.