DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26753#0087
81
dedicated to Prince Massimi, in Latin ; and this being the only text
in the work;, according to the rules, this is the title.
I could go on multiplying examples of this sort to any extent.
The above will suffice to illustrate the absurdity of a rule which
renders a most valuable portion of the library inaccessible to the
public. At one time I believed that it was intended for the purpose
of preventing the profanum vulgus from thumbing so valuable a class
of works. I am assured this is not the case, but the effect is the same,
for unless the reader has access to the works before he goes to the
Museum, he will not be able to find one of this class in the catalogue.
Another equally absurd rule is that when the work is anonymous, it
shall be entered under the first substantive of the title. It ought, of
course to be the principal substantive. Thus a History of Ireland, or
any other country is entered among some thousands of Histories,
through which the reader must wade to find the one he wants; while,
if it should turn out to be an “abridgment” of the History, &c., he
must wade through all the abridgments in the library. If it should
happen to be a “ Summary of the History,” or have any other sub-
typical affix, he must go through every conceivable variation before
he is sure whether or not the work he wishes to refer to is in the
library or not. If it was entered “ Ireland, Histories of, &c.,—•
Anonymous,” nothing of the class could be so numerous, but that
the search would be easy, and the result at all events would be
certain.
Or to take another instance, supposing in reading some book I am
referred to a curious account of the life of Prince Arthur and the
Knights of the Round Table, printed by Caxton, in 1485. If this
were entered under “Arthur, Prince,” there would be no difficulty.
But unless a man sees the book, he may guess through his life before
he finds it in the catalogue. The book in question has two titles,
“ Morte d’Arthur,” is the popular one. The true one being “ The
Byrth, Lyf, and Actes,” &c. Even if told it is the “ Birth, Life and
Acts,” he must not look under Bi. To whom would it occur to look
under By 1 If Lyf happened to be the first substantive, it would re-
quire a new search; and if Acts, a third before there was any chance
of finding the work in question.
But what is the use of multiplying particular instances 1 No
alphabetical catalogue ever requires any rule to make it intelligible,
and every one can find in it the work he wants. It requires that the
reader should remember ninety-one very long and puzzling rules before
he can ever hope to find a book in the Museum catalogue, and even
then he will not succeed in many cases unless he has access to the
work itself before he goes to consult the catalogue.
Q-
dedicated to Prince Massimi, in Latin ; and this being the only text
in the work;, according to the rules, this is the title.
I could go on multiplying examples of this sort to any extent.
The above will suffice to illustrate the absurdity of a rule which
renders a most valuable portion of the library inaccessible to the
public. At one time I believed that it was intended for the purpose
of preventing the profanum vulgus from thumbing so valuable a class
of works. I am assured this is not the case, but the effect is the same,
for unless the reader has access to the works before he goes to the
Museum, he will not be able to find one of this class in the catalogue.
Another equally absurd rule is that when the work is anonymous, it
shall be entered under the first substantive of the title. It ought, of
course to be the principal substantive. Thus a History of Ireland, or
any other country is entered among some thousands of Histories,
through which the reader must wade to find the one he wants; while,
if it should turn out to be an “abridgment” of the History, &c., he
must wade through all the abridgments in the library. If it should
happen to be a “ Summary of the History,” or have any other sub-
typical affix, he must go through every conceivable variation before
he is sure whether or not the work he wishes to refer to is in the
library or not. If it was entered “ Ireland, Histories of, &c.,—•
Anonymous,” nothing of the class could be so numerous, but that
the search would be easy, and the result at all events would be
certain.
Or to take another instance, supposing in reading some book I am
referred to a curious account of the life of Prince Arthur and the
Knights of the Round Table, printed by Caxton, in 1485. If this
were entered under “Arthur, Prince,” there would be no difficulty.
But unless a man sees the book, he may guess through his life before
he finds it in the catalogue. The book in question has two titles,
“ Morte d’Arthur,” is the popular one. The true one being “ The
Byrth, Lyf, and Actes,” &c. Even if told it is the “ Birth, Life and
Acts,” he must not look under Bi. To whom would it occur to look
under By 1 If Lyf happened to be the first substantive, it would re-
quire a new search; and if Acts, a third before there was any chance
of finding the work in question.
But what is the use of multiplying particular instances 1 No
alphabetical catalogue ever requires any rule to make it intelligible,
and every one can find in it the work he wants. It requires that the
reader should remember ninety-one very long and puzzling rules before
he can ever hope to find a book in the Museum catalogue, and even
then he will not succeed in many cases unless he has access to the
work itself before he goes to consult the catalogue.
Q-