'Che Librarian Series, No. 7 . Cataloguing Codes. [A Comparison of the " Cutter " and "A.L.A. and L.A." Rules.] BY MAURICE H. B. MASH, Central Library, Town Hall, Croydon. nEPRINTET) FROM "VHE LI B'RATtl AN. STANLEY PAUL & CO., 31, Essex Street, Strand, W.C. Price Sixpence &£ct. «& Cataloguing Codes. By Maurice H. B. Mash, Central Library, Town Hall, Croydon. Introduction. In comparing the Anglo-American Code (hereinafter termed " Code ") with Cutter's Rules for a Dictionary Cata- logue (hereinafter termed " Cutter "), one or two points call for special consideration at the outset. Cataloguing is not a science, but an art, and each of these two codes, though their rules differ on certain points, is intended as a guide to aid the cataloguer in his work. One is an American Government publication, and the other the result of a combination of rules drawn up by the English and American Library Associations. Dealing with the Code we find that it has taken advantage of the thirty-two years' experience gained by Cutter, and upon this has based its theory, advantageous or otherwise. A point to be remembered in comparing these two systems is that the primary distinctive difference between the Code and Cutter is that the former deals only with Author and Title entries, whereas the latter is a complete code for a dictionary catalogue. This, again, is only a comparison of one code in its two parts, with a code of many parts, which cannot result in a logical termination, because certain parts of the one code are not compared with, or included in, the two parts of the other. The question of strict adherence to any code of cataloguing rules has been the cause of much controversy among lib- rarians. It is " the exception that proves the rule." This was evidently the view of the late Mr. Cutter, when he wrote in his preface that the " strict consistency in a rule and uniformity in its application sometimes lead to practices which clash with the public's habitual way of looking at things. When these habits are general and deeply rooted, it is unwise for the cataloguer to ignore them, even if they demand a sacrifice of system and simplicity." If this latitude were not consistent, Mr. Cutter would not have permitted it, after having given reasons for his rules, which procedure was thought to be a dangerous precedent, and required a man who was master of his subject to carry out such a scheme with success. ■ 2 rs "-• "i- O U On glancing through the Code, it is evident that this granting of latitude is more characteristic of the Americans than of the English ; this will be noticed especially in the eight rules that have been printed in both forms, i.e., those where the committee were unable to agree upon certain points. Brief History of the Anglo-American Code and Cutter's Rules. Among others, Cutter's Rules primarily formed the basis of the Code. The year 1877 was really the starting- point in its history, when the American Library Association began to consider the preparation of a set of cataloguing rules. The work was proceeded with during the next few years, and the full text of these rules was submitted at the Buffalo Conference of 1883. The English Library Association Rules were revised in 1883, and were published with the rules of the British Museum, and the Bodleian Library in 1893, forming No. 5 of the Library Association Series. A reprint of these rules under the title " English Cata- loguing Rules," was published in 1902 by the New York State Library — Bulletin yy, Library School 13. Frequent requests were made for a re-issue of the English Association's Rules, and in 1902 a Committee was appointed to go into the matter. The work of revision was proceeded with and a draft of the revised rules was circulated at the Newcastle Meeting in 1904. It was in 1900 that the American Association appointed a Committee to revise the A.L.A. Catalogue [Rules, and when Mr. Dewey learned that a similar work was being carried out in England, he wrote suggesting that the English and American Associations should unite in their endeavours and form the "Code," the main object being to establish uniformity in cataloguing practice throughout the English- speaking world. This suggestion was unanimously adopted by the English -Association. The " Code " was revised at various meetings, viz. : Bradford in 1906, Glasgow in 1907, and was finally published in 1908. With regard to Cutter, the first edition was published in 1876. The circumstances responsible for its existence are explained in the first edition, where the author states that " for an author-catalogue there are the famous 91 Rules of the British Museum . . . j Professor Jewitt's modification of them . . . ; Mr. F. B. Perkin's further modifications ..-..} and a chapter in the second volume of Edwards' Memoirs. But for a dictionary catalogue as a whole, and for most of its parts, there is no manual whatever." He goes on to say that none of the above works have attempted to set out their rules in a systematic way, "or to investigate what might be called the first principles of cataloguing." The second edition was published in 1889 ; the third in 1891 : this was reprinted in 1898, 1899, 1900, 1902, 1903 ; and the fourth and last edition was published in 1904. " Cutter " is really a record of the lines already laid down and agreed to, rather than a newly-formed code. In comparing these two systems it is noticeable that the English edition of the Code has only an English preface ; the addition of an American preface would have been useful. Two prefaces were expected, considering that the work was the combined publication of the English and American Library Associations. Seeing that the Code is the production of two bodies in a way foreign to each other, it is surprising that out of the 174 rules, only 8 are printed in the two forms, i.e., those where the committees were unable to agree upon certain points, viz. : rules 16, 32, 33, 40, 41, 116, 118, and 121, all of which refer to the question of " under what heading is the reader most likely to look for a book which he is in search of." It may be that the different types of catalogues used in England and America are largely responsible for these differences, because it is possible to revise a card catalogue with less cost and labour than a catalogue which is printed in book form. The number of references in the Code to the rules taken from the systems of the Library of Congress, Linderfeldt, British Museum, Bodleian, etc., are given so frequently as to make the work one of reference, and its application a matter for discretion. Again, the references in the 4th edition to the advance editions of the American Association Rules, are to be partly regretted because the advance edition of any publication does not always represent its most mature decisions. Definitions. The definitions of both systems are on the whole very satisfactory. The Code has 58, as compared with the 115 in Cutter. Many of those in the former are defined for the first time, such as "Series," "Folio," etc., many of which might, with profit, have been extended, as they are nearly all of telegraphic laconity. Many in Cutter do not apply directly to the art of cataloguing, i.e., "Accession," "Accession Book," "Accession Stamp," etc., while all definitions in the Code relate specifically to cataloguing. Only those strictly necessary and exhibiting marked differences have been compared. In Added Entry the definitions are the same, with the addition of " There may be added entries for editor, trans- lator, title, subjects, etc," in the Code. Analytical entry in the Code is practically the same as Analysis in Cutter, but is much fuller. The clause, " it is safest to treat it (the book) as anonymous if the author's name does not appear in the title " given under Anonymous in Cutter, is not to be found in the Code. Under Author in the Code " as distin- guished from translator, editor, etc.," is an addition to the definition in Cutter, otherwise the definitions are nearly the same. Very slight difference is to be found under Author Entry. A further distinction under Binder's Title is given in the Code, which reads, " as distinguished from the title on the publisher's original binding or cover." The wording under Catalogue is identical to a certain point. That is, where the definitions of the various kinds of book catalogues should be in the Code, reference is given to Cutter. The Code definition of Collation is more brief and to the point than the one in Cutter. The Code deals more fully and states what items the Colophon is to consist of. But the definition in Cutter simply reads, " title and imprint or imprint alone at the end of the book," without giving any idea of what the imprint really is. The terms Compiler and Compound Names are extremely useful, but are not given in Cutter. The two definitions in the Code under Continuation are covered by one in Cutter. The wording is slightly different. Although already given under Author, Corporate Entry is treated separately in the Code, but not defined in Cutter. With regard to Date, four definitions are given in the Code, and all are important. This again is not treated in Cutter. The term Edition in the Code does not allow for Title Edition, as is the case in Cutter. The Code gives a special definition for Editor which is useful, while Cutter refers to Author. Next we notice that only five definitions under Entry are given in the Code, as compared with ten in Cutter. Folio is one of the terms that has not been defined before. Three definitions are given in the Code, i.e., " Size," " Format," " Separate leaves of a book," as Folio i, etc. A useful definition of Half-Title is given in the Code, with a reference to Bastard Title. This is not treated in Cutter. The term Illustration is another which is defined for the first time. The definitions under Imprint differ. The Code gives " place," " publisher," " name " and " date," and where these items are to be found, while Cutter only gives " place," " date " and form of printing. Under Joint-Author the Code definition is more concise than that in Cutter. With regard to Main Entry, the definitions differ on the whole, that in the Code fulfilling all requirements. The definition of Periodical in the Code is to be preferred to that given in Cutter ; it is more definite in structure. The term Printer is another that has only been treated in the Code, and distinguishes Printer from Publisher. The same originality applies to Pseudonym, and the definition given in the Code is very good. The definition of Reference in Cutter is to be preferred ; it is fuller and distinguishes Entry from Reference. Originality is again seen in the Code under Reprint. A sound treatment of the term Running-Title is given in the Code, and in the same system the definition of Serial is superior and more explanatory than that in Cutter. The definition in the Code for Serial Number is very brief, although the term is not defined in Cutter. The Code defines what a Series is, and this treatment is preferable to that in Cutter, though the definition of Series-Entry in Cutter is fuller than that in the Code. Under Series Note the first portion of the definitions are nearly the same. The last portion in the Code states the place of a series note, and Cutter states in what way it is to be written. Both systems have practically the same meaning in the definition of Title. The Code includes, and specially mentions, " author," " editor," etc., but Cutter includes these under Imprint. The Code under Title Entry definitely states that " a tit]e entry may be a main entry or an added entry," but Cutter omits this. Although an important factor in cataloguing, the term Title Page is not given in Cutter, but well defined in the Code. Very little variance is to be found under the term Volume. Rules Dealing with Author and Authorship Heading. The first 22 rules of the Code deal with " under whom as author," and correspond very closely with the first 18 rules in Cutter ; at the same time they present many minor alterations from the latter system. The first rule where an important difference appears is Rule 2 in the Code, and 3 and 4 in Cutter : Joint Authors. The difference arises when there are more than two authors ; the Code uses the form " and others," with added entries, or reference in a note to the others. Cutter enters under the first name mentioned, and gives reference to the others. The Code rule is very much like Rule 218 in Cutter; in fact one example in the former is taken from the latter rule, which is an alternative rule principally dealing with the question of double headings, for which reference is given in Rule 4 in Cutter. The Code rule is much clearer than the corre- sponding one in Cutter. Rule 3. University Dissertations. The Code provides much detail as to the cataloguing of these, which may, at first sight, seem superfluous, but after consideration many points are seen where so many cataloguers get stranded. Cutter has no special rule, but borrows from the American Library Association Rule 69, and Dziatzko's Rules 1 and 2. The Code has its own rule, but also gives the Library of Congress Supplementary Rules 13 and 25. Rule 4 in the Code and 8 in Cutter : Illustrations. To follow the Code rule closely, a book in which illustrations are important is to be entered under the illustrator or designer, with reference from the author, but when the illustrations are of secondary importance the entry is to be under the author with added entry under the artist. Therefore all books with, or notable on account of, their illustrations should have added entries under the artists if not catalogued under this heading. Cutter considers " both the author of the text and the designer " or illustrator. Rule 6 in the Code and Rules 9 and 368 in Cutter : Cartographers. The Code has a separate rule under this heading, whereas in Cutter Rule 9 is only a kind of definition, but under Cutter Rule 368 examples are to be found. In both systems the Cartographers are to be treated as the authors of the map or atlas. Cutter is to be preferred on account of its clearness and fullness. Rule 7 in the Code and 9 in Cutter : Architects. The same arguments and reasons as above apply to these. Rule 8 in the Code and n and 367 in Cutter : Music. No. 11 in Cutter is rather brief and obscure compared with No. 8 in the Code, which includes all the important points to be borne in mind when cataloguing music. These points are set out in full in Cutter 367, under the heading, "Cataloguing Special Publications," and this is much more clearly set out than in the Code to which it is preferable. Rule 13 in the Code and 14 and 15 in Cutter ; Com- mentaries. The body of the rules are nearly the same, although differently expressed. Rule 16 in the Code and 20 in Cutter : Concordances. These are to be entered under author and concordanced with an added entry under the compiler. This is the English rule, and the decision was undoubtedly influenced by the definition of the term — " Author of a book." The Americans enter concordances as original works. Is the original writer of a concordance the author or the compiler ? It is a question of which shall be considered the principal entry, the subject concordanced or the com- piler. It would be better to allow for the chief entry to be under the subject. Cutter makes entries under the author of the concordance and the author concordanced, and lets the latter entry be known as the subject entry. Rule 16 in the Code is rather new, and, despite its faults, is^better than No. 20 in Cutter, although one critic has said that " the Code is an offender when it directs that a con- cordance must not be entered under its compiler as the chief entry, but under the subject concordanced." The next rule to attract special notice is Rule 19 in the Code and 18 in Cutter : Revisions. Although differently set, the meaning of the two is the same. Cutter gives reasons to be considered in cases of doubt, in the case of a book becoming " substantially a new book," whereas the Code does not allow for this. With regard to Table Talk, Interviews, Etc. Cutter does not mention Interviews, neither does the Code give Ana. The substance of the rules is the same. Rule 21 in the Code and 245-247 in Cutter : Trans- lations. The Code rule demands entry under the heading of the " original language," and added entry under the translator. This is clear and simple. Cutter gives, after the original, a translated title, which is to be preceded by the name of the language. This treatment is useful, although the three rules given under this heading are not so clear as might be. The instructions given for arrangement under 318 in Cutter should be added to the rule given in the 8 Code. On the whole the details of Cutter are superior to the bare rule in the Code, but might be set out more clearly so as to avoid possible errors, which they invite at present. Manuscripts. The rules are practically the same. That of the Code 22 is much clearer than Cutter 109, but Cutter 366 is a very good guidance in a difficult question. There is one item worthy of notice in the Code under this Rule 22, that the added entry example enters Ernest de Selincourt under Selincourt, Ernest de. There are many changes of form commencing at Rule 23 in the Code, some of which are very interesting. For example, names are to be given in full, except where authors have consistently ignored some part of their name. This applies also to names in the vernacular form, and is a new and logical departure from some of the earlier forms. Rule 25 in the Code : Compound Surnames. The Code recommends that compound surnames be entered under the first part of the name, with reference from the other parts, except when the author's custom, or the custom of his country, favours the entry under any other part of the name. For example : Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry. Rule 313 in Cutter arranges personal names compounded of two names (with or without a hyphen), after the first name or part of the name. Example : Fonte Resbecq, Auguste, thus proving that this form or rule is to be governed by the custom of the author's country. The rule of the Code is a good departure from the old style, and as given in Cutter 28 the practice of placing English compound names under the last, and Foreign under the first part of the name is usual. The note given after Rule 25 is a compromise and exception to the main rule, and is equal to Rule 28a in Cutter. As most Oriental names are compounded, Rules 52-56 in the Code are elaborate and provide more means for cataloguing than there is material in English and American libraries at the present time. Rule 32 in the Code and 23a in Cutter : Princes of the Blood, Sovereigns, Etc. The Code rule is the second instance where the two committees were unable to agree. The English rule is strict, but the American allows certain latitude here as in several other cases. Cutter 23a makes certain exceptions, whereas the rules of the Code do not, i.e., the Rule 23a does not include Greek or Roman sovereigns, princes, etc., or princes of the French Empire. The three rules agree that such entries shall be under the Christian or Forename, but the exception is to be found in the American rule, which allows entries under titles where these are better known. The English rule comes first for consistency and clearness and is to be recommended. Rule 33 in the Code and 25 and 26 in Cutter : Noblemen. Similarly to the previous rule, both versions are printed, and is another example of disagreement. The English rule enters under the family name, referring from titles ; the American enters under the latest title unless better known by family name or earlier title — again showing latitude — in either case, reference from the name or title not used for the heading. Cutter's Rules 25 and 26 really amount to the same as the American rule. The difference in the terms used in Cutter — highest title, and latest title — are worthy of notice, and in full cataloguing might mean a great difference. The advantage of the English method is that all members of a family are brought together. The Code rule is on the whole a highly controversial one and shows " much love for aristocratic titles." In the first place the American rule is scarcely a rule at all, admit- ting such variety of treatment. The Americans who favour the use of the highest title say that : — 1. Noblemen always sign by their titles only. 2. They are generally better known by their titles. 3. The family name rarely appears on the title-page. The English points in favour of their rule are : — 1. Works by members of one family are kept together. 2. The family name is definite, the title being liable to change. 3. The founders of noble families are often as well known under their family names as by their titles. Cutter has two rules, the first in line with the American rule, i.e., " under the highest title," and the second giving an example of the latitude he allows for exceptions, and follows the English rule of placing entries under the family name. All the arguments given above are sound, and the adoption of one or the other of the rules — not both — is a matter to be decided by the librarian who knows what his readers require. 10 At the same time experience shows that works by or on Lord Rosebery will be looked for under Rosebery, Lord, not under Primrose ; the same refers to Bacon, not St. Albans, Viscount, etc. Pseudonyms, Change of Name, Etc. The rules treating the above have several differences, but are thus grouped together because at the same time they have many points of likeness. The decision given in Rule 38 in the Code to enter under pseudonym as reference only, and to use the author's real name for the main heading is quite new and goes far to settle a long controversy as to the doctrine of the " best known name." At the same time nicknames are made an exception. Cutter, in Section 97, only agrees with this treatment when the real name is unknown, and when " the false name is generally used by the writer, or is much better known by the public." This agrees with the Library of Congress practice. Cutter, in 7, enters under the author's real name when it is known. In the first edition of the " Rules," this rule was without exception. In regard to Change of Name, Rule 40 in the Code, another instance is shown where the committees disagreed. The English rule is almost a word-for-word copy of the latter portion of the British Museum Rule II, which deals with treatment of compound names. The English version is more suitable for a printed catalogue than the American view, as it does not necessitate the entries in the supplements differing from those in the general catalogue. Married Women. Here again we have alternative rules printed in the Code — Rule 41 and 24c in Cutter. Rule 41 is similar to Rule 40, which deals with the name. The adop- tion of either the English or American rule will occasionally lead the reader to look where he least expects to find the book. This rule enters a married woman under the earliest name which has been used by her as an author, with reference from later names, as Cartwright, Julia, afterwards Mrs. Henry Ady. Rule 40 in the Code says that " the heading is to consist of the original name followed by the word ' afterwards '." This is the English rule ; the American rule enters under the latest name, unless the earlier is better known. This is for cases where the spelling has been altered. II Rule 24c in Cutter makes no rigid law, but speaking of the cataloguer says, " let him rather follow than lead the public." At the same point Cutter refers to the A.L.A. rule, which is to enter married women, and others who have changed their names under the latest form, unless the earlier form is decidedly better known. This A.L.A. rule was the fore- runner of the American rule in the Code. Some definite rule should be made for entering names of married women, whether it is to use the latest or earlier form of name, and a decision is not only desirable but necessary, to avoid confusion. Rule 46 in the Code and 23 in Cutter : Sovereigns. These rules are practically the same. We notice a change from the English to the vernacular form in the 3rd and 4th editions of Cutter. Rule 49-51 in the Code and 30 and 32 in Cutter: Ancient Greek and Latin Authors. The result of comparison is very similar. It is noticed that the authorities refer to the same books of reference, and that there is an addition in the Code. Although, as Mr. Cutter remarks (4th ed., page 36), " the tone of literature has changed " since the publication of his 3rd edition, we are not accustomed to seeing in our catalogues Virgilius for Virgil, or Horatius for Horace. Both systems have several rules, which introduce much variation for dealing with the different kinds of names, oriental and others, which seem to weaken and complicate the sound general rule. Rules 58-1 1 1 in the Code and 45-95 in Cutter : Cor- porate Bodies as Authors. All these are good illus- trations of the difficulties which surround the cataloguing of books published by corporate bodies, and where these bodies are to be treated as the authors. These rules also show that rules for author-alphabet catalogues often break down. As an introduction, Cutter gives an extract from his reply to the opposition that was offered to the use of " Corporate Authorship," ]as published in the Library Journal (21: 493-4; 22: 432-4). , .,'.., These rules in both systems are on the whole similar. The first instance of reference in this case is from the Code to Cutter, and is under Code Rule 58 where reference is made to Cutter 53, and at this point the rules run parallel. In one instance exactly the same example is given, 12 The large number of rules in the Code dealing with Corporate Authorship shows that the Code is intended for purposes of bibliographical description, in addition to the cataloguing required in libraries. Rules 72-81 in the Code and 61, 80, and 85 in Cutter : Societies. Cutter sa}^s that " where to enter societies is the most difficult problem in cataloguing . . . the Germans evade it." The general rules in both systems amount to the same, but the Code gives an alternative rule, which is very practical. The weak point of the Cutter rules is the treatment of societies whose names contain the name of the place where they are located, and to follow those rules might, if wisdom were not exercised, lead to inconsistency of placing. To sum up the Code rules dealing with Corporate Authorships, etc., there are a number of alternatives, excep- tions, and variations allowed ; the name of the institution and the name of the place being preferred alternatively to meet the case in point. This applies also to Cutter, but in a lesser degree. Rules 112-118 in the Code and 2, 128, 131-2, and 147 in Cutter : Anonymous. All the rules deal with some aspect of the term. The Code Rules 113-118 are really amplifications of Rule 112, which are to be applied under special conditions, by such phrases as " Change of Title" in successive volumes, "Initials," "Different Spelling," "Related Works," etc., and " may be cited here as an example of the pursuit of the obvious." The whole is also part of the rules for " Title Entry," which line on with Cutter's rules as enumerated above. Cutter has about 28 rules which deal with this subject, treating it very fully as compared with the Code. Rules 116 and 118 of the Code are governed by the dictum " that the entry of a work should be an exact transcript of the title-page." Within this group of rules are two instances which show the disagreement of the committees, viz. : Rules 116, 118. A good point in Rule 118 is that the American version brings together all translations of a particular anony- mous work, but the English rule separates them. The reason of both versions as given in Rule 116 is that it was thought the American rule would lead to unnecessary references and that the English would economise space in regard to the entries. Rule 121 in the Code and 133 in Cutter : Periodicals. Rule 121 in the Code is the last instance where the two versions are printed. Although Cutter has seven rules i3 relating to Periodicals, Rule 133 is the most important. The English version seems to be only part of the general rule and only applies to those periodicals which have changed their name. In this case they are to be entered under the earliest form, with brief entries under later forms. The American enters them under the latest form. Reference is given to the practice adopted by the Library of Congress, and the American treatment is contrary to the usual practice. Cutter, in Rule 133, states that in the event of a change in the name of a periodical the whole set may be catalogued under the early title, with reference from the new to the old titles 1 each part may be catalogued under its own name, with references, thus : " For a continuation see ," ; " For previous volumes, see ," etc. The first part of Cutter's rule is the most useful and practical of all the rules for cataloguing periodicals, and is in closer relation to the English rule. To carry out the American rule, i.e., " under the latest form," means the re-cataloguing of the whole set. Cutter's Rule 145 is a repeti- tion of his Rule 133. Rule 122 in the Code and 134 in Cutter : Extracts from Periodicals. These rules are nearly the same ; that of the Code is rather more full in detail. The Code rules provide that the collection of extracts shall be entered under the name of the periodical, but if this name does not appear in the title of the collection they are to be entered under the collector or under the title if anonymous, and added entries made under the title and collector's name. Cutter does not state in full his rule for entering a collection of extracts where the name of the periodical is absent, but from his example it is concluded that such a collection would be entered under the first word not an article, of the title of the collection. Both systems agree that the work of a single author, re-published from a periodical, will not in general require a reference from the name of the periodical. Rules 123-125 in the Code and 102 in Cutter : Almanacs, Year Books, Etc. Cutter includes almanacs and other annuals under the heading periodicals. On the whole the above rules are the same, but under Rule 176, " Poly topical books," Cutter states that in full cataloguing the form- entry will be under the name of the almanac, and the subject- entries under the districts about which they give information. With regard to the cataloguing of newspapers the Code *4 has a separate rule, 124, while Cutter only refers to them in a note under Rule 133 under Periodicals, and states a difficulty in dealing with such, and therefore only makes suggestions. The Code rule is definite and is to be preferred. Titles and Colophons. The rules dealing with " Titles " are on the whole very much the same in both systems. The first rule, 136 in the Code, is undoubtedly a model of completeness, clearness, etc., and practically embraces all the main points which are treated very fully in Cutter, commencing at Section 221. The most obvious differences are compared under their individual headings below. The Code Rule 137, Rare Books, is quite a new departure and is very definite, but Cutter, Rule 351, in the first instance merely gives references to other books and catalogues on the subject. The second and third parts of the same rule can hardly be called rules. Rule 144 in the Code and 156-8 in Cutter : Books with Several Title-Pages. These are practically the same but differently expressed. Editions : In dealing with these, Rules 148, 149 and 154 in the Code, we find no provision for noting limited and numbered editions, or those books which are printed on special paper. Rules 155-7 m tne Code and 264-75 in Cutter : Date. Under the rule given in the Code we find that nearly three pages, in addition to the general rule, are taken up by the Library of Congress Supplementary Rule 12. Cutter raises many points not given in the Code, such as " finding the place and date of a book elsewhere than on the title-page," " Masonic Dates, Chronograms, etc." In one instance the Code rule states that if the " century cannot be determined," use " n.d. " meaning " no date." Cutter avoids this practice as much as possible, and gives the decade or the century, i.e. (17-), or (182-?) instead. The treatment of the copyright date is practically the same in each system. Description and Miscellaneous. With regard to Contents, Rule 167 in the Code is nearly the same as Rules 281-3 in Cutter. The Code rule is more definite, and is fully intended for an experienced cataloguer. The rules in both systems for the treatment of Notes are good, but each explains that which the other does not, therefore 15 •":..:: • one might make a good rule, including all the necessary points, by a selection from both rules. With regard to the treatment of Analysis and Analytical Entries, Cutter's rules are preferable to those given in the Code, being more explanatory and giving examples for all kinds of Analytics. The Code rule is too brief and would prove almost useless to a young cataloguer, whereas Cutter sets out thoroughly the kinds of analytical entries usually required. Rule 171 in the Code and no, 285-6 in Cutter : References. The latter rules give full explanations and specific uses of references and are far superior to the former, which refers to Cutter. Having compared the most important rules, and those which exhibit the greatest differences, and offered suggestions in connection with each of the systems, there only remains to make a few remarks in conclusion. It is noticed that, among other important items, there is no provision in either of the above systems for cataloguing parodies or paraphrases of an author's works. It is assumed that they would be catalogued under the names of their authors, with the necessary references. The same is to be said with regard to Parish Registers, except that in Rule 115, Cutter says how Mr. Perkins would catalogue State Registers, i.e. enter them under the name of the place, followed by the name of the county, editor, etc. For example : Haslemere. Registers of H., Surrey. Transcribed and ed., J. W. Penfold, 1906. Parish Reg. Soc, v. 57. The Code may serve as a basis or foundation for an International system of cataloguing, but at the present time Continental practice in this art differs considerably from the English and American methods. Yet, at the same time, it may exercise a great influence on the profession at large, although many of the rules are only " applications in detail of the principal rules." The question now arises as to the superiority of one system over the other. This is a very difficult question to answer, treating each as a unit against another unit. There are many advantages in the one which are counter-balanced by ad- vantages in the other. Each has its special characteristics when adapted to the particular work it is intended to fulfil. As a full test of the superiority of the Code it would need i6 to have special " subject " rules added to bring it into line with Cutter. This again gives birth to another vital question, " Is the Dictionary Catalogue becoming a thing of the past ? " The answer in the affirmative comes most emphatically from many of the highest authorities, yet at the same time, many of these still print their catalogues in dictionary form. In many instances this is accounted for by the habits and requirements of the readers who have been, and are still used to " Indicator " libraries. Therefore, in the above comparison, and receiving consideration from such points of view as stated, the Code must prove superior to Cutter, which was, as before stated, compiled some thirty-two years previously. Again, the labour that would be involved in the compilation of " subject " rules for the Code would not be justified under such conditions. The few examples of sample cards given at the end of the Code are interesting, and should be useful to cataloguers using the system. Printed by Hunt, Barnard & Co., Ltd., London and Aylesbury. THE LIBRARIAN AND BOOK WORLD. VOLUME I., 1910-11. Out of print. A few copies of odd numbers are available for sale at the published price. INDEX TO VOL. I., 6d. net. HANDSOME CLOTH CASE for Vol. I., Is. 6d. net. VOLUMES II. and III., BOUND uniform with Vol. I., 8/- each net. VOLUME II., PARTS, 6d. each net. INDEX TO VOLS. II. and III., 6d. each net. HANDSOME CLOTH CASES, uniform with- Vol. I., 1/6 net. Subscription to current volume, post free, 6/6 per annum. To bona-fide Library Assistants whose Libraries or Chief Librarians already subscribe, special reduced terms of 3/9 per annum post free are offered. Reprints of Best Books month by month with Booksellers' Imprints . and Cover. Terms on application. "LIBRARIAN'' SERIES OF REPRINTS. 1. Suggestions towards a Constructional Revision of the Dewey Classification. By Arthur John Hawkes. 'Price Sixpence net. Reprinted from " The Librarian." A valuable contribution to the knowledge of cata- loguing in general and the Dewey system 800 and 900 in particular. Essential to every user of the Decimal system and to every student. 2. Library Assistants' Association : an outline of its development and work. By W. Benson Thome. Price Sixpence net. Reprinted from "The Librarian." For the first time the complete history of this most progressive association is told in a handy form. 3. Cinematograph Films : Their National value and preservation. By Alex. J. Philip. Price Sixpence net. Reprinted from "The Librarian." Cinematographs and the Public Library ; how each can help the other. i. Introduction to Elementary Bibliography. By R. W. Parsons. Price Sixpence net. Reprinted from " The Librarian." Of invaluable assistance to all candidates for the LA. Exams. 3. Photography and Engraving: Revision and Elaboration of Dewey's 760-779 Schedule. By Arthur J. Hawkes. Reprinted from " The Librarian." Price Sixpence net. 6. Extension and Revision of Dewey's Africa Schedule. By Arthur J. Hawkes. 7. Cataloguing Codes. By Maurice H. B. Mash. Published by STANLEY PAUL 8c CO., 31, ESSEX STREET, STRAND, W.C. •jili I liii! I !;!!; I li: I !!ii I '$ I 1 ,::: I I r