Reference, in its relation to literature, to bibliography, to subject-indexes and to systems of classification / by Archibald L. Clarke.

  • Clarke, Archibald Leycester.
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Reference, in its relation to literature, to bibliography, to subject-indexes and to systems of classification / by Archibald L. Clarke. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    11/26 (page 9)
    seem to be supported by many passages of Scripture, or of the Fathers and other ancient writers, whose works are not in many people’s hands. Now when a writer can find few or none of these, that distinctly and decidedly favour his opinion, he may at least find many which may be conceived capable of being so understood, or which, in some way or another, remotely relate to the subject; but if these texts were in- serted at length, it would be at once perceived how little they bear on the question; the usual artifice therefore is to give merely references to them, trusting that nineteen out of twenty readers will never take the trouble of turning to the passages, but, taking for granted that they afford, each, some degree of confirmation to what is maintained, will be overawed by seeing every assertion supported as they suppose by five or six Scripture texts, as many from the Fathers, etc.” It must not be supposed, however, that unsound quotation of authorities and incorrect bibliography are universal; on the contrary there are editors and contributors who carry correct reference making to the length of a fine art, greatly to the benefit of their readers it need hardly be said. One or two brief practical considerations emerge from this discussion. For a short list of authors “bibliography”1—a word of so many applications—seems rather a pretentious term, especially when the list is only a selected one. It is nevertheless correct however short the list may be, if it represents all the known writings on a particular subject. “ References ” on the other hand is the best term to use for a selected list of authorities to whom the writer specially alludes in his essay or mono- graph. When a writer makes a thorough endeavour to collect all known writings, often running to, say, a couple of hundred references, it is best to prefix some distinguishing sign, such as an asterisk, to all those presumably relating to his subject that he has been unable to consult. Lastly, it must be remembered that in many cases the titles alone are insufficient 1 The definition given in the “ Oxford Dictionary ” in the sense under present consideration is “ A list of books of a particular author, printer, or country ; of those dealing with any particular theme ; the literature of a subject ”,