I was debating exactly which words to capitalize in the titles of sections in the book I'm writing. My publisher's house style is the University of Chicago's Manual of Style, which I have on order, but have yet to receive. I looked at the various style and grammar guides I possess and, as usual, Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage had a marvellous entry—a joy to read.
This is it, as it appears in the 1973 printing from Penguin Books. (The first publication was 1947, and this is reprinting, with corrections, but the same first edition.
TITLES OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS
This is a question often neglected: I have already discussed it at the entry the in my A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1937; 3rd ed., revised and en-larged, 1948).
Had I chosen the title Dictionary of Slang, it would have been incorrect to refer to it either as A Dictionary of Slang or as The Dictionary of Slang (very pretentious this!, for there are other dictionaries of slang); had the title been The Dictionary of Slang, it would have been incorrect (though excusable) to refer to it as either A Dictionary of Slang or Dictionary of Slang; but as it is A Dictionary, why impute telegraphese by calling it Dictionary, or conceit by changing it to The Dictionary?
Hence I write 'My A Dictionary of Slang'.
If the title had been The Dictionary ..., I should have referred to the book as "my The Dictionary of Slang'
And let us italicize the initial 'A' and The or, if the inverted-commas mode is preferred, have inverted commas before them. 'A correspondent on the Times' or 'A correspondent on the "Times" ? is, to put it mildly, a feeble substitute for *a correspondent on The Times' or 'a correspondent on on “The Times” '. Luckily , few writers fall into the ineptitude of omitting the capital letter in the properly italicized or inverted-comma mode, as in 'a correspondent on the Times' or a correspondent on "the Times” '.
Admittedly, the general practice is against 'my A Dictionary of Slang': but should not exactitude overrule a practice that can hardly be classified as idiom? In familiar speech, "my Dictionary of Slang' is permissible: it is a colloquialism. But I do recommend that scholars and reputable, serious writers or humorous writers desirous of a reputation for good English as well as for acceptable humour) and cataloguers should retain the A and The that form the first word in a title. Is it not better to speak of J. M. Barrie's delightful book as 'Barrie's A Window in Thrums' than to refer to it as 'Barrie's Window in Thrums'? Is not the latter both ambiguous and impertinent - and just a little cheap?
After all, we do not speak of Michael Sadleir's Foolish Things, but of Michael Sodor Michae Aplet Charming Reople but of 'Michael Arlen's These Charming People'. A and The have their rights no less than These and Those.
In the titles of periodicals, however, there is an exception, consecrated by usage and justified by convenience: when the title becomes an adjective, The is omitted 'A Times correspondent' is more convenient than, and is idiomatic for, 'A correspondent of (generally, on) The Times. I do not suggest that we should either say or write a The Times correspondent' or the The Times correspondent'. But, so far as I can see, there is no excuse for The editor of the New York Times snorts balefully on discovering this sorry stratagem' (Stuart Chase, The Tyranny of Words): either *The editor of The New York Times' or 'The editor of "The New York Times", is required.
There is no doubt concerning what is to be done with 'a' and 'the' within titles. They are always written a and the, as in 'The Lady in the Case is a good book'; but where a book-title or a periodical-title is involved, the above-enunciated rule is to be observed, as in 'The Ghost at The Times is an excellent book' or, for the sake of clarity, 'The Ghost at "The Times" is an excellent book': Not only a (or an) and the require small initial letters ('lower case', as printers say).
So do prepositions - at and from and in and of and the rest of them.
There is no generally accepted rule concerning the other parts of speech. My own practice is to capital' every word that is neither an article (a or the) nor a preposi-tion. I see little reason for writing 'be', 'is', "are', was', 'were', 'will', 'shall', "would', "should", 'must', 'ought' in lower case when all other verbs are written in upper case: why The Lady is Dead but The Lady Fell Dead? Why not The Lady Is Dead?
In this matter of titles, I advise authors not to submit to 'the rules of the house' - those rules which printers have formulated in self-protection - when they are sure of the rightness of their own titling. (Unless, that is, the printers' rules are those rules which have been proposed in this article.
[For the citing of titles the most generally available American authority is probably the University of Chicago Press A Manual of Style. - As first words the article a and the are part of the titles of books and one would expect them to be so treated - i.e., capitalized and set within the quotation marks or in the italic type that distinguishes the title. However, titles that make for awkwardness or misunderstanding - as in 'his A Dictionary of Slang' and 'Dr Vizetelly's The Standard Dictionary' - will inevitably be shortened, now and again, when they interfere with the English language. The American rule for capitalization of titles is that the first word and all important words are capitalized. Often, however, on a title page the title is set entirely in caps as is the case with Mr Partridge's dictionary. American librarians have solved the problem in this fashion: Part-ridge, Eric. Dictionary of slang ..., a.
They capitalize the first word and no other and treat an initial article as an addendum.
Editors, less bold than librarians, muddle along according to publishing house precedents or their own taste. In fact, no one style solves all problems. Authors can help by quoting rather than italicizing special words in titles.
There is no easy way of finding the correct and complete titles - if they exist - of the thousands of American newspapers.
The two complete lists are arranged by states, towns, and short titles, as Texas, El Paso, Herald, Post, Times. Moreover the banner heading on the front page of a paper may not be exactly the same as the masthead above the first column of edi-torials.) If an editor wishes uniform citations of newspapers, his most practicable course is to italicize or quote only the short title, as in the El P. The alternahe New Yorke Times, the Times. Th allerative is to give the masthead titles of newspapers he la acquainted with ande Diset the others by an arbitrary rule. The Literary Digest used to have three ways of citing newspapers (ar I remember): one in the text, another in the credit line following a quotation, and stil another in the credit line below a cartoon.
Magazines are fonder of their articles than are newspapers. The Atlantic Monthly and The Saturday Review of Literature wish The (and so, by the way, does The Johns Hopkins University - Known locally as The Hopkins). It may be difficult to remember whether the American Mercury or The American Mercury would be most flattering, The or A Life, Time, Fortune would be ruinous. Should it be The Reader's Digest?
Some quite literate editors follow what our friend Mr Partridge would call the illiterate practice of ignoring the article in common citations of the periodical press.
If we were presenting a Pulitzer prize or a sheepskin suitably inscribed, then we should ask the editor what he liked best. If the reader thinks the problem simple, let him consider - magazine: it is Harpers MAGAZINE on the cover, Harper's Magazine on the contents page, Harpers Magazine on the masthead above the first article, and HARPER'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE on the running heads. What should an editor do? Call it Harpers for short and Harpers Magazine for long, and quote it often - that is good practice.]
— Eric Patridge, Usage and Abusage.