How to Catalogue a Library Part 2

Mr. Parry gave much sensible evidence, and this point was submitted to him. The question of the chairman (Earl of Ellesmere) was, "Have you heard it proposed that each book should be catalogued under the form of name appearing on the t.i.tle, without any regard to uniformity, and without regard to the different forms of name adopted by an author, or arising from the different languages in which works by the same author may be printed?" Mr. Parry's answer was as follows: "I have never heard that suggested, except by Mr. Gray. I have read it in Mr. Gray's pamphlet; and I have heard it from Mr. Gray when he was an a.s.sistant....

I certainly do not wish to be offensive to Mr. Gray, for I have the pleasure of his acquaintance, but I think the thing perfectly absurd. I might be permitted to say, that the n.o.ble lord in the chair has published under two or three names; and that I should prefer to see all his lordship's works under one heading, and not scattered in three different places in the Catalogue under the name of Gower, of Egerton, and of Ellesmere.... I remember Mr. Gray used occasionally to come and talk about the Catalogue, but it always seemed to me that he had never given any consideration to the subject. It is by no means an easy thing to make a catalogue; a person to make it, must have a very large and special knowledge of books and of languages" (7338, p. 470).

The witness whose evidence was the most unfortunate for himself was Mr.

Payne Collier. He committed himself by submitting some t.i.tles which he had made in ill.u.s.tration of his views. There were twenty-five t.i.tles, which had been made in the course of an hour. These were handed to Mr.

Winter Jones, who reported upon them very fully, with the following result:--

"These twenty-five t.i.tles contain almost every possible error which can be committed in cataloguing books, and are open to almost every possible objection which can be brought against concise t.i.tles. The faults may be cla.s.sed as follows:--1st. Incorrect or insufficient description, calculated to mislead as to the nature or condition of the work specified. 2nd. Omission of the names of editors, whereby we lose a most necessary guide in selecting among different editions of the same work. 3rd. Omission of the Christian names of authors, causing great confusion between the works of different authors who have the same surname--a confusion increasing in proportion to the extent of the catalogue. 4th. Omission of the names of annotators.

5th. Omission of the names of translators. 6th. Omission of the number of the edition, thus rejecting a most important and direct evidence of the value of a work. 7th. Adopting the name of the editor as a heading, when the name of the author appears in the t.i.tle-page. 8th. Adopting the name of the translator as a heading, when the name of the author appears on the t.i.tle-page. 9th. Adopting as a heading the t.i.tle or name of the author merely as it appears on the t.i.tle-page--a practice which would distribute the works of the Bishop of London under Blomfield, Chester, and London; and those of Lord Ellesmere under Gower, Egerton, and Ellesmere. 10th. Using English or some other language instead of the language of the t.i.tle-page. 11th. Cataloguing anonymous works, or works published under initials, under the name of the supposed author. Where this practice is adopted, the books so catalogued can be found only by those who possess the same information as the cataloguer, and uniformity of system is impossible, unless the cataloguer know the author of every work published anonymously or under initials.[15]

12th. Errors in grammar. 13th. Errors in descriptions of the size of the book. We have here faults of thirteen different kinds in twenty-five t.i.tles, and the number of these faults amount to more than two in each t.i.tle.... When we see such a result as is shown above, from an experiment made by a gentleman of education, accustomed to research and acquainted with books generally, upon only twenty-five works, taken from his own library, and of the most easy description, we may form some idea of what a catalogue would be, drawn up, in the same manner, by ten persons, of about six hundred thousand works, embracing every branch of human learning, and presenting difficulties of every possible description. The average number of faults being more than two to a t.i.tle, the total is something startling--about one million three hundred thousand faults for the six hundred thousand works; that is, supposing the proportion to continue the same."

Then follows a searching examination of each individual t.i.tle, with the result that any claims to be considered a correct cataloguer which Mr.

Collier may have been supposed to have were entirely annihilated.

The Report of the Commissioners enters very fully into the various points raised by the evidence before them, with the result that it was considered advisable that Mr. Panizzi should be given his own way, and that the new catalogue should be completed in ma.n.u.script.

The British Museum Rules are, as already stated, printed in the _Catalogue of Printed Books_ (_Letter A_, 1841), and in Henry Stevens's _Catalogue of the American Books in the Library of the British Museum at Christmas_, 1856. They are given in Mr. Thomas Nichols's _Handbook for Readers at the British Museum_ (1869), under the various subjects in alphabetical order, with a series of useful ill.u.s.trations. Some slight modifications of the rules have been made since the printing of the catalogue has been in hand, and a capital _resume_ of the rules, under the t.i.tle of _Explanation of the System of the Catalogue_, is on sale at the Museum for the small sum of one penny.

The strife which was caused by the publication of the rules was gradually quelled, and the British Museum code was acknowledged in most places as a model.

Professor Charles Coffin Jewett published at Washington in 1853 a very careful work on this subject. His pamphlet is ent.i.tled, "_Smithsonian Report on the Construction of Catalogues of Libraries, and their Publication by means of Separate Stereotyped t.i.tles, with Rules and Examples_. By Charles C. Jewett, Librarian of the Smithsonian Inst.i.tution."

Mr. Jewett makes an observation with which all who have considered the subject with attention must agree. He writes:--

"Liability to error and to confusion is ... so great and so continual, that it is impossible to labour successfully without a rigid adherence to rules. Although such rules be not formally enunciated, they must exist in the mind of the cataloguer and guide him, or the result of his labours will be mortifying and unprofitable."

With respect to his own rules he writes:--

"The Rules which follow are founded upon those adopted for the compilation of the Catalogue of the British Museum. Some of them are verbatim the same; others conform more to rules advocated by Mr.

Panizzi than to those finally sanctioned by the Trustees of the Museum."

The rules are cla.s.sified as follows:--pp. 1-45, t.i.tles; pp. 45-56, Headings; pp. 57-59, Cross-references; pp. 59-62, Arrangement; pp. 62, 63, Maps, Engravings, Music; p. 64, Exceptional Cases.

The number of rules is not so large as those of the British Museum, and rule 39 stands thus: "Cases not herein provided for, and exceptional cases requiring a departure from any of the preceding rules, are to be decided on by the Superintendent."

Jewett's rules, with some alterations, were adopted and printed by the Boston Public Library.

The _Rules to be Observed in Forming the Alphabetical Catalogue of Printed Books in the University Library_, Cambridge, were drawn up after the authorities had decided to print the catalogue slips of all additions to the library, and also gradually to build up a new catalogue by printing the t.i.tles of the books already in the library as they were re-catalogued. These rules were, to a great extent, founded upon those of the British Museum. In the year 1879, Mr. Bradshaw, Librarian, in conjunction with Messrs. E. Magnusson and H. T. Francis, a.s.sistant Librarians, made some alterations in the rules, and as thus altered they now stand, numbering forty-nine.

The rules of the Library a.s.sociation of the United Kingdom may be considered as somewhat "academical," because they were not made for any particular library. They have gained, however, in importance in that they were adopted by Mr. Edward B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, for the Catalogue of the Bodleian Library. These rules were originally formed for the purpose of making a foundation for a Catalogue of English Literature, as proposed by the late Mr. Cornelius Walford. This catalogue, however, gradually receded into the background, and the rules were adapted to the purposes of a general library catalogue. The rules have been modified at successive annual meetings of the a.s.sociation.

Although Mr. Nicholson adopted the Library a.s.sociation Rules in the first instance, he printed in 1882 a set of _Compendious Cataloguing Rules for the Author-Catalogue of the Bodleian Library_, which has since been added to, and the number of rules is now sixty.

We have, in conclusion, to take note of by far the most important code of rules after that of the British Museum. I allude of course to the remarkable second part of the _Special Report on Public Libraries in the United States_ (1876), which consists of "Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue, by Charles A. Cutter." This work stands alone in the literature of our subject. Not only are the rules set out, but the reasons for the rules are given. This is usually considered as a dangerous proceeding, and it requires a man with the clear-headedness and mastery of his subject for which Mr. Cutter is distinguished to carry out such a scheme with success. I am not prepared to agree altogether with the principle of the Dictionary Catalogue, or with all the reasons for the rules--in fact, some of them are highly stimulating, and prove strong incentives to argument; but it would be difficult to find anywhere in so small a s.p.a.ce so many sound bibliographical principles elucidated.

It is now nearly fifty years since the British Museum Rules were published, and at the present time we can scarcely understand the antagonistic feeling with which these rules were then received. We can now see how much we are indebted to them. To their influence we largely owe the education of the librarian in the true art of cataloguing, and the improved public opinion on the subject; and to them we owe the n.o.ble Catalogue of the British Museum, which is a remarkable monument of great knowledge and great labour combined. We are therefore bound to do honour to the memory of Panizzi, who planned the work and endued with his spirit the many distinguished men who have followed him and completed his work.

[Decoration]

FOOTNOTES:

[11] _Report of the Commissioners on the Const.i.tution and Government of the British Museum_, 1850, p. 16.

[12] See Questions 4207, 4212, pp. 254-55.

[13] See Question 7223, p. 469.

[14] f.a.gan's _Life of Sir A. Panizzi_, vol. i., pp. 143-44. Mr. f.a.gan writes "Jerome," but it is really Jereme in the catalogue.

[15] This is the most extraordinary reason ever given. If it were accepted as valid it would settle the question, for under no circ.u.mstances could the authors of all anonymous works be discovered.

[Decoration]

CHAPTER III.

PRINT _V._ Ma.n.u.sCRIPT.

There has been much discussion on the relative advantages of Print and Ma.n.u.script. Panizzi's objection to print was a sound one, as he considered that no t.i.tles should be printed until the catalogue of the whole library was completed. When this time came the objection was no longer valid, and arrangements were made in due course for printing the catalogue by instalments. Before this was decided upon there were some who insisted upon the actual superiority of ma.n.u.script over print; but this was really absurd, because, if the extra cost of printing can be defrayed, there must be great advantage in the clearness and legibility of print, as well as in the saving of s.p.a.ce caused by its use.

Mr. Parry, with his strong common sense, advocated, in 1849, the use of the printing-press. He said in his evidence: "I think the Catalogue ought to be printed; not merely for the purposes of the library, and of reference out of the library, but also because I think the Catalogue of this library is a work that ought to be in every public inst.i.tution where men of letters resort, either here, on the Continent, in America, or in any other part of the civilized world; still, it ought not to be printed until the whole of the books are catalogued up to a certain time. I say 'up to a certain time' because the whole of the books never can be catalogued in a library where there are constant accessions. But a limit may be fixed, and when that limit is reached and the whole of the books within that limit are catalogued I would then print the Catalogue, and not before. I have said before that the volume of letter A must be cancelled; that is inevitable. n.o.body after this Catalogue is completed, no librarian, no man of the most ordinary literary acquirements, would presume to print the Catalogue without cancelling this volume: that arises from the circ.u.mstance that, as the cataloguing goes on, thousands of works will turn up as necessary to be inserted in letter A."[16]

Mr. Parry added, that in ordering this partial printing the trustees gave way to pressure from without, which he defined very justly as "a sort of ignorant impatience for a catalogue by persons who do not really understand what a catalogue is or what a catalogue should be."

Dr. Garnett read a very interesting paper on "The Printing of the British Museum Catalogue," before the Library a.s.sociation, at the Cambridge meeting, in 1882, in which he tells how the present system of printing came about.

Mr. Rye, when Keeper of the Printed Books, strongly urged the adoption of print; but Dr. Garnett adds, "Other views, however, prevailed for the time; and when, in October 1875, the subject was again brought forward by the Treasury it fell to my lot to treat it from a new point of view, suggested by my observations in my capacity as superintendent of the reading-room. I saw that, waiving the question as to the advantage or disadvantage of print in the abstract, it would soon be necessary to resort to it for the sake of economy of s.p.a.ce. There were by this time two thousand volumes of ma.n.u.script catalogue in the reading-room, exclusive of the catalogues of maps and music. There would be three thousand by the time that the incorporation of the general and supplementary catalogues was complete. Hundreds of these volumes in the earlier letters of the alphabet were already swollen with entries, and required to be broken up and divided into three. Sooner or later every volume would have undergone this process. By that time there would be nine thousand volumes of ma.n.u.script catalogue, three times as many as the reading-room could contain, or the public conveniently consult. The only remedy was to put a check upon the growth of the catalogue by printing all new entries for the future, and to mature meanwhile a plan for converting the entire catalogue into a printed one. I prepared a memorandum embodying these ideas, and entered into the subject more fully, when, in January 1878, it was again brought forward by the Treasury. These views, however, did not find acceptance at the time....

The question was thus left for Mr. Bond, who became Princ.i.p.al Librarian in the following August. As Keeper of the Ma.n.u.scripts, Mr. Bond's attention had never been officially drawn to the catalogue of printed books, but as a man of letters, he had formed an opinion respecting it; and I am able to state that he came to the princ.i.p.al librarianship as determined to bestow the boon of print upon the Catalogue and the public, as to effect the other great reforms that have signalized his administration."[17]

Dr. Garnett, near the end of his paper, said, "My aspiration is that the completion of the Museum Catalogue in print may coincide with the completion of the present century;" and I believe he still holds the opinion that this is possible and probable.

Mr. Cutter enters very fully into this question of _Printed or Ma.n.u.script_? in his elaborate article on "Library Catalogues" in the _United States Report on Public Libraries_, 1876 (pp. 552-56). The advantages of a printed catalogue he states under five heads: "(1) that it is in less danger of partial or total destruction than a ma.n.u.script volume or drawers of cards;" "(2) that it can be consulted out of the library;" "(3) that it can be consulted in other libraries;" "(4) that it is easier to read than the best ma.n.u.script volume, and very much easier to consult. A card presents to the eye only one t.i.tle at a time, whereas a printed catalogue generally has all an author's works on a single page. Time and patience are lost in turning over cards, and it is not easy either to find the particular t.i.tle that is wanted or to compare different t.i.tles and make a selection;" "(5) that several persons can consult it at once."

The disadvantages are stated by Mr. Cutter under three heads: "(1) that it is costly;" "(2) that a mistake once made is made for ever, whereas in a card catalogue a mistake in name or in cla.s.sification or in copying the t.i.tle can be corrected at any time;" "(3) it is out of date before it is published. As it cannot contain the newest books, the very ones most sought for, fresh supplements are continually needed, each of which causes an additional loss of time and patience to consulters. The average man will not look in over four places for a book; a few, very persevering or driven by a great need, will go as far as five or six. It becomes necessary therefore, if the catalogue is to be of any use, to print consolidated supplements every five years, and that is expensive."

Of the advantages the main one is No. 4, and of the disadvantages the only one of any importance is, it seems to me, No. 1.

As to disadvantage No. 2, it is more apparent than real. A mistake in print will of course remain for ever in the copies of the catalogue outside the library, but it can easily be corrected in the library copy either in ma.n.u.script or by reprinting the single t.i.tle in which the mistake occurs. The card catalogue cannot be used outside the library, and the catalogue in the library can be as easily corrected whether it be printed and pasted down on pages or arranged on cards. The two are equal in this respect. Disadvantage 3 is the stock objection. But what does it really come to? He who consults the catalogue of a library away from that library knows that a given book is there if he finds it in the catalogue; but if it is not in the catalogue, he does not give up hope, but either visits the library or sends to know if the book he requires is in. He is no worse off in this case than if there had been no printed catalogue; and in the former case he is much better off. The library copy of the catalogue can be kept up as well in print as it can be in ma.n.u.script, and here at all events there will only be one alphabet. It will therefore be a question for the consulter alone whether it is better worth his while to consult several supplements than to go straight to the library. For the purposes of the library, it is quite unnecessary to reprint or consolidate your supplements, because your library copy of the catalogue will always be kept up to date. If the library is a lending one, the subscribers will probably insist upon having new catalogues, as the supplements become too numerous; but this is only an additional instance of the advantages of a printed catalogue.

A printed catalogue should never be added to in ma.n.u.script, as this causes the greatest confusion; and, moreover, it is not necessary. It is quite possible to keep up a catalogue in print for many years; and even when worn out, if the printed sheets have been kept, a working catalogue can be made up afresh without printing again. The plan adopted by my brother, the late Mr. B. R. Wheatley, is so simple, that it seems scarcely necessary to enlarge upon its merits; but as it has not been generally adopted, I may perhaps explain it here with advantage. It will be seen by the specimen on page 59, that each page of the library copy of the catalogue is divided in two. On the left-hand side is pasted down the catalogue as it exists at the time, and the right-hand side is left for additions. These additions may be printed as annual supplements, or they may be printed from time to time at short intervals on galley slips on one side only, without being made into pages. This can be done as suits the best convenience of all concerned; and it is just as easy to have the t.i.tles printed frequently as to have them copied for insertion in the library copy of the catalogue. The ruled columns are for the press-marks, and these are arranged on the outside of each column for purposes of symmetry. It is not advantageous, as a rule, to print the press-marks in the catalogue, although this is done in the case of the British Museum. There are two advantages in having two columns of type on one page. One is that there is a saving of s.p.a.ce, and the other is that it is easier to keep the alphabet in perfect register if it becomes necessary to insert a page. However well arranged a library copy of a catalogue may be, it will probably become congested in some places before the whole catalogue requires readjustment. Now suppose each page contains only one column of print, and the left-hand page is left for additions. When both pages are full, and it is necessary to insert a leaf for fresh additions, it is clear that the correct order of the alphabet will be thrown out. But if there are two columns on each page, then the additional leaf will introduce no confusion; for the recto of the additional leaf will range with the verso of the old leaf, and the verso of the additional leaf with the recto of the next leaf in the book. The only difference will be that you will have to run your eye along four columns instead of two.[18]

================================================================ |Case.|Shelf.| | |Case.|Shelf.| |-----+-------------------------+-----------------+-----+------| | B | 1 |~Le Breton~ | | N | 5 | | | |(Anna Let.i.tia). | | | | | | |Memoir of Mrs. | | | | | | |Barbauld, with | | | | | | |Letters and | | | | | | |Notices of her | | | | | | |Family. Sm. | | | | | | |8vo, London, | | | | | | |1847. | | | | | | | | | | | | B | 2 |----Correspondence| | | | | | |of Dr. | | | | | | |Channing and | | | | | | |Lucy Aikin | | | | | | |(1826-1842). Sm. | | | | | | |8vo, London, | | | | | | |1874. |~Liddell~ | | | | | | |(Henry Geo.), | | | | | | |and Robert | | | | | | |SCOTT. A Lexicon,| | | | | | |abridged | | | | | | |from "Liddell | | | | | | |and Scott's | | | | | | |Greek-English | | | | | | |Lexicon"; 14th | | | | | | |edition. Sm. | | | | | | |square 8vo, | | | | | | |Oxford, 1871. | | | | G | 4 |~McNicoll~ | | | | | | |(David H.). | | | | | | |Dictionary of | | | | | | |Natural History | | | | | | |Terms, with | | | | | | |their derivations,| | | | | | |including the | | | | | | |various orders, | | | | | | |genera, and | | | | | | |species. Sm. | | | | | | |8vo, London, | | | | | | |1863. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

The advantage of this plan is that the library catalogue can be actually kept up for any length of time without any reprinting. When the catalogue is filled up, and there is no room for any additions, the whole may be pasted down afresh as in the first instance, always presuming that copies of the catalogue and its supplements have been retained.

Sometimes the pasting down of the print is delegated to the binder; but it should be done either by the librarian himself, or at all events under his eye, for much judgment and knowledge are required for the proper leaving of s.p.a.ces where the additions are likely to be the thickest.