Manual of Library Cataloguing.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
1.—Most people are satisfied to believe that there is no department of a librarian’s work so easily managed as that of compiling catalogues. The catalogue of a library is often regarded as a mere list of books, calling for no more mental effort in its production than is required in that of a furniture auctioneer, or similar trade list. Professor John Fiske, in his essay on “A Librarian’s Work,”[1] says “Generally I find a library catalogue is assumed to be a thing that is somehow ‘made’ at a single stroke, as Aladdin’s palace was built, at intervals of ten or a dozen years, or whenever a ‘new catalogue’ is thought to be needed,” instead of, as he proceeds to show, being a never-ending work calling for the exercise of all the power and knowledge at the command of the cataloguer.
2.—There are varieties of library catalogues, from the simple inventories made by private persons for their own collection of books, to the mammoth “Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum,” so great in its size and extensive in the field it covers that its entries have to be almost exclusively limited to a single item for each book.
The catalogues to be compiled upon the lines laid down in this work come between these two extremes, and are intended to serve as a key to the treasure-house of knowledge and disclose its contents in a ready, but orderly, manner to all inquirers. Carlyle says, “a big collection of books, without a good catalogue, is a Polyphemus with no eye in his head.”
3.—A good library is virtually useless without an adequate and properly compiled catalogue, but even an indifferent collection of books can be made to render good service by means of a good catalogue. In order to compile such a catalogue it is necessary that certain particulars be given descriptive of the books, but in such a way that, while the entries afford all needful information to the person well-versed in books, they shall at the same time be so simple in character as to be understood with very little effort by anyone of average intelligence. At the same time the particulars given should be so comprehensive that a searcher in the catalogue may be able to obtain a clear idea of the nature and scope of the book described without actually examining it, though the descriptions in this respect are not expected to be of the very full order looked for in special bibliographies intended only for the use of experts.
The value of a good catalogue does not depend upon its extent or size any more than does a good book, but rather upon the exactness of the method by which the information given is digested and concentrated. There are library catalogues so elaborately compiled that they are most imposing in appearance, and very often, as a consequence, are considered to be most erudite productions by those who do not understand the art of cataloguing, whereas the persons who have to use them too often find out that they are so ill-arranged as to be little better than a hotch-potch of book titles—pedantic without being learned. “Infinite riches in a little room” might, on the other hand, be often adopted as the motto for many an insignificant-looking catalogue.
4.—It is a common occurrence to find a small library with quite a big catalogue. This does not always arise from the wish to make the most of the library, but often from the fact that the compilation has been undertaken by some over-zealous member of a committee who fancied he had a penchant for such work, or that it has been compiled by an amateur with no experience, whose friends have secured him his appointment as librarian. Such people do not know that it is as easy, if not easier, to over-catalogue a library as to do it judiciously, and a fearful and wonderful work is often the result. There would not be much trouble in giving illustrative examples of this, but that catalogue may be cited where Green’s “Short History of the English People” obtained five entries, viz., under Green, Short, History, English History, and People (English), instead of the two entries that would have sufficed. Many of the first catalogues of the smaller free libraries are of this order. This, however, is not always the result of the above-named causes, but as often as not is brought about by committees of new libraries postponing the appointment of a librarian, to save his salary, until a few weeks before the library is announced to be opened, and then expecting him to purchase the books and produce a printed catalogue in the meantime. The conception of the matter is, far too often, that books can be selected, arranged, and listed in bulk, as groceries are bought, displayed, and ticketed, and in as short a time. The result, of course, is that the librarian, being rushed, must select and buy the books as quickly as he can, and relegate the work of cataloguing them to an assistant, who most likely has no training, and the best has to be made of a bad job. In very few instances can it be considered that the first catalogue of a new library fairly represents the ability of the librarian as a cataloguer.
5.—With the rapid rise of the standard of education more exact and better work is at present demanded in libraries than was the case during the first quarter of a century after the Public Libraries’ Act came into operation. The slipshod rule-of-thumb cataloguing at one time in vogue does not pass muster unnoticed now, as it did then, and consequently there is less use than ever before for the bald lists of books, compiled upon no principle in particular, sent forth to bewilder and hinder rather than help an inquiring public. The student, and that interesting personage, “the general reader,” are each year coming to a better understanding of the uses and peculiarities of books, and so look for more precise information concerning them. No better evidence is needed of the manner in which the demand for information about books has grown than is found in the large place which the reviewing of them now takes in the columns of the newspaper press, so that even minor journals cannot afford to ignore it. The dictum that a cataloguer has no right to go behind the information contained on the title-page of a book does not now find acceptance, as it did in the past.
Those persons who are possessed of even a little experience in the matter know that it is impossible to compile a catalogue in a hap-hazard fashion, and that clear and definite rules must be laid down before any part of the work is attempted, otherwise confusion and want of proportion will result. Happily of late years the rules governing the proper compilation of catalogues have been codified, particularly those for the form at present in most general use, known as the “dictionary catalogue.”
CHAPTER II.
THE DICTIONARY CATALOGUE.
6.—The dictionary catalogue is not the idea or invention of any individual, but has developed gradually from the requirements of librarians in dealing with readers. The earlier catalogues were limited to entries given under the authors’ names, as in the British Museum Catalogue, or were in classified form, either under the large classes into which a library was divided, or with very little other sub-division. These were followed by what may be termed “dictionary index catalogues” containing the first principles of the dictionary catalogue as now understood. They consisted of very brief entries under authors, and the simple turning about of a title to bring a certain word in it to the front as conveying its subject, in this manner:—
England under Victoria. Michelsen.
Englefield (Sir H. C.) Walk through Southampton.
English Antiquities. Eccleston. 1847.
Ennui. Edgeworth.
Entomology, Exotic. Drury. 1837.
Episodes of Insect Life. 1851.
Errand to the South. Malet.
By this method the real subject of the book was often missed, more especially if the author had made use of a fanciful title, and one subject would be found under many different entries, according to the word used on the title-page, and without cross references to bind them together. It must be confessed that to-day many of the dictionary catalogues of public libraries are no more than this “index catalogue” under the newer name. The entries may be a little fuller, but the principles of compilation remain the same.
7.—Prior to 1876 there was no complete code of rules for the preparation of a subject as well as author catalogue, though Prof. C. C. Jewett’s “On the construction of Catalogues of Libraries” (Washington, 1853), with its subsequent modifications, was a step in this direction. There were rules for author catalogues, for the most part based upon the British Museum rules, as well as schemes of classification for classified catalogues. In that year was published the now well-known “Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue,” by Charles A. Cutter, Librarian of the Boston Athenæum. It appeared as the second part of the “Special Report on the Public Libraries in the United States of America,” issued under the auspices of the United States Bureau of Education. A second edition of these rules was separately issued in 1889. The third edition, with further corrections and additions, appeared in 1891, and has been most liberally distributed by the United States Government to the libraries of the world. Since 1876 other rules have been formulated, principally with Cutter’s as a basis. A consensus of these will be found in the “Eclectic Card Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries,” by K. A. Linderfelt, Librarian of the Milwaukee Public Library, Boston (Charles A. Cutter) 1890. This most useful compilation, “based on Dziatzko’s ‘Instruction’ compared with the rules of the British Museum, Cutter, Dewey, Perkins, and other authorities,” is not as well known to English librarians as it should be. The present Manual is intended to serve as an introduction to these two codes, and the instructions contained in it are based upon them. When these have not been adhered to the changes made have obtained authority in library practice. Mr. Henry B. Wheatley’s interesting little book, “How to Catalogue a Library” (Stock, 1889), must also be mentioned, and should be read as an introduction to the subject.
8.—The great merit of the dictionary catalogue is that it can be made to supply most of the information usually asked for by those using libraries, and by immediate reference without any preliminary study of its arrangement. It obtains its name from the circumstance that all the entries, irrespective of their nature, are put into a single alphabetical sequence, and consulted as one would consult a dictionary. It is considered to be the most acceptable form to the majority of those making use of popular libraries, and experience has proved it to be so.
The dictionary catalogue is intended to answer all of the following questions:
What books are contained in the library by a given author, as, Hall Caine? The answer to this is called the author-entry.
What books have you upon a specific subject, as the dynamo; or upon a particular topic, as the Eastern question? The entries answering such enquiries are the subject-entries.
Have you a book called, “A Daughter of Eve?” The entry supplying this information would be the title-entry.
Have you any volume of a series, as, “English men of letters?” This it will also answer, and the reply may be termed the series-entry.
There are questions, however, that the dictionary catalogue does not ordinarily answer. It would not tell what books were in the library in a particular language, say French, and it will not provide a complete and definite list of books in a particular form, as fiction, or poetry; or in a class of literature as distinct from subject. For example, it will not group together all the theological works, or the scientific books, but will distribute them throughout the entire alphabet, according to the divisions of these subjects, and these divisions will in their turn be distributed according to lesser divisions and monographs.
A catalogue compiled upon the lines requisite to group such classes completely, so that a general treatise and a monograph upon a minute division will follow in natural order, would be a classified catalogue, and that form is dealt with separately in Chapter XII.
To effect a combination of both forms in such a way that they would answer any question, reasonable or otherwise, would necessitate so large a number of entries for each book that its compilation would be barely feasible, and if carried out it would be unsatisfactory, because the simplicity of the alphabetical order would be destroyed, and the result would not be worth the labour expended, to say nothing of its size and costliness.
9.—Therefore choice must be made at the very outset between the two forms, dictionary or classified. The point to be first considered is, which form is most likely to best suit the needs of the particular class who use the library; as a catalogue which would be most useful for a college library, or that of a scientific society, would be unsuitable for a free library in the midst of a working-class population. Then the question of cost enters into the matter, and here the classified form has the advantage, as apart from the brief index entries, one entry per book mostly suffices, whereas in the dictionary form the average is three entries. There is a still more important matter which materially affects the older libraries, and that is the impossibility of keeping the dictionary form within reasonable compass, even with curtailed entries and closely-printed pages of small type. Borrowers from a public lending library prefer to carry their catalogues with them when exchanging books, but they cannot do so if it is in two or three volumes, or so bulky as not to be portable. For this reason librarians with unbounded belief in the superior advantages of the dictionary catalogue have been compelled, against their will, to adopt the classified form. They had no alternative, except the very unsatisfactory one of extensively weeding their stock of books, and only those who have undertaken that responsibility know how difficult it is to decide whether a book is worth retaining or not. A very judicial statement of the merits of the two styles of catalogues will be found in a paper by Mr. F. T. Barrett, of the Mitchell Library, Glasgow, entitled “The Alphabetical and Classified Forms of Catalogues Compared,” in the “Transactions of the Second International Library Conference,” 1897. Mr. J. D. Brown’s views, as set forth in Chapter v. of his “Manual of Library Classification” (Library Supply Co., 1898), should also be carefully considered.