III
Having answered the main question of feasibility, we may now take up some minor practical questions, first Notation. It is not likely that reason shall soon remove all traces of prejudice and controversy in this matter. A few propositions, however, are so reasonable that I think they will be accepted. Notation should be brief and simple. Its simplicity depends upon its brevity, though also upon the familiarity and homogeneity of its elements. Letters give brevity. The capacity of three-letter notation, allowing for omission of all objectionable combinations, is about 15,000. Using letters and figures together increases this capacity to about 25,000, omitting confusing mixtures such as K7G and 8B4. Since somewhat more than 10,000 subdivisions seem requisite, the question reduces to this form: "Which is simpler, notation of three letters, or of five figures?" But figures, it is argued, are more familiar. They may be so to bookkeepers, but to the keepers of books! Familiar here means familiar with the numbers of the D. C. Then, are unmeaning combinations like DAL or GWK really more meaningless than numbers like 13859? On the other hand, isn't RAG easier to see and to remember? But the argument, so far as it is not merely prejudiced, is childish. Such combinations as A1, 3B, C42, and CF6, are hardly objectionable, and may prove convenient and economical in class-notation as they do in the author numbers, with which librarians are so friendly. Since they are come to stay, what is the use of arguing for homogeneous notation?
Notation is the more systematic and economical where it reduces in part to schedules applicable to the subdivision of many classes or divisions. This feature appeared to a minor extent in the "form signs" of the D. C., but was carried out extensively and complexly in the E. C. It is apparent also in the L. C., but there is more conspicuous by its absence through hundreds of pages of names of countries, places, and persons. Time does not permit me to describe here the six schedules that economize the system I have worked out: Schedule 1, Mnemonic numerals, constant throughout; Schedule 2, for subdivision by countries, applicable under subjects, where-ever desired; Schedule 3, for subdivisions under countries and localities; Schedule 4, for subjects under any language, except the chief literary languages; Schedule 5, for the chief literary languages; and Schedule 6, for arranging the material under any prominent author.
Some who admit the feasibility of better classification object that a classification modern for the present will be out of date in a generation. This in new guise is the familiar argument that it is useless to clean the house today, for it will need again to be cleaned next week—which all good housewives say is an unreasonable argument. It would be a pity to have fair librarianship called a slouch.
Is it conceivable that your books shall remain forever classified as they are at present? Are there to be no changes, merely additions of new captions? Conservatism is not strange, considering the cost of changing notation; but that cost is small compared with the cost of new building or new collections, and is justified by the service to be rendered. The longer postponed, the larger the cost, the larger the burden. Some libraries are changing now—to what? That change may indeed have to be changed again in a decade or two. But how long, then, should a classification endure—or rather, be endurable? One who would not prophesy may nevertheless give an opinion. I believe that a good classification should last a century—with some minor alterations. I believe that a good library should be willing to reclassify, if necessary, at least some of its collections two or three times in a century. I think that library economy should have been developed with better regard to this problem. It is not practical to arrange books inconsistently with the scientific and pedagogic organization of knowledge. Organization based on consensus is one of the marked tendencies of modern thought and purpose, and is not likely to be overcome by dissenting or disintegrating philosophical counter-tendencies. This organization is more stable than the theories on which it rests, and these are more stable than the popular press would lead us to suppose. New theories, new statements, are assimilated to the established body of knowledge without much dislocation of members. Durability in a system would depend not only upon present consistency with the organization of knowledge, but upon flexibility through reserved and alternative locations, judiciously chosen with regard to tendencies in science. There might be flaws and errors, but all practice, in whatever profession is thus imperfect and tentative.
That the D. C. is antiquated is not because of any change in science, but because it did not conform to the science of its generation. The welcome accorded to it in the pioneer days was in keeping with the earlier view that classification is a simple thing, as it indeed was for the small popular libraries. That acceptance has mellowed now into an affectionate companionship with a familiar and comfortable conveyance that has proved serviceable so far. Now the thing is said to need repair. But that it cannot economically be reconstructed has been recently demonstrated. It evidently must go on till its thousand pieces fall in a heap together, like the "wonderful one-hoss shay." Loading it with more and more scientific luggage may for a time increase its service, but the rattling of its parts grows all the more distressing to those who ride.
I reserve my opinion of the Expansive Classification and of that of the Library of Congress. It is to the point to say, however, that they are as unsatisfactory in the major principles of practical and scientific classification for libraries as they are valuable and admirable in the details which they have elaborated. They should help to solve the ultimate problem; but, if consistency with science and economy with convenience are feasible and requisite, neither of these systems is fit, nor is either, I think, likely to endure in general use in the future.
The simpler, the more systematic, and the more consistent with the organization of knowledge a classification and notation is, the more economical and the less vexatious will be the operation of classifying books. The subject, scope, treatment, purpose of the book—if that could be stated beforehand—and why not?—by author and publisher, and confirmed by the copyright office or the national library, then the class-notation could in most cases be quickly found through subject-index. That information might be printed in the book and more readily found there than through centralized cataloging and service of cards. Centralized or co-operative classifying however, or assigning of subjects and of the class-marks of an elaborately classified central or national library, would be a service of high value and of very considerable economy. But it should be distinguished from standardized classification. As libraries differ and differentiate, so should their classifications. At best a system may serve for libraries of a type, but not for all types. A university need not adopt an unfit classification as more than one has done of recent years. It may translate the centrally assigned subjects and class-marks into its own system, through its own index. Some general conformity, or conformity in special parts, may indeed prove economical and convenient, but standardization of an elaborate system is progress in the wrong direction.
This outline of a large, complex, and unsolved problem of paramount importance is very inadequate. I would propose that a committee be constituted, to articulate with the present committee on a code for classifying, to set to work upon a fuller investigation of this great question of the feasibility of better and more economical classification and notation. If librarians do not provide better classification for libraries, then the users of libraries will very likely in the not remote future provide for better librarians.
In the subsequent discussion, opened by Dr. Richardson and by a paper written by Mr. W. S. Merrill, chief classifier of the Newberry library, Chicago, exception was taken to many of Mr. Bliss' criticisms of present classifications. It was pointed out that the D. C., with all its faults, was yet eminently practical, as evidenced by its widespread use. Mr. Cutter stated that the E. C. classification for zoology, which Mr. Bliss had specially criticised, had been made in just the way Mr. Bliss himself regarded as the soundest, i. e., it had been condensed from material furnished by an eminent scientist; as to its being over minute, it was expanded only half as much as the scientist had proposed. Mr. Charles Martel, chief of the catalog division in the Library of Congress, Dr. Andrews, librarian of the John Crerar library, Chicago, and others also expressed their belief in close classification as a safeguard against confusion and unscientific grouping.
Only a few minutes remained for a paper on "Art in the college library," by Mr. FRANK WEITENKAMPF, chief of the art department, New York public library.