Now, when the early printers came to apply dates of publication to the books they issued, (and here is where their methods of notation become most important to librarians) they used precisely these methods. For example, to express the year 1695, they printed it thus: MDCVC, that is—1000+500+100+100-5. But the printers of the 15th century and later, often used complications of letters, dictated by caprice rather than by any fixed principles, so that it is sometimes difficult to interpret certain dates in the colophons or title-pages of books, without collateral aid of some kind, usually supplied to the librarian by bibliographies. One of the simpler methods of departure from the regular notation as above explained, was to substitute for the letter D (500) two letters, thus—IƆ, an I and a C inverted, supposed to resemble the letter D in outline. Another fancy was to replace the M, standing for 1,000, by the symbols CIƆ—which present a faint approach to the outline of the letter M, for which they stand. Thus, to express the year 1610, we have this combination—CIƆ IƆ CX, which would be indecipherable to a modern reader, uninstructed in the numerical signs anciently used, and their values. In like manner, 1548 is expressed thus: MDXLIIX, meaning 1000+500+40+10-2. And for 1626, we have CIƆ IƆ C XXVI.
As every considerable library has early printed books, a librarian must know these peculiarities of notation, in order to catalogue them properly, without mistake as to their dates. In some books, where a capricious combination of Roman numerals leaves him without a precedent to guide him to the true date, reference must be had to the bibliographies of the older literature, (as Hain, Panzer, etc.), which will commonly solve the doubt.
As to the mechanics of catalogue-making, widely different usages and materials prevail. In America, the card or title-slip system is well nigh universal, while in England it is but slowly gaining ground, as against the ledger or blank book catalogue. Its obvious advantage lies in affording the only possible means of maintaining a strict alphabetical sequence in titles, whether of authors or subjects. The title-cards should be always of uniform size, and the measure most in vogue is five inches in length by three inches in breadth. They should not be too stiff, though of sufficient thickness, whether of paper or of thin card board, to stand upright without doubling at the edges. They may be ruled or plain, at pleasure, and kept in drawers, trays, or (in case of a small catalogue) in such paste-board boxes as letter envelopes come in.
The many advantages of the card system, both for catalogues and indexes, should not lead us to overlook its palpable defects. These are (1) It obliges readers to manipulate many cards, to arrive at all the works of an author, or all the books on any subject, instead of having them under his eye at once, as in printed catalogues. (2) It can be used only in the library, and in only one place in the library, and by only one person at a time in the same spot, while a printed catalogue can be freely used anywhere, and by any numbers, copies being multiplied. (3) It entails frequent crowding of readers around the catalogue drawers, who need to consult the same subjects or authors at the same time. (4) It requires immeasurably more room than a printed catalogue, and in fact, exacts space which in some libraries can be ill afforded. (5) It obliges readers to search the title-cards at inconvenient angles of vision, and often with inadequate light. (6) It is cumbersome in itself, and doubly cumbersome to searchers, who must stand up instead of sitting to consult it, and travel from drawer to drawer, interfering with other searchers almost constantly, or losing time in waiting. (7) To this is added the inconvenience of constant insertion of new title-cards by members of the library staff, and the time-consuming process of working the rods which keep the cards in place, if they are used, and if not used, the risk of loss of titles, or misplacement equivalent to loss for a time.
Says Mr. H. B. Wheatley: "I can scarcely imagine anything more maddening than a frequent reference to cards in a drawer." But it is to be considered that all systems have defects, and the problem of choosing the least defective is ever before us. Most of the suggested defects of the card catalogue, as concerns the readers, can be obviated by making a two-fold catalogue, the type-written titles being manifolded, and one set arranged in card-drawers for the use of the library staff, while another is mounted on large sheets in bound volumes for use of the public. This would secure the advantages of a printed catalogue, with no more expense than the manuscript titles would cost. If desired, a number of copies could be bound up for reading-room use. Accessions of new books could be incorporated from month to month, by leaving the right-hand pages blank for that purpose. This would be near enough to alphabetical order for most readers, with the immense advantage of opening at one glance before the eye, any author or subject. It would go far to solve the problem how to unite the flexibility and perfect alphabeting of the card system, with the superior comfort, safety, and ease of reference of the book. It would also be a safe-guard against the loss or displacement of titles, a danger inherent in the card system, as they could be replaced by copying missing titles from the catalogue volumes.
While the undoubted merits of the card system have been much overrated, it would be as unwise to dispense with it as the complete official catalogue of the library, as it would be to tie down the public to its use, when there is a more excellent way, saving time and patience, and contributing to the comfort of all.
To print or not to print? is a vital question for libraries, and it is in most cases decided to forego or to postpone printing, because of its great expense. Yet so manifest are the advantages of a printed catalogue, that all public libraries should make every effort to endow their readers with its benefits. These advantages are (1) Greater facility of reading titles. (2) Much more rapid turning from letter to letter of the catalogue alphabet. (3) Ability to consult it outside of the library. (4) Unlimited command of the catalogue by many readers at once, from the number of copies at hand, whereas card catalogues or manuscript volumes involve loss of time in waiting, or interfering with the researches of others. A part of these advantages may be realized by printing type-written copies of all titles in duplicate, or by carbon paper in manifold, thus furnishing the library with several copies of its catalogue: but why not extend this by multiplying copies through the ingenious processes now in use, by which the printing of titles can be effected far more cheaply than in any printing office? Might not every library become its own printer, thus saving it from the inconvenience and risk of sending its titles outside, or the great expense of copying them for the printer?
The titles thus manifolded could be combined into volumes, by cutting away all superfluous margins and mounting the thin title-slips alphabetically on paper of uniform size, which, when bound, would be readily handled. All the titles of an author's works would be under the eye at a glance, instead of only one at a time, as in the card catalogue. And the titles of books on every subject would lie open, without slowly manipulating an infinite series of cards, one after another, to reveal them to the eye. The classification marks could be readily placed against each title, or even printed as a part of the manifold card titles.
Not that the card catalogue system would be abolished: it would remain as the only complete catalogue of the library, always up to date, in a single alphabet. Daily accessions inserted in it would render it the standard of appeal as to all that the library contained, and it would thus supplement the printed catalogue.
Of course, large and increasing accessions would require to be combined in occasional supplementary volumes of the catalogue; and in no long number of years the whole might be re-combined in a single alphabet, furnishing a printed dictionary catalogue up to its date.