Manual of Library Economy / Third and Memorial Edition

by James Duff Brown; W. C. Berwick Sayers

The classified catalogue—the best accessible example of which is the catalogue of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh (1895-1902, supplements, 1902-06 and 1907-11), while good English examples are issued by The Patent Office, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Islington (selected catalogue), Bolton and Walthamstow—is gradually ousting the dictionary catalogue from the favour of librarians. In this form books are arranged in the order of the classification, in the perfect form in the strict order of it, and under each specific heading the books can be arranged alphabetically or (preferably) in chronological or inverse-chronological order, or in the order which places the best book first. Such a catalogue shows the whole “family” literature of every subject in a logical progression, and is therefore much more valuable to the student than other forms. It must, however, be equipped with author and subject indexes to make it usable by ordinary readers who have not grasped the scheme of classification; such indexes are usually placed at the end of the catalogue, or class if the catalogue is issued in class lists, and the catalogue is prefaced with an outline of the scheme.

The alphabetical-classed catalogue is one in which the books are arranged under specific subjects and the subject headings are arranged in alphabetical order. Excellent examples of the method are the Library Association Index to Periodicals and (with briefer entries) the London Library Subject Index, and the British Museum Subject Index. As the last two examples show, this form is usually provided as an index to be used in conjunction with a separate author catalogue, but complete, individual catalogues have been produced in this form. Its advantages are those accruing to the alphabet, rapid reference and easy recognition; its disadvantages are the inevitable separations of allied topics.

258. Annotation, etc.

258. Annotation, etc.—In all forms of catalogue the difficulties which have to be obviated are the lack of clearness of meaning in titles and of information as to the qualifications of authors, the scope, size, format, date and other features of books. These particulars can, and should, be given as a rule under the principal entry of each book as part of the main entry; but to amplify such information, notes—technically called annotations—are now frequently provided. An admirable conspectus of the art of annotation is available in E. A. Savage’s Manual of Annotation in Library Catalogues, and the student is referred to that work. Here it will be sufficient to say that catalogue entries should be as full in bibliographical particulars as the means of the library will allow, and that notes, which must be as brief as possible, should elucidate obscure titles, show the qualifications of the author, his method, elementary or otherwise, the preliminary knowledge required for the reading of the book, its place in the literature of the subject, and the presence of bibliographies, glossaries, etc.; and should give, in the case of reprints, the date of first publication, and in that of revised editions, the nature of the revision or editorial additions.

259. Form of Catalogue.

259. Form of Catalogue.—Having chosen the manner in which his catalogue is to be compiled, or, to adapt a term from classification, its inner form, the librarian has an almost equally important decision to make as to the manner of its outer form, or the way in which it may be made accessible to his public. At one time every librarian aimed to produce a printed catalogue as a matter of course and necessity, partly because MS. forms were imperfect, and partly because the universal prevalence of the barrier system made a key of which every reader could have a copy an integral part of the charging. This view does not prevail to anything like the former extent, and the complete printed catalogue in book form is becoming less and less general. In some ways this is unfortunate, because the printed catalogue has the indisputable value of book-form, homogeneity, and convenience both for consultation and for carrying about; besides, it is a valuable bibliographical tool for use in all other libraries. At the same time, the great cost of the printed catalogue, especially when issued complete in any of the alphabetical forms, and the irritating fact that in a growing library it is incomplete the day after it is published, have made it almost impossible for public librarians to publish in this form. Complete printed class-lists are a more satisfactory form, because each class can be published separately and at such intervals as will distribute the cost over several years; and revisions can be made in similar serial manner, so that classes such as the Useful Arts, in which books most rapidly run out of date or are superseded, can be more frequently revised than others. Most classified catalogues are issued in this manner. But, in spite of the admitted advantages of the complete printed catalogue in book-form, the tendency is to depend upon complete manuscript catalogues at the library, and to advise readers of additions by means of a periodical library bulletin, by duplicated lists, by lists published in the local newspapers, etc. The open access system has destroyed the most immediate necessity for the printed catalogue—the choosing of books from a stock which readers were unable to examine—and few libraries which publish such a catalogue can hope to recoup even a substantial part of the cost from sales. One or two libraries have a selected printed catalogue, which contains the 10,000-20,000 invariable books in the library—the classics in all branches of literature which readers have a right to expect to find on the shelves—and depend upon MS. catalogues for the stock as a whole.

260. Card Distribution, etc.

260. Card Distribution, etc.—In using the term “manuscript catalogue” we speak somewhat loosely, in that the term usually covers any catalogue not in printed book form; hence it covers slip, card, sheaf, placard and various other forms in which individual entries may indeed be printed. The most used of these is the card catalogue, in which each entry of books is made on a separate card, and the cards are arranged on their fore-edges in drawers or trays (but drawers preferably) in the order that would be used in a book-catalogue. The merit of this system is its infinite flexibility; for, as every book has its separate card, cards for additions can be inserted without dislocating the order, and the catalogue can be kept up-to-date always. Several of the great bibliographical and cataloguing institutions have adopted this form, the most important being the Library of Congress at Washington. This admirable library not only prints its own cards, but offers copies for sale to other libraries at a low cost. In 1914 these cards were available for 650,000 titles, and to these additions of from 50,000 to 55,000 are made annually. As the cards are of standard size (5 inches × 3 inches = 12·5 × 7·5 cm.) they can be used in any properly constructed catalogue. Naturally there is an emphasis on American books, but thousands of the cards apply to English books as well. Thus, for an expenditure of about two cents per card, any library may have the cards for its catalogues, and this is at a far smaller cost in labour and money than any individual printed entry can be obtained by any library. The backbone of the system is the “unit” card; that is to say, one card is printed for a book and on it are indicated all cross-references, etc., and extra copies of the card can, if it is thought necessary, be purchased and placed under the headings indicated. The Library of Congress issues advance proof sheets at a charge of $30 a year, which may be cut up and mounted on cards as a staff catalogue, or as suggestion slips, and from these may be learned the serial numbers by which cards may be ordered. In the United States several of the great city libraries act as depots for storing whole sets of the cards, which librarians of other libraries may consult instead of proof sheets. This card distribution method has thus been dwelt upon as it has as yet no analogue in the United Kingdom, and it is to be hoped that some judiciously chosen great British libraries may act as depots for Library of Congress and other cards. Their use would save thousands of pounds to British libraries, as well as set free for other library purposes the hundreds of cataloguers in hundreds of different libraries who are all engaged in the wasteful task of cataloguing the very same books. Other libraries which issue printed cards are the Institute International de Bibliographie at Brussels, the Concilium Bibliographicum, Zurich, the John Crerar Library, Chicago, and Pittsburgh Library. About ninety per cent. of the municipal library books in the United States are covered by the Library of Congress cards; therefore a certain number of cards have still to be made by the individual libraries; and in English libraries practically all the card catalogues are so made. In some cases the cards are made by mounting entries from the periodical list of additions or bulletin, but usually the cards are written, hand-printed or typed. It is obvious that some system of card distribution from an authoritative centre is badly needed in the United Kingdom as a measure of mere economy.

261. Sheaf Catalogue.

261. Sheaf Catalogue.—The second form of manuscript catalogue is the sheaf, which may be described as a book-application of the principle of the card catalogue. It consists of a sheaf or holder in the shape of a book-cover which is fitted with locking rods designed to hold some 600 or 800 leaves. The leaves are separate individual pieces of paper cut to a standard size and punched with slots and holes to accommodate the locking rods of the sheaf. The sheaf is arranged on much the same plan as the card catalogue, except that several books are entered on each page as a rule, and when any page becomes congested it is re-written as a whole. It will be seen that this is the loose-leaf principle, which has largely become so prominent in business methodology; and, indeed, the sheaf-catalogue was undoubtedly the forerunner of the loose-leaf ledger. It has most of the advantages of the card catalogue, occupies less space, and has the undeniable advantage of book form; but whereas in the card catalogue there is little or no re-writing of entries, in the sheaf catalogue this must be undertaken at intervals. Of course if one page were devoted to each entry, as one card is so devoted in the card catalogue, the merits of the systems would seem to be equal, except perhaps that the card is of a more durable material than the paper used in the sheaf. But either card or sheaf is infinitely superior to any other form of MS. catalogue.