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.
ART IN THE COLLEGE LIBRARY
The problem of art in schools has been frequently discussed. The matter of art in colleges, apparently, has not been so much considered. The cases, however, seem to be dissimilar only in degree, not in kind. In fact, not a little of the material that has been suggested for schoolroom decoration would be equally in place in the college. For instance, names such as those of Gozzoli or Luca della Robbia, on the Craftsman's list for schools could just as well be suggested for the college. Also, the average student is probably first to be reached best by recognition of the fact that there are other interests beside the purely aesthetic. In other words, good use can be made of the subject picture, the best possible being chosen. Dr. W. D. Johnston, librarian of Columbia University, where exhibitions "have always been an important auxiliary of lectures" and have included exhibitions of graphic arts, states that these last "are selected and displayed less with a view to artistic than pictorial value." But he adds that more and more attention is given to artistic value, and that in his belief the most valuable exhibits of an artistic nature are those "displayed permanently on the walls of halls, seminar rooms and lecture rooms. On the other hand, those which are exhibited temporarily should, if well selected, and well announced, do much to broaden taste."
The permanent display of pictures which illustrate with distinction certain broad principles of taste, is of undoubted necessity. But the use of the temporary show must not be lost sight of. The oft seen easily becomes the oft unheeded; familiarity breeds contempt. Periodical changes therefore seem advisable, as evidence that there is "something doing." Loans of good prints from private sources, if advisable, might be utilized to excellent effect. For instance, if the library happens to own, or can borrow, a copy of such a publication of color reproductions as the Medici prints, or "Meister der Farbe" or "Alte Meister" (the latter two issued by Seemann of Leipzig), a number of plates from the same might be placed on exhibition for, say, three months. This might be followed by a six-weeks' black-and-white show of good etchings from a private collection, or from the stock of the nearest museum or print dealer. After that, perhaps, a show of Greek art. The guiding principles should be: Keep the exhibit within reasonable bounds as to numbers, make selection with as much discrimination as circumstances will permit, and see that what you offer is made palatable. Dr. E. C. Richardson of the Princeton University library tells me that there a large collection of art photographs is drawn upon for permanent exhibition, the latter rearranged "every now and then" in order to exhibit fresh material, and that there have been a number of special exhibitions. (Incidentally, this university has a great variety of undergraduate courses in art.)
The matter of proper presentation is important. Not what is seen, but what is digested, counts. Good labels are a necessity; summary, with as little dryness as possible, informative, so that the student may see at a glance why a given picture was shown, and what are its good points. If relation to studies can be brought out in these exhibits, all the better. That naturally suggests the possibility of an occasional display of pictures illustrating a given period or personality in a given country. In the recently-printed little volume, "Art museums and schools," containing four lectures by Stockton Oxson, Kenyon Cox, Stanley Hall and Oliver S. Tonks, the significance of the museum to teachers of English, art, history and the classics is considered, and the documentary value of art is properly emphasized. "In order to teach the classics," says Prof. Tonks, "you must know more of ancient life than is to be gleaned from the literature by itself." Viewed in this light, the old Greek vases and other art objects take on a new significance. But the ultimate object of all this must not be lost to sight, the cultural influence sought, the promotion of interest in art as a matter not apart from, but a part of, our daily life, a contribution to general culture. It is well to make it clear that a certain amount of appreciation of art can become as much a matter of course as certain elementary rules of good breeding. "Art," says Croly, in his "Promise of American life,"—"art cannot become a power in a community unless many of its members are possessed of a native and innocent love of beautiful things." These considerations, again, suggest the occasional exhibiting of plates illustrating decorative and applied art, say color plates such as those in Wenzel's "Modern decorative art," or "Dekorative Vorbilder," or similar books, if procurable, or black-and-white plates from books or art magazines. A judicious use of the library's books is advisable, not through lengthy lists in which the bibliographical instincts of the librarian might find vent. Reference to two or three books on a subject—whetting the appetite by displaying them at the same time as the plates exhibited—may lead to an occasional reading at spare moments. It may help also to show the fallacy of the "I don't know anything of art, but I know just what I like" attitude. You can not understand anything worth understanding without some trouble, any more than you can play football or bridge without some practice.