THE COLLEGE LIBRARY AND RESEARCH WORK
There was published in 1912 a "Union List of Collections on European History in American Libraries, compiled for the Committee on Bibliography of the American Historical Association by E. C. Richardson, Chairman."
In the preface to this exceedingly valuable work occurs the following extract from the Report of the Committee, December, 1911:
"It is clear from this situation that no library is self-sufficient—even Harvard lacking 930 sets, and all but 12 lacking on the average of 2,153 out of 2,197 works. Even as good colleges as Amherst and Williams, having but 26 and 17 respectively, lack 2,171 and 2,180 respectively out of 2,197, while probably 700 of the 786 institutions doing work of college grade in the United States are worse off than these."
I need hardly say that this is merely a statement of fact and in no sense a criticism or arraignment of any library mentioned or implied. Furthermore, it is undoubtedly true that analysis and reflection will render this statement much less startling than it appears at first glance. Whether we can explain and account for it to our entire satisfaction is a question which seems to me rather doubtful. Let me quote a little more from this same source:
"The most significant fact of the statistics of last year remains, however, substantially unchanged—the fact that only ten or a dozen libraries have as many as 10 per cent of the collections, and that out of 786 institutions which profess to do work of college grade, only about fifty libraries have as much as 1 per cent. The actual situation is even much worse than appears from the figures, since two or three inexpensive volumes of illustrative source books for classroom use are in the list through inadvertence, and undoubtedly swell the record of the minor institutions. It is safe to say that a majority even of the institutions included in the Babcock list have less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of these sets, and yet these are titles which have been gathered from actual references and are the books which are liable to meet any men engaged in historical research at every turn."
If we assume that research work belongs only to the university—that it has no place in the college—we may dismiss these figures as possessing no significance for us, save as they throw some light on the inferior quality of the collections built up by most of our American libraries. If on the other hand we believe that the smaller institution should encourage its teachers to do research work, and should, so far as its resources allow, provide the facilities for such work, then I believe that a study of the conditions responsible for the situation set forth in the Committee's report cannot fail to be of some value. And while I hold no brief for the research worker I am strongly of the opinion that the college which does encourage original research can not but gain a higher quality of teaching, and at the same time acquire a collection of books which, if not notable, shall be at least thoroughly good.
It may be claimed, and in that case must be granted, that such a question as this is practically an academic one, and so pretty largely outside of the librarian's province. That is true, however, only so long as you leave the question unanswered—or answer it in the negative. An affirmative answer would bring the matter home directly to every college librarian in the country. The college which believes in research and encourages its faculty to do it, must have a librarian not only in sympathy with the movement, but one skillful in finding ways and means to make it a success, since in most cases the funds at our disposal for the purchase of books would seem to preclude the possibility of such a thing.
Before going further into the discussion of this phase of the question, let me return for a moment to the report from which I quoted. One or two conclusions may justly be drawn from the figures therein presented. In the first place I think we may safely infer that the situation as regards History, so strikingly set forth, is repeated, and probably in an even worse form, in all the other departments of knowledge. Certainly we should not expect a library which was so weak in the research material of History, to be any stronger in Philology or the Sciences, or in Philosophy and Economics.
The second conclusion follows naturally from this, that the average college library—for it is with the college library that this paper concerns itself—has built up its collection with practically no emphasis on the acquisition of such material.