Part 2
As a remedy for this evil, it is proposed to ~stereotype the titles separately~, and to preserve the plates or blocks, in alphabetical order of the titles, so as to be able readily to insert additional titles, in their proper places, and then to reprint the whole catalogue. By these means, the chief cost of re-publication (that of composition) together with the trouble of revision and correction of the press, would, except for new titles, be avoided. Some of the great difficulties, which have so long oppressed and discouraged librarians, and involved libraries in enormous expenses, may be thus overcome.
APPLICATION OF THE PLAN TO THE FORMATION OF A GENERAL CATALOGUE.
The peculiar position of the Smithsonian Institution suggested the application of this plan, on a wider scale, and for a more important purpose, than that of merely facilitating the publication of new and complete editions of separate catalogues.
It had been proposed to form a general catalogue of all the books in the country, with references to the libraries where each might be found. The plan of stereotyping titles, separately, suggested the following system for the accomplishment of this important purpose:
1. The Smithsonian Institution to publish Rules for the preparation of Catalogues.
2. Other institutions, intending to publish catalogues of their books, to be requested to prepare them in accordance with these rules, with a view to their being stereotyped under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution.
3. The Smithsonian Institution to pay the whole _extra_ expense of stereotyping, or such part thereof as may be agreed on.
4. The stereotyped titles to remain the property of the Smithsonian Institution.
5. Every library, acceding to this plan, to have the right of using all the titles in the possession of the Institution, as often as desired, for the printing of its own catalogue, by the Smithsonian Institution; paying only the expense of making up the pages, of press-work, and of distributing the titles to their proper places.
6. The Smithsonian Institution to publish, as soon as possible, and at stated intervals, a General Catalogue of all Libraries coming into this system.
ADVANTAGES TO BE DERIVED FROM THIS SYSTEM OF PREPARING CATALOGUES.
The plan of stereotyping the titles, separately, would be of great value to every increasing library, independent of any general system. Such a library, in the first issue of its catalogue, would be obliged to incur an additional expense for stereotyping, which we may, for the present, state at fifty per centum above the price for composition. But, in the first reprint, both these expenses would be saved; so that the whole cost of the two editions would, in this respect, be twenty-five per cent. less, if stereotyped.
Moreover, it would be necessary to print only a comparatively small number of copies, when the book, in a more perfect state, could be reproduced so easily; much would therefore be saved in paper and press-work. Besides, the arrangement of the titles, for a reprint, would pass from the hands of the librarian to those of the printer. The proof-reading, also, would have been done, once for all. In keeping up such a catalogue, the attention and labor of the librarian would have to be bestowed only upon additional titles.
Reckoning, thus, the expense of stereotyping as a part of the diminished cost of the first reprint, the saving, for every subsequent repetition, would be equal to the whole original cost of composition and proof-reading, for the part already stereotyped, and a considerable part of that of paper, press-work, and re-arrangement. It is, therefore, demonstrable that the economy of the plan would be very great, to every library publishing and reprinting its catalogues, even without connection with the system proposed.
But, in connection with a general system, the advantages of this plan would be greatly increased, inasmuch as the same books are to be found in many libraries. If the titles, which have been stereotyped for one library, may be used for another having the same books, the saving to the second would be equal to the whole cost of composition and stereotyping of the titles common to the two, added to that of preparation of such titles.
At least one quarter of the titles in any two general libraries, of ten thousand volumes and upwards, may safely be supposed to be the same. The saving, from this source, to the second library, would, therefore, go far towards defraying the extra expense of stereotyping. A third institution, adopting the plan, would be likely to find a very large proportion of its titles identical with those already stereotyped, and the amount saved by the use of these titles, would, perhaps, be sufficient to counterbalance the whole extra expenditure for stereotyping. At any rate, the extra expense would be constantly and rapidly diminishing, and would, probably after the fourth or fifth catalogue, cease entirely. The Smithsonian Institution would not, therefore, be required to assume the charge of an enterprise, which might involve it in great and increasing expense, but merely to organize, and to guide a system, which will almost immediately pay its own way, and will soon save large sums of money to our public libraries.
That the aggregate economy of this plan would be very great, may be seen from the following statement:
In fifteen thousand pages, mostly in octavo, of catalogues of public libraries in the United States, there were found to be more than four hundred and fifty thousand titles. But, according to the best estimate which could be made, these catalogues contained not more than one hundred and fifty thousand _different_ titles. Two-thirds, at least, of the whole cost of printing these catalogues (except the extra expense incurred by stereotyping the titles which differed) might have been saved, by following this plan.
Having shown its economy when employed by single libraries, and its greater economy, in connection with a general system, it is proper to suggest a few, among the many benefits to the cause of knowledge, which the general adoption of this method would seem to promise.
It can hardly be necessary to dwell, at length, upon the benefits to be expected from a general printed catalogue of all books in the public libraries of America. By means of it, every student in this country would be able to learn the full extent of his resources for investigation. The places where books could be found, might be indicated in the catalogue. A correspondence could be kept up between this Institution and every other library in the country. A system of exchange and of loans might, with certain stringent conditions, be established, or, when the loan of a book would be impracticable, extracts could be copied, quotations verified, and researches made, through the intervention of this Institution, as effectually to the purpose of the student, in most cases, as a personal examination of the book. All the literary treasures of the country might thus be made measurably available to every scholar.
Again, this general catalogue would enable purchasers of books for public libraries, to consult judiciously for the wants of the country. So poor are we in the books which scholars need; so long, at best, must we remain in a condition of provincial dependence in literary matters; that a responsibility to the whole country rests upon the man, who selects books for any public library.
An important advantage of this system is, that it allows us to vary the form of the catalogue, at will, from the alphabetical to the classed, and to modify the classification as we please. The titles, separately stereotyped, may change their order at command. If, for example, it were required to print a separate list of all books in the country, on the subject of _meteorology_, it would merely be necessary to check off, in the general catalogue, the titles to be used, leaving to the printer the rest of the work.
Another highly beneficial result would be, the attainment of a much higher degree of _uniformity_ than could otherwise be hoped for. The rules for cataloguing must be stringent, and should meet, as far as possible, all difficulties of detail. Nothing, so far as can be avoided, should be left to the individual taste or judgment of the cataloguer. He should be a man of sufficient learning, accuracy and fidelity, to apply the rules. In cases of doubt, reference should be made to the central establishment, to which the whole work should be submitted, page by page, for examination and revision. Thus, we should have all our catalogues formed substantially on one plan. Now, even if the one adopted were that of the worst of our catalogues, if it were strictly followed in all alike, their uniformity would render catalogues, thus made, far more useful than the present chaos of irregularities. The best possible system ought, however, to be the object of our aim.
It is an important consideration, that this plan would greatly facilitate the formation of an American bibliography, or a complete account of all books published in America.
By law, a copy of every book, for which a copyright shall be secured, in this country, is required to be delivered to the Smithsonian Institution, and to be preserved therein. It is hoped, that additional legislation, on this subject, will soon lighten the burdens of publishers, and secure the observance of this law, _in all cases_.
The collection of books thus obtained and preserved, will present a complete monumental history of American literature, during the existence of the law. It is needless to enlarge upon its value, in this point of view. If, now, a list of these publications, as they come into the library, should, month by month, be published in a _Bulletin_, and the titles immediately stereotyped, the expense would be but trifling of issuing, every year, a catalogue of books copyrighted in America, during the year, and printing, every five years, a general catalogue of American publications, up to that limit. Thus, monthly bulletins, annual lists, and quinquennial catalogues would furnish full and satisfactory records of American publications.
Another general consideration is, that this project looks towards the accomplishment of that cherished dream of scholars, _a universal catalogue_. If the system should be successful, in this country, it may eventually be so in every country of Europe. When all shall have adopted and carried out the plan, each for itself, the aggregate of general catalogues, thus formed--few in number--will embrace the whole body of literature extant, and from them, it will be no impossible task to digest and publish a universal bibliography. How much this would promote the progress of knowledge, by showing, more distinctly, what has been attempted and accomplished, and what yet remains to be achieved, and thus indicating the path of useful effort; how much, by rebuking the rashness which rushes into authorship, ignorant of what others have written, and adding to the mass of books, without adding to the sum of knowledge; how much, by giving confidence to the true and heroic student, who fears no labor, so that it bring him to the height at which he aims--the summit of learning, in the branch to which he devotes himself; are objects which deserve the hopeful attention of all who desire their attainment.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CATALOGUE AND A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY.
A catalogue of a library is, strictly speaking, but a list of the titles of the books, which it contains. It is not generally expected to give any further description of a book than the author gives, or ought to give in the title-page, and the publisher, in the imprint, or colophon; except the designation of form, which is, almost universally, added.
A bibliographical dictionary is supposed to contain, besides the titles of books, such descriptions, more or less extended, drawn from all available sources of information, as may be necessary to furnish means of identifying each work, of distinguishing its different editions, of ascertaining the requisites of a perfect copy, of learning all facts of interest respecting its authorship, publication, typography, subsequent casualties, alterations, etc., its market value, and the estimation in which it is held.
A catalogue is designed to show what books are contained in a particular collection, and nothing more. Persons in want of further information, are expected to seek for it in bibliographical dictionaries, literary histories, or similar works.
Inasmuch, however, as bibliographical works are not always accessible, or known to the investigator, additions are, not unfrequently, made to the titles, in catalogues, of such notices as belong more appropriately to bibliographical dictionaries, as above described. These, of course, impart to such catalogues greater value and usefulness.
As bibliographers, we cannot indeed but wish, that the catalogue of every library were a bibliographical dictionary of its books. Practically, however, we must restrict our efforts, within the limits of probable accomplishment. There is no species of literary labor so arduous, or which makes so extensive demands upon the learning of the author, as that of the preparation of such works. The most which one man can hope to effect, in this department, is to examine and describe books, in some special branch of knowledge, or books of some particular class, as _palæotypes_, books privately printed, a selection of books most esteemed by collectors, &c. It is too much to expect, that every librarian can find time, or possess learning, for such a description of all books under his care. Besides, this would be a waste of labor and of money. The same description would be prepared and printed, a hundred or a thousand times.
It is doubtless desirable, that such results of _original_ investigations of librarians, as are not to be found in any of the bibliographical dictionaries, should be given, in the catalogues which they publish. In other cases, also, as will appear hereafter, it may be important to give, in a catalogue, fuller and more accurate descriptions of books, than are to be found upon their title-pages; but the principle should be established, and ever borne in mind, that a catalogue, being designed to be merely a list of titles, with imprints and designations of size, all additional descriptions should be limited and regulated by explicit rules, in order to give uniformity and system to the work, and to restrict its bulk and cost, within reasonable bounds.
PREPARATION OF TITLES SO AS TO SERVE FOR BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR CATALOGUES.
It is proposed to prepare and stereotype catalogues of particular libraries, in such a manner, that the titles can be used, without alteration, for constructing a General Catalogue.
This requires, that the title of every book be such, as will apply to every copy of the same edition.
If the edition be different, the book is to be considered different. In almost every instance, the title also, is different. There are, indeed, cases, where the title of a book is the same, in two editions, while the body of the work is more or less altered. Such instances are, however, of rare occurrence. They are, or should be, recorded in bibliographical works. They could only be described by one, who should place the two books side by side, and compare them together. In general, titles vary with the editions. We may, therefore, in using a title transcribed from one copy of a book, for other copies, avoid trouble by preparing and stereotyping a new title for every distinct edition; treating new editions as new books. So that, if copies of various editions of a work exist in several libraries, each will appear with a distinct title, in the General Catalogue.
This method of forming a general catalogue requires, further, that _peculiarities of copy_, which it may be desirable to note in preparing the catalogues of particular libraries, should not be stated within the titles; but, if at all, in notes appended to the titles, and entirely separate from them.
One copy of the same edition of a book may be on vellum, another, on paper; one may be in quarto form, another in octavo; one may have cancelled leaves, another, the substituted leaves, another, added leaves; some may contain autographs; some, valuable manuscript notes; others may be bound by Roger Payne, etc., etc. These are peculiarities of copy, and they may be as numerous as the number of copies in the edition. They are not noticed in title-pages, and, consequently, would not modify the entries in a catalogue, which takes cognizance of titles alone.
The printed matter, which constitutes the book, as a literary production, is not altered, in any of these cases, except in that of cancelled, substituted, or added leaves. It is indeed true, that, occasionally, alterations are made in the body of a book, while it is passing through the press: that is to say, after a few copies have been struck off, some error may be discovered and corrected, or some word may be substituted for another. But, such changes are always slight, and can only be detected, by comparing two or more copies of a work together. In the case of cancelled leaves, it may, sometimes be desirable to print in the general catalogue, the description of rare and important copies possessed by particular libraries. But these cases would occur comparatively seldom. The rule would be, to omit from the title to be stereotyped, all account of peculiarities, or defects of copies.
In cataloguing particular libraries, such peculiarities should be stated, upon the card, after the title, but separate from it. They may be printed, at the expense of such libraries, in the form of notes to their catalogues. The notes for any particular library may be made as extensive, as the means of the institution, and the learning and leisure of its librarian permit.
There is another particular, in which the catalogue title might vary, in different copies: that, of designation of size. The same book, in the same edition, may have copies in quarto, in octavo, and in duodecimo. The size of the printed page is, however, in all these cases, the same; otherwise, the edition is different. All difficulty, on this account, therefore, is obviated, and all confusion of editions prevented, by adopting, instead of, or in addition to the usual designation of _form_, as the indication of size, the measurement of the printed page, in inches and tenths. Other reasons for this mode of marking the size of books, with minute directions, will be given hereafter.
FORM OF THE CATALOGUE.
The titles constituting the catalogue may be variously arranged. They may be placed under the names of authors, and the names disposed in alphabetical order; they may be grouped in classes, according to subjects; or they may be made to follow the order of the date, or place of printing.
The two most common forms for catalogues, are the alphabetical and the classed. Much controversy has arisen respecting their comparative usefulness. It is not necessary to revive it here, since the system now proposed, renders it easy to vary the order of titles, so as to suit any desired form.
For the General Catalogue, however, it is, for several reasons, desirable to adopt the alphabetical arrangement.
It would be impossible to propose any system of classification, which would command general approval, or upon which a commission of competent bibliographers would be unanimous in opinion. A classification, founded upon the nature of things, though it has occupied the best thoughts of such men as Bacon, Leibnitz, D'Alembert, Coleridge, Ampère, and many others, has not yet been attained. Every classification which has been proposed or used, is more or less arbitrary, and consequently unsatisfactory, and liable to be altered or superseded.
If, however, it were possible to agree upon a system of classification, the attempt to carry it out would, in a work like that proposed, be fatal to uniformity. Where different men were applying the same system, their opinions would vary, with their varying intelligence and skill. This would lead to utter and irremediable confusion, and would eventually defeat all our plans.
Even were these objections obviated, the occurrence of fewer difficulties in constructing an alphabetical catalogue would still present a decisive argument in its favor. Even these are great. If increased, by an attempt at classification, they would soon lead to an abandonment of the work.
Another consideration of great weight is, that, in reprinting classified catalogues, and inserting additions, if the titles were kept in systematic order, the work of selecting those to be used, and of distributing them to their places, would have to be done by a person, who, besides being a practical printer, should be familiar with the bibliographical system adopted. This would be very expensive. Whereas, on the alphabetical plan, any printer could do the whole.
On general considerations, without special reference to those which are peculiar to this system of publishing, alphabetical catalogues are to be preferred;--catalogues in which all the works of each author are placed under his name, and the names of authors are arranged alphabetically; anonymous works being entered under the first word of the title, not an article or preposition. Such is now the general opinion of competent bibliographers and literary men.
The Edinburgh Review, in an able and interesting article upon the British Museum, holds the following language:
"It seems to have been almost universally agreed that the catalogue ought to be alphabetical. Some time ago the current of opinion among literary men seemed to be setting towards classed catalogues, or those in which the books are arranged according to subjects. We had hardly supposed that this illusion (as we hold it to be) had become so nearly obsolete as the evidence before us shows that it is: and this disappearance of a most injurious opinion, which never was entertained to any extent by the really experienced in bibliography, encourages us to hope that it will not be long before the _professional_ persons just alluded to [librarians] will be admitted to know best on all the points which have been raised relative to the care of a large library."
The experience of all students, of all who use books, if carefully noted, will show, that, in a vast majority of cases, whoever wishes to refer to books in a library, knows the names of their authors. It follows, that this form of arrangement must be, in the main, the most convenient; and if any other be pursued, it can but accommodate the minority, at the expense of the majority.
Still, it is indisputable that, oftentimes, the names of authors are not known; that one knows, merely, what subjects he wishes to investigate.
It may be said, that a catalogue, being designed to be merely a list of books contained in a library, is not to be expected to furnish this information; and that references to all authors, treating of any particular subjects, may be obtained from bibliographical works, encyclopædias, and other sources of information. This is true. But, unfortunately, these sources of information are not generally known, or not readily accessible, even to men of considerable attainments and scholarship.
It becomes, then, a question of importance how far the wants of such persons are to be provided for. The following remarks on this subject are worthy of attentive consideration: