Part 30
CHAIRMAN: Before we have the show of hands, may I say one thing more? I don't believe that most of you that have not been using these cards know how useful the contents note is or what it is for. It is to furnish your analyticals. If you want to analyze a volume of essays, for example, your contents note does it all for you with just a little bit of clerical work when the cards come in. You have fifty items that you would like to represent in your catalog, and the card does it all for you. It is costing you one to three cents instead of fifty or sixty cents.
Mr. L. P. LANE: I have learned a good deal since I have been in the Boston Public Library by observing the practices which that library has departed from. I know the library did in times past print contents and have an entry designed to fit one particular item of contents and then underline that item on the card. That has been found so unsatisfactory that when we now recatalog anything and deem any item of contents worthy a separate entry we catalog that item separately and print a second card.
Mr. ANDREWS: If the Library of Congress will do this we do not care for many contents notes. I didn't understand the Library of Congress proposed to print analyticals, but rather to print contents notes; that they, and most of the libraries that print cards, found their economy on this point. But it is really the Library of Congress that must be consulted as to the desirability of many contents notes.
Mr. HANSON: That has been one of the perplexing questions with us in printing cards. We do use the contents as analyticals to some extent, underscoring the particular item on the heading given. But where an analytical is what we catalogers call an imprint analytical, that is, with separate title and pagination, we find it more economical to print a separate card for that title. In other cases and where we find it very inconvenient to use the contents card, we print analyticals.
CHAIRMAN: My own opinion is that it is best to put the collation at the end. It is easiest found there. The thing I want to see is to have it go below the contents. I want to say one thing more. The reason you think more than one per cent. consult the note is because you are librarians. Take your popular libraries, and they deserve to be considered, how many readers are going to look for that note?
Miss CRAWFORD: I am somewhat undecided in mind between the two standpoints. It seems to me that the contents, from the nature of the case and from the accessibility of the catalog, belongs rather at the top. I believe you are right when you say that ninety per cent. would use the contents first, rather than the bibliographical note. But the critical notes and any other general information should come right next to the contents.
Mr. JONES: I wish to repeat that "collation" is a bibliographical description of the book; if you want to describe a book or to order from a bookseller you turn to that data. Collation, it seems to me, comes naturally after the title, and I still hold that to separate it from the title is not in accord with the general bibliographical practice of the world.
CHAIRMAN: As many as are in favor of placing contents note immediately following the title, please rise. Three persons rose.
CHAIRMAN: As many as are in favor of placing contents note after collation, please rise. 52 persons rose.
CHAIRMAN: The next question is a recommendation from the committee: "_That a column be set aside in the Library Journal for notifications to libraries of decisions on doubtful points; e. g., 'Kate Douglass Wiggin should not be changed to Riggs; or, Automobiles should be classified ...'_"
In other words, that a kind of department be created, when the Central Bureau is created, for giving librarians throughout the country a notion of how these matters are to be treated. What is the opinion? Is there any discussion? If not we will go on to the next point.
A MEMBER: No discussion means that we agree to it, I understand.
CHAIRMAN: I suppose so. If it doesn't you should say so quickly.
A MEMBER: Does this recommendation say _Journal_ or journals?
CHAIRMAN: _Journal_ is the word used. The _Library Journal_ is the official organ of the A. L. A. Probably if the committee had gone beyond that it would have been exceeding its province.
"_The committee earnestly recommends that the practice of giving dates of birth and death be used extensively. It is convinced that a very large share of the work has already been done and may be easily obtained for the use of the Central Bureau. Expressions from various members of the committee have shown a great readiness to assist in this._"
Mr. MERRILL: I would like to inquire whether that means that dates shall be given only to distinguish men of the same name or whether they shall be used in every case.
CHAIRMAN: It is not designed that the use of dates be intended only for distinguishing writers, but it is urged that dates be given extensively.
Mr. BOWKER: Doesn't that mean that the dates should be used where the authors are not of the same names?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Mr. BOWKER: In the case of living authors, is it intended to give date of birth if possible?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Miss BROWNE: At the Boston Athenæum for years they have been giving those dates on their cards, and now they are scratching them off.
Mr. BOWKER: Does anybody know why?
Miss BROWNE: I believe they consider they are not as desirable as a means of distinction as some phrase might be, and so they scratch off the date and give, for instance, "Henry James, _Novelist_; Emerson, _Essayist_."
Miss WAGNER: How would they classify William Morris?
A MEMBER: Or Andrew Lang?
CHAIRMAN: The next question is the following recommendation of the committee: "_The committee recommends that the Central Bureau prepare a biographical card giving the fullest form of name, dates, official and honorary titles and degrees, membership of academies, etc., and all forms of names and pseudonyms used._"
Mr. FLETCHER: I suppose the idea is to prepare a biographical card for each author for whom any card is issued. I don't know exactly how it should be worked. I want to call your attention to the fact that the Advocates' Library of Edinburgh tried this in preparing the first two volumes of their catalog; and when they got the two volumes printed they concluded it was too expensive, and gave it up. I wonder how many libraries would advocate that the Library of Congress shall furnish us cards, not only for the books, but whenever an author comes for whom they have not furnished such a card that they shall furnish us a biographical card, which we shall pay for? I do not understand that the Library of Congress is preparing such a card now. It may be worthy of discussion whether we want such a card prepared.
Miss AMBROSE: It seems to me a card of that kind would be extremely helpful in smaller libraries that are limited in biographical books.
Mr. JONES: I would suggest that in the case of authors for whom we most need those facts, new authors, the facts would not be available. Could we have a copyright note by which each author should furnish the desired facts?
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hanson could answer that, perhaps.
Mr. HANSON: I have familiarity with copyright authors that many librarians do not meet with, but whom we must have information about to distinguish from other well-known authors of the same name. We have a method of getting at them through the copyright records, and we write them, sending a blank, and occasionally ask them to give information of their other works. That is put on a preliminary card, and before every new author such a biographical card is inserted. I believe this is an old practice, used in many libraries.
Mr. BOWKER: The Publishing Board would like a show of hands on how many libraries would like such a biographical card. At first sight this struck me as a most valuable suggestion. It would, of course, cost the extra half cent or cent--whatever it might be--for the card; on the other hand, it might be of great value to the reader. I suggest that we have a show of hands, not _pro_ and _con_--simply _pro_.
Miss VAN VALKENBURGH: I am especially interested in this, because we tried such a card in our library. We thought an information card was going to be a desirable thing. We tried it for about two years, and we found it was very little used indeed for biographical purposes. People wanted more information than we could give on a biographical card. Of course it is very desirable to differentiate authors of the same name.
Miss AMBROSE: Have those cards a distinct purpose, as of assisting the catalogers aside from the public?
Miss VAN VALKENBURGH: From the standpoint of a cataloger who has done it, we didn't find it useful to us. It was more work than help.
Mr. BRETT: Wouldn't it be more valuable to the small library than to the larger library? A great many of the smaller libraries haven't time to look up authors. It seems to me it would be of value in our library.
Mr. ANDREWS: I think those cards would be of use not only to small libraries, but to readers in larger libraries. I do not say, though, that I think it was the purpose to print a card for every author. If the heading used on the Library of Congress card gave all the information desirable, I don't see any use of printing it again. I hope the proposition will be put in three forms: Those who want such a card for every author; those who only want a distinctive card in cases where distinction is desired; and those who do not care for such a card at all.
CHAIRMAN: As many as favor such a card for general use, please rise. 16 persons rose.
CHAIRMAN: As many as favor such a card for distinctive purposes only, please rise.
Miss VAN VALKENBURGH: If we are going to have the same material on the other cards we won't need it here.
One person rose.
CHAIRMAN: As many as do not care for such a card at all, please rise. None voted.
CHAIRMAN: We have still another of these topics: "_The committee recommends as strongly as it can the importance of placing the subject headings and classification numbers (D.C. and E.C.) on the bottom of the card._"
Miss BROWNE: These subject headings are simply suggestive. If any cataloger has already started with, for example, "Birds" instead of "Ornithology," he can simply go on as he has begun. The same way with the D.C. and E.C. numbers. There are certain ones that perhaps are absolute; others are suggested to go in one place, but would go perfectly well in three or four other places; you take the one that fits in with your scheme; if you have no scheme you can use the one that is suggested.
Mr. FLETCHER: The Committee on Rules has recommended this, and unless objection is presented here this meeting might endorse this recommendation.
W. M. SMITH: I don't see how these marks could be put on without preliminary classifying.
Mr. HANSON: If the work is done at the Library of Congress, of course the book has to be classified, and it is very easy to translate any classification mark into either D.C. or E.C. It would be an additional cost, of course, to print two or three headings at the bottom of the card, but it has to be done.
CHAIRMAN: In other words, the work has to be done for the Library of Congress.
Miss KROEGER: The subject headings are the most expensive part of the catalog. It would be a mistake to leave off the marks.
CHAIRMAN: A show of hands is called for. As many as favor recommendation of this rule, please rise. 70 persons rose; contrary, none.
Mr. BOWKER: I would like to say a word upon the question which was raised of printing certain matter in the _Library Journal_. While the _Library Journal_ is technically the official organ of the A. L. A. it would seem desirable to send such material to all the library periodicals, and I should suppose that it would be understood that the committee might so do.
CHAIRMAN: In the formal report of the committee to the Publishing Board the same plan of numbering is followed that was followed in the last issue, or edition, of Cutter's rules, of the A. L. A. rules. A number of changes, additions, excisions and emendations have been made. I will read the first.
"1a. Enter books under surnames of authors when ascertained, the abbreviation _Anon._ being added to the titles of works or editions published anonymously."
Now the question has been raised since, by a member of the committee, and it was desired that it be placed before this section for decision, If the heading of an anonymous book is always bracketed is it necessary to add the abbreviation "_Anon._" to the end of the title?
Mr. JOSEPHSON: It sometimes happens that an author signs his name at the end of the preface. In that case the name is not on the title-page, and should be bracketed on the heading. We have to distinguish those from the really anonymous books in some way. You have to do one of two things, either put the abbreviation "Anon." or the full word "Anonymous" on the top line, or, as we do in The John Crerar Library, put a note at the bottom.
Miss CRAWFORD: It has been my experience that the word "Anon." at the end of the line is sometimes confusing to the reader and brings up all sorts of questions, and is taking space that might be needed for something else. I do not see its value, and sometimes it is positively misleading. The bracket expresses all that is of real use, and it doesn't matter whether the author's name appears in some other place in the book; at any rate it was not on the title-page. The brackets tell that, and I don't see the use of the abbreviation.
Miss WAGNER: I don't see that the public are interested in brackets or in the word "Anon." It is for the public that the card is being made, I understand.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: When I spoke I went on the supposition that the title entry would, as is now usual, give the title only and omit the author's name from the title. But if, as I hope, the Publishing Board will decide to have the title-page copied exactly, giving the author's name in the title as it is done on the title-page, then you don't need to distinguish the anonymous authors from those who have signed in any other place than the title-page, except that in the former case you put a bracket around the name. As to the objection that the public is not concerned with the brackets, that may be true; but the librarian is very much concerned with knowing whether a book is published anonymously or not. I should like to have instead of brackets a footnote, telling "published anonymously" or "signed at the end of title-page" or "signed at end of the book."
Mr. FLETCHER: I would like to call attention to one or two things. In the first place, many popular libraries might like to have extremely simple cards. They will have to realize that they must take a good deal of information they do not want if they are to take the cards made for all libraries. Mr. Josephson's idea is a good one, that technicalities shall be avoided in favor of good, plain English notes. "Anon." is obscure to a great many people, while "published anonymously" is pretty plain English. If such a note follows it is not necessary to use any brackets.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: I rise to suggest that we should discuss the question of _size notation_.
Mr. FLETCHER: What we have to consider here is whether this meeting would favor one method or the other in size notation; and a consideration of that question might be largely affected by the further question, Is either of these methods to be followed for the printed cards? If you should be told that in all probability neither of them would be followed, it would prevent a good deal of waste of time in discussing one as against the other. We have two old methods that are mentioned in the reports. The third method, which finds a great deal of favor and which may be adopted by the Publishing Board, is that the size notation shall be represented by a mark giving the absolute measurement of the book, perhaps in centimeters, perhaps in inches and fractions.
Mr. HANSON: These three questions came before the committee at the meeting at Atlantic City; one was to give the fold symbol, as is used all over Europe and in the larger libraries of this country; the other was to give the letter symbol adopted by the A. L. A. in 1877; the third, presented by Mr. Hopkins, was to give measurements in centimeters of the letterpress and of the page--not of the binding. A minority report was submitted by Mr. Currier, Miss Kroeger and myself urging the fold symbol. Mrs. Fairchild, Mr. Cutter and Miss Browne are the majority, because I understood Mr. Hopkins to stand with them.
Miss KROEGER: Mrs. Fairchild was undecided, saying she was inclined to the exact measurement in centimeters; Miss Browne and Mr. Cutter voted for the old letter symbol; so there was no majority of the committee. Mr. Hopkins's vote was for the exact size. It was left with the Publishing Board to decide.
Mr. HANSON: The report is for the figure, but with a strong predilection of the members who signed it towards exact measurement, providing that should be adopted by the Publishing Board. Three of us argued in favor of the fold symbol. There were too main reasons argued, one that the great majority of readers in this country were familiar with the figure; the 4to, 8vo and 12mo gave them the size of the book; and that the majority of libraries used that rather than the letter. The other was in favor of uniformity. We found that the fold symbol as a measure of height, not in the old sense, was advocated by the Prussian, the Italian and the French university libraries and others. But if the Publishing Board should decide to adopt size measurement in centimeters I do not believe there is anyone of the committee who will insist very strongly on the retention of the one or the other.
Mr. HARRIS: I think that bibliographically it is a mistake to take the old fold symbol and apply it to size notation. It is not size--it represents form notation. It is much simpler to give size in inches or in centimeters, whichever you prefer, rather than to use the symbol which denotes fold.
L. P. LANE: It was said that the fold symbol was now almost never used to indicate the fold. In the Boston Public Library we use it to indicate the fold for foreign books and old books. We also use the same symbol in the case of American books to indicate size. There is considerable dissatisfaction with the practice and some of the cataloging staff would prefer to give the size in inches. How would that apply to books not in the condition in which they were published? Also I should like to ask whether it might not be possible where the fold is easily distinguished, to give both size and fold.
Mr. HANSON: That is really the practice of the Prussian university libraries.
Miss BROWNE: My thesis for defending the size letter is that 25 years ago the A. L. A. thrashed this matter all over and decided on the size symbol. Mr. Bowker has used that letter symbol from that time on. Miss Kroeger found a very large proportion of the libraries using the letter symbol; library classes are teaching the letter symbol. My chief objection to the fold symbol is that we are making one sign serve two uses, which I think is always bad.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: If the Library Association 25 years ago decided to use one symbol or another symbol, that is no reason why we should do so now. The objection to using the fold symbol to denote size is, among other things, as Mr. Lane suggested, that you need it in case of old books to tell the fold. The only rational designation of size is by centimeters, or inches, if you prefer. There is of course one difficulty in using accurate measurement in centimeters, if you have a book that has been bound and cut down. But that can be overcome, I think, by letting the measurement mean letterpress and nothing else. In ordinary cases you know about how wide a margin is if you know the side of the letterpress; it is always a certain proportion. You don't need the size to tell on what shelf the book is put, because that is given by the call number. So in order to find a book you don't need the size notation; you need it to see what size the page is. It is a purely bibliographical notation.
[Mr. Hanson here read rule for size notation for books "notable for age or rarity."]
Mr. BOWKER: In the days of our youth, in fact almost as soon as we were born, this Association, as Miss Browne has indicated, adopted the letter symbol; and it seems to me that the reasons that operated for the choice of the letter symbol are stronger now than they were then, because the symbol has in the meantime come into quite general, if not universal use. The Association at that time had a phrase to indicate size. The objections to the old fold symbol still remain, and I think one very strong one has been stated. It is not only that the numerical system of 8vo, 12mo, etc., has ceased to mean what it originally meant and is confused with measurement size, but that it is used in England and America with utterly different meanings; and that difference continues. That is to say, the English use crown octavo and post octavo and two or three names for 12mo, in such a way as to cross our use of the word 8vo and 12mo and make a double confusion. I feel very strongly, for one, that the method of breaking over from the octavo and duodecimo, etc., the figure designation, into a definite and accurate letter designation was a very ingenious and very useful move. It is difficult to get general adoption of a modification of that sort, but the adoption has been quite general, and to me it would seem a very great retrogression to go back to the old figure symbol; we had better adhere to the A. L. A. notation of 25 years ago and custom since, and give a symbol which is in no sense confusing or misleading, following that, if you please, with the actual size measurement in centimeters.
Mr. RODEN: I understand, of course, that we cannot legislate upon the subject, and possibly our discussion will not influence the legislature. At the same time, as a representative of a popular library in the middle west, I cannot help but regard with apprehension the small but insidious innovations which these rules seem to display. Mr. Josephson has said measurement is a bibliographical detail; in popular libraries it is a gratuitous detail. It could very well, as the chairman suggests, be placed at the end. In the public I am dealing with I should say the old fold symbol is most commonly used and means most. It occurs to me that a combination of fold and letter symbols might be used. I suggest this as a little concession to the popular library, and it is the first I have heard this afternoon.
Mr. JONES: An objection to exact measurement is, that so far as the greater mass of books that we have to deal with are concerned, it is not very important whether they are a few centimeters larger or smaller, and such books are often rebound in such a way that if we have an exact description our copies do not correspond. I agree with Mr. Bowker that the symbols adopted by the A. L. A. 25 years ago are sufficiently well known by people who are handling books to be recommended as a system to be adopted.
Miss KROEGER: I have been teaching in the library school according to A. L. A. measurements, yet it has always seemed to me somewhat absurd. None of the publishers have adopted it; I suppose the newer libraries have. The replies received to the questions sent to the various libraries last June, except for the newer libraries, indicate that the majority are using the fold symbol, and they would like to know why, if the letter symbol is such a good thing, the publishers are still marking their books 8vo, 12mo and 4to. The fold symbol means more to the mass of the people than do the letters O or D.