Part 5
We hear a good deal in these days about the need of recreation, and not a word more than is true, but let us remember that the best recreation may consist in a simple change of work. Behold the arduous toil of the city lawyer, or banker, as on a holiday tour he climbs a peak of the Alps or the Adirondacks, or wades the chilly streams of Scotland or Canada a salmon rod in his hands. Why does he undergo fatigues so severe? Partly because they are freely chosen, partly because they are fatigues of an unwonted and therefore refreshing kind. So in the field before us to-day. Truth is not only stranger than fiction, it is more fascinating when once its charms are recognized and entertained. Our public schools throughout the land prove that a true story of exploration, of invention or discovery, of heroism or adventure, has only to be well told to rivet a boy's attention as firmly as ever did Robinson Crusoe or Treasure Island. When readers take up from instinctive appetite, or wise incitement, the best books about flowers or birds, minerals or trees, an art, a science, a research, they come to joys in new knowledge, in judgments informed and corrected, unknown to the tipplers and topers whose staple is the novel, good, bad and indifferent. And why, if we can help it, should public money ever be spent for aught but the public good?
With a new sense of what is implied in the trusteeship of literature, if we endeavor in the future to ally ourselves with the worthiest critics of books, we must bid good-bye to the temporary expedients which have cramped and burdened our initial labors. The work of the appraisal of literature requires a home, a Central Bureau, with a permanent and adequately paid staff of editors and assistants. The training of such a staff has already begun; in addition to the experience acquired by those enlisted in our present bibliographical tasks, instruction is now given in advanced bibliography at the New York State Library School at Albany, and doubtless also at other library schools. And at the Central Bureau, which we are bold enough to figure to ourselves, much more should be done than to bring books to the balances. At such a home, in New York, Washington, or elsewhere, every other task should proceed which aims at furthering the good that literature can do all the people. There might be conducted the co-operative cataloging now fast taking form; there should be extended the series of useful tracts begun by that of Dr. G. E. Wire on "How to start a library," by Mr. F. A. Hutchins on "Travelling libraries." At such a center should be exhibited everything to inform the founder of a public library; everything to direct the legislator who would create a library commission on the soundest lines or recast library laws in the light of national experience; there, moreover, should be gathered everything to arouse and instruct the librarian who would bring his methods to the highest plane. Thence, too, should go forth the speakers and organizers intent upon awakening torpid communities to a sense of what they miss so long as they stand outside our ranks, or lag at the rear of our movement. In the fulness of time such a bureau might copy the Franklin Society, of Paris, and call into existence a needed book, to find within this Association a sale which, though small, would be adequate, because free from the advertising taxes of ordinary publishing. To found and endow such a bureau would undoubtedly cost a great deal, and where is the money to come from? We may, I think, expect it from the sources which have given us thousands of public libraries, great and small. Here is an opportunity for our friends, whether their surpluses be large or little. When a gift can be accompanied by personal aid and counsel, it comes enriched. It is much when a goodly gift provides a city with a library, it would be yet more if the donation were to establish and maintain an agency to lift libraries everywhere to the highest efficiency possible, to give literature for the first time its fullest acceptance, its utmost fruitage.
In a retrospective glance at nineteenth century science, Professor Haeckel has said that the hundred years before us are not likely to witness such victories as those which have signalized the era just at an end. Assume for a moment that his forecast is sound, and that it applies beyond the immediate bounds of science, what does it mean for librarianship? It simply reinforces what in any case is clear, namely, that it is high time that the truth and beauty of literature known to the few made its way to all the people, for their enlightenment, consolation and delight. If the future battles of science are to be waged less strenuously than of yore, if scholarship has measurably exhausted its richest mines, let us give the broadest diffusion to the fruits of their triumphs past. In thus diffusing the leaven of culture the public library should take a leading, not a subordinate part. Its treasure is vaster and more precious than ever before. The world's literature grows much like the world's stock of gold, every year's winning is added to the mass already heaped together at the year's first day. In the instruction, entertainment and inspiration of every man and woman there is a three-fold ministry, that of art, of science, and of letters. Because letters bring to public appreciation, to popular sympathy, both art and science, and this in addition to their own priceless argosies, may we not say that of art, science and letters, the greatest of these is letters?
THE TRUSTEESHIP OF LITERATURE--II.
BY RICHARD T. ELY, _Director School of Economics, University of Wisconsin_.
It is my purpose to speak plainly and, if possible, forcibly, concerning what seems to me a grave menace to the progress of science, but in all that I shall say, I would have it understood that I have only the friendliest feelings personally for the gentleman who has brought forward what seem to me dangerous proposals. I appreciate his zeal for progress and his self-sacrificing efforts for human advancement in various directions, but I think that in this particular case--namely, the evaluation of literature, or the establishment of a judicature of letters, my friend is working against his own ideals.
I admit freely that the readers in our public libraries very generally need help in the selection of books, and that great assistance may be rendered them by judicious advice. Much time is wasted by those who read scientific and serious works which do not present the results of recent investigations: furthermore, as another consequence effort is misdirected and instead of producing beneficial results may do positive damage. The question may be asked: "Shall I read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of nations?' I hear it mentioned as one of the great works in the world's history." Probably many a librarian has had this precise question asked him. In giving an affirmative answer it will be most helpful to offer a few words explaining the circumstances under which it appeared one hundred and twenty-five years ago, and its relation to the subsequent development of economic schools and tendencies. Doubtless this work is frequently perused as if it were fresh from the press and were to be judged as a work appearing in 1901.
I further admit the harm which has come to individuals from the study of the so-called "crank" literature in economics and sociology, as well as in other branches of learning. Doubtless many a man is working vigorously in a wrong way and attempting to force society into false channels who might be doing a good work had his reading been well directed in a formative period.
But the magnitude of the interests involved in the proposal which greets us requires caution and conservatism in action. We must take a long, not a short, view of the matter, inquiring into remote and permanent results.
It is proposed, as I understand it, to have so-called expert opinions expressed concerning books, new and old; to secure as precise and definite estimates of their value as possible, and then by means of printed guides, and even card catalogs, to bring these opinions and evaluations before the readers in our libraries.
Let us reflect for a moment on what this implies. It means, first of all a judicial body of men from whom these estimates are to proceed. Have we such a body? Is it in the nature of things possible that we should have such a body? I say that so far as contemporary literature is concerned, the history of knowledge gives us a positive and conclusive negative answer--a most emphatic "No." Let anyone who knows the circumstances and conditions under which reviews are prepared and published reflect on what the attempt to secure this evaluation of literature implies. Many of us know a great deal about these circumstances and conditions. We have written reviews, we have asked others to write reviews, and we have for years been in contact with a host of reviewers. We may in this connection first direct out attention to the general character of the periodicals from which quotations are frequently made in the evaluation of literature. I say nothing about my own view, but I simply express an opinion of many men whose judgment should have great weight when I say that one of the most brilliant of these periodicals has been marked by a narrow policy, having severe tests of orthodoxy along economic, social and political lines, and displaying a bitterness and vindictiveness reaching beyond the grave. I mention no names, and the opinion may or may not be a just one; but it should be carefully weighed whether or not, or to what extent, the evaluations of such a periodical ought to be crystallized as it were: that is, taken from the periodical press and made part of a working library apparatus, to last for years.
Another periodical, an able magazine, which makes much of reviews is under the control of a strong body of men, but they stand for scarcely more than one line of thought among many lines. And sometimes very sharp and very hard things are said about those who believe that scientific truth is moving along one of these other lines. Indeed, the discreet person, knowing personally the reviewer and the reviewed, will not be convinced that there is always in the reviews, here as elsewhere, an absence of personal animosity. Let us for a moment reflect on this personal element in reviews, as it has surely fallen under the notice of every man with wide experience in these matters. As a rule, the reviewers are comparatively young and inexperienced men, frequently zealous for some sect or faction. Sometimes great leaders of thought write reviews, but generally they are unable to find the time to do so. As a result in our reviews in the best periodicals it will frequently be found that an inferior is passing judgment on a superior, and furthermore, reviewers share in our common human nature, and the amount of personal bias and even at times personal malignity found in reviews and estimates of books is something sad to contemplate. An unsuccessful candidate for a position held by an author has been known to initiate a scandalous and altogether malicious attack in a review.
In the next place, I would call your attention to the absence of objective standards. Necessarily are the standards personal and subjective; particularly and above all in economics, but in high degree in sociology, ethics and philosophy in general, and religion. Biological reviews have displayed in marked degree the subjective personal element. Chemistry, physics, astronomy and mathematics probably are best of all fitted for evaluations free from personal bias.
It may be asked what damage will result from evaluation. Passing over grave injustice to individuals, we observe that they must lead to the formation of what Bagehot aptly called a crust, preventing the free development of science. We have been laboring for years to obtain scientific freedom, freedom in teaching, freedom in learning, freedom in expression. For this end many a battle has been fought by noble leaders of thought. Indeed, every new movement of thought has to struggle to make itself felt, and to struggle precisely against those who control the most respectable avenues of publication; against the very ones who would be selected to give expert opinions and make evaluations of literature. Call to mind the opposition to Darwin and Huxley--although they were especially and particularly fortunate in early gaining the adherence of scientific men--also the opposition to Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo and John Stuart Mill--and to the last named, even now, some would on a scale of 100 give an evaluation perhaps of 50, others of 65--still others 80 and 90. Recently an economic book appeared of which one widely quoted periodical said that it illustrated a _reductio ad absurdum_ of false tendencies, while another expert opinion inclined to place it among the great works of the age. It would seem to me that if we are to have formal evaluations, they should at least be restricted to works which have been before the public for a period of fifty years.
We have in this proposal, as I take it, an attack on liberty, proceeding from one who would not willingly attack it, but illustrating the truth of the saying "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." It is proposed to publish virtually an _index librorum prohibitorum_ and an _index expurgatorius_. And of all efforts ever conceived along this line, this is precisely the worst because of its apparently impersonal character. Let the ordinary reader go to a guide and find a book described as unscientific and superficial, and what weight can it have for him. The authority has spoken. It is well enough for librarians personally to guide and direct their constituencies, and one review may be weighed against another review. The old methods even must be used by librarians cautiously, and they are ample for the purpose to be attained. The great point is that there should be a fluid current of opinion, and every facility for a revision of judgment should be maintained. Reviewers themselves change their views. I, myself, remember reviews which I wrote of works by two distinguished American authors, which I now regret, as my estimates were, I believe, not altogether sound and did an injustice to the authors, namely John Fiske and Lester F. Ward. But after all, I suppose no special harm was done, but if extracts from these reviews had been made part of a system of evaluation it would have been different.
Librarians as librarians must watch with impartiality the struggles among tendencies and schools of thought, and above all things, endeavor to keep open a free way for new truth.
BOOK COPYRIGHT.
BY THORVALD SOLBERG, _Register of Copyright, Washington. D. C._
In order to keep within the time limit provided in the program I have been obliged to refrain from even touching upon many points, but have endeavored to present certain general principles governing copyright in books. I shall, therefore, only attempt to make clear, as briefly as possible:
1. What is copyrighted, _i.e._, what can properly be designated as a "book" in order to secure copyright protection thereon;
2. What is the nature of the protection secured under the copyright law;
3. The limitation in time during which the protection applies, and its territorial limitations;
4. Who may obtain protection--the difference between an "author" and a "proprietor";
5. International copyright;
6. What conditions and formalities are required to be complied with in order to secure copyright;
7. The functions of the Copyright Office; and
8. Possible copyright law amendment.
1. _What is copyrighted?_
The copyright statutes enumerate the articles or classes of articles subject-matter of copyright, and first in the list stands "book." The first consideration is, therefore, What is to be understood by the term "book" as thus used? or, in other words, What is a "book," as that designation is employed in the copyright law?
The answer is indicated in the provision of the federal constitution upon which our copyright legislation is founded. This paragraph of the constitution (section 8 of article 1) grants to Congress--"in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts"--the right to enact laws to secure "to authors ... the exclusive right to their ... writings...." This provision is, of course, to be broadly interpreted, but, using the exact wording of the law, it is the _writing_ of an author--his literary composition--the prose or poetical expression of his thought--which makes his "book," as the term is used in the copyright law. In order to be a "book," subject to protection under the copyright law, the author's production must have this literary characteristic. The _quality_ of the literary ingredient is not tested, but its presence is requisite. Hence not everything which may ordinarily be called a book is fitly so nominated, in order to indicate the subject-matter of copyright; while some productions not ordinarily designated as "books" may properly be thus classified in order to be registered as a preliminary to copyright protection.
That an article possesses the corporeal characteristics of a book is of little consequence. The _literary_ substance, not the material form, primarily determines the matter. An article contributed to a newspaper or a periodical--although but a few paragraphs in length--is a "book" under the copyright law, while a bookkeeper's ledger, to all outward appearance answering the description, is not a "book" so far as registering its title to secure copyright is concerned. A calendar whose main features are literary may doubtless be properly registered as a "book," but a pack of playing cards with pictures on the backs, even though each card may be furnished with a linen guard and all bound up, with a plausible title-page, so as to resemble a book, is not a "book" in the meaning of the copyright law.
Orderly arranged information produced in a form which would commonly be termed a chart cannot be registered under that designation which in the copyright law is applicable only to a chartographical work, but may properly be called a "book"; while a so-called book of coupons, or railway tickets, or of blank forms, cannot be thus entitled.
In brief, it should be a book in the ordinary understanding of a work of _literature_ or art, and may not include a production whose main feature is some original idea, however ingenious or fanciful its form may be, or is of the character of something invented. Invention must look for protection to the patent law.
2. _The nature of the protection secured._
What is the nature of the protection secured? Copy-right, _i. e._, the right of copy--the right to make copies. According to the words of our own statute, the author of a book "shall have the _sole_ liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing and vending the same." The _exclusive_ liberty of reproducing his work, and the restriction of the liberty of every one except the author to multiply copies constitute the literary property. It is a much-discussed question whether the author's privilege of copyright is a natural right or was created by legislation. Granting the production a proper one, it would seem that the author of a literary creation has a natural right to the unrestricted use and enjoyment of it. As Professor Langdell recently put it: "he has the right of use and enjoyment, because he can exercise such right without committing any wrong against any other person, and because no other person can prevent his exercising such right without committing a wrong against him." The author's creation is his own, and he has a natural right to the use of it without interference. The state does not create this right, but recognizes it and protects it. Protection is secured by restricting the liberty of other people in the use of the author's creation. Just how far this restriction should go is still a moot question. The law says, however, that you may not reproduce in whole or in part an author's book without his written consent, signed in the presence of two witnesses. It does not say that you may not read the book, nor are you forbidden to read it in public, even for profit, although in the case of musical and dramatic compositions public performance or representation for profit without the author's special--not implied--consent is not only directly prohibited, but is punishable by imprisonment. The International Publishers' Congress, which met in Paris in June, 1896, passed a resolution to the effect that the reproduction of a literary work by means of public readings, in case such readings were held for purposes of profit, ought not to be permitted without the consent of the copyright proprietor. By the Act of March 3, 1891, the exclusive right to translate or dramatize his book is reserved to the author. In this unrestricted and unlimited exclusive right of translation and dramatization our law has exceeded the usual trend of legislation in regard to the author's control over his work in these directions. Foreign legislation usually only reserves to the author the exclusive right to translate or dramatize for a limited fixed period of time, and if he has not himself produced a translation or dramatization within that period, another person may.
It has occasionally been intimated that the efforts made by the public libraries to secure the constant circulation of the same book is a trespass upon the rights of the author, as he is presumably thus subjected to the loss of readers who would otherwise also become purchasers of his book. A case has just been decided to test an author's right to object to having copies of his own copyright editions of his books sold in a manner not indicated by himself as volumes of a so-called collected edition of his works. The decision, on first hearing, was adverse to the author's contention.
It is the _literary expression_ of the author's thoughts and ideas which is the subject-matter of the protection, and not primarily the thoughts and ideas themselves. These last may or may not be original with the author, but once he has made public a thought or an idea he has given it away; he cannot control its use or application. The author of a translation of a book--the original work being in the public domain--may obtain a copyright upon his own translation, but doing so will not debar another from producing an original translation of his own of the same work and obtaining copyright registration for the same.
Copyright does not give to any one monopoly in the use of the _title_ of a book, nor can a title _per se_ be subject-matter of copyright. It is the book itself, the literary substance which is protected, the title being recorded for the identification of the work.
3. _Time and territorial limitations of copyright._
A few countries still grant copyright in perpetuity, but usually the term of protection is limited either to a certain number of years, or to a term of years beyond the date of the author's death. This last provision is the more general, and the term varies from seven years after the author's death in England, for instance, to eighty years after the author's death in Spain. The two most common terms are thirty years to fifty years beyond the life of the author. Our own legislation provides for two possible terms of protection. The first being for twenty-eight years from the date of the recording of the title in the Copyright Office, and the second, an extension of fourteen years from the expiration of the first term.