College and Research Libraries how much it stimulates librarians to accept and to act on these recommendations.- William Vernon jackson, Graduate School of Library Science, University of Illinois. Shelf Classification American Library Classification, with Speczal Reference to the Library of Congress. By Leo E. LaMontagne. Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String Press, 1961. 443p. $9.50. This volume by Leo LaMontagne is as much biographical as it is historical. After an introductory section on Thomas Jeffer- son and the Library of Congress, a chapter is concerned with the work of Socrates, Plato, Callimachus, Thabanus Maurus, Avicenna, and others of the early period. LaMontagne notes the various ways in the approach to knowledge-the similarities and differences. "I have taken all knowledge to be my pro- vince," Bacon wrote to Lord Burghley in 1592 (p. 82). Knowledge has gone a long way since Bacon divided it into two parts: human knowledge (from the sense) , and theology (from revelation). This section is interesting but adds little to the direct de- velopment of the basic theme, a discussion of the Library of Congress classification. Duncan Campbell, a Boston bookseller, issued the first book classification in the United States-a sales catalog published in 1693-according to LaMontagne. The catalog dealt with the library of Samuel Lee, and the books were listed by language, size, and subject. The first classification used in Amer- ican libraries was the arrangement of reli- ious topics contained in Bibliotheca Paro- chialis of the Reverend Thomas Bray, is- sued in London in 1697. Bray's classification of religion contained ten main divisions and many subdivisions. The 1723 Harvard Col- lege arrangement (developed by Joshua Gee), the 1703 (?) classification of William Proctor for the William Byrd Collection, the 1731 essay of Samuel Johnson (of Guil- ford, Connecticut) on the classification of knowledge, and the 1743 classified catalog of Thomas Clap at Yale College are described by LaMontagne. In summary of these early arrangements, the author writes: "The classi- 356 fications thus far described reveal that Amer- ican library classification, like the culture of which it forms a part, was both derivative and original." How classification grew from simple to complex arrangements is shown in the de- velopment of the scheme ( 1764) for The Redwood Library, in Newport, Rhode Is- land, prepared by the Reverend Ezra Stiles, who later became president of Yale College. This arrangement was similar to the simple scheme of divisions in the catalog of Samuel Lee's library. Further steps in the road to complexity include the classified catalog of the Library Company of Philadelphia (1789), supposed to have been compiled by Zechariah Poulson, Jr.; the classification of T. M. Harris at Harvard College (1793); the 1816 classifications of A. E. B. Woodward (who developed the so-called "Catholepistemia") and of Jeremy Bentham (who developed his Chrestomathia). LaMontagne states that Woodward's system, destined for oblivion, contained much in the development of laws of classification-such "laws" as compre- hensiveness, logical division, correlation of subjects, approach from the simple to the complex, clear definition of coverage by subjects, clear definition of relationship be- tween subjects, appropriate terminology, and the absence of excessive subdivision. The 1821 Harvard College classification, the 1824 clasification of the American Philosophical Society, the system of the Charleston Society Library (1826), the introduction of the Brunet system at Harvard in 1830, and the classifications used at the Library Company of Philadelphia, the New York Society Library, Cambridge (Massachusetts) High School, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point are reviewed, as well as the con- tributions of Roswell Park, S. Hastings Grant, and Romain Merlin. The major contribution of this work is the discussion of the development of the Li- brary of Congress classification (chapters XIII-XVIII). The immediate usefulness of this volume, so long as there is not available a detailed guide to the Library of Congress classification, will be primarily the descrip- tion of the various schedules. The develop- ment and suggestions for the future of this system are considered. However, there is limited analysis of the pecularities of the separate classes. There appears still to be a need for a thorough and detailed manual on COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES the Library of Congress schedules. Outside of the scope of the study, apparently, was the development of more recent classifica- tions, although attention is given to the work of Dewey, Cutter, and others. Classifications subsequent to the L.C. are not discussed, al- though Bliss and Ranganathan are men- tioned. In respect to the future, it would ap- pear that the law librarians of the country should be clamoring for the Library of Con- gress to complete the K classification, even though it may not be (and cannot be) per- fect. Systematic arrangement of materials still appears to make sense in terms of econ- omy of use by both staff and clientele. La- Montagne properly suggests that perfection in classification is hard to come by, and that "A rude shed provides better protection from the elements than the blueprints of a man- sion." One point is clear; enough American libraries have committed themselves to the L.C. classification that they depend on the national library to keep it going and up-to- date.-Maurice F. Tauber} Columbia Uni- versity. r--------------------, THE SATURDAY REVIEW SAYS: 11 A great and needed work .. /' THE INTERPRETER'S BIBLE One of the most popular, most comprehensive commentaries avail- able today. Double text, exegesis, exposition all on the Working Page; plus Introductions, exhaus- tive General Articles, maps, charts and photographic illustrations. 12-volume set} $89.50 Each volume} $8.75 ABINGDON PRESS NASHVILLE 2, TENNESSEE In Canada: G. R. Welch Company, Ltd., Toronto In Australasia: Thomas C. Lothian, Melbourne J U I. Y 1 9 6 2 Library Surveys College and University Library Surveys 1938- 1952. By E. \Valfred Erickson. Chicago: ALA, 1961. (ACRL Monograph Number 25). liSp. $3.25. This survey of surveys provides a brief statement of the history of the device, de- scribes the scope and limitations of surveys in general, and provides some analysis of recommendations made in a dozen surveys conducted between I 938 and I 951 out of nineteen cited in Library Literature through I 952. The analysis covered 77 5 recommenda- tions and attempted to "ascertain to what extent those recommendations have been carried out, when they were achieved, what the influence of the surveys was, and whether the librarians agreed upon the recommenda- tions." As far as the analysis went, it accomplished the limited objectives the author set for him- self in his doctoral dissertation on which this monograph is based. In a sense this is the report of a post-mortem examination, with no attention paid to the animating spirit which inspired each of the surveys, infused it during its operation, and which was re- sponsible in part for the successes and fail- ures recorded. The concentration on tabula- tion of results led the author both to give a misleading appearance of precision in the results so carefully tabulated, and to under- state the values of social and political pres- sures which lead to correction of deficiencies to which surveys are intended to call atten- tion. It is to be hoped that some imaginative colleague with a real interest in the value of surveys will take on where Mr. Erickson left off and will examine the twelve surveys covered by this monograph, as well as others, in the light of the unstated objectives of the surveys, of the methods of persuasion used to effect changes, and of the resulting changes in the library climate of the institutions affected. Admittedly this ap- proach is difficult, but the results of such a study would constitute a valu- able sociological document at least as persuasive as Mr. Erickson's tabulations.- Marion A. MilczewskiJ University of Wash- ington Libraries. 357