College and Research Libraries


Scholarly Libraries and the 
N e w Cataloging Rules 
RT"* HE f o l l o w i n g four papers were presented at a joint meeting of the A . L . A . Division 

of C a t a l o g i n g and Classification and the Association of C o l l e g e and Reference 

Libraries, December 29, 1 9 4 1 . 

By L U C I L E M . M O R S C H 

The N e w Edition of the A . L . A . Catalog Rules 

Miss Morsch is chief of the Descriptive 

Cataloging Division, Library of Congress. 

T o represent the catalogers of the 

country in a consideration of the A.L.A. 

Catalog Rules, preliminary American 

second edition, is a tremendous order, first 

because their needs vary so greatly and 

second because it has not been possible to 

get the opinions from many types of li-

braries. I am assuming, however, that, 

because I represent also the L i b r a r y of 

Congress whose printed catalog cards are 

widely used by all types of libraries and 

whose practices are in general those of 

the A . L . A . catalog rules, w h a t is satis-

factory for the L i b r a r y of Congress should 

be, for the most part, satisfactory for other 

libraries. I have, however, attended a 

number of meetings of catalogers discuss-

ing the rules and a f e w weeks ago sat for 

t w o days w i t h representatives of several 

of our largest libraries to obtain their 

opinions on part t w o of the new edition. 

Permit me to stress the fact that w e are 

discussing not a new set of rules nor a 

set of new rules, but rather a new edition 

of the rules of 1908. T h i s is a very im-

portant factor in the discussion because it 

makes clear that the C a t a l o g Code Re-

vision Committee has not proposed any 

substantial changes in our practice. It has 

been perhaps too conscious of the cost of 

recataloging to recommend many changes 

even when it saw that some might be 

desirable. Instead its chief contribution 

has been to expand the rules of 1908 to 

make them more intelligible, a little less 

open to various interpretations. T h i s has 

been done by elaborating the rules and 

by illustrating them w i t h many examples. 

T h e r e are, to be sure, some new rules to 

cover material not specifically mentioned 

in the original rules, as for example the 

rules to cover the entry for adaptations, 

dramatizations, and parodies. B u t these 

are merely statements of present practice 

and the result of demonstrated needs rather 

than theoretical expansions concocted in 

the minds of the committee. In fact, 

in the words of the chairman, " R u l i n g s 

have not been attempted for cases which 

seemed of an exceptional character, nor 

when there was insufficient precedent or 

an insufficient number of examples as a 

basis for codification."1 

1 A.L.A. Catalog Rules. P r e l i m i n a r y A m e r i c a n 
second edition. Chicago. A . L . A . , 1941, p. xiv. 

MARCH, 1942 
12 7 



Uniformity of Entry 

In the opinion of the catalogers this 
is one of the chief failings of the new 
edition. It does not go far enough in 
covering the various types of material 
which we have to handle from day to day. 
W e must have uniformity of entry if we 
are to succeed in any cooperative work. 
For uniformity is essential to effective in-
terchange and cooperation. In these days 
of challenging the form of our catalogs, 
when some critics of the catalog are ad-
vising the omission of subject entries and 
the reliance instead on subject bibliogra-
phies, others the omission of title entries, 
still others the separation of the catalog 
into its various component parts, there is 
only one entry on which everyone apparent-
ly agrees and that is the author or main 
entry. Even the most radical advocates of 
the catalog as a mere finding list instead 
of the great bibliographical tool we have 
been developing for half a century have 
not suggested that we need not make an 
entry for the person, personal or corporate, 
responsible for the work. 

If, then, we are to succeed in any 
cooperative w o r k — n o t only the extension 
of the use of Library of Congress or other 
printed cards but cooperative book u s e — 
we must have standardization of entries. 
In a recent statement on the use of the 
national union catalog to decrease descrip-
tive cataloging costs,2 George A . Schweg-
mann, Jr., its director, stressed the need 
for standardization of entries by strict 
adherence to the new A.L.A. Catalog 
Rules, or a modification of them. Only 
such standardization can keep a catalog 
of eleven million entries from chaos with-
out expensive and not always effective 
editing of entries received. 

2 L e t t e r of D e c . n , 1941, to Tens N y h o l m , as-
sistant l i b r a r i a n , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a L i b r a r y , 
B e r k e l e y . 

Not Far Enough in Scope 

I have said that the Rules do not go far 
enough in scope, that we cannot leave to 
the judgment of individual catalogers, re-
gardless of the quality of that judgment, 
a choice of several entries in the many 
cases of material not covered by the Rules 
and which we are handling from day to 
day. Let me illustrate with a few ex-
amples. 

H o w would you enter the name of a 
radio program which might be the author 
as well as the subject of a book? Under 
its own name? Under its sponsor? 
Under the writer of the script, if known? 

H o w would you enter a radio sta-
tion? Under place? Under its own 
name? Under its owner ? Under some ar-
bitrary form heading such as we use: N e w 
Y o r k . Radio Station W N Y C . W N Y C is 
a municipal station. Should it be con-
sidered an official body? 

H o w would you enter the scenario of 
a motion picture based on a novel, such 
as Grapes of Wratht Under its author, 
if you could ferret it out? Under the 
author of the novel? Under the title? 

H o w would you enter publications of 
a government in exile? If the seat of the 
government is in territory occupied by an-
other government and publications are is-
sued from two sources both claiming to 
be official publications of the government, 
some means must be found to distinguish 
between them. For example, the govern-
ment of Holland headed by Queen W i l -
helmina is in England where it continues 
to issue acts of government printed in the 
official gazette, appearing in London. In 
addition, publications from the occupied 
territory of the Netherlands are also being 
issued. Does the official recognition of 
one of these bodies by our government affect 
its entry? 

118 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



In November 1937 President V a r g a s 

of B r a z i l divested all the governors, ex-

cept one, of the twenty states which com-

prise the United States of B r a z i l of their 

offices and reappointed them (or others) 

as federal i n t e r v e n e r s . 3 H o w w o u l d you 

enter the reports of these federal inter-

v e n e r s ? A r e they to be entered under 

B r a z i l or under their respective states? 

T h e case of B r a z i l is simply one exam-

ple of a large class of material not covered 

in the Rules—publications of officers ap-

pointed by a government body for the 

administration or control of a subordinate 

g o v e r n m e n t — a n d should not have a spe-

cial rule limited to this specific case. In 

fact, throughout the new edition there 

are numerous specific rules which should 

be reduced to examples to illustrate rules 

more broadly stated. T h e principles on 

which they are based should be included 

as a part of each rule to guide the cataloger 

in new types of cases. 

Rules Never Complete 

B u t even broad rules, w i t h the principles 

on which they are based, can never 

be frozen, can never be complete. T h e 

examples I have mentioned of radio pro-

grams, radio stations, motion picture sce-

narios, governments in exile, are problems 

of a changing w o r l d which the catalogers 

before 1908 had not known. N e w editions 

should be brought out much more fre-

quently than they have been and some 

means should be found, either as supple-

ments or through a column in one of the 

library journals to keep them entirely up 

to date. Should the L i b r a r y of Congress 

assume the responsibility of publishing its 

cataloging decisions as they are made4 

3 Statesman's Yearbook, 1940, p. 735. 
4 P r o p o s e d in a n o p e n l e t t e r to t h e c h i e f of t h e 

C a t a l o g D i v i s i o n , L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s . Library 
Journal 6 4 : 434, J u n e 1, 1939-

another channel might be unnecessary, but 

a still better plan might be for the A . L . A . 

Division of C a t a l o g i n g and Classification 

to appoint a standing committee on catalog 

rules, which w o u l d serve in an advisory 

capacity in the formulation, dissemina-

tion, and interpretation of new rules, and 

the publication of new editions as often 

as additions and revisions make them nec-

essary. Obviously each edition w i l l be 

larger than its predecessor, and for that 

reason w i l l be more valuable as an aid 

in the standardization of entries and as a 

tool to reduce the cost of cataloging by 

eliminating hours spent on correspondence, 

in discussion, and in seeking precedents. 

If this is true, w h a t is all the excitement 

about this new edition which has resulted 

in the statement in it that " C o n c e r n i n g 

the rules . . . there has been considerable 

disagreement as between some catalogers 

and some administrators. T h e latter are 

inclined to believe that there is too much 

elaboration and that the expense involved 

in f o l l o w i n g these rules in many cases 

w i l l be unjustified. A special committee 

of administrators and catalogers has been 

appointed to consider this v i e w and has 

been asked to report its conclusion as soon 

as possible."5 

I hope that this concern is limited en-

tirely to the elaboration of the code in 

part t w o which deals w i t h the physical 

description of the books: the transcription 

of the title, the imprint, collation, and 

notes, because most of the leading cata-

logers w i t h w h o m I have discussed the 

rules agree that this is where considerable 

simplification is in order. I, for one, 

think that part t w o should not be pub-

lished at all, that standardization of prac-

tice in details beyond the entry is not 

w o r t h the cost and is not even desirable 

5 A.L.A. Catalog Rules, op. cit., p. ii. 

MARCH, 1942 
12 7 



if our largest libraries require the detail 
of present practice. In this I am not 
representing most catalogers because they 
have been brought up to feel that the 
Library of Congress way is the correct 
way and that if no rule is in print to tell 
them what that way is they must deter-
mine it by precedent, or, lacking that, they 
must write to the Library of Congress 
for advice. It is a fact that we receive 
letters asking about punctuation of titles 
and details of collation. One order for 
cards within the last year was referred to 
us from the Card Division because it read: 
"Qualified order. Send only if revised 
to three dot author's name at beginning of 
title," and another asked for an explana-
tion of a case of a period being placed 
outside quotation marks. Another library 
reported that on page seventy-seven of a 
given book there was a diagram omitted 
from the collation of the L . C . printed 
card. These are all examples of what D r . 
Osborn has called legalistic cataloging. 
T h e y are not, however, in any way due 
to the elaborateness of the rules. Every 
good press has its style manual and at-
tempts to follow it as consistently as 
possible. T h e Library of Congress in 
printing its cards also attempts a reason-
able degree of consistency in these matters 
of style. It is not practical, however, for 
any other library to accept it except in 
principle. In the 1908 edition of the 
Rules the Library of Congress practice 
in many cases was stated as a supplemen-
tary rule. Unfortunately in the new edi-
tion only the Library of Congress practice 
is described, which implies that it is the 
ideal method for any library. Inasmuch 
as standardization in details of descrip-
tion is of doubtful value, why should the 
American Library Association publish part 
two of the new edition and thereby set 

up a dictatorial code? Instead the Library 
of Congress should publish a style manual 
describing its practice and be responsible 
for keeping it reasonably up to date. 
Other libraries could use it so far as it 
met their needs but would recognize it 
as the practice of the Library of Congress 
only and have no fear that if they violated 
it in any way their libraries would not 
have the stamp of approval of the Ameri-
can Library Association. 

Needs Being Studied 

In fact the Library of Congress itself 
is at present studying the relationship of 
its descriptive cataloging to the needs of 
the library and the needs of other libraries 
using its printed cards. Simplifications 
must be based on the minimum essentials 
of the needs of the Library of Congress and 
what those needs are must be determined 
by the reference and searching staffs. If 
the simple abbreviation "illus." is adequate 
description of the illustrative matter in 
a book containing portraits, maps, fac-
similes, and diagrams, the catalogers will 
gladly omit the more elaborate description 
now supplied. But it is definitely up to 
the departments for whom , the catalog is 
made and who work with the public for 
which it is made, to decide which details, 
if any, can be omitted. T h e catalogers 
can go no further than to challenge the 
needs and urge cooperation in seeking pos-
sible simplifications. 

Questions of the fulness of bibliographi-
cal description and the number of entries 
to be made for a book are matters which 
should vary in libraries according to the 
purposes of the institutions, the nature of 
the collections, and the use to be made of 
the catalog. T h e y cannot be decided for 
all libraries either by the A . L . A . or the 
Library of Congress. For many years 

120 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



administrators have been leaving these 

problems to the catalogers. Suddenly they 

have realized their own responsibilities in 

this field—responsibilities of making major 

policies of far-spreading e f f e c t s — w h i c h 

cannot be delegated to a single depart-

ment. A l o n g w i t h this realization has 

come a terrifying feeling of inadequacy be-

cause the problems are staggering in their 

proportions and the administrators have 

lost the contacts necessary to their solution. 

T h e y are having to rely very largely on the 

advice and experience of those "techni-

cians" w h o m a f e w alarmists have urged 

them to distrust. Hence the recent great 

concern on the part of some library ad-

ministrators. If there is a crisis in cata-

loging it is not a general crisis closely 

associated w i t h and attributable to the pub-

lication of the new edition of the Rules but 

an individual problem to be faced cour-

ageously at home. 

By F L O R A B. L U D I N G T O N 

The New Code and the College Library 

Miss Ludington is librarian, Williston 

Memorial Library, Mount Holyoke Col-

lege. 

L i b r a r y administrators, in the last f e w 

months, have been going to school to the 

catalogers. T h e classes have been anala-

gous to those in the medical profession 

known as refresher courses. T h e i r suc-

cess has been in proportion to the knowl-

edge and interest of the administrator. I 

have been attending such a seminar, and 

for much that follows I am indebted to 

the catalogers of the M o u n t Holyoke C o l -

lege library w h o were my teachers. T h e s e 

discussions served to sharpen my realiza-

tion of cataloging minutiae and of changes 

that have crept into its procedures in the 

years since I profited by the teaching of 

Jennie Dorcas Fellows. In spite of D r . 

Bishop's w a r n i n g that I should never try 

to do reference w o r k without having had 

cataloging experience, I did serve as a 

reference librarian for a number of years. 

M y administrative experience is of shorter 

duration, but in the past f e w years I have 

become sharply aware of the administra-

tive problems related to cataloging. T h e s e 

problems all relate to making material 

promptly and readily available and the 

costs in so doing. T h e library catalog, key 

to the accessibility of this material, is 

newly related to these problems in the 

light of the revised code of cataloging. 

T h i s preliminary American second edi-

tion very largely codifies existing practice. 

It arranges in a form which is readily 

consulted cataloging procedures of the 

L i b r a r y of Congress developed in the past 

forty years. Needless to say, they have 

changed during this period. T h e y have 

changed since the 1908 code was published 

and they w i l l continue to change. Aside 

from the need to codify L i b r a r y of Con-

gress practice, it w a s especially desirable 

to clarify many points for libraries doing 

cooperative cataloging and for those listing 

their holdings in union catalogs. T h e 

MARCH, 1942 
12 7