College and Research Libraries A Critical Appraisal of N e w Ideas in Cataloging THE f o l l o w i n g three papers w e r e presented at a meeting of the University Libraries Section of the Association of College and Reference Libraries, December 30, 1 9 4 1 . B y J E N S N Y H O L M The Code in the Light of the Critics Mr. Nyholm is assistant librarian, Univer- sity of California Library, Berkeley. The Challenge T h e new preliminary edition of the A.L.A. Catalog Rules has once again brought the problem of cataloging to the foreground of library discussion. T h e new code is four times as big as that of 1908 and more than one hundred times as big as the rules printed in the Library Journal in 1883. Still, the most signifi- cant thing about the new code w o u l d ap- pear to be certain features of its make-up and the ten-line "Publisher's N o t e " pre- ceding the title page. T h e new make-up divides the code into t w o parts, the first dealing w i t h entry and heading, the second w i t h the rules for the description of books. T h e A . L . A . C a t a l o g C o d e Revision C o m - mittee recommends libraries to conform to the rules in P a r t I, but does not consider it urgent that libraries should adhere close- ly to those of P a r t I I . T h i s recommenda- tion reveals a late recognition of a new point of view. T h e "Publisher's N o t e " states that there has been considerable disagreement between some catalogers and some admin- istrators concerning the rules, the adminis- trators believing that the rules are unduly elaborate and frequently too costly to fol- l o w . T o consider the validity of this claim and to establish a basis for a definitive edi- tion a special committee of administrators and catalogers has been appointed. T h i s note, then, and the policy suggested by the make-up of the code present a direct chal- lenge to the library profession: W e are asked to take a definite stand w i t h respect to the future cataloging policies of this country. A l m o s t simultaneously w i t h the publish- ing of the new code, A n d r e w D . Osborn's The Crisis in Cataloging burst as a bombshell in the catalogers' quiet realm. Shortly after followed the first thought- provoking issue of M r . K e l l a r ' s Memor- anda on Library Cooperation. O n e year earlier, in the summer of 1940, a compre- hensive library institute, dealing w i t h acquisition and cataloging problems, w a s held by the G r a d u a t e L i b r a r y School in Chicago, the papers of which appeared in a four-hundred-page volume. A b o u t the same time, M r . Branscomb in his Teaching MARCH, 1942 12 7 with Books, took issue with catalogers for the purpose of "directing attention to the problem [of lowering cataloging costs] and of stimulating its discussion." Finally, at the A . L . A . conference in Boston last sum- mer, administrators, catalogers, and the new youth of the Library of Congress got together in an unbiased search for a bal- ancing of ends and means in cataloging. W h i l e the code represents the develop- ment of traditional cataloging, many of the viewpoints expressed by the commentators are less orthodox. It is worth considering the validity of the proposals and the criti- cism of these commentators, and, if found sound, to see how they might affect the code. Purpose of Revision It is fortunate that the profession has now become engaged in a discussion of the principles of cataloging and their applica- tion ; it is unfortunate that this discussion was not carried to a conclusion some ten years ago—before the code was revised. This, however, is now water over the dam. But it is not out of order to point out that the committee entrusted with the revision of the code is hardly to be held responsible for this state of affairs. It was appointed simply "to make necessary re- visions in the A.L.A. Catalog Rules."1 W h a t was understood by "necessary" was not revealed. T h e committee, therefore, based its program upon the suggestions of that group of librarians whose demands had been instrumental in its appointment, the vocal catalogers. It was their experi- ence that the code of 1908 was basically sound. But they also found that it was neither inclusive nor explicit enough to take care of such problems as would arise in the course of the cataloging done in 1 A.L.A. Handbook 2 7 : 1 5 . large and scholarly libraries. T h i s fact became more apparent as the movement of cooperative cataloging gained ground. T h e committee concluded, as put in the preface to the new code, that "expansion was needed rather than change," and pro- ceeded with its work along this line of reasoning. It would seem that the re- sponse to the committee's invitation for suggestions supported this point of view, as borne out by articles in our library pe- riodicals.2 Even when the reverberations from the depression hit the catalogers, the bulwark of the old standards stood firm. In the summer of 1934 the Catalog Sec- tion devoted an entire meeting to the prob- lem of economies in cataloging. T h e con- clusion arrived at in the most talked-about event of the meeting, Miss Mudge's fa- mous paper,3 was that no true economy could be achieved by the reduction of in- formation given on the catalog cards. W h e n the air echoed with rumors of bat- tles between economy and standards, M r . Hanson jumped the gun in the Library Quarterly: "Finally, let it be decided now, once for all, whether the aim of the new edition shall be to cut costs through simplification of rules . . . or to maintain or even raise present standards."4 It is not known that any forceful pres- entation of claims for simplification was ever made to the committee. Consequent- ly, the road once taken was continued. T h e new code, then, is based upon the principles laid down in the code of 1908. 2 " N e w Y o r k R e g i o n a l G r o u p of C a t a l o g e r s . Sum- m a r y of Discussion of N e e d f o r R e v i s i o n of C a t a l o g C o d e . " Catalogers' and Classifiers' Yearbook N o . 3 ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 20-29. G j e l s n e s s , R. H . " C o o p e r a t i o n in C a t a l o g C o d e R e v i s i o n . " Ibid., N o . 5 ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 26-35. Jacobsen, A n n a . " N o w I s the T i m e to S p e a k . " Library Journal 61:388, M a y 15, 1936. P e t t e e , Julia. " C o d e R e v i s i o n — W h a t D o Cata- logers W a n t ? " Ibid., 306-08, A p r . 15, 1936. 3 M u d g e , Isadore. " P r e s e n t D a y E c o n o m i e s in C a t a l o g i n g , as S e e n by the R e f e r e n c e L i b r a r i a n . " Catalogers and Classifiers' Yearbook N o . 4 (1934). 9-23- 4 H a n s o n , J. C. M . " C o r p o r a t e A u t h o r s h i p v e r s u s T i t l e E n t r y . " Library Quarterly 5:466, O c t . I93S- 140 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Its scope, likewise, remains essentially the same as that of the 1908 code, being re- stricted to the rules dealing w i t h descrip- tive cataloging (entry and book descrip- t i o n ) . T h e great increase in size is due largely to the inclusion of new rules for special classes of material considered in- adequately treated in the old code, and the amplification of already existing rules deemed too general to guide in the inter- pretation of "specific types of cases of fre- quent occurrence." T h e result is a voluminous opus of de- tailed and explicit rules, w i t h seemingly only one concession to simplification: the recommendation that it be left to the dis- cretion of each individual library as to w h a t extent the rules for description, given in P a r t 2, should be followed. Pre- sumably, this is the code desired by cata- logers, w h o w a n t a tool which answers questions, so that cataloging may be made easier. Is it also the code desired by administrators, w h o w a n t the books they administer promptly and inexpensively re- corded, so that they may be made available for use? The Critics T h e code of 1908 was completed during a period that may be called the golden era of cataloging. T h e L i b r a r y of Congress was recataloging its collection and the code was being prepared in accordance w i t h the system in development in that library. M o r e o v e r , the L i b r a r y of Congress had begun the printing and distribution of its catalog cards. Catalogers could look the future in the eye w i t h an air of assurance: our rules w o u l d be codified in a scholarly and reliable fashion; the products of them, the L . C . cards, w o u l d be made available to libraries throughout the nation. T h e cataloging problem appeared to be nearing its solution. It is not difficult to under- stand that the attitude of the time should crystallize in a tradition still operative in the formulation of the code of today. A c t u a l l y , however, the expectations of that time have not been fulfilled. T h e na- tion's book resources have increased at an unprecedented rate, causing cataloging to lag far behind accessioning. A c c o r d i n g to estimates there are in the United States about twelve million titles, out of which only one and one half million are covered by L . C . cards. C a r d s for about five mil- lion additional titles have been contributed to the U n i o n C a t a l o g in W a s h i n g t o n by other libraries but are only sparsely avail- able in printed form. It is estimated that uncataloged titles in the United States amount to between t w o and five and one half million.5 T h a t the production of L . C . cards does not cover the demands from the large re- search libraries was demonstrated by the survey made by the Cooperative Catalog- ing Committee in 1931, 6 according to which forty-nine libraries in the East were unable to get (or get promptly enough) L . C . cards for 28 per cent of their Eng- lish titles and 66 per cent of their foreign titles. In libraries all over the country uncataloged material is piling high in storage rooms, inaccessible to the public, while valuable time is consumed in sub- jecting even the slightest book which does receive cataloging to all the elaborations required by the craft. U n d e r such circumstances it is natural that some librarians should take exception to the theory of cataloging exemplified in the code. T h e r e developed then, in opposi- 5 K e l l a r , H e r b e r t A . Memoranda on Library Co- operation, I ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 18, 21. ( D r . • K e l l a r has n o t c i t e d a n y a u t h o r i t y f o r his figures.) 0 M e t c a l f , K e y e s D . " C o o p e r a t i v e C a t a l o g i n g . " Catalogers' and Classifiers' Yearbook N o . 3 ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 33- MARCH, 1942 12 7 tion to that trend in cataloging which aims at bibliographical cataloging carrying ref- erence value (represented by such tradi- tionalists as M r . Hanson and Miss M u d g e ) another trend concentrating on what has been called "finding cataloging" (represented by such radicals as M r . Rich- ardson and M r . C u r r i e r ) . These two trends furnish us with a background for understanding current criticism of cata- loging. Chicago Institute T h e Chicago Library Institute's con- tribution to the discussion was probably chiefly to point out that as yet we have not really assembled sufficient verified data to formulate clear-cut objectives for cata- loging. A s stated by M r . Randall, " W e supply certain information on the catalog cards in the libraries. W e do this at con- siderable cost, and we do it on the assump- tion that it is useful. But if we were asked to prove that the usefulness was consistent with its cost, we could do so, I believe, only by stating general assumptions about this usefulness."7 Similar observations were made in the papers of M r . W r i g h t , 8 M r . Miller, 9 and M r . Rider.10 T h e sad con- clusion we are forced to draw is that al- though for years we have been concerned with "how to catalog," we have really never solved all the ramifications of " w h y we catalog." T o establish scientifically sound objectives for cataloging is a task that will take years. T h e immediate les- son we may draw from the Chicago meet- ing, perhaps, is this: since we have no demonstrable evidence that our traditional cataloging system is the best possible, w e should not be too concerned if, in our ef- 7 R a n d a l l , W . M . , ed. The Acquisition and Cata- loging of Books. C h i c a g o , 1940, p. 21. 8 Ibid., p. 117-18. 9 Ibid., p. 220-38. 10 Ibid., p. 136-66. forts to get our uncataloged masses of material made available, we will have to sacrifice some of the standards considered sacrosanct by the traditionalists. Like so many other administrators, M r . Branscomb, who follows M r . Richardson's line of reasoning, is struck by the slowness and the high cost of cataloging. T h e remedies he suggests insofar as descriptive cataloging is concerned, are the follow- ing: 1 1 1. Elimination of unnecessary bibliograph- ical details derived in part f r o m the rare book tradition. 2. Simplified cataloging or self-cataloging of certain classes of material, such as public documents, dissertations, and pamphlets. 3. Increased cooperative cataloging, based on correlated specialization in acquisition. These suggestions coincide with opinions advanced by other critics and will be dis- cussed later. Points one and two appear again in M r . Osborn's paper, point three in M r . Kellar's. Osborn's Crisis in Cataloging In M r . Osborn's paper,12 which clever- ly dramatizes the present cataloging situa- tion, we get an effectively formulated theory that strings together certain sug- gestions—the theory of pragmatic cata- loging. M r . Osborn denounces what he calls the legalistic, the perfectionist, and the bibliographical theories of cataloging— all more or less vaguely in application to- day. T h e legalist theory, on which the code is based, calls for rules and definitions to cover every point that arises and tends to promote cataloging for cataloging's sake. T h e perfectionist theory has as its goal the permanent catalog card so well verified in all respects that it will never have to 1 1 B r a n s c o m b , H a r v i e . Teaching with Books. Chi- cago, 1940, p. 24-35. 12 O s b o r n , A n d r e w D . " T h e C r i s i s in C a t a l o g i n g . " Library Quarterly 1 1 : 3 9 3 - 4 1 1 , O c t . 1941. A l s o pub- lished separately. 142 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES be done over, but leads to exaggerated research, resulting in accumulation of arrears. T h e bibliographical theory of cataloging is a branch of bibliography and results in useless details. T o replace these inadequate theories, M r . Osborn advocates the acceptance of the pragmatic theory of cataloging, ac- cording to which cataloging w i l l be con- ducted "along purely practical lines" on the basis of relatively f e w and simple rules. J u d g m e n t w i l l in many cases take the place of slavish adherence to prescribed rules. Standards w i l l not be defined to "any very great extent" so as to make pos- sible a considerable degree of flexibility in procedures. Individual libraries w i l l adopt such practices as w i l l best meet their particular needs. According to Osborn, a pragmatic approach to cataloging w o u l d make cataloging simpler and less expensive and yet produce work that in all essentials w o u l d be of high quality. In advocating his theory, Osborn pre- sents a most enticing picture and one w o u l d like to believe that his blueprint w o u l d come true. H o w e v e r , one cannot but feel that pragmatic cataloging as such is chiefly an academic concept. A l l cata- loging is to some extent pragmatic, insofar as its rules are, or should be, based upon practical reasoning, and should be applied in a spirit of common sense. A l l catalog- ing is also to a certain extent legalistic, insofar as it cannot function w i t h o u t adherence to definite standards. T h e problem of pragmatic cataloging versus legalistic cataloging is one of degree, not of kind. T h e difficulty in discussing Os- born's theory is that w e do not know the scale of the degrees it spans. W e may need to circumscribe the objectives for catalog- ing, but the rules pertaining to the objec- tives chosen should be full since work progresses faster w h e n the accumulated ex- periences of the craft are pooled than w h e n it is l e f t to individual catalogers to figure out the puzzles. Lack of rules w o u l d mere- ly lead to the compilation of private files of "decisions." M r . Osborn admits him- self that "it is difficult to systematize cata- loging according to the pragmatic theory," but it is precisely systematization w e need if w e w o u l d succeed in sending our uncata- loged books to the shelves. If however, Osborn's theory is designed, not to run d o w n the w h o l e w a y of the scale, but rather to keep us w i t h i n the limits of the attainable instead of reaching for the un- attainable, it may have salutary effects. Perhaps one's disagreement w i t h Osborn is to no small extent to be debited to w h a t is popularly k n o w n as semantics, since the suggested nine-point application of his theory is in some particulars very pertinent. Desirable Practices for Certain Conditions Consider the first point, calling for a code that w o u l d define under w h a t condi- tions any given practice w o u l d be desir- able. If the code presented the reasons underlying the rules, ill-founded rules w o u l d die a natural death and the good ones w o u l d be easier to f o l l o w . Point two, advocating several grades of cataloging, has obvious merits w h e n one realizes the unreasonable cost involved in treating all types of material alike, and is in accordance w i t h practices already par- tially in effect in many libraries. It is only to be hoped that in our efforts to recognize varying needs w e shall not have to pre- clude the advantage of concerted action. Point three, the recommendation that self-cataloging methods be extended, is identical w i t h proposals made by Brans- comb and M e t c a l f and seems reasonable, provided it does not militate against hav- MARCH, 1942 12 7 ing the same material cooperatively cata- loged. Point nine, the search for a new and inexpensive method of cataloging serials, echoes a pious hope shared by many. Kellar's Memoranda T u r n i n g now to M r . Kellar's Memo- randa,13 we find a very positive approach. Kellar recommends a reasonable compro- mise between finding and reference cata- loging, and suggests that the means through which we can hope to cope with our tremendous acquisitions is cooperative enterprises on a nationwide scale. His grandiose plans revolve around the Union Catalog in Washington and reflect the bib- liographical visions of Richardson and the beautiful dreams of coordinated book buy- ing. Among the suggestions he has synthe- sized are these. 1. C u r r e n t accessions should be divided into t w o g r o u p s : popular material to be briefly c a t a l o g e d ; important material to re- ceive f u l l cataloging, or cataloging according to an intermediate f o r m . 2. A r r e a r s should be searched in the Union C a t a l o g , and the information found there utilized in cataloging the books. 3. A new approach to cooperative catalog- ing is necessary. "The ideal to be aimed at . . . is a situation wherein only one card is made for each title in the country, copies of it being supplied promptly on demand to all holding institutions." One copy of all cards w o u l d be kept in the Union C a t a l o g which w o u l d serve as a master location file, but printing and distribution of cards could be centralized or decentralized, as desired. It is obvious that the only way by which we can really make inroads into our ac- cumulations of uncataloged material is through concerted action. A program of such magnitude as the one suggested by M r . Kellar will encounter difficulties of 13 K e l l a r , op. cit. great complexity. Catalogers should con- tribute whatever they can to swing the program by insisting upon disciplined ad- herence to standardized rules and will- ing departure from established practices, whenever necessary. It should be par- ticularly noted that the rational cataloging envisaged by Kellar calls for a similar appli- cation of varying standards as the pragma- tic cataloging advocated by M r . Osborn. T h e Boston meeting had symptomatic significance by showing a definite trend toward pragmatic cataloging while at the same time recognizing the need for ra- tional cataloging. " I n spite of the fact that cataloging needs for different libraries differ," said M r . Metcalf, "librarians should help each other. More cooperation should be worked out."1 4 Altogether, recent writers on catalog- ing have shown considerable dissatisfac- tion with the traditional cataloging. T h e same dissatisfaction has led many libraries to formulate simplified rules of their own. In V a n Hoesen's Selective Cataloging, this trend can be traced back to the beginning of the twenties. T h e revolt against the code does not, as one might have expected, originate with the small libraries, but rather with the large ones. Among li- braries known to have, in one way or another, formulated individual cataloging rules are such institutions as Harvard, N e w Y o r k Public Library, the John Crerar Library, the Enoch Pratt Free Library, and Duke. T h i s development cannot be overlooked in considering the code. Conclusions T h e findings made in the searchlight of the critics may be summarized as follows: 1. W e lack definite data f o r evaluating 14 A.L.A. Bulletin 3S:P-5o, Sept. 1941. 144 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES o u r c a t a l o g i n g practices in t e r m s of cost-use balance. 2. W i t h the funds at o u r disposal w e are unable to c a t a l o g all the books w e acquire. T h o s e w e do c a t a l o g are cataloged at pre- sumably too high a cost. 3. I t is assumed that o u r shortcomings are due, in p a r t , to u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y o r g a n i z e d rules calling f o r too e l a b o r a t e c a t a l o g i n g and to uneconomical duplication of e f f o r t . 4. T o remedy this situation, it is suggested that w e : a ) Stress the reasons u n d e r l y i n g the rules. b ) S i m p l i f y the rules. c ) U s e v a r y i n g standards of c a t a l o g i n g f o r v a r y i n g types of m a t e r i a l . d ) E x t e n d o u r cooperative enterprises. T h e necessity of eventually w o r k i n g out a set of objectives for cataloging on an em- piric basis has already been emphasized. W i t h respect to the immediate issue, Stan- ley Jast's remark about the 1908 edition would unfortunately seem pertinent also to the present one: " T h e A n g l o - A m e r i c a n rules have a certain intellectual unity, though it must be confessed that they are generally presented in a fashion to disguise i t . " 1 5 T h e code should be redesigned in a streamlined form so as to show whatever unity it has, as an initial step to realize w h a t w e are really after. Rules embody- ing fundamental principles should stand out clearly, while special applications of these rules should be given subordinate presentation. A n emerging recognition of the desirability of such a design is found in the stating of general rules at the begin- ning of certain sections. T h i s method should be extended through the whole of the code, also typographically. Basic rules should not be repeated wherever they apply under special conditions, but be reaffirmed by reference if necessary, so as to let the 1 5 S h a r p , H . A . Cataloging. 2d ed. L o n d o n , 1937, p. x x i . users of the code conceive the rules rather than merely consult them. A c l e a r e r a r r a n g e m e n t t h r o u g h o u t the code w o u l d be desirable. T a k e f o r example the rules dealing w i t h illustration. T h e s e rules are not set off f r o m those dealing w i t h p a g i n a t i o n ; nor does the phraseology used in the headings a l w a y s seem pertinent. T h u s , rule N o . 307 is simply called " F o l d e d L e a v e s . " T h e first of these rules (303) is termed " I l l u s t r a t i v e M a t t e r , " although the rules f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e m a t t e r continue t h r o u g h rule 321. T h e r e is a comprehensive rule (304) w i t h the heading " I l l u s t r a t i o n s in the T e x t , " but no p a r a l l e l rule f o r illus- trations outside the text. In the course of redesigning the rules, brief statements bearing upon the functions of the rules should be incorporated wherever pertinent. A n attempt in this direction has been made under " I m p r i n t " (page 2 5 3 ) . T h i s practice should be extended w i t h a view to establishing eventually the code of rules founded on reasons, called for by Osborn. Simplifications T u r n i n g now from the streamlining of the code to the simplification of the rules, w e are immediately struck by the size of the code. Critics may be inclined to think that the great increase in size is in itself a sign that the new code w i l l result in more detailed and therefore more costly cataloging. T h i s , of course, is not neces- sarily so, since additional rules, if they are pertinent and exact, may w e l l have the opposite effect: decrease the time it takes to settle points of doubt. T h e 1908 and 1941 codes should be rationally compared. In this analysis it might be w e l l to classify the amendments in the f o l l o w i n g three groups: A . A m e n d m e n t s constituting a time-saving clarification of time-consuming uncertainties. MARCH, 1942 12 7 E.g. Treatment of the names of married women in Spanish and Dutch (Rule 59 f.i. 3) which present special peculiarities not covered by the general rule. B. Amendments that will require time- consuming research not justified by the cost- use balance. E.g. Rule requiring reference from see, or successive sees, held by a bishop, giving years of incumbency (Rule 50c). C. Amendments that are in effect time- consuming elaborations of nonessentials. E.g. Rule specifying six different ways of indicat- ing that a book includes illustrative music (Rule 316). Amendments of the first type would be good; those of the second and third type should be curbed. It is likely that the new code will make cataloging easier and therefore more eco- nomical than did the old one. But this should not satisfy us. T h e superiority of the new code may consist in many in- stances merely in its being a desirable clari- fication of an undesirable practice. W e should determine whether the code pro- vides for the kind of cataloging called for under the conditions prevailing today and anticipated tomorrow. Suggestions for Simplification Numerous suggestions for simplification could be and have been made. It is possi- ble in this paper merely to indicate the character of some of these with the recom- mendation that they be subjected to close scrutiny and analysis. First, let us consider some of the rules for entry, now on the way to becoming sacro- sanct. Without being taken for a heretic, is it possible to plead for a final reconsideration of the rules for periodicals and corporate bodies? The incessant recataloging and re- printing caused by the rules calling for entry under latest name certainly represent an economic sacrifice out of balance with the alleged contribution to the public's conveni- ence. The luxuriantly flourishing exceptions to the principal rule that a society is to be entered directly under its name, an institu- tion under place, constitute another doubtful condescension to the supposed desire of the readers. A third questionable feature is found in the rules making choice of entry optional (entry under personal name vs. cor- porate body, etc.). This new liberality is probably meant to simplify matters, but will rather complicate them by the havoc it may play in union catalogs and cooperative cata- loging. As a preparation to a discussion of the possibility of changing these three groups of rules, a study should be made of the extent to which reprinting would be an un- conditional prerequisite to effecting a change. Second, we may simplify the rules by cutting down decorative trimmings, the preparation of which often requires quite some research. The new code has dropped the use of Mrs. in headings for married women. Why should we retain titles of honor (Sir, Lord, Lady, Count, Bishop, President, etc.) except when the forename becomes entry word or when necessary to distinguish between persons with the same name ? Third, we may effect economy by giving up esoteric formalism. The example here is, of course, our capitalization rules which abound in subtle distinctions, while a return to ordinary English usage is all that is needed. Fourth, we might abbreviate long and cumbersome titles, although this is not so important as in M r . Cutter's days of hand- written cards. When dealing with title pages of rarity and bibliographical unique- ness we may proceed in the opposite direc- tion : reproduce them photographically on our catalog cards in the manner suggested by Leo Crozet.16 Fifth, in imprint statement we might be satisfied with one place name and one pub- lisher, under ordinary circumstances. Sixth, we might reduce our statement of pagination to include only the last page of each group of pagings, with some modifica- tions. Seventh, we might let "illus." stand for all 16 M e y e r , Jose. " C a t a l o g s and C a t a l o g i n g in F r a n c e . " Catalogers' and. Classifiers' Yearbook N o . 9 ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 108-09. 146 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES types of i l l u s t r a t i v e m a t t e r , w h e t h e r in- cluded or not included in the pagination, and specify only the most important types, such as p o r t r a i t s and maps. E i g h t h , w e might f o l l o w M i s s M o r s c h ' s suggestion in respect to size, " g i v e both di- mensions f o r a v o l u m e w h i c h has a w i d t h less than half or more than equal to its h e i g h t . " N i n t h , w e might cut d o w n on the number and length of notes, p a r t i c u l a r l y those deal- ing w i t h bibliographical niceties. T e n t h , and finally, w e might limit the use of added entries to the bare minimum of strict necessity. Multiple Standards T h e simplification of rules should be seen in relation to the recognized need for different fullness of cataloging for differ- ent types of material. W e should main- tain a comprehensive code to be used for material requiring f u l l description. T h e standard for such entries might be referred to as G r a d e A , and w o u l d represent stand- ard cataloging, that is, modified bibli- ographical and reference cataloging. F o r material not in need of f u l l treatment, deviations would be indicated in the rules, and this standard might be referred to as G r a d e B, representing simplified catalog- ing, that is, essentially finding cataloging. A third, seldom-used category C , for rare books, might be added. T h e first three types of simplifications recorded above w o u l d pertain to both standard A and B ; the others might or might not pertain to both standards. Rules for all standards could easily be in- corporated in the same code. Classes of material recommended for cataloging ac- cording to G r a d e B should be specified. Section 23 of the Prussian Instructions and V a n Hoesen's Selective Cataloging might offer suggestions both w i t h respect to these classes and w i t h respect to the simplifications that could be made. T h e r e has been considerable discussion concerning the wisdom or folly of intro- ducing such simplifications. M r . Bishop1 7 has been rather skeptical as regards selec- tive cataloging, M r . B a y 1 8 hopeful. It has been maintained that simplifications w i l l neither be wise nor particularly cost- saving. F o r instance, it has been said that w e cannot safely cut our pagination state- ment since it is an essential clue to varia- tions in editions. T h i s contention has been repudiated by M r . C u r r i e r 1 9 and by the N e w Y o r k Public Library's continued suc- cessful use of brief collation statement. N o r does the omission of pagination in sets seem to cause trouble. A s to cost, it has been argued that the most time-consuming elements of catalog- ing are the establishing of entries, subject headings, and classification numbers, while book description is usually a relatively simple matter. T h i s is probably true. H o w e v e r , the suggested simplifications do entail the limitation of added entries. A s to short-cuts in book description, it w o u l d appear that elaborate pagination statement is either time-consuming o r — u n r e l i a b l e . If w e really were to f o l l o w the rules and account for any and every irregularity in paging, w e would have actually to collate the book, from the first page to the last. T h i s w e do not do, w i t h the result that bibliographers don't trust our cataloging. U n d e r these circumstances had w e not bet- ter restrict our application of the detailed collation rules to those infrequent cases where it is wise to f o l l o w t h e m — a n d w e actually do it? 17 V a n H o e s e n , H . B . , ed. Selective Cataloging. N e w Y o r k , 1928, p. 104. 1 8 B a y , J. C h r i s t i a n . " A c t i v i t i e s o f a S c i e n t i f i c R e f e r e n c e L i b r a r y . " College and Research Libraries 2:100-01, M a r . 1 9 4 1 . 1 9 C u r r i e r , T h o m a s F r a n k l i n . " W h a t t h e B i b l i o g r a - p h e r S a y s to the C a t a l o g e r . " Catalogers' and Classi- fiers' Yearbook N o . 9 ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 32-35. MARCH, 1942 12 7 Cooperation W e now come to the final and most im- portant point concerning the future of cataloging—the idea of cooperation in cataloging. T h e savings arrived at through individual libraries' acceptance of simple rules may not be impressive. T h e savings achieved by effectively linking simplified rules with cooperative cataloging may be enormous. W e have learned that there are in the Union Catalog cards for about five mil- lion books, only vaguely exploited by libraries needing them. T h e system, for some time in operation in the Library of Congress, of searching titles in the Union Catalog, has not been particularly success- ful. T h e chief reason for this seems to be that the quality of the cards copied was undeterminable in advance, and that these cards therefore, could not be used in place of local cards. It is obvious that a library cannot with any degree of satisfac- tion use in its own catalog, to cover its own holdings, catalog cards the idiosyn- crasies of which it may not be able to interpret. T h e resulting difficulties for the exchange of cards may be largely over- come by the systematization of multiple standard cataloging. T h e card-producing library will simply indicate on all its cards, by a symbol, the standard ( A , B, or C ) it has followed in cataloging. T h e card- buying library will simply indicate the grades of cards it will accept. If all siz- able libraries would adhere to some pre- scribed standards, a tremendous impetus would doubtless be given to the establish- ment of an exchange pool for producers and consumers of catalog cards. It is difficult to see why it would not be feasible to set up some machinery through which the Library of Congress would be able to supply complete sets of printed, mimeographed, or otherwise duplicated copies of cards contained in the Union Catalog, on terms similar to those governing the sales of its own cards. Apparatus Necessary However, the apparatus necessary for effective exchange of catalog cards is a subject that falls outside the scope of this paper. W h a t we are emphasizing here is that the code must be conceived with the vast perspective of cooperative ventures in mind. For union catalog purposes, ad- herence to a uniform method of entering is as a rule satisfactory; for card exchange purposes standardized book description be- comes imperative. W e must therefore go beyond the sim- ple device of adhering to Part i of the code, but treating Part 2 ad libertum—a suggestion which at best was a temporary expedient only. T h e cataloging discussion now charg- ing our thoughts extends far beyond the realm of technicalities. It knocks at the door of the treasurer, challenges the ad- ministrator, conditions the scholar's access to his books. W e have not been able to realize what we dreamt when the Library of Congress began the printing of cards. But if we blame this on the Library of Congress, or its system of cataloging, or the code, and say, as it has been said too often for com- fort, "Forget about the Library of Con- gress, forget about any code, go ahead and do your cataloging according to your own standards," then we are lost. But this is exactly what will happen if we do not get together, cool-headed, in a spirit of con- structive collaboration. It is very well to point out that different libraries have dif- ferent needs. It is more important to find 148 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES a common denominator for these needs. If the criticism of traditional cataloging degenerates into rugged individualism, w e are bound to retrogress; if it develops into a planned economy of cataloging, w e shall be on the road to the future. It is suggested that w e make the code a guide- post to that road. By M A U R I C E F . T A U B E R Subject Cataloging and Classification Approaching the Crossroads Mr. Tauber is chief, catalog department, University of Chicago Libraries. Despite the criticisms that may justi- fiably be directed at descriptive cataloging, particularly its expense and its detailed, bibliographical nature, it generally has been found that the procedures in this sphere of cataloging in university libraries are fairly w e l l standardized on the basis of either the A . L . A . or the L . C . rules. Standardization is less prevalent in the areas of subject headings and classification, although standard lists of headings and systems of arrangement are commonly used. It is not surprising, therefore, that there should be some suggestions for re- forms in subject heading and a f e w in classification policies. T h i s paper w i l l deal first of all w i t h some of the reforms that have been proposed. It w i l l also discuss the extent of our knowledge of current subject-heading work and classifi- cation practices and of their effects upon use of library materials. Finally, it w i l l record briefly some data concerning cen- tralized and cooperative cataloging and classification, aspects which I assume w i l l be treated by M r . H a y k i n . T h e participant observer of library use generally is in a better position than the armchair philosopher to discuss these mat- ters in full detail. T h e latter can raise questions and make suggestions for changes, but unless careful analyses and accurate tests are made, many of our state- ments regarding subject headings and clas- sifications remain assumptions. A c t u a l l y there are f e w data derived from system- atic research, as Randall recently pointed out.1 Since this lack of data makes com- plete documentation difficult, the f o l l o w - ing resume should be regarded as being primarily exploratory. A s yet, there are no clear signposts which indicate the pro- cedures which w i l l accomplish the things administrators have come to regard as im- portant in the technical processes—eco- nomical practices which serve the users and enable the staff to aid the users. Subject Headings U n d e r the rubric of subject headings, it may be said that w e think w e k n o w w h y w e do certain things, but are pretty 1 Randall, William M. " T h e Technical Processes and Library S e r v i c e , " in his The Acquisition and, Cataloging of Books. Chicago, University of Chi- cago Press, 1940, p. 1-29- MARCH, 1942 12 7