College and Research Libraries Cataloging Problems in Review In furtherance of its policy as a journal of discussion, College and Research Libraries presents the following two summaries and analyses based on the cataloging problems presented in the M a r c h 1942 issue. T H E E D I T O R S B y H A R R I E T D . M A C P H E R S O N Report on the Cataloging Forum Presented by College and Research Libraries Miss MacPherson is assistant professor, School of Library Service, Columbia Uni- versity. JA M E S H A R V E Y R O B I N S O N once wrote some lines that seem applicable to the concern of librarians with the cataloging situation of today. He said: " I t is so diffi- cult a task to form any correct estimate of one's own surroundings, largely on ac- count of our very familiarity with them, that historical students have generally evaded this responsibility. T h e y have often declared that it was impossible to do so satisfactorily. And yet no one will ever know more than we do about what is going on now." 1 T e n years ago, when plans were being laid to revise the A.L.A. Catalog Rules, catalogers evi- dently thought they knew what was going on in their branch of the profession and executives must have felt that they had no particular reason to worry over cataloging procedures. N o w , coincident with the publishing of the new rules, executives 1 Robinson, James H a r v e y . The Mind, in the Making; the Relation of Intelligence to Social Re- form. N . Y . , Harper [01921] p. [ 1 7 1 ] . and catalogers alike are taking stock of the present, as well as the past and future, of the cataloging situation. T h e M a r c h number of College and Research Libraries shows that librarians are not evading their responsibility in analyzing what is going on now in regard to cataloging. It has become evident to many of us during the past year that the pioneer age of cataloging in America is over. T h e word pioneer is employed in place of golden, because it seems to the present writer that we have not yet arrived at the golden age of cataloging nor, indeed, of library service as a whole. There have been many outstanding names among cata- logers during the past fifty or sixty years. T o mention only a few of those who have made distinct contributions, the following might be cited: Cutter, Dewey, Hanson, Martel, Currier, Mann, and Hastings. T h e y helped to outline standards by formulating rules and writing explanatory texts, by developing catalogs to provide access to huge collections, and by starting a system of cooperation among catalogers through the founding of the centralized card system at the Library of Congress. 195 T h e y built almost from nothing. Fre- quently they had no precedent to guide them—only the sharp necessity of the mo- ment. M u c h of their work still remains and is found practical; certain principles have already been scrapped; and, in the light of the probable future needs of li- braries, many more of the results from the efforts of these pioneers may have to be abandoned. Rugged Individuals If we follow American history through the development of the W e s t , it is evident that early settlers were rugged individuals who often succeeded in one undertaking and failed in another. T h e y blazed trails but were not always able to keep their homes from being destroyed; they founded towns but often saw them evacuated in favor of other sites; nor did they always manage to save all the gold that they discovered. Nevertheless, the way was opened for future generations to profit from these early efforts. Perhaps we can find a specific parallel between the state of the nation in 1829, as described by W o o d r o w Wilson, and the state of cata- loging today. In the first chapter of Di- vision and Reunion, 1829-1909, Wilson remarks that he believes that the year 1829 was a turning point in the history of the United States.2 O f the intellectual con- ditions of that period he says: "Its [the nation's] strength was rough and ready. . . . It had been making history and constructing systems of politics. . . . T h e country was as yet, moreover, neither homo- geneous nor united. Its elements were being stirred hotly together. A keen and perilous ferment was necessary ere the 2 W i l s o n , W o o d r o w . Division and Reunion, 1829- 1909. [ N e w e d . ] N . Y . , L o n g m a n s , 1 9 1 2 , p. 2. pure, fine wine of ultimate national prin- ciple should be produced."3 So far as the library profession is con- cerned, we also are "neither homogeneous nor united." " T h e keen and perilous fer- ment" seems already upon us, however, and it is to be hoped that a "national principle" of library service, at least so far as cataloging is concerned, is about to be produced. If one may judge from the contributions of writers to the March number of College and Research Libraries, all this is so. For here we find an amass- ing of the ideas of brilliant, convincing, and practical thinkers. A n attempt at a complete analysis and synthesis of the re- marks of the ten people who survey the cataloging situation in the above-mentioned issue might result in a volume of greater bulk than the new edition of the catalog rules. T h e present writer will only try to evaluate the papers from the following angles: ( I ) T h e attention paid by the con- tributors to the representation in the re- vised code of the principles of traditional cataloging and of Library of Congress practice in the past; ( 2 ) T h e recognition of the distinct difference between Parts I and II of the revised rules; ( 3 ) T h e extent to which specific rules from the code have been criticized; ( 4 ) T h e degree to which writers have viewed the issues in terms of their own libraries; ( 5 ) T h e extent to which cataloging problems as a whole rather than the text of the code have been discussed. In conclusion, a brief elucida- tion, both of the trends shown in these papers and of the revised edition of the code, will be undertaken. These remarks will be limited to the usability of these printed materials for courses in library schools. 3 Op. cit., p. 8. 196 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Traditional Cataloging and L.C. Practice N e a r l y all the contributors make some mention of the fact that the n e w code represents traditional cataloging and, spe- cifically, the procedures that have de- veloped at the Library of Congress during the past forty years. M i s s Smith goes so far as to say that she w o u l d like to "see the Library of Congress adopt the code, or at least keep on w i t h the parts of it which it is n o w using. . . ."4 A m o n g the writers w h o deplore the fact that the n e w code represents traditional cataloging, none is more decided in his remarks than M r . N y h o l m . T h e gist of his criticism may be sensed from one quotation: " T h e su- periority of the n e w code may consist in many instances merely in its being a de- sirable clarification of an undesirable prac- tice."5 M i s s L u d i n g t o n believes that one of the chief values of the n e w edition is that it puts Library of Congress procedures into a form that anyone may consult. N e w s about steps which may be taken by the Library of Congress that w i l l make a break w i t h tradition and thereby change some of the present L . C . card standards, is given by M i s s M o r s c h and M r . M u m - ford. W i s e l y , M i s s M o r s c h reminds us t h a t : "Simplifications must be based on the minimum essentials of the needs of the Library of Congress."6 A f t e r all, outside institutions are a second consideration and w i l l probably have to remain so, in spite of M r . Ellsworth's earnest plea that the "Library of Congress Card Division might w e l l study the possibility of issuing various 4 S m i t h , M a r g a r e t I . " T h e Code and the U n i v e r - sity R e f e r e n c e L i b r a r i a n . " College and Research Libraries 3 : 1 3 3 , M a r . 1942. 5 N y h o l m , Jens. " ' T h e Code in the L i g h t of the C r i t i c s . " College and Research Libraries 3 : 1 4 6 , M a r . 1942. a M o r s c h , L u c i l e M . " T h e N e w E d i t i o n of the A . L . A . C a t a l o g R u l e s . " College and Research Li- braries 3:120, M a r . 1942. kinds of cards for various kinds of libra- ries, if it is to continue issuing cards."7 Difference between Parts I and II of the Revised Code M i s s Morsch, M i s s Ludington, M i s s Root, and M r . T a u b e r 8 all show an ap- preciation of the division of the code into t w o parts. Part I, w i t h some changes, is endorsed by M i s s Ludington but she feels that much of Part I I is too detailed for the ordinary run of books in libraries like M o u n t Holyoke. M i s s Root believes that since uniformity of entry is so essential for libraries because of cooperative cataloging, most of the information in Part I w i l l be needed. She thinks, however, that Part I I might w e l l be replaced by a manual of Library of Congress practice. Part I, ac- cording to M i s s Morsch, is not f u l l enough, for she shows cases where types of entries have been omitted entirely. A s for Part II, she thinks it should not be published at all, since attempts to stand- ardize beyond the entry on a card do not seem w o r t h while. "Instead the Library of Congress should publish a style manual describing its practice and be responsible for keeping it reasonably up to date."9 Such a suggestion seems sensible. In ad- dition, one may hope for separate, supple- mentary manuals devoted to rare-book and simplified cataloging and perhaps for a text that w i l l provide explanations of reasons for rules set forth in Part I of the n e w code. Criticism of Specific Rules Several of the contributors made no at- tempt whatsoever to criticize specific rules. 7 E l l s w o r t h , R a l p h E . " T h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Im- plications f o r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s of the N e w Cata- loging C o d e . " College and Research Libraries 3-^37, M a r . 1942. 8 T a u b e r , M a u r i c e F . " I s the G o l d e n A g e R e a l l y O v e r ? " College and Research Libraries 3 : 1 8 5 , M a r . 1942. 9 M o r s c h , loc. cit., p. 119-20. JUNE, 1942 197 Those who have done so are: Miss Morsch, Miss Ludington, Miss Smith, and M r . Nyholm. Miss Morsch confines her remarks to the types of entries for which little or no information has yet been provided in the code. T h e different points discussed by Miss Smith are taken up under broad headings. Her point of view is, quite naturally, that of the reference librarian. Largely for this reason, her ap- preciation of some of the bibliographic features in Part I I may be discounted. M a n y of her ideas are pertinent, however, because of the very fact that she is con- cerned mainly with the use of the catalog. Catalogers may well sit up and take notice when she says: " T o me added entries are more important than the subject cards. A book is quoted by the name of its editor, joint author, illustrator, translator, by its title, the body sponsoring its publication— anything the reader or writer can remem- ber offhand, and often the subject cannot be definitely determined from the frag- mentary reference."10 M r . Nyholm pre- sents his specific criticism in the shape of suggestions for simplification. Among the existing rules that he discusses are those re- lating to periodicals, corporate entries, capitalization, and collation. O f these topics, his treatment of collation is perhaps the most successful; certainly his handling of corporate entries appears both incom- plete and impractical. It is somewhat sur- prising to find that the most detailed attention to separate rules has been given by a library executive—Miss Ludington. She discusses and criticizes the sections of Part I dealing with corporate entries, gov- ernment publications, series, analytics, added entries, and serials. In her handling of Part II she again cites individual rules, 10 Smith, loc. cit., p. 130. though this is done in a general way, so as to illustrate possibilities for simplification. W i t h the exception of her criticism of en- tries for state documents, most of Miss Ludington's points seem clear and logical. She voices valuable, constructive opinion in suggesting that all material on serials be kept together. T h i s same idea, by the way, was expressed by more than one speaker at the 1941 fall meeting of the N e w Y o r k Regional Catalog Group. 1 1 Stress on Libraries with Which Individual Writers Are Connected T h e extent to which contributors have viewed cataloging problems from the angle of their own particular libraries differs. M r . Tauber, M r . Nyholm, M r . Clapp, and Miss Root make no reference at all to the institutions with which they are con- nected. Miss Morsch and M r . Haykin present almost entirely the point of view of the Library of Congress, while M r . M u m f o r d mentions policies at the N e w Y o r k Public Library and the Library of Congress, the two institutions between which he was dividing his time. Since conditions at the Library of Congress may be said to affect the whole country, opinions expressed by members of that staff are not typical of reactions from most individual libraries. M o r e heed, therefore, should be paid to Miss Ludington, Miss Smith, and M r . Ellsworth, who make fre- quent reference to their present back- grounds in expressing their impressions of the new rules and of cataloging tendencies in general. W h i l e much may be gained by readers from the presentation of facts or beliefs in an impersonal manner, there is always a more sharp realization of values 1 1 T h i s e n t i r e m e e t i n g w a s devoted to the handling of serials a n d g o v e r n m e n t publications in the r e v i s e d code. 198 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES when writers quote from their own ex- perience. If every contributor to the cata- loging forum had confined himself to the way in which the revised rules and present cataloging trends are likely to affect his own library, a different set of papers might have resulted. Something would have been lost because of the lack of stress on general application of principles but much might have been gained. W h a t practical services may Miss Ludington, Miss Smith, and M r . Ellsworth be said to have ren- dered other libraries because of their more or less personal viewpoints? Discussion with Catalogers by A dministrators Quite evidently, Miss Ludington and the catalogers at Mount Holyoke are bet- ter informed about the role of cataloging in that library because of the discussions which preceded the writing of her paper. She acknowledges her debt to her catalog- ers, and it is certain that they must have gained in breadth of view through learning more about the executive side of the situation. It is to be hoped that many executives will follow Miss Ludington's example and take the time for mutual ex- change of ideas with their catalogers. Also, the statement about statistics of Li- brary of Congress cards used at M o u n t Holyoke may perhaps start a quest for information of the same sort in other libraries. Miss Smith brings up specific examples of how the catalog at the Uni- versity of Michigan has failed or succeeded as to accuracy and fullness. Such facts should prove of help to staff members in other libraries. Her example of the prob- lem of establishing the date of birth for M r s . Nathaniel Hawthorne may bring forth criticism from librarians who do not think that the catalog should feature as a bibliographical tool but at least Miss Smith has raised an important issue in a practical fashion. M r . Ellsworth more than once shows firsthand acquaintance with the reaction of his student body to the catalog. Also, he acknowledges that he has discussed problems with faculty mem- bers, both at the University of Colorado and elsewhere. W o u l d that other library executives might follow in his footsteps! Attention to Cataloging Problems as a Whole Rather than to the Text of the Code Four of the contributors were, of course, asked definitely to prepare papers about the code. Miss Morsch, Miss Ludington, and Miss Smith may be said to have ful- filled that purpose. M r . Ellsworth, how- ever, devotes most of his time to making general remarks about the cataloging situa- tion in his own and other libraries. T h e remaining six writers were not expected to concern themselves entirely with the new edition of the rules. Y e t Miss Root men- tions it frequently, M r . Tauber includes it in his review article and M r . Nyholm handles in admirable fashion the task of covering both the general cataloging situa- tion and the trends shown in the code. M r . Clapp, M r . Haykin, M r . M u m f o r d , and M r . Tauber all deal with the wider aspects of cataloging from the standpoint of librarianship as a whole. Such an ap- portionment of topics shows foresight on the part of the editors. T h e advent of the new rules is important but it should not overshadow everything else that is happen- ing in cataloging circles. T h e forum is well balanced for the very reason that sub- ject headings, classifications, and coopera- tive cataloging, not to speak of the general movement towards simplification, have not been overlooked. JUNE, 1942 199 Conclusions A s a teacher of cataloging, I view the M a r c h issue of this journal as one of the most fruitful sources for required readings that I have ever come across. It is true that the first-year student in library school would be thrown literally into a maelstrom if he were confronted at the beginning of his course with the variety of opinions ex- pressed in the ten papers relating to cataloging. A f t e r he has had some intro- ductory instruction on the use of the catalog, the principles of its compilation, and the means of establishing different forms of entry, a beginning student should, however, be ready to grasp the fact that the library world is constantly changing and that catalogers must adapt themselves to new conditions. He should not be kept in the dark as to the lack of uniformity of opinion among executives and other mem- bers of the library profession as to how necessary changes are to be effected, and I know of no better way to introduce him to this situation than to put into his hands the papers presented in the M a r c h num- ber. A s for the advanced student of cata- loging, • he might well spend the entire term in analyzing and discussing points brought out by the ten different contribu- tors. If each channel of thought were investigated thoroughly, the instructor would have little time to add anything else to the curriculum. For the student would be occupied in studying the new code for himself so that he might understand the papers; with investigating the differences between simplified, normal, and full cata- loging; with reviewing his knowledge of standard subject heading lists and classifi- cation schemes and making critical in- quiries as to the ways in which these tools have fitted in or have failed to fit in with the needs of different types of institutions; with determining the relationship of the catalog department to general library ad- ministration. He would, moveover, be reading the reflective ideas of experts in his profession, and it is to be hoped that he would find their varying opinions chal- lenging. Status in Library Schools T h e status of the new catalog rules in the library school curriculum is not so clear. M a n y instructors have taken lit- erally the notice accompanying copies of the preliminary American second edition of the code, which stated that this edition was not for use in library schools. Other teachers have felt that the beginning stu- dents should have some acquaintance with the new rules after a firm grasp of the principles of the 1908 code has been as- sured. In advanced courses there has been, of course, little danger in promoting discus- sion about features in the new rules at any time during the term. So much for this year but how about the immediate future? T h e r e is little profit in requiring students to assimilate the content of Part I I if this whole section is to be deleted and other printed substitutes provided for the de- scription of the book. Until the Library of Congress, the two A . L . A . committees devoted to the revision of the code, and librarians at large have come to definite decisions about changes and supplementary publications, the library school instructor will have to live from day to day—teach- ing the old rules, mentioning some features of Part I of the revised code that are likely to attain permanence, and pointing out constantly that an authorized delineation of cataloging procedures is still in the making. However difficult such a task may 200 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES prove, it has its bright side. T h o s e stu- dents w h o are to be the catalogers of the future should, because of these uncertain- ties and disagreements, prove more adapt- able in making changes and adjustments w h e n they undertake the building of actual catalogs in libraries and the solution of future cataloging problems. By F R A N C I S G . W I L S O N The Library Catalog and the Scholar Mr. Wilson is professor of political science, University of Illinois. TH E U S E R S of the college and research library hardly know that there is a "crisis" in the art and science of catalog- ing. In degree each professor and student is aware of the virtues and the vices of the catalog but f e w have any coherent opinions on w h a t might be called policies of the cataloging department of a library. Y e t any scholar should w e l c o m e the w i d e dis- cussion among librarians of the question, for it is only the inert and static profes- sional group which has no questions as to its o w n folkways. T h e users of libraries w i l l see a hope for continued improve- ments in the management of the book resources of the nation in the re-examina- tion of cataloging, even though they may not k n o w just w h a t the improvements are to be. T h e nonprofessional approach to the catalog w o u l d , perhaps, distinguish first of all between the kinds of users of the library. Undergraduates have a certain type of demand, the graduate students an- other, and the faculty still others. B u t distinctions must be made between differ- ent kinds of faculty men, since some teach- ers seldom use the library while others regard it as their garden of research w h i c h must be carefully cultivated. If the least sympathy need be expended on the teacher w h o does no research, w e must also recog- nize that the needs of the students generally f o l l o w the pattern of demand originating in the teaching process. T h e values of the teacher are reflected in the demands the students make upon the li- brary. A library catalog is a single instru- ment which must serve the needs of the w h o l e academic community. Wider Meaning of Service Professional librarians may become im- mersed in the details of policy and ad- ministration and they may therefore forget the wider meaning of the service they are rendering the university. T h e library is, for the liberal and humane aspect of edu- cation, the organic and functioning center of the campus. If the laboratory courses may neglect the treasures of the mind locked up in books, the humanities cannot. O u r universities have g r o w n up in measure around the permanence of the library. W e assume that the library w i l l continue always to be where it is and that it w i l l be always available to the seeker for know- edge. Americans w h o have used libraries in Europe w i l l in many cases have realized the achievements of the American li- brarian, and this realization comes from JUNE, 1942 201