Vr
(5 '
4-
American Library Institute 1921
Preprint.
SHORT CATALOGUING AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL CATALOGUING.
By Henry Bartlett Van Hoesen.
While the factors entering into a library catalogue are common the
world over, the degree in which they enter in is by no meanuniform. Even
in a single library there is admittedly plenty of lack of uniformity between
theory and practice.
The dictionary definition of catalogue, taken in connection with this dis-
cussion and the present methods of cataloguing, is interesting, if not even
amusing: "(1) A list, register, or complete enumeration; in this simple
sense now obsolete or archaic". "(2) Now usually distinguished from a
mere list or enumeration by systematic or methodical arrangement . . . and
often by the addition of brief particulars, descriptive or aiding identifica-
tion."
The second definition is probably as old as the first, since the earliest
catalogue I have any intimate acquaintance with. Homer's "Catalogue of
Ships," verges on literary description and Kallimachus is said to have done
some of his cataloguing of the Alexandrian Library in poetry. So true,
however, is the remark in the first definition about the obsoleteness of cata-
loguing in its simple meaning that one recent library manual defines cata-
loguing as book description. This definition is, I submit, a rather dangerous
one. Book description is rather a definition of bibliography, the interest of
which is the book itself rather than any library or the actual finding of the
book.
The object of this paper is, however, not a comprehensive definition of
catalogue but a rough definition or distinction of two kinds of library cata-
logue; the one "a list, register or complete enumeration in systematic ar-
rangement, with addition of brief particulars aiding identification and loca-
tion"; the other, descriptive. That is, the minimum library catalogue must
suffice for inventory and location. This is, theoretically, the catalogue
proper or short catalogue ; the rest of the information on the cards may be
called bibliographical (in a general sense, since literary, scientific, and criti-
cal material are sometimes included in the "annotations").
1
477^94
2 <c.f^
LIBRARY
!,*• 'Tliere/is plenty of precedent Io^^^qy system. When Gottlieb (Ueber
mittelalterliehe bibliotlieken. Lpz,, 1890, p. 315) says of medieval catalogues
"Es muss ausdriicklieh hervorgehoben werden, dass die Cataloge meist nur
zuni Auffinden der Codices im Allgemeinen dienten oder die Anzalil der
Bande aufweisen, " he ignores, for the moment, such catalogues as John
Whytfield's catalogue of the library of St. Martins Priory at Dover (cp.
James, M. R. Ancient libraries of Canterbury and Dover, and Clark, J. W.
Care of books).
In the discussions of "full" cataloguing, these two adjectives "full"
and "short," have had varying connotations, as may be seen by comparison
of British Museum "full" with Library of Congress methods, or, on the
other hand, with the short of Graesel's Handbuch. Pre-Cutter discussions,
especially, seem to have been limited more or less to the abbreviation of the
title, and "short-title" cataloguing is the proper term to use. Now, how-
ever, that "full" is fuller, it is obviously inadvisable to make the title suffer
all the shortening, and Cutter 's term ' ' short ' ' expresses more accurately the
minimum catalogue as I have defined it.
Short cataloguing has been not infrequently recommended for various
libraries or types of library and this and that item of cataloguing have been
suggested for omission, so to speak. This method of approach is perhaps
due to the natural objection of the conscientious cataloguer to any item
of reduction in his standards of good and thorough work. But such an atti-
tude is a mistaken one — and I speak from the misfortune of personal ex-
perience. Probably all will agree that there are certain circumstances in
which short cataloguing is the sound and proper policy — though they may
not agree on what the certain circumstances are. At any rate, given the
certain circumstances, "short" should ask himself — so should "full," for
that matter — not "what must I omit," or even "w^hat may I omit," but
"what must I include?" "Short" may be said to be guided, at present, by
codes of omission but lacks a code of cataloguing rules. Hence the variation
in the understanding of the term — many of the replies to my questionnaire
asked, of course, "M^hat do you mean by short?" Hence also much of the
unsatisfactoriness in practice — there are short catalogues, so called, which
are, properly, neither short nor catalogues; i.e., they contain information
not necessary for identification and location of books and omit information
necessary for purposes of identification and location.
In the short time that I have been able to spend on this paper I could
not hope to do more than indicate the lines to be taken by a code of short
catalogue rules, following the usual outline: (1) Author and heading; (2)
(
Title; (3) Imprint; (4) Collation and series note; (5) Contents; (6) Notes;
(7) Added entries, analytical entries and references.
(1) (a) Under whom as author. Identity should apply to the author of
the book if it is to apply to the book itself. This would preclude such a
practice as entering under a subject (for example, local directories) if the
author' is known. Likewise anonymous works should be entered under the
author, if known, as anonyms are never permanent. One war-time sugges-
tion with us was that ' ' short ' ' enter anonymous works under title or ' ' Anon ' '
w'here any research would be necessary to learn the author's name — this is
one example of short cutting below the standards of good short cataloguing.
(b) Under what part or form of name. The full name is necessary to make
sure the identity of the author, not only as against other authors of the
same name in the catalogue but as against others oiTtside the catalogue — in
bibliographies or in real life. Likewise necessary are references from name
forms not adopted. The rule of identity applies also, though in less degree,
to dates and designations. But identity in the catalogue would not require
full names, dates, etc., except w'hen confusion in the catalogue actually
arises. Bibliographically, or rather scientifically, dates are ahvays impor-
tant as showing the period with which the author's point of view would
necessarily be associated.
(2) Title. About the title has centered the most discussion of short-
cutting. A good system of rules is that in the Library World, v. 2 (1889),
118. All are agreed that first words are necessary for arrangement in
card file and that informative material should not be omitted. At Princeton,
as a w'ar-time emergency and in our title-a-line work, shortening was carried
beyond this point. Informative material was not rigidly included ; for ex-
ample, an alternative title often explains a meaningless first title, but, where
contents is given, or where subjects are traced on the face of the card, the
information is there. The suggestions of omitting indication of edition, joint
author, pseudonym, editor, and so on, are impossible if the identity of the
book is to remain clear, unless, of course, as in the case of the abbreviated
title just mentioned, the information is contained elsewhere on the face of
the card.
(3) Imprint. Identity requires place and date, as there are different edi-
tions of different dates and different editions of the some date in different
places. Different editions of the same date and the same place, but by differ-
ent publishers had not occurred to me until Mr. Currier was good enough to
call my attention to some. It is perhaps a question whether instances are num-
erous enough to call for rigid uniformity in insertion of publisher, and even
3
of place, until coufusiou hi the catalogue arises — but it is probably shorter in
the end to include at the start. Even "publisher" is, of course, of consider-
able bibliographical importance, in the information it gives (for example, as
to whether the book is probably technical or probably "popular") to the
person selecting from the subject catalogue.
(4) In collation the number of volumes is necessary for inventory, of
course. Paging is important bibliographically and will tell the user, for
example, whether he is consulting an encyclopedia or a pamphlet, but is
necessary, probably, only in case of earlj^ printed books, and not then when
reference, for identification purjDoses, can be made to a bibliography. Extra
illustrated books, etc., require mention of illustrations, either in collation or
notes. Large paper editions, etc., require similar mention of size ; though,
in general, size is largely merely a matter of bibliographical tradition. Some
books differ from others only in the matter of a half-title page or cover con-
taining series title. Also series titles are often the entry under which a book
is sought, and for administration purposes the series note is often important.
I question, therefore, whether omission of series note is safe.
(5) Whether contents is necessary for identification or not depends on
the oft-discussed question ' ' What is a book ? ' ' That is, do we have to identi-
fy an individual "piece" or work of an author included in a single volume
of his selected works? A similar work comprising a whole volume in a set
of his w^orks? Do we have to identify the different works or articles by
different authors embraced in a festschrift? Similar works forming indi-
vidual volumes in a collection? Or are we to understand, by book, the unit
expressed in the comprehensive title ? In a festschrift, for example, ' ' short, ' '
supposing he limits himself to the comprehensive title, will find some con-
tributions so important as to make him exceed his limit to the extent of at
least "partial contents"; and even "full" will be irritated at the amount of
attention he has to give, for example, to a note on Homer's Iliad IV, 2.
Mr. Leach, of our Reference department, gave me a recent concrete instance
of a work which could not be located by aid of short catalogue card with-
out contents — Shaw's "0 'Flaherty V. C," which contents would have
located in "Heartbreak House, Great Catherine, and playlets of the war."
Books "bound with" other books are not properly "contents" but dis-
tinct, individual books, except in the physical matter of binding.
(6) Notes. There are so many possibilities for notes that one cannot deal
with them satisfactorily without going into considerable detail. The brief
outline scheme for the order of descriptive and bibliographical notes given
in the Library of Congress supplementary rules may, however, answer for
present purposes : —
4
(a) Physical description is not necessary for identification except in case
of incunabula and other bibliographical monuments, "association" books,
and unique things in general, where the identification can not be made by
simple reference to a bibliography.
(b) Notes explaining the title are necessary for identification and inven-
tory when the title is copied from a source other than the title-page, when
"title varies" in different volumes, etc. "Short" may forego, though with
utmost reluctance, the bibliographical notes explaining titles which are
comprehensive of a variety of contents or more general than the contents
warrant, titles which are not comprehensive of contents or too specific, and
titles which are obscure or misleading — whether such titles are deficient aa
regards the contents of the book or the literary form in which the book is
written (cp. U. S. Department of education. Special report on libraries.
Cutter's Eules, Berwick Sayers' Manual, Savage's Manual of descriptive
annotations, etc.).
(c) Notes on authorship, editor, etc., are necessary in any catalogue if
heading and title have not made their identities clear. Annotations as to
the author's qualifications and point of view, scope of the work, etc., are
admittedly dangerous, even jn a bibliographical catalogue. I wish, how-
ever, to commend them in passing as of more service to the "greenhorn"
scientific inquirer in the subject catalogue than all the other bibliographical
items put together.
(d) Bibliographical history of the book may be passed over here except
to say that inventory and identification should probably go far enough to
state the fact of the non-existence of parts of books whose existence is in-
dicated by the title, and insert the "No more published" note.
(7) Added entries, references, etc., are chiefly aids to the location of books.
References, at least, are necessary for identification purposes where the
author is determined arbitrarily (as often in the case of collections or, for
example, "United States Laws, Statutes, etc.") and where the form of name
may not be generally known (anonymous and pseudonymous w^orks, etc.).
It is only common justice to give a joint author an added entry — a joint
author may fairly claim the privilege of finding his own work under his own
name. I do not know that I should countenance, even theoretically, omitting
"editor cards," but "short" might maintain that it should be theoretically
possible to educate students of literature to look for Plato under Plato first
rather than under Jowett, and that editors of periodicals deserve oblivion
more or less. Cutter suggests entering civil actions only under the party
first mentioned.
Analytical entries, like contents, depend on the unit ("book," or "title")
to be identified and located. Added entries or references nnder title may be
denied unjustifiable by "short" where the author's identity is clear.
Full and short may agree that the fewer subject cards the better. The
correctness of the first subject entry is the important thing rather than the
number of subject entries made. The more accurately the cataloguer is
able to determine the topic of a book the less likely he should be to multiply
subject entries on the one hand or, on the other hand, to diminish them by
lumping together, under comprehensive headings, books which are not com-
in'ehensive. But "subjects" are too big a subject to enter into here; and sub-
ject headings have been dealt with from good theoretical points of view by a
number of people — notably Mr. Bishop and Mr, Hanson. "Short" might
refuse to identify and locate "what books the library has on a given sub-
ject," but is not likely to take such a drastic minimum unless in case of dire
necessity.
On the other hand, the form headings, which are part of Cutter's system,
are probably less necessary nowadays, thanks to current bibliographies of
fiction, drama, etc.; and "short" may find it not absolutely necessary to be
able "to show what the library has in a gives kind of literature." At the
same time it should be remarked that certain form headings are not ade-
quately represented in current bibliographies, e.g., manuscript facsimiles,
library catalogues, etc. — or if they are represented in bibliographies, are
not represented in large enough number in the library so that the general
bibliographies can be a guide to what the library has, e.g., manuscripts and
incunabula.
I have endeavored here roughly to distinguish "short" and bibliographi-
cal cataloguing and to define short cataloguing and outline a code of rules
for "short." Bibliographical cataloguing, though included in my title,
needs no detailed treatment as it is provided for by the codes of cataloguing
rules.
) The choice between the two methods of cataloguing will depend on prac-
( tical considerations of use. One fundamental consideration is the relation
of cataloguing to bibliography. Mr. Fletcher (LJ 1905, p. 141-144) looked
to the "catalogue of the future" to have less references from one card to
another and more references to bibliographies. Dr. Richardson says (LJ
1916, p. 31) : "It is not likely that this method will ever wholly supersede
a central card catalogue, although there is a possibility even of that. The
short-title entry contemplates some source of fuller cataloguing where the
user of the library can get all the bibliographical details." On the other
6
hand, from the point of view of use, he said (ibid., p. 28) : "It was estimated
that ninety-five per cent, of the questions asked of the catalogue in the
small classified libraries could be answered by a simple author catalogue with
one hundred letter entry. ' ' A catalogue entry limited to one hundred letter
spaces means, of course, radical shortening. Mr. Currier seems to share this
latter view in his paper on short methods at the Saratoga meeting of the
American Library Association (published in part in the bulletin of that
meeting) "at present, I should formulate the principal aim of the Harvard
catalogue, in so far as the author entries are concerned, not as the forming
of a repertory of titles, each bibliographically complete, but as the providing
of a handy tool to bring to the searcher, with as little trouble and delay as
possible, a given book." But his contribution to this present discussion (see
below) emphasizes the importance of close relation of card catalogue and
stack use of books.
Eeplies to my questionnaire (from Cornell, Oberlin, Illinois, Minneapolis,
Milwaukee, Buffalo, New York) took exception to the expression "conven-
ient bibliographies ' ' and indicated a preference for full cataloguing methods
because bibliographies are still too few, not up to date, not well arranged
and, too often, compiled on "short" methods. Mr, Root says : "We find the
fullness of our catalogue much more satisfactory than the brevity of most
bibliographies." On the other hand, Mr. Foss (Brooklyn) says: "In the
long run it will probably be necessary to depend to a large extent upon
printed bibliographies. ' ' If bibliographies or some one Library catalogue —
as the Library of Congress is doing — would fully describe the book once,
and that description could be available to all, how many repetitions, dupli-
cations of the same work, the world over, could be saved ! If bibliographies
were sufficiently bibliographical, catalogues could be merely catalogues (i.e.,
short).
But, as it is, a library possessed of the most complete and up to date
bibliographical collection possible, but having merely a short catalogue, will)
still have to depend on its reference librarian's individual knowledge and
enterprise for a number of questions which a full catalogue might answer —
and this number is not easy to get at.
In reply to my own questionnaire, I may say : These questions will not be
asked by everybody on all occasions. For instance, the users of a university
library may be divided into staff, faculty, students, and general readers, al-
though all, to a certain extent, belong to the last class. The staff, with the
exception of the Circulation Department, will use the bibliographical part of
the cards. The professors, in my experience, will not, but come only for
7
definite books, or even wish to disregard the card catalogue altogether (not
specifically our card catalogue, but any catalogue) and go to a class of books
on the shelves. The students come in search of books to which they have
been referred by the professors, or at other times, are part of the last class,
the general reader. General readers generally have recourse to the reference
librarian for all sorts of information ; the fullest catalogue cannot hope to be
his equal; and "short" may fairly ask whether he cannot be expected to
do the extra work of a " full ' ' catalogue. Although the rest of the staff will
agree with him in finding use for "full' cards, he represents that class of our
users who are looking for something, "they don't know what," as against
the other classes who ' ' do know what ' ' and who are often more worried than
helped by ' ' full information. ' ' In sending out my questionnaire I had, there-
fore, the reference department chiefly in mind.
As it is possible that those who replied to the questionnaire will wish to
amplify their statements in the following discussion, I will summarize very
briefly.
(1) No actual statistics are available as to the percentage of questions
asked which could be answered by a full catalogue but not by a short cata-
logue and convenient bibliographies. There was universal agreement on this.
(2) For "full," stating no exceptions — Mr. Belden, Mr. Strohm, Mr. Root,
Mr. Steiner.
(3) "Full" necessary because of certain local conditions or needs — Mr.
Godard, Mr. Windsor.
(4) "Full" necessary to answer certain questions — Mr. MerriH, Mr. John-
ston — for: (1) Serials which have changed titles; (2) Works with vague,
ambiguous or deceptive titles; (3) Rare books; (4) Differing editions; (5)
Composite works of one or various authors, (a) Enabling user to call for one
volume needed, (b) Indicating scope of the collection. For such questions as
the following: 1. What short stories are contained in Alice Brown's Mead-
ow-grass ? 2. Is a certain book long or short ? 3. Which books on a certain
subject contain bibliographies? 4. Does this history contain maps? 5. In
which of the biographies of Jefferson am I likely to find a portrait of him ?
6. Which volume of Bacon's Works (Spedding's ed.) contains his literary
works? 7. Which volumes of the Harvard classics have you? 8. In what
book am I likely to find a picture of a rambler rose ?
(5) Fuller information asked of LC (quoted from Mr. Martel's letter) :
"Requests for fuller entries reach us by correspondence, reported omissions
on the printed cardfj, etc., etc. The data asked for are various: Author's
name (additional names) ; Author's dates; Collation, especially as to plates,
8
maps, cancels, addenda, etc., etc. ; Dates of publication if extending over a
period of two or more years j Variations in editors, publishers; Other edi-
tions, and contents notes, subjects, miscellaneous bibliographical data con-
cerning the book."
(6) "Full" necessary except, possibly, collation or size in collation — Mr.
Joseplison, Miss Hutchinson (Minneapolis).
(7) "Short" satisfactory for certain groups of users — Mr. Austen, Mr.
Eames, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Henry.
(8) "Short" possible for certain types of books — Mr. Lydenberg, Mr.
Montgomery, Miss Barnstead (Toronto Public Library).
(9) "Short" practical for certain libraries of a group — Miss Hitchler, Mr.
Koopman.
(10) One catalogue complete, or an LC depository file, other catalogues ^
short — Mr. Brown, Mr. Henry, Miss Hitchler, Dr. Richardson. '
(11) Objections to "full" possible on ground of congestion — Mr. Eames,
Mr. Foss, Mr. Godard, Mr. Henry.
(12) Short in certain particulars or on certain cards — Miss Farrar
(Springfield), Miss Prevost (Newark).
(13) "Twenty-five to thirty per cent, of our work could not be done by
means of a short catalogue or by bibliographic lists . . . this is only as to
amount . . . the value of work ... is many times that of the simpler work. ' ' —
Dr. Andrews.
(14) "Short" ninety to one hundred per cent, satisfactory for a given or
given type of library — Mr. Gifford, Mr. Jones, Mr. Koopman (of the col-
lege library), Mr. Smith, Miss Turvill (Wisconsin Free Library Commission),
Miss Marvin (Oregon State Library), Mr. Utley (for small public library).
(15) The reference librarian's expedient to supplement "the ordinary
catalogue" is indicated by Mr. Foss: "Reference department keeps a card
list of references to topics not brought out in the public catalogue. ' '
Mr. Currier, with whom I had exchanged one or two letters on this topic,
was good enough to read the first draft of this paper and to forward to me
some comments, both his own and those suggested in a meeting of the
"supervisors," together with a separate memorandum from Professor Cool-
idge. Both he and Professor Coolidge have consented to my making use of
their comments here, stipulating only that due allowance be made for the
facts that the comments, while in themselves deliberate, were written hastily
and not for publication. I beg therefore to introduce these here in order
to open the written discussion.
Written Discussion.
Archibald Gary Coolidge, Director Harvard University Library, contrib-
uted the following memorandum, explaining that although it represents
slowly matured ideas, it Avas dashed off on the spur of the moment and
merely sums up for Mr. Currier's benefit his reflections after reading draft
of paper and after a conversation with him.
(Memorandum for Mr. Currier on the subject of Mr. Van Hoesen's article
on Short Cataloguing and Bibliographical Cataloguing.)
Mr. Van Hoesen's article contains a number of interesting remarks but
he leaves out of account one of the most important questions, if not the
most important question, in regard to catalo^iing in a library like ours, —
namely whether all books should be catalogued in the same way or whether
one should frankly recognize that the cataloguing should have some rela-
tion to theii" value. I am convinced that this last must be taken increasingly
into account in spite of the obvious fact that the rules laid down can only be
very broad general ones and that it will be easy to point out many individual
instances where their application may seem absurd. In this Library we
have already gone some distance in this respect. We do not catalogue a
Czech work on sculpture in the way that we do. an English one, nor do we
treat a handbook on chemistry, written thirty years ago, with the same
fulness that we do a new publication on the same subject. In fact, that a
pamphlet of ten pages is not in most libraries catalogued as fully as a six
volume publication is another recognition of the same principle.
• In the second place, when you can get work done cheaply for you by
some one else, it is a reason for cataloguing books to which you could not
spare sufficient money yourself. This applies particularly to printed cards.
Third I am more and more convinced that scholars' libraries like this one
must, however unwillingly, recognize the fact that the subject catalogue
is meant for the general public, not the specialist. Librarians in general
may not yet be ready to admit this but all I have seen of this library and
of its use by the faculty for the last twenty-five years strengthens me in my
conviction. The principle is truer now than it was twenty-five years ago,
owing to the multiplication of learned periodicals and bibliographies in the
meantime. A subject catalogue inevitably contains a mass of stuff of infer-
ior value and omits much that is of considerable value. Many of the articles
in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and many of the chapters in certain large
works are of greater value for the student of the subject with which they
deal than are most of the references to it in our catalogue. ' The catalogue
can at best pretend to be little more than a collection of monographs, some
10
of them quite useless. Professors and other scholars can get little out of it
for their own topics ; on other topics they merely form a part of the general
public.
The conclusion that becomes ever firmer in my mind is that sooner or
later we and many other libraries had better give up the attempt to put in
our subject catalogue any works for which we do not get Library of Con-
gress cards or others of the sort. Library of Congress cards cover and will
cover the works which it is most important to catalogue fully. They are
cheaper than our own work and they include nearly everything that is
necessary for our student and other general public, apart from the specialist.
Exceptions may be made to this rule for certain classes of books which we
wish particularly to bring out, for instance incunabula. I am not urging the
immediate adoption of this rule. In a certain sense it means an abdication,
therefore I am not desirous of putting it into force any sooner than we have
to. Also and more important is the fact that we are still building up our
collection of fundamental and rare works which we are glad to have fully
catalogued in any case. We have made great progress in this respect in
the last twenty years and the number of such works that we are likely to
acquire and the Library of Congress not likely to have is rapidly diminishing,
and in all probability will diminish. Ten years hence we can, I think, reduce
ourselves for subject cataloguing to Library of Congress cards without ser-
ious disadvantage. We may have to do so much sooner.
T. Franklin Currier, Assistant Librarian, Harvard College Library — I
have this morning been re-reading your memorandum with a good deal of
interest, and yesterday read it before our supervisors. It formed the occa-
sion for more or less discussion, and in replying you must remember that
what I say is not entirely a statement of ideas that have origianted entirely
in my own brain, but is the result of a great deal of discussion, and of experi-
ment. It was Miss Tucker, who has charge of our cataloguing, that brought
out yesterday the thought that I amplify below, that the use of the Library
of Congress cards gives us a very different standpoint in the question of
"full" versus "short" cataloguing as we look at it today, from the Avay it
was looked at in the time of Mr. Cutter's earlier editions; which had the
additional difference of being compiled for the printed page catalogue rather
than for the card catalogue.
As I have stated above we feel here that the use of the Library of Con-
gress cards simplifies very much the question of full cataloguing. These
cards cover practically all the books which are asked for by the ordinary
college undergraduate, and certainly would include all that are desired by
11
the "green-horn scientific inquirer" that you refer to. Except for sugges-
tions -which might influence the Library of Congress in preparing their
cards this consideration pares down the discussion to a study of "short"
versus "bibliographical" cataloguing in the case of books used by the higher
grade workers. The comparatively few titles bought by this Library for
younger students which are not contained in the Library of Congress file
can be handled with any degree of fullness without inducing any severe
strain on our staff.
Furthermore the question of language, date, rarity and technical or non-
technical character of the books must be considered when we discuss full
and short cataloguing. Incunabula for instance have been so frequently and
so well described that only a very brief card is necessary in our catalogue
with proper reference to printed descriptions. Even a rare book Avhich has
not previously been described with fullness may be sufficiently indicated in
our catalogues by a very brief title. . . . We do not believe that we should
spend undue time in hunting for the printer and place of publication. The
author, brief title, date, and editor sufficiently indicate the edition.
Again, does not the use to be made of the card determine its fullness?
The Library of Congress sends out its cards to serve as complete biblio-
graphical descriptions of books in Washington. Their purpose is not alone to
indicate that the books are available in Washington, but to give more
or less final bibliographical descriptions to aid the student and the librarian
the world over in collating other copies, and determining the subject matter
or other characteristics of the books described. Since the Library of Con-
gress is doing this work for several hundred institutions it is justified in
putting in the additional labor necessary for such fulness, and we trust it
will always be sufficiently provided with funds permitting it to continue this
service. The Harvard typed cards on the other hand are not spread abroad ;
the books to which they refer are presumably easily accessible to those who
see the cards and consequently the titles may be abbreviated, because as
you yourself intimate about the only use made of these cards is to serve
as means of procuring as quickly as possible a given book. In other words,
in oiTr catalogues the typed cards differ from the Library of Congress cards
in representing books not used by the person who depends mainly on the
card catalogue for information about the books he uses. To put it in another
way, when cataloguing, weight should be given to the stack use of books in
determining the amount of money spent in preparing the cards.
After all, indeecl, it reduces itself to a case of dollars and cents, and the
choice betwen short and bibliographical cataloguing rests with whether the
12
information so painstakingly supplied is worth the actual number of dollars
(not cents, alas) bestowed on it? I intended no pun, but let it stand, there
is some truth there.
There is always a danger in o;ir making our rules too sweeping, a method
that must be applied to one book, should not be applied to another, A
Chinese book kept in a Chinese collection does not need subject headings,
perhaps not even an author card. Certainly our cards for the Chinese en-
cyclopedia do not need to contain the contents.
The results of your questionnaire will be worth while if they bring out
any consensus of opinion on the part of reference librarians and order de-
departments, as to what must perforce be placed on the cards and what extra
cards we can do without.
I add here a few disconnected notes that come to my mind as I read your
paper :
1. How are you going to enter a directory when the title is very non-
committal (e.g., "Boston directory" or "Maiden directory" for 1918) ? You
surely do not want a title entry and also a subject entry. You may be inter-
ested to know that in our public catalogue we sometimes omit author head-
ings, entering books under the subject headings only, thus a compilation of
educational laws which the Library of Congress might enter under ' ' Nevada
— Laws, Statutes," we place under "Education — Nevada," in the public
catalogue, though in our official catalogue we have the Library of Congress
card under the Library of Congress heading. We refuse to accumulate under
the heading "United States — Laws" the immense heterogeneous mass of
titles which would accumulate if we permitted all the Library of Congress
entries of this nature to go in.
2. [Dates and designations.] Your phrase "identity would not require
their insertion, etc." "Why does this not apply just as much to full names as
to dates? We believe that it does, and refuse to spend much time hunting
up a full name and certainly a middle name unless there is actual conflict in
our catalogue.
3. Examples of books with same place and date but different publishers
occur in books published in Paris in the seventeenth century hy members
of the association of booksellers. See Desfeuille's "Notice bibliographique"
in vol. xi of the Despois and Mesnard ed. of Moliere (Hachette, 1893), page
1, 55 &c. Here again a sweeping rule works badly, in cataloguing a long
series of editions of the works of an author the indication of publishers is ab-
solutely necessary while such information is less necessary (though fre-
quently useful) in cataloguing works of minor authors.
13
4. We leave out paging freely but in cataloguing pamphlets we add the
word ''Pamphlet" on the line below the title in order to indicate to the
reader the character of the item ; this is useful if the pamphlet is placed
under a subject heading,
5. Might it not be well to intimate that cataloguing policies must vary
with the library, in other words the aims of different libraries differ;
consequently a catalogue department must do its work in accordance with
the aims and objects of the catalogue of the particular institution for which
it is working. I would not suggest the same fulness of catalogue card for
our ' ' Child Memorial Library " of a few thousand volumes as I would for our
own huge card catalogue.
6. Our "short' methods do not imply the existence of any special biblio-
graphical catalogue, but they do imply, as I have suggested, the presence
of the book within easy reach of the person using the catalogue.
Winifred G. Barnstead, The Public Library of Toronto — We find that our
Reference Library requires a very full catalogue. Practically all the details
such as series notes, bibliographical notes, contents, etc., are being con-
stantly used. Our Reference librarians depend upon the catalogue to assist
them in finding material, and on this account our catalogue is very full.
Any library, which is helping in research work should be fully catalogued.
On the contrary our Circulating Libraries have never had full catalogues,
and we have never felt the need of giving details on our cards. All the
books are accessible, and the short form of card with author, title, publisher
and date seems sufficient. Occasionally the branch librarian asks for a series
note on the card.
C. W. Andrews of the John Crerar Library — The Reference Librarian gives
me an estimate, which, from my own experience, I think must be approxi-
mately correct, that from twenty-five to thirty per cent, of our work could
not be done by means of a short catalogue, or by bibliographic lists. Please
understand that this is only as to amount. As to the value, I think it can be
fairly stated that the value of the work thus accomplished is many times
that of the simpler work.
Cornelia Marvin, Librarian Oregon State Library, Salem — We have the
short form catalogue in our State Library. We resort to printed bibliog-
raphies for bibliographical information. We believe that economy in cata-
loguing is so necessary that we economize in every possible way. We use
the shelf list for a subject catalogue for everything except analyticals or
for books not classified with their main subjects, and for books which have
double heading. We do not attempt to make a bibliographical catalogue.
14
Walter L. Brown, Librarian, The Buffalo Public Library — Of course, we
appreciate that very seldom is a card catalogue consulted by the borrowers
for bibliographical information. There is a great deal of such detail on
the Library of Congress cards, which is very little used. It is of value at
times to the Library workers. We can readily understand, however, that
the use of the catalogue of a Public Library is very different from the use
of the catalogue of a University or a Reference Library. Our desire is to
make our catalogue as easy to use as possible by the public — the untrained
user. To make it as simple, as direct, as little complicated as we can —
leaving the bibliographical information preferably for the shelf list.
Wilberforce Eames — I can only mention my personal experience as bibli-
ographer in the limited field of early printed books and early Americana, in
which I have found the short-title check list absolutely necessary as a "time
saver." The full title bibliographical catalogue, which is the ultimate desire
of every bibliographer, is unfortunately limited by time and expense. The
quickest way to get a survey of any subject, is to make a title-a-line check
list of the best books relating to it. Like a short advertisement, it is the
short lists that get the most attention, and they are the best helps for a
busy man.
The title-a-line check list applies as much to manuscript as to printed lists,
and in fact more so. I believe that in nine cases out of ten, a short title card
catalogue of books in any particular library, will answer the purpose, be-
cause the books themselves are available for further details, not given on
the cards.
Thomas L. Montgomery, State Librarian of Pennsylvania — I don't know
anything about short cataloguing. Anything Avhich does not contain the in-
formation required bibliographically might just as well be out of existence.
It seems to me that there is less reason for short cataloguing now than ever
before, for most of the libraries subscribe for the printed cards of the Li-
brary of Congress.
Willard Austen, Librarian, Cornell University Library — We catalogue
pretty fully for our users, although no doubt for the general student use a
short form would probably serve every purpose, as students need little more
than a finding list.
This, however, would not serve the needs of scholars. We have had some
complaint about the early Harvard card entries being too meagre and no
doubt this is what caused Harvard to change in the later issues to the fuller
form.
The trouble with the "convenient bibliography" is oftentimes they are
15
not made by a trained worker and are so lacking in orderly arrangement
that the labor of getting at the essentials is great for the lay user.
H. M. Lydenberg, Reference Librarian, N. Y. Public Library — The impres-
sion among the members of our information division is exceedingly emphatic
and possibly a little more conclusive than any statistics we could furnish.
They say if it is a choice between a short catalogue and no catalogue, give us
a short catalogue; but if it is a choice between a short catalogue and a cata-
logue of adequate bibliographical description, give us the latter every time.
If we do not have the latter, we must in hundreds of eases go to the shelves
and examine the book, frequently only to find that this particular copy is not
the one we want. Most of the time we can tell this by means of our cata-
logue entries.
I am sure that the fuller bibliographical information given on our cards
is much more helpful than the inadequate description given on our cards in
the early days here. We should need more people and the work w^ould be
slower under the conditions that prevail here if we had short cataloguing
rather than full cataloguing,
I recognize very distinctly, of course, that there is a danger in having
"full cataloguing" so full that it is misleading, inadequate, absurd. We
have to use common sense and strive for a mean rather than an extreme in
either case.
I hold no brief for any particular kind of cataloguing and certainly do
not mean to urge that public libraries, such as ours, should catalogue with
the minuteness Dr. Cole is doing for the Huntington Library, or the minute-
ness with which he catalogued the Church collection. Some books need the
briefest kind of entries. In other cases it is necessary to be fuller. The
only object of cataloguing is to identify the book and give an idea of what it
talks about and how much there is in the volume. The shorter this cata-
loguing can be made, the better. The catalogue is only a guide, a medium,
a piece of mechanism, and the less obtrusive, the better. It has to be sturdy
enough, of course, to do its work.
George B. Utley, Librarian, The Newberry Library — ^Having had some
public library experience I can easily see that short cataloguing would be
adequate for a considerable portion of the books in a small public library
consisting of the more popular and well-known literature. You will prob-
ably get this point of view from public libraries you have addressed and so
we have, as you will see from Mr. Merrill's letter, simply based our reply
on our own experience.
Wm. Stetson Merrill, Head, Public Service Department, The Newberry
16
Library — Inasmuch as libraries can purchase ready made from the Library
of Congress cards with all the requisite data, even a discussion of the relative
value of "long'' and "short" catalogues seems superfluous. As to the
books for which Library of Congress cards cannot be obtained, I say : make
the cards as nearly like the L, C, form as you can afford to do. I have
never known a reader to complain of the length of an L. C. entry. [Compare
also Mr. Merrill as quoted in paper above.]
Azariah S. Root, Librarian, Oberlin College Library, Oberlin, Ohio — Our
catalogue is a catalogue which catalogues books and pamphlets with nearly
as full detail as does the Library of Congress. We should not know how to
get along without this detailed information which answers very many ques-
tions without calling for the book itself.
W. L. R. Gifford, Librarian, St. Louis Mercantile Library Association — I
have consulted with our assistant librarian and with the reference librarian,
and we are agreed tha the questions which could be answered by a full
catalogue, and not by a short catalogue or bibliography, would not amount
to ten per cent, of the total number.
Walter M. Smith, Librarian, University of Wisconsin — We have no statis-
tics. Our impression, however, is that in a library of this character there
arise a relatively small number of questions which cannot be answered by
reference to a short catalogue or a convenient bibliography, which could be
answered by a full catalogue.
S. J. Carter, Ref. Dept., Public Library, Milwaukee — We decidedly do
not favor short cataloguing. The fullest treatment as to analytical and
bibliographical data is none too much for research and reference service.
Bibliographies can not take the place, for effective and economical work, in
putting the library 's resources at the disposal of the user. The labor and ex-
pense of thorough cataloguing are abundantly compensated by the increased
availability of the collection.
Theresa Hitchler, Chief Cataloguer, Brooklyn Public Library— While we
haven't kept any statistics on the subject I think I can safely say that short
cataloguing as it is understood and demonstrated in this library, will answer
practically almost any question the average public may ask.
We omit bibliographical details but we in no way curtail or economize on
subject headings or cross references, analyzing each book very carefully
and fully, more fully for branches with small collections than for those with
a greater amount and variety of material on the various subjects.
Our Union Catalogue and the Catalogue of our main branch, the Mon-
tague branch, constituting practically our Reference library, are full cata-
17
logues, bibliographieally, etc. The student and the research worker seem to
require the bibliographical information furnished, tho' even they not so
often as one might think.
The Union Catalogue is of necessity a full one, for by its record we are en-
abled to differentiate between the many and varied editions, translations,
etc., of works by the same or similar (as regards names) authors as they are
added to our (Tolleetion, which now totals 989,000 volumes.
Calvin W. Foss, Reference Department, Brooklyn Public Library — We
have no statistics bearing on this question. My experience has been that the
ordinary card catalogue falls far short of meeting the requirements of ref-
erence work in a public library. In general, I should say, the smaller the
library, the fuller the cataloguing should be.
Of course there are objections to very minute analysis. It tends to congest
the catalogue with relatively minor entries, and the ordinary user fails to
distinguish them from more important ones.
J. C. M. Hanson, Associate Director, University of Chicago — Personally, I
believe that the question as to the relative merits of the short title catalogue
as against the fuller was settled back in 1848. At any rate the evidence of
De Morgan, Crocker, and others, before Lord Ellesmer'fe Committee on the
British Museum showed conclusively enough, the many pit-falls of the short
title catalogue. Moreover, I consider that the whole question is tied up with
that of the subject catalogue, and should be treated with special reference to
the latter. The person who knows his book, and wants only that book, can
get it through any short title finding list arranged by authors ' names. The
searcher who is not thus familiar with the book sought for, but must depend
on a subject catalogue, will need guidance beyond that provided by the short
title. True, someone will say, ' ' let him turn to bibliographies and reviews. ' '
Yes, how often has not that been tried, and how often has not the bibliog-
raphy and the review been found wanting, because non-existent, out of date,
or not readily accessible ! With our constituencies trained to expect assist-
ance from subject catalogues, and a large proportion of our entries coming
in the form of printed cards through cooperative enterprises, I should con-
sider an attempt to substitute the brief finding list, as a distinct step back-
ward. We might as well ask the farmer to discard his self-binder, as to ask
the librarian to revert to the old author finding list as his chief means of es-
tablishing a reasonably safe and expeditious connection between the reader
and his book.
Marie Louise Prevost, Head Cataloguer, Newark Public Library — Exper-
ience has seemed to show us that full bibliographical entries are not needed
18
in a public library. We use Library of Congress cards when we can get them
without waiting, but we do not give as full information on the cards we write
ourselves.
The number of volumes is used in place of paging. Our subject cards give
full title, but no imprint information except date. Title cards and analyticals
give short title ; and date on. We believe in cutting work wherever pos-
sible, but there is one omission I would never make, which is that of pub-
lisher on the main entry.
William E. Henry, Librarian, University of Washington — The head of the
Catalogue Department is personally of the opinion that in a University li-
brary such as ours full cataloguing should be done. He feels that it is de-
sirable not only for the greater number of questions that can be answered,
but that the economies supposed to follow by short cataloguing are more
apparent than real. He contends, for instance, that there is no considerable
time saved by writing "Bost." instead of "Boston," as the most of the time
of cataloguing is taken in an examination of the book. He believes, more-
over, that fuller cataloguing leads to more accurate cataloguing, since an
examination of the book for details often brings out some important bit of in-
formation which would be entirely overlooked in preparing the volume for
the short form.
Our reference department feels that there are decided advantages in the
fuller cataloguing, but recognizes advantages in the short form, particularly
the economy in space taken by the catalogue. In libraries such as yours,
equipped with a linotype and a photostat machine, there are, of course, very
special advantages in the short form.
Coming back to your question as to the number of questions that can be
answered by the short catalogue, we are inclined to believe that nearly all
student use of the catalogue is to get the location of a particular book. For
that purpose, author, title, date and call number is about all that is desired.
If the library contains the Library of Congress depository catalogue and
other important bibliographical tools, there are certainly very distinct ad-
vantages to come from the short catalogue.
Adam Strohm, Detroit Public Library — I have referred the question to
Reference, Circulation and Technology and their replies are attached.
In a general way, and judging from my own use of the catalogue, the
Reference staff would be very much handicapped by any system of short
cataloguing, while that part of the public who may wish to locate specific
books would "frequently be satisfied with less bibliographical data.
19
Short cataloguing would mean doing away with L. C. cards. Would the
gain offset the loss? — Reference Department.
I should say that the percentage of questions that could be answered by
the short catalogue would be very small indeed. — Circulation Department.
Phineas L. Windsor, Librarian, The University of Illinois Library — The
reference librarians have submitted the following note which with us is
counted by them an argument in favor of a full catalogue :
In looking up subjects in which many of the books are scattered in dif-
ferent dejiartments libraries — and the majority of our "catalogue questions"
are of this nature — a catalogue giving full details such as full titles, date,
place of publication or publisher, number of pages, illustrations and maps,
and contents notes, seems essential to prevent the inquirer's time being
wasted in going about over the campus for plainly unsuitable books.
Bernard C. Steiner, Librarian, The Enoch Pratt Library — We feel that
there are so many questions which can only be answered by a full catalogue
that we make one for this Library.
A. G. S. Josephson, The John Crerar Library — The Reference Librarian,
Mr. R. J. Usher, and I agree that no statistics on this subject could properly
be prepared for this Library. When, as happened last Saturday, a large
group of high school students comes in the questions asked may probably be
answered by a very short-title catalogue, but the inquiries from specialists
of any kind require for proper answer a catalogue with very full titles,
and when necessary contents notes or explanatory notes.
Charles F. D. Belden, Librarian, Boston Public Library — It seems to be
the opinion of those in this Library who have had the most experience re-
garding our catalogue and its use, that the short cataloguing would not
do at all for this Library and cannot be too strongly condemned.
Some years ago, by order of the Trustees, the catalogue entries were short-
ened to "a line a title" or as nearly that as possible. All such titles are now
being re-entered as fast as they are noted and the usual full entry given.
The Chief of our Catalogue Department ventures to say that three-quarters
of our books would lose a good part of their usefulness if catalogued in the
short method.
Charles Martel, Chief, Catalogue Division, Library of Congress — As to
' ' questions which could not be ansewered by reference to a short catalogue or
a convenient bibliography" it may be noted that it is a matter of regret and
disappointment and loss of time daily on the part of readers as well as mem-
bers of the staff who have occasion to consult the first aid to the cataloguer —
the great British Museum catalogue — to find the entry too short to answer
the question which caused the catalogue to be consulted.
20
Lura 'C. Hutchinson, Chief, Reference Department, Minneapolis Public
Library — We have in connection with our circulation department a short
catalogue including author, title, and one subject card for all books. It is
the experience of those working at the desk that for any questions requiring
research at all, resort must be had to the full catalogue in the reference de-
partment. In fact the short catalogue is a good deal of a trial to the flesh
to those used to a complete one. The same experience is brought out by the
fact that some classes of books, more particularly the books on religion in
this library, have never been fully catalogued, — analytics, translator and
added subject cards having been omitted. This has made the use of these
books exceedingly difficult, and the reference department will be exceedingly
relieved when the work of recataloguing is completed.
Full cataloguing also saves time in the long run. It is easier for the cata-
loguer with the book in her hand to assign all possible subject entries than it
is for the bibliographer to hunt up the material afterwards. And bibliog-
raphies are so incessantly out of date, a heinous crime in this day when noth-
ing bvit the latest word will please the public. We do use bibliographies fre-
quently, but find after all that the catalogue, covering the book from every
possible angle except size and color (unfortunate omissions) is our best
friend.
Miss Electra C. Doren — In the Dayton Public Library both with our old
and new card catalogues the policy has always been to do the fullest, most
complete cataloguing called for by the books themselves, constantly seeking
the most economical methods to accomplish this end.
With the use of Library of Congress printed cards the question of full-
ness or abridgment of bibliographical description of the book is eliminated
and at the same time as well, the great expense involved in such original
work by the individual library.
This service of the Library of Congress printed cards thus allows cata-
loguing time and energy to be applied chiefly to the contents of the book or
to the subject cataloguing and annotation, with such additional added en-
tries as are essential clues to book, author, series, etc.
The public catalogue must serve the trained (or untrained) reference
worker as well as the public of all grades of intelligence and skill who use it.
To meet this requirement we regard as complete analysis as possible neces-
sary.
There is a place still to be filled, however, within the catalogue itself
(whether full or abridged) by a bibliographical service which would under-
take for popular use the "convenient bibliography" kept up-to-date for sub-
21
jects of current or perennial interest. Such a bibliographical card for a
subject would be selective, with line annotation giving distinctive character-
istics of the book, and should be kept up-to-date for subjects selected for this
service.
In the voluminous growth of a subject the non-expert needs such a guide to
select the essential an^d eliminate the out-of-date. We append the views of
Heads of our Cataloguing and Reference Departments, and also of our West
Carnegie Branch Librarian.
"The time element, as it affects service, seems to me to be the most im-
portant factor in the consideration of the relative usefulness of the full
and the short catalogue.
"A short catalogue or 'convenient bibliography' would not serve the pur-
pose in our library. No doubt many of the questions which come to us could
be answered by a short catalogue, if there were sufficient time to do the
research which is necessary when a specific subject is sought through gen-
eral terms. Our reference workers are constantly under rapid fire and, as a
means of conserving their time, a detailed catalogue is an absolute neces-
sity. I find upon questioning each one of them independently, that they con-
sider a full catalogue indispensable and would welcome still further analysis
if it could be provided.' — (Signed) Virginia Hollingsworth, Head of Cata-
logue Department.
"It would be safe to say that scarcely a day passes in which some difficulty
is not experienced in locating material even though our catalogue is quite
full in treatment." — (Signed) Frederick H. Cook, Head of Eeference De-
partment. .
"Assuming that 'short cataloguing' means the omission of analytics and
the inclusion of only broad, general subject headings, no statistics are avail-
able to indicate the relative number of questions asked at West Branch
which might be answered by reference to a 'short' catalogue. It is safe to
say, however, that not a few questions might be unanswered, for often in a
small library like ours, the only available information on a subject may be
tucked away in some unexpected or obscure place. Even the most exper-
ienced assistant may overlook such a source if it is not brought out in the
catalogue. Therefore, it seems even more important to have full cataloguing
in a small library than in a large one, for, the material being necessarily more
limited, it is essential to have access to every bit of available information.
Obvious sources will be known by an assistant without reference to the
catalogue. It is when these fail that the catalogue is consulted. In a word,
99
in our branch of 10,000 volumes, we find the analytic invaluable." ^^Signed)
J. L. Hannaford, Librarian, West Carnegie Branch Library.
Miss Louise Prouty, Librarian of the Main Library, Cleveland Public Li-
Ijrary — If we understand by the term "short cataloguing" the limitation of
the number of entries, such as analyticals, we can only say that the same
problem is under consideration in our own Library.
"Whether or not serial publications such as are analyzed in the Readers'
Guide Supplement and other sources should be analyzed in our catalogue pre-
sents some problems to our Library probably in common with other libraries
of our type. For a Library so divided by subjects into special divisions as
we are, with a duplicate catalogue in each division for the material in the
division, it would be a loss not to have sets analyzed, as obviouslj'' the more
general bibliographies like the Readers' Guide Supplement could not be
sufficiently duplicated. On the other hand such multiplicity of entries make
a catalogue unwieldly as to size, and because of this we are seriously con-
sidering the value of such entries.
Another danger however of omitting these analytics in any large library
is that because of the very multiplicity of calls and of resources, it is time
consuming to search for material and also that people using the catalogue
(and they use it in this Library in increasing numbers) would often fail to
suspect other sources. The absence of analytics would serious affect the
small library because of the absence of these bibliographical sources.
If you are referring merely to the question of full or brief information
upon the card itself; I presume that two-thirds of the questions coming to
the Library could be answered by very limited information as to fullness of
imprint, etc., especially where the U. S. Catalogue is convenient for users
of the Library Catalogue. For the assumed other third ; we would be very
much at a loss without the full cataloguing, and should judge this to be true
of the smaller libraries also. It is too consuming of time to look up these
details in a large library and in a small one there would be a lack of the
necessary tools. However, the purchase of the Library of Congress cards
would obviate the necessity for considering such a problem. "We have no
statistics to prove either point, but are very greatly interested in the sub-
ject and trust that the discussion at the Atlantic City meeting will be a
profitable one.
23
mmm^
ff^ I };'. \J.^-r'-
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
CD27Sn33fl
iii
mm
; 'sftA^Wi