But when we have emphasized the educational side of the library’s

activity we have by no means exhausted its field. Its recreative

function is hardly less important. A very large proportion of the

library’s users go to it for recreation or relaxation. They obtain this,

of course, in the same way that they obtain education from books,

namely, by the acquisition of new ideas or mental images. The recreation

comes in from the fact that these ideas temporarily distract the

attention from other ideas connected with daily work and worry, and that

they ease the brain in the same way that a strained muscle may be eased

by gentle exercise. Evidently it is impossible to draw a line between

these two classes of a library’s activity. A zoological or a botanical

garden is an educational institution, so is an art museum. Yet the large

majority of those who go to them do so for amusement, and the

educational benefits obtained are incidental. Those benefits, however,

are none the less real, and it would evidently be impossible to give

separate statistics of those who have made educational and recreative

use of the institution. Yet we find people trying to do this very thing

in the case of the public library, which case is quite comparable with

those stated above. It is assumed, in the first place, that the use of

fiction is purely recreative, while that of non-fiction is educational;

and, in the second place, that the recreative use of the library is to

be condemned or at least discouraged, in comparison with the other. That

either of these can be sustained is very doubtful. The attempted

subordination of the recreative work of the library to the educational

is at best invidious. Each has its place in the scheme of things and

comparison in this case is worse than odious, it is misleading. Further,

it is positively impossible to draw a line between educational and

recreative books. So far as motives go, one may read Gibbon for

entertainment and Madame de Stael’s “Corinne” as an Italian guide book.

So far as results are concerned, the intelligent reader always acquires

new ideas as he reads; and in most cases the very same idea may and does

have both an educational and a recreative function. But although we can

draw no line, it is quite possible to pick out books on the one side and

on the other, and to assert that these are read chiefly for educational

purposes and those for recreation. On which side shall the library throw

its influence? There are many good librarians who feel that the popular

tendency is too strong towards recreation and that the library should

restore the balance by throwing its weight on the other side. Others see

in the popular desire for recreative reading only a hopeful reaction

from the mental tension and overwork with which, as a nation, we are

doubtless chargeable. Between these two points of view I believe that

the equilibrium of the public library is safe, and that it is in no

danger of developing unduly either on the recreative or on the

educational side.

Personally I have never felt that the user of libraries or any other

type of the average American was in danger from too much recreation. If

there is any use of a library that may have a vicious tendency it is its

use for pure pastime in the etymological sense--the reading of books

with absolutely no aim at all save to make the time pass. Now to make

time pass pleasantly or profitably may be a most legitimate object. Not

that, and not any lawful aim is objectionable. But aimlessness--the lack

of an aim--the taking out of books to skim or to glance at, or to look

at the pictures, with no desire for amusement, or profit, or anything

else--that is certainly worthy of condemnation. There is more of it than

we know, and it constitutes a menace to our intellectual future.

Newspaper reading fosters it, but not necessarily. Newspaper reading

with an aim is far better than aimless skimming and skipping of a

literary classic, and I should rather see a boy of mine reading the most

sensational dime novel he could lay hands on, with the definite desire

and intention of finding out how Bloody Bill got his revenge, than

lazily turning over the pages of Scott with no idea of what the story

was about. The first would be the case of a good reader and a bad book;

the second that of a good book and a bad reader. The library can easily

deal with the book; it cannot so easily manage the reader, though it may

try to do so. In the case of the bad reader the storage battery of ideas

has lost its connection. It would be well for some of us if we should

forget for the moment the difference between fiction and non-fiction and

should try to mend this broken link.

And now a word about ourselves. What are we, who are engaged in this

work, laboring for? Why are we working, and what do we expect to

accomplish? In answering this question it will be better for us to free

ourselves entirely from the bondage of words that mean nothing. Some of

us--I hope very many of us--are in the library work solely because we

love it and cannot keep out of it. Others are trying with more or less

success to persuade themselves that this is their reason. Still others

cannot truthfully say that they have had a “call to library work,” and

some of these are conscientious enough to fear that they are in the

wrong place and that the work is suffering thereby. To these I desire to

address a word of consolation and encouragement. The impression is very

general that the greatest work of the greatest minds had no motive but

the productive impulse. The poet, according to this view, sings because

he cannot help singing; the artist paints solely to satisfy the creative

longing within him; the musician composes for the same reason. Now the

fact is that a man who is capable of great work, or of ordinarily good

work, may produce it under a variety of impulses. Some act more strongly

on one man; others on another; or the same man may be more susceptible

to a given impulse at one time or place than at another. Without a

doubt, many of our immortal works were the result of simple inability

to keep from producing them. But just as certainly, others were the work

of men who had to school themselves by long practice and then to hold

themselves to the work with iron determination. “Genius” says Carlyle,

“is nothing but an infinite capacity for taking pains.” To which a

modern critic replies, “On the contrary, genius is an infinite capacity

for doing things without taking any pains at all.” Both are right. There

are both these kinds of genius--and many others. The writer who attempts

to bind down genius to rules and formulae will have a hard task. And

what is true of genius is also true of ordinarily good work--the work

that you and I are trying to do in our libraries. Some of us do it

easily because we cannot help it; others do it with more or less

difficulty under the pressure of one or another need. One, though the

work itself comes hard to him, loves the result to be accomplished;

another, perhaps, is toiling primarily to support himself and those

dependent on him. What of that? We have been placed where we are, to

secure certain results. We want the help of every one who can contribute

a share of honest, intelligent work toward the attainment of these

results, and we shall not ask for motives or inquire into the exact

amount of effort that was necessary, provided the work has been done and

done well.

I have the greatest sympathy for the conscientious library assistant who

feels that she ought to love her work in the same way perhaps that she

loves music or skating, or a walk through the autumn woods, and who,

because she does not sit down to paste labels or stand up to wait on the

desk with the feeling of exhilaration that accompanies these other acts,

is afraid that library work is not her métier.

Such workers should possess their souls in peace. It is very common for

routine work to pall upon him who does it, and we are all apt to think

that no work but ours has any routine. Our weary eyes see only the

glorious moments of success in the lives of other toilers; we are blind

to the years of drudgery that led to them. The remedy is to look

forward. You may not enjoy climbing the mountain step by step, but the

view from the summit is glorious. And if to sustain yourself on the

climb you think of the bread and cheese that you have in your lunch

basket, I cannot see that there is aught to complain of.

All over the world there are workers who feel that they are not worthy

of their work. It is dull; it palls on them. But if their lot had only

been different! If their work had been that of the musician or the

artist! Then toil would become pleasure, and the hours that now drag

heavily would flit on wings. Very little of this feeling is justifiable,

and these dissatisfied workers will do better work if they are made to

realize that it is only the favored few who can bring enthusiasm to the

daily routine. The most that we can ask of the average worker is a

conviction of the usefulness of his work and a determination to make it

as useful as possible. More: such a determination honestly lived up to

is sure to beget interest--that concrete interest in one’s work that is

worth much more, practically, than an ideal love for it. The woman who

goes into slum work impelled only by a vague love for humanity is apt to

give up after a little when she discerns that humanity in the concrete

is offensive in so many ways. But if she forces herself to keep on, and

to make herself as useful as possible, there comes the personal interest

that will bind her to her task and that will increase its usefulness. So

it is with library work; you need not love it ideally to succeed in it;

you need only buckle down to it until you feel the personal interest

that will carry you through triumphantly.

And what is it all about? In the broadest sense, as I have already said,

we librarians are the purveyors of ideas stored up in books. These ideas

are more to man than mere education--they are life itself. Life is

growth, not stagnation--it involves change and acquisition. “Life is

change,” says Cardinal Newman, “and to be perfect, one must have changed

many times.” To contribute the opportunity and the stimulus for such

change is our business. The child cries out to his environment--“Give me

ideas and experiences; good and pleasurable if you can, bad or painful,

if you must, but give me ideas and experiences.” Part of this craving it

is the duty of the public library to satisfy. The craving may grow less

keen as we grow older, but it never really ceases to exist. To satisfy

that craving in legitimate ways and to guide and control it if we can is

our business, stated in the broadest possible terms. That is what we are

aiming at. The librarian should be the broadest minded of mortals. He

should be a man in the widest sense--to him nothing human should be

alien.

This is decidedly broad and correspondingly vague. Being so, it may be

interpreted by every worker in the way that appeals to him most. To one,

the educational work of the library will make the strongest appeal; to

another its recreational function. One may prefer to lay stress on the

guidance of children’s reading; another on reference work with adults.

These are all phases of one and the same general class of acts--the

imparting of ideas by means of books--and there is no reason why each

worker should not gain interest in that work by and through the

particular phase that appeals to him.

“I wish,” says one of James Lane Allen’s characters, “that some

virtue--say the virtue of truthfulness--could be known throughout the

world as the unfailing mark of the American. Suppose the rest of

mankind would agree that this virtue constituted the characteristic of

the American! That would be fame for ages.” We librarians, in like

manner, not only wish but strive to make some one virtue characteristic

of our work--say the virtue of usefulness. “As useful as a librarian,”

“As indispensable as the public library”--these are not yet, I am

afraid, household phrases. But why should we not make them so?

LIBRARY STATISTICS

It is a valuable exercise to examine into the origin and uses of the

things that we have been accustomed to take for granted and to regard

almost as part of the accepted order of nature. The result will often be

startling and it will always be salutary, if the examiner be sane and

conservative. Therefore a very good way to begin a discussion of

statistics is to query whether they are of present value at all, or

whether they are old fashioned rubbish and had better be discarded.

Statistics are the numerical statements of results or facts. Now

thousands of individuals and thousands of bodies--families, clans,

associations, that accomplish much in this world, go on very well

without keeping any record at all of what they do. This is indisputable.

On the other hand we shall see that as work is done well and carefully

there is an increasing disposition to make and keep a record of results;

and as the work extends in scope and complexity, the record, too,

becomes more complex. Take, for instance, the record of so apparently

simple a transaction as the payment and receipt of money. The individual

who has little of it to receive and disburse may go all his life without

keeping so much as a cash account, much less a set of books. He may even

spend a considerable income in the same way, including the maintenance

of a household and the support of a family, and he may, on the whole, do

it wisely and well. Yet of two men of the same means, one of whom should

conduct his affairs thus, while the other kept a rational system of

household and personal accounts, the latter would universally be

regarded as pursuing the better course. And as we pass from this to the

conduct of a business we recognize that the man who engages in commerce

without keeping proper accounts is a fool and courts failure, and that

the larger the business and the more widespread the interests, the more

complicated and extensive must be the bookkeeping. A large commercial

concern may thus employ a special department with a large staff of men

simply to keep record of its financial transactions. This is probably

the most ancient kind of statistical record and the one whose usefulness

is most generally recognized.

In like manner another common and useful statistical record--the

inventory, or list of articles on hand--although not commonly and

regularly taken by the individual, becomes absolutely necessary in the

smallest kind of business, and without it the merchant can have

absolutely no idea, of whether he is conducting his business at a profit

or a loss. When we go on further and examine, the conduct of great

commercial or manufacturing concerns we find that the statistical

department becomes of increasing importance, the details collected by it

multiply and the staff of persons whose sole duty it is to collect and

to discuss them may be very considerable. That a great manufacturing

company would waste time and money on a task of no value is

inconceivable, and there is thus a very strong presumption that

statistics are worth something. Even where bodies of men have so little

power or corporate action that they cannot collect statistics for

themselves, it is generally deemed a proper expenditure of the public

money to do so at the common cost, hence governments maintain great

census bureaus, whose duty it is not only to count heads every few

years but to tell the farmer how much he raises, the merchant how much

merchandise he exports, and so on.

Is the free public library an institution that will be benefited by the

collection, tabulation and discussion of the results of its work, so far

as they can be numerically expressed? What are the objects of such

collection in the instances above enumerated? In the first place, they

are to satisfy mere curiosity. If such curiosity is trivial, the

collection of statistics is evidently useless, and I am afraid that more

than a little of it, public and private, falls under this head. But

curiosity, even when it goes no further, may be perfectly legitimate.

Especially is this so about one’s own affairs. When a man is attempting

anything he is naturally curious to know whether he has succeeded or

not; and to find out, if possible, precisely how far he has gone in the

desired direction. He may have property enough to support him beyond all

doubt, but it is quite right that he should want to keep a list of his

stocks and bonds and to know whether they have risen or fallen in value

during the year. Still further, curiosity about other people’s affairs

may be legitimate, as, for instance, when one is responsible for their

proper conduct in greater or less degree. In the same way the trustees

of a free public library, representing the public at large, by whom the

library is supported and carried on, have a right to know all possible

particulars regarding the way in which their librarian has carried on

his work and the results he has reached in it, and the municipality in

turn should require of the trustees a strict account of the funds that

they have administered. All this information, as far as it can be stated

numerically, constitutes a mass of statistics, and this one reason amply

justifies its collection and would justify a much larger number of

tables than is usually given in a library report, provided only that the

information is to the point and is or should be in public demand.

But we cannot stop here. A free library, it is true, is not a

money-making concern, but it certainly should be run on business

principles. The public puts into it a large sum of money and has a right

to expect certain returns, which are none the less definite that they

cannot themselves be represented in dollars and cents. The library

statistic books are therefore, in a way, the records of the business;

they show whether it is being conducted conservatively or wastefully, at

a profit or at a loss. And as all these record books are open, they

enable us, or should enable us to make instructive comparisons between

the methods and results of one institution and those of another.

But even this is not all. It is a maxim of this strenuous age that all

things are good or bad according to the results to which they lead, not

in the narrow sense that “the end justifies the means,” but in the

broader sense that we must know things by their fruits. The man who said

“I go, sir,” and went not, was judged by his acts, not by his words; and

no matter how much knowledge we store up and how many tables of data we

collect we shall be derelict in our duty if we regard this as an end in

itself. The state of mind in which the Mahatma spends his life in

impassivity, contemplating inward things and making no outward motion,

may have certain advantages, but it is not consonant with the spirit of

this age and this land. By which I mean that when we have found out

something from our statistics we must do something with it. More; we

must so direct our statistical investigations that they bear directly on

a possible course of action. This is done by the great manufacturing

concerns that maintain statistical departments; but we all use

statistics in this way. If a boy wants to go to the circus he first

looks through his pockets to see whether he has enough cash. Here is the

germ of a statistical investigation conducted for the specific purpose

of getting information on which future action is to be based. Here

sometimes, where the opportunity of collecting statistics is very great,

and expense is no object, is a good excuse for gathering a great deal

that would seem to be useless, with the expectation that some of it may

turn out to be interesting and may suggest some line of work that had

not previously been thought of. To go as far as this, the institution

must be large and rich.

But how many of us do anything with our statistics? How many collect

statistics along special lines to assist in deciding what we shall do

along those lines? How many of us, rather, consider that, when our

statistics have been collected a disagreeable task has been done, and

put them behind us till the year rolls round again?

Perhaps we have had enough now of the philosophy of statistics. Let us

see what concrete kinds of statistics are necessary and in what order of

importance.

First comes an itemized account of receipts and expenditures. This is so

obvious that it is not generally considered as library statistics at

all. But it may and should be extended a little. Look at all your other

tables of statistics through financial spectacles. Compare your receipts

with your population. How much does your town give per capita for

library work? Compare this figure with the same for other towns. Compare

your expenditures with your circulation. How much has your library cost

you per book circulated? Compare your expenditure for books with the

number purchased and tell us the average cost of a book and how this

compares with the cost in former years. Do this for a half-dozen other

phases of your work and put the result in as many brief, crisp

sentences. If you haven’t room in your report, cut out some of the

platitudes; we all insert them in moments of weakness and, once in, it

sometimes requires an earnest search to detect and expunge them.

Next in importance comes an account of your books--how many there are in

the library, on what subjects, and how many have been added during the

year in each subject; how many gifts you have had; how many books have

been lost. This involves taking a careful inventory at least once a

year. You see I am putting this before any account of circulation. A

good many libraries take no inventory or take it at too infrequent

intervals, because they have no time. You might as well say you have no

time to keep a cash account. This is business and comes first. Leave off

counting your circulation if you must, but keep count of the public

property in your care as conscientiously as you keep count of the money

in your cash drawer. If you can do nothing else make a simple

enumeration of volumes without taking account of classes, but do it

thoroughly. The trouble with the inventory is that, like the

old-fashioned housecleaning, it is usually done all at once and becomes

an annual bugbear. One way of making it easier is to spread it over the

year, counting and reporting one class every month and treating it as a

part of the regular routine. In this category of statistical records

comes the list of your books, which you must surely have in some form,

even though you may not have accession book, shelf list and dictionary

catalog. For statistical purposes indeed, the last-named may be left out

of account.

Next in order of importance come statistics of circulation. You should

know how many books are given out for home use every day and how these

are distributed among the classes. Do not adhere too strictly to your

classification. Subdivide and combine your classes so that the results

will be of interest to your particular public. Always remember in

discussing these statistics that they are not so much a record of work

done as a rough proportional indication of that work, and are therefore

of relative, not of absolute interest. You are not to attach any meaning

to the fact, taken by itself, that your circulation was 5280 for the

month of May, but if you find that it was only 3120 in the previous May

you may justly conclude that the work of your library is increasing.

Library Essays; Papers Related to the Work of Public Libraries · 第 4 / 29 段