Dictionary _versus_ Classified Catalogues.
Form to be fixed. The users of Catalogues. Questions Catalogues
are expected to answer. The Dictionary Catalogue. The
Classified Catalogue. The Alphabetico-Classed Catalogue.
Definitions.
We now proceed to consider the needs of those for whom our catalogues
are prepared.
It may be presumed that most of those who use this book are engaged
in municipal or similar libraries, where the requirements of the many
must be taken into account rather than the special needs of the few.
For those who have yet to acquire experience it is as well to state
that in cataloguing, as in most other departments of library work, a
definite decision as to the form and methods to be adopted must be made
at the outset, as it is impossible to start upon one form and then
change to another without confusion or the sacrifice of work already
done. Then, again, readers as a rule are extremely conservative, and
not only dislike a change but are quick to resent it even when the
advantages are sufficiently obvious to warrant it. Librarians and their
assistants, too, get accustomed to a particular method, and after
several years of working find it difficult to make a change to another
without it affecting their work, often unconsciously.
The spread of education and reading nowadays would lead us to suppose
that most people possess a sufficient amount of general knowledge to
enable them to make an intelligent use of a catalogue, provided it is
compiled upon well-defined and logical principles. Should the compiler
happen to have all the accomplishments named in Chapter I., and yield
to the temptation to air them by the production of a highly scientific
catalogue, he will find that his labours are unappreciated, and that he
must adapt his work to the needs of the average "man in the street."
Mr. H. B. Wheatley says as to this "that some persons seem to think
that everything is to be brought down to the comprehension of the fool;
but if by doing this we make it more difficult for the intelligent
person, the action is surely not politic. The consulter of a catalogue
might at least take the trouble to understand the plan upon which it
is compiled before using it." Mr. Wheatley's experience is not that of
public librarians generally, as not one person in a thousand does take
this trouble.
However this may be, there is no difficulty in attaining the happy
medium whereby the ignorant (speaking, of course, comparatively) finds
his wants met as readily as the most learned, and with simplicity and
thoroughness. It has been put in other words thus: "The right doctrine
for a public library catalogue is that it should be made not from the
scientific cataloguer's point of view, with a minimum of indulgence for
ignoramuses, but from the ignoramus's point of view with a minimum,
of indulgence for the scientific cataloguer. That the person who not
only does not know but does not even know _how to search_ should be
primarily provided for." Therefore this idea of suiting the needs of
the particular public using the library must never be overlooked by the
cataloguer.
Besides considering what are likely to be the needs of the majority of
the readers who will use the library to be catalogued, we must decide
what is the maximum amount of information that the catalogue should
afford them, also which form will give the most of this information
with the least trouble and delay to the inquirer.
What are the questions likely to be asked that a catalogue can be
reasonably expected to answer? These do not exceed a dozen, and are as
follows:--
1.--Have you a particular book by a given author?
2.--What books have you by a given author?
3.--What books in the library has a particular person edited,
translated, or illustrated?
4.--What books have you upon a specific subject? say roses.
5.--What books are there relating to a general subject? say all
kinds of flowers.
6.--What books have you in a particular class of literature?
say biography or theology.
7.--What books have you in a particular language?
8.--What books have you in a particular literature? say French.
(This is a somewhat remote but not unreasonable question.)
9.--Have you a book (author unnamed) bearing a particular
title? and, on the same footing with this inquiry, Have
you any of the series called so and so?
10.--What books have you in a particular form of literature? as
poetry.
11.--Have you a novel or other work by a particular author
dealing with a particular period? or any similar question
relating to the inner nature of a book.
12.--In what volume of an author's works is a particular essay
contained? (This last question is really the same as the
first in another form.)
The first and second questions will be answered by a catalogue
consisting of author-entries, that is a dictionary of authors, or
if compiled under the British Museum rules it will answer these
and the third also to a large extent. In addition it should answer
No. 12. Questions 4, 5, 6, and 10 can be answered by means of the
catalogue known as classified--the entries being arranged in general
classes and sub-divided as necessary, but logically, according to the
scientific relations of the subjects of the books. If an author-index
is added other questions also would be answered with a little
trouble. The same questions will be answered by the form known as
alphabetico-classed--that is a catalogue of subject, class, and form
entries arranged alphabetically.
No one style of catalogue, however, will answer all of these questions,
but the one that will answer most of them with the least trouble and
loss of time to the user is that known as the dictionary catalogue.
It consists of an arrangement of author, subject, and (to a limited
extent) title entries in a single alphabetical sequence, and is by far
the most popular form. It is neither economical nor the most logical,
but its convenience for ready reference compensates for these defects.
It ordinarily answers questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and can be made to
answer questions 3, 7, 11, and 12--that is nine questions out of the
twelve.
The two most common forms of catalogues are the dictionary and the
classified. For many years much controversy has arisen respecting
their comparative usefulness, and there is much to be said in favour
of both, each having merits, as already shown, not possessed by
the other. The late C. A. Cutter points out the advantages of the
classified catalogue, thus: "One who is pursuing any general course
of study finds brought together in one part of the catalogue most of
the books he needs. He sees not merely books on the particular topic
in which he is interested, but in immediate neighbourhood works on
related topics, suggesting to him courses of investigation which he
might otherwise overlook. He finds it an assistance to have all these
works spread out before him, so that he can take a general survey of
the ground before he chooses his route; and as he goes back, day after
day, to his particular part of the catalogue he becomes familiar with
it, turns to it at once, and uses it with ease. The same is true of
the numerous class who are not making any investigation or pursuing
any definite course of study, but are merely desultory readers. Their
choice of books is usually made from certain kinds of literature or
classes of subjects. Some like poetry or essays or plays [curiously he
omits novels]; others like religious works, or philosophical works,
or scientific works, not caring about the particular subject of the
book so much as whether it be well-written or interesting. To these
persons it is a convenience that their favourite kind of reading should
all be contained in one or two parts of the catalogue, and freed from
the confusing admixture of titles of a different sort. An alphabetical
list of specific subjects is to them little more suggestive than an
alphabetical list of authors. It is true that by following up all the
references of a dictionary catalogue under Theology, for example, a man
may construct for himself a list of the theological literature in the
library; but to do this requires time and a mental effort, and it is
the characteristic of the desultory reader that he is averse to mental
effort. What is wanted by him and by the busy man when now and then he
has the same object, is to find the titles from which he would select
brought together within the compass of a few pages; few, that is, in
comparison with the whole catalogue. It may be 500 pages, but 500 pages
are better than 10,000. The classed catalogue is better suited also
than any other to exhibit the richness of the library in particular
departments."
Cutter, at the same time, proceeds to name some of the disadvantages
of this style of catalogue. "A large part of the public are not
pursuing general investigations. They want to find a particular book
or a particular subject quickly; and the necessity of mastering a
complex system before using the catalogue is an unwelcome delay or
an absolute bar to its use." Then, again, there is the difficulty of
want of agreement as to classifications. The simple remedy for such
difficulty is an alphabetical index of all the subjects appearing in
the catalogue, whereby an inquirer is directed to the particular part
of the catalogue in which he will find books upon the subject or topic
he wants. There are very few, if any, catalogues of the kind without
indexes now, though in the early days they were seldom provided.
As said already, early catalogues of libraries were mostly either
classified or simply author catalogues. The classification was, often
enough, very poor, the sub-division not being carried very far, and
this led to the invention or evolution of the dictionary catalogue and
brought the classified, such as it was, into disrepute.
The cataloguing of a library is one of the most troublesome and
expensive departments of its administration. The cost of printing is
greater than ordinary printing, and the expense to a library with
its limited income is always serious, because people will not buy a
catalogue even at half the cost price of printing but prefer to make
use of the copies provided at the desks. Moreover, at the end of six or
even fewer months after publication the public usually regard it as out
of date and decides to wait for the _next_ edition. In this respect the
classified catalogue has the advantage, as it costs less to print, and
for this reason, as well as owing to the custom of admitting readers
to the shelves of public libraries, there has been a revival of this
style of catalogue in late years, especially as it serves as a key or
guide to the arrangement of the books upon the shelves of "open access"
libraries. It can moreover be printed and issued in sections without
affecting its completeness in the end.
The dictionary form, as distinguished from a mere alphabetical list of
authors, consists of entries of books under their specific subjects,
instead of their classes. To quote Cutter again: "Thus if a book
treats of Natural History it is put under that heading; if it treats
of Zoology alone that word is the rubric; if it is on Mammals it will
be found under mammals; and, finally, if one is looking for a treatise
on the elephant, he need not know if that animal is a mammal; he need
not even be sure that it is an animal; he has merely to be sufficiently
acquainted with his alphabet to find the word Elephant, under which
will appear all the separate works that the library contains on that
subject. Nothing, one would think, can be more simple, easy to explain,
easy and expeditious to use than this. No matter what he wants he will
find it at once provided that the library has a book on just that
subject and that it has been entered under the very word which he is
thinking of. If these conditions are not fulfilled, however, there
is more trouble. If the library has no book or article sufficiently
important to be catalogued on that topic he must look in some more
comprehensive work in which he will find it treated (as the history
of Assyrian art is related in the histories of Art), in which case he
will get no help whatever from any dictionary catalogue yet made, in
finding the general work, he must trust to his own knowledge of the
subject and of ordinary classification to guide him to the including
class, or there may be something to his purpose in less general works
(as books on Iron bridges or Suspension bridges might be better than
nothing to a man who was studying the larger subject Bridges), but in
this case also he will very seldom get any assistance from dictionary
catalogues, and must rely entirely upon his previous knowledge of
the possible branches of his subject. Even in those catalogues which
relieve him of this trouble by giving cross-references, he must look
twice, first for his own word and then for the word to which he is
referred from that."
A judicial statement of the merits of both these styles of catalogue is
contained in a paper by Mr. F. T. Barrett, of Glasgow, entitled "The
Alphabetical and Classified Forms of Catalogues compared," printed in
the _Transactions of the Second International Library Conference_,
1897. In the _Library Association Record_, 1901 (pt. 1), pp. 514-531,
there is a verbal and friendly duel between Mr. W. E. Doubleday and the
author upon the matter, mainly from the practical point of view.
The Alphabetico-Classed catalogue, as its name denotes, is an attempt
at a classified catalogue in alphabetical order of subjects or
classes, and is a mixture of the two systems already spoken of, and
about as satisfactory as hybrids usually are. The late Prof. Justin
Winsor characterised it as "the mongrel alphabetico-classed system, a
primarily classed system with an alphabetical graft upon it is a case
of confusion worse confounded." The great difficulty both to compiler
and user is to know where the subjects leave off and the classes
begin--in other words, whether a subject or a class entry is likely to
be the one wanted. One of the best examples of this kind of catalogue
is the late Mr. Fortescue's "Subject Index to the British Museum
Catalogue," and he apparently experienced the difficulty of deciding,
as for instance a book on the elephant appears under Elephant, but a
work upon the Elk must be looked for under "Deer." The usefulness of
this particular catalogue cannot be gainsaid as its value is too well
known, mainly because there is no other form of subject-catalogue for
the library of the British Museum. Besides it has such a comprehensive
series of cross-references that difficulty is largely obviated, and
then again it is only meant as a subject supplement to the principal
catalogue. Admirable as it is, we may see how it works out in practice.
Suppose we are interested in Law. Under the heading "Law" we find
a large number of entries divided into particular kinds of law as
"Commercial," "Criminal," "Ecclesiastical," &c., and these are further
sub-divided under the names of countries. One would suppose that the
subject would be here treated in a most exhaustive manner. But that is
not so, as if we require books on the Laws of England we must turn to
the word "England." Thus we have books on English criminal law under
"Law"; a book upon English general law under "England"; and a book say
upon English election law under "Elections, Law of." If it is right to
put books on the law of elections under Elections it might be assumed
that books on criminal law would go under "Criminal law," but there
is not even a reference to say where they are to be found. Admittedly
"Law" is a large and complex subject, and would fill many pages if the
books upon it were brought together. As it is the searcher must take
a long time to ascertain in any exhaustive manner what books upon the
subject are contained in Mr. Fortescue's Indexes. Even if the inquiry
is narrowed down to say Italian law, searches must be made in many
places without touching special Italian law at all. However there is no
system but has its drawbacks, though probably the alphabetico-classed
has the most.
There is such a thing as a dictionary system that combines an unseen
but systematically classified system. Its root method would be to
adopt some thorough scheme of classification permitting of the
finest possible detail in topic and adjust thereto any necessary
cross-references to cover synonymous names and double subjects. The
cataloguer would keep the complete scheme in all its details before him
and, by means of an alphabetical index to every adopted name, he would
have a list of the subject-headings in dictionary order and to these he
would adhere. There would still be specific entry. This is the method
that should be pursued in the compilation of dictionary catalogues.
The classification may exist only in the mind of the cataloguer and
be formulated in no other way unless he relies upon headings already
fixed in his catalogue. By trying to adjust headings in such catalogues
to any logical classification one can soon ascertain whether they are
systematic or haphazard.
The following definitions should be noted before proceeding to the next
chapter:--
_Author-Catalogue_ is one in which the entries are arranged
alphabetically according to the names of the authors (a dictionary of
authors).
_Title-Catalogue_ is one in which the entries are arranged
alphabetically according to some word of the title, especially the
first (a dictionary of titles).
_Subject-Catalogue_ is one in which the entries are arranged according
to the subjects of the books, alphabetically by the words selected
to denote those subjects (dictionary arrangement). If these subject
entries are not arranged alphabetically, but are formed into classes
philosophically according to the scientific relations of the subjects,
then it is a classed or classified catalogue.
_Form-Catalogue_ is one in which the entries are arranged according
to the forms of literature and the languages in which the books are
written, either alphabetically or according to the relations of the
forms to one another.
Apart from these there is a style of catalogue in which the entries are
selected to suit the kind of person for whom the books are designed. A
catalogue of books for children would be of this order. While it would
include books in all classes of literature written to suit juvenile
capacity, yet it may reasonably be regarded as a class in itself, and a
place is usually assigned to it in a classified catalogue.
When a catalogue of a particular class of literature is separately
published it is called a _Class-List_. A catalogue of novels, or of
poetry, or of music would be so termed.
By the term _Dictionary Catalogue_ we understand a combination of the
first three, viz., Author, Title, and Subject catalogues in a single
alphabet.
The last two forms when thrown together, not in alphabetical but in
logical arrangement, make the _Classified Catalogue_.
The same two if arranged alphabetically and not logically form
the _Alphabetico-Classed Catalogue_. With this last form the
author-catalogue could be combined without any disturbance of its
arrangement. It can only be added to the classified as an index or
appendix.