Every cataloger, at least at the beginning of her career, has an ideal
of the catalog which she would like to make: a catalog conforming to
the most approved rules, accurate in bibliographical detail; consistent
in form, in method of entry and in arrangement.
She realizes from the first that the task of achieving this ideal will
be difficult; she soon begins to fear that it will be impossible. After
perhaps years of endeavor, she questions if it is even desirable.
Absolute consistency in the matter of author entry may be attained
by strict adherence to the A. L. A. rules, and the divergences from
these rules necessary to adapt them to the varying conditions of
public circulating, reference and university libraries are slight and
unimportant. But who can frame a code of rules or formulate principles
through which consistency in subject headings may be attained? And is
consistency so absolutely necessary or desirable? Is not the ideal
catalog the one which is best adapted to the needs of the majority
of its users; which is so arranged that the reader can find what he
wants in the shortest possible time, even at the sacrifice of absolute
consistency?
When the work of revising the Subject headings was begun, an effort was
made to learn the wishes of all interested in regard to the principles
upon which the new edition should be based.
Many of you remember the list of questions that was published in the
Library journal and in Public libraries. Some of you sent answers
to those questions. They were questions of scope, of principle of
selection, and of arrangement. The answers received from librarians,
catalogers and reference workers, the opinions of members of the
advisory committee upon these and other problems, the ideas expressed
by library workers consulted by Miss Crawford in the various libraries
which she visited, the suggestions gleaned from correspondence with
other library workers and with experts upon various subjects, were
all carefully noted by Miss Crawford, and in some instances tabulated
so that the varying opinions could be seen at a glance. These notes,
together with lists of headings from many libraries, large and small,
made up the material from which the third edition of the Subject
headings was compiled.
The most casual examination of this material revealed the fact that
while on some points there was practical unanimity of opinion, upon
others there was the greatest diversity.
The following are not exact quotations, as I no longer have the
correspondence at hand; but they fairly indicate the opposing views of
some of the writers:
"Expand the list by the addition of necessary new headings, but
make few if any changes. The A. L. A. headings are in very general
use, and the possible advantage of changes would not compensate for
the inconvenience and expense of wholesale alterations in existing
catalogs."
"The old headings are antiquated. Do not hamper libraries yet to be by
perpetuating phraseology that no longer conforms to modern usage."
"For the sake of uniformity, adopt the Library of Congress headings,
even if not always entirely satisfactory for a public library."
"The Library of Congress headings are not at all adapted for use in
popular libraries. Disregard them."
"The public library is for the plain people,--use headings they will
understand."
"If the public does not understand scientifically accurate headings it
should be taught. Do not lower the standard of scientific cataloging."
To choose headings that should offend as little as possible these
widely differing advisers, to steer a course between ultraconservatism
and iconoclastic radicalism, was the difficult task that confronted me
in undertaking the compilation of the new list of Subject headings.
A special effort was made to formulate a principle that should govern
the choice of adjective phrase; inversion; or noun, subdivided. Is
it better to enter under Chemistry, Physiological, or Physiological
chemistry? Under Psychology, Educational, or Educational psychology?
Under Negro suffrage or Negroes--Suffrage?
A strict rule for this sort of heading would be a boon to catalogers,
but surely not to the users of the catalog. The average reader
does not reason concerning the principles upon which the catalog
is constructed. The fact that he today finds what he seeks entered
under Chemistry, Organic, will not prevent his turning to Electric
engineering rather than Engineering, Electric, tomorrow. The adoption
of either form of entry to the exclusion of the others would lead to
absurdities. Because it is satisfactory to subdivide Railroads, would
it be desirable to abandon headings beginning Electric and substitute
subdivisions of Electricity for Electric conductors, Electric lighting
and Electric power? Or because Botany, Structural, is preferable to
Structural botany, should we use Physics, Agricultural, instead of
Agricultural physics?
In the end, all efforts to frame the desired rule resolved themselves
into something like this: It is necessary to use all three forms of
heading; noun with subdivision, adjective phrase, and inversion. Each
case must be decided upon its own merits, and that form used under
which it is believed that the majority of readers will look,--the
majority of readers in each particular library, be it understood. A
university library will use many subdivisions because it is convenient
for professors and students to have much of the material brought
together under large subjects. A medical library will use few, if any,
headings beginning Medical, because Medical is understood.
As was stated in the introduction, no radical changes from the second
edition were made except in response to what seemed to be a very
general demand. There were few dissenting votes to the proposition to
abandon the headings Arts, Fine, and Arts, Useful. The majority in
favor of Government instead of Political science was less decisive, but
still a majority, and the confession heard more than once, "I never
can remember the difference between political science and political
economy," was a straw that helped to turn the scale. Trade union is
no longer a comprehensive term when organizations of teachers and
of others outside the trades must be included. The phrase Domestic
economy is being superseded in recent books by Home economics or by
Domestic science. It is impossible to mention the changes in detail or
to give the reasons for each, but no changes were made without careful
consideration.
Just how far it is advisable to alter existing catalogs in order to
conform to the new headings is a problem that each cataloger must
decide for herself. If in your opinion the heading already in use is
better than the new one suggested, by all means retain it. If, while
admitting a slight advantage in the new heading, you think that the
gain is not sufficient to justify the labor of changing, it is much
easier to alter your copy of the Subject headings than to erase or
re-write catalog cards. But if you are convinced that the new heading
is one that will be more readily found by the users of your library,
and by the desk attendants who have not catalog training, then make
the change, even at the expense of considerable time and labor. And
by all means consult the attendants in the circulating and reference
departments if in doubt as to the advisability of making a change.
They know how books are called for. They know how they themselves look
for them; and "see" references are irritating when there is a line of
impatient borrowers reaching from the request window to the door.
Such changes as have already been made in the catalog of the Buffalo
public library have met with general approval from the loan desk.
Recitations and readings; Grammar, English; Spelling, English; Corn
instead of Maize; Humor instead of Wit and humor; the transfer of the
subheading Best books from Bibliography to Books and reading; and the
removal of Immigration from under country, have received especial
approbation. The necessity for the latter change was made apparent when
it was discovered that the half dozen cards under Immigration were so
soiled as to be almost illegible, while those under U. S. Immigration
bore no evidence of use; either because the "See also" reference had
been overlooked, or because readers were daunted or confused by the
complex arrangement of the cards under United States.
In all these cases the new heading differs from both the old A. L. A.
heading and from the Library of Congress heading.
Starting with the intention of retaining all headings upon which
the A. L. A. list and the Library of Congress were agreed, I soon
found that some of these very headings had occasioned the greatest
dissatisfaction. If the new list was to be acceptable to any
considerable number of those who had taken sufficient interest in the
subject to answer Miss Crawford's questions, I must endeavor to get
closer to the point of view of the users of the catalog, rather than be
governed by theory or established precedent.
The Library of Congress headings are admittedly devised to meet
conditions in the Library of Congress,--certainly very different
conditions from those of a public library. Moreover, the Library of
Congress headings have been, and still are, in a state of development.
Many changes have been made in the last dozen years, and as it is
plainly impracticable to reprint immediately all cards bearing a
discarded heading, libraries purchasing cards printed several years ago
will often find headings suggested that are no longer in use by the
Library of Congress. Sometimes cards for two editions of the same book
bear altogether different headings.
The varying headings adopted by the departmental libraries, whose cards
are printed and issued by the Library of Congress, cause still further
apparent inconsistency. We cannot be sure that any particular heading
was ever approved by the Library of Congress unless the card bears the
Library of Congress serial number. The Department of Education, for
example, uses Secondary education and Art education, while the Library
of Congress uses Education, Secondary, and Art--Study and teaching.
The Department of Agriculture has adopted Botany, Agricultural; Fruit
and fruit trees; and U. S.--Forestry; while the Library of Congress
enters the same material under Botany, Economic; Fruit culture; and
Forests and forestry--U. S. Such variations make it impossible for
any cataloger using the printed cards to follow blindly the headings
suggested thereon, and emphasize the fact that no list of headings can
be satisfactory to all kinds of libraries.
Most of the headings for the new A. L. A. list were decided upon before
the Library of Congress began to issue its printed lists. On comparing
the lists first received, I found cases where the Library of Congress
had changed its practice, and as each instalment was issued I made
changes in the manuscript already prepared, in order to bring the two
lists into closer agreement. Doubtless in the Library of Congress lists
yet to be issued there will be many headings different from those in
use five years ago, at the time the list which was my guide was copied
from the Library of Congress catalog.
Conformity in general to the Library of Congress headings was my aim,
and in most cases of doubt the usage of the Library of Congress, if
known, was the determining factor in the decision. But when, fortified
by the approval of such advisers as were available, including in
important cases the member of the Publishing Board who is now president
of the American Library Association, I was convinced that some other
form of entry would be more helpful to the users of a public library,
I adopted that form, even though inconsistent--as in the treatment of
English language,--or not altogether accurate--as in the substitution
of Corn and Rubber for Maize and India-rubber. I may add that in no
case did I decide in opposition to the majority of the members of the
advisory committee, though only a few specific headings were submitted
to them.
The list, being prepared for moderately large libraries, contains
many headings that may well be ignored by the smaller libraries.
Not only are most of the subdivisions unnecessary, but so also are
many distinctions which would result in separation of material that
might better be kept together if the entries are few, such as Charity
organization, Infants (Children being a sufficient entry), Soil
absorption, Soil moisture.
The list is not intended as a guide to be followed blindly, but to be
adapted to individual needs, by the exercise of common sense--perhaps
the most necessary part of a cataloger's equipment.
Consideration of cost and weight of the book necessitated limitation of
the scope. There was a strong plea for the inclusion of geographical
terms, at least in cases of disputed spelling. A list of such names
was prepared by Miss Crawford, with full references and definitions.
It was estimated that this list would add perhaps one hundred pages to
the book, and the Publishing Board did not feel that it was advisable
to include them. Very many headings that might be considered as falling
within the scope of the book were omitted because their use would be
infrequent, and it was thought better that the occasional cataloger
should write these headings on the blank pages, rather than that all
should be required to pay for an unnecessarily long and correspondingly
heavy list.
Just a word in regard to the actual amount of material in the book. The
statement of the Publishing Board that the third edition contains about
three times the material in the second edition has been questioned
on the score that the new edition is printed on one side of the leaf
only. It should be remembered, however, that only the printed pages are
numbered, so that the list of headings in the third edition occupies
397 pages, double column, while the second edition contained but 193
half pages and 12 full pages. That is, the printed matter in the third
edition occupies nearly four times the space filled in the second
edition. Moreover, the type is smaller, so that the new page contains
twelve lines more than the old one. Therefore, allowing for the blank
space occasioned by the disparity of the lists of "See also" and "Refer
from" references, it is believed that the estimate of three times the
material of the second edition is conservative.
The subject was continued in a paper by Miss MARY W. MACNAIR, of the
Library of Congress on