(Monday, July 1, 2:30 p. m.)
The second session was held Monday afternoon, July 1, in the ballroom.
The first paper was by Mr. J. C. M. HANSON, associate director of
libraries, University of Chicago, and was read in his absence by Mr. M.
G. Wyer, librarian of the State University of Iowa. The paper follows.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENTAL LIBRARY PROBLEM IN UNIVERSITIES,
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
=List of references=
Departmental arrangement of college libraries, by Edith E. Clarke.
Library journal vol. 11, 1899, p. 340-343; vol. 16, 1891, p.
264-268.
Reference, seminary, and departmental libraries at Cornell
university, by W. Austen. Library journal, vol. 18, 1893, p.
181-183.
Function of a university library, by H. L. Koopman. Library journal
vol. 19, 1894, p. 24-30 of Conference Report.
The departmental libraries of the University of Chicago, by Z. A.
Dixson. Library journal vol. 20, 1895, p. 375-377.
Notes on the government and control of college libraries, by G. W.
Harris. Library journal vol. 22, 1897, p. 55-57 of Conference
Report.
Relation of seminary and departmental libraries to the general
university library, by George H. Baker. Library journal vol. 23,
1898, p. 103-106 of Conference Report.
First Report of W. C. Lane, librarian of Harvard university, 1898, p.
2-5. Compare also his 5th Report, p. 215.
The Problems of the departmental system in university libraries, by
W. W. Bishop. Library journal vol. 26, 1901, p. 14-18.
Report of College and reference section, 1902. Library journal vol.
27, p. 172-178 of Conference Report.
Relation of the departmental or group libraries to the main library,
by Dr. E. D. Burton. Library journal vol. 28, 1903, p. 19-23 of
Conference Report.
Discussion in College and reference section, 1903. Library journal
vol. 28, 1903, p. 170-175 of Conference Report.
The future university library, by B. Ranel. Nation vol. 84, March 21,
1907, p. 263.
The university branch library, by W. Austen. Library journal vol. 28,
1908, p. 220-222.
Plea for the central library, by J. Bascom. Educational review, vol.
38, Sept. 1909, p. 139-149.
Departmental libraries, by F. C. Hicks. Columbia university
quarterly, vol. 13, March, 1911, p. 185-195.
Departmental libraries in universities and colleges, by Henry E.
Bliss. Educational review, April, 1912, p. 387-409.
Ueber die Bibliotheken der Preussischen Universitätsinstitute, von
Dr. Naetebus. Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, vol. 23. 1906, p.
341-367.
Allgemeine Grundsätze für die Vermehrung der Preussischen
Staatsbibliotheken, von W. Erman. Zentralblatt für
Bibliothekswesen, vol. 25, 1908, p. 429-433.
Bemerkungen zu dem Ermanschen Entwurf "Allgemeine Grundsätze für die
Vermehrung der Preussischen Staatsbibliotheken," von J. Franke.
Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, vol. 26, 1909, p. 12-22.
Für die Seminarbibliotheken, von F. Behrend. Zentralblatt für
Bibliothekswesen, vol. 26, 1909, p. 23-25.
Erlauterung und Begründung der Allgemeinen Grundsätze für die
Vermehrung der Preussischen Staatsbibliotheken, von W. Erman.
Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, vol. 26, 1909, p. 97-121.
Universitätsbibliothek und Institutsbibliotheken, von Karl Bücher,
1910.
Zentralization der Bibliotheken, von Hugo Zimmer. Zentralblatt für
Bibliothekswesen, 28. jahrg. 1911, p. 446-469.
The pros and cons of the departmental system have been summarized
in several of the articles mentioned above. In his annual report as
librarian of Harvard college for 1898 Mr. Lane calls attention, on the
one hand to the more convenient use of books in a small collection, and
in case of scientific subjects, the possibility of having the books in
or near the laboratory. On the other hand he emphasizes the increased
difficulty of consultation on the part of persons not immediately
connected with the department, less careful supervision, increase
in expense of administration, less security from fire, lack of that
reinforcement which every department of a general library receives from
all related departments, tendency to narrowness, and growth of special
collections beyond a convenient size.
On September 28, 1900, Professor E. D. Burton, the present director
of the libraries of the University of Chicago, and Professor H. P.
Judson, now president of the university, presented before the faculty
briefs for and against the following proposition: That a limit should
be placed in the near future to the development of the departmental
library system. The affirmative urged that it was for the advantage
of the departments whose interests and relationships are widespread,
notably of philosophy, history, political economy, political science,
and sociology, that all the library resources of the university should
be gathered in one building and brought under one administration and
catalog system. The convenience of scholars coming from a distance
demanded concentration also facilitated the practical administration of
the libraries. As departments grew and the number of books increased,
the departmental library system became unwieldy.
In the negative the following advantages of the departmental system
were emphasized: The importance of close connection with the
classrooms, especially the seminar rooms. For the departments which
have laboratories the retention of the libraries in connection with the
laboratories was indispensable. Granting the importance of serving the
convenience of visiting investigators, their convenience must always be
subordinated to that of the large number of students and professors of
the university. Practically all the valuable results of concentration
could be secured by a catalog of all the departments in the general
library and a system of underground book railways and telephone
communication.
The latest summary which has come to my attention is one by Mr. Hicks
in the Columbia university quarterly for March, 1911.
There is little that can be added to the arguments presented in these
statements. Perhaps the following points in favor of the departmental
system might be emphasized:
(1) Books in the same room with the reader and free access to them
is a great inducement to study. It increases the use of books, makes
it easier for the investigator to consult books in use by others,
and also to consult with colleagues in regard to questions which
arise during the investigation. The student feels more at home, less
subject to inspection and observation by officials. This adds to the
pleasure which he may take in his work and to the feeling of personal
responsibility for the collection of books with which he is working.
(2) The ability of a departmental library to make collections of minor
publications in the line of its special investigation to an extent
difficult or even impossible for the general library may also be
conceded.
Against the system more emphasis should be placed on the following:
(1) As Mr. Lane points out segregation of books in departments tends
to narrowness. While seminary methods of instruction should lead the
student to avail himself of the entire resources of the university
library, the departmental system as carried out in many universities
tempts him to limit his investigations to the departmental library. The
narrowing influence of this must be obvious to those who have observed
how various subjects and classes overlap and intertwine, how material
of importance is found in unexpected places, in general collections,
transactions and proceedings of societies and institutions, government
reports, and encyclopedic works, not in the departmental library, the
loss therefore of that reinforcement which each department should
receive from all other related departments.
(2) The use of the departmental library is often limited to students
of a particular department. It becomes difficult therefore for others
to gain access. If admitted, they are hampered by special rules and
arrangements unfamiliar to them. Books are as a rule not allowed to
circulate and their withdrawal for use in connection with other related
works becomes difficult.
(3) Many valuable books of reference which cannot well be duplicated
are placed beyond the reach of the majority of students and professors.
(4) It increases the liability to loss, because when there are many
departmental libraries open many hours a day it becomes practically
impossible to provide in all of them adequate supervision at all times.
(5) The growth of the departmental libraries beyond a convenient size
and the incidental disadvantages of inadequate shelf space, disorder,
lack of accommodation for students, the relegation of less used books
to garrets and cellars.
(6) To provide fairly complete catalogs, author, title, and subject,
for a large library is becoming more and more difficult as the
collections increase in size. To provide these catalogs also for a
number of departments, or to furnish copies of the sections likely to
interest a given department, would require an expenditure of time and
money quite beyond the means of any university, and entirely out of
proportion to the advantages to be gained therefrom. The absence of
satisfactory catalogs in departmental libraries will therefore have
to be reckoned with and must be emphasized as one of the most serious
disadvantages of the system.
I realize that no argument is likely to change the conviction of
certain professors and departments, that the departmental system is
the only one which merits consideration, or the view on the other
hand of other professors and students, perhaps also the librarian,
that a strong general library with small working collections in the
departments, largely duplicating books in the general library, is in
the interest of the great majority and offers the only reasonable
solution. It may, nevertheless, be convenient to have at hand a summary
of the question with references to the literature on the subject,
especially if governing bodies should be called upon to regulate the
issue as has been the case in Italy and Prussia.
The development of the departmental, problem in university libraries
dates back to about 1870. While a great many seminar collections,
especially in Germany, were started prior to that year, they had not as
yet reached a size which called for funds, special administration, or
space, to a degree sufficient to embarrass the general library and the
university.
It may have its interest to give a brief outline of the development
of the system in Prussia. It should prove suggestive as furnishing a
parallel to our own situation.
In his "Eine Reise durch die Grösseren Bibliotheken Italiens,"[10]
Dziatzko speaks of the Italian government regulations of 1885-1889
governing the relation of the departmental libraries to the general
university library. The Italian regulations specified among other
points the following:
[10] Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis des Buch--und Bibliothekswesens.
Sammlung Bibliothekswissenschaftlicher Arbeiten. 6. heft. p. 106-109.
Departmental collections are to be considered as part of the university
library. The library commission of the university is to superintend the
departmental libraries through the director of the university library.
Second copies of books already in the university are to be purchased
only in case of the most pressing necessity, and periodicals are not
to be duplicated. Books are to be transferred from one library to
another according to definite agreement. Books are to be accessioned
in the university library and to be entered in its author catalog
and stamped with the university library stamp. The approval of book
appropriations on the part of the ministry depends on compliance with
these regulations. The library commission had apportioned the annual
book appropriations as follows: six-tenths to departmental libraries,
laboratories, clinics, collections, etc., four-tenths to the general
library.
Whether the Prussian ministerial regulations adopted soon after were
based on the Italian is not known; but the similarity of the problem
has undoubtedly led to considerable uniformity in the measures adopted.
It was in 1891 that the situation in the Prussian universities had
reached a point where some government intervention seemed called for
in order to regulate the relations between the university libraries
and the so-called institutsbibliotheken. The regulations formulated
(printed in the Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 1897) specified in
part as follows: Departmental libraries cannot dispose of their books;
when no longer needed they are to be turned over to the university
library. They are reference libraries and no books can be loaned except
by order of the university council, or at Berlin which has no council,
by the ministry. All students of the university are admitted to the
use of the departmental libraries. The university library shall make
an author catalog of the books in the departments, one copy for the
departmental library, the other for the union catalog in the general
library. The university library can loan books to the departmental
library for a semester, provided they can be spared.
While the government passed the regulations it neglected to provide
sufficient appropriations to carry them out, the result being that the
union catalog referred to was begun at only two universities, Berlin
and Bonn, and at the former lack of help soon caused a considerable
accumulation of arrears. The experience gained showed that, an
indication in the catalog of the general library, that a given book can
be found in a department is of little value. The general library has
not on that account been able to dispense with the purchase of a copy,
the distance to the departmental library and the difficulty of securing
access making it necessary to duplicate. Occasionally a student has
been referred to a departmental library, but it has not happened
frequently enough to warrant the extra expenditure, or the duplication
of catalogs. It has on the other hand proved of great assistance to the
departmental library, and in Bonn its continuance is strongly urged
by the departments. The same holds true of Berlin, although instances
have been recorded where a department has refused to accept the catalog
prepared by the general library.
In other respects the departments have neglected to follow the
regulations. It has been said, for instance, that instead of turning
duplicates over to the university library certain departments have
disposed of them through exchange or have sold them outright to book
dealers.
In his report before the Versammlung Deutscher Bibliothekare, 1896, Dr.
Naetebus gives an excellent survey of the departmental libraries of the
Prussian universities, reporting in all on 367 different collections. A
perusal of his report and of the discussion which followed shows that
the problem in Prussia is in most respects similar to our own.
In the Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 1909, p. 103, et seq.,
Dr. Erman criticizes the regulations of 1891 for not specifying
or providing means for enforcing them. Incidentally he says with
reference to the development of the departmental libraries, that
while the original plan had been to make the books most urgently
needed by students in seminars and laboratories more convenient of
access than was possible in the overworked and overcrowded university
libraries, various circumstances had co-operated towards gradually
making these collections more comprehensive than they were intended
to be, to include in fact almost all the literature in a given field
or in related and overlapping fields of knowledge, thus making the
departmental libraries quite independent of the university library.
While the original plan had seemed to furnish welcome relief to the
university libraries, its recent extension had threatened seriously to
cripple them.
It was perhaps the lack of funds on the part of the university
libraries which had caused the difficulty in the first place. The
departments finding that certain expensive books could not be obtained
through the university library began to purchase them for their
own use. As the funds of the departments were too small to permit
of extensive purchases, every effort was made to increase them by
special and extra appropriations, this being so much the easier as the
directors of the departments were frequently the most influential and
powerful men in the faculties, and funds which otherwise would have
fallen to the university library were thus diverted to the departments,
extending the size and scope of their working collections far beyond
the bounds originally intended.
Dr. Erman states that many professors have according to his own
experience sought to secure practically all new accessions of value
for the departmental library, leaving for the general library only the
books seldom or never asked for. To discontinue the university library
altogether and divide its collections among the departments would seem
a far simpler and more logical plan, and there should be no hesitation
in considering its realization provided there seemed any hope that
forty departmental libraries would replace the university library
and perform its functions in a satisfactory manner. Unfortunately,
such a solution seems out of the question. It would prove disastrous
to the university in various ways. There would be lost to it the one
department alike common to all members of the faculty and to the
student body. Very few work in so narrow a field that they would be
served by consulting only one of the departmental libraries. The
younger instructors and students who might not have any department,
would be at a great disadvantage. If the university libraries were
ever discontinued Dr. Erman thinks that there would soon arise an
irresistible demand for their restoration. He also thinks that the
increase in the administrative expense resulting from a departmental
system would be so great as to be practically prohibitive.
In Germany as with us, the desirability of some modus vivendi by
which university libraries and the departments could be made to work
in harmony and mutually assist one another, has repeatedly been
emphasized. As it is, the professor to whom a general library was once
a vital question, but who has now at hand a well equipped departmental
collection, is likely to lose all interest in the former and devote
himself entirely to the development of the latter. Here in America
the separation may not as yet have reached the point where, as in a
case cited by Dr. Erman, a professor on being elected to the library
council said to him that this was the first intimation he had had of
the existence of a university library. At the same time, we have here
and there evidence of a strong drift in this direction, particularly
so in universities where the departmental system has been most fully
developed.
Another eminent German librarian who touches on this problem is Dr.
Milkau. In Kultur der Gegenwart, Abt. 1, p. 579, he states that in
certain universities the total appropriation of all departmental
libraries sometimes equals or even exceeds that of the general
library. Originally intended as collections of reference books to be
used in connection with instruction, they have gradually grown to
considerable size, so that their supervision and regulation is year
by year becoming more difficult. Dr. Milkau would not abolish the
departmental libraries; on the contrary he freely grants their great
value and superiority in some respects to the university library. There
must, however, be co-operation between the departmental libraries one
with another, and with the university library. Purchase of sets and
expensive books must not be decided upon regardless of what is already
in the university. Each department must limit itself strictly to its
own particular field and omit all works not urgently needed, or of some
permanent value. He offers as a remedy for the problem the following:
To limit the size of the departmental collection, setting a maximum
number of volumes not to be exceeded, a cure which seems a little too
radical to find favor with all parties concerned.
In the discussion on the report of Dr. Naetebus referred to above, Dr.
Gerhard, of Halle, insisted that the only way to secure relief would
be through radical measures on the part of the government, viz., to
cut down the departmental appropriations to a point where they would
be forced to restrict purchases to the books most urgently needed for
use in connection with instruction, the appropriations thus saved to be
turned over to the university library. Dr. Roth, of Halle, complained
of the lack of system in the development of the departmental libraries
due to the frequent change of directors. He, however, considered
the power of departments to secure books through gift and exchange
an important and valuable factor, one not to be underestimated. Dr.
Erman, Breslau, agreed with Dr. Gerhard and stated that there must be
a readjustment of the funds appropriated for the purchase of books for
the university and departmental libraries. There could be no complaint
with the development of large and comprehensive collections in the
departments, if at the same time the university libraries received
enough to secure at least a small part of the books needed to keep
their collections up to date. There would never have been so large a
development of the departmental libraries if the university libraries
had been in a position to answer the demands made on them. As it is,
when an expensive book is wanted and the university library has not
the funds to secure it, there immediately appear from two to three
copies in as many departmental libraries, while there is no copy in the
university library. The situation which results is intolerable. If in
Breslau instead of 31,000 marks a year for the university library and
31,000 for the departmental libraries, the former had 40,000 and the
latter 20,000, it would mean an immense improvement for all concerned.
Dr. Geiger, Tübingen, and Dr. Frankfurter of Vienna, reported that
essentially the same or even a worse state of affairs exists in
Wurtemburg and in Austria.
The radical measures recommended by Dr. Gerhard and others were not
approved by Dr. Naetebus, especially on account of the ability of
departmental libraries to secure gifts and exchanges not within the
reach of the university library.
Since this discussion took place I understand that the book funds of
the Prussian university libraries have been materially increased,
thus somewhat relieving the situation. After this brief survey of the
conditions existing in certain European universities it may be of
interest to turn to one of the two American universities in which the
building up of departmental collections has preceded the development of
a strong general library.
=Departmental Libraries at the University of Chicago=
The extraordinary development of the departmental library system at
the University of Chicago is due largely to a number of causes and
conditions, many of them accidental and peculiar to the university.
The main reason was probably the lack of a general library worthy of
the name; also the fact that some of the strongest men on the faculty
favored the departmental system.
In the president's report (Decennial Publications, first series, 1903,
vol. 1, p. 266-290) is found an "Outline history of the legislation
of university bodies on the question of departmental libraries and
their relation to the general library." The first sentence reads: "The
system of departmental libraries for research work, supplementing the
general library of the university, dates from the organization of the
university itself." This would indicate that the departmental libraries
were considered supplementary to the general library. However this
may have been at the outset, later developments show that the general
library has been so entirely outstripped and overshadowed by the
departmental collections that in 1910, at any rate, when the writer had
his first opportunity to observe conditions at close hand, the general
library was found to consist of some 75,000 volumes of odds and ends, a
mere conglomerate which would have been of little service, except for
the fact that it was the only collection on the campus from which books
could be drawn somewhat freely and to which undergraduates had general
access. Appropriations for books amounted to $25,265, of which the
general library had only $1550; the departmental libraries, $23,715.
(See above, Dr. Gerhart's complaint about the situation at Halle,
31,000 marks for the general library, 31,000 for the departments).
While the original plan had no doubt intended that departments should
abstain from ordering books of interest to several departments, that
books of general interest therefore should be purchased only by the
general library, the latter was unfortunately prevented by lack of
funds and equipment from meeting these demands, the inevitable result
being that the departments soon ceased to look to the general library
and ordered for their own use any book to which a professor might have
occasion to refer in his courses, regardless of whether it was in the
general library or in another departmental library. Whether in placing
orders he was intruding on the domains of a related department may or
may not have been considered. At any rate books on exactly the same
subject are now found in a number of departmental libraries, editions
of the same book are separated and there is duplication of copies to an
extent hitherto unheard of, as far as I know, in any university library.
That the president and faculty have been aware of the situation and
have tried to find a solution, of that there is evidence enough.
Mr. Bishop in his articles in the Library journal, vol. 28, has given a
survey of the discussion which took place at the University of Chicago
in 1898-1901. A full report is found in the Decennial Publications,
first series vol. 1 quoted above, and in the University record vol.
5. It has been referred to also by Mr. Henry E. Bliss in his recent
article in the Educational review, April 1912.
The solution attempted, perhaps the only one possible at the time,
consisted in a grouping of related departmental collections. The
following group libraries were formally approved by the library board
in 1899: Classical, Modern Languages, and Historical. In 1900 the
university senate approved the general plan that all departments having
laboratories should retain their libraries in the same building
with the laboratory, those not having laboratories should as a rule
be transferred to the general library building when one was erected.
I have already referred to the briefs presented by Dr. Burton and
Dr. Judson in October, 1900, on the proposition that a limit should
be put in the near future to the development of the departmental
library system. The University Congress after discussing them adopted
two resolutions: (1) That it is the judgment of this body that the
departmental library system should be retained. (2) That a committee
of three for each of the several groups of departments recognized
by the Board of libraries, laboratories and museums be appointed,
the committee to consider and to recommend, respecting the group
represented, what is best for it and the university in general. The
report of this committee appeared in the University record Nov. 9 and
16, 1900. These reports from the different groups and departments
are of interest in showing the sentiment in the various departments
of the teaching body. They were briefly as follows: Of the Classical
Department five favored the departmental system, two a general library.
The Modern Language group was unanimous in favor of centralization. The
Haskell group (Divinity School, Semitics, and Comparative Religion)
proposed the maintenance of branch libraries of books likely to be
in constant use by students in connection with the ordinary class
work to be kept in the lecture hall building, that no books should
be permanently assigned to these branch libraries of which there was
not another copy in the general library. The Historical group held
to the departmental library system, but was not so particular about
the control of the libraries. Like the Divinity School, it preferred
locating the departmental collection in one building with the general
library and related departmental libraries. The Philosophical group
recognized the great value of location of related departments in
the same building, but held strongly to departmental control of
the library and free access of students to books in which they are
interested. If these two things could be granted, they would advocate
a single building for all departments. The Mathematical group was
non-committal, it emphasized however that Astronomy and Mathematics
must be kept together and that books in these libraries are used
almost exclusively by students of the two departments named.[11] The
Biology group recommended that upon erection of a suitable library
building a separate room be assigned to the Biology library. That
arrangements be made for telephone communication and speedy transfer
of books to laboratories, that special books and periodicals needed
by the department for constant use be kept in each laboratory
building as a branch of the departmental library, that books in such
branch libraries be rendered easily accessible at all hours, and
that provision for adequate supervision of these branch libraries be
considered an indispensable preliminary to their establishment. The
Chemical group wished the Chemical library to be retained in Kent
Chemical Laboratory, but preferred to see the proceedings of academies
and journals of general scientific interest kept in the general
library, also that a reference shelf containing books of interest to
those who are taking undergraduate work in chemistry be maintained
in the general reading room of the general library, and that special
books needed for consultation in connection with laboratory work be
kept in the laboratory. Physics considered the departmental library
as indispensable to the department. The Geology group reported most
unqualifiedly in favor of departmental or group libraries that should
embrace essentially all the literature pertaining to the group so
far as practical considerations would permit. The full statement of
this group deserves to be read. It is a most emphatic defense of the
departmental system. The statement of the Modern Language group and
of Professor Hendrickson of the Classical group contain the strongest
statements on the other side of the question.
[11] NOTE--Later on Mathematics decided that their library must be kept
in the Mathematical building.
On November 4, 1900, these reports were referred by the library board
to a committee of three, one of whom was the Associate Librarian,
Mrs. Dixson. The committee reported on March 16, 1901 (see University
record March 22, 1901) in favor of maintaining the departmental system,
but recommended the centralization as far as possible at one point
in a central building of the administration of the libraries, and
of the books of the university not in use in the departments. After
much discussion of the report and a later modification of it, it was
decided to refer the matter to a commission consisting of professors
and trustees appointed for the purpose of making a thorough study of
the entire problem. The outcome of the work of this commission was a
decision to place in buildings connecting with the general library
the following departmental or group libraries: Philosophy, History
and Social Sciences, Classics, Modern Languages, Oriental Languages,
the Divinity School, the Law School. That further, the departmental
libraries of Chemistry, Physics, Geology, and the Biological sciences,
be retained in the department buildings of these departments, it
being understood that these departments may place such books as they
desire in the general library building. The library of Mathematics and
Astronomy should be associated with the library of Physics.
Time will not permit any detailed consideration of the report of the
commission. It was approved by the Congregation, August 28th, 1902, and
adopted by the Board of trustees September 12th of the same year. It is
the plan laid down in this report that has in the main been followed
in the location and erection of the Harper Memorial library, dedicated
on June 11, 1912, and which it is also proposed to follow in the
separate buildings to be provided for the Historical Group, Philosophy,
Modern Languages and Classics. When completed this plan will bring the
Humanities, with the exception of Geography into buildings adjoining
the General Library, connected with it or with one another by bridges.
Since the adoption of the report nearly ten years have elapsed during
which there has been some progress in the direction of centralization,
at any rate of management and control of libraries. A somewhat uniform
system of rules and regulations was adopted in 1911. In the same year a
common system of catalogs and classification was finally approved.
The catalogs will include:
(1) A dictionary catalog for the public in the general library,
duplicated in part in the catalog department (Official catalog).
(2) Classed catalog for the public in the general library,
duplicated in part in the catalog department (Shelf-list on
cards).
(3) Author catalog and shelflist on cards for the departmental
libraries located in buildings not connecting with the general
library.
(4) Author catalog only for departmental libraries located in the
general library, or in buildings connecting with it.
N. B. Catalogs in the departmental libraries will not according to the
present plan include analyticals or other added entries which may be
provided in the dictionary and classed catalogs of the general library.
Even with the limitations here indicated the catalog plan as outlined
may seem a little ambitious and likely to prove expensive and
difficult to maintain. In view of the present situation, as well as
the outlook for the future, even assuming that departments which in
1900 favored a departmental system should be indisposed to change
their attitude, it seemed nevertheless the safest plan to adopt. The
general library aims to build up a strong central reference collection.
This collection should be classified and cataloged so as to yield
the best possible results. Merged with the catalog of the general
library will be one covering all the departmental libraries. It would,
of course, be desirable to provide every departmental library with
as exhaustive a catalog as the one proposed for the general library.
The expense however, even in this day of printed cards would, I fear,
be practically prohibitive. Moreover, it is doubtful if many of the
departments would find the expected relief in an elaborate author and
subject catalog of their collections as they stand. This last statement
may seem to require some further substantiation, and I shall in the
following endeavor to present the necessary proofs and illustrations.
It is no doubt true that heads of departments and their associates
frequently take a personal pride in their departmental library and feel
a certain responsibility for its growth and development. I have known
cases where a department would resent any suggestion that a part of its
books might to good advantage be transferred to the general library
or to another department in exchange for material in these libraries
bearing more directly on the special line of study which the department
is supposed to represent. The fact remains, nevertheless, that these
libraries frequently show in their development a lack of that strong
coordinating influence so essential to systematic growth. A detailed
examination of their collections soon reveals the fact that books have
been ordered principally with reference to their use in connection
with courses given in a department, no one apparently questioning the
right of one department to poach on the premises of another or on that
of the general library. There has resulted, therefore, a situation
which cannot be remedied by any catalog, no matter how exhaustive
or how perfect. This leads me to go a step further and to venture
the assertion that the lack of a strong central library can not be
compensated by merely bringing together related departmental libraries
into the same or adjoining buildings. It is even doubtful if it would
be worth while to prepare an exhaustive union catalog of such libraries
without considerable migration of books from one department to another.
A few illustrations taken at random from the books which have come
under my observation during the past month or two in connection with
the recataloging, will, I think, bear me out in this statement.
General works on science are in a number of libraries, mainly in
Geology, Biology, and the general library, but also in a number of
other departmental libraries.
The History library includes many books which deal solely with
Education, Medicine, Music, Art, Religion, Technology, and other
subjects, overlapping, therefore, practically with all other
departments. The main duplication, however, seems to be in Church
History with the Divinity library, in History and Topography with
Geography, in Ancient History with Classics and in Education and other
subjects with the general library.
The Modern Language library duplicates chiefly material in the
libraries of History and Geography, besides of course the general
library. It is, however, the one department which strongly favors
consolidation of books on the same subject, and if the other
departments in or connecting with the general library will agree
to such consolidation, its duplication, except with Geography and
the Classical Department, should cease after the transfer of its
books to the general library building. The fact that this library
has on its shelves works like Alumni Oxoniensis, Catalogue of the
Advocates Library, "Ersch and Gruber," La Grande Encyclopedie, Dante's
Dictionnaire biographique et bibliographique des hommes les plus
remarquables, Haebler's Typographia Iberica, etc., will therefore prove
an advantage.
The Classical library presents one of the most vexing problems of
our library situation, one not solved by a most liberal duplication.
Its collections overlap mainly with those of History, Sociology,
Science, Political Science, Economics, Literature, Divinity, and the
general library. I am not now referring to texts and translations of
classical authors, but to modern books on ancient history, government,
administration, and the like. What tends to aggravate the situation is
the fact that this library possesses also the only set on the campus of
certain important general, literary and bibliographical periodicals,
e.g., Revue critique. Although this department is in the near future to
occupy a building connecting with the general library, it has always
taken a strong stand against any merging of its collections with those
of other libraries. There is, therefore in this case little hope of
relief through consolidation.
Books on Education have been a source of particular trouble inasmuch
as they have been purchased extensively by a number of departmental
libraries. Mediaeval literature and the history of the middle ages is
again a field which has been developed by the Classical library, Modern
Languages, History and the general library. General books on Literature
may be found in Philosophy, History, Modern Languages, and the general
library, and likely also in the Classical department. Books on
Evolution treating the question strictly from the biological standpoint
may be in Philosophy and History, but not in Biology. Whether the
reverse holds true, I have not as yet been able to verify by an actual
examination of the Biology library. Naturally books on Experimental and
Physiological Psychology may be found in Philosophy, Psychology, and
also in the Biology library.
Books on Metallurgy while chiefly in Geology are also represented in
the library of Commerce and Administration. This holds true also of
Engineering, Shop Management, and Agriculture. The latter subject
is freely represented also in Botany, Economics, and in the general
library.
Geography, which is connected with the departmental library of Geology
in a building not to connect with the general library, buys extensively
in History, also in Economics, Natural conservation of resources,
Soils, Economics, Botany, Plant Industries, etc., etc.
Meteorology is represented in Geology, in Physics, Astronomy, and in
the general library. Books on Water Supply, Irrigation and the like
are in Geology and Geography, Chemistry, Economics, and the general
library. Books on Fisheries, Whaling, and related subjects may be
found in Geography, Biology, and the general library. Commerce is
largely represented in Geography, Economics, the general library,
Commerce and Administration, and the Classical library. Canals,
Waterways, and Railroads, are mainly in Geography and Economics, but
also in the general library. Mining is in Geography and Geology, and
also in Economics. Marine Biology will be found in Geography and
Geology as well as in Biology. Geology has a considerable number of
books on Physics and Chemistry. Books on various industries are found
in Economics, in Geology, and in the general library. Commercial
Geography is somewhat evenly divided between Geography and Commerce and
Administration.
Another great difficulty is the separation of volumes of the same work.
For instance, there is in no library a complete set of the Statesman's
Year Book or the Almanach de Gotha, but partial sets in at least two
or three libraries. This holds true also of several bibliographical
periodicals and annuals, e.g., Le Soudier's Annuaire de la Librarie
française.
The instances here cited consider only the duplicating and overlapping
of independent books or monographs treating the same subject, or the
same phase of a subject; it does not take note of the duplication
common to all libraries because of the inclusion in encyclopedias,
general periodicals, and other comprehensive works, of material on a
special subject; neither does it refer to the duplication which may
be proper in such subjects as Railroads, Waterways, etc., where one
department takes up the technical and another the economic phase of a
subject.
It would be possible to go on citing hundreds of illustrations
similar to the above, but time will not permit. When the work which
practically took its beginning in October, 1911, viz., reclassification
and recataloging of the libraries, has been completed I dare say that
anyone connected with the work who may have had time to make notes by
the way, would be in a position to furnish valuable information as
regards the practical workings of a departmental system similar to the
one which has grown up at the University of Chicago.
I have stated that the bringing together of related departmental
libraries under one roof and the thorough cataloging of all the books
on the campus in the manner indicated above, will not furnish a
satisfactory solution of our problems. This I believe can only come
about through some exchange of books between departmental libraries
which shall bring together, not necessarily all books on the same
subject, but at any rate the bulk of the material which deals with a
special phase of a subject, and the various volumes of a periodical,
annual, or similar work which I trust all are agreed should stand
together.
It resolves itself then into a question of reclassification or rather
relocation of a part of the book resources of the university, and
a partial surrender of the right on the part of the departments to
determine absolutely the physical location of every book purchased
on their recommendation. Personally, I feel rather hopeful that when
the cataloging of a number of libraries has been completed and their
resources brought together in a common catalog, the members of the
various departments will see for themselves the advantage to all
concerned of a partial redistribution.
In a small way the general library has inaugurated such redistribution
by indirect purchase of general bibliographies and reference works
from the departmental libraries, a sum equal to the cost of the work
at the time of original purchase being transferred from the book
appropriation of the general library to that of the department. Some
of the departments have been most willing to agree to such transfers.
If it can be put into effect in the libraries which are now to be
brought under the same roof, i.e., the Humanities with the exception
of Classics and Geography, it will go far toward the establishment of
what it is hoped may prove a fairly efficient central library. The
centralization of catalogs and reference books alone would in time make
it desirable for the departments more and more to consult the general
library. A real consolidation of the resources of the Historical
Group, Modern Languages and Literatures, Religion and Theology with
the present general library will, it is hoped, prove to be even more
effective.
I have already stated that Geography would remain outside of this
consolidation and probably also the Classical department, in spite of
the fact that the latter is soon to occupy a building connecting with
the general library. It is hoped that in both cases arrangements can
in time be devised which, while satisfactory to the departments, shall
prove effective in checking the almost unrestricted duplication of
material in other libraries which now obtains.
It is true that ten years ago other departments of the Humanities also
held that while related libraries might to good advantage be brought
under one roof, there should be no merging of their possessions.
Considering, however, the lack of co-ordination in the development
of the same libraries, the overlapping and intertwining of their
respective fields, it is difficult to believe that this view can
prevail for any length of time.
I have endeavored in the above notes to show that the departmental
problem is practically the same in various countries. In Italy,
Germany, and Austria as well as in America the development of
departmental collections to a point where they have become a perplexing
and troublesome problem to government and university authorities is
due primarily to the inability of the general university library to
provide books and conveniences desired by the departments. Neither a
union catalog nor the most exhaustive duplication of books, service,
and equipment has so far served to offset the weakening of the central
library which has been an inevitable result of the rapid growth of
departmental collections.
Possibly Mr. L. N. Wilson of Clark university may have pointed out
a partial solution to some of our perplexities. He states that at
Clark university not only is the drafting of the classification
schedules attended to by the professors, but also the actual
classification of the books. Where the faculty is willing to undertake
these duties the librarian is naturally relieved of a great and
difficult responsibility. While the plan has evidently worked out in
a satisfactory manner at Clark, it would seem a difficult or even
impossible expedient for certain other universities, particularly the
largest ones. There would be difficulty in securing the necessary
volunteer service. Then the librarian would no doubt have to exercise
infinite tact in his efforts to co-ordinate and harmonize the work of
so many volunteer classifiers. That some coordinating influence would
be required we may take for granted. Personally, I see little relief
in the direction here indicated. As for the University of Chicago, I
imagine that we are, in common with most university libraries destined
to have the departmental problem with us in some form or other as long
as there are collections of books to be administered in connection
with departments and courses of instruction. We shall watch with great
interest the development of the plans of sister universities, a number
of which are said to contemplate the strengthening and extension of at
least a part of their departmental collections.
I may say in conclusion that judging by observations at Chicago I
should be disposed to agree entirely with Dr. Gerhard of Halle, and
others of our German colleagues, when they state that there can be no
objection to the building up of strong departmental libraries, provided
this can be achieved without crippling the general library. But where
the departmental libraries are developed at the expense of the general
library, and where willingness to co-operate, or to observe the most
necessary restrictions as regards the fields to be covered is lacking,
there the interest of the great majority both of faculty and students
are made to suffer for the convenience of the few, a convenience which
is, besides, in many cases only imaginary, and based on a lack of
knowledge and appreciation of the possibilities of a general library,
and no doubt also of the limitations of departmental libraries. As
previously stated, the general library is the one department common
to the whole university, the department which should have no ax to
grind, and which under normal conditions might, therefore, be trusted
to preserve an impartial attitude and to safeguard the interests of all
departments alike without fear or favor.
In closing this paper it is difficult to refrain from expressing the
opinion that whatever the policy adopted with reference to its library
system, a university owes it to its constituency to see that a strong
and well balanced general library constitutes an integral part of the
scheme. The establishment of the latter should, when possible, take
precedence over that of large departmental collections. When it becomes
necessary to organize the latter, they should be considered distinctly
a part of the general library and be placed under its control. A
partial or nominal control on the part of the general library is not
likely to prove effective or to furnish the best possible service for
the greatest possible number.