The difficulties of Cataloguing a Library. The qualities desirable in a Cataloguer. The necessity for Systematic Cataloguing.
Among the varied duties of a librarian that of cataloguing his books is generally supposed by the uninitiated to be one of the easiest. The popular idea is that books are sent to libraries—public libraries at any rate—by grateful publishers, when all the librarian has to do is "to catalogue them," put them up in rows on shelves, and hand them out to the first person who asks for them. The cataloguing of a library is ranked with that of any other inventory, and a catalogue popularly regarded as a mere list, calling for no particular knowledge, effort, or care in its production. The late Prof. John Fiske opens an interesting essay on "A Librarian's Work" in his Darwinism and other Essays (Macmillan, 1879) in these words, which are equally applicable to any library of any pretension:—
I am very frequently asked what in the world a librarian can find to do with his time, or am perhaps congratulated on my connection with Harvard College Library, on the ground that "being virtually a sinecure office (!) it must leave so much leisure for private study and work of a literary sort." Those who put such questions, or offer such congratulations, are naturally astonished when told that the library affords enough work to employ all my own time, as well as that of twenty assistants; and astonishment is apt to rise to bewilderment when it is added that seventeen of these assistants are occupied chiefly with "cataloguing;" for, generally, I find, a library catalogue is assumed to be a thing that is somehow "made" at a single stroke, as Aladdin's palace was built, at intervals of ten or a dozen years, or whenever a "new catalogue" is thought to be needed. "How often do you make a catalogue?" or "When will your catalogue be completed?" are questions revealing such transcendent misapprehension of the case that little but further mystification can be got from the mere answer, "We are always making a catalogue, and it will never be finished."
Prof. Fiske then proceeds to describe the difficulties of cataloguing a library: "just cataloguing a book" not being by any means so simple a task; and he goes on to demonstrate that the work requires "considerable judgment and discrimination" besides "a great deal of slow, plodding research." Perhaps there is no literary labour of the kind, mere "hewing of wood and drawing of water" though it be, that so quickly takes the conceit out of those essaying it, they finding it both "arduous and perplexing." "The peculiarities of titles are, like the idiosyncrasies of authors, innumerable. Books are in all languages and treat of subjects as multitudinous as the topics of human thought." A good cataloguer should be learned in the history of all literary, scientific, religious, philosophical, economic, and political movements of all ages and all countries, and especially must he be abreast of the times in a knowledge of men and things, literary, scientific, and otherwise. He needs be something of a linguist, should be exact, orderly, methodical, with fixed ideas and yet an open mind, painstaking, and persevering. Even with the exercise of all these attainments and qualities, his work will not be found to be beyond criticism. No pretence is made to assert that cataloguers as a body do conform to this ideal; if they did it is probable they would find more profitable employment. The next best thing to possessing these qualifications, however, is to have as many as can be attained, and make up for the rest by knowing where to find information as needed. If the cataloguer be not "a walking encyclopÆdia" in himself, he at least should know how to utilise the printed ones, and all other literature at his command.
There are many kinds of library catalogues ranging from the mere lists made by private persons of their own books to the great "Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum," which is so extensive by reason of the number of books contained in it, that its entries are virtually limited to a single item for each book. Whether small or great, the principles governing their compilation are much the same, the following chapters being principally intended as a guide to the cataloguing of a public library of average size.
No matter how good a library may be, its collections are practically lost and useless without an adequate, properly-compiled catalogue. As Carlyle puts it "A big collection of books without a good catalogue is a Polyphemus with no eye in his head." Even an indifferent library can be made to render comparatively good service with a good catalogue. In order to compile such a catalogue it is essential that certain particulars be given descriptive of the books, and in so systematic a way that, while the entries will afford all reasonable information to the person well-versed in books, they shall, at the same time, be so clear and simple in character as to be understood without much effort by anyone of average intelligence. These particulars should be comprehensive enough to afford some general idea of the nature and scope of the book described without actually examining it, though in this respect much depends upon the character and resources of the library. The full descriptions usual in special bibliographies meant for experts are not to be expected or required in the catalogue of a popular general library.
The value of a good catalogue does not depend upon its extent or size any more than does that of a good book, but rather upon the exactness of the method by which the information given is digested and concentrated. There are library catalogues so elaborately compiled and imposing in appearance that they might be, and often are, considered to be most excellent productions, whereas those who use them find them little more than a medley of book-titles—pedantic without being learned. On the other hand, "infinite riches in a little room" would often be an appropriate motto for some insignificant-looking catalogue. Sometimes it happens that quite a small library has a large catalogue. This does not always arise from a desire to make the most of the library, but may, likely enough, be owing to the fact that the compilation was undertaken by some over-zealous committeeman or other amateur, who, being "fond of books," considered this a sufficient qualification for cataloguing them without knowing that it is far easier to over-catalogue a library than to do the work judiciously—the result being both wasteful and disastrous. The first catalogues of the smaller public libraries are sometimes of this character, not always for the reason just stated; probably owing to the desire to save the salary of the librarian by postponing his appointment to the last moment. He is then expected to select and purchase the books as well as produce a printed catalogue of them within a few weeks: the conception being that a library can be selected, arranged, and listed in bulk as goods are bought, displayed, and ticketed in a shop, and in as short a time. The cataloguing, then, has perforce to be delegated to an assistant, who possibly has no training whatever. For this reason and others the catalogue of a new public library can seldom be taken as representing the knowledge or ability of the librarian as a cataloguer.
With the spread and rise in the standard of education, more exact and better work is now demanded in libraries than was the case during the early years after the passing of the first Public Libraries Act. The slipshod, unsystematic cataloguing at one time in vogue is not acceptable now, and the public demands something more than bald lists compiled upon no principle in particular, which are often more bewildering than helpful to an inquiring reader. The student and that interesting person "the general reader" have a better understanding than formerly of the uses and peculiarities of books, and look for precise information concerning them. No better evidence of the general interest taken in books is needed than that afforded by the large place occupied by the reviewing of literature of all kinds in the daily press and popular journals, even in minor periodicals. There must be a public for such reviews, otherwise editors would not provide them; and, no doubt, the spread of libraries has something to do with it. The old dictum that it was not the business of a cataloguer to go behind, or add to, the information deemed sufficient by an author for the title-page of his book does not now find acceptance.
Those who are possessed of even a little experience will know that it is impossible to compile a library catalogue in a haphazard fashion, and that clear and definite rules for guidance must be laid down before any part of the work is attempted, otherwise confusion and want of proportion will result, to say nothing of the likelihood of the loss of work already done. Happily for a number of years now the rules governing the proper compilation of catalogues have been codified, and the following chapters, while based upon no particular code, are meant to serve as a practical introduction to the best-known of them with some little modifications that have been found to be convenient in practice.
