dressing may be found necessary. The volumes must be rubbed with chamois leather when dry. Neat's-foot or olive oil has been suggested for the same purpose, but it ought to be used with a sparing hand. Much has been written about the effect of gas and heat upon binding.[1] The question is still undecided, but it seems likely that the deterioration of the leather is caused more directly by the over-heated air, so that thorough ventilation, especially as regards the upper shelves, is most important for the well-being of a library. Morocco, vellum, and buckram resist this action best, and calf, russia, and roan worst. Professor H. A. Hagen has studied the various kinds of bookworms and other insect pests of librarians.[2] Most libraries of the first class bind on the premises, and M. Hipp. Gariel of the Bibliothèque de Grenoble is persuaded, after a very careful inquiry, that any library which binds as many as nine hundred volumes a year will save largely by keeping up a binding establishment of its own.[3]
Catalogues.Catalogues and Cataloguing.—A library is useless without a proper equipment of good catalogues, which to be thoroughly efficient should be compiled upon a well-considered plan, carefully kept up to date, and made accessible to every reader. The variety of different catalogues is very great, and no one form can be adopted alike by libraries for study and those for popular reading, nor yet by those which combine the two functions in whatever proportions. As regards the amount of information necessary to be given, the titles of the books may be either short, or not more than a single line to each, as in the London Library Catalogue (1875); medium, or several lines to each, as in the Royal Academy Library Catalogue (1877); or full, as in the Catalogue of the Huth Library, 5 vols. large 8vo (1880), where the title is copied in extenso and a quantity of bibliographical details are added.
The chief questions to be answered by a catalogue are:—1. Has the library a certain work by a certain author? 2. What has it by any given author? 3. Has it a certain book of which the title only is known to the inquirer? 4. Has it a certain book of which the subject only is known to the inquirer? 5. What has it on a given subject? 6. What works in certain classes or languages has it? To supply this information, catalogues are arranged sometimes under the names of the authors in alphabetical order (1 and 2); or under the first words of the titles (3); or classified under subjects, whether in alphabetical or systematic order (4 and 5); or by a combination of two or more of these methods. A dictionary-catalogue answers all six questions under the names of authors, the titles of books, the subjects and forms of literature (i.e., essays, or French, German, &c.), which are arranged in one alphabet and connected one with the other by a complete system of cross-references. A modified form of short-title dictionary-catalogue, with the names of authors, titles of books, and subjects in one alphabet, is a useful type for a popular library to adopt. No author catalogue can be considered complete without an index of subjects,[4] and every classified catalogue requires an index of authors, if alphabetical, and of both authors and classes if systematic. An ideal catalogue would furnish references under each name and subject to every work, part of work, or even magazine article contained in the library which illustrated it. This can rarely be attempted, but a near approach to perfection is shown by the new catalogues of the Boston Athenaeum and the Brooklyn Mercantile Library; the last is a model of thoroughness. It is becoming a laudable practice to give the contents of collected works and periodicals in catalogues; and good examples of the value of annotations are the catalogues of the classes of history, biography, travel, and historical fiction in the Boston Public Library.
In making choice of a form of catalogue the way is sufficiently plain should the alphabetical system under authors be adopted, neither can there be much cause for discussion in fixing upon an alphabetical subject-catalogue; but, should it be decided to compile a systematic subject-catalogue, the question becomes a much more serious one. A subject-index of some sort is an indispensable supplement to any catalogue merely arranged under authors. The references had better be strictly alphabetical in form; for instance, a work on ants should be indexed under that word and not under the general heading of insects or entomology; but there is no reason why there should not be cross references under the larger to the smaller headings. In an appendix to Mr Cutter's article on "Library Catalogues "[5] there is a descriptive list of more than a thousand printed catalogues of American libraries, among which many useful types might be selected. All the printed catalogues of European libraries which were published before 1840 are mentioned in Vogel's Literatur europ. öff. u. Corporations-Biblotheken (Leipsic, 1840).
Librarians should take a share in the compilation of their catalogues at any sacrifice of time and trouble, for by no other means can they obtain so exact an acquaintance with their collections. No cataloguer should be allowed to prepare a title except from the very copy of the book which he is cataloguing.
In order to secure precision and uniformity in the descriptions of the books and in the headings under which they are placed, some well-considered code of rules is absolutely necessary as a guide to the cataloguer. All such rules are founded more or less upon those of the British Museum, printed in 1841,[6] which have been followed with modifications by Professor Jewett (in the Smithsonian Report on the Construction of Catalogues, 1852), by Mr E. Edwards (Memoirs of Libs., 1859, vol. ii.), by Mr F. B. Perkins (in the American Publisher, 1869), with many additions by Mr C. A. Cutter (in his Rules for a printed Dictionary-Catalogue, 1876),[7] by the condensed rules of the American Library Association (Library Journal, iii. 12), and by the Library Association of the United Kingdom (as finally agreed upon and printed in their Monthly Notes, ii. 81). The authorities of the Cambridge University Library have also printed their rules. In drawing up a set of rules the special wants of the library and the readers should be first considered, and then the most suitable rules chosen from one or other of the schemes mentioned above. But when rules are decided upon, no alteration should be permitted during the compilation of the catalogue, as bad rules uniformly followed are better than good rules without uniformity.
Among disputed questions, that of how best to describe the sizes of books is perhaps the most difficult. What is wanted is a system that can be understood by every one, and which is capable of being applied to old as well as to new books.[8] For books printed before the introduction of machine-made paper about the beginning of the century, the correct bibliographical size may be derived from the fold of the sheet, that is, roughly speaking, a quarto is a sheet folded four times, an octavo eight times, &c. The great variety of modern papers (a different scale of sizes being used in each country) renders this method no longer available, and it seems generally admitted that some system of fixed measurements of heights to denote certain sizes is wanted for library purposes. A report on the subject, giving details of three rival schemes, including that of the American Library Association, an ingenious adaptation of the "demy" scale paper, and one following the ordinary binder's scale, may be found in Trans., &c., of Manchester Meeting, 1880 (p. 11), of the Library Association. A committee of the same body subsequently devised a plan which endeavoured to embrace the different merits of all three schemes, but it has not yet been generally adopted.[9]
Printed catalogues.Printed catalogues are doubtless costly, and they soon become out of date, but they are much easier to consult than manuscript volumes, and possess the great advantage that they admit of being used away from the library. On the whole the balance of convenience is strongly in their favour, and few libraries of any importance fail to print as soon as they can. For free public libraries printed catalogues are absolutely necessary, and they are extremely useful in those of a more learned or special character.
As regards the form of catalogue most suitable for library reference, card-catalogues are used comparatively little in England, but are found to act satisfactorily in many American libraries. They possess many peculiar advantages, among others being the facility with which titles may be added, withdrawn, or rearranged. Readers do not object to turning over the cards, as the labour is shortened by indexes standing above the rows; and there are many contrivances to prevent the unauthorized removal of the titles.[10]
It is obvious that, if a universal catalogue of printed literature existed, it would be only necessary for each library to mark in a copy the particular works it chanced to possess. Such a plan on a small scale has been adopted in many cathedral and college libraries, where a copy of the Bodleian printed catalogue is used for the purpose. A satisfactory step in the direction of co-operative cataloguing has been made by Mr Henry Stevens in his proposals for a bibliographical clearing-house,[11] which shall supply exact copies of the title pages of rare (and eventually of more common) books by means of photography. Mr Stevens has now many thousands of these "photograms" of titles, which are all reduced to a uniform scale, with the full titles and collations added in ordinary type. They are very convenient for card-catalogues.
Thus far the wants of readers have been principally considered; but librarians ought to possess two other kinds of very important catalogues, which they must keep up in their own interests. The first is the accessions-catalogue, or record of every book, part of book, pamphlet, or periodical as it comes in; and the second the shelf-catalogue, or stock-book of the library, a register of the con-
- ↑ See Conf. of Lib., 1878, p. 232; also Library Journal, i. 124; iii. 64, 229; iv. 255, 435; v. 50, 213.
- ↑ Ib., iv. 251. see also p. 376, 448.
- ↑ La Bibl. de Grenoble, Paris, 1878. 8vo, pp. 19, 20.
- ↑ Of such an index a very complete specimen may be seen in the Catalogue of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society's Library. 1879, 3 vols. 8vo.
- ↑ See U.S. Report, p. 577
- ↑ Prefixed to the printed catalogue of letter A. The rules, which were compiled by Sir A. Panizzi, Th. Watts, J. Winter Jones, J. H. Parry, and E. Edwards, have been conveniently arranged by Mr Nichols in Handbook for Readers at the British Museum, 1866, and have been reprinted with additional rules by Mr Hy. Stevens in his Catalogue of the American Books in the British Museum.
- ↑ Second part of Report on Public Libraries of U.S., Washington, 1876.
- ↑ See C. Evans, in Library Journal, i. 58; and W. Blades, in Monthly Notes, 1. 2. 9.
- ↑ See Monthly Notes. i. 61, 62.
- ↑ The Bonnange and other systems of card-catalogues are described in Report on Public Libraries of U.S., pp. 555, &c.
- ↑ Transactions of Conference of Librarians, London, 1878, p. 70.
