Chapter XXII: Part 6: , devoted to the art department, in John Cotton Dana's "Modern (1)

American library economy," is a very useful guide, not only in its record of accomplishment at Newark, but also in its hints as to sources, its list of addresses. Miss Ethelred Abbot's "List of photograph dealers" (Massachusetts Library Club, 1907) is properly emphasized for its usefulness, as is also the "Bibliotheca pædagogica."

For permanent exhibits the reproductions of certain examples in architecture, painting and sculpture which have become classical, are of obvious value. And here, too, the reason for inclusion may well be emphasized to the student, not only by proper labels but also by reference at the proper time in the classroom and lecture hall. Such classics in art will not infrequently be found reproduced better in black-and-white than in color. Should the library decide to procure color work by modern artists, such as the Teubner prints referred to, or the similar ones issued by Voigtländer or by the Künstlerbund of Karlsruhe, care must be taken to select such as are of general, and not merely local, interest. Say for example, the well known "Field of grain" by Volkmann. Such modern work also has the advantage of emphasizing the fact that there is work worth while being done today. It likewise shows the healthy tendency to enlarge acquaintance with home production, home scenery, home customs. We find that, for instance, in Germany, in Sweden, to a certain extent in England, and elsewhere. Much of the foreign endeavor in this direction has found its use in schools, but it involves some big principles in point of view which make a certain amount of its results of use in the college as well. But we should similarly pay attention to the best American work. Noteworthy attempts by American artists to interpret American life and the beauties of our scenery deserve support. One notes with interest the attempt made by the American Federation of Arts' Committee on Art in the Public Schools to call attention to American examples in the fine arts by calling for an expression of opinion as to the best works produced by our artists. T. W. Stevens reported that the Chicago Institution, furthering the utilization of students' work in the decoration of public school walls, "encouraged the adoption of subject pictures for decoration; especially subjects in American history."

The help of the art department, where the college has one, may well be enlisted. (Parenthetically let me state that E. Baldwin Smith in his recent report on "The study of the history of art in the colleges and universities of the United States," Princeton, 1911, summarizes his statistics in the statement that of 1,000,000 students, 163,000 have any art courses at all offered them.) Not only have we such rich collections as those of the Avery Architectural library at Columbia, the Fogg Museum at Harvard, or Yale University, but collections of casts, photographs and books will be found at the disposal of the art departments of a number of other colleges. Such resources might be drawn upon so that some modicum, at least, of art influence may be extended to the rest of the institution. If the direct co-operation of the art department is secured it must necessarily be adapted to the needs of the case with a clear understanding of the fact that general students, and not art students, are to be served. The statement of Dr. Leigh H. Hunt, associate professor of art at the College of the City of New York is of interest here. His 6,000 boys, says he, would like to begin with the human face. They do not necessarily lean to the saccharine, but perceive human interest shown without the aid of the direct anecdote. They stand Memling and Ghirlandajo. "The boys love color," he continues, "and are easily led to love refined color. They admire the early English water colorists--Cox, DeWint; also, Japanese prints." After becoming interested in such refined color, they get a liking for monochromes--delft blue landscapes, sanguines and sepia drawings.

Efforts such as those I have indicated seem particularly called for where the college is away from art influences. But they should not be put aside even where the college is located in a larger center with an art life. Rather should the resources near at hand be turned to advantage. I have seen the statement that over 30 per cent of our museums are connected with educational institutions. Also, in a large city, there are numerous art exhibitions, most varied in character. But the very extent of all these opportunities may serve to keep away the student who has so many other duties and attractions. And, as Prof. Hunt points out, boys living at one end of a large city not only whirl past all such possibilities on their way to college, but in New York, using the subway, they pass under it and not through it. What is wanted is the direct, unavoidable presentation of art to those who are not yet sufficiently interested to seek art for themselves.

In the whole matter the ever-necessary exercise of common sense is commendable. Enthusiasm for the cause must be moderated and adapted to the point of view of the student. The didactic element should be unobtrusive. The student should be interested rather than admonished. Above all he should be led to see that a certain love and appreciation of art is not a "highbrow" affair but a proper, necessary and pleasure-giving part of the equipment of the cultured man. As proper and a matter of course as the avoidance of a necktie of shrieking colors, or as the use of the table knife for cutting only. Farther discussion of this subject, as well as decision as to the practicability of the ideas advanced, must be left to those who have a more intimate acquaintance with the problems, conditions and difficulties involved than can be had by one who has to deal with the readers in a large public library.

Mr. Goodrich called attention to the library of the University of Michigan as one place where ideas like those of the paper had been carried out, made a plea for color prints as against the everlasting black and brown, and suggested the possibilities of pottery and textiles in the way of giving life and cheer to the delivery hall. He referred by way of example to the beautiful drapery curtains in the John Hay library reading room--a vast relief from the ordinary roller shade and just as effectual.

At the end of the session, the nominating committee brought in the name of Mr. W. N. C. Carlton, librarian of the Newberry library, to succeed Mr. Keogh on the committee on arrangements; Mr. Carlton was unanimously elected. His term will be three years; the other members of the committee, Miss Askew and Mr. Goodrich, remain the same as this year. The session then adjourned until Friday night.

COLLEGE LIBRARIANS' ROUND TABLE

The round table for college librarians was held on Friday evening, June 27th. F. C. Hicks, of Columbia university, presiding.

Miss JOSEPHINE A. RATHBONE, of the Pratt Institute school of library science gave a talk on

WHAT COLLEGE LIBRARIANS CAN DO FOR LIBRARY SCHOOLS

In a recent lecture on administrative problems of the college library given to the students of the Pratt Institute library school the lecturer pictured the ideal college library of the future, with a staff consisting of specialists, each with a knowledge of his subject equal to that of instructors or professors plus a library school training, whose recompense should be on the same scale as that for the teaching of those subjects. I remarked afterward that before that vision could come to pass the college librarians should have to act as feeders for the library schools, turning toward librarianship promising material from which the library schools could make the college library specialist of tomorrow. Hence this paper.

There has been a good deal of discussion in the Professional Training section about specialization in library schools--the desirability of having special courses to prepare librarians for technical libraries, for professional libraries, for legislative reference libraries, etc., etc., but I am convinced--and my conviction deepens with my increasing experience--that the time for specialization is before the library school course and not during it. Theoretically it does not seem possible that the same library course should be able to fit students for such different lines as children's work, municipal reference work, cataloging, branch library work, the scientific department of a university library, a botanical garden library, and the librarianship of a town library, but actually that is just what happens; recent graduates of our school are filling just such positions and each one found that her library training plus her previous education, experience and temperament enabled her to fill the special position satisfactorily.

Now what the college librarian can do for the library school and hence for the library profession, is, it seems to me, to make it known among college students that there are opportunities for the specialist in library work--to disabuse the mind of the man or woman who wants to pursue economics or sociology or some branch of science of the idea--almost a fixed idea it would seem--that a specialist in order to continue in his specialty must necessarily teach it, that teaching offers the only pied a terre, the only means of support for the student. Students of sociology and government are beginning to find their way into organized welfare work, it is true, but library work should be presented to them as a means of social service, of at least equal importance with settlement work or organized charity. That it could be so presented I am confident, and by whom if not by or through the agency of the college librarian?

Schools and colleges are devoting an increasing amount of attention to vocational guidance. Will not college librarians make a point of seeing that the possibilities and diversified opportunities of librarianship are presented to the students each year? If they do not care to do this themselves, librarians or members of library school faculties might be found in the vicinity who would be glad to do it.

Once the subject of librarianship is presented to the student and the desirability of entering upon the work through the gateway of library school training is pointed out (I assume that no time need be spent arguing this point--but if I am wrong I shall be glad to discuss the matter with any dissenters later), the college librarian can further the cause by being prepared to advise students as to their choice of a library school. The college librarian should supply himself with the circulars of the several schools and should inform himself concerning the reputation, advantages, requirements, and specialties of the different schools. We all agree that there is no one best library school (except our own), but that each of them offer special opportunities that make them adapted to the particular needs of different students. To direct the inquirer to that school that will best fit him for the particular kind of work he inclines toward would be to serve the profession, the schools, the colleges, and the individual student. Will not the college librarian take this function upon himself and enrich the profession not only with the quiet bookish student who will develop into the old-fashioned librarian for whom there is still room, but with the specialist, the executive, the vigorous and enthusiastic altruist who wants to serve the world by positive, constructive, social work?

The following paper, prepared by Mr. ROBERT S. FLETCHER, librarian of Amherst College, was read by Mr. N. L. Goodrich, of Dartmouth:

THE COLLEGE LIBRARY AND RESEARCH WORK

There was published in 1912 a "Union List of Collections on European History in American Libraries, compiled for the Committee on Bibliography of the American Historical Association by E. C. Richardson, Chairman."

In the preface to this exceedingly valuable work occurs the following extract from the Report of the Committee, December, 1911:

"It is clear from this situation that no library is self-sufficient--even Harvard lacking 930 sets, and all but 12 lacking on the average of 2,153 out of 2,197 works. Even as good colleges as Amherst and Williams, having but 26 and 17 respectively, lack 2,171 and 2,180 respectively out of 2,197, while probably 700 of the 786 institutions doing work of college grade in the United States are worse off than these."

I need hardly say that this is merely a statement of fact and in no sense a criticism or arraignment of any library mentioned or implied. Furthermore, it is undoubtedly true that analysis and reflection will render this statement much less startling than it appears at first glance. Whether we can explain and account for it to our entire satisfaction is a question which seems to me rather doubtful. Let me quote a little more from this same source:

"The most significant fact of the statistics of last year remains, however, substantially unchanged--the fact that only ten or a dozen libraries have as many as 10 per cent of the collections, and that out of 786 institutions which profess to do work of college grade, only about fifty libraries have as much as 1 per cent. The actual situation is even much worse than appears from the figures, since two or three inexpensive volumes of illustrative source books for classroom use are in the list through inadvertence, and undoubtedly swell the record of the minor institutions. It is safe to say that a majority even of the institutions included in the Babcock list have less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of these sets, and yet these are titles which have been gathered from actual references and are the books which are liable to meet any men engaged in historical research at every turn."

If we assume that research work belongs only to the university--that it has no place in the college--we may dismiss these figures as possessing no significance for us, save as they throw some light on the inferior quality of the collections built up by most of our American libraries. If on the other hand we believe that the smaller institution should encourage its teachers to do research work, and should, so far as its resources allow, provide the facilities for such work, then I believe that a study of the conditions responsible for the situation set forth in the Committee's report cannot fail to be of some value. And while I hold no brief for the research worker I am strongly of the opinion that the college which does encourage original research can not but gain a higher quality of teaching, and at the same time acquire a collection of books which, if not notable, shall be at least thoroughly good.

It may be claimed, and in that case must be granted, that such a question as this is practically an academic one, and so pretty largely outside of the librarian's province. That is true, however, only so long as you leave the question unanswered--or answer it in the negative. An affirmative answer would bring the matter home directly to every college librarian in the country. The college which believes in research and encourages its faculty to do it, must have a librarian not only in sympathy with the movement, but one skillful in finding ways and means to make it a success, since in most cases the funds at our disposal for the purchase of books would seem to preclude the possibility of such a thing.

Before going further into the discussion of this phase of the question, let me return for a moment to the report from which I quoted. One or two conclusions may justly be drawn from the figures therein presented. In the first place I think we may safely infer that the situation as regards History, so strikingly set forth, is repeated, and probably in an even worse form, in all the other departments of knowledge. Certainly we should not expect a library which was so weak in the research material of History, to be any stronger in Philology or the Sciences, or in Philosophy and Economics.

The second conclusion follows naturally from this, that the average college library--for it is with the college library that this paper concerns itself--has built up its collection with practically no emphasis on the acquisition of such material.

To say that this general condition exists solely because of the lack of funds is to my mind neither a real explanation, nor a real excuse. It exists primarily because there has never been any pressure from members of the faculty to bring about a different condition.

If we seek a reason for it we shall find it in the fact that research work has by tacit consent been left almost entirely to the university. Its place there--its vital importance in the university scheme of work--has never been questioned. Making all allowance for the difference in conditions I still cannot see why a thing that is confessedly of so much benefit to the university should not also be of help to the college. At the risk of getting a little off the track, and for the sake of making what I mean as plain as possible, it seems necessary to devote some space to a definition of the term research work. I am writing, of course, from the standpoint of an outsider, who expresses a purely personal opinion on a subject which interests him. There can be no hard and fast definition of such a term as this--at least not from a librarian.

I shall suppose then, that research work is of two kinds, both important, but one of them much more important than the other. The first and most common kind is that ordinarily done by the graduate student in the university. It is the gathering of material--the collection of information on some particular phase of some particular subject--and is not only of value in itself, but when taken together with the work done by other students along related lines becomes part of the structure on which scholarship is built. We may call it analytical research work. The other kind is that done by the man of clear vision and wide outlook, mature enough to see that the analytical work is merely material for a bigger thing--call it what you will--the man who can take the information others have collected and impart it in the form of culture. This is synthetic research work. Now the university has much of the former, some of the latter. The college has need only of the synthetic. If its place in the educational world is to be permanent, its contribution to education must be cultural. The type of teacher it needs, and I believe must have, is the man who has done, or is capable of doing, synthetic research work. In his hands teaching takes on a vitality, a spontaneity, a genuineness that no one else can give it. That the book collection of the average college would be sufficient for the needs of men like this is out of the question. There would inevitably arise a demand for the purchase of works of an entirely different kind--a demand that would have to be at least partially met. This demand would be for research material, by which I mean the results of research work, and the problem of such a college library would become a problem in discrimination--the decision as to what of this material it should try to obtain.

It ought not to be difficult to draw a clear distinction between analytical and synthetic research material. Illustrations of the first will readily occur to you, one as good as any being the usual thesis submitted for the doctor's degree. All "source" material is necessarily analytical--is the result of a careful, painstaking, often laborious search for information: information that may illuminate some dark corner of the field of knowledge. But it is never itself illumined by the spark of genius, nor wrought by the loving hand of the artist. It is merely the wood and the stone out of which a complete structure may some day arise.

Now how does the synthetic conception of research apply to History? A modern German writer has compressed the whole significance of it into a sentence: "The writing of History," he says, "is just as truly a =will toward a picture= as it is a knowledge of sources." In other words synthesis of the kind referred to is always the work of the artist, and in the nature of things becomes thereby a contribution to culture. Gibbon's "Decline and fall of the Roman empire," Lamprecht's "History of Germany," Rhodes' "History of the United States"--these are all synthetic: each one existed first as a picture in the mind of the artist, not merely as an array of sources from which the facts of history might be drawn.

"But," you say, "all libraries buy these books and others like them as a matter of course." Yes, we do, but I think the trouble is that we do not make books of this sort our standard, if indeed we have any standard beyond a favorable review or a request from a patron. It is no more true that the result of all synthetic research is cultural than that the result of all artistic endeavor is beautiful. Results here are just as uneven as anywhere else, with much that is good and perhaps even more that is bad, and it is when we come to discriminate that we are apt to go astray. Now a teacher such as I have in mind would keep abreast through the better periodicals of all that was being done in his particular line, and if facilities were furnished, would buy what he knew he needed--monographs, bibliographies, biographies, and some larger works--things that would not only give his teaching a vitality and freshness otherwise lacking, but would help to hasten the day when his own contribution to the world's culture should see the light.

Assuming, then, that a college accepts this view, and proposes to encourage its faculty to do research work, what are the practical ways in which the library can not only co-operate, but further such an undertaking? For I believe there are several. A preliminary statement as to the functions of the college library would seem to be essential. These have often been set forth for us in detail, and I shall only enumerate them here. The first and most important function is, of course, to meet the needs of the students and teachers as they arise in the regular college work. Along with this is the supplying of books for general reading, outside of the curriculum. Most of these books are bought for members of the faculty, who are thereby enabled to keep in touch with the latest developments in their own and other fields, and to avoid the possibility of mental stagnation from too close association with a particular subject. I believe much more might--and should--be done in the way of developing a taste for general reading on the part of the students, but that is another story.

Apart from these what are the functions of the college library? To be, so far as it can the centre of culture for the community in which it is located: to aid the local public library in its work with woman's clubs, and high school pupils: to lend books freely to other libraries. And in our own case there is the added opportunity of being of some assistance to another institution in the same town.

Now these things are all important, and the librarian who does not realize it, who fails to utilize to the utmost the possibilities they contain for intellectual and social betterment, is not worthy of his hire. But the point of view I take in this article compels me to consider them as secondary. The college library exists first of all to supply the book needs of its own students and faculty, and for nothing else. The expenditure of its funds, always insufficient, must be limited to this chief function. It is probable that all these other things I have enumerated can be done without any financial loss to the library, but where any of them means a diversion of library funds it becomes unjustifiable.

I said above that there are several practical ways in which a library--more properly, perhaps, a librarian--can not only co-operate, but further a movement to encourage research work on the part of members of the faculty. My remarks are of necessity limited to my observation of conditions in the institution with which I am connected, and are not to be considered general in their application. At the same time, I am inclined to think that these conditions are reproduced, at least to a certain extent, in most college libraries.

The assistance which the library can render must, of course, be very largely financial. Only by releasing funds from present uses, or by increasing these funds, can we hope to buy material of the kind referred to.

I am convinced, in the first place, that we can save money in the purchase of books, and this not through better discounts, or any choice of agents, but through more care in the selection of the books themselves. In other words, submit all lists of proposed purchases to a more rigid scrutiny. Make all titles answer such questions as "Is this book going to be of real value to this library?" "Is its usefulness to be more or less permanent, or merely temporary?" "Could not our need for it be met by borrowing from another library?"

In our own case, at least, I fear a number of books are recommended by professors or others, and bought by the library, which could not survive any such test. This naturally applies not so much to department books as to those of a general nature, for in the last analysis the teacher must be the judge of what he needs to help him in his work.

Secondly, we ought to save money--I think a considerable sum--on our periodicals. And here the saving effected by dropping some from the list is a double one; not only the subscription price, but the cost of binding. I realize that I am treading on dangerous ground in this matter, and that most professors would say to drop all the books if necessary, but none of the periodicals. And I could wish for enough space to elaborate my side of the question at some length, instead of touching on it only briefly. For I believe it to be of real importance--a thing that every college library must face and decide at some time or other. Here at Amherst we spent last year over 40 per cent of the income from our book funds on periodicals and their binding--a proportion which I cannot believe to be justified. Is there not such a thing as a "periodical" habit, into which all of us, librarians and professors alike, are apt to fall? We keep periodicals on our lists because they have always been there--were there before we came--although on reflection we are sure that no one ever uses them--not even the professor at whose instance they were ordered. In the first place, of course, he =expects= to use them, sometime if not now. Or he is sure that he =ought= to--that they would give him just the impetus he needs in his work. Or perhaps (and I should whisper this) he likes to have it known that the department is taking these things "couldn't get along without them." Now the periodical that cannot prove its right--in terms of usefulness--to be on the shelves of a college library has no place there. And the significance of this for us is the fact that in being there it is keeping something else out! What we spend for it, and for others like it, would enable us to make at least a beginning on the acquisition of our synthetic research material.

These are two of the ways in which it seems to me a librarian in sympathy with this movement could further it. Another, possibly worth mentioning, is to refrain from binding miscellaneous pamphlets and other unbound material, mostly presented to the library, and which we are apt to think may some day serve a purpose. Part of it may--most of it can well be thrown away and the binding money saved.

"But," you say, "even in the aggregate these things do not mean very much; perhaps one or two hundred dollars at the outside--one or two or three research collections a year for your library." No, they do not mean very much, by themselves, or in the purchasing power of money they are instrumental in saving. But they stand for something definite and logical; they are indicative of a determination on the part of an institution to get men of a certain type for its faculty, and to provide them with facilities for doing the broadest and biggest work possible. I may be mistaken, but I am inclined to think such an institution could find more money as it needed more. And the librarian skillful in discovering ways and means would not be contented with his yearly appropriations, but would succeed in interesting trustees and friends of the college to a point where interest would be translated into deeds.

Now there is, of course, another side to all this, and we should be short-sighted indeed not to recognize it. The college library which spent any considerable share of its funds for research material which really belongs only in the university library would have no means whatever of justifying itself--would be worse off than an institution which had no research material whatever. How may we guard against this danger? I must take it for granted that the sort of teacher I have been considering would choose his research material wisely and with the right perspective. In case he failed to do this I should expect the librarian to tell him so. And back of the librarian should be a real library committee; so constituted as to represent the different departments as fairly as possible; having charge of the allotment of book funds; advising and helping the librarian in the shaping of the library's policy; the court of last resort when an expensive and somewhat doubtful set was being considered--I can conceive of such a committee as being one of the greatest factors in the success of this whole undertaking. Let at least two types of teachers be selected for it. The one a man whose chief interest centers in the personal and human side of his students; who puts them first to the extent that his work is with them rather than with books or scholarly endeavor. The other the man I have defined as the synthetic research worker, broad in his sympathies toward his students, but a man who realizes both the need of the age for culture, and his own ability to contribute to it something worth while. By a fusion of such types as these the rights of all would be conserved--the needs of all met so far as possible.

Just a word more by way of summary and I shall be through.

I believe the book collection of the average college library is much below what it might be in point of quality. A possible way of changing this situation for the better is to encourage members of the faculty to do research work. This would also result in a higher standard of teaching--or so at least all the teachers with whom I have talked assure me. It is not necessary to assume that research is essential to scholarship, but merely that it adds something to a man's efficiency and power that can be gotten in no other way. The college librarian, if he cares to, can play an important part in bringing these things about.

You will doubtless find this scheme--represented here only in outline--rather idealistic, but so, I take it, are all educational schemes. I can only hope that you will find also some soundness in its theory--some small addition to the constructive criticism of a condition which I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

Miss MINNIE E. SEARS, head cataloger of the University of Minnesota library, presented a paper on

CATALOGING FOR DEPARTMENT LIBRARIES

Before beginning the discussion of cataloging for department libraries, let me say that as it is a subject which is still in the experimental stage and not yet capable of generalization, the statements made in this paper are based, partly upon information collected from certain university libraries in which this problem is now being worked out, and partly on my own experience in organizing the department catalogs of the University of Minnesota. The other libraries quoted are those of the University of Chicago, Columbia, Illinois, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin.

In considering the problem of cataloging for department libraries, we may start with a definition and an assumption. For the purpose of this discussion it may be said that a department library is not a mere handful of reference books on a subject, but a more or less comprehensive collection of books on the subject shelved and used separately from the collections of the main library; and it may be assumed that the necessity for a separate catalog of such a collection is admitted by all.

Assuming this, the first question that presents itself is that of the form of the department catalog. Shall it be an author, a classed or a dictionary catalog, or, since in most cases the department library is a small open-shelf collection, will it suffice to have a shelf-list only, serving also as a classed catalog? The shelf-list would offer the simplest and cheapest solution of the difficulty, but the day when it was accepted as a solution of the entire problem has passed. Not one of the libraries consulted suggests the shelf-list alone as a possible arrangement. An author catalog, at least, is needed in addition, and the majority of these libraries report dictionary catalogs in some of the department libraries, if not in all. Chicago University is to provide for the department libraries outside of Harper building an author catalog and a shelf-list, where printed cards are available, and an author catalog only for the department libraries within Harper building. Columbia, Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota have dictionary catalogs for all department libraries. Missouri has dictionary catalogs in 3, and Wisconsin in 2 department libraries, while Johns Hopkins is to have dictionary catalogs in all department libraries which are outside its main building.

A more difficult question is that of the scope of the catalog. How exhaustive is it possible, or even desirable, to make it? It must, of course, include all books in the department library itself, but shall it also record all books dealing with the same subject to be found elsewhere in the university? Such completeness of record would be the ideal arrangement, and would, undoubtedly, meet with the hearty approval of the university departments. But will not the cost be prohibitive to many libraries, even in this day of printed cards and multigraph? To be of value, such elaborate cataloging should be done thoroughly and systematically and above all, once undertaken, should never be allowed to lapse, or confusion will be the result. The fuller information about related materials in other parts of the library can always be obtained from the main library catalog, if that record is a union catalog of department libraries as well; and if the department librarian is in telephone communication with the reference librarian at the main library, the information can be obtained almost as quickly as if it were included in the department catalog. We may, therefore, conclude that the department catalog complete for its own library but not including related material in other libraries, is the most practicable form under present conditions, although the ideal form is the more complete catalog which expense at present generally prohibits.

The third point which our problem raises is that of variations in cataloging from the rules followed in the general library catalog. The first important variation which suggests itself as possible is in the treatment of analytics. Shall analytics be included in the department catalog, and if so, shall they be the same as those in the general catalog? On this point the practice of our eight libraries varies somewhat. Chicago University is not planning to include any analytics in its department catalogs, and Johns Hopkins includes only a few. Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota, in the main, duplicate for their department catalogs the analytics made for their main catalogs and, as a rule, include no additional analytics. The Columbia practice is more ambitious, as that library includes in its department catalog analytics (mainly articles in periodicals) which are not included in its general catalog. An article in the =Columbia University Quarterly= for March, 1911, states that the department catalogs have analytics for all important serials that bear upon the work of the departments whether shelved there or in the general library, that is, the department library catalog attempts to serve both as catalog and index. These cards are intended for temporary use only, to be removed when the demand for them ceases.

In most university libraries it would be impossible to keep up systematically such elaborate catalogs, and it is not clear that such indexing--for it is indexing rather than cataloging--would be desirable in all places. A catalog can never be made to take the place of a reference librarian, or of an intelligent use of the important annual and other subject indexes to the literature of a subject, such as =Psychological Index=, the various =Jahresberichte=, etc. Moreover, every reference or department librarian naturally does more or less in the way of keeping up card indexes or bibliographies, which are frequently revised and the old material discarded as new and better material takes its place. Such reference indexes are simpler and more practical than serial analytics in a department catalog, since they do not call for expert revision and absolute uniformity of subject headings. On the whole, the tendency of present opinion and practice seems to be that important analytics which are useful in the general catalog are useful in the department catalog also, but that beyond that it is better to encourage the use of the printed indexes and the keeping of an informal reference index for material not yet included in the printed aids.

A more important possibility of variation, where the department catalog is dictionary in form, is found in subject headings. Will the same headings that are found satisfactory in the main library catalog serve equally well in the department catalog as used by specialists? Too much emphasis can not be laid upon the fact that any variation of this kind greatly increases the cost of the cataloging, as the assigning and revision of two sets of subject headings, one for the general and one for the department catalog, will mean that that part of the work is greatly increased, though not doubled. The correct assignment of subject headings presents enough difficulties under any circumstances, and the catalog supervisor should hesitate to multiply these unless there is strong reason for doing so. In libraries which have adopted the Library of Congress subject headings, those headings, with minor variations, will, for most subjects, be found satisfactory in the department as well as in the general catalog. Law will at once occur to all as a subject for which it may be desirable to run two sets of headings. We have done this at the University of Minnesota, using the special Library of Congress law headings in the department catalog, and the regular Library of Congress headings in the general catalog. A point to be carefully considered in adopting more than one set of subject headings, moreover, is the possible confusion of mind that may be produced in the student, the exigencies of whose work require him to use more than one of the library catalogs. Such records are certainly much easier to use when there is uniformity of subject entries, and the adoption of several different sets of subject headings will certainly cause confusion, even to members of the library staff, much more to students.

After the questions of form, scope, and contents of the department catalog, comes the practical question of how best to get the work done. It can be done in either of two ways, by the regular cataloging force of the university or by the department librarians. In most university libraries the cataloging staff is small in comparison with the amount always to be done, and the work of keeping the general catalog up to date taxes all its powers, and leaves no time for extra records such as department catalogs. On the other hand, does not the department librarian have more or less time which, when properly arranged, could be given to cataloging under the direction of the head cataloger? We have found this to be the case at the University of Minnesota. Until three years ago our department libraries were all under the supervision of the various departments, and hence in a more or less chaotic state. Some of these have not yet emerged from chaos. In these three years, however, we have evolved a system by which this work is done by the department librarians, or, in one case, by an assistant in the department library. It has so far proved a perfectly workable system for our given conditions. All the department librarians so far appointed have been either library school graduates or people with equivalent library training, and in addition to that, in some cases, with special knowledge of the subjects of the departments. One of the first duties of the department librarian, on taking charge of his library, has been to organize it, classifying and cataloging it under the supervision of the head of the catalog department, but doing the work in the department library. The question has been raised as to how the department librarian could do the reference work and other work of his library, and at the same time catalog the department books for both the department and general catalog. Of course the cataloging will be intermittent and more or less interrupted, as our rule is that the work for the public must be done first. Until, however, the books of a department library are in order and properly listed, no satisfactory reference work can be done with them. Our own experience has certainly been that the reference work of our department librarians has been strengthened by their work of cataloging. The general library gains also from this work of the department librarian, as the latter does the cataloging of his books for the general catalog at the same time as that for the department catalog, and so the growth of the general library catalog is greatly promoted, without a corresponding tax upon the resources of the catalog department. In as far as possible the work is revised by the head cataloger or a reviser, in the department library, but in some cases of difficult revision it has been found necessary to transfer the books to the catalog department for revision there. At present, whenever printed cards can not be obtained, all cards are actually made by the department librarian, but as soon as we are able to adopt the multigraph, rough copy only will be supplied by that assistant.

After the department library has been thoroughly organized and cataloged, the department librarian goes on with the lighter task of cataloging the current accessions of his library for both the department and the general catalog.

Some of the advantages of thus having the work done by the trained department librarians are:

1. It adds several workers to the cataloging force of the library, and thus makes it possible to do much more in the way of providing needed departmental catalogs. This fact has been of great importance with us at the University of Minnesota, where, with the present cataloging force alone, it would have been impossible to provide these catalogs. Besides, there is the advantage to the general library of getting the cataloging of these same books done for the general catalog.

2. The department librarian should have, and generally does have, special knowledge of his subject, which is of assistance in cataloging, especially in classification and the assignment of subject headings.

3. As the work is done in the department it is easy for the department librarian to consult the professors whenever necessary or desirable.

4. There is a real advantage to the department librarian in the added familiarity with the department books which he has gained in cataloging them. This is particularly true in the case of the librarian who, in the beginning, is not a specialist in his subject, but even the specialist may gain some knowledge from this handling of the material which will help him in the service of his readers. Moreover, if he has actually made the catalog, he can use it more intelligently himself and instruct his students better in the use of it.

Our scheme has certain disadvantages as well as advantages. Some of these are:

1. There is danger that not enough cataloging research work will be done when the cataloging is done in the department library, because many of the important catalog and bibliographical aids are not accessible outside the catalog department--for example, the depository or union catalog of printed cards.

2. There is danger that the existing records will not be consulted enough, because the general catalog is not easily accessible and can only be consulted on special trips to the main library.

3. When the work is thus decentralized, there is much greater difficulty in obtaining from the various assistants work which is even fairly uniform. No one who has had experience in trying to manage such work will minimize this difficulty. For this reason, the revision is more difficult, and must be done with the greatest care, especially in the matter of subject headings.

4. It is sometimes more difficult to get good cataloging from those whose first interest does not lie in this branch of the work, and who are not closely associated with the regular catalogers, and familiar with the many traditions of a catalog department. For this reason we have found at Minnesota, that it is an advantage to have a newly appointed department librarian work in the catalog department for a time before taking up the work in his library.

We have found, however, that with us the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, particularly the one great advantage that it has been a practical way of accomplishing work which could not have been done by our present cataloging department.

Summary

A tabulated summary of the replies received from the libraries circularized has been prepared, but as it is too detailed for reading here, I will omit it, and present, instead, a few conclusions which may fairly be drawn from this summary. While practice is not uniform on any one point of department cataloging, certain tendencies toward uniformity are clearly evident.

1. In the matter of department librarians there is clearly a tendency towards the appointment of trained workers having, whenever possible, some special knowledge of the subject of their departments as well. This, of course, is important, if the cataloging is to be done in the department libraries. All these libraries feel, also, the need for some kind of department catalogs, although the number of such catalogs already established varies from three at the University of Wisconsin to twenty-three at Columbia.

2. There is a pretty general agreement that the dictionary catalog is the most desirable for department libraries. Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota report dictionary catalogs in all organized department libraries, and Johns Hopkins in all department libraries outside the main building. Wisconsin and Missouri report dictionary catalogs in certain department libraries, and Chicago reports author catalogs and shelf-lists. All the libraries using dictionary catalogs report the use, in the main, of the same kind of subject headings in department as in general catalogs, except for certain special subjects, such as law, or for certain highly specialized collections, such as the Avery Architectural library at Columbia.

3. There is a somewhat greater variation in the scope of material to be included. So far, only two libraries, Columbia and Michigan, report any department catalogs covering more than the material in the department libraries, but Missouri and Minnesota report that they intend, eventually, to have their department catalogs include all books on the subject in the university. In the matter of analytics the majority practice is to include the same analytics in both general and department catalogs, although Chicago uses no analytics at all in department catalogs, while Columbia, at the other extreme, includes more analytics in department catalogs than in the general catalog.

4. Present opinion seems to be pretty evenly divided on the subject of whether the actual work of cataloging should be done by the department librarians or by the regular cataloging force, although there is perhaps a tendency to have this work done by the department librarians wherever there are trained workers in charge of the department libraries. Universities in which the work for department catalogs is done by the department librarians, report that the department librarians catalog these same books for the general catalog as well.

In conclusion, let me repeat that if the cataloging is done by the department librarians, too much emphasis can not be laid upon the fact that it is absolutely essential to have all this work done under the supervision of the head cataloger, with the most careful revision. Otherwise there will be as many varieties of cataloging as there are department librarians.

In behalf of Dr. W. Dawson Johnston, of Columbia, Miss Isadore G. Mudge read the following

PROPOSAL FOR A CATALOG OF UNIVERSITY SERIAL PUBLICATIONS

One of the desiderata of our exchange departments, as well as of our reference departments, is a catalog of American university serial publications. This should give in addition to the general title, a full table of contents, and an index of the same. It may be prepared by one library, or cooperatively by the library of each institution issuing such series, and published by a central institution, as the bibliography of American historical societies was published by the Smithsonian Institution, or published as the trade list annual is, each institution printing its own catalog and forwarding it to a publisher to be indexed, bound with the catalogs of publications of other institutions, and so published.

The desirability of such a catalog as a record of American university publications was presented to the Executive Committee of the Association of American Universities at its last meeting. The Committee voted to recommend to the Association the passage of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Association of American Universities recommends to each of its constituent universities the preparation of a catalog of its serial publications and the printing of the catalog in a form which will permit the publication of the several catalogs as a collected work, so arranged and indexed as to make it a useful work of reference."

If the members of the College Section are similarly interested in such a catalog, similar action on the part of the section may be desirable. I present this suggestion with some diffidence because although the catalog will save librarians much labor in the long run the preparation of it would involve a large amount of extra labor in the immediate future. In spite of this, however, I hope that it will receive your favorable consideration.

After some discussion it was voted that the proposal be referred to the executive committee of the College and Reference Section for consideration.

The meeting then adjourned.

REFERENCE LIBRARIANS' ROUND TABLE

The meeting of the Public Library Division of the College and Reference Section was held on the evening of June 27. It was called to order by Edwin H. Anderson, who turned it over to Miss Sarah B. Askew of the New Jersey public library commission, who acted as chairman for the evening. The first speaker was Miss MARILLA WAITE FREEMAN, librarian of the Goodwyn Institute library of Memphis, who spoke on

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT, AND THE REFERENCE DEPARTMENT AS A BUREAU OF INFORMATION

What we call "reference work" has been a little in disrepute of late, and there has been some discussion as to the amount of time which may legitimately be spent in helping the curious inquirer to learn how many of the Louis's died a natural death, or whether Helen of Troy wore locks of Titian red. But it is only in the large library that there can be any limitation of what we call the reference department to the handling of such academic quibbles. It is true that in the large library the technical department, the business branch, the art department may limit and thin the quality of work left to the reference librarian, till she (or he) may feel that only the dry bones of the day's research are hers (or his). But in the small library there is no such limitation, and the reference librarian, who may also be the head librarian and the chief cataloger, may come in touch each day with every sort of human interest, from the eager desire of the office clerk to get back to the soil by the road of raising rice in Arkansas or apples in Idaho, to the yearning for economic independence and artistic expression in the soul of the girl who comes to pore over books on design.