Chapter C: R. PERRY: At the last session of the Children's Librarians' Section (3)

Mr. BOWKER: I would like to say a word upon the question which was raised of printing certain matter in the _Library Journal_. While the _Library Journal_ is technically the official organ of the A. L. A. it would seem desirable to send such material to all the library periodicals, and I should suppose that it would be understood that the committee might so do.

CHAIRMAN: In the formal report of the committee to the Publishing Board the same plan of numbering is followed that was followed in the last issue, or edition, of Cutter's rules, of the A. L. A. rules. A number of changes, additions, excisions and emendations have been made. I will read the first.

"1a. Enter books under surnames of authors when ascertained, the abbreviation _Anon._ being added to the titles of works or editions published anonymously."

Now the question has been raised since, by a member of the committee, and it was desired that it be placed before this section for decision, If the heading of an anonymous book is always bracketed is it necessary to add the abbreviation "_Anon._" to the end of the title?

Mr. JOSEPHSON: It sometimes happens that an author signs his name at the end of the preface. In that case the name is not on the title-page, and should be bracketed on the heading. We have to distinguish those from the really anonymous books in some way. You have to do one of two things, either put the abbreviation "Anon." or the full word "Anonymous" on the top line, or, as we do in The John Crerar Library, put a note at the bottom.

Miss CRAWFORD: It has been my experience that the word "Anon." at the end of the line is sometimes confusing to the reader and brings up all sorts of questions, and is taking space that might be needed for something else. I do not see its value, and sometimes it is positively misleading. The bracket expresses all that is of real use, and it doesn't matter whether the author's name appears in some other place in the book; at any rate it was not on the title-page. The brackets tell that, and I don't see the use of the abbreviation.

Miss WAGNER: I don't see that the public are interested in brackets or in the word "Anon." It is for the public that the card is being made, I understand.

Mr. JOSEPHSON: When I spoke I went on the supposition that the title entry would, as is now usual, give the title only and omit the author's name from the title. But if, as I hope, the Publishing Board will decide to have the title-page copied exactly, giving the author's name in the title as it is done on the title-page, then you don't need to distinguish the anonymous authors from those who have signed in any other place than the title-page, except that in the former case you put a bracket around the name. As to the objection that the public is not concerned with the brackets, that may be true; but the librarian is very much concerned with knowing whether a book is published anonymously or not. I should like to have instead of brackets a footnote, telling "published anonymously" or "signed at the end of title-page" or "signed at end of the book."

Mr. FLETCHER: I would like to call attention to one or two things. In the first place, many popular libraries might like to have extremely simple cards. They will have to realize that they must take a good deal of information they do not want if they are to take the cards made for all libraries. Mr. Josephson's idea is a good one, that technicalities shall be avoided in favor of good, plain English notes. "Anon." is obscure to a great many people, while "published anonymously" is pretty plain English. If such a note follows it is not necessary to use any brackets.

Mr. JOSEPHSON: I rise to suggest that we should discuss the question of _size notation_.

Mr. FLETCHER: What we have to consider here is whether this meeting would favor one method or the other in size notation; and a consideration of that question might be largely affected by the further question, Is either of these methods to be followed for the printed cards? If you should be told that in all probability neither of them would be followed, it would prevent a good deal of waste of time in discussing one as against the other. We have two old methods that are mentioned in the reports. The third method, which finds a great deal of favor and which may be adopted by the Publishing Board, is that the size notation shall be represented by a mark giving the absolute measurement of the book, perhaps in centimeters, perhaps in inches and fractions.

Mr. HANSON: These three questions came before the committee at the meeting at Atlantic City; one was to give the fold symbol, as is used all over Europe and in the larger libraries of this country; the other was to give the letter symbol adopted by the A. L. A. in 1877; the third, presented by Mr. Hopkins, was to give measurements in centimeters of the letterpress and of the page--not of the binding. A minority report was submitted by Mr. Currier, Miss Kroeger and myself urging the fold symbol. Mrs. Fairchild, Mr. Cutter and Miss Browne are the majority, because I understood Mr. Hopkins to stand with them.

Miss KROEGER: Mrs. Fairchild was undecided, saying she was inclined to the exact measurement in centimeters; Miss Browne and Mr. Cutter voted for the old letter symbol; so there was no majority of the committee. Mr. Hopkins's vote was for the exact size. It was left with the Publishing Board to decide.

Mr. HANSON: The report is for the figure, but with a strong predilection of the members who signed it towards exact measurement, providing that should be adopted by the Publishing Board. Three of us argued in favor of the fold symbol. There were too main reasons argued, one that the great majority of readers in this country were familiar with the figure; the 4to, 8vo and 12mo gave them the size of the book; and that the majority of libraries used that rather than the letter. The other was in favor of uniformity. We found that the fold symbol as a measure of height, not in the old sense, was advocated by the Prussian, the Italian and the French university libraries and others. But if the Publishing Board should decide to adopt size measurement in centimeters I do not believe there is anyone of the committee who will insist very strongly on the retention of the one or the other.

Mr. HARRIS: I think that bibliographically it is a mistake to take the old fold symbol and apply it to size notation. It is not size--it represents form notation. It is much simpler to give size in inches or in centimeters, whichever you prefer, rather than to use the symbol which denotes fold.