College and Research Libraries


Review Articles 

Is the Golden A g e Really O v e r ? 

A discussion based upon the following 

recent publications: Andrew D. Osborn s 

The Crisis in Cataloging (American Li-

brary Institute, 1941); A.L.A. Catalog 

Rules; Author and Title Entries (Pre-

pared by the A.L.A. Catalog Code Re-

vision Committee with the collaboration 

of a committee of the British Library 

Association. Preliminary American sec-

ond edition. American Library Associa-

tion, 1941); Catalogers' and Classifiers' 

Yearbook No. 9 (American Library As-

sociation, 1941). 

A L M O S T two decades ago, Cutter in the 
-^J^-prefatory note to the fourth edition 
of Rules for a Dictionary Catalog1 stated 
that he doubted the need for another edi-
tion of the work, since the cooperative 
cataloging activity of the Library of Con-
gress was destined to solve the major 
cataloging problems of libraries. A l -
though there would be some books that 
the libraries would need to catalog with-
out benefit of L . C . services, Cutter w r o t e : 
"Still I cannot help thinking that the 
golden age of cataloging is over, and the 
difficulties and discussions which have fur-
nished an innocent pleasure to so many 
will interest them no more. Another lost 
art."2 

M u c h has happened since 1904. T h e 
statement that L . C . printed cards and 
other services have aided considerably in 
reducing the problems of cataloging in 
large libraries is undeniable. T o state 

1 Cutter, C. A . Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. 
Washington, Government P r i n t i n g Office, 1904, p. 5. 

2 Loc. cit. 

that they have eliminated all difficulties 
of cataloging in the large library is stretch-
ing the truth beyond its elasticity. T h e 
present discussion of cataloging problems 
by Osborn and the several writers in the 
ninth Catalogers' and Classifiers' Year-
book indicates clearly that cataloging 
problems are assuming the importance 
that they once held. 

Although we have established an elabo-
rate catalog code and systems of classi-
fication, administrators and catalogers 
apparently are not satisfied with current 
conditions. T h e presence of large arrears 
and the high costs of the technical proc-
esses, combined with a recognition of the 
difficulties arising from the size and com-
plexity of catalogs and obsolescence of 
classification systems, have precipitated a 
number of suggestions for change. W e , 
therefore, look at a library situation torn 
by argument and counter-proposals that 
extend more widely and run deeper than 
any other library history has shown since 
1876 or the early years of the twentieth 
century. T h e existence of the catalog 
code and of the systems of book arrange-
ment seems insufficient to prevent the so-
called "crisis in cataloging." Instead, it 
seems as if progress in the technical proc-
esses has served to complicate, rather than 
simplify, service to readers. 

Such a state of affairs has led to some 
confusion and pessimism among librarians. 
"Frustration" and "complexity" have be-
come bywords of speakers and writers, 
and drastic and radical alternatives in 
cataloging and classification policies and 

MARCH, 1942 
16 7 



practices have been proposed. Arrears in 
large libraries are explained as inevitable 
parts of a chaotic condition brought about 
by the inability to make detailed, biblio-
graphical cataloging, unsystematic and 
illogical subject heading work, and close 
classification meet satisfactorily the prob-
lems created by the presence of vast book 
collections. Pessimism is evident in the 
administrators' attacks upon the high costs 
of the technical processes. It does not 
seem to matter much with administrators 
that their criticisms are too general. T h e y 
do not stop to examine just where the 
confusion or difficulty lies. Strictly speak-
ing, it does not lie with the catalog code, 
in either its old form or in the preliminary 
American second edition, or with classifi-
cations. Although possessing limitations, 
the code and systems of arrangement are 
extraordinarily suitable for the purposes 
for which they have been designed. But 
despite this, it is clear that some essential 
factors have been generally overlooked. 

Catalogers' and Classifiers' Yearbook 

In the ninth Catalogers' and Classifiers' 
Yearbook, for example, there are discus-
sions of such matters as the distinction 
between bibliography and cataloging, the 
value of the work of the decimal classifica-
tion section at the Library of Congress, 
the form that state author headings should 
take, the available sources for subject head-
ings, how to teach document cataloging 
from the point of view of document cata-
logers, and costs of cataloging. A l l these 
are important questions to both adminis-
trators and catalogers, yet they are con-
cerned primarily with techniques rather 
than with results or use. T h e yearbooks 
of former years follow a similar pattern. 
Articles by Grace O . Kelley and W i l l i a m 
M . Randall in the second Catalogers' and 

Classifiers' Yearbook (1930) clearly indi-

cated that unless we learn more about 

the results of classification and cataloging, 

practices will continue to be based on 

notions conceived by our predecessors liv-

ing in a different era and faced with dif-

ferent problems. Osborn emphasizes this 

fact. His attempt to categorize cataloging 

practice on the basis of four theories— 

legalistic, perfectionist, bibliographic, and 

pragmatic—is successful to the extent that 

it gives us an idea of the different ap-

proaches to the problem. It fails to the 

extent that it implies that cataloging can 

be legalistic without being pragmatic, or 

pragmatic without being legalistic. A l l 

four categories overlap one another. 

Osborn's criticism of detailed cataloging 

is not without point, yet the criticism 

seems somewhat misdirected. T h e rules 

themselves are not to blame for a crisis 

in cataloging; neither are the compilers 

who are putting into form practices ac-

cording to the expressed wishes of cata-

logers. Probably the censure, if censuring 

must be done, should be aimed at four 

groups of individuals: ( 1 ) catalogers, ( 2 ) 

administrators, including both chief li-

brarians and head catalogers, ( 3 ) reference 

librarians, and ( 4 ) teachers of cataloging. 

It has been repeated from time to time 

that catalogers have been unable to dis-

criminate between essentials and nonessen-

tials, and have thus failed to integrate 

their work with the demands and approach 

of users. It might be stated that there 

has been no careful plan of recruiting cata-

loging personnel. A s a result, it is not 

surprising that catalogers as a group con-

tain too many individuals who are inclined 

to follow rather than to question. It is 

trite but true, of course, that adminis-

trators and head catalogers have too infre-

quently given catalogers a chance to ex-

184 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



press themselves. Reference librarians 

w h o wish the card catalog to answer 

every possible question without consider-

ing the consequences of their demands 

upon the catalog department have been 

responsible to a larger degree than has 

generally been believed for the develop-

ment of w h a t Osborn has termed legalistic, 

perfectionist, and bibliographical catalog-

ing. Finally, library school instructors of 

cataloging w h o have failed to keep in 

touch w i t h practice have continued to 

teach young librarians theory without seri-

ous attempts to instil in them the urge 

to examine their w o r k on the basis of indi-

vidual cases or from the standpoint of 

users. 

Publications Important 

T h e three publications under discussion, 

therefore, are important at this time when 

administrators and catalogers have begun 

to wonder seriously about cataloging rules 

and processes. T h e new edition of the 

A.L.A. Catalog Rules appears as a result 

of the demands for uniformity in practice. 

T h e development of cooperative cataloging 

and union catalogs undoubtedly has in-

creased the pressure for a set of rules 

which w o u l d provide guidance on matters 

which were not in existence when the 

1908 rules were compiled. T h e inclusion 

of a considerable number of examples 

seems particularly useful. Sensibly, ac-

ceptable variations in practice are noted. 

T h e fact that the volume contains so many 

details and rules does not discredit it. If 

librarianship is to be scientific at all, codifi-

cation of rules and principles seems basic. 

Osborn actually indicts American cata-

logers when he implies that they are in-

capable of using intelligence in applying 

rules to practical needs. 

I t might be pointed out that the division 

of the new edition of the rules into t w o 

p a r t s — I . E n t r y and Heading, and I I . 

Description of B o o k — i s a highly desirable 

feature. It is to be expected that library 

practice so far as entry and heading are 

concerned w i l l be uniform. Practice in 

regard to the description of the books 

should undoubtedly vary. 

T h e golden age of cataloging in its old 

sense may be over. B u t it is on the 

threshold of an interesting and challenging 

era. T h e r e can be but one conclusion to 

the present difficulties in cataloging so 

far as large libraries are concerned: in-

creased and systematic cooperation and 

centralization. Administrators, catalog-

ers, reference librarians, and teachers of 

cataloging w i l l need to expend consider-

able thought on the problem if cataloging 

w i l l meet the needs of users effectively and 

economically. A n d it is necessary to de-

termine accurately just w h a t the u s e r s — 

patrons and staff members—really require. 

F u t u r e numbers of the Catalogers' and 

Classifiers' Yearbook might w e l l be de-

voted to a further discussion of these 

p r o b l e m s . — M a u r i c e F. Tauber, Univer-

sity of Chicago Libraries. 

Incunabula in American Libraries. Edit-

ed by M a r g a r e t Bingham S t i l l w e l l . 

Bibliographical Society of America, 

N e w Y o r k , 1 9 4 0 : 8vo., xiv, 6 1 9 p. 

T H E FIRST of anything exerts a strong 

appeal upon well-nigh everyone and the 

sentimental attraction seems often to be 

in inverse ratio to its current usefulness 

or even to the comprehension of those 

w h o are the most fervent worshippers at 

its shrine. N o t h i n g has exemplified this 

more curiously than the books of the fif-

teenth century, long segregated in highly 

honored seclusion under the impressive 

caption of "incunabula." 

MARCH, 1942 185