Reprinted

from the EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, N e w York, Aprii, 1912.

Copyright, 1912, by EDUCATIONAL REVIEW PUBLISHING CO.

VI
DEPARTMENTAL LIBRARIES IN UNIVERSITIES
AND COLLEGES
The administration of the library of a university centers
about the problem of departmental libraries. In most colleges
also (and we must distinguish between American colleges and
universities) this problem, tho less prominent, still persists
and takes new forms as the functions of college and university libraries differentiate. The arguments presented here
with special reference to universities will therefore, apply- in
some measure to colleges generally, even to many that have
assumed neither the name of university nor the features.
It is ultimately a question of special libraries versus centralization, as the librarians would term it. Are the best
resources of the library to be distributed for the intensive use
of special users or centralized for the more extensive use of
the entire community? It is practically a question whether
most of the books in demand are to be placed where they are
most urgently wanted, and therefore to be duplicated for concurrent needs, or whether most of the books are to be used
where most are placed, and, when needed elsewhere, are to
be borrowed from the general collection, or segregated but
for a limited time. It sometimes seems a question whether
faculty or commons, whether aristocracy or democracy is most
to be served; or, since both must be served in the really democratic and yet partly aristocratic community, by what means
shall the often conflicting demands most happily be supplied?
The problem is very complex. Tho it has been ably discust
by professors and by librarians, it has not yet been satisfactorily solved nor even settled, so far as the writer knows,
for any university. Strong arguments have been set forth
in faculty meetings, some weighty opinions recorded in the
printed papers of librarians, and some interesting adjustments
387

388

Educational

Review

[April

and compromises for particular institutions have been described, but the inconclusiveness of these is apparent; few
generalizations have been adduced, and few principles established. Among the librarians, however, there has been a tendency toward a consensus in favor of centralization for
economy and efficiency, and this while the ideal of service has
not been obsqjred.. It may be well now to carry this discussion from the Councils of librarians to the educational
forum, and from the recurring facts and the consensus of
opinion to essay to draw some broader conclusions and to
state some general principles, as a possible basis for further
study or for application to particular problems. Solution of
the general problem may indeed not be feasible under the
present conditions^; but, if there is ever to be a solution, it
will probably be derived not only from the experience and the
proposals of librarians, but also from the investigations and
the conclusions of faculties. This is not merely a librarian's
question; it vitally concerns the larger administration of the
university or the college, involving broad educational policies
and very considerable economies of funds where needs are
nearly always exigent.
The gravity of the question for a great university appeared
in the discussions of the several committees of the University
of Chicago during the years 1899 to 1902, from one of whose
reports the following interesting statements are abstracted.1
"The Committee is impressed with the fact that the three years of
discussion of this question have served to clarify and crystallize opinion
in the Faculties, . . . But, . . . is still more strongly impressed with the
unwisdom of . . . taking final action at this time. The question . . .
involves the expenditure of a large sum of money, and, what is still more
important, its decision involves the policy of the University on an important
educational matter for many years to come. An error at this time might
easily involve the waste of $100,000 of money or the hampering of the
work of the University for a generation, or both. . . .
" The committee therefore recommends . . . a joint commission on
Library Building and Policy . . . of representatives of the Board of
Trustees and of the Faculty; . . . that a sufficient number of the Faculty
members be released from the duty of instruction during the period of
active service . . . "
1

University of Chicago, Decennial Publications, 1st Series, vol. i, p. 271.

l 12

9 ]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

389

Departmental libraries in American universities and colleges are a natural outgrowth of conditions and of improved
methods of instruction. In some form or other they are come
to stay. We shall the better understand how deeply they are
rooted, if we consider some phases of their development.
The college libraries of sixty years ago were random collections, largely donations of superseded treatises or useless
tracts. They were circumscribed by prohibitive rules and
were open in most cases only two or three days in the week
and for two or three hours in the day.2 Thirty years ago they
were with few exceptions still inadequately supplied with materials for research and their service was very unsatisfactory.
The professors were sometimes collectors in their specialties
and brought their own books to the classroom for consultation. Others which they could borrow from the college
library they would keep for an indefinite time. Occasionally
gifts were directed to the professor's living collection rather
than to the general cemetery. Soon the professor's bookcase
no longer sufficed for the growing collection, and one of the
rooms was fitted up with shelves. The books were then lent
freely; there were hardly any restrictions or regulations, no
conformity of methods, no articulation with other departments, no system of centralized records. That was the professor's departmental library,.net yet the faculty's, in no wise
the librarian's.
Then the German seminar, developed by Ranke, the historian, at the University of Berlin about the middle of the
past century and " extended by Ranke's pupils thruout all
Germany," was brought thence by American students on their
return to our seats of learning. In 1869 what appears to have
been the first American seminar was instituted at the University of Michigan by Professor Charles K. Adams. When
he became president of Cornell University in 1885, he transplanted the seminary idea there too, and it was further devel* Jewetfs Report on the Public Libraries of the United States, printed
as an appendix to the Smithsonian Institution Report for 1849. Also W. N.
C. Carlton's College libraries in the mid-nineteenth century, Library journal, vol. xxxii, p. 480.

39°

Educational

Review

[April

oped there by Professor Moses Coit Tyler. Years before that
it had rooted at Harvard. 3 At Columbia University, which
adopted the seminar soon after Cornell, two grades were later
distinguished, the elementary seminary instruction and the advanced.4 Here and elsewhere the new methods extended
farther into the college curriculum than the mere assignment
of topics to undergraduates.. Comparative studies became a
feature of the courses; collateral readings were recommended
and even required; recitations were supplemented with digests
or reports showing ampler acquaintance with books. The
single textbook fosters an illiberal learning, not true culture,
whereas the contrasts of differing minds enliven thought, exercise the faculties of discrimination, and broaden the comprehension.
All this required books—many books and much duplication of books, and much liberalizing of library administration. But the college librarians were not yet prepared to meet
the growing demands, or indeed were unfavorably disposed.
The strict accountability to which they were usually held appears in the quotations from the statutes and rules of Harvard, Amherst, Williams, and other colleges, which Mr. Carlton in the article cited above gives with the astute remark:
" This personal responsibility of the librarian for the collection committed to his care may in part explain his reluctance
to see its contents withdrawn too far from his control and
supervision/'
The old-fashioned librarian, as we are wont to designate
him, had come to regard himself as especially the custodian
of books. He has so often been portrayed and in such vivid
and engaging characters that a repetition of the picture here
would be as unnecessary as it might be artistically inferior.
8
An interesting account by Professor H. B. Adams of the beginnings
of seminary instruction in American colleges appears in the Johns Hopkins
University studies, vol. v, p. 433 ff. His allusion to the inception at Harvard is thus, in part: " In the alcoves of the Harvard University Library
there has been quietly developing for several years a system of bookreservations for particular instructors and their classes, . . . here is a
system of seminaries in process of evolution. . . . "
* Baker. Librarians' Conference in 1898, p. 106, Library journal, vol.
xxiii.

i9 I 2 J

Departmental

libraries

in universities

391

I would merely suggest as an inscription, striking a quite
modern note: He loved his library and his books more than
the service of his fellow-men. Long after he had past from
the public library he was found lingering in the alcoves of
the college library. Tradition says that he is immortal and
still abides in some secluded college.
The old-fashioned librarian and the new-fashioned professor thus shared responsibility for the later development
of the professor's departmental library. The professor's demand was reasonable; the efficiency of instruction in his department, and indeed the transformation of the college into
the university depended largely upon the free use of books.
From the professor's collection and the seminar have been
differentiated the several modern developments: the laboratory
collection, the departmental reading-room (no longer the professor's merely, but the department's, or rather the faculty's),
and the seminary collections, of which three developments are
to be distinguished. Some have remained, as at Cornell, small
segregations of books, in part kept permanently in the separate
rooms, whether in the library or in the department, and in
part borrowed from the library for a limited time. Other
seminary collections have been merged with the general collections, the seminary rooms adjoining the main book-stack,
so that the books are very accessible both for the seminar and
for general use. This is well known as the. Columbia plan.
Modified to meet the special conditions, it has been adopted
in several sister institutions. Thirdly, some universities have
developed their research collections into special libraries, as
in Johns Hopkins University. In a few cases, where a college
or school has become affiliated with or incorporated with a
university, there has been a redistribution of books in order
to combine the resources. Thus Columbia University Library
some years ago transferred its extensive collections on education to the Bryson Library of Teachers College, which
a few years before had become incorporated with the University. Within the present organization of Teachers College are the subordinate schools of Industrial Arts, of Household Arts, and of Physical Education. The departmental

392

Educational

Review

[April

library of the School of Household Arts consists at present
of some 2,500 volumes, mostly withdrawn from the Bryson
Library. Here we have wheels within wheels. The administration of Bryson Library and its departments, tho cooperative,
is almost independent. Its distance from the University's central library is less than a quarter of a mile.
Where the distance is so considerable that centralized
service and supervision are practically impossible, as when the
department or school is half a mile away or more, or even in
another city, independent administration is a matter of course
and cooperation is hardly more effective than with unrelated
libraries. The special library in such case must needs be
almost complete.
Distance is, indeed, at the very root of this ramifying question. The users of books are sometimes willing to traverse
some distance to obtain them, be it a minute's walk or a mile;
they may even welcome the pleasant compulsion to take healthful exercise between studies; they may find the mind the
clearer when at length they have got the book; but they more
often decline; they prefer to have their exercise otherwise;
they are busy workers, impatient of loss of time and intolerant
of inconvenience. The book is needed for immediate reference. The same objections are reasonable even where the
distance is comparatively small. Professors say that they can
not submit to the inconvenience of breaking away from their
study to go across the quadrangle merely to obtain a book.
If sent for in the midst of instruction, the delay and the interruption of a line of thought are intolerable. The books must
be close at hand.
Ah! but there is another side to this, the economic, the
limitation of funds. If books and services are needed here,
there, and everywhere in an extensive university, must they
be supplied with much duplication here, there, and almost
everywhere? It is plainly a question of convenience versus
economy. Can the problem be solved? Has it been solved
satisfactorily in the several universities? Practical solutions
must of course be adapted to the particular conditions, architectural, topographical, and administrative. Distances, incon-

*912]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

393

veniences must be measured; costs, funds, efficiency, must be
calculated or judiciously estimated.
It should not be supposed, however, that because the books
are the nearer they will under all conditions be the more
, convenient. That will depend upon how large the collection
is and how well it is kept in order. Accessibility implies not
merely that the place of the book is near by, but that the book
itself is in place. A departmental collection of 10,000 volumes to which users have free access may become a pathless
wilderness in the course of a week. A collection of a mere
thousand, daily set in order by a member of the department in a vacant hour, may be disarranged by users during
the afternoon, and disappointments may be consequent the next
morning. The professor is lecturing or writing or arguing
a point; he mentions a book, and sends foi* it or seeks it
himself; " h e wants it," to quote Dr. Canfield's delightful
humor, " as the Texas gentleman wants his revolver—right
away;" it is missing, without clue, and his vexation knows
no bounds. In such case were it surprizing if thereafter the
professor secured his own convenience in the use of certain
books by withdrawing them from the very democratic department room to his aristocratic private study? And may not
associates do likewise? Freedom of access may allow some
liberty of withdrawal. Convenience and inconvenience here
rub shoulders. This is one point at which the argument for
convenience breaks down. The Texas gentleman has at most
two or three revolvers, but the professor's equipment is not
so simple a matter of weapons; he marshals a very legion of
authorities, and there is no telling which book he may want
right away. To supply this need completely we should have
to furnish all departments with complete libraries, kept in
perfect order under supervision; nay, but even this would
not suffice; we should besides have to give all professors private collections and keep these in order likewise.
However, there are feasible adjustments. As Dr. Canfield
reasoned—with better understanding and closer sympathy with
the needs of professors than is usual in university librarians,
for he had been president of a university—the professors may

394

Educational

Review

[April

well be given personal possession of certain indispensable
books, to be kept in their own rooms and to be purchased preferably from departmental funds.5 Other books of special
character, not likely to be called for by other specialists, may
be lent from the general library for an extended time. But
the greater part of the occasional needs of instructors and of
students may be supplied by a carefully chosen departmental
collection. Of these books any that are likely to be wanted
elsewhere should be duplicated for circulation from the general library, or for reference in the general reading-room.
Some needs so related to the courses of instruction that they
may be anticipated might be supplied by transfer of books
from the general library, or even from another department.
Books wanted infrequently may usually be fetched or sent
from the general library, with service as quick as the conditions permit, tho of course with some uncertainty, which could
not, however, be wholly eliminated without duplicating the
entire collection or withholding all books from circulation,
and, furthermore, adopting the principle that a book called for
by an instructor and found in use in the reading-room should
be taken from the user's hands to supply the more urgent
need of instruction or research. This is bringing our argument to cover an extreme case, which should not often occur
where there is judicious or liberal duplication. These considerations require that few books should be lent from the
departmental collections, and that they should be available
during the entire college day. This argument for circumspect selection of books, limitation of collections, and duplication in anticipation of demand, is backed by many weighty
opinions in print, and interesting quotations might be given
here if space permitted, but three citations must suffice.6
The distribution of a large proportion of the best resources
B
J. H. Canfield, librarian (then) of Columbia University, at the Conference of Librarians in 1902, p. 174, in Library journal, vol. xxvii.
6
H. L. Koopman, librarian of Brown University, Library journal, vol.
xix, p. 25 of the Conference of Librarians in 1894. J. T. Gerould, when
librarian of the University of Missouri, Library journal, vol. xxviii, Conference, p. 48. J. H. Canfield, then librarian of Columbia University,
Library journal, vol. xxvii, Conference, p. 175.

x 12

9 ]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

395

of a library, without duplication, means the scattering or
segregation of the books that are most positively in demand,
the living literature in all departments of study. Thousands
of the best books, not actually in use, are reserved and virtually inaccessible in seminary rooms, or in department rooms
are only half accessible during but half of the day. In this
the convenience to one department or to special students is
offset by inconvenience to others. A committee of the University of Chicago urged that the collections for the studies
of the humanities should be combined into three groups, " to
the end that the libraries might be more efficiently and economically administered; that the readers and investigators
might use them with less waste of time and energy; and
that the work of the departments concerned might be brought
into closer connection and harmony." 7
The distribution of a university library's resources might
better be justified, if the departments of knowledge were as
independent of each other as have been the departments of
instruction. But sciences and studies, however distinctive the
special purposes and the central points of view, generally
survey a much broader range of neighbor fields with some
common ground. Certain neighbors have been involved in
boundary disputes; but now fences are coming down everywhere, and most of us are living in some sense of community.
There is a marked advance toward unity in modern science.
How, then, should the literature of knowledge be partitioned?
Chemistry, one of the most special of sciences, is now inex+
tricable from physics. Mineralogy is interwoven with chemistry on the one hand and with geology on the other. As for
bio-chemistry, it is a question whether it belongs most to
physiology or to chemistry. These are examples from the
natural- sciences, which the University of Chicago faculties
compromised to separate. The humanities, which they agreed
were not to be so separated, are indeed more closely interwoven. Ethnography furnishes data to sociology as well as
to anthropology; sociology is related to psychology, and this
to physiology; folk-lore lies at the threshold of comparative
7

University of Chicago, Decennial Publications, 1st Series, vol. i, p. 166.

396

Educational

Review

[April

religion and also at that of literature; the history of literature
and the history of society go hand in hand, while economic
history walks now with political history and now with economics; economics goes shoulder to shoulder with sociology
on the one side and technology on the other; technologies are
counterparts of theoretical sciences; and finally theories, principles, the fundamentals of sciences merge into the special
extensions or the special problems of philosophy.
In view of these complications, how shall the books be apportioned and distributed without endless duplication? It is
difficult enough merely to classify them. A large proportion
of them are likely to be of interest to students in several
departments. Sooner or later the departments find that there
is less advantage in standing alone than they had supposed;
and it remains for them to realize the greater advantages of
cooperation. One by one the great university libraries are
taking steps in this direction. The librarian of Yale states
in his report for 1910 (p. 38) : " The fact that during the past
few years a number of departmental libraries have seen their
advantage in putting themselves under the management of the
University Library points to an extension of that method of
conducting their affairs." Harvard, by recent action, has advanced farther than Yale toward central organization. The
University of Chicago has been a decade in advance of Harvard, at least in her plans, tho these are not yet all realized.
The scattered departments there have been combined into
groups, with a library for each group, and for the humanities
these group libraries are placed in a congeries of connected
buildings so close that this aggregation of groups is virtually
a unity, and might more conveniently and economically be
so in reality: A somewhat similar plan of grouping departments in several buildings, each with its library, and with
centralized administration, is being developed at Columbia
University.8 Brown University has come still closer to cen8

" The book collection in each building shall be administered as a unit
and in either of these three ways: (1) by consolidation of collections,
(2) by centralization of service, (3) by cooperation of the departments
interested." A Regulation of the Library Committee of the Trustees,
dated January 3, 1911, quoted in the Columbia University quarterly, March,
1911, p. 191.

i9 I 2 l

Departmental

libraries

in universities

397

tralization. The report of a recent joint committee on the
library, after quoting a resolution of 1893 establishing even at
that early date the principle of centralization, continues:
" I t is recognized that while a university library finds its main usefulness in serving current instruction and research, it still has a field as a
general library for reference and culture, . . .
"The convenience of individual departments places the emphasis upon
separation, but the more important considerations of convenient and economical administration, safety from fire and loss, as well as the effectiveness that attaches to a well-rounded, large, and unified collection available
to the entire university public, call for emphasis upon the claims of the
main library." 8

The recently installed John Hay Library is for Brown's
general collection and for the central administration; and it
will also contain the special collections, except the John Carter
Brown Library (for Americana), which will continue to occupy the beautiful building erected for it a few years ago,
a furlong away. " Nearly all the department libraries not
connected with the laboratories will be accommodated in the
old building; and the latter will communicate with the new
by means of an electric book-carrier, thus making available
to readers in either building the resources of the other,
. . ." 10 This is approaching very closely to the ideal. May
the architects take notice, and also the university presidents.
Having considered accessibility and convenience, that is, the
economies of users, let us further consider the economies of
administration, the cost of duplicating books, of extra space,
and of additional service. The economic aspect, the inadequacy or poverty of funds, like the very poor of Scripture,
is with us always. For the less prosperous institutions it is
indeed poverty of funds; for even the most affluent it is inadequacy. Yale's librarian in his Report for 1910 (p. 5, 6, and
10), presents the matter thus:
"With the growth of the library as an important factor in the educational work of the university, the financial burden upon the university
8
10

Report of the President, 1910, p. 68.
Handbook of the John Hay Library, 1911, p. 10.

39$

Educational

Review

[April

must necessarily grow, unless the library's invested funds are largely
increased. . . .
" Nowadays the character of instruction is such that it requires the
students, even in the lower classes, to have at hand and constantly use a
large collection of books, . . .
" New departments of study and investigation are constantly being
opened up, calling for a large outlay of money on the part of the library
in supplying desired material in these fields, . . . Without satisfactorily
meeting these demands the instruction in such lines will inevitably suffer,
if it has not already suffered."

A large continual demand usually necessitates some duplication of books, however they are placed, and such duplication
is serviceable, not uneconomical; but, where the duplication
increases chiefly because the demand is distributed, it may be
needlessly wasteful. This applies forcibly to the duplication
of expensive works of reference, to sets of periodicals, and
also to standard authorities. How many sets of The encyclopedia Britannica would be requisite for the several readingrooms of a great university ? How many subscriptions to the
costly International catalogue of scientific literature at over
eighty dollars a year for each ? A standard work on sanitary
engineering or on the nervous system may be wanted in three
or four departments. Where the demand is frequent and constant, duplication is proper; but where the demands do not
often conflict, the duplication is really unnecessary, if there
be good service and cooperation. The departmental collections
might indeed be kept compact, if we could realize the ideal of
Mr. Gerould:
" The university library exists for the whole university—all of it for
the whole university. In an ideal condition, every book in it should be
available, at a moment's notice, if it is not actually in use. This should
be our aim, and it should be from this viewpoint that we should judge
the efficiency of our administration and the value of any proposed
change." 11

This is not an ideal merely; it is " our a i m " ; it is nearly
attained in well-organized public libraries, and it shall be approached in university libraries too, despite the greater complexity of their relations, when they are equally well organized
and when cooperation with the departments is effective.
11

From the article cited above.

J

912]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

399

As departmental and seminary collections expand into special
libraries, the extra space required leads to additional building. But modern architecture is costly. Then special libraries
need special custodians. Without supervision, the collections
fall into disorder, there is no assurance of locating books, and
many volumes are lost. The rooms tend to lose their character of reading-rooms and to become a resort for conversation. Where, however, it is feasible to employ a custodian
who is also a specialized reference librarian, the assistance he
may render may justify the cost of the room better than the
convenience for which probably it was established. The special libraries should be open during the same hours as the
general library. Funds being subject to so many demands, it
is an acute question, even for the most prosperous institutions,
whether competent service to maintain a congeries of special
libraries can be afforded. Special custodians do not insure
effective service and satisfaction, unless there be cooperation
between the departments and good organization. Without
this, the division of responsibility results in evasions and
waste, losses and inefficiency.
Of less importance, but still a considerable item of cost, is
the compilation of records and catalogs consequent upon the
distribution of the collections. This involves more technical
detail than those unfamiliar with the complexities would suppose. Where the collections are extensive, separate catalogs
are needed in the departments. Some of our universities have
gone farther in providing for some departments catalogs of all
the resources of the library in the related subjects. On the
other hand, the temporary lending or deposit of books requires, under any adaptable charging system, but comparatively
simple reqords.
The argument for convenience is supplemented by the plea
for freedom in the use of books, even at the cost of care and
responsibility on the part of members of the department, or
of extra service for attendance and supervision. This view
has been well stated by Mr. Hicks, of the Columbia University
Library:
" The reference use of books in department reading-rooms is intensive
because the collections are selected, not too large, and less confusing to

400

Educational

Review

[April

the student. All the books are on open shelves, so that, within limits,
the student may browse at will. There is no formality, and books may
be found without consulting a complicated catalogue." Columbia University quarterly, March, 1911, p. 187.

Freedom in the companionship of books is a most desirable
thing, and students nowadays can hardly be induced to make
too much of it. But, so far as this argument for freedom is
superposed upon the argument for convenience to the department, it is like a misplaced cockade on a misshapen hat. Does
freedom increase with the distance from the center of the
university? Or does convenience, to the majority? Rather
does the hindrance of all who are outside of the department,
besides the hindrance in service, in cooperation, and in supervision, increase with the distance at which books in demand
are segregated.
But there is another aspect. Students need guides and
books interpreters. Catalogs, bibliographies, and bookish talk
have their places, but they are not sufficient for all purposes.
In many cases instructors or specialists are more competent
to give guidance. This is one of the strongest arguments for
special reading-rooms, where funds permit the employment of
a number of qualified reference librarians combining bibliographical with broad scientific and some special knowledge.
But the limitations of this kind of service are patent; for the
sociologist or technologist can hardly cover the very broad
field comprised by his collection so as to satisfy all requirements of the special workers who are likely to consult him.
More intensive, however, may be the assistance given to students by their own instructors. The department of Political
Science in the college with which the writer is connected manages its library very effectively in this manner. The members
of the department in turn spend each an afternoon working
with the students among the books. This is an extension of
the principle of the seminar. Its maintenance depends upon
the willingness of the instructors and their freedom from
other duties and engagements during the hours of the demand.
But, however commendable as seminary instruction, this
intensive work tends to confine the interests of the students to

i9 1 2 ]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

401

the scope of the department and thus to limit their mental
horizon and their culture. The student's mind should not be
wholly occupied with two or three specialties. If these are
to be developed, it should be upon a broad basis. This is one
of the Harvard " ideas," and is upheld there even in the
schools of applied science. Yet how dominating even in Harvard overspecialization may become under the elective and the
departmental system appears from the courses criticized by
Mr. Slosson.12 Viewed from high ground, this consideration
may be of greater importance than either cost or convenience.
Training for efficiency is indeed intensive, but true culture is
comprehensive. Training prepares the man; culture improves
him. The best men with the highest abilities are produced
by education that not only develops purposes and faculties, but
which correlates the data of the sciences within a consistent
and stable philosophy and which engenders a wholesome sympathy with human life in the foreground of the perspective
of human history. The college provides a foundation for
this true culture, and to this the college library contributes
some of the best elements. A small margin of time may by
the average student be spent to good advantage under the
broadening influences of the " university of books." In the
college reading-room, or undergraduate study, where so much
prescribed work must be done, students may derive inestimable benefits from occasional digressions following their inclinations, or from a desultory perusal of belle's lettres. More
attractive, however, to the student of literary tastes and more
conducive to his literary refinement is the " select library," proposed in 1894 by Mr. Koopman, librarian of Brown University, and developed also in some other libraries. In the
beautiful library of Bowdoin College an easeful, retired room
invites the lover of books and refined surroundings. Professor Benson, the genial Oxford essayist, in his mellow little
book entitled From a college window, gives us an essay on
" Books," which to me seems one of the best on this fond
subject, and one of the best things in this essay is its plea
for " the ethical motive in reading." Let us find space here
12

Slosson, Great American universities, p. 12-13.

402

Educational

Review

[April

to repeat wise words of his: " And thus, as I say, the reading
that is done in such mood has little of precise acquisition or
definite attainment about it; it is a desire rather to feed and
console the spirit—to enter the region in which it seems better
to wonder than to know, to aspire rather than to define, to
hope rather than to be satisfied/'
For the faculty, too, it would indeed be well to provide
a special, more retired reading-room. For relaxation and
refreshment it behooves student and instructor as well to leave
the specialized pursuit in the literature of knowledge and to
abide for a fortunate and perhaps memorable interval with
the literature of power. It is not in the seminar only, under
the guidance and influence of an inspiring intellectual life, that
the more perfect knowledge is nurtured, but in communion
with the living inspiration of immortal books in their sanctuary. Where so much is spent for architecture and equipment,
perhaps not all wisely spent, were it not well to appropriate
some portion for this ideal and purpose? So far as the
inspiration of books is to be regarded, is it really, then, more
impressive or effectual to array in the several departmental
reading-rooms the standard authorities and the important
monographs on the closely related subjects than it is to garner
in a room special only for its refinements the chosen writings
of all literatures for the culture of receptive readers, and to
complete the larger central reading-room with a representation
of all sciences for the information of all students?
Convenience, freedom, efficiency, cost, educational aims,
and cultural values, these have been considered, but there is
one more argument that professors have brought forward.
It is asserted that the departmental collection may be developed
the better under the care of the professor. This may sometimes be true and sometimes not so. There is evidence on
both sides. But, in having entire charge, what advantage does
the professor find to compensate for the care and responsibility? What hindrance would he experience in cooperating
with a librarian who has a central point of view and comprehensive methods, and also a proper ideal of service? Why
does the professor argue for care rather than for cooperation?

1912]

Departmental

libraries

in

universities

Does he complain of the selection of books? But has it not
been by the professors chiefly that these collections have been
built up ? The librarians have sometimes cooperated with the
professors, supplied apparent needs or checked disproportionate growths; and, on the other hand, the professors have
sometimes merely cooperated with the librarians, recommending good books, condemning the valueless, and indicating deficiencies. While the services of the librarians are needed, the
cooperation of the professors is indeed necessary. They know
the special literature; they know the special needs; and they
are usually men of liberality and integrity. Tho many librarians have been esteemed as men of broad interests, and
tho a few have indeed attained distinction in scholarship or
been prominent in affairs, the majority have seemed of distinctly lower mental stature than their compeers in the faculty.
But no one mind should be held competent to select books for
all the subjects comprized by a university library.
On the other hand, it has not seldom been found that
under the management of the professor the departmental collection has been neither well developed nor satisfactorily administered. The professor's interests may be too special for
this purpose. The collections are sometimes evidently lopsided, developed with reference to a few specialties. However
liberal most professors may be, it would appear from published statements that it is not well to commit entirely into
their hands either the management of the special libraries or
even the selection of the books. What is wanted, then, is
cooperation between professors and librarians. Method, which
is part of the librarian's professional equipment, may make
up to some extent for his lack of knowledge, and he should
prove of assistance to the department in furnishing and economizing its collection. Moreover, since the interests involved
are broader than the department, the selection of books, as
well as the apportionment of funds, should to a certain extent
be regulated by the faculty and its committee, and the cooperation of the departments should be organized with centralized administration and service.
The foregoing arguments and the conclusions to be drawn

404

Educational

Review

[April

from them are centered about three main questions, that is, they
may be viewed from three different aspects—the question of
convenience, the question of economy of funds, and the question of educational aim. For convenience and freedom in the
use of books the departmental collections have been established and should be maintained. But they should be for reference and for laboratory use rather than for lending, for research, or for storage. In the laboratory a special collection
is indispensable, but it should be restricted to the necessary
books, and these should not be subject to outside demand.
The departmental reference collection is well justified so long
as it is compact and accessible to all during the entire college
day, and so long as the books that are desirable for lending
are duplicated in the central library for circulation. Elementary seminary instruction may be conducted in the department
rooms, but the advanced seminar should be contiguous to the
research collections centralized in the main library. By segregation of the books for the convenience of the department the
workers in other departments are inconvenienced. In view
of the interrelations of sciences and studies the distribution of
the resources necessitates expensive duplication of supply or
else inconsistent refusal to satisfy reasonable demands. Cooperation, by which duplication may be minimized, is effective
only thru centralized service and supervision. Of these conclusions there can hardly be question, and they are becoming
established in a consensus of opinion based largely upon experience and upon comparative study of needs and of conditions. Here, for instance, are the words of Mr. Bishop,
reference librarian of the Library of Congress, formerly of
Princeton University:
" If centralization meant any less efficient service, any increase of
expense, any considerable loss to faculty and students, it should be opposed most vigorously. But it should mean the exact opposite of all this.
Centralization in management, and even the physical concentration of books
in one building must produce economy of time, of money, and—always
providing a sane architectural plan is secured—greater convenience to the
greatest number.'* {Library journal, vol. xxvi, p. 18.)

The sense of ownership developed with the acquisitiveness
of the professor's departmental library. As the collections

l 12

9 ]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

405

grew and the responsibilities increased, it was found that their
administration was not always liberal and efficient. The advantages and economies of centralization have now,become
manifest. The ownership of all the collections should be regarded as residing in the institution at large, under the direction of the trustees, under the supervision of the library committee, and under the custodianship of the librarian and his
staff. These relations should be adjusted in the interests of
immediate responsibility and economy of service and supervision. Purchases for all the collections should be made thru
the central office and the records should be kept there. As
the departmental collections are for convenient reference, not
for storage, the selection should from time to time be revised.
New books will displace older and less used books, and these
should revert to the general library. The funds for the purchase of books should be apportioned by the library committee,
or by a larger special committee of the faculty, according to
the needs and uses of the departments. Books should be
purchased from other funds or accepted from donors only
upon condition that they are to be incorporated into the system
and subject to the regulations. The selection of books for the
department should be made thru the head of the department,
subject to the revision of the librarian and the library committee, and should be related to the specialties of the department rather than to those of individuals, to whom the service
had better usually be rendered by the general library.
Administrative measures, however, must be adapted to the
topographical and architectural conditions. There has been
an immense development, from the disciplinary college to the
liberal university. The body of students has expanded tenfold and has become distributed in a complex of relations that
is even more amazing than the labyrinth of buildings that
comprises them. Architectural ideals, perspective, the love
of landscape, the loveliness of lawns and trees, of paths and
vistas, the natural fondness of the broad-minded for broad
prospects, these have determined the physical aspect of our
universities more than regard for convenience in work and
economy in expense. If there had been less princely donors

406

Educational

Review

[April

and if the architects had been less magnificent (in the Latin
sense of the word), if these cities of learning had not grown,
as cities do, by additional building more than by rebuilding,
they might have been planned with truer foresight and with
wiser regard to the advantage of centralizing an educational
center. The presidents, professors, librarians, and architects
might now plan better and more magnificent edifices in better
perspective and proportion than we have in these aggregations
of ill-assorted structures, and in better unity of style comprising the diversity of purposes.
At the center of the university should be placed its administrative offices and records, and its library with all its resources. A comprehensive reference collection should be in
the general reading-room. The general collection of periodicals, the undergraduates' study, and the " select library/'
should be in adjacent rooms. The seminary rooms for research should adjoin the book-stacks as near as possible to the
main subjects of the studies and yet not at an inconvenient
distance from other related resources. The central collection
should therefore be well classified upon a basis of modern
science and with practical regard to the correlations of modern studies.13 The departments of instruction, with their lecture halls, classrooms, laboratories, museums, etc., and their
special reading-rooms with their reference collections, would
congregate about this center as closely as architectural accommodations would permit, in adjacent or even in adjoining
buildings connected by bridge and mechanical book-carrier and
by telephone. Some might indeed be beyond a campus or
quadrangle, but only those should be distant which depend
upon some advantage in the location, such as that of a city to
a college of law or of medicine, or of forests, fields, or foundries to the related technologies. A little beyond the lawns
might be the dormitories and the clubhouses. Somewhat apart,
the gymnasia, the athletic fields, the tennis courts, the places
of recreation, might have more wholesome freedom in open
spaces, while theaters and parks might afford the architects
13
A system developed for this purpose by the writer was outlined in the
Library journal of August, 1910.

1912]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

407

larger opportunities for esthetic creations with perspectives
and landscapes.
The idea contemplated supposes some limit to the number of
students and to the number of books. Our universities as
units or centers are not likely to develop beyond the possible
capacity of such a plan. Architects of ability would probably
not recoil from the problem of planning thus for a university of 10,000, or even of 20,000 students. But is there
not a limit rather to the capacity of an educational community to accommodate and assimilate a multitude with success in educational aims? If an institution should ever
become too elephantine, its cultural and social " atmosphere "
would probably deteriorate sooner than its architectural plan
would prove to be inadequate. Some anticipatory objections
have already been made to undergraduate Harvard. These
objections, however, apply less to graduate schools. The very
interesting recent suggestion of President Taylor, of Vassar
College, occurs to mind in this connection.14 Still, even should
Vassar ever have a duplicate college, she would have but one
library. Was not the President of Vassar one of the first
to proclaim the idea that " the library is the very heart of
the institution " ? President Harper is accredited with having
gone farther in prophesying that the library tends to absorb
the whole university. If correctly reported, this may still
seem Utopian; but the truth that is there for us is that the
university and the library are an inseparable unity. This
has already been half realized by the University of Chicago.
During the discussions there in 1901, Professor Judson, now
President, exprest his view thus:
" An adequate solution of the problem would seem to me to lie in
combining the departmental libraries so far as possible with the general
library. The department library might consist of a collection of books
gathered in a single room adjacent to the main stacks. In that case, books
not found in the library, but which the student desires to use, can easily
be obtained, and transfers in both directions would be exceedingly easy
to make." 15
14

EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, June, 1911, "The problem of the larger college."
16
University of Chicago record, vol. v, p. 2.

408

Educational

Review

[April

" Primarily the center of the so-called humane studies, the
library is in a fundamental sense the center of all studies. It
is the home not only of the books we consult, but of the
books we read, and it is the books we read that sharpen our
minds and kindle our emotions, thus preparing us to become
competent students in whatever branch of knowledge our special instincts and capacities may lead us to pursue. There is
no broad-minded teacher who does not prefer to instruct students who have been and are fairly wide readers. This is but
to say that there is no thoroly qualified member of the university who does not recognize the paramount importance of
the library." 16
A university is much more than its library; it trains men
not merely to read, but to reason. We may well bear in
mind, however, the words of Carlyle: " All that the university,
or final highest school, can do for us is still but what the
first school began doing, teach us to read."
The question of educational aim may be debatable eternally; there are currents and eddies in educational as in all
progress; but the present trend of specialization has been
turned by its counter current where Science and Technology
have found that they are brain and hand of the same ascending human will, whose higher thought is Philosophy and
whose higher expression and creative realization is Art. Have
we here a question of training for efficiency or of education
for culture? The best efficiency in a socialized environment
is not acquired thru mere specialization; nor is the best culture
in humanized life attained without the self-realization that
arises from special efficiency in some human activity or art.
Our colleges and universities should foster both these educational aims or ideals. In this preliminary world of men and
books, of student interests, athletics, and social diversions,
it is the library, and more particularly the " select" student
library, that largely provides for the culture of the unfolding
mind in freedom of access to all science and all literature, in
companionship with the wise and noble of the present and of
16

Editorial in the Columbia University quarterly for March, 1911, p. 243.

1912]

Departmental

libraries

in universities

409

the past, and with the immortal thoughts that go forward
into the future and abide forever.
Some day when we have done with erecting donations from
sometimes ill-gotten wealth into architectural monuments in
commemoration of the liberal or lordly donors, our great institutions, our cities or states, or nations, may provide still
more liberally for building greater temples to the unity of
man's knowledge. Nobler artistic forms may then have larger
cultural influences on the mind of the community. It would
indeed be fitting that an all-comprehensive library should be
at the center, and around this the circle of studies—books, and
the teachers who open the resources of books.
HENRY E. BLISS
COLLEGE OF T H E CITY OF N E W YORK
N E W YORK, N.

Y.