College and Research Libraries


Review Articles 
Cataloging Principles 

Cataloguing Principles and Practice: An 
Inquiry. Lectures delivered at a Vacation 
C o u r s e of the University of London School 
of Librarianship and Archives in M a r c h , 
1953. Edited, with an introduction, by 
M a r y Piggott. L o n d o n : T h e L i b r a r y A s -
sociation, 1954. viii, 159 p. 14s. 
T h i s inquiry into cataloging principles and 

practice is a partial expression of a widespread 
reawakening of interest in the problem of 
cataloging in general and of its governing 
rules in particular. In G e r m a n y the revision 
of the Prussian rules is being lively debated 
and consideration is given to such far-reaching 
proposals as the adoption of the principle of 
corporate authorship and the entry of titles 
under the first w o r d instead of under the 
"governing noun"—proposals calculated to re-
move the most important differences between 
the Prussian and the A n g l o - A m e r i c a n codes 
and some of the greatest obstacles to an inter-
national entente in cataloging. In France the 
construction of a new code is w e l l under w a y , 
and in Italy a new revision of the 1922 rules 
has gone to the printer and public libraries 
w i l l be required by ministerial decree to fol-
l o w the new rules. A n account of develop-
ments in revision of the cataloging codes 
in various countries is being compiled by 
U N E S C O and may be in print in the 
UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries when this 
is read. B u t this British inquiry is of particu-
lar interest to American librarians, and es-
pecially catalogers, in view of our own present 
concern w i t h the A L A cataloging rules and the 
hope shared by both American and British 
librarians that the forthcoming revision w i l l 
produce once more an A n g l o - A m e r i c a n code. 

T h e w o r k is b r o a d in s c o p e a n d c o m p a c t in 

c o n t e n t s , a n d i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s : 

I. " I n t r o d u c t i o n : A S u r v e y of the P r e s e n t 

S i t u a t i o n , " b y M a r y P i g g o t t , L e c -

t u r e r , School of L i b r a r i a n s h i p and 

A r c h i v e s , U n i v e r s i t y of L o n d o n . 
I I . " C u r r e n t R e s e a r c h i n C a t a l o g u i n g , " by 

H e n r y A . S h a r p , S e c r e t a r y , L i b r a r y 
A s s o c i a t i o n Sub-committee on C a t a -
l o g u i n g R u l e s . 

I I I . " A R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the B r i t i s h 
M u s e u m R u l e s f o r C o m p i l i n g the 

C a t a l o g u e s of P r i n t e d B o o k s — I , " by 
F. C . F r a n c i s , K e e p e r , D e p a r t m e n t 
of P r i n t e d Books, B r i t i s h M u s e u m . 

I V . " I I , " by A . H . C h a p l i n , D e p u t y 
K e e p e r , D e p a r t m e n t of P r i n t e d 
Books, B r i t i s h M u s e u m . 

V . " N e w D e v e l o p m e n t s in C a t a l o g u i n g in 
the British National Bibliography," 
by A . J. W e l l s , E d i t o r , the British 
National Bibliography. 

V I . " R e g i o n a l U n i o n C a t a l o g u e s , " by R . F . 
V o l l a n s , D e p u t y C i t y L i b r a r i a n , 
W e s t m i n s t e r . 

V I I . " S u b j e c t U n i o n C a t a l o g u e s , " b y D . T . 
R i c h n e l l , D e p u t y L i b r a r i a n , U n i v e r -
sity of L o n d o n L i b r a r y . 

V I I I . " P u n c h e d C a r d Systems f o r C a t a l o g u -
i n g a n d I n d e x i n g , " b y D . V . A r n o l d , 
L i b r a r i a n , P a i n t s D i v i s i o n , I m p e r i a l 
C h e m i c a l I n d u s t r i e s L t d . , S l o u g h . 

I X . " C a t a l o g u i n g in M u n i c i p a l L i b r a r i e s , " 
by S. J. B u t c h e r , L i b r a r i a n , H a m p -
stead P u b l i c L i b r a r i e s . 

X . " C a t a l o g u i n g in C o u n t y L i b r a r i e s , " b y 
L o r n a P a u l i n , C o u n t y L i b r a r i a n , 
H e r t f o r d s h i r e . 

X I . " C a t a l o g u i n g in U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s , " 
by R . S. M o r t i m e r , S u b - L i b r a r i a n , 
B r o t h e r t o n L i b r a r y , U n i v e r s i t y of 
L e e d s . 

X I I . " C a t a l o g u i n g in S p e c i a l L i b r a r i e s , " by 
L . J. J o l l e y , L i b r a r i a n , R o y a l C o l l e g e 
of P h y s i c i a n s , E d i n b u r g h . 

A p p e n d i x : " T h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d the 
A n s w e r s . " 

Each of these chapters has an interest of its 
own, but all of them deal w i t h cataloging 
principles and practice. N o attempt will be 
made here to summarize these chapters, but to 
discuss briefly the two focal points of the in-
q u i r y — t h e cataloging situation which British 
librarians face and the cataloging code which 
they evisage. 

The Situation.—The picture of the situation 
is based largely on the returns of a question-
naire which w a s sent to some 150 libraries, 
of which 70 replied. T h e s e included 16 college 
and university libraries, 24 municipal and 
seven county public libraries, 27 special librar-
ies (five of these departments of public librar-
ies functioning as special libraries), and the 
British M u s e u m , a group which M i s s P i g g o t t 
regards as "sufficient to give a f a i r picture of 
the situation in the more progressive libraries." 

JULY, 1955 309 



I t is apparent f r o m the returns that the 
card catalog is by f a r the type favored most 
by all libraries. Nevertheless, the acclaim is 
not unanimous. M i s s P i g g o t t quotes the 
nostalgic sentiment expressed by the editor of 
the Manchester Guardian w h o spoke at a 
celebration of the M a n c h e s t e r Public L i b r a r y 
of "the great printed reference library cata-
logue, so much easier to find one's w a y about 
in, than these dirty cards that stick together 
and are arranged on some queer Y a n k e e 
philosophical system to provide the maximum 
mystification," and w h o thought that the only 
good thing that could be said about the card 
catalog is that " t o get to the bottom tiers you 
have to bend the knees and adopt a crouching 
position which I believe is good for the figure." 
T h e sheaf catalog (a form of loose slips held 
together in a special binder) is a distant sec-
ond in popularity, but is not obsolete. It is 
found sometimes side by side w i t h a card 
catalog, in university, public, and special li-
braries, and even some of the regional union 
catalogs are reported to be in sheaf form. 
T h o s e w h o have sheaf catalogs seem to be 
contented to continue them, and such a pro-
gressive thinker as M r . Jolley suggests that, 
for special libraries, " T h e sheaf catalogue has 
also great advantages when used f o r either 
an author or subject catalogue." B u t M r . 
Butcher feels that "the f u t u r e solution does 
not lie in either the sheaf or card form. 
Recently there has been some revaluation of 
the merits of the printed catalogue and, with 
the development of photographic processes, 
there is a distinct possibility of the return of 
this form of catalogue." A n d there are also 
some "guard book" catalogs. I t w o u l d seem, 
however, that the perspective of the discussion 
on this point has been unduly limited by exist-
ing cataloging conditions. F o r if the British 
libraries are to adopt eventually one catalog-
ing code and are to enjoy the benefits of cen-
tralized and cooperative cataloging, which 
they feel is an imperative need, then the 
printed card w i l l undoubtedly be recognized 
as a most effective instrument providing f o r 
a maximum of cooperative benefits and the 
card catalog w i l l naturally result as a product 
of the plan. 

T h e author catalog is generally regarded as 
the basic record, and M r . M o r t i m e r advises: 
" I f the library's resources admit of only one 
catalogue being provided, then the author or 
name catalogue is undoubtedly the first need." 

I t is reportedly used with success by the 
readers, although one innocent reader thought 
that 8vo meant eight volumes and another 
thought that the reference "see London L i -
brary of Political and Economic Science" 
meant that he w a s to go to that library for the 
book he wanted. F o u r university libraries 
have only author catalogs, but the other li-
braries have also a subject record of all or part 
of their collections. T h e classified catalog 
predominates in the university and special li-
braries and, somewhat surprisingly, also in the 
county libraries, but not in the municipal 
libraries; the indications are, however, that 
readers find the classified catalog more difficult 
to use than alphabetical subject headings. 
W h e r e the latter are used, university and 
special libraries f a v o r a separate alphabetical 
subject catalog while municipal libraries dis-
tinctly prefer the dictionary c a t a l o g ; but some 
readers felt that separating the subject en-
tries f r o m the dictionary catalog w o u l d facili-
tate the use of the catalog. In this connection 
it is of interest to note that the monolithic 
structure of the union catalog is also not to be 
considered as beyond question. Describing the 
Berghoeffer system used with some modifica-
tions and a good deal of success by the Swiss 
union catalog M r . V o l l a n s says: 

T h e B e r g h o e f f e r system, first used in the 
F r a n k f u r t u n i o n c a t a l o g u e , d i v i d e s the c a t a -
l o g u e into t h r e e g r o u p s : a u t h o r entries, title 
e n t r i e s ( a n o n y m o u s ) , g e o g r a p h i c a l e n t r i e s 
( g e o g r a p h i c a l c a t c h w o r d s in titles, n a m e s of 
societies, e t c . ) . T h e a u t h o r c a t a l o g is a r -
r a n g e d by s u r n a m e a n d title of e n t r y , dis-
r e g a r d i n g i n i t i a l s , g i v e n n a m e s , d e s i g n a t i o n s , 
etc. E x p e r i e n c e h a s s h o w n t h a t the B e r g -
h o e f f e r system h a s g r e a t a d v a n t a g e s : titles 
a r e f o u n d m o r e q u i c k l y a n d m o r e s u r e l y , and 
the need to c o r r e c t or c o m p l e t e i n i t i a l s or first 
n a m e s is e l i m i n a t e d . 

O n e wonders whether this system has been 
sufficiently considered in this country. T h e 
arrangement of entries by surname only and 
title w i l l undoubtedly, in addition to a ma-
terial saving in the editorial cost of the union 
catalog, greatly facilitate the location of a 
given edition of a given work when it is 
accurately cited; but this arrangement w i l l 
also make very difficult or impossible the loca-
tion of a w o r k inaccurately cited, or when 
some other edition or translation of the w o r k 
is wanted in the absence of the edition cited, 
or when the available w o r k s of an author or 

310 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



the available editions of a w o r k are wanted. 
T h e r e is, however, little that can be said 
against the suggested division of the union 
catalog in several parts to facilitate its main-
tenance and use. 

T h e A n g l o - A m e r i c a n code of 1908 is used 
largely in the municipal and county libraries, 
the A L A rules of 1949 lead in the university 
libraries and to a lesser extent in the special 
libraries, and some libraries f o l l o w the British 
M u s e u m rules. B u t all these codes are gener-
ally followed w i t h various local adaptations, 
and M i s s Piggott notes that "only one library 
was f o l l o w i n g the code it preferred without 
modification." A n d at least one library w a s 
using its own code. I t is this diversity of 
cataloging practices which presents British 
librarians w i t h their most crucial cataloging 
problem. F o r it is generally realized that, 
as M r . Butcher concludes, "the construction 
of a f u l l and adequate catalogue is beyond 
the range of many individual libraries. It is 
a task that could be done better and more 
economically by a central organization." B u t 
this obviously requires the general adoption 
of one cataloging code. T h i s point w a s em-
phatically brought home to British libraries in 
recent years when they found that their cata-
loging idiosyncrasies prevented them f r o m 
taking full advantage of the cataloging service 
rendered by the British National Bibliography, 
whose entries had to be variously adapted 
before they could be integrated with the other 
entries in the catalogs. T h i s situation, added 
to a g r o w i n g and critical dissatisfaction with 
the cataloging rules in effect, gave rise to a 
quest f o r a new code of cataloging rules which 
would be adopted and followed by British 
libraries and which would meet the demands 
of modern conditions and critical thought. 

The Quest.—The quest of a new code of 
cataloging rules has occupied in recent years 
the British L i b r a r y Association Sub-committee 
on C a t a l o g u i n g Rules, the administration and 
the catalogers of the British M u s e u m library, 
the British National Bibliography, and, of 
course, individual librarians. A l l these are 
represented in the inquiry. W h a t type of a 
code is envisaged? 

In the first place, it is obvious that the 
British w a n t their new code to be strictly 
functional. T h e y w a n t first to define as 
closely as possible the functions which the 
catalog should serve and then develop a code 
which w i l l serve best these functions. In his 

discussion of the British M u s e u m rules M r . 
Chaplin says: 

I n d i s c u s s i o n s on the efficiency of these r u l e s 
it h a s become c l e a r t h a t the c r i t e r i a to be 
a p p l i e d c a n n o t be e x p r e s s e d p u r e l y in such 
g e n e r a l t e r m s as s i m p l i c i t y , consistency, c l a r -
ity, p r e c i s i o n and economy ( t h o u g h all these 
q u a l i t i e s a r e i m p o r t a n t ) ; t h e y must be d i r e c t l y 
r e l a t e d to the p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n s of o u r o w n 
c a t a l o g u e . 

M r . W e l l s begins his discussion of develop-
ments in cataloging in the British National 
Bibliography w i t h a consideration of the func-
tions of the catalog. M r . Butcher assumes 
that "fundamental to any examination of the 
w a y in which cataloguers are doing the job is 
an analysis of functions of the various types 
[of catalogues] provided." B u t most empha-
tic on this point is M r . Jolley w h o says: 

W e h a v e all used the c a t a l o g u e of a g r e a t 
l i b r a r y as a substitute f o r a n e n c y c l o p a e d i a , 
but is this a l e g i t i m a t e u s e ? W e must define 
the f u n c t i o n of our c a t a l o g u e a n d r i g i d l y ex-
c l u d e all t h a t does not h e l p t o w a r d s the dis-
c h a r g e of t h a t f u n c t i o n . 

T h e functions themselves are not f u l l y 
crystallized and are variously defined, and 
there may be some disagreement on emphasis 
and extent, but they all seem to center around 
the idea that the functions of the catalog are 
( 1 ) to facilitate the location of a given w o r k 
in the library, and ( 2 ) to relate and bring to-
gether in the catalog the w o r k s of an author 
and the editions of a w o r k — w i t h emphasis on 
the f o r m e r w h e r e the t w o functions are in 
conflict and are to be reconciled. In M r . 
Chaplin's w o r d s the functions " a r e basically 
t w o : ( 1 ) the rapid location in the library of 
any particular known book, and ( 2 ) the pro-
vision of lists of books in the library belonging 
to certain classes—these classes being mainly, 
because of the structure of the [British M u -
seum] catalogue, those of books by or about 
particular individuals"; but later on he ex-
plains that "the catalogue's second function 
requires that not only all editions of this 
particular w o r k , but all w o r k s by this author, 
should be found in the same place in the 
catalogue." M r . W e l l s expresses these func-
tions in different t e r m s : " T h e primary pur-
pose of a catalogue is to lead [directly] to 
information on the specific item of search. 
T h u s , if I search f o r details of the book 
called Old Wives' Tale, by A r n o l d Bennett, 

JULY, 1955 311 



I shall expect to find them directly by search-
ing under Bennett, A r n o l d , " not indirectly, 
via a cross reference, under the f u l l name 
Bennett, Enoch A r n o l d . T h e second principle 
is not stated as such, but its recognition is 
reflected in some of the rules providing f o r 
the entry of the w o r k s of an author w h o used 
several names or several forms of name under 
one form of name. A n d M r . Jolley states 
categorically: " I t is the function of the cata-
logue to enable the reader w h o has certain 
information about a book to find the book. 
It is not the function of the catalogue to ap-
portion the responsibility f o r the creation of 
the book or to give a f u l l bibliographical de-
scription of it." T h u s , if an author uses 
initials only, he should be entered under the 
initials and not under the f u l l name. "Initials 
have an untidy and unfinished appearance, but 
if initials enable the reader to find an author, 
there is no justification for searching for the 
f u l l name." M r . Jolley prefers to describe his 
approach as "finding-list cataloguing." B u t it 
seems that he, too, is not unconcerned about 
the second function, for he goes on to s a y : 
" O f course, an author may change the f o r m 
of his name in titles and this illustrates the 
need f o r extra vigilance on the part of the 
'finding-list' c a t a l o g u e r . " 

A s f o r the character of the code as a whole, 
M r . Sharpe, a f t e r discussing briefly a critique 
by this reviewer of the A L A rules, says: 

O n e c o u l d g o on f o r a l o n g time e n u m e r a t i n g 
the c h a n g e d v i e w s t h a t a r e reflected in M r . 
L u b e t z s k y ' s r e p o r t , a n d w h i c h a r e h e l d b y 
o u r o w n C a t a l o g u i n g R u l e s S u b - c o m m i t t e e . 
I f the next r e v i s i o n of the code a d o p t s these 
c h a n g e d v i e w s it is a p p a r e n t t h a t w e a r e 
g o i n g to see a v e r y d i f f e r e n t set o f r u l e s f r o m 
a n y t h a t h a s g o n e b e f o r e . 

A n d t o w a r d s the end of his lecture he char-
acterizes that revision as " T h e quest f o r a 
revised author and title code on as simple 
lines as possible, concentrating on an endeavor 
to f o r m u l a t e f e w e r rules but more general 
principles; a code certainly acceptable to the 
United States and ourselves, and as f a r 
as possible in the international field." M r . 
Chaplin, in his most interesting discussion of 
the British M u s e u m rules, indicates some of 
the principles now favored by the British M u -
seum catalogers a f t e r extended discussion of 
the issues involved, although the revision of 

the British M u s e u m catalog, in accordance 
w i t h these principles, would present a formid-
able task. T h e s e principles include: the entry 
of a w o r k whose author is known under the 
name of the author w h e t h e r or not that name 
appears in the w o r k — i n lieu of the present 
B M rule which prescribes that the entry must 
be based on the information found in the book 
i t s e l f ; the entry of anonymous w o r k s under 
their titles—in lieu of the present B M rules 
prescribing their entry under the names of 
people, places, or other proper names men-
tioned in the titles, or under various form and 
class headings such as Catalogues, Directories, 
Liturgies, and H y m n a l s ; the entry of all the 
w o r k s of an author under his real name or 
his pseudonym if the latter "is much better 
known or much more often u s e d " — i n lieu 
of the present rules under which the w o r k s of 
an author or the editions of a w o r k may be 
entered partly under the author's real name 
and partly under his pseudonym if the w o r k s 
have so been issued. O n the question of 
entry of corporate bodies, M r . Chaplin says 
that "opinions range f r o m those w h o would 
put every individual organization under its 
own name, if it has one, to those w h o would 
retain the present position \i.e. entry under 
place] intact." H e adds, however, that 
" W h i l e the debate continues, it may be of 
interest to note that neither side shows much 
sympathy f o r the distinction observed in the 
A L A C o d e between Societies and Institutions, 
and neither is convinced of the usefulness of 
separating into t w o lists, official and unofficial 
institutions entered under the same place." 
A l t h o u g h the question is still undecided, the 
arguments cited are clearly on the side of 
entry of corporate bodies under their names, 
and it is noted that the principle " t o which 
present practice increasingly tends to c o n f o r m " 
is that "geographical heading should be used 
only for government departments and the like, 
and f o r local institutions whose names are 
quite undistinctive." W h i l e these principles 
do not cover the whole field of the problem 
and are so f a r only the result of " e x p l o r a t o r y " 
discussions, they reflect an important and 
g r o w i n g rapprochement in A n g l o - A m e r i c a n 
thought, and progress t o w a r d an eventual in-
ternational agreement, on bibliographical and 
cataloging principles.—Seymour Lubetzky, Li-
brary of Congress. 

312 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES