College and Research Libraries


issue, that it would add greatly to the cost 
of the undertaking. W h a t one misses 
even more is a guide to the length of the 
reviews which ought not to be pro-
hibitively expensive either from the edi-
torial standpoint or production costs. 

I n spite of its modest format and the 
brevity of its entries, the Review Index 
should prove to be a useful and inexpen-
sive addition to the bibliographical ap-
paratus of college, university, and the 
larger public libraries.—Harold Russell, 
University of Minnesota Library. 

Guide to Bibliographies of Theses, United 
States and Canada. T h o m a s R. Pal-
frey and H e n r y  E. Coleman. A.L.A., 
Chicago, 1940. 54p. $1.25, paper. 
T H E S E C O N D E D I T I O N to the Guide to 

Bibliographies follows closely in scope and 
arrangement the first edition of 1936. 
P a r t I is again a short list of those Ameri-
can bibliographies which are not restricted 
to one institution or field of interest (7 
titles) ; P a r t  I I is a very brief list (65 
entries) arranged by subject or "field." 
I t is hard to understand the erratic choice 
of subject headings, the termination of the 
list with "Speech," and the uneven inclu-
sion of titles found later in P a r t I I I , but 
for practical purposes the last part is the 
more important section, and we proceed 
to that. 

In the division called "Institutional 
Lists" there are approximately 330 entries. 
Twenty-five per cent, which consist of 
references to college catalogs and presi-
dents' reports, have not been investigated. 
A n additional 12 per cent refer to manu-
script lists which must also be passed over. 
An inconsistency in the form of entry 
used for supplements, and a confusion be-
tween checklisting technique and catalog-
ing practice result in the cumbersome 

inclusion of another 8 per cent of entries. 
Of the remaining 150 titles, 11 were out 
of date last August. These a r e : Clark 
University, George Washington Univer-
sity, University of Florida, Louisiana State 
University, Ohio State University, Penn-
sylvania State College, Southern Metho-
dist University, Stanford University, 
University of Southern California, T u l a n e 
University, and Vanderbilt University. A 
few omissions of old titles were noted. In 
the series called " M a s t e r s Essays" for 
Columbia University, 1934, 1937, and 
1938 are strangely missing. T h e Wiscon-
sin Abstracts of Theses, v. 1, 1917, is 
omitted. A consistent practice for the 
arrangement of series notes and for the 
use of brackets would have been helpful 
since most of the outright errors were 
apparent in that connection. Obviously, 
the Guide is useful, but it is a great pity 
that such a compilation was not made to 
conform to the professional standards for 
either order, cataloging, or reference de-
partments.—Isabel Howell, Vanderbilt 
University Library. 

Geschichte der Bibliotheken in Grossbri-
tannien und in den Vereinigten Staaten 
von N ordamerika. Albert Predeek. 
O t t o Harrassowitz, 1940. From the 
Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft, 
I I I , pp. 855-975. 
T H E M O N U M E N T A L Milkau-Leyh 

Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft 
was completed last year with the publica-
tion of the third volume, which is devoted 
to library history. T h e consummation of 
this invaluable work represents the crown-
ing effort of continental librarians to en-
dow their profession with the status of a 
science standardized by its indispensable 
Handbuch. Petzholdt, Graesel, and Dahl 
had attempted the task with a degree of 

JUNE, 1941 255 



success corresponding to the current state 
of the profession; but they lacked the back-
ground of the expansion and great ad-
vances in technique which reached a cli-
max in the thirties. Milkau-Leyh is a 
symbol as well as an exposition of one of 
the most significant cultural phenomena 
before the outbreak of W o r l d W a r I I . 

A basic distinction of the German 
Handbiicher is that they are usually a 
combination of encyclopedia, textbook, and 
monograph, frequently presenting articles 
which are unique in the field concerned 
and which represent the best secondary 
sources. Such is the case with Milkau-
L e y h ; and of greatest interest to us is the 
first scholarly history of English and 
American libraries, written by D r . Albert 
Predeek, director of the Technische Hoch-
schule Bibliothek in Berlin-Charlotten-
burg. Like all other sections of the 
Handbuch, it is a full-fledged monograph 
and might well be reissued as a separate, 
possibly in translation. 

D r . Predeek's work is in two sections, 
one for G r e a t Britain and one for Amer-
ica.  H e maintains a basic unity between 
the two parts by such devices as emphasis 
on the mutual influences between the li-
braries of the two great English-speaking 
nations. T h a n k s to extensive travels in 
both countries and previous research, he 
reveals a fine sense of proportion in or-
ganization of his material. Documenta-
tion from library literature as well as that 
of ancillary fields is abundant, and f u t u r e 
investigators of problems in our library 
history will find a good starting point here. 

T h e section on English libraries is 
especially noteworthy for its sketch of the 
British Museum and the concise summary 
of Panizzi's work as administrator and 
cataloger, based on D r . Predeek's more 
extensive study in the Festschrift Georg 

Leyh. In many details he reveals himself 
as an authority on the English national 
character as reflected in the development 
of English libraries. T h u s , for example, 
he points out the time lag between material 
prosperity and social progress as illustrated 
in the tardy appearance of the popular 
library in E n g l a n d ; and very sensibly he 
interprets its rise as a manifestation of the 
general demand for cultural opportunities 
rather than conscious Americanization. 
O n the whole, it would be difficult for an 
American to find fault with D r . Predeek's 
treatment of English libraries. One might 
perhaps wish for as extensive an account 
of the Library Association as there is of 
the A . L . A . ; but the excellence of the latter 
might be traced to D r . Predeek's associa-
tions in this country, where he was visiting 
when much of the work of reorganizing 
the A.L.A. was in progress. 

T h r o u g h o u t the American section of 
the work D r . Predeek displays a warm 
sympathy and fine understanding for 
American culture, particularly as revealed 
in his own field.  H e does not betray the 
unmitigated conviction that all is good in 
American libraries. Like D r . M u n t h e , 
he sees that, while the terrain is fertile 
and well tilled, results are considerably 
short of perfection. D r . Predeek's associ-
ation with leading American librarians 
gave him an insight without which his 
work would be much less valuable. For 
example, he does not accept at face value 
the popular superstition entertained abroad 
that early American research libraries, 
like our graduate schools, were inspired 
exclusively by German models, pointing 
out rather that German influence on 
American universities had only a second-
ary reaction on their libraries. 

His treatment of the Library of Con-
gress is quite as good as that of the British 

256 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



M u s e u m , but no American university 

library is treated so extensively as the 

Bodleian. T h e discussion of the A m e r i -

can public library is not so suggestive as 

D r . M u n t h e ' s brilliant essay on the pessi-

mist and the public l i b r a r y ; but it is a 

sober, informative description based on the 

best primary sources.  O n the other hand, 

he sometimes tends to misinterpret the 

w o r k of the liberal arts college library, 

especially in its relation to research.  H e 

gives f u l l credit to the role of philanthropy 

in the g r o w t h of American libraries, and 

there is a brief but sound account of the 

w o r k of the Carnegie Corporation. 

T w o peculiar aspects of American li-

brarianship are exceptionally w e l l treated. 

In dealing with the g r o w t h of the early 

research libraries D r . Predeek shows the 

importance of acquisition of the private 

libraries of great European scholars. 

T h i s subject which he has outlined so w e l l 

deserves greater attention than it has 

hitherto received from library surveyors. 

T h e material on education for librarian-

ship shows a deep-rooted understanding of 

our problems. D r . Predeek does not look 

down his nose in pious contempt for 

American colleagues simply because most 

of them could not qualify for the Prussian 

hoherer Dienst, but he discusses our prob-
lems intelligently and offers many helpful 

suggestions. 

D r . Predeek's treatise should be read 

by every American librarian w h o com-

mands the minimum essentials of G e r -

man.—Lawrence ThompsonIowa State 
College Library. 

Ancient Libraries. James W e s t f a l l 
T h o m p s o n . University of C a l i f o r n i a 

Press, Berkeley, 1940. vi, I20p. $2. 

T H I S little volume, although a later 
and separate publication, may seem at first 

glance to be merely an introduction to the 

author's Medieval Libraries ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 
which was reviewed by P r o f . C u r t i s 

H . W a l k e r in this journal, June, 1940. 

A c t u a l l y there is no formal connection 

between the t w o books. E v e n the identity 

of authorship is deceptive; as a medieval-

ist P r o f . T h o m p s o n is an expert, as an 

orientalist and a classicist he is an ama-

teur. M o r e o v e r , there is little historical 

connection between his t w o subjects; al-

though medieval librarians may have re-

assembled some volumes which had once 

been in G r e e k or Roman libraries, the 

medieval institutions, as institutions, were 

autochthonous. In the interim the very 

idea of a library had perished and it had 

to be reinvented. 

Y e t despite their independence some 

comparison is inevitable between these t w o 

books in the field of library history which 

bear the same name on their title pages. 

H e r e in many points Ancient Libraries 
has the advantage. It is lucid and logical, 

not only in sentence structure but also in 

organic composition. Its style is inter-

fused w i t h the enthusiasm and vitality 

of the author.  A s one reads one can 

almost see and hear P r o f . T h o m p s o n in 

person. Medical Libraries, on the con-
trary, is turgid and heavy, but that was 

the w o r k of many collaborators whose 

rhetorical infelicities were perhaps height-

ened rather than tempered by editorial 

attempts to bring them into unison. 

In the matter of content, however, the 

present w o r k is inferior. It is too brief 

for its theme. In fifty pages an attempt 

is made to summarize our knowledge con-

cerning Egyptian, Mesopotamian, G r e e k , 

and Roman libraries; in forty-eight pages 

there is a discussion of "various technical 

matters . . . such as the format of books, 

library architecture, cataloging and clas-

JUNE, 1941 257