College and Research Libraries


B y A N D R E W D . O S B O R N 

Revision of the Catalog Code 

Mr. Osborn, chiefCatalog Department, 

Harvard College Library, read this paper 

before the Conference of Eastern College 

Librarians, November 29, 1941. 

THE THESIS here maintained is a simple one. It is that action on the revised 
catalog code be deferred at least until the 

L i b r a r y of Congress has had time to 

formulate its rules and practices anew. 

C a t a l o g i n g history is still at the stage 

where in American libraries the L i b r a r y of 

Congress sets the fashion. A s long as that 

stage continues the general cataloging code 

should f o l l o w closely, but not slavishly, 

L i b r a r y of Congress usage. 

T h e happy result w o u l d be that the 

L i b r a r y of Congress might come to find 

a level of cataloging that large, medium, 

and small libraries all might f o l l o w w i t h a 

minimum of variation. T h i s is by no 

means an impossible goal. In fact the 

leadership now being shown at the L i b r a r y 

of Congress points in this very direction. 

The Library of Congress and the 

Anglo-American Code 

In the preface to the preliminary Ameri-

can second edition of the A.L.A. Catalog 

Rules various reasons are given to show 

w h y the A n g l o - A m e r i c a n code should have 

been revised so extensively and so radi-

cally. In effect, these reasons boil down 

to o n e : such revision was deemed necessary 

to reconcile the 1908 code w i t h L i b r a r y 

of Congress practice. 

C a t a l o g i n g history reveals a long story 

of interplay between the t w o systems. In 

1901 the instructions to the C a t a l o g Rules 

Revision Committee called for a code of 

rules in agreement w i t h those in force at 

the L i b r a r y of Congress. Nevertheless, 

the published code of 1908 differed from 

L i b r a r y of Congress practice in a number 

of more or less important details. Be-

tween 1908 and 1933 the L i b r a r y of 

Congress added to its body of rules, w i t h 

the result that discrepancies multiplied. 

Since many libraries were attempting to 

f o l l o w L i b r a r y of Congress practice, the 

consequence was that the 1908 code was 

criticized increasingly often as the gap 

widened. W i t h such libraries and w i t h 

library schools that taught the use of L . C . 

cards, the code could not fail to lose caste 

and it did this in spite of the fact that it 

is essentially a very good piece of w o r k . 

A l l through the twentieth century the 

general tendency has been for libraries to 

make concessions to L i b r a r y of Congress 

cataloging, with a great librarian like 

C u t t e r pointing the w a y . T h e preliminary 

American second edition of the catalog 

code can be regarded as a major conces-

sion to the L i b r a r y of Congress, a state-

ment which should be made w i t h the clear 

understanding that it has been the desire 

for the past forty years to have a catalog 

code that does agree w i t h the L i b r a r y of 

Congresss. 

In these circumstances, it is germane to 

ask whether the proposed new code has 

been successful in realizing this old objec-

tive. In the first place, some L i b r a r y of 

JUNE, 1942 207 



Congress practice is footnoted just as it 

was in the 1908 code. In general, this is 

a wise procedure. In the second place, 

Library of Congress cataloging of the 

middle thirties was itself divided on many 

points, a fact well known to libraries 

which are doing cooperative cataloging and 

which are familiar with the phrase, the 

"preferred Library of Congress practice." 

For the success of the proposed code, the 

Library of Congress of 1941 or 1942 

would have to adopt these interpretations 

of its practice, which up to 1940 it was 

willing to do. In the third place, the 

code disagrees with or modifies Library of 

Congress practice of the middle thirties 

in a number of cases, the more significant 

of which are anonymous classics, religious 

headings, and the form of the publisher's 

name. In a few instances the code states 

that the Library of Congress of the middle 

thirties will not change. 

In general the new code has been rather 

successful in setting out Library of Con-

gress practice; but, and this must be 

emphasized, it records Library of Congress 

practice as it was prior to 1940, not as it 

may be in the immediate future. From 

the point of view of the editorial com-

mittee for the new code, its misfortune 

was that it had no occasion to suspect that 

the cataloging situation at the Library of 

Congress might undergo such a remark-

able change as it has since 1940. 

Cataloging in College and 
University Libraries 

Library of Congress cataloging affects 

college and university libraries intimately, 

since they are the largest users of its 

printed cards. In 1938-39, out of a total 

of $297,000 received by the Card Division 

at the Library of Congress, no less than 

$162,000 came from college and university 

libraries (whereas public libraries, by con-

trast, spent only $80,000). Nine hundred 

and twenty-five college and university 

libraries used the card service. O f these, 

however, 718 (those with a student body 

of less than one thousand) spent an aver-

age of about $75 a year on Library of 

Congress cards. T h e remaining 207 (all 

with a student body of more than one 

thousand) are the libraries most exten-

sively concerned with the proposed code 

and its problems. 

In spite of the great and increasing use 

of Library of Congress cards by college 

and university libraries, the present cata-

loging needs of these libraries differ very 

greatly from those of the Library of Con-

gress, which was not the case in 1901. 

Open access now makes a very great dif-

ference to the cataloging program. A t 

least the faculty and graduate students 

have open access in college and university 

libraries, while undergraduates have com-

plete access in some cases and limited access 

in others. W i t h open access, many readers 

use the catalog only after they have been 

to the shelves. A s a result, fewer subject 

cards, fewer added entries, and fewer 

references are needed, while the classifica-

tion scheme can be regarded as performing 

many of the functions the card catalog 

would otherwise be called on to perform. 

In addition, a great part of the use of a 

college or university library is through 

reserve reading rooms, the work of which 

does not call for reference to the card 

catalog to more than a slight extent. Fur-

ther, departmental and similar libraries on 

a campus are capable of functioning with 

the methods of the relatively small or 

special library. T h i s is particularly true 

when the departmental libraries order and 

catalog their own books. In fact, some of 

the best departmental libraries in the 

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



country have been built up satisfactorily 

because attention has been concentrated on 

the acquisition of materials and a minimum 

of work has been done on cataloging. 

T h i s was the situation, for example, in the 

greatest law library in the country which 

happens to be a departmental library. 

Again, college and university libraries have 

made considerable use of self-cataloging 

methods, particularly for government 

documents. T h e cataloging of serials has 

often been simplified greatly through re-

liance on serial checklists of one kind or 

another. In this connection, it might be 

pointed out that the Library of Congress 

itself is now in a position to modify and 

simplify its cataloging of serials in a simi-

lar manner, since it is now installing a 

visible index for its numerous serials. 

College and University Libraries 

and the Code 

Apart from the question as to what ex-

tent the Library of Congress and the few 

similar reference libraries with closed 

stacks (such as the N e w Y o r k Public 

Library) need very detailed cataloging, it 

is clear that college and university libraries 

do not require detailed cataloging for a 

large part of their specially organized 

work. Hence they have less need for as 

detailed a code as the one that has been 

prepared. T h i s applies to both parts of 

the code, although it applies much more to 

the second part than to the first. Co-

operative cataloging does not change the 

picture. O f the 41 libraries doing co-

operative cataloging, 35 are college and 

university libraries. For this work, the 

cataloger requires a knowledge of the rules 

and practices followed by the Library of 

Congress. But these do not need to be 

applied any more than is necessary for 

cataloging that is done purely for local 

use. College and university libraries 

would be the losers in the long run if 

they adopted a detailed code for the sake 

of cooperative cataloging. 

General Comments 

One important change in the cataloging 

code is in the concept of the author heading 

itself. T h e old code attempted to look on 

the author heading from the point of view 

of entry words. T h e proposed new code 

tends to get away from this idea in a 

number of respects and to give the author 

heading a status and importance of its 

own. It does this by adding new elements 

to the author heading, whether these are 

needed or not. T h i s tendency can be ob-

served particularly in the headings for 

documents and anonymous classics. 

T h e sequence of rules in the old code 

needed some adjustment, but in general it 

was effective, particularly for teaching 

purposes. T h e arrangement in the new 

code is very different and may appear to 

some librarians to be less effective than 

the old code in several important direc-

tions. In this connection, it will be inter-

esting to learn the opinion of library school 

instructors. 

T h e wording of the code has likewise 

undergone much change in the process of 

revision. Again, some librarians may feel 

that the simpler wording of the 1908 code 

is often preferable. 

T h e proposed rules allow some varia-

tions in practice. T h e y could with ad-

vantage be more permissive, especially in 

such matters as the use of authority cards 

and the number of added entries and 

references called for. 

Libraries can spend a great deal of time 

and money, not always to the best ad-

vantage, on rules for religious and corpo-

rate entries and for serials. T h i s suggests 

JUNE j 1942 209 



that the rules for these items might bear 

very careful scrutiny to make sure that 

every detail is really justified. 

T h e second part of the code is likely to 

come in for more criticism than the first, 

especially in little matters such as adding 

the Fascist to the Christian year in the 

imprint. A s far as the detail of the second 

part is concerned, the Library of Congress 

may need to determine many details for the 

printing of its cards when homemade type-

written or multigraphed cards can be made 

with relatively slight attention to such re-

finement. 

T h e preliminary American second 

edition cannot be called the Anglo-

American code. T h i s seems to be a loss 

in something more than just international 

cooperation. A certain check and balance 

for the code may have been lost as well. 

T h e proposed code contains no repro-

ductions of sample cards, although the 

number of examples included in the text 

is very great. T h e sample cards in the 

1908 code were assembled rather hastily 

and unsystematically so that they were 

never very effective. Perhaps sample cards 

can be issued in a separate publication. 

T h e y have considerable value both for 

teaching and for everyday library purposes. 

Library administrators are apt to com-

ment most frequently on the fact that the 

proposed code does not seem to have made 

any contribution or concession to simpli-

fied cataloging, apart from the simplified 

rules for cataloging incunabula. T h e big 

need of the day is for simplification of 

cataloging details, together with simpli-

fied rules for less valuable books and 

pamphlets. 

Recommendations 

T h e Library of Congress has spent a 

year reorganizing its processing divisions. 

It is only now in a position to begin con-

sidering the technical rules of cataloging. 

Accordingly, it is of first importance to 

recommend that all action on the code 

except discussion should be suspended for 

a year or more until the Library of Con-

gress has had time to review its rules. In 

this way only can the instructions of 1901 

be fulfilled. T h i s interim would give the 

Library of Congress time to show the 

leadership in cataloging matters that is 

now needed of it. 

T h e next recommendation is that the 

1908 code should be re-examined carefully. 

T h i s is not advocated from a conservative 

or obstructionist point of view. Rather it 

is to emphasize that there is much that is 

genuinely good and basically sound in that 

code. Perhaps the Library of Congress 

could do worse than follow the old code 

more than it has done in recent years. 

T h e third recommendation is that all 

necessary time be allowed to elapse so that 

the British can cooperate fully in the new 

code. There is everything to be gained by 

retaining an Anglo-American code. If 

such delay means waiting several years, 

the time can be used to advantage in study-

ing the cataloging needs of various types 

of libraries and in cooperating in every 

way possible with the Library of Congress 

in the formulation of new rules. T h e pre-

liminary American second edition has 

changed and expanded the rules so much 

that a great deal of time is necessary for 

careful consideration of them. It is not 

easy to see a way out of the difficulties in 

which cataloging now finds itself, nor at 

this stage is it easy to recommend what 

should be done with the proposed new 

code. 

T h e special recommendation for college 

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



and university libraries is that they should 

re-examine their cataloging program to 

see whether their present needs coincide 

with the 1901 instructions. 

Finally, libraries of various types can 

see whether their cataloging objectives for 

the future may not even now be indicating 

the shape of things to come. For example, 

the book stock and the card catalog have 

both grown and have both been given hard 

treatment for a generation. In the light 

of these facts, should current cataloging 

be got in hand so that catalogers could be 

set free to revise and improve the card 

catalog? Are libraries relying on card 

catalogs too much in the care and building 

up of the book stock? T h e card catalog 

is apt to describe a book as it was when it 

was received in the library. W i l l the 

future make increasing demands for a 

more realistic catalog, for one that is more 

in keeping with the book collection as it 

is now rather than as it was at the time of 

cataloging? Questions of this kind are 

likely to come up as the book stock shows 

additional signs of wear. A new code 

might crystallize cataloging practice for a 

long time to come, and that possibility sug-

gests the desirability at this stage of an 

examination of both present and possible 

future objectives for the card catalog. 

Present Developments and the Revision 

It is extremely unfortunate that present 

developments could not have come before 

revision of the cataloging code was under-

taken. T h e need for economy has become 

so urgent that even the fundamental 

principles on which the American diction-

ary catalog has been built up are now for 

the first time being questioned. T h e re-

vision committee did not do a perfect job 

but from the technical point of view it pro-

duced a first-rate piece of work for which 

all credit is due. A totally different prob-

lem now exists from the one the committee 

was appointed to meet. T h e need now is 

to re-examine all cataloging practice to see 

what is essential and what nonessential. 

It really is a case of starting again from 

scratch. T h e work that has been done on 

the code is not lost. It will be turned to 

with satisfaction when the new objectives 

are defined. 

Real gain is already apparent from the 

intensified interest that head librarians are 

taking in their catalog departments. It is 

a matter of satisfaction to find more than a 

few administrators inquiring carefully into 

the revised code and into the cataloging 

situation in their libraries in consultation 

with their catalogers. Lasting benefits are 

sure to come from such developments. 

JUNE j 1942 211