Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

December 9, 1890.-JAMES MOIR, M.A., in the Chair.

ALEX. W. ROBERTSON, M.A., Public Librarian, read a paper entitled, "The Art of Describing Books "-Part II.

The Art of Describing Books-Part II.

By ALEX. W. ROBERTSON, M.A., Public Librarian.

In my last paper, I endeavoured to explain shortly some of the difficulties which beset any well-designed attempt to describe a book correctly. These, it was seen, were neither few nor trivial; on the contrary, they went far to justify the experience of the late Professor De Morgan, a man of paramount authority in the matter, that to describe a book correctly is one of the most difficult things a man can undertake. And yet, as I pointed out towards the end of my paper, all that we were then able to overtake was, as it were, but the outworks of the citadel, the high stern walls of which had yet to be scaled.

For let us describe the individual volumes of any library as accurately and intelligently as we may, we have still before us the question-how are we to arrange the separate works themselves, and give a description of them, such that all having access to them, with their several capacities and requirements, shall be able, with the maximum of certainty and the minimum of trouble, to light on just what they conceive most suitable to their immediate purpose? This has been, and still is, the great tilting field of professed librarians, and not of them only. For, indeed, adequately to grapple with the problem now suggested, it has been thought by some necessary to take a philosophic survey of the whole field of knowledge, and thereby map it out in some kind of systematic and logical fashion. It is to the existence of this idea that we owe the system of Aristotle, the genealogical tree of knowledge of Bacon, the philosophic and yet not unpractical classification of Leibniz, and, perhaps, more noteworthy still, Gesner's careful and comprehensive scheme, which may be said to be the basis of the series of catalogues raisonnées, so peculiar to French bibliography. Of our own countrymen, in addition to Bacon,

I need only mention Locke, Bentham, Coleridge, as eminent thinkers who have contributed of their best to the solution of this knotty problem. And yet of their, as of all similar, attempts at the systematic arrangement of all departments of human inquiry and knowledge, it has to be said that, however interesting and admirable they may be as feats of ingenious and refined speculation, or however welcome as contributions to the systematic comprehension of the field of knowledge in the abstract, as practical contributions to the classification of the sciences and real knowledge generally, they are of little value. The relations of these to each other are so complex, their demarcations often so shadowy and fluctuating, their new developments so varied and numerous, that it seems almost hopeless for any man to devise a scheme which will be acceptable to other men, or long valid. But if this is so in the realm of ideas, and as regards the larger departments of intellectual activity, what are we to say of the attempt to apply any such scheme to ideas as embodied in the concrete form of books? It is, perhaps, enough to remember the infinite diversities, the quips and cranks, and other vagaries of the creating minds to be assured of the fact that they absolutely refuse to confine themselves within the limits of any scheme.

Such, then, being the difficulties of the case, almost, if not altogether, insuperable as they would seem, are we to conclude that this problem of classification, in relation to libraries, is beyond our solution in any satisfactory way? Fortunately, this need not be so; and though struck in one way the nut may be hard enough to crack, yet laid hold of in another way, and judiciously tapped at various points, it may be found to yield a fruit of some value. Thus, if instead of rearing great laws, founded on the constitution of the human mind. to which all facts of its creation must somehow conform (or so much the worse for the facts), we reverse the process and study these facts themselves first of all--then in time we shall arrive at some conclusions of solid value. We may not, it is true, construct a system of knowledge and literature which is strictly logical or philosophical. But we may hope to produce a scheme which shall facilitate reference, open the paths of knowledge, and make popular the instruments of learning. We have, in fact, to remember that we are practical librarians of great teaching institutions for the people, not the jealous, albeit philosophic, keepers of treasures reserved chiefly for the learned few; that it is no business of ours to expound the philosophical relations of the mental faculties, but that it is at once

our duty and our privilege to widen and simplify the use of such of their products as come under our charge.

In the case as now proposed, then, there are just two main factors. On the one hand, there are the books themselves, and on the other the readers, and neither can be properly regarded without the other.

Now, as regards the books. These, of course, will be found to agree in certain points, any one or ones of which may be selected as the basis of an arrangement of them. Thus, we may elect to classify them according to the names of their authors, or of their printers, or of their publishers. Or, we may fix upon the language in which they are written, the time or place of publication, or, indeed, any other feature that may for any purpose have a real value, and proceed to group them accordingly. From the side of the readers, again, the problem takes the form of an inquiryWhat wants can they reasonably be supposed to have with regard to books, and in what ways can these wants be most easily and most fully met? Now, in answer to the former part of this inquiry, we shall probably find that the wants of readers, of which account need be taken, may be summed up in the following queries:

(1.) Is there such or such a book by a given author in the library? For example, does it contain a copy of John Stuart Mill's work "On Liberty"?

(2.) What works by a given author does the library contain? That is to say, what other works of Mill's are in the library besides his work "On Liberty "?

(3.) Does the library contain a work bearing such or such a title, which I remember, though I have forgotten the name of its author, or, it may be, his name is not known? For example, has the library got a copy of a work entitled, "The Land of the Midnight Sun," or of "The Silence of Dean Maitland"? (4.) Does the library contain a work on some specific subject, say, mesmerism or lithography?

(5.) What are all the books which it has treating of a certain class of subjects, say, of botany or chemistry?

(6.) As there are certain well understood forms of literature as

belonging to one or other of which we are often disposed to think of some works, more than of their subject matter, it is reasonable to expect the inquiry, what works of poetry and drama, what novels, what books of ballads, and so forth, are there in the library?

And (7.) How does the library stand in the matter of French or German works-in other words, we want to know what and how many are the works in different languages?

Now, these seven questions are each in its own way legitimate enough, and not only legitimate, but so likely and common that not to answer some or all of them with respect to the contents of any large library, is to inflict inconvenience and loss upon its readers. Fortunately, with regard to some of them, there is cause for little trouble. For example, it is in general a matter of no difficulty to decide what language a book is written in, and so to group all the books in the same language together. The case is hardly so clear when we have to decide as to the particular form of literature to which a book belongs, the lines of separation being at times a little uncertain. The question of cataloguing books by their titles raises points of greater difficulty still, especially when the works happen to be anonymous, and, therefore, have nothing but their title, and, it may be, their subject matter, to help us towards a correct description of them. On this point, however, I will not now dwell, having referred to it at some length in my former paper, and at the same time proposed various methods by which we may surmount some at least of the difficulties.

The next two questions-Has the library such or such a book by a known author? and, What books by a known author does it contain? would seem at first glance to present no difficulties. And yet, as was before shown, there are connected with them not a few pitfalls requiring one, not seldom, to pick one's steps with great care, if one is to avoid disaster and trouble. And not only is it that when we believe we have "run in" our author, we must be quite sure that we have got hold of the right man, but when we have done so we must be careful that he does not slip away from us, and, Proteus-like, deceive us by another form. We will, however, for the nonce, suppose that we have guarded against these and other dangers, and proceed to answer with some assurance the two points in question. The result would be a catalogue of the well-known author form, in which the books are arranged in alphabetical order, according to their title, under the names of the authors, which are arranged also in alphabetical order. It is by no means difficult to understand why this kind of catalogue has found so much acceptance, especially for very large collections of books. The labour connected with its construction, over and beyond that demanded in every attempt at

accurate book description, is comparatively small. At the same time, it is a sure and safe key to the library for every reader who is fortunate enough to know the names of the authors whose works he wishes to see. It would be difficult to over-estimate the value of this assurance, especially as relating to a circumstance of any book which is at once characteristic, precise, and likely to fix itself in the memory. For reader and librarian alike, it is, if established to their mutual satisfaction, the most trustworthy as well as the most easy and expeditious resort. But then, indeed, it has to be admitted that the assumption of the knowledge of the author's name, which necessarily underlies it, is a big assumption, excluding from its favour, on the one hand, the large body of books which bear no authors' names; and, on the other, the large and growing body of readers who have little direct or indirect knowledge of the producers of the books, but are sensitive enough as to the fact whether the books themselves will help them in their particular inquiries. Their concern is not with the works of any author or authors, but, what is really after all of most consequence, for the subject is always greater than the writer on it, with the works on some particular subject or class of subjects. And to them, as, indeed, to the majority of readers, there is more advantage in bringing together all that any library contains on any given topic, even though it should only be one work, than in telling them what and how many works of any author there may be in it. On this head there would seem to be little or no dispute, all more or less admitting the great desirability of the thing, but very many having doubts as to the possibility or feasibility of its attainment. To this question, I would now briefly direct your attention.

The first thing, then, which it may be well to note, is that the readers whom we are now considering, that is to say, the readers who, when they come into a library, either know or care little about the writers of the books, but are quite curious about their subject matter, may be generally divided into two classes. There is the class of those who may be styled the thorough students, and who, when they come into a library, desire not so much to see some particular treatise on a subject as to ascertain and examine all that the library has calculated to throw light upon their investigations. This implies that they should see, not only the books devoted specially to the matter in hand, but also those treating of subjects more or less relating to it, which it is of importance that they should know, and

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »