part of the library are ranged within definite compass, if not all the books in the library treating of any particular topic, at least all the detachable books whose contents treat wholly or mainly of it! There is here no necessity for probing the bulky body of some written or printed catalogue to find the wished for books, and next for summoning from different parts of the library whatever seems to hold out promise of aid, but at a glance you take in much that is certainly known to be concerned with the subject in quest, and you have the supreme and satisfying luxury, so dear to the student, of seeing and handling and judging for yourself the several items of the collection. And to most people the examination of such a collection will be sufficient, the separate and exclusive treatises in any tolerably large and fairly representative library being as much as is required for most ordinary purposes. For extraordinary pur poses, and for exceptional students, there is, in addition to this resort, the further resort of catalogues, special bibliographies, and indexes, from all of which much may be gleaned beyond the reach of any library device. But clearly the operation of gleaning this much is one that must ultimately devolve upon the student himself, if it is to be well done.

Assuming, then, that the arrangement of its books on the shelves, according to some system of classification, is an indispensable feature of any well-organised and well-appointed library, we have next to ask, to what degree of sub-division are we to carry this process of classification? Are we to be content with a broad classification, roughly dividing the contents of the whole library into a very few large classes-Theology, Science, Fine Arts, History, and so forth-according as they belong to one or other of the great departments of knowledge? Or are we to take these large general divisions and divide them into smaller divisions, each necessarily embracing a smaller number of books, and repeat this specialising process till the number of books embraced in each sub-division may be very small indeed ? The question is one of some moment and interest, but the answer to it must ever turn largely on the particular circumstances of any library, both as regards its size and as regards the character of its books. These must ultimately decide to what point it is expedient to carry the process of specialisation, and beyond this point in the several departments it is in practice inadvisable to go, however much by so doing we may clash with theoretical views. It follows from this

that the application of the process will be very unequal within the same library, inasmuch as some subjects, from their very nature, lend themselves more readily to specialised study; while no library is without a special strength in some departments and a corresponding weakness in others.

You will see, of course, that the opening up of this question has brought us round again to that knotty problem of classification, which in connection with the work of cataloguing we found to afford so free a scope for theories and devices. As applied to the arrangement of books on the shelves the opportunity is similar, but if anything still more emphasised, inasmuch as the notation, or system of shelf marks, which must necessarily be a constituent of every scheme of shelf arrangement, is a splendid field for the inventive faculty. Accordingly, it generally happens that anyone who gives thought to the subject ends by striking out something new, and probably introduces features which, to some extent at least, make his scheme an improvement on previous schemes, though whether, as a whole, it is so is quite another matter. In the United States of America, especially, to which we are indebted for so much of the great improvement in library economy of recent years, there have been developed a number of schemes of shelf classification and shelf notation which, whether we adopt them or not, we cannot but admire for their intelligence and ingenuity. It is no part of my present purpose to explain and compare these more or less rival systems, but I may say generally that each has special merits of its own, which may cause it to be preferred by some librarians and for the purposes of some libraries. If, therefore, in the few remarks I am yet to make, I confine your attention to one system only, it is done in no disparagement to the others, but only because the conclusion has gradually forced itself upon me, that, on the whole, it is the best system for the reference department of a public library, and especially of that Public Library in which we are directly interested. The system I refer to is known as the Dewey system, having been brought to its present highly organised state mainly through the arduous and persistent efforts of Mr. Melvil Dewey, the eminent librarian of the State Library of New York.

The fundamental and most distinguishing feature of the system is that the number assigned to each book in the library, while it tells us whereabouts on the shelves a book is to be found, tells us also,

with more or less exactness and minuteness, according to circumstances, what the subject of the book is. For this purpose the whole library is sub-divided into nine special libraries or classes. These classes are called Philosophy, Religion, Sociology, Philology, Natural Science, Useful Arts, Fine Arts, Literature, History, and are numbered in the order just stated with the nine digits. Thus, class five is the library of Natural Science, class nine of History, and so forth; and any book whose number begins with 5 or 9 is at once known to be a work of Science or History. Each of these special libraries is then considered independently, and separated into 9 special divisions of the main subject, which are numbered from 1 to 9, as were the classes. Thus, the books belonging to the library of Natural Science, that is to say, books which, in the first place, get the number 5, get a second number added to them, according as they treat of Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Palæontology, Biology, Botany, Zoology; and any book, accordingly, whose number begins with 51, is known at once to be a mathematical book, while 53 indicates a book on physics. As our class divisions, however, are still rather comprehensive, yet another separation of their contents is made as before into nine sections. In this way we are enabled to separate the Mathematical books of the library into books on Arithmetic, on Algebra, on Geometry, &c., and books on Physics into books of Mechanics, of Hydraulics, of Optics, &c. If desirable, the process of sub-division might be carried still further. Thus, it might happen that our library might be particularly strong in works treating of Mechanics, making it desir able to separate them into those treating of (1) Pure Motion, (2) Statics, (3) Dynamics, Friction, &c. But, as I have already remarked, this question of minute and minuter sub-division is one that can be considered only in presence of the special circumstances to which it is proposed to be applied. But, as to the general character of the scheme, you will, I trust, be able, from the brief sketch I have just made, to understand at least its essential features, which are all that it is possible at the present moment to explain. Accordingly, when you see a book bearing the library number 513-11, you will know that that number has been assigned to it, not to mark that it is the 11th book on shelf 513, or the 11th book on shelf 3, section 1 of alcove 5, but that it is the 11th book in subject 513, that is to say, in geometry. And every book that is added to the library on that subject gets the same number-namely, 513, the

only varying numbers being those after the decimal point placed at the third figure, which indicate the order of addition to the library of the several works on any subject. As a result of this, the highest number indicates the book most recently got, as well as the total number of the books at the time on that one subject. In thus giving every book a fixed number, which at the same time tells us what it is about, we totally ignore the principle which might almost be said to have hitherto universally prevailed in libraries of numbering the shelves, and giving the books their numbers according to their positions on them. The inconveniences and worries of the latter system, especially in any library that is growing rapidly, are too well known to practical librarians to need any insistence. Great in proportion, accordingly, is the boon of a system which confers on a book a number which it can only change by changing its subject matter, which is affected by no fluctuations of growth or vicissitudes of habitation, and which is significant of much, or all, that is contained in the book. Provided with a shelf arrangement of this nature, instructive, fixed and definite, and yet indefinitely expansive, and possessed of a catalogue, such as has been described, at once specific and classed, any library, however small, has its capacity for helpful, useful service greatly multiplied. But, if the library is a large one, stored with the best literature of the past and of the present day, then, such a double system is indispensable, and in its possession the library is raised to an incalculable power for good. Let us hope that the day is not far distant when Aberdeen shall possess such a Public Library, and that from it, as from a central source, shall flow countless streams of knowledge.

April 6, 1891.-JAMES MOIR, M.A., LL.D., President,
in the Chair.

Rev. HENRY W. WRIGHT read a paper entitled "The Past and Present of Musical Art in Britain."

The Past and Present of Musical Art in Britain.
By Rev. HENRY W. WRIGHT.

We may, perhaps, have seen two German pictures in which the great musicians of the world are represented in groups. The first of the two contains portraits of those born in Germany. Sebastian Bach is playing the organ; Handel, with folded arms and circumambient wig, is looking on and listening. On the left Haydn is sitting, examining a score which Mozart is turning over for him; to the right the face of Beethoven meets us, meditative and severe; still further to the right are Mendelssohn, Schubert, and Schumann. In the foreground stand men of our own time-Wagner, Liszt, von Bülow; the less prominent spaces are filled with the heads of the Dii Minores of German music. In the second picture are grouped together musicians of other than German nationality. The gaunt, aggressive figure of Berlioz is in the front; behind him sits Rossini, the type of good-natured cynicism and indolence; ranged beside him are the heads of the French operatic school-Auber, Méhul, Boieldieu. To the left are the "inis" and "ettis," as Mendelssohn called them, of the Italian opera-Bellini, Donizetti, Cherubini, Cimarosa, and many another. If we are Britons, we look with some anxiety for the representatives of our native school of music. Probably it will be some time before our search meets with any success; but if we look carefully among the dimmer faces in the background, we shall find at length that four out of the eighty-eight in the picture are those of Englishmen-Henry Purcell, Henry Carey (now best known, perhaps, as the composer of "Sally in our Alley "), Burney, the historian of music, and Field, the first writer of nocturnes.

However humiliating may be the acknowledgment, I am afraid it must be admitted that this picture conveys a true impression of the place which, in the estimation of foreign critics, French and