By James Thayer Gerould,University of Missouri, Columbia.
The recent discussion of the departmental library system at the University of Chicago and the consequent restatement of the position of that university in reference to such libraries, together with the consideration of the problem in the annual reports of Dr. Canfield and Mr. Lane, have called up anew the question of the expediency of the system. Is the departmental library to be a permanent feature of the university library? Is the highest effectiveness of a library to be secured by a policy of decentralization?
The public library has answered the question, finally, it seems, in the affirmative. Do the arguments which have induced the public librarian to establish branches and delivery stations apply in the case of the university library? Is the university library of the future to be housed in a single building, or is it to be scattered about in class rooms and laboratories? To my mind, there is no more important question of administration before those of us who are trying to render the university library an efficient instrument of instruction than this.
With many librarians there is an element of necessity entering into the question. Mr. Lane is facing a condition where the library has altogether outgrown its building, and some place must be found where books can be stored and used. The situation is much the same in many other places. Shall the facilities of the library be enlarged by building or shall the books be transferred to the various departmental libraries? Mr. Lane, speaking for his own library, says of the latter alternative: "It would commit the library to an entirely different policy from what it has pursued hitherto, and such a change would be little short of a revolution for this library."
At the University of Missouri we are expecting in the near future to begin the construction of a library building, but, before adopting any definite plans, we are trying to work out the problems that have just been stated, and to make ourselves reasonably sure that we are right before we go ahead.
There are arguments enough on all sides of this question, of which Dr. Canfield says that it has not two sides only, but a dozen. We must premise that no two departments use their books in exactly the same way, and that, consequently, methods of administration must differ. It is generally for the advantage of all, for example, in a university where there is a law school, that the books on private law should be separated from the main collection and treated as a branch library. Similarly medicine, theology and possibly a few other subjects may be withdrawn and administered separately.
In some of our universities one or more of the departments are several miles away from the main body of the institution. It is obviously necessary that the books most used in those departments should be near enough so that the students can have access to them without too much inconvenience and loss of time. In the ordinary institution, however, most of the buildings are grouped in a comparatively small area, and it is seldom more than five minutes' walk from the most remote building to the library. In a condition such as this, and with the exceptions noted above, I am inclined to the opinion that the university is best served by a central library containing the main collection, and small, rigidly selected laboratory libraries comprising books which from their very nature are most useful in the laboratory as manuals of work.
The arguments generally advanced in favor of the system are these:
1. The instructor needs to be able to refer, at a moment's notice, to any book relating to his subject.
2. The system enables the instructor to keep a more careful watch over the reading of his students.
3. The best interests of the library demand that each division of the library shall be directly under the eye of the men most interested in it, that is to say, the instructors in the various departments; that they should direct its growth and watch over its interests.
That the first and second of these arguments have great weight cannot be denied, but with a properly constructed library building and most careful administration the requirements of both instructor and student can be met quite as well by a central system.
It is, of course, quite impossible for each instructor to have in his office all the books necessary for his work. The duplication necessary for this purpose would be impracticable even for the most wealthy university. He must, therefore, go from his office or class room to the department library and search for the book himself. With the confusion which generally reigns in a library of this sort, and with the lack of effective registration of loans, this is quite often a matter of some difficulty.
At Columbia University the office of each professor is in telephonic communication with the central library. When a book is wanted the library is notified by telephone, the book is found and sent out at once. Within ten minutes from the time that the request reaches the library the book is generally in the instructor's hands. He may lose two or three minutes' time, but the amount lost is more than compensated by the readiness with which others can use the books of the department, and by other advantages to be considered later. At Columbia, too, the system of stack study rooms provides in a very satisfactory way for the second objection. There, as many of you have seen, the stacks are distributed through a series of small rooms, the light side of which is supplied with tables and used for study rooms and for seminar purposes. If the instructor can use the departmental library for his work room, he can certainly use this room to as good advantage, forhere he has the entire collection and not a selected few of his books. I believe fully that an instructor who is sufficiently interested in the reading of his students to watch over it carefully in his departmental library, will find that he is able to keep just as close a relation to it, if his students are working in a central library. He may be obliged to make slight changes in his methods, but the result ought to be the same.
The third argument in favor of the departmental library system is of a different nature. Is the librarian or the professor best qualified to direct the growth and watch over the interests of the different departments of the library? So far as I know, this argument is given more consideration at Chicago than anywhere else. It may be true, in certain cases, that the professor has the greater qualification for this work, but when this is the case it argues that the professor is an exceptional one or that the university has been unfortunate in the selection of its librarian.
It is quite needless to say that the librarian should be in constant conference with the teaching force regarding purchases, but that he should delegate all of his powers of purchase in any given field, admits of the gravest doubt. Laude, in his recent work on the university library system of Germany, attributes a great deal of the success of those libraries to the fact that they are independent andautonomousinstitutions, enjoying a much greater measure of freedom than is accorded to any similar American institution. Too many professors are apt to buy books in their special field and slight other lines of research in their own subject. For example, a zoologist, who is doing research work along the lines of embryology, is very apt to overload the collection at that point and neglect other equally important lines.
Again, very few instructors, even granting them the qualifications necessary for the work, have the time or patience for it. If the amount appropriated to the department is at all large, a considerable portion of the sum is quite frequently unexpended at the end of the year. Some interesting tables, prepared by Mr. Winsor for his report for the year 1894-95, show that in seven selected departments the amount of books ordered, including continuations, was only about 50 per cent. of the appropriation, plus one quarter, the allowance for orders not filled. While this proportion would probably not hold good in all departments or in all places, it exhibits an almost uniform tendency and a tendency which must be corrected if a well-rounded out library is to be secured.
The system of departmental control is very sure to create a feeling of departmental ownership, a feeling that the books, bought out of the moneys appropriated to a particular library, should remain permanently in that library, and that any one from outside who wishes to use the books is more or less of an intruder. Pin any one of these men down, and they will admit that the books are for the use of all, but the feeling exists, notwithstanding, and is the cause of constant friction.
The departmental library renders the books difficult of access. If the library is large enough to warrant the setting apart of a separate room for its use, this room can seldom be open for as large a portion of the day as the central library, and when it is open the books cannot be obtained as readily by the great body of the students as if they were in a central building. Most students are working in several lines at once. They are compelled, by this system, to go from one room to another, and to accommodate themselves to differing hours of opening and to varying rules for the use of the books. Then, too, it frequently happens in the case of small libraries that the books are kept in the office of the head of the department, and can only be consulted when he is in his office and at liberty. The difficulty is here greatly increased. I know of cases where even the instructors in the same department have found difficulty in getting at the books, and the library was, in effect, a private library for the head professor, supported out of university funds. If instructors cannot use the books, how can the student be expected to do so?
There is a sentiment, false, perhaps, but nevertheless existing in the minds of many students, that any attempt to use the books under these circumstances is an endeavor to curry favor with the professor. This feelingdoes not exist in connection with the use of the books at a central library.
If a book in a departmental library is needed by a student in another department, he must either go to the department and put the custodian to the inconvenience of looking it up for him, or he must wait at the central library while a messenger goes for the book. His need of the book must be very pressing before he will do either.
If the different fields of knowledge were sharply defined, the departmental system might be a practicable one, but such is not the case. The psychologist needs books bearing on philosophy, sociology, zoology and physics, the sociologist gathers his data from almost the whole field of human knowledge, the economist must use books on history and the historian books on economics. The system hampers him exceedingly in the selection and use of his material, or it compels the university to purchase a large body of duplicate material, and restricts, by so much, the growth of the real resources of the library.
The system, it seems to me, induces narrowness of vision and a sort of specialization which is anything but scientific. Trending in the same direction is the separation of the books, in any given field, into two categories. The undergraduate may need some such selection, but any student who has gone beyond the elements of his subject should have at his command the entire resources of the library. The needs of the elementary student can be met by direct reference to certain books, or by setting aside the volumes required as special reference books and allowing free access to them.
A large amount of our most valuable material is found in the publications of scientific and literary societies and in periodicals. In many cases these must be kept at the central library. They will be much more frequently read if the readers are using the central library and availing themselves of the information given in the catalog.
From the administrative point of view, there is nothing impossible in the organization of the departmental system, provided that finances of the library admit of the increased expenditure. As Mr. Bishop has pointed out in a recent number of theLibrary Journal,the element of cost seems to have been utterly left out of consideration in the recent discussions at the University of Chicago. It is possible that, with the immense resources of that institution, they may be able to ignore that factor, but most of us are compelled to reduce administrative expenditures to the lowest point consistent with good work.
Aside from the cost of the duplication of books already noted, necessitated by the division of the books among the different departments, there are the items of space and labor to be considered. It needs no argument to show that there is a great economy of space gained by the consolidation of all libraries, with the exceptions previously referred to, into one central building. An entire room is frequently given up to a departmental library of three or four hundred volumes, when a few extra shelves and possibly a slight increase in the seating capacity of the reading room would accommodate it in the central library. The cost of maintenance, of heating and of lighting is also undoubtedly greater under the departmental arrangement.
The greatest increase in expense is, however, in the item of service. In order properly to control a branch of this sort, an employe of the library must be in constant attendance. The duties and responsibilities of such a position are so small that only the lowest paid grade of service can be employed with economy. The amount necessary to pay the salaries of such persons could, with much greater advantage to the whole institution, be used for the employment of a few specialists, highly trained in different lines, who would act as reference librarians in their respective fields. Our American libraries are, as a class, compared with those of foreign universities, singularly deficient in this quality of assistance. Sooner or later we must supply this lack, and every move which tends in another direction must be examined with care.
The university library exists for the whole university—all of it for the whole university. In an ideal condition, every book in it should be available, at a moment's notice, if it is not actually in use. This should be our aim, and it should be from this viewpoint that we should judge the efficiency of our administration and the value of any proposed change.
By William Warner Bishop,Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Graduate instruction and the degree of doctor of philosophy as its reward are not so novel and recent in America as to call for either explanation or definition. Neither are they so old as to require a history. Most of us can well remember when it became a common thing for American universities to have numerous candidates for the doctorate. At the present time there are several hundred students in our universities who are candidates for the doctor's degree and the number is increasing rapidly.
A degree implies a dissertation, or, as it is more commonly and less correctly termed, a thesis. I need not here express any opinion as to the merits or defects of these documents as a class. What I wish to speak of is their value to university and college libraries, and the difficulty of discovering what dissertations are produced annually, and, for reference libraries, of procuring them when discovered. I presume the librarian who knows the specialist's insatiate greed for dissertations,programmen,and small pamphlets generally will need no words of mine to bring home to him the need of procuring as many of these documents as he can. Whatever we may say in derogation of doctors' dissertations—and they have their faults—they at least represent long-continued and careful investigation under supposedly competent direction, and the specialist must have them.
It is a comparatively easy task to get him German and other foreign dissertations. The new ones are listed annually and the old ones load the shelves of the second-hand stores of Europe. But to find what is being produced here in this country is by no means a simple undertaking. And it behooves us, unless we tacitly admit that our American dissertations are not worth having, to take some steps toward bettering the present situation.
In order to ascertain the exact condition of things I have selected fifteen representative institutions which confer the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and have studied their requirements and conducted some correspondence with their librarians. These institutions have been selected purely as representing various geographical and educational conditions, and omissions from the list are not to be takenin malam partem. They are: (1) Brown, (2) Bryn Mawr, (3) California, (4) Chicago, (5) Columbia, (6) Cornell, (7) Harvard, (8) Johns Hopkins, (9) Michigan, (10) Nebraska, (11) Pennsylvania, (12) Princeton, (13) Stanford, (14) Wisconsin, and (15) Yale.
The majority of these universities require that before the degree is conferred the thesis shall be printed and a fixed number of copies, ranging from 50 to 250, shall be deposited with some officer of the university or in the library. The statistics are as follows:
California requires 150 copies.
Chicago requires 100 copies. "Accepted theses become the property of the university."
Columbia requires 150 copies.
Cornell requires 50 copies.
Michigan requires 150 copies.
Nebraska requires 150 copies.
Pennsylvania requires 250 copies.
Stanford requires 100 copies.
Wisconsin requires 100 copies.
Two institutions, Bryn Mawr and Princeton, require the printing of the thesis, but make no requirement, so far as can be ascertained from the catalogs, that there shall be any deposit of copies.
Johns Hopkins and Pennsylvania allow the thesis to be either written or printed; if printed, Johns Hopkins requires the deposit of 150 copies, Pennsylvania of 250, except under certain conditions which will appear later.
Brown makes no requirement for depositor for printing. Harvard provides that one copy either printed or written must be deposited in the library. Yale requires that the "thesis must be deposited at the library for public inspection not later than May 1st" of the year in which the candidate expects to receive the degree.
Of these universities two only, Brown and California, print the titles of theses in the university catalog.
The foregoing statements are taken from the annual catalogs for 1899-1900 of the universities named, except in the case of Pennsylvania, where the statement made in the catalog is supplemented from a letter received from the Dean.
Although I presumed that most of the copies deposited in the libraries of the universities were used for exchange, I wrote to the librarians of those universities which require the deposit of a number of printed copies, making inquiry regarding their systems of exchange and provisions for the sale of copies not exchanged. I received replies from almost all. [These letters were read, the common condition being shown to be that most of the copies received by the libraries were exchanged with foreign institutions and other American universities. Varying conditions ranging from a refusal to sell any copies to a free distribution of copies not exchanged, was found to exist with regard to sale of theses by the libraries.]
It will be seen from these replies that, if a library does not happen to be on the exchange list of the university in which a thesis is written, and if the thesis is not printed in some journal or in the proceedings of some learned society, such a library stands very little chance either of learning of the publication of a thesis or of procuring it from the author or from the university. That this is not much of an affliction in most cases I cheerfully admit. Still the small colleges which deliberately refuse to attempt graduate work—and, be it said to their honor, there are not a few of these—and the large reference libraries which do not publish, have as much need of certain theses as the large universities, and they have no means of getting them easily.
It appears to me, and I trust to you, that, if our American dissertations are worth anything, if they are valuable enough to preserve, if they are real contributions to knowledge—and I believe that they are all of these—then it is worth while to secure the publication of some list which will tell librarians and specialists where to go to get copies, either from the author or from the university. It should not be difficult to secure co-operation in this matter. The number of theses printed and deposited in any one university in any one year is not large, and it certainly would not be a burden of alarming proportions to send titles to some central bureau. The difficulty will be to secure an editor and the funds for publishing the list. It would seem to me that some one of the large institutions whose libraries publish bulletins and other matter, or possibly the Library of Congress might assume the expense as a matter of patriotic service to learning in the United States. And it might not be out of place for this section, should it care to follow up the matter, to enter into communication with them on the subject. It might be also, that some enterprising publisher would be glad to undertake the task of both editing and publishing, if it could be shown him that he would thus do a favor to American libraries.
One final word should be said before closing. The inevitable delays incident to the publication of such a list would be more than offset by the delays in publishing theses. Many a man is called "Doctor" who has never received his diploma for that degree because his thesis remains unpublished. The laxity in this matter in some quarters is very great. It may be that such a publication of titles as I have proposed might perceptibly hasten the publication of theses.
By Gratia Countryman,Minneapolis (Minn.) Public Library.
If I were to sum up in these short moments the opportunities which lie before library workers, it would have to be an epitome of all that has been said at this conference and all previous conferences, and of all that has been written on library extension and influence. Even then the opportunity which lies before you might not even be mentioned.
I will not even try to enumerate the almost endless ways in which library usefulness may express itself, for these various ways are, after all, only different directions in which to use our one great opportunity of service to mankind.
May we not think of a library as a dynamic force in the community, to be used for lifting the common level. There are so many forces at work in the nation pulling down and scattering; but the hundreds of large and small libraries dotted over the country stand for social regeneration, stand for the building up and perfecting of human society, stand for the joy and happiness of individual lives. And no matter how limited seems our own small field, it is a piece of the great domain of helpful activity.
It is not always easy, after a hard and tiresome day of small and perplexing duties, to see beyond our wall of weariness. Yet nothing is more restful than to feel that we are contributing our part to a great work, and that we, in our place, are a part of one of the great building-up movements of the century.
I will not soon forget what Mr. Lane said in his president's address at the Atlanta conference. I would like to quote largely, but this sentence serves. He said: "What a privilege that we are always free to place ourselves at the service of another. Most professions are so engrossed by their own work that they have no time to serve the needs of others, but it is thebusinessof the librarian to serve. He is paid for knowing how."
It is peculiarly true that the librarian's business is to put himself and the library under his custody at the complete disposal of the people. It is hisbusinessto watch their interests and to think in advance for their needs.
The librarian must have, in Mrs. Browning's words,
"... both head and heart;Both active, both complete and both in earnest."
"... both head and heart;Both active, both complete and both in earnest."
Our opportunities, then, are not something which lie to one side, to be especially thought of, but are the very heart of our business—of our profession.
I have been wondering if there is not an element of discouragement to the librarian of the small library, in such a conference as this, or even to us who fill subordinate places in large libraries. We get so many new ideas, we get so many plans which other libraries are putting into operation. We know we cannot put them into practice, we know well enough that we shall go home and do just what we have been doing, with small quarters, with cramped revenues, with possibly unsympathetic trustees who take unkindly to our new-born enthusiasm. There seems to be the possibility of so much, but the opportunity for doing so little, and then our limitations seem more apparent than our opportunities. The assistant in the larger library says, "I wish I could be the librarian of a small library, they have so much better an opportunity for coming into close contact with the people," and the librarian of the little library who does her own accessioning, cataloging, record keeping, charging, reference work, etc., with one brain and one pair of hands, says, "Oh, if we were only a little larger library, with more money, and with more help, I might do so many things that other libraries do."
Carlyle says, "Not what I have, but what I do, is my kingdom," and I take that to mean in library work that my opportunity is not what I could do if I held some other position in some other library, but what I can do under present conditions with present means. Success does not lie with those who continually wish for something they haven't got, but with those who do the best possible thing with the things they have. "It is not so much the ship as the skilful sailing that assures a prosperous voyage." It is not so much a great collection of books and a fine technical organization as the personal character of the man or woman who stands as a bridge between the books and the people. Your opportunity and mine does not lie in our circumstances, but in ourselves, and in our ability to see and to grasp the coveted opportunity. We are reminded of the pious darkey who prayed every night just before Christmas, "Dear Lord, send dis darkey a turkey." Christmas came dangerously near, and there was no prospect of a turkey. So the night before Christmas he grew desperate, and prayed, "Dear Lord, send dis darkey to a turkey." That night the turkey came. Even so it is with our opportunities.
There are three classes of people toward whom the library has a special mission: the children, the foreigner, and the working classes.
1. As to the children, we have been hearing considerably about them in this conference. Mr. Hutchins in the Wisconsin meeting said that a good book did more good in a country boy's home than in the city boy's. When the country boy takes a book home he and all his family devour it, but the town boy reads his book and exchanges it, and no one in the house perhaps even knows that he has read it. Well, that is a subject for thought. If his family or teachers do not watch his reading, it becomes a serious thing for the librarian who chooses and buys his books for him. Perhaps the library is not large enough to have a children's department or to send books into the schools, or to do any specialized children's work, but it can make judicious selection of books, and being small can know individual cases among the children. It is not so hard to find out the children one by one who need some care and interest, to learn their names and to find out something about their families. They say that letters cut lightly in the bark of a sapling show even more plainly in the grown tree. A boy whom no one has reached comes into your library. By a little watchful care he reads some wonderful life, learns some of the marvellous forces in God's creation, opens his eyes to the glowing sunsets or to the springing blades of grass; suddenly knows the dignity of human nature and his own growing self. His aspirations are born, his ambition is awakened, his life is changed. Library records have not one, but many such cases.
The home library is a method of reaching children which is not used enough by the smaller libraries. Branches and stations may not be practicable, but a group of 15 to 25 books taken into sections of a town by some friendly woman, on the plan of the home libraries, could be carried out in almost any town. The librarian might not have time, but she could find people who would do it, if she set the work to going.
2. As to the foreigners, Europe has used us for a dumping ground for considerable moral and political refuse. We have the problem of making good citizens out of much wretched material, and next to the children there is no greater opportunity for the library. Even the smallest library ought to study ways and means of getting at the foreign element. It would almost pay to make a canvass of the town, to see that these people are reached and that they know about the library. If books in their own language are necessary to draw them, then it is the best investment you can make.
3. But in reality the library does its great work among the mass of common working people. It is the quiet side which makes no showing, but it has always been the telling side. From the common people spring most of our readers. They do our work, they fight our battles, they need our inspiration. For them you make your libraries attractive, for them you make careful selections of books—the student does not need your pains—for their sake you identify yourself with every local interest. You fix your hours for opening and closing to accommodate these working people. You make your rules and regulations just as elastic as possible, that they may not be debarred from any privilege. They do not ask favors, but after all this great mass of common people whose lives are more or less barren and empty are the ones to which the library caters in a quiet, unadvertised way. It is the great opportunity which we scarcelythink of as an opportunity at all. It is just the daily routine. Millions of people know little more than a mechanical life, what they shall eat, drink and wear. Many can touch their horizons all around with a sweep of their hands, so narrow is their circle. They live in the basements of their spiritual temples, and never rise to the level of their best ability. They have no joy of life, of abundant life. The library performs a great service to society when it has furnished information to the people, when it has been an educational factor, but it has performed a greater one when it has awakened a man and put him into possession of his own powers.
Well, this is not a very specific setting forth of the ways in which we can extend the work of a small library. The way must vary greatly with the conditions, but the spirit of the work runs through all conditions. If I should name the qualifications of a good librarian, I would give them in the following order, according to importance:
1. Genuine character, with broad natural sympathies.
2. Courteous, kindly manners.
3. Education, general and technical.
Any such librarian, with only a fairly equipped library, will find her opportunity at her hand.
By G. E. Wire, M.D., LL.B.,Worcester County (Mass.) Law Library.
1.Books and pictures should be suited to the constituency.—This may seem so trite, so self-evident as to need no statement, much less any argument to support it. But on sober second thought, all will agree that it needs constant reiteration and appreciation. All of us are familiar with libraries—of course not our own—in which we detect glaring inconsistencies in book selection. The story used to be told of one library commission that in its first epoch it used to send the books on agriculture to the sea-coast, and books on fish curing to the hill country. This is now strenuously denied but there may be more truth than poetry in it after all.
In the case of large, 50,000 v. libraries and over, less care need be taken, both on account of expenditure of money and on account of worthlessness of the book itself. A few hundred dollars' worth of rubbish, more or less, does not count and almost any book no matter how poor comes in use some time. But in the case of the small, 5000 v. library or under, with little money to expend and the whole realm of knowledge to cover, it is different. Of course the covering will be scanty and thin, but it will do for the first layer. They should buy but few books in philosophy and religion, more in sociology, only the latest and most popular in the arts and sciences, comparatively fewer in literature and more in history, biography and travel.
Of course fiction, adult and juvenile, must also be bought and at first a disproportionately larger amount in many cases. Too much reliance should not be placed on what some larger library has or on what the neighboring library has.
Avoid imitation and duplication, especially the latter. Now that inter-library loans are coming in, each small library in the more thickly settled portions of the country may be able to supplement its neighbor. Travelling libraries should also help out the smaller libraries which can ill afford to sink a large part of their annual book-fund in evanescent fiction, which soon moulds on the shelves.
As the commissions become better organized, they should also be able to send expensive reference works for the use of study clubs, and so help the small libraries all the more.
The needs of the constituency should be carefully studied and the most pressing should be attended to at first, others can wait. As to buying technical books for those engaged in manufacturing, I think a more conservative policy is now favored. Better wait a while and feel your way before spending much on these high priced books which rapidly go out of date. Theoretically the operatives of a cotton mill should be much interested in all that relates to cotton, but practically when their hours of drudgery are over they aremore inclined to a novel, if inclined to read anything. And how much encouragement have they to read in most factories? Better begin with the owners, who may be on your board, or the superintendent, who may live on your street. As liberal purchases as possible should be made in reference books—always selecting the latest and freshest to start on. For example Seyffert's "Antiquities," Bulfinch's "Age of fable," and Murray's "Mythology" will serve better than Smith's books, now out of date and expensive beyond all return for the money invested in them. More will be said along this line under head of cost. Of course in a library of this size, no foreign books should be bought other than perhaps some fiction.
I thoroughly believe in America for Americans. Foreigners would not buy our books under the same circumstances and why should we buy theirs? Reciprocity is good policy. Even in the case of English books most of those on geology, botany, zoology, on fishing and hunting, are valueless to us, by reason of climatic, or other local conditions. Their local history and antiquities are quite as unprofitable for most of our public libraries.
2.As to the matter of outside experts.—Most of us have seen bad examples of the work of outside experts, in fact I think we are safe in saying there are more bad than good examples. In the case of arts and sciences it is quite the fashion to refer the book list to the nearest high school or college professor, with the idea that in his line he knows all there is to be known about these books. In some cases he is practically givencarte blancheand his selection is bought without a murmur. The natural consequence is that in many libraries are to be found high priced technical works of momentary interest, fit only for class-room or laboratory use, too deep for general reading and soon out of date. Most of these so-called experts are not even competent to select works for their own department, let alone the public library.
Personal bias, the quarrels of investigators, loyalty to instructors, jealousy of other workers in the same lines are powerful factors which far outweigh the question of real merit. In New England many of the libraries are overloaded with good, blue, orthodox theology, bought on the suggestion and for the sole use of the dominie who was on the library committee. It was a glorious opportunity for him and it has rarely been neglected. These libraries are now really addicted to this habit; it has become a species of intoxication with them and they continue the pernicious practice.
3.Choice by committee.—One of the latest fads is selection by voting or by committee. This usually results in a mediocre selection, all the really good books or pictures being left out, or else a preponderance of votes for a few favorites. Voting choice is seen in the list of books sent out each year from New York State Library as a result of voting by members of the New York State Library Association. This is a list of the 50 best books for a village library from a list of 500 books, including fiction, adult and juvenile. Of course fiction takes a large per cent., while the remaining few books make a most patchy lot. The first list is too large and the last list is too small. Another publication by the Regents of the State of New York is a list of pictures for schools—not so much selected as neglected by a jury of 75 persons. Between religious prejudice, prudishness, peace policy and finical art criticism only the husks of architecture and stately ruins are left for the youths of the Empire State to gaze upon. Think of leaving out the "Sistine Madonna," "1807," "Christ in the Temple," "Queen Louise" and the "Horse fair." Some of these were omitted in cold blood because they were "poor and popular" and "pupils would like them and should not." Most of us, however, have gotten beyond the idea of trying to make people read George Eliot when they want Mary Jane Holmes. Nothing I have seen in the nature of criticism is so cold, hard and repelling as this. It is to be hoped no other state will follow this example, but that is just the perniciousness of such lists made out by people who are supposed to be experts, but who too often fail worse than common mortals. This whole matter of selection by committee is virtually begging the question of individual responsibility.
4.Choice by librarian experts.—This seems to be the most satisfactory solution of the problem. It is true that many if not mostof the existing small (5000-10,000) libraries have not or can not afford a trained librarian. But it is also true that more and more are employing trained people as organizers and an increasing number are retaining their organizer as librarian. It is their study and their business to know what books are best suited to the needs of the community. Even should we go beyond that into the larger public library, the reference library or the college library I still hold that the librarian is the best judge of books for the library. His taste is sure to be more catholic, wholly unbiassed and he makes a more even and better rounded selection on the whole. In the small public library he is able to carefully study the constituency and then knowing what books are standard in other places he makes the necessary allowances for the case in hand. The time has, I trust, wholly gone by when the local editor, local clergyman, and local schoolmaster have the pleasure of picking out their favorite books, or of ordering "standard sets" or the "classics" in history and literature at the public expense. Most of these books are on the shelves to-day faded but not worn, the leaves not even cut and usually only the first volume slightly used.
Of course books in useful art and sciences were largely overlooked. Nowadays library committees are turning more and more to the librarian, knowing that he has made a study of book selection and that they will get better results to leave it with him. This is as it should be and the librarian should not lower himself by going outside for assistance on any line. I count it as slipshod and a confession of ignorance for any librarian to tag around after outside "experts." Let him study up his subject and master it himself. There are only a few in which he cannot easily surpass outsiders, and profiting by his knowledge of the many, which enables him to do that part quickly and easily, let him pay more attention to the hard and less familiar subjects. The librarian who delights in religion, philosophy or folklore says of lists on biology, botany, steam-engineering or sanitation—"I leave all that to Professor So and So—of course he knows all about it." Why should he, more than the librarian? What is the librarian for, if not to know things? Is it not time to turn from the material things and concern ourselves more with a higher standard of scholarship and more outside work in our profession? And for the small libraries of 5000 v. or under there are the library commissions who are supposed to, and do, advise them. There is difference with the commissions, some are in closer touch with the local situation than others, some are more conscientious than others about costly books, and some are given to this "expert" business which I have named, but on the whole they are doing good work and bid fair to do better.
5.Matter of cost.—This should be carefully considered. I hold it to be little short of criminal to recommend high priced books for libraries of limited means. By high priced books I mean those costing over $5 a volume. This of course does not apply to reference books. And yet in one annual list such books constantly appear, as not only suggestions but, considering the source, as recommendations or even commands. I am thankful the Wisconsin Library Commission has taken up this work systematically and is doing all it can to discourage such foolish waste of money. The worst example is the "Encyclopædia Britannica" now from 25 to 10 years behind the times and never a satisfactory book of reference at its best. Take De Bry's "Mycetazoa," it stands on the shelves of dozens of libraries, leaves uncut, totally unused, each copy meaning at least four dollars wasted money. These are only given as an example—there might be hundreds of them. There are scores of books now published and more coming out every day on various questions of philosophy, sociology, science, art and particularly literature and history priced from $1 to $2.50 which are far superior for practical purposes to the heavy weight monographs at $5 a volume and upwards. You thus get two or three books on the same subject for the money, and in a small library this is a vital question. The money must bring in the largest possible number of good books.
By Caroline M. Hewins,Hartford (Ct.) Public Library.
A children's librarian has three sources of reliance in the choice or purchase of books. They are: 1, Book reviews in current or earlier periodicals; 2, Lists, graded or ungraded, for libraries; 3, Articles on children's reading in books or periodicals.
1. The children's librarian, or any librarian, who orders children's books from reviews often finds the books entirely different from what the description has led her to suppose. Even if there is no positive untruth in a notice, it is often misleading from the lack of a standard of comparison with the best books for children.
The papers oftenest taken in a country household or small library are a daily or semi-weekly from the nearest large town or city, a religious weekly, and an agricultural weekly or monthly, sometimes all three, oftener only one or two, and it is from the notices and advertisements with quoted notices in these papers that estimates of books must often be formed. Libraries and library trustees who send book lists from such sources as these to a state public library commission are often surprised that they do not receive what they ask for, and write anxious inquiries as to why certain books have not been bought. "There surely can be no objection to them," they say, "for we took the titles from reviews in the —— or —— or ——," naming denominational papers. Now, lest the Children's Section should be accused of unfairness and denominational prejudices, I shall quote no reviews from these papers, except one which came from a leading religious weekly taken by the household in whose pew I have a seat. It is of Eden Phillpotts' "Human boy," a series of sketches of English schoolboy life, which is dismissed with this remarkable sentence: "The scene here, too, is in the west, and various hunting experiences are recorded." The librarian who orders that book for boys greedy for big game will be disappointed!
Such a mistake as this is not common, but reviews in both religious and secular papers are often perfunctory and meaningless. One reason of this is that many books are published for the Christmas trade, between the 15th of September and the 15th of December, when they come into newspaper offices with a rush, until they are piled in stacks on the desk of the hapless reviewer, and hastily noticed, sometimes by title only. In a new edition of Elizabeth Sheppard's fine, but forgotten novel, "Rumour," whose keynote is the quotation from "Lycidas" on the title-page,