By ROLLAND E. STEVENS

Loss of and Ownership Marks

HE MECHANICAL processing of books is most do agree on the use of - Ta topic to which little attention has plates affixed to the inside of the front cover.1 been paid in the formal literature of li- In order to assemble data concerning brarianship. By "mechanical processing" the practices at large universities and re- is meant accessioning, affixing of book- search libraries, a questionnaire was plates, book pockets, and date due slips, mailed to the heads of technical services ink stamping, embossing or perforating at 19 libraries, each containing approxi- the library name, inserting secret identify- mately one million volumes and spend- ing marks on designated pages, and label- ing more than $175,000 for books, peri- ing. odicals, and binding. This constituted the While the absence of this topic from group called together at the ALA mid- library literature possibly indicates that winter meeting of 1956 by Robert H. the matter is not thought to be of suffi- Muller for informal discussion of mutual cient importance to warrant public dis- problems. Primarily, the questionnaire cussion, of the issues involved would be was concerned with use of library owner- of value. Tauber has noted ship marks in bound and unbound mate- The use of ownership marks is controver- rial, microfilm, microcards and micro- sial, not because any library believes that they print. Two of the 19 libraries regularly can be abandoned, but rather because there is use a rubber stamp on the inside of the no universal agreement as to what ownership front cover, reserving the bookplate for marks are effective or how they are to be ap- gifts, books purchased on endowed funds, plied. There is considerable evidence in some and other exceptional volumes. The library collections to support Adam's conten- other 17 libraries regularly use a book- tion that librarians are enemies of books, and plate on the inside cover of bound books. many cases of book mutilation have resulted Exceptions are made by some of these for from overzealous efforts by librarians to indi- rare books, pamphlets, and books which cate ownership permanently. Edge-stamping, are bound or rebound for the library. rubber stamp markings within the book, per- The rubber stamp is commonly used in forations, embossing, and bookplates have all been used. Stamping and perforating are the pamphlets in lieu of a bookplate. Some techniques to which most objection has been libraries use an end paper bearing the li- raised, particularly since these do most to dis- brary seal in books which they bind or figure the text or its illustrations. In almost rebind, omitting the bookplate. Six li- any library examples can be found of hand- braries either emboss or perforate each some plates that have been disfigured by per- book, usually on the title page, in addi- forations or rubber stamps. Since there is no tion to inserting a plate. Two others use evidence to show that such ownership marks the rubber stamp on the verso of the title contribute materially to any reduction in page, and one stamps the book edge if losses through theft, modern library practice sufficiently thick. tends to limit the use of ownership marking considerably. Almost all that can be said at For the identification of microfilm, only present concerning standard practice is that six of the libraries mark the leader with the library's initials and call number, one Dr. Stevens is assistant director of li- simply by clipping a paper label to the braries, technical services, Ohio State 1 Maurice F. Tauber, Technical Services in Libraries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), p. University. 243-44.

NOV EMBER, 1956 493 film. Thirteen libraries mark only the Books were also chained to fixed furni- box containing the microfilm. The li- ture in order to reduce loss. brary name is usually part of the target In modern times, with the mass pro- when microfilming is done locally. Eight duction of books and with the modern libraries put no ownership stamp on relaxation of library lending regulations, either microcards or microprint. Nine the temptation to remove books illegally stamp the verso of microcards, but ap- from the library no longer exists to the parently do not stamp the verso of micro- same extent as formerly. The chain and print cards. Two of these are considering curse have given way to the bookplate, stamping the verso of microprint cards rubber stamp, embossed seal, and other also. Two libraries report that the prob- marks, for the protection of books against lem of stamping microcards and micro- theft and loss. A number of ways in which print is under consideration, but that these devices can be effective may be list- they have not yet reached a conclusion. ed: (1) To facilitate the checking of books The use of library ownership marks is by a guard stationed within the library associated with the problem of loss of door, if this checking system is adopted books. Loss may be attributed to two gen- by the library; (2) To deter readers from eral causes. On the one hand, there is taking books past the library guard with- loss due to accident, misplacing, and care- out following the proper loan procedure; lessness. On the other hand, some loss (3) To assist the home reader in distin- must be attributed to intentional theft, guishing library books from his own; (4) although the thief often considers that he To remind the absent-minded borrower is merely borrowing without going to return books to the library; (5) To aid through the usual procedure, and intends in the recovery of stolen books through the use of identifying marks to prove to return the item when his need has been ownership; and (6) To aid in the return satisfied. Several factors seem to be in- of lost books by the identification of the volved in library theft, such as the rarity owner to the finder. and consequent attractiveenss of a book or manuscript, the degree to which it may Let us assume that some type of library be borrowed within library regulations," ownership mark is necessary and desira- the ease with which another copy may be ble. The intemperate use of multiple acquired, and conversely the difficulty, ownership marks requires extra time in danger, and possible punishment risked the processing operations, adds to the risk in stealing it. Before the invention of of mutilation through applying the , and up to the development of marks, and makes psychological implica- mass methods, books were tions to the honest borrower that the li- considerably more rare and of greater brary is overly fearful of losing its books value than are most modern books. and that the library is indirectly imputing Hence, the temptation to hide even bulky base motives to every potential borrower. volumes under his cloak, in the attempt The problem is, therefore, to avoid the to remove them surreptitiously from the use of multiple identifying marks un- library, was sometimes too much for the necessarily. cleric or lay scholar. In medieval libraries The different identifying marks in cur- loss of books from theft was not uncom- rent use for bound and unbound volumes mon, and some measure of protection was fall into four general types. These, to- found in the insertion in the book itself gether with a brief examination of the of a curse against any potential thief.2 usefulness of each, are as follows: 2 Lawrence S. Thompson, "Notes on Biblioklepto- 1. Bookplate or ink stamp on or near mania," Bulletin of the New York Public Library, XLVIII (1944), 731. Cf. also Thompson, "A Cursory the inside of the front cover. On books Survey of Maledictions," Bulletin of the New York Public Library, LVI (1952), 55-75. bound or rebound by the library, an

494 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES identifying end paper might be used in marks will soon be known to most bor- lieu of a bookplate. Any one of these rowers when these locations are repeated- marks will adequately serve each of the ly checked by guards. If the location is five purposes of the ownership mark list- indeed hidden to all but the initiated on ed above, provided that it remains intact. the library staff, then such marks cannot If carefully and tastefully inserted, the aid in any of the loss prevention func- bookplate and special end paper also tions listed above, except proof of owner- have the advantage of enhancing the ship. beauty of the book, rather than muti- The identifying marks examined in the lating it. preceding paragraphs are used on bound 2. Call number. While not generally and unbound materials. For special ma- considered a mark of ownership, the call terials such as microfilms, microcards, and number, inscribed or stamped on the microprint, the use of ownership marks is lower part of the spine of the book, is fre- necessarily restricted. Microfilms can be quently used as a quick means of identi- marked on the leader by electric stylus or fying library copies of books. It will usu- perforation. Microcards or microprint ally serve any of the first three purposes must be rubber stamped on the verso of listed above. The library imprint, each card, always with the possible conse- stamped on the spine of books bound or quence of having the ink smear on the rebound by the library, serves the same face of an adjacent card. Usually they are purposes. housed in a restricted location, or under 3. Embossed seal or perforated initials close supervision, and either do not circu- on the title page. When used, this mark is late or are lent only to libraries. Since usually affixed in addition to a bookplate. they can be used only with a special read- The only advantage these marks have ing machine, they are not subject to the over the bookplate and other marks in same opportunities for loss as are printed Group 1 is that they are more difficult to books. remove. However, any book thief worth The conclusion of this brief examina- his salt can easily remove an embossed tion of the use of library ownership marks seal so as to escape normal detection.3 is that the bookplate alone will serve all Certainly there is no need to use the per- functions for which ownership marks are forated or embossed mark in addition to devised. The call number, which will be the bookplate. If the added protection of used for other purposes, will also aid in the perforated mark is wanted, then the identification. The bookplate, or end pa- bookplate may well be omitted. pers bearing the library seal, when care- 4. Some hidden or secret mark on one fully used, can add to the attractiveness or more coded pages. This is intended to of a book rather than mutilating it. The be unobserved by the borrower, and only instance in which it is insufficient hence also to the finder if the book is lost, to prevent loss of books is in theft, when but serves as an identifying mark by the thief covers up his crime by easily re- which the library could prove its owner- moving the plate. But the object of theft ship. These code marks probably serve no is usually the rare book or manuscript, to useful function, except that of enabling which the alternative marks by emboss- the library to furnish proof of its owner- ing, perforating, or rubber stamping are ship in legal action. Conceivably they rarely applied. Furthermore, with the ex- could also help the library guards in ception of a perforated mark, these can checking on the removal of library books, also be removed by the thief with little except that the secret location of these more difficulty. The obvious means of protection for rare books and manu- 3 Thomas M. Johnson, "Catching the Book Crooks," scripts lie in careful housing arid super- Saturday Review, July 24, 19S4, p. 6-7 + .

NOVEMBER, 1956 495 vision, rather than in so marking the each of these special classes of material that it can be identified after lie in two questions: Does an ownership theft.4 mark serve in any way to reduce possible In the separate housing of rare books loss of the material? Is the time involved under close supervision, and in the re- in applying marks of ownership, and stricted loan regulations applying to other disadvantages, in any way commen- them, they may be considered in a special surate with the amount by which loss may class, like microfilm, microcards, and mi- be reduced? Unless the material is avail- croprint. Unless unusual loan practices able for use outside the library, or is of or other conditions warrant the use of an sufficient value to encourage theft, the ownership mark, it would seem unneces- application of ownership marks probably sary to mark these materials. Depending cannot be justified. on the local loan regulations and other The elimination of unnecessary owner- conditions, phonorecords, scores, maps, ship marks is undertaken as much in the plates, and other unbound materials interest of economy of operation as in the might also best be left unmarked. The protection of books from mutilation. A two criteria to be applied in regard to program based on numerous rules and re- 4 The Library of Congress has recently decided (In- formation Bulletin, XV (1956), 243-44) to stamp its quiring a separate decision for the proc- manuscripts "with a small Library of Congress seal imprinted in a pale red ink." This decision was the essing of each volume would defeat its consequence of a theft of certain valuable manuscripts, own purpose. The program should be which were recovered after a bookdealer in Philadel- phia had reported the offer of some manuscripts under streamlined in its operation as well as in unusual circumstances. Another measure following the theft was the addition of a guard in the Manuscripts its use of different marks of ownership. A Room, besides the guards regularly stationed at the library exits. The decision to stamp all manu- normal routine of processing books and scripts was made only after a careful study of avail- able inks, in order to find one that would be both per- serials should be adopted, involving the manent and transparent. The use of the ink stamp seems to me to be an extreme measure, and one of doubtful fewest rules consistent with adequate pro- efficacy. The recently stolen manuscripts were recov- ered even though they were not stamped. It would be an tection. Exceptions to this routine should unimaginative thief, or at least an unambitious one, be held to a minimum, and these should who could not remove any ink stamp which did not touch the text. The superior protection of valuable be readily identifiable by those engaged documents would seem to be the careful issuing and checking of documents before and after each use. in the processing operations.

Council on Library Resources, Inc.

(Continued from page 473)

systems, modern developments in printing less repetition of the experiments of its an- and duplication, mechanical translation, and cestors. various devices for mechanizing the processes This is true even for the laboratory sci- of information storage and retrieval—might ences. Although the individual laboratory produce very rewarding results for both li- scientist may not himself make much use of braries and their users. the great libraries, yet the critical tables, the compendia, the abstracting services and the Importance of Libraries literature surveys which make his laboratory research profitable have all been made pos- Libraries constitute in a very real sense the sible by libraries. Meanwhile, for the non- communal memory of mankind. They are laboratory sciences—history, law, and the charged with maintaining the organized rec- other humanities and social sciences—the li- ord of human experience. Having access to brary serves to a large extent as the "labora- this record, mankind can progress; lacking it, tory," where books replace test-tubes and for- each generation would be condemned to end- maldehyded frogs.

496 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES