Download This PDF File

By ROLLAND E. STEVENS Loss of Books and Library Ownership Marks HE MECHANICAL processing of books is most libraries do agree on the use of book- 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 printing, and up to the development of marks, and makes psychological implica- mass publishing 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.

Load more