50th ~nniversary Feature-

Yesterday's Heresy­ Today' s Orthodoxy: An Essay on the Changing Face of Descriptive Cataloging Michael Gorman This article analyses four descriptive cataloging orthodoxies of the past-corporate authorship, uniform personal headings, the main entry, and the dominance of the card catalog-and con­ tends that each has been overthrown, overtly or covertly. It contrasts the views of Cutter and Panizzi, mostly in the latter's favor, and alludes to the pronouncements of nineteenth and twentieth century luminaries and committees on the matters under discussion. The ways in which the MARC format has influenced descriptive cataloging, for good and ill, are also treated. The article closes with a plea for reason and the application of utilitarian principles.

rthodoxy is my doxy; hetero­ others, have changed some of my opin­ doxy is another man's doxy," ions and have seen some other opinions said Bishop Warburton to Lord move from the fringes to embodiment in Sandwich. Descriptive catalog­ the very codes that regulate the largest ing, that pleasant backwater of human en­ and most influential body of descriptive deavor, is as subject to the kind of situa­ cataloging-that of the Anglo-American tional ethics that the eighteenth century tradition. divine had in mind as is any other area of I seek in this essay to describe some of human thought. The good bishop thought the changes that have occurred in descrip­ of opinions and dogmas in terms of the tive cataloging of the Anglo-American tra­ frailties of the flesh ("doxy: a loose dition in the last fifty years. The most re­ wench ... sometimes: MISTRESS," Web­ markable features of those changes are the ster's Third New International Dictionary), way in which seemingly impregnable bas­ which tells us a good deal about the Angli­ tions of orthodoxy have been revealed to can Church in the bad old days. I think it is be as transient as sand castles and the way as valid to think about orthodoxies and in which, on some occasions, the guard­ heresy in terms of chronology. In the last ians of the descriptive cataloging estab­ thirty years, we who are involved in de­ lishment (the national libraries, the library scriptive cataloging have seen heresies be­ associations, IFLA, and the rest) have come dogmas and wild speculations be­ proved to be as nimble as adagio dancers come received opinions. I, as have many in adapting to the accommodation of pre-

Michael Connan is Dean of Library Services at California State University, Fresno, California 93740. This paper is a revised version of an essay which is part of a festschrift in honour of Peter Lewis, the recently retired Director-General of the Bibliographic Services Division of the British Library. The festschrift, Eating the Menus, edited by Ross Bourne, was published by the British Library in 1989.

626 Yesterday's Heresy 627

viously abhorrent ideas. was needed was a dose of common sense to challenge the central idiocy of corporate CORPORATE AUTHORSHIP authorship. Corporate authorship is as good a place Cometh the hour, cometh the man (or to begin as any. The saintly and ingenious woman). It was the great Seymour Lu­ Sir Anthony Panizzi (the fons et origo of the betzky who dealt the first hammer blow. It Anglo-American cataloging tradition) re­ was Eva Verona who finally demolished jected all but the smallest smidgeon of cor­ the whole thing. Lubetzky assailed the porate authorship in his ninety-one rules. corporate complex and tried to introduce It was Charles Ammi Cutter who began logic into the application of the idea of cor­ the whole farrago with his breezy observa­ porate authorship. The only problem was tion ''I think that the American practice of that the notion of a corporate body being regarding bodies of men as the authors of ''chiefly responsible for the intellectual or their own journals, proceedings, etc. . . . artistic content'' of a work is, except in cer­ is preferable to the German practice of dis­ tain narrow and infrequent cases, inher­ persing these works throughout the al­ ently implausible. Even Lubetzky's pow­ phabet ... " (Note the two kinds of erful mind was incapable of pulling off the chauvinism so characteristic of the pe­ trick of rationalizing the absurd. riod.) He went on, in his Rules for Descrip­ tive Cataloging, to state that "bodies of men are to be considered to be the authors of works published in their name or by ''The notion of a corporate body be­ their authority.'' It is interesting to see ing 'chiefly responsible for the intel­ that the robust "bodies of men" (redolent lectual or artistic content' of a work of Kipling at his most strenuous) are not is, except in certain narrow and infre­ flatly stated to be authors but are merely to quent cases, inherently implausi­ . be considered to be such. However hedged ble." his rule might have been, the fact remains that Cutter had begun to stir the witches' cauldron of corporate authorship. The nineteenth century, the time of the In the Paris Principles of 1961, a work that single author giants of descriptive catalog­ emanated from a conference that was ing, was succeeded (with almost uncanny dominated by Lubetzkyan reformist chronological neatness) by the time of the ideas, we find reference to "entry under corporate creation of the Anglo-American corporate body'' and provisions that are cataloging codes. Since the committees considerably less sweeping than they that were responsible for those codes were might appear to the casual reader. What corporate entities, is it any wonder that this section of the Principles represents is they espoused the concept of corporate a political compromise between the authorship? That could be accepted as Anglo-American comprehensive view of mere human frailty. What is almost inex­ corporate authorship and the much nar­ cusable is the baroque indulgence with rower provisions for corporate entry which they elaborated on the fundamen­ found in the descriptive cataloging codes tally silly idea. Cutter's "bodies of men" of continental Europe. Corporate author­ were succeeded by the Rube Goldberg ship is not mentioned in the Principles, elaborations of the distinctions between but entry under a corporate body is al­ societies and institutions and the ultimate lowed in numerous cases. The idea be­ absurdities of (for example) rules for ob­ hind the Principles was that they were to servatories located outside municipalities form the basis for international standard­ and for institutions located in several ization and that the future codes that took places. As the years whirled down the al­ them as their bases would be in conform­ leys of time (1908, 1937, 1941, 1949), the ity. Alas, the loo.seness of their wording, whole crazy structure of corporate author­ which was made necessary by the political ship became less and less stable. What compromises that made the Paris meeting 628 College & Research Libraries November 1989

''work,'' made it possible for new national and video recordings and other works cre­ codes to drive a coach and horses through ated by a performing group under the the idea of international uniformity. No­ name of the group seems to me to be a rec­ where is this more apparent than in the ognition of a plain fact. That fact is that it is use that was made of the section on corpo­ hard to dispute that, say, the Rolling rate entry. The first edition of the Anglo­ Stones are the authors of sound recordings American cataloging rules (AACR), in that contain songs that the group has writ­ both its British and North American mani­ ten, performed, and produced. So, as cor­ festations, explicitly embraced the con­ porate authors steal from the scene to be cept of corporate authorship while cl~­ replaced by a few "emanators," modem ing to be based on the Paris Principl~) At society and technology have given us a more or less the same time, European type of material in which corporate au­ codes were published which did exactly thorship is indisputable. the opposite while also claiming to be based on those self-same principles. But UNIFORM PERSONAL HEADINGS 'twas a famous victory! Charles Ammi Cutter was, in Paul The reaction was not long in coming. Dunkin's phraseology, the Prophet upon Seeing that the ambiguity of the Paris Prin­ whose dicta the Law of our cataloging ciples had made it possible for national and codes was based. His most Mosaic utter­ international catalog4tg codes to remain ance is to be found in his famous Objects far apart on a vital conceptual question, of a dictionary catalog. Those few state­ the IFLA Committee on Cataloguing en­ ments have been the cause of much that is couraged Eva Verona to do a study of cor­ good about the cataloging codes that took porate headings (published in 1975 as Cor­ them unquestioningly as their basis. They porate Headings: Their Use in Library have also been the cause of some persist­ Catalogues and National Bibliographies: A ent error and of some misunderstanding. I Comparative and Critical Study) which es­ have never seen it pointed out that, for in­ poused the Continental European idea stance, the very first "object" makes little that there is no such thing as a corporate or no sense. It reads "To enable the reader author, though the limited use of corporate to find a book of which . . . the author is main entry headings in author catalogs known.'' The fact is, of course, that if one may be justified. This distinction has the knows nothing of a book other than the whiff of angels and pins that is characteris­ name of its author, it will be impossible to tic of much of descriptive cataloging the­ locate that book with complete confi­ ory, but it did lead to an important theo­ dence. Even if, in such a case, one were to retical and practical change in the second find only one entry in a catalog under the edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing name of that author, how would one Rules (1978). For the first time since know with ontological certainty that that Panizzi, a major English language catalog­ entry represented the only book in the ing code abandoned the idea of corporate world by that author? The first object authorship and limited the application of should read ''to enable the reader to find a corporate main entry to five (later six, see book of which . . . the author and some­ AACR2R, 1988) narrowly defined catego­ thing else, preferably the title, is known." ries of works that (in the careful, if slightly The most serious flaw in the Objects, otherworldly, term used in the code) "em­ however, lies not in the first but in the anate" from corporate bodies. fourth. This reads "To show what the li­ Thus it was that the orthodoxy of corpo­ brary has by a given author." The way in rate authorship was overthrown and the which this object is to be achieved is stated heretical "German practice" that Cutter to be "Author entry with the necessary ref­ decried reigned in its place. The ultimate erences." In other words, the works of an irony is that one of the categories allowed author are to be gathered together under a main entry by AACR2 is probably the only standard heading in all cases-even when true case of corporate authorship that has an author uses different forms of his or her ever been. The provision to enter sound name or when an author uses two or more Yesterday's Heresy 629 different names. This ruling by the Prophet of an author in one place?" There are three was among the most orthodox of the cata­ answers to those questions. The first is loging orthodoxies for nearly a hundred that scholarship begins when the book is years. It caused a great deal of mischief. in hand and does not consist of or com­ Works identified with one name were, un­ prise the arduous searching for materials til comparatively recently, to be found un­ that is imposed on the would-be scholar der other names in catalogs and, in Ameri­ by ill-organized library catalogs. The sec­ can libraries at least-because of the ond is that the rules of Panizzi were fol­ infamous Cutter-Sanborn numbers-to be lowed for many a long year in the British located on the shelves in a place other than Museum's General Catalogue of Printed that in which the average sensual library Books-a work that a number of scholars user would look for them. have found to be a boon rather than an im­ pediment to scholarship. The third an­ swer is best put in the form of an existen­ ''This orthodoxy-that all the works tial question, "What is an author?" of a person should be collocated re­ This latter question leads to the second error that I believe to have bedeviled the gardless of the inconvenience to the question of the entry of persons using two majority of library users-need never or more names. When Cutter referred to have happened." ''the works of an author'' we seem to have assumed that he meant "the works of a person.'' I have always maintained that This orthodoxy-that all the works of a one person can be two or more authors. person should be collocated regardless of There is a well-known story of Queen Vic­ the inconvenience to the majority of li­ toria being so entranced by the first of the brary users-need never have happened. ''Alice'' books that she begged the Rever­ That it did so is the product of two unfor­ end Dodgson to send her his next book as tunate happenings-neither of them, to soon as it was issued. She was rewarded my mind, the fault of the late C. A. Cutter. for her importunity, some six months The first is that in this matter, as in so later, by the receipt of a huge tome on many others, we were following the symbolic logic or some such. This illus­ wrong prophet. The pragmatism and in­ trates that she may have been asking the tellect of Anthony Panizzi had come to a right person but was certainly asking the very different conclusion. In the forty-first wrong author. Supposing Cutter had of his ninety-one Rules for the Compilation of meant that distinction all along? That is the Catalogue Panizzi stated, ''In the case of unlikely because his own Rules follow the pseudonymous publications, the book to old orthodoxy on this question. However, be catalogued under the author's feigned prophets have been known to misinter­ name . . . " and, in the forty-second rule, pret their own prophecy and it could be ''Assumed names . . . to be treated as that the Cutter who, shaman-like, real names." How much easier the life of promulgated the Objects was wiser than the library user would have been had the the less exalted Cutter who wrote his cataloging profession followed the Halo­ justly famous Rules. English prophet rather than the Ameri­ The Paris Principles were the last state­ can! All the works of the multinamed Ms. ment of the old orthodoxy on multiple Hibbert and Mr. Creasey (not to mention names. They flatly prescribed a single uni­ Lauran Bosworth Paine, who is to pseudo­ form heading for each person consisting nyms what Argus was to eyes) would of the name most frequently found in ''his have been entered in the catalog and [sic] works." The 1967 AACR prescribed a found on the shelves under the names by single heading for such persons but gave which those worthies wished them to be an alternative rule that allowed entry for identified. "What of scholarship?" I hear each work to be under the name that the the traditionalists cry. ''What of the need author used in manifestations of that for the researcher to survey all the works work. This, though a tip of the hat to real- 630 College & Research Libraries November 1989 ity, was of small utility in a time when orthodoxy, that of the dreaded main en­ standardization was rapidly moving from try, still lingers on as, in the family of cata­ being an ideal to becoming a necessity. It logers, the mad uncle in the attic that ev­ was, after all, a scant year later that saw eryone wishes would go away but stays, the beginnings of the MARC format and in apparent good health, as an embarrass­ all the implications for cooperation that ment to one and all. It has been pointed format represented. In 1978, AACR2 tried out, time after weary time, that the notion to wrestle with the problem anew. It re­ of the main entry-that is, a heading that vived the idea of a predominant name is the chief access point and, thus, of more (thus consigning the works of the im­ importance than the other "added" ac­ mensely serious Reverend Dodgson to the cess points-is one that belongs to a long­ heading for the frivolous Lewis Carroll) gone era of library technology. The book but allowed as how, if no predominant catalog has, to the sadness of some, gone name could be found, each work could be the way of the dinosaurs. Like them, it entered under the name found in its mani­ was too large and slow moving to survive festations. This was superior to the AACR in a changing world. One can see the at­ version because it prescribed only one rule tractions of the main entry in such a con­ and because it allowed multiple headings text. In the time of homemade catalog for certain persons. It did, however, still cards, the weary task of typing or writing strive for a single heading when one could the cards is ameliorated if all the informa­ be found and it left a large grey area in tion is given on only one card, the others which catalogers could contend happily being quasi-references. (When bad librari­ and unendingly about whether a name ans die, they are sent to a special biblio­ was or was not "predominant." The 1988 graphic hell in which they type and file AACR2R has taken a completely different catalog cards for all eternity.) However, tack-one that signifies the end, stated or the Library of Congress has been supply­ not, of the old Cutterian orthodoxy. For ing printed cards for nigh on a century and the first time, a code recognizes that one such have been available from other person may have two or more biblio­ sources for all of the last half of this cen­ graphic identities. For example, the poet tury. Why then do we persist in the fool­ C. Day Lewis is one bibliographic identity ishness of the main entry, devoting 72 and the mystery story writer Nicholas pages out of the 677 (over 10 percent) of Blake another, despite the fact that, out­ AACR2R to this perfectly absurd topic? side their books, they were one and the There are those, most notably Seymour same person. AACR2 also prescribes mul­ Lubetzky, who base their support for tiple headings for "contemporary au­ main entry on philosophical grounds. thors" (a phrase of seductive ambiguity There are those who drag in ancillary top­ that could return to haunt us). Thus we ics such as single-entry list~gs and, gawd see that, in the 148 years since Panizzi's help us, Cutter-Sanborn numbers (the ninety-one rules, we have gone from his only bibliographic feature more futile than multiple entries for persons using differ­ the main entry). There are those who see ent names to the iron orthodoxy of the the main entry heading as a useful orga­ standard heading for each person to a nizing device in classified catalogs, shelf code (AACR2R) that embodies the Paniz­ lists, and the like. I find none of these ar­ zian heresy as the new orthodoxy. guments persuasive and am perfectly cer­ tain that the main entry is a bibliographic MAIN ENTRY ghost that haunts current and future ma­ I have so far identified two areas, corpo­ chine systems. The true reason why the rate authorship and headings for persons orthodoxy of the main entry still prevails using more than one name, in which, in is that it is required by the MARC format. my view, the good guys finally won and People used to write articles called ''Is the the unhelpful orthodoxies of the past have main entry dead?" The answer to that been swept away in favor of a more sensi­ question is "Yes, but the MARC format ble and user-oriented approach. The next has embalmed it." MARC is, essentially, a Yesterday's Heresy 631 catalog card encoded for machine manip­ Ironically, bibliographic description, so ulation. This fact (disputed as it may be by long the poor relation of cataloging, has · revisionist historians) has had many sad proved to be the most stable and unques­ consequences. One of them is that the tioned element of the cataloging process. hapless cataloger in the wanning years of At the same time, the assignment of head­ the twentieth century still has to decide ings, for so long the glamour area, has be­ which access point she or he is to put in come more and more marginal, and this the "1)0(" field, and, therefore, needs aspect of descriptive cataloging, which those otherwise unnecessary seventy-two dominated all our codes up to AACR2, pages of the cataloging code. may be a small part of future cataloging Is the situation hopeless? I think not. codes. How are the mighty fallen! Committees and catalog code editors may continue-boats beating against the current-to affirm the importance of the main entry. The crushing weight of the ''The assignment of headings, for so MARC establishment may forbid the kind long the glamour area, has become of reconstruction of MARC of which the more and more marginal, and this as­ abolition of main entry is but a part. Like pect of descriptive cataloging, which the Austro-Hungarian empire, however, dominated all our codes up to the glittering surface is but a shadow and AACR2, may be a small part of future the realities press ever inward. In many cataloging codes.'' existing online catalogs and, I would sug­ gest, in all online catalogs to be, there is no operational distinction between a main entry ''heading'' and added entry ''head­ How long will we go on pretending that ings." Either will take the user directly, the Emperor MARC II is fully clothed? It is via a visible or invisible authority record, hard to say; the ability of those involved in to the relevant bibliographic records. The cataloging to ignore the patently obvious online catalog is not content with the sub­ seems above the human norm, and the version of the idea of the main entry. The vested interests of the national libraries, user can get to the relevant authority rec­ the creators and peddlers of MARC-based ord and on to relevant bibliographic rec­ systems, and of national cataloging com­ ords, as she or he can in an even halfway­ mittees are both numerous and powerful. decent online system, from not only any It does seem, however, that no human type of access point but also from any form system can live indefinitely with the kind of an access point. This simple fact sub­ of internal contradiction represented by verts most of the bases of our cataloging the forms of MARC and the cataloging codes and of the MARC record that so sed­ codes on the one hand and the realities of ulously apes the conventions of those online bibliographic access on the other. codes. In the real world of the electronic catalog, there is no practical difference be­ CARD CATALOGS tween main and added access points and When I began to work in libraries (when there is no practical difference between an Anthony Eden was prime minister and access point and a reference to that access Hampstead was still a borough and not point. This means that the whole of the just a state of mind), the form of the cata­ second part of AACR2 is of only marginal log seemed immutable. The long history relevance to the creation of records for on­ of the provision of catalog cards by the Li­ line systems. It seems as though the old brary of Congress had affected American orthodoxy reigns, as though distinctions libraries immeasurably and the provision between kinds of access point and be­ of a similar service by the British National tween forms of access point really matter. Bibliography was burgeoning. My first In fact, the biggest heresy of all is trium­ glimpse of the technology of cataloging phant in all but the codes and the trap­ was of an object that looked like an iron pings of the cataloging establishment. spinning wheel being wielded by our 632 College & Research Libraries November 1989

head cataloger (who had, utterly irrele­ has transformed almost an the practical as­ vantly but to my fascination, been Piet pects of life in the soi-disant First World. Mondrian' s landlady during Hitler's war) This is inescapable but easily confused by so that it produced metal plates with cata­ the easily confused. In our particular neck log records embossed on them. The good of the woods, many, including some li­ lady actually pecked out the entries letter brarians and almost all ''information sci­ by letter, a task that involved a lot of phys­ entists," are seduced by the transforma­ ical exertion. My job was to be the under­ tion of the practical aspects of life into a strapper to another lady who produced, belief that the nature of things has on another alarming looking and inky ma­ changed. They believe that the fundamen­ chine, the requisite sets of catalog cards tals of librarianship are different when, of for the main and branch catalogs. The course, it is the means of carrying out our thing that struck me like a thunderbolt abiding mission that has changed. In the was how clever it was to produce a lot of case of cataloging, we have always standard entries and add the different wanted to make our materials as accessi­ headings rather than to type out each card ble as possible in as speedy a manner as in a set. I was at a very impressionable age could be. We have always wanted to cre­ but it still, more than three decades later, ate huge cooperative union catalogs (a seems like a pretty good idea. The point of concept as old, almost, as librarianship it­ these autobiographical ramblings is not self). We have always wanted to share the just to recall the dear dead days but to burden of cataloging with others. We have point out how utterly everything has always sought to standardize cataloging changed about the physical form of our procedures. The century and a half of catalogs. The orthodoxy of the period was Anglo-American cataloging codes stands that the card catalog was the ne plus ultra of witness to the latter. What has changed is catalogs and that advances in technology, that we now have a technology that en­ up to and including the MARC format, ables us to do the things for which we would be devoted to the speedier and have hungered. The second reason for the more cost-effective production of those 3- overthrow of the card catalog is luck. In by-5-inch cards. The only dissension that I many ways we have blundered into the can recall came from those who, rather future. By and large, our fortune is' that than foreseeing new kinds of catalogs, schemes toward one end have, happily, predicted a future in which catalogs (and, ended up by producing another and better indeed, libraries) would be irrelevant. I result. The most obvious example of this forget which particular kind of "patent latter is the MARC format. Despite its double million magnifyin' gas microscope many shortcomings and despite the fact of hextra power'' was going to accomplish that its true origin was the sustaining of this great feat, but the paperless society the Library of Congress' immensely prof­ boys were with us then as now. itable card service and, in Britain, maxi­ mizing the cost-efficiency of the produc­ tion of the British National Bibliography and its cards, MARC has proved to be a ''The card catalog orthodoxy has mechanism that has made the creation been completely demolished." and maintenance of online systems possi­ ble. This is not to say that it would have been far better had we had a format that The card catalog orthodoxy has been was rethought to deal with the necessities completely demolished. Planning to of computerized catalogs. It is merely to maintain a card catalog indefinitely in any say that MARC, the only available system, but the tiniest libraries is the bibliographic proved, almost by accident, to be up to the · equivalent of wearing spats. How could task. this have happened in such a relatively Another example of backing into the short time? The answer is, I think, two­ truth is the formation of the bibliographic fold. One is that the computer revolution networks-most notably the OCLC Yesterday's Heresy 633 meganetwork-that were intended to pro­ sented to the library user have been over­ vide shared cataloging (mostly via the pro­ thrown, either overtly or covertly. Does vision of catalog cards) and have ended up this mean that they have been replaced by being the providers of MARC tapes for lo­ new and equally foolish orthodoxies? I cal online catalogs; the providers of effec­ think not. It is my belief and my hope that tive interlibrary loan services; the poten­ we are in a time of realism in the field of tial providers of CD-ROM catalogs and cataloging-a time in which dogma and other high-tech wonders; and the only ef­ theory are being forced to yield place to fective and current union catalogs in the the exigencies of the practice of librarian­ whole history of librarianship. In the fu­ ship in the electronic world of today. I am, ture they will, no doubt, provide hitherto in librarianship as in other aspects of life, a undreamed of service to automated li­ Benthamite. If one believes in the greatest braries (for example, direct connection to happiness of the greatest number and ap­ pr~·vte sector indexing and abstracting plies that belief to the wonderfully demo­ se ~ es for libraries with online systems). cratic catalogs that modern technology I app ud all these present and future has made possible, discussions of the ar­ good things, merely pausing to remark cana of cataloging become less and less that those who see in this progress the ful­ relevant, if no less absorbing to the surviv­ fillment of deep and prescient plans are ing handful of cataloging mavens. surrendering to the human desire to be­ Cutter famously wrote of the passing of lieve that those in authority have been the golden age of cataloging (in 1904). I do vouchsafed some wisdom to which we not believe that age has passed or, in fact, cannot aspire. The truth is that most of has yet been achieved. The age of the what has been predicted about the future petty discussion of petty aspects of the of the catalog has proved to be wrong and lore of cataloging may well have passed, that most of the advances in the technol­ but the age of the creation and mainte­ ogy of the catalog have been the result of nance of catalogs that meet the needs of happenstance and the ability of a strategi­ the mass of people-catalogs based on cally placed few to recognize an opportu­ utility rather than dogma-has only just nity when it swims into their ken. begun. O'Shaughnessy wrote . . . each age is a dream that is dying THE FUTURE Or one that is coming to birth It is my view, then, that the orthodoxies We can still be, in his famous words "the about, inter alia, corporate authorship, dreamers of dreams," as long as we re­ the treatment of persons using two or member that the death of orthodoxy can more names as authors, the main entry, lead to freedom and to a new and better and the forms in which catalogs are pre- world.

REFERENCES

1. A. L.A. Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries, 2d ed., ed. Clara Beetle (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1949), 265p. 2. Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, prep. by American Library Association and others, general ed. C. Sumner Spalding, North American text (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1967}, 400p. 3. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2d ed., ed. Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler (Chicago: American Library Assn., Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn., 1978}, 620p. 4. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2d ed., ed. Michael Gorman and Paul W. Winkler, 1988 rev. (Ottawa: Canadian Library Assn.; London: Library Assn. Publishing; Chicago: American Library Assn., 1988}, 677p. 5. Catalog Rules, Author and Title Entries, comp. by committees of American Library Assn. and (Brit­ ish) Library Assn., American ed. (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1908), 88p. 6. Charles A. Cutter, Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1904), 173p. (Special report on public libraries, part II, U.S. Bureau of Education). 634 College & Research Libraries November 1989

7. Paul S. Dunkin, Cataloging USA (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1969), 159p. 8. Seymour Lubetzky, Cataloging Rules and Principles: A Critique of the ALA Rules for Entry and a Pro­ posed Design for Their Revision (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1953), 65p. 9. Anthony Panizzi, Rules for the Compilation of the Catalogue. The catalogue of printed books in the British Museum, V.1 (London: British Museum, 1841). 10. [Paris Principles]. Statement of principles adopted at the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles, Paris, Oct. 1961, annot. ed., with commentary and examples by Eva Verona and others (London: IFLA Committee on Cataloguing, 1971). 11. Eva Verona, Corporate Headings: Their Use in Library Catalogues and National Bibliographies: A Compar­ ative and Critical Study (London: IFLA Committee on Cataloguing, 1975).

IN JANUARY 1990 COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES The Paradox of Public Service: Where Do We Draw the Line? by Rebecca R. Martin Reviving a Retrospective Conversion Project: Strategies to Complete the Task by Jay Lambrecht A Social History of Madness; or, Who's Buying This Round? Anticipating and Avoiding Gaps in Collection Development by Paul Metz and Bela Foltin The Representational Rights of Academic Librarians: Their Status as Managerial Employees and/or Supervisors under the National Labor Relations Act by Ronald L. Gilardi The Serial/Monograph Ratio in Research Libraries: Budgeting in Light of Citation Studies by Robin B. Devin and Martha Kellogg The Do-It-Yourself Move for a 1.5 Million-Volume Library by Pauline S. Bayne