AZ ORSZÁGOS SZÉCHÉNYI KÖNYVTÁR ÉVKÖNYVE 1958. Budapest (1959)

II. A könyvtári munka módszertani kérdéseiről - N. Rácz Aranka: A katalogizálási szabályok nemzetközi egysége felé

The Prussian instructions — by applying the grammatical principle — followed the traditions of the German research libraries. The re-affirmation of the grammatical principle at the beginning of the 20th century, lent, however, the rules a certain isolated character. The fact that the experts compiling the rules decided in favour of the grammatical principle, was due not only to the respect of German librarians for traditions, but also to the feudal-capitalistic character of German society at that time. Hence the first experts (Gradmann, Weinreich) who criticized these principles from a more practical and democratic point of view, failed in their attempts at a revision. At a later date;, the fundamental revision of the Prussian instructions was made impossible also by two bibliographical enterprises of great significance: the Berliner Titeldrucke and the Preussischer (later Deutscher) Gesamtkatalog. The Prussian instructions gained ground in many countries where librarianship was closely related to Germany; they were widely popular before the first world-war. The necessity for a revision of these rules was realised only in the years following the second world-war. In connection with the ALA cataloguing rules the article points out that American libraries adopted a more practical attitude towards the task of libraries and catalogues. This practical point of view and a desire to take into account the demands of the readers characterizes the ALA rules. This is expressed by the adoption of the mechanical principle in the heading for anonyma, in works of corporate authorship and in other cases serving the convenience of the readers. On the other hand, this practical point of view resulted in a certain inconsistency and a somewhat loose construction of the rules. These facts and the inability to solve several problems arising from the new practice called forth the necessity of later revisions of these rules. The ALA rules and the Prussian instructions were of epoch-making importance in the history of cataloguing. They not only promoted uniformity in cataloguing procedures within national or linguistic boundaries, but following their example, national codes were established and as a result, the English and German schools of cataloguing came into being. This development took place in the period between the two world-wars. As examples the Italian national and the Vatican code, the Hungarian, Polish, Austrian and Soviet cataloguing rules are cited as the first uniform cataloguing rules of a nation-wide validity following in the footsteps of the Prussian instructions and the ALA rules of 1908. After the second world-war, a new movement aimed at the revision of cataloguing rules was started, bringing the problem of cataloguing codes into- the foreground again. But the revised edition of the ALA rules (1949) failed to satisfy the requirements, and Lubetzky's criticism in 1953 caused the question of establishing a new code to be put on the agenda again. The catologuing committee of ALA entrusted Lubetzky with the elaboration of the revised rules. Among the discussions concerning the revision of the American rules, the author gives particular attention to the Conference in Chicago (1954) and to the Conference held at Stanford University in 1958. The study continues by describing the projects and discussions in connection with the revision of the Prussian instructions. In the period following the second world-war, the re-cataloguing problems consequent upon war damages, necessitated the revision of the Prussian instructions. Cataloguing Committees were established, both in the German Democratic, as well as in the German Federal Republic, to deal with the problems of the revision. The discussions were chiefly concentrated on the questions of the headings for anonyma. In the draft accepted by the West-German Committee in 1958 the mechanical principle was adopted. But public opinion was divided on the extent of the revision. There were experts who 140