AUGUST 25, 1899. ] 
It is possible that a classification such as is here 
proposed may serve for arranging a library con- 
taining principally popular science works or 
pedagogy, but for the end proposed by the In- 
ternational Catalogue it seems to us inappli- 
cable. In regard to certain sciences, notably 
mathematics, physics, astronomy, it seems to 
us scarcely possible that there can exist in this 
regard a serious difference of opinion among 
persons really competent to judge. 
“Furthermore, we reproach the system as 
worked out by Dewey with being inelastic. In 
view of the very restricted number of places 
left vacant, the addition of new subjects of a 
fundamental character can soon be accom- 
plished only by very artificial means, and, 
moreover, it would require the use of a dispro- 
portinate number of the former figures.”’ 
On reading this report one can hardly fail 
to be struck with the emphasis that has been 
Jaid upon the book that has been used as an 
authority, pains being taken to give even the 
street number of the firm selling the work in 
Boston and in London. This emphasis is, of 
course, in part, due to the fact that the com- 
mittee wished to prove that its criticism was 
not made without examining the ‘Decimal 
Classification’ of Dewey, a neglect which has 
been admitted by certain other critics. But to 
those who have followed the matter closely it 
will be apparent that this assertion has a deeper 
meaning. It is a frank declaration that the 
committee declines to examine the application 
of the decimal system to card bibliographies. 
Dewey, as is well known, never proposed the 
use of his system for bibliographies. It is an 
application which I believe was first made by 
Mr. Pickford Mann, but which has since found 
wide extension largely in consequence of the 
effort of the International Institute of Bibliog- 
raphy in Brussels. Now, this statement is in- 
tended as a disayowal of these applications. 
Such a proceeding is manifestly unfair. What 
should we say of a person who should insist 
upon using a work dealing with electric light- 
ing as an authority for judging the possibility 
of utilizing electricity for telegraphy? The 
Brussels Institute took the decimal system, ex- 
panded certain parts according to the principles 
expounded by Dewey, added a few distinctive 
SCIENCE. 
255 
signs, such as the colon and the parenthesis, 
and at once the system attained the extreme 
pliability requisite for bibliographic purposes. 
For library purposes pliability is a fault, a work 
on the Locusts of Mexico can not be dupli- 
cated under Locusts and under Mexico; but 
for bibliography this is a sine qua non. More- 
over, the success or failure of the system in 
libraries is no valid argument respecting its use 
for card bibliographies. In library organization 
the question is whether or not a methodical ar- 
rangement of the books according to subject- 
matter be possible and practical. Where the 
decimal system has failed, it will be found to 
have been the strict methodical arrangement 
that has been found impractical. But for bib- 
liography the arrangement by subject-matter, 
however difficult to attain, is essential, and for 
cards this presupposes some system such as the 
decimal system.* 
The report states that for various sciences the 
system has been worked out in such a faulty 
manner that it seems scarcely possible for a 
divergence of opinion to exist. The sciences 
that are selected as examples differ from those 
mentioned in the memorandum of the Royal 
Society’s Committee. According to the Dutch 
report, mathematics, astronomy and physics can 
not be dealt with in this way. To deny the 
possibility of a divergence of opinion in this re- 
gard is certainly too strong. 1! have laid the 
matter before the representatives of these 
sciences in Zirich, and two of them declare 
themselves pronounced advocates of the deci- 
mal system ; the third believes it perfectly ap- 
plicable. For mathematics, Professor Rudio, 
who has been watching the movement fora 
year past, feels that certain changes are neces- 
sary and pointed out the modifications necessary 
to bring the scheme into harmony with the 
Jahrbuch. It is, indeed, my conviction that 
the objections raised relate to the fact that the 
classification is conventional, not scientific. 
But it is easy to show that this is no valid ob- 
*It is important to note that, out of over one 
thousand divisions used by Dewey in the part worked 
out by the Concilium Bibliographicum, only three 
have been modified. This is a sufficient answer to 
those who claim that the system must be totally re- 
modeled. 
