The purpose of this article is to make historians aware of their special relationship to library collections, as the services rendered by a university library vary from discipline to discipline. The traditional, encyclopaedic grand view that organized all knowledge neatly into all-encompassing classification schemes has lost much of its validity. The various subjects no longer vie with each other in the way national teams parade around the Olympic stadium. Gone are the days when books and libraries were the sources of knowledge. Certain fields, such as physics, are no longer purely academic, as industry and government take over many aspects of research.
These developments would pose no problems if it were not for several recent trends that have put libraries into a special bind. In just history alone, whole new fields have developed and scholarship has spread to all corners of the Earth. To make matters worse, inflationary pressures and fiscal exigencies have raised havoc with library budgets, in particular with acquisition appropriations.
It is therefore timely to ask what we as historians have at stake in this crisis and whether a special case can be made for the maintenance and development of collections in history.
The university or research library followed closely by the archive-is the most important research facility for the historian. Historians carry out their investigations in these depositories of survivals of past ages, rather than in laboratories or in the field. This is in contrast to other disciplines that have shifted much of their research to the laboratory or the field.
What distinguishes history from the social and especially the natural sciences is not only where its research is conducted, but also that its sources and findings are mostly cumulative, as it strives for insights and not for general rules. The acquisition of books and other materials of value to historians is a long-term proposition, if not a permanent investment. Historical records and other sources are not automatically antiquated by more recent data, nor do their interpretations and insights become obsolete. Therefore the study of history is evolutionary.
For instance, publications of diplomatic correspondence and other state papers, and editions of private papers and memoirs retain their significance as sources. Moreover, contemporary scholarship still relies heavily on the body of historical monographs and journals published earlier in this century. This is not true of the sciences where new discoveries supersede older work. Consequently, any major lapse in the procurement of historical publications creates permanent gaps that cannot be filled with more recent publications.
While other humanities, such as literature, have a similar, cumulative structure, they are clearly circumscribed by format and concept in regard to publications. History is a more elusive field, or broader as a concept; it would be better to think of history not as a “subject” but rather as a dimension in terms of time, its function being to deal with the human experience in the past. Thus, a good part of the holdings of any library that are of interest to historians are not classified under “history,” but under economics, political science, sociology, law, religion, education, and also under the various natural sciences as well as anthropology, archaeology, and the like.
Of course, the development of collections for historical research does have reasonable and practical priorities. Libraries do concentrate on certain fields of history, fields often defined in terms of area and period. In many instances, there is an element of specialization in a geographically defined area, as national histories are sought out, often integrating such a procurement policy with the building of collections concentrating on other aspects of a given civilization.
History, therefore, demands more from a library than other disciplines do. Unlike the sciences, it is retrospective per se, and unlike other humanities it has to rely heavily on publications in other “subjects.” Any across-the-board reductions in library acquisitions will hit historians not just in regard to historical publications, but also in regard to much needed items in other fields.
So, if history makes such overriding demands for adequate procurement in so many fields, why would not some university libraries make substantial reductions in the acquisition of material primarily of interest to historians, as this would permit other departments to dispose more freely in other fields.
This would not work. The relation of history to other disciplines is a two-way street: As much as history relies on other fields, they equally rely on history. This is especially true in the social sciences where there exists a close symbiosis. Modern diplomatic history cannot be separated from the field of international relations, nor can work on the Industrial Revolution be detached from the analysis of economic development. Area studies depend even more heavily on history for their integrated interpretations and conclusions.
If fewer publications are received, there will be an additional strain placed on bibliographical tools and services needed by historians for identifying and locating gaps. But comprehensive bibliographies of current publications best suited for such purposes are optimally compiled on the basis of the receipts of a large research library, such as the Library of Congress. This applies to the listing of monographs, but even more so to analyzing professional journals. Thus when the budgets of the large research libraries are cut, we all suffer in the end.
To sum up, many budget cuts will cause more than temporary dislocations and inconveniences. They will do irreparable harm to the indispensable continuity of historical collections and the impact of such cuts on other holdings will impede the development of broad perspectives in historical research. Significant reductions in the acquisition flow in the major research libraries will seriously lower the quality of bibliographical reporting and with it threaten the quality of historical research.
This is an uphill fight for the historical profession, as it has more at stake than other disciplines and therefore greater claims.
Arnold H. Price earned his PhD from the University of Michigan in 1942. He is the AHA's inhouse historian for bibliographical operations and lends his wisdom to the processing of Recently Published Articles.
