TO culturally and historically, the concept of "bibliography" arises at a certain stage in the formation of information activity, when the need for a purposeful development of this most important area is realized social activities, culture. In our time, we can speak with complete certainty about four main periods in the history of bibliography: Period I - the emergence in Ancient Greece bibliography (5th century BC) as book writing, as the work of a scribe ("bibliographer"); II period - the emergence of bibliography (XVII-XVIII centuries) as a generalizing science about the book and book business (information activity) and as a special literary genre; III period - the emergence of bibliography (the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century) as a special science of the book science (information) cycle; IV period (modern) - awareness of bibliography as a special area of book (information) business with its own specific discipline - bibliography.
Domestic scientists, especially A.N. Derevitsky, A.I. Malein, A.G. Fomin, M.N. Kufaev and K.R. Simon, also contributed to the development of the origin and history of the development of bibliography abroad.
First period as established at the beginning of the 20th century. our compatriot A.I. Malein, is associated with the appearance and functioning of the very word "bibliography" in ancient Greece in the 5th century. BC. The main meaning of this word was "not book DESCRIPTION, but book WRITING, i.e. the creation or distribution of a book using the only method available in antiquity for this - writing or correspondence" [Malein A.I. On the term "bibliography"//Bibliogr. sheets Rus. bibliologist. islands. 1922. L. 1 (Jan.). S. 2-3]. In other words, bibliography from the very beginning of its appearance meant what we now call "book business", or more broadly - "information activity".
Second period associated with the formation in Europe of the XVII century. system of sciences, which still exists with some changes and additions. The word "bibliography" along with others - bibliology, bibliosophy, biblionomy, bibliognomy, etc. - began to denote the science of the book (book business, information activity). According to K.R.Simon, the word "bibliography" could either be borrowed from existing experience, or invented anew on the model of similar names of sciences (for example, geography). The palm in this matter belongs to French scientists. It was in the French interpretation that bibliography as a science appeared in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century.
It should be noted here that Russian scientists not only borrowed the basics of bibliographic science, but, relying on their centuries-old historical experience, brought a lot of originality. And we only have to regret that many achievements in the history of Russian bibliography are either insufficiently studied, or simply ignored in favor of independent, pseudo-scientific constructions.
The special innovation of Russian bibliography manifested itself in the following third period its development at the beginning of the 20th century. Russian bibliographers in their scientific developments were now on a par with those of Western Europe and, therefore, of the whole world. It is enough to refer to Russian participation in the work of the International Bibliographic Institute in Brussels, on the consonance of the ideas of N.M. Lisovsky, A.M. Lovyagin and N.A. Rubakin with the ideas of P. Otlet (one of the founders of the named institute). Moreover, our scientists in many respects, especially theoretical ones, were ahead of foreign researchers.
The most important of the domestic achievements of the period under review is that the specific role of bibliography as an activity in a broader system of information activity (book science, documentation), and bibliography as a science - in the system of book science (document science, computer science, etc.) . In particular, the notorious reduction of bibliography to book description began to outlive itself. This was especially facilitated by the interpretation of the so-called types of bibliography proposed by N.A. Rubakin, and then N.V. Zdobnov. Methodologically, this was shown in the works of A.M. Lovyagin, which are still hushed up - either deliberately or out of ignorance. And he developed, among many others, the following two, one might say, outstanding ideas. The first concerns the definition of bibliography (book science) as a science of human communication, i.e. about book business, information activity, communication. The second is connected with the use and concretization in relation to the problems of bibliography of such a dialectical method as the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. In contrast to the technocratic approach of N.M. Lisovsky ("book production - book distribution - book description, or bibliography"), A.M. Lovyagin interpreted information communication as an ascent, as a methodological reduction from description to analysis, and from it to synthesis (recall the Hegelian formula " thesis - antithesis - synthesis"). Moreover, bibliography occupies a middle position here, since the synthesis of its results, their elevation to the general cultural level, is possible only through the methodology of a more general science - book science (or the now possible broader science of information activity). And the middle, central place of the bibliography here cannot be considered accidental, since information communication is a dialectical process with feedback, when, according to the views of the same A.M. Lovyagin, a constant revival is required - in itself dead - paper culture, i. the introduction at each dialectical round of information activity of all the most valuable, socially significant in the cultural and historical development of society. In this regard, it is noteworthy that P. Otlet went even further in his theoretical constructions, considering bibliography a metascience in relation to documentation, i.e. system of all sciences of the information and communication cycle.
Truly, the third period in the development of bibliography was its golden age. Unfortunately, we still do not use its innovations enough. Meanwhile, the ideas of A.M. Lovyagin and N.A. Rubakin were further developed in the works of M.N. Kufaev, but his creative heritage has not been adequately studied and is not used.
experienced by us modern, fourth in a row, period in the development of bibliography originates approximately in the 60s, when the next scientific and technological revolution began, associated with the introduction of a new information technology (computerization), and such new scientific directions like cybernetics, information theory, computer science, semiotics, etc. New scientific principles, for example, activities and consistency, were also substantiated more deeply. It was in accordance with the principle of activity that a new interpretation began to be given to the typical structure of both human activity in general and book publishing (information activity) in particular, where the bibliography, as we have already noted, is correlated with such an integral component of any type of social activity as management, more precisely - information management.
It was at the present stage and only in our country that a new concept for designating the science of bibliography - "bibliographic science". It was first proposed in 1948 by I.G. Markov, who, however, understood bibliography and the science of it too narrowly and pragmatically: "Bibliography is indexes and reference books that have books as their object, and bibliographic science is the theory of creation , design and use of bibliographic indexes" [On the subject and method of bibliography / / Tr. / Mosk. state bibl. in-t. 1948. Issue. 4. S. 110]. The new designation of bibliographic science was included in GOST 16448-70 "Bibliography. Terms and Definitions", also introduced for the first time in world practice. Then the term "bibliographic science" was repeated in the new edition of the specified normative document - GOST 7.0-77. But, unfortunately, the new name of bibliographic science was absent in the new edition - GOST 7.0-84. But, as we know, the first university textbook was published under the following title: "Bibliographic Studies. General Course".
New discussions and approaches are possible. It is important to emphasize that giving the bibliography a managerial function as a specific for its public role in information activity is seen as a defining trend throughout its history in our country (V.G. Anastasevich, M.L. Mikhailov, A.N. Soloviev). But for some reason little importance is still attached to this, it is simply not taken into account in the conceptual constructions of bibliography and the science about it now proposed. But there is no other alternative. Moreover, it is the function of information management that distinguishes both the past and modern practice bibliography. For example, the task of "guiding reading" is inscribed on the banner of one of the functional areas of bibliography - recommendatory. The bibliographic subsystem with a defining control function is characteristic, as we have already noted, for the apparatus of a traditional book; moreover, it becomes a specific part of modern automated information systems (AIS) - all kinds of IS, DB, KB, ES, AI, etc.
Thus, on the basis of ascertaining the features of the emergence and development of bibliography and bibliography, we can assume that the defining essence of this specific branch of information activity is information management.
A characteristic feature of modern domestic bibliography is its unusual conceptual diversity. In it, far from always peacefully, different theoretical ideas about the essence (nature) of bibliography as a social phenomenon coexist, that is, different general bibliographic concepts and approaches.
Let us consider only some of the most significant concepts of this kind, which have received the greatest fame and recognition among specialists. These are, first of all, three interconnected concepts, which are based on the same (but differently understood) feature: the object of bibliography and the metasystem corresponding to this object, in which bibliography is directly included as a subsystem.
First, the historically original book science concept, according to which bibliography has long been considered as the science of the book, which is a descriptive part of book science.
The view of bibliography as an extensive bibliographic scientific discipline historically arose in the works of the first Western European bibliographic theorists of the late 18th and early 20th centuries: M. Denis, Zh.F. Ne de la Rochelle, G. Gregoire, A.G. Camus, G. Peño, F.A. Ebert and others.
In Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century, thanks to the works of prominent representatives of Russian bibliographic thought V.G. Anastasevich and V.S. Sopikov, a point of view was formed according to which bibliography as the science of the book was also identified with the broadly understood book science.
Throughout the 19th century theoretical ideas of Western European and Russian bibliographers, experiencing mutual influence and gradually differentiating, developed in a single bibliographic channel.
At the turn of the XIX and XX centuries. in Russia, mainly in the works of a prominent bibliologist and bibliographer, the first teacher of bibliology at St. Lisovsky (1845 - 1920), a new idea of bibliography is gradually being formed as a scientific discipline not identical to bibliology, but constituting only its independent (descriptive) part.
The academic position of the exhaustively descriptive science of bibliography occupied a dominant position in pre-revolutionary Russia, but was never universally recognized. She experienced especially serious opposition in connection with the emergence of a democratic recommendatory and pedagogical direction in bibliographic activity, oriented towards the popular reader. The bibliography was steadily involved in the complex sphere of social struggle, which, in particular, was expressed in the appearance of the first shoots of the Social Democratic, and then the Bolshevik trend in the bibliography.
Disagreements between representatives of various ideological currents within the framework of the book science concept of bibliography became especially aggravated in the first years of Soviet power, which was explained by the resistance that representatives of the traditional descriptive school put up to tendencies associated with the involvement of bibliography in solving practical educational, upbringing, economic and other tasks, with the formulation the question of the class, party approach to the content and tasks of bibliographic activity.
In the general theoretical, conceptual aspect considered here, the bibliographic concept of bibliography in the Soviet Union evolved in two main directions. Firstly, this is a gradual expansion of the range of “book” objects of bibliographic activity and, secondly, an increasingly decisive rejection of the unambiguous qualification of bibliography as a scientific discipline in favor of combined ideas that reflect both the scientific and practical components of bibliography. Let's confirm what has been said with examples.
In the first direction. In the 1920s, the well-known theorist of librarianship and bibliography K.N. Derunov (1866 - 1929). He sharply condemned "the categorical mixing of bibliography with a landfill, where, along with books, old manuscripts and printed reprints of newspaper articles, trade price lists and musical notes, coins and medals are thrown into one heap ...".
The excessive rigidity of these restrictions, excluding from the scope of bibliography even reprints of newspaper articles and musical editions, with modern point view is quite obvious.
Somewhat later, one of the most prominent representatives of Russian bibliographic science and practice, N.N. Zdobnov (1888 - 1942) defended the exclusion of manuscripts from the object of bibliography, believing that the time had come "to separate the description of printed works from the description of manuscripts, because there is too little in common between both descriptions" . The bibliography deals with the description of printed works ( handwritten book was the object of bibliography only before the invention of printing), and the description of manuscripts - archaeography.
In the future, the bibliographic object of the bibliography of K.R. Simon (1887 - 1966) and other prominent representatives of Russian bibliography.
In the second direction. In 1936, in a report at the All-Russian Conference on theoretical questions library science and bibliography is one of the most prominent representatives national bibliographic school L.N. Tropovsky (1885 - 1944), having defined bibliography as "a field of knowledge and scientific and propaganda activity", for the first time reflected in one definition the features of bibliography as a science and as a practical activity.
A characteristic feature of the views of L.N. Tropovsky is that, traditionally recognizing bibliography as a science, he shifted the center of gravity to its practical propaganda aspects. He very insistently emphasized the purely practical, applied, service character of bibliographic activity. This led to a certain underestimation of L.N. Tropovsky of the theory of bibliography, which he identified with a specific methodology, and everything that went beyond the latter, he called "rubbish of scholasticism."
It is also interesting that, while actually remaining on the positions of the bibliological approach, L.N. Tropovsky did not associate his general idea of bibliography with book science, since he was generally opposed to book science as a science in principle.
The book science concept of bibliography received the most complete modern form in the works of the famous bibliographer A.I. Badger (1918 - 1984). It is he who is responsible for the development of the modern “non-bibliographic” version of the concept, which makes a clear distinction between bibliography as a field of scientific and practical activities for the preparation and communication of bibliographic information to consumers and bibliographic science as a science of bibliography that develops issues of theory, history, organization and methodology of bibliographic activities. At the same time, the bibliography was considered by A.I. Barsuk as part of the book business, the “book in society” system, and bibliography as a part of book science, which is not part of the bibliography. This point of view is still held by many representatives of domestic bibliology today.
In addition, A.I. Barsuk made an attempt to substantiate the broadest conception of the book object of bibliography within the framework of the book science approach. He believed that “book”, “literature” is “any collection of works of writing (regardless of the nature, form, method of fixation), reproduced (or intended for reproduction) in any way suitable for perception” . Such an approach makes the concept of “book” rather vague, but noticeably brings together the bibliographic and documentographic concepts of bibliography.
So, all the theoretical concepts of bibliography that have arisen on the basis of the bibliological approach, despite their very significant internal differences, are united by one common feature- restriction of the composition of documentary objects of bibliography on the basis of such concepts as “book”, “printed work”, “publication”, “work of writing”, “literature”. This is what makes it possible to qualify all these concepts as bibliological ones.
Secondly, documentographic concept, which historically is a direct continuation and development of book science. On a new conceptual and methodological basis, it was put forward and substantiated in domestic bibliography in the 70s. Home her distinguishing feature– a fundamental rejection of any restrictions on documentary objects of bibliographic activity in terms of their form, content or purpose. That is why the proponents of the documentographic approach operate with the broader concepts of “document” and “system of documentary communications” in comparison with “book” and “book business”, denoting, respectively, the object of bibliography and the metasystem of bibliography (these concepts are considered in more detail in the second chapter).
It should be noted that any restrictions on the object of bibliographic activity within the framework of the bibliographic approach are usually accompanied by specific historical arguments and therefore look very convincing (see, for example, the above considerations of N.V. Zdobnov). However, this is a false impression. In fact, it is precisely the concrete historical approach that clearly demonstrates that the bibliography, in essence, has always been indifferent to changes in the forms of fixing and disseminating knowledge. Of course, at any given historical moment it can recognize the main, most important for itself this or that form of fixing information, but it cannot once and for all limit its object to one specific form. So, for example, if we assert that the main object of bibliographic activity is a printed book, then it should be clearly understood that this is not because a book is a printed work, but because it is precisely printed works that have historically become the main means of recording, disseminating and use of social information.
Bibliography has always dealt predominantly with those forms that became dominant in a given historical epoch, and paid much less attention to those forms that were dying out or just emerging (but never completely excluded them from its object). And so it will always be. Therefore, it is fundamentally wrong to generally limit the object of bibliographic activity to any one historically transient form, for example, printed works or even written works. The rules of bibliographic description, methods of bibliographic characterization may change along with the change in the form of objects of bibliographic activity, but the social essence of bibliography as an intermediary, a link between a document and a person, in principle, will remain unchanged.
Supporters of the bibliographic concept of bibliography are usually confused by the too broad meaning of the term “document”, due to which, for example, postage stamps, banknotes, official letterheads, tram tickets, inscriptions on gravestones, etc., fall into the composition of the object of bibliographic activity. sometimes as a manifestation of formalism on the part of representatives of the documentographic concept, their underestimation of the ideological, scientific, artistic value of the “book” as the main object of bibliographic activity.
As already noted, no one denies that the book in the broadest sense, that is, the printed work, is today the predominant, the main object of bibliographic activity. Moreover, from a strictly scientific point of view, there is nothing dangerous in the broad semantics of the term “document” for bibliographic science and practice.
It should be emphasized that within the framework of the documentographic approach, only one limitation of the composition of documentary objects of bibliographic activity is recognized - the social significance of the information contained in them. The social significance of a document is a concrete historical concept. There can be no recipes suitable for all times and circumstances. People themselves create documented information and in each case decide for themselves whether it is of sufficient public interest to be the object of bibliography or not. In particular, the inscriptions on gravestones have been bibliographed for a long time (not all, of course, but those that belong to outstanding personalities and therefore acquire undoubted social significance). Postage stamps and banknotes, if we consider them not from the point of view of their immediate purpose and functioning, but as monuments of material and spiritual culture, as objects of study, collectibles, etc., also fall into the category of socially significant documents and become the object of bibliography. A similar situation is not ruled out in principle with regard to forms and tram tickets.
The term “bibliography” within the framework of the documentographic concept covers bibliographic science and practice, i.e., it combines single system practical bibliographic activity and bibliographic science - the science of this activity.
It is clear that different ideas about the boundaries, composition and tasks of bibliographic activity, about the general structure of bibliography as a social phenomenon follow from the bibliographic and documentographic approaches. However, it must be firmly understood that the considered approaches correlate with each other as narrower and broader. There are no other fundamental differences between them. In other words, the documentographic approach (as a broader one) does not oppose the bibliographic approach, as some representatives of the latter sometimes believe, but includes it as a special case with all the richness of its specific content, without denying its achievements, significance and possibilities.
The documentographic approach is based on the immutable and quite objective fact of the organizational fragmentation of bibliographic activity, its organic involvement in various institutionalized public institutions in the system of documentary communications, i.e., in library, editorial, publishing, archiving, in book trade, in scientific and information activity. In these public institutions, bibliographic activity is carried out in specific forms for each of them.
The documentographic concept covers, theoretically combines into a single system all the ways of existence of bibliography, including those that are found outside of the named ones. public institutions. This alone shows that the documentographic approach does not contradict the bibliographic approach, does not deny the existence of bibliography as a part of the book business, but includes it as its important and necessary component. On the other hand, only within the framework of the documentographic approach can the limitations of the bibliography concept of bibliography be correctly understood, and the limits of its explanatory (theoretical) and transformative (practical) possibilities can be correctly assessed.
Finishing the characterization of the documentographic concept, it is necessary to single out and emphasize the main thing: the name “documentographic” does not quite adequately reflect its actual content. It is "documentographic" only in a certain narrow sense, associated with the document as a direct object of bibliography. With a broader and therefore more correct general qualification, this is system-activity, documentary-information concept of the beginning of the general theory of bibliography. It is desirable that it be considered and evaluated by respected critics in this capacity.
Historically, the latest ideographic or infographic concept bibliography, proposed and very thoroughly developed and argued by N.A. Slyadneva.
Undoubtedly, this is the most exotic, most radical concept, according to which the object of bibliography is any information objects (“informoquants”), both fixed in the form of documents (texts, works, publications, etc.) and unfixed (facts, ideas , fragments of knowledge as such, as well as thoughts, feelings, even premonitions). The metasystem of bibliography is the entire Universe of Human Activity (UCH), and the bibliography itself qualifies as a universal, all-penetrating methodological branch (science) such as statistics, mathematics, logic, etc.
It is easy to see that the relationship between these three concepts resembles a nesting doll: each subsequent one includes the previous one as a special case. In this regard, a complex terminological problem arises: is it right to assume that all three concepts are about bibliography?
If we proceed from the exact meaning of the term “bibliography”, then its use is absolutely legitimate only within the framework of the book science concept. It is here that "bibliography" appears in its own, historically original sense.
In the second concept, we are actually no longer talking about bibliography, but about documentography. However, one cannot but take into account that in both cases bibliographers deal with fundamentally homogeneous objects of bibliography, since books (written and printed works) are also documents. Therefore, in both concepts, the object of bibliography is a document. The only difference is that in the first case it is a certain kind of documents, and in the second - any documents.
On this basis, it can be argued that, within the framework of the documentographic concept, it is quite legitimate to use traditional bibliographic terminology, i.e., the familiar term “bibliography” and all its derivatives. Especially when you consider that the transition of an entire industry to new terminology(even if such a transition is desirable in principle) is a complex, expensive undertaking, associated with a long break and overcoming of historically established terminological traditions, and therefore difficult to implement. Is the game worth the candle? The question in this case is very pertinent.
The relationship between the first two and the third, the ideographic concept, looks completely different. Here the bibliography is taken far beyond the limits of the system of documentary communications and such ideographic attributes are attributed to it that have never been and never will be the objects of bibliographic description. In other words, here we are not talking about bibliography, more precisely, not only about bibliography.
Sometimes an ideographic concept is called ideodocumentographic. A very significant wording, which clearly reveals that everything that is hidden behind the “documentographic” term element refers to the documentographic concept, and what is behind the “ideo” term element has nothing to do with the bibliography.
There are two main reasons that prompted N.A. Slyadnev to create this concept.
Firstly, the desire to promote an increase in the social status, the value of bibliography as a field of professional activity in the context of global informatization of the surrounding reality.
Secondly, N.A. Slyadneva, as a representative of the sectoral bibliography of fiction, is concerned about “the phenomenon of synthetic, borderline forms of information that have arisen at the intersection of sectoral knowledge and bibliography” .
But these properties of bibliographic information have been known for a long time, since it has always existed both in independent forms (bibliographic aids) and in the form of bibliographic support, i.e., bibliographic elements in information sources that are generally not bibliographic. The simplest example is book bibliographic information, from which the more complex concept of affine bibliography later grew. The same applies to encyclopedias, reference books, abstract journals, etc., as well as to modern complex forms of recommendatory bibliographic products.
The whole difficulty lies in the fact that the degree and forms of localization of bibliographic information in such sources are different. In some cases they are obvious (for example, in book bibliography). In others, the bibliographic information is not so clearly localized and it is not easy to determine where bibliographic information ends and non-bibliographic information begins. This is especially noticeable in relation to large and super-large computer information systems such as nationwide (for example, the all-Russian information and library computer network LIBNET) or global (for example, the Internet). But that's what the theory of bibliography is for, to find out and explain what exactly in these systems is bibliographic, and not to try to enumerate them entirely according to the department of bibliography. Such an approach in society (outside the bibliography) will cause nothing but bewilderment.
In domestic bibliography science, fundamental, supercomplex in content categories have long been used as the basis for the formation of general bibliographic concepts as conceived by the authors culture And knowledge.
In its most general form, the inclusion of bibliography (as well as other areas of social practice) in the composition of human culture is obvious. It is more difficult to find a social object that does not have this quality. Therefore, the temptation to which many domestic bibliographers have been subjected is quite understandable, to see the original essence of bibliography in this inclusion of it.
Nowadays cultural concept bibliography in the most developed and complete form is presented in the works of M.G. Vokhrysheva.
The main provisions of the concept in the most general form are as follows: the object of bibliography is the values of culture, the metasystem of bibliography is culture. Accordingly, the bibliography, taken as a whole, is defined as a part of the culture that provides, by means of bibliographic means, the preservation and transmission of the documented values of the culture from generation to generation.
The direct connection of bibliography with the category of knowledge is as obvious as the connection with culture. Therefore, there is nothing strange in the desire of bibliographers to comprehend the essence of bibliography as a social phenomenon, relying on this side of it. The general "knowledge" qualification of bibliography has its roots in domestic bibliography in the distant pre-revolutionary past.
Yu.S. Teeth. The essence of his approach to the problem of the relationship between knowledge and bibliography is clearly expressed in the very title of the article “Bibliography as a system of folded knowledge” . The article is rich in fresh ideas for its time, but the main thesis is not sufficiently substantiated. In particular, it remains not entirely clear what “folded knowledge” is and what kind of knowledge is rolled up in the bibliographic description. Bibliographic information simply transferred from a document to its description (author, title, imprint, etc.) cannot be considered curtailed knowledge.
Today, the main representative of the so-called cognitive (“knowledge”) concept Bibliography is V.A. Fokeev. Of course, in terms of the breadth of coverage of the material, the thoroughness and depth of the development of the topic, and the variety of arguments, his works cannot be compared with a small article by Yu.S. Zubov.
However, despite the impressive scale of theoretical research by V.A. Fokeev, one can not agree with everything in his writings. There are enough obscure, contradictory, controversial points in them.
This can be illustrated by quoting a few small but very significant fragments from one of latest articles V.A. Fokeev “Noospheric-culturological (cognitographic) concept of bibliography” .
Here are the snippets:
1. “The fundamental idea of the concept: bibliography is a socio-cultural complex, including bibliographic knowledge (information), bibliographic social institution and bibliographic activity…” (p. 218);
2. “Metasystem of bibliography – noosphere…” (ibid.);
3. “The direct object of bibliography is an information object (source of knowledge) of any nature, a quantum (and in general terms, the world) of knowledge, fixed in a text, or a text and various forms of its existence: a document, a book, a publication, a work, etc.” (ibid.);
4. “The essence of bibliography lies in bibliographic knowledge (KB), which identifies the elements of the noosphere and provides access to the documented part of the noosphere…
The genesis of the bibliography lies primarily in biosocial factors. BZ is an artificial sign system - an “amplifier” of such a natural reflection organ as the brain” (pp. 218 – 219).
5. “Basic relationships in the field of bibliography… In the system “fixed text – human” needs-related relations to the text as such at the level of its existence legitimately arise.
Bibliographic relations are predominantly subject-subject correspondences, interactions of the dialogue of cultures” (p. 219).
It's enough. Now a short comment.
On the first point. The “fundamental idea of the concept” does not stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, a bibliographic social institution does not really exist, since bibliography as a social phenomenon does not have its own organizationally formalized integrity, and any social institution is only an “institution” when it is institutionally, i.e., first of all, organizationally formalized. The peculiarity of the position of bibliography in the system of documentary communications lies in the fact that bibliography (according to its secondary documentary nature) is characterized not by its own organizational structure, but by inclusion in other organizationally independent social institutions - in librarianship, book trade, archiving, etc. ( see § 2 of chapter 9 on this).
Secondly, even if the existence of a bibliographic social institution is admitted, the proposed list of three components of bibliography is logically unacceptable. In fact, these parts do not form a “three-angled formula” (p. 219), but a structural nesting doll, in which bibliographic knowledge as a result is an integral internal component of bibliographic activity, which in turn (together with bibliographic knowledge) is certainly part of the bibliography recognized as a social institution. As a result, nothing remains of the “Fundamental Idea of the Concept”, except for a social institution, the real existence of which is doubtful.
Finally, thirdly, there is one more logical flaw: the proposed structure is incomplete. For example, where is the place for bibliography in it? Probably all in the same social institution.
For the second point. Involving the noosphere in the role of a metasystem of bibliography (that is, a system related in content and the nearest larger system) is so artificial that it does not require detailed objections. Suffice it to recall what “noosphere” is.
As an objective reality, the noosphere is “a new evolutionary state of the biosphere, in which the rational activity of a person becomes a decisive factor in its development” . “As scientific progress progresses, mankind creates the noosphere as a special environment, which includes other organisms and a significant part of the inorganic world” .
As a scientific concept (moreover, as a philosophical category), the noosphere “is used in some evolutionary concepts to describe the mind as a special natural phenomenon. On the one hand, it (to the concept of the noosphere) is addressed by some theologians who seek ... to find an evolutionary interpretation of the dogmas of the church. On the other hand, this concept is very popular among scientists dealing with the problems of human interaction with the environment, in particular, environmental problems.
Everything seems to be clear. The inclusion of bibliography in the noosphere is obvious insofar as everything that is somehow, directly or indirectly connected with the activity of the human mind on planet Earth, is included in its noosphere. But from this it is unattainably far from qualifying the noosphere as a “metasystem” of bibliography in the sense in which this concept is used within the framework of the systems approach.
For the third point. This fragment, containing the definition of the object of the bibliography, is filled with logical errors and substitutions of concepts. First, the "information object" is introduced as the object of the bibliography. In parentheses, it is specified that this is a “source of knowledge”. This source immediately turns into a “quantum”, and in general terms into the “world” of knowledge itself. Meanwhile, elementary logic suggests: if you believe V.A. Fokeev and the object of the bibliography is really informational, then “quanta” and “worlds” of information follow from this, and not knowledge.
Then from the world of knowledge V.A. Fokeev returns to the concept of “text” and various forms of its existence. Here are the next factual and logical errors, since the actual “forms of existence” of the text are oral, handwritten, typewritten, printed, machine-readable, etc., and those listed by V.A. Fokeev “document, book, publication, work, etc.” these are the “forms of existence” of the document. Moreover, contrary to the requirements of logic, in one row are listed - general concept“document” and its own “forms of existence”.
As a result, if this confusion is eliminated, then on the basis of the above fragment it is not difficult to formulate a simple and clear definition: the direct object of bibliography is a document (as a source of information) with all the variety of forms of its existence: book, publication, work, etc.
Of course, it should be borne in mind that this definition lacks the consumer of information and the relationship "D - P" as a real direct object of bibliographic activity.
By the way, any text fixed on any material carrier is also one of the “forms of being” of a document.
On the fourth point. This fragment touches on two very important questions - about the essence of bibliography and about its genesis. “The essence of bibliography lies in bibliographic knowledge” – this is quite natural (since the very concept of “knowledge”) and at the same time one of the most controversial points of this concept.
The need for the development of knowledge in the ancient world led to the invention of writing, which, in turn, became the reason and condition for the emergence of a system of documentary communications on the historical stage. The bibliography is the inevitable product of this and only this system and essence of bibliographic phenomena always in this system. was and still is to the present day secondary documentary.
In general, it seems that V.A. Fokeev has a thinking prone to metaphorization of the reality he studies. “Quantum of knowledge”, “world of knowledge”, “world of texts”, “world of needs in texts”, “world of text communications”, etc. Concepts-metaphors, beautiful, but having no real scientific meaning. “Noosphere” in relation to bibliography is actually also a metaphor. What is worth, for example, the statement that the text is the content of the noosphere. Or what about bibliographic knowledge, “identifying the elements of the noosphere”? And what is the “documented part of the noosphere”? In terms of meaning, this is such a part that is documented, that is, based on documents, confirmed by documents, but this meaning does not correspond to the context in which it is placed in this case. In this context, the wording “documentary part (probably, more precisely, aspect) of the noosphere” would be more correct. But then it is logical to assume that the “documentary aspect of the noosphere” is the “system of documentary communications”, which acts as a “metasystem” of bibliography in the documentographic concept.
As for the “genesis” of bibliography, the statement that it “consists primarily in biosocial factors” contradicts the first fragment, which says that bibliography is a sociocultural, but not a biosocial complex. True, already in the next sentence it turns out what a “biosocial factor” is. It turns out that bibliographic knowledge is a “brain enhancer”! This is really something new in theoretical bibliography.
On the fifth point. Here we are talking about the main relations in the field of bibliography. In this regard, let us return briefly to the past. In 1996 V.A. Fokeev stated: “As an object of bibliography, I describe the system “the world of texts - the world of needs in texts”, and not “document - consumer”, as in the documentographic concept” . However, the fragment of the text in the fifth paragraph clearly indicates that, in fact, V.A. Fokeev himself is not averse to dealing with the “D-P” relationship, slightly disguising it terminologically: instead of a document, there is a “fixed text”, and instead of a consumer of information, simply “a person”.
Otherwise, this fragment is an illustration of obscurity. What does it mean “requirement relations to the text as such at the level of its existence”? Or how to understand that bibliographic relations are “subject-subject correspondences” and, at the same time, “interactions of the dialogue of cultures”?
Finishing acquaintance with the “cognitographic” concept of bibliography, we should dwell on one more important and controversial problem. It's about about the proposal of V.A. Fokeev to swap the concepts of “bibliographic information” and “bibliographic knowledge” in theory, i.e. transfer from the first concept to the second the functions of the original concept of the general theory of bibliography and the principle of distinguishing bibliographic phenomena from non-bibliographic ones (for this principle, see pp. 77 - 78)
This proposal quite logically follows from the cognitographic concept of bibliography, since in it “knowledge” is consistently and quite consciously given essential priority over "information".
Undoubtedly, the solution of the question of the relationship between the concepts of “bibliographic information” and “bibliographic knowledge” directly depends on the solution of a more general problem of the relationship of categories “ information" And " knowledge". Of course, the solution of this essentially philosophical problem is not within the competence of bibliography. The task of the bibliographer is to correctly choose from the existing points of view (and there are more than enough of them in the special literature on philosophy and computer science) the one that is most adequate to the bibliographic realities and therefore will be especially productive to “work” in bibliographic science.
Such a point of view exists. In principle, it is very simple and convincing. Its essence is that information is defined as the only form (method, means) of transmission and/or perception of knowledge in society that is possible and accessible to a person. A shorter form of the definition is extremely simple: information is transmitted and/or perceived knowledge.
It is easy to see that such an interpretation is very directly and productively transferred to bibliographic science: if information in general is transmitted and / or perceived knowledge, then bibliographic information is transmitted and/or perceived bibliographic knowledge.
From what has been said, it follows that in the broadest (philosophical) sense of the concept, information and knowledge are related as form and content.
Knowledge (including bibliographic) as such (intransmissible and incomprehensible) exists either in the human brain or is conserved in documentary funds in a state of storage. As soon as this knowledge begins to be transmitted and/or perceived in one way or another, it becomes information (including bibliographic information). Thus, knowledge has two main states: rest or storage (knowledge in itself, incommunicable, conserved) and movements or functioning, i.e. transmission and perception (information form of knowledge).
In principle, both states are equally important, since one is impossible without the other. But in this case, mainly due to the cognitographic concept, the problem of choice arose: which state of knowledge - the first or the second - is practically more important, more scientifically significant, initially more original for bibliographic science and practice? This is a fundamental question, on the answer to which the future of theoretical bibliography actually depends.
The concepts proposed by the prominent St. Petersburg scientist A.V. Sokolov and subsequently almost forgotten. This is a factual concept of bibliographic information and an interpretation of the nature of bibliography as a field of spiritual production.
It is hardly possible to agree with the third in a row and the last in time communication concept A.V. Sokolov, which is based on a complete rejection of the concept of information (including bibliographic information), as meaning nothing in the reality around us. It is proposed on a global scale (in particular in bibliography) to replace the concept of “information” with the concept of “communication”, although it is quite obvious that these concepts are not identical in content and therefore one does not replace the other [for more details about this concept, see 37, 60] . To paraphrase a well-known aphorism, we can say that all information is communication, but not all communication is information.
Finishing the characterization of his condition, it is appropriate to emphasize an idea that usually escapes the attention of many bibliographers. All the above and other concepts, according to the laws of logic, do not contradict each other, since they are based on different sides(signs) of bibliographic reality. They are quite compatible within the framework of the bibliography as a whole.
Meanwhile, it has become almost a sign of good taste, when creating another concept, to criticize the documentary one. Although in reality there is usually no sufficient reason for this. If, say, we look closely at a culturological or cognitographic concept, it will be found that in the first the object of bibliography is the documentary values of culture, and in the second - documentary knowledge, i.e. in both cases - documents. But this means that both culturological bibliography and cognitographic bibliography, simultaneously and together with their cultural and knowledge involvement, function in the system of documentary communications. It follows that in this respect, representatives of almost all concepts, at the same time, are full-fledged representatives of the documentographic concept. Perhaps only the concept of N.A. Slyadneva is only half documentary.
Thus, the main thing is not that a documentary or any other concept is better or worse than others, but what is their actual ratio, how and in what way they complement each other, and what whole they form together.
In one of his works, Valery Bryusov wrote about the worlds... where there are five continents, Arts, knowledge, wars, thrones And forty centuries! The "memory of the ages" of mankind is imprinted on the pages of books. Now there are many different carriers of information and knowledge, but the book continues to play a dominant role among them. How to "manage" book wealth? - This question has worried people for a long time. Compiled collections and anthologies the best works and collected works. IN Ancient Russia, for example, people of book business since the 11th century. they began to compose and rewrite anthologies, called the beautiful capacious word "selections".
Already in the ancient world, libraries were so extensive that the attendants could not remember all the papyrus scrolls or clay tablets stored there, their number reached many thousands. Inventories of libraries came to the rescue, which, gradually improving and developing, turned into modern card catalogs. Over time, lists, indexes, reviews of books and articles, various in purpose, subject matter, volume, and form, were added to library catalogs. All of them were usually called bibliographies, and in modern terminology they are bibliographic aids.
"Bibliography" is a word of ancient Greek origin. Literally, it means "writing". Around the 5th century BC.
in Greece, "bibliographers" began to refer to people who copied books.
With the collapse of the ancient world, the book culture created by it also perished, the word "bibliography" disappeared. He was remembered shortly after the invention of printing, coinciding in time with the onset of the Renaissance. Printers were sometimes called bibliographers. And only in the first half of the 17th century, the French scientists Gabriel Naudet and Louis Jacob first used the word "bibliography" in the sense of: "list of references". Then it acquired a broader meaning: "book description". Later, in the course of a long historical practice, the use of the term "bibliography" acquired the features of a pronounced ambiguity. Five of its most significant and stable meanings can be singled out: 1) "bibliography" as a separate bibliographic work, Bibliographic Index of Literature; 2) "bibliography" as a set of bibliographic works, selected according to some attribute or a bibliography of the periodical press; 3) "bibliography" as a science, the subject and tasks of which were formulated differently at different times and by different authors; 4) "bibliography" as an area of practical (or scientific and practical) activities for the preparation various sources bibliographic information and bibliographic services for consumers of information; 5) "bibliography" as the broadest collective concept, which includes all the above and any other bibliographic phenomena.
The last two definitions prevail in modern bibliographic science and practice.
In the course of the historical complication of bibliographic activity, its tasks and functions, organizational forms and methods become more and more diverse, and within the limits of bibliographic activity itself, the process of division of labor inevitably begins. Two main processes of bibliographic activity are distinguished: bibliography and bibliographic service.
In the first two standards for bibliographic terminology (GOST 16418-70 and GOST 7.0-77), the term "bibliography" was used to designate practical bibliographic activities.
As a result, the terms "bibliography" and "bibliographic activity" turned out to be synonymous. It is because of this identity of the concepts of "bibliography" and "bibliographic activity" that the second term was excluded from GOST 7.0 - 77.
Meanwhile, the active meaning is much better conveyed by the term "bibliographic activity".
The current GOST 7.0 - 84 covers the basic terminology of practical bibliographic activities. bibliographic activity itself is defined in it as "a field of information activity to meet the needs for bibliographic information".
In recent years, there has been a tendency to find a logically justified place for the term "bibliography" in the system of bibliographic terminology. In this sense, "bibliography" can be defined as a system of various activities (practical, research, teaching, management) that ensures the functioning of bibliographic information in society.
Thus, the term "bibliography", heading and uniting the system of bibliographic terminology, does not coincide in meaning with any of the elements of this system. In particular, the identity of the concepts "bibliography" and "bibliographic activity" is eliminated.
FORMS OF EXISTENCE OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION. DIVISION OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC PRODUCTS BY FORMS, TYPES, TYPES, GENRES.
The forms of existence of bibliographic information are diverse and concretely historically conditioned. In all this diversity, there is a common thing, which consists, first of all, in the fact that the elementary cell that makes up any bibliographic information is a bibliographic message.
A bibliographic message is formed from bibliographic information, i.e. data about the bibliographic document, which are extracted from the document itself or from other sources.
Bibliographic information only necessary material for the formation of a bibliographic message.
A bibliographic message is an integral structural entity consisting of bibliographic information, which is a minimal, further indivisible element of bibliographic information.
Bibliographic information can be transmitted in oral and documented form.
Oral bibliographic communication is widely used in library and bibliographic practice when issuing oral bibliographic references, in the course of bibliographic informing readers, when conducting oral bibliographic reviews and consultations, etc.
A bibliographic message recorded in documentary form is called a bibliographic record.
The minimum required part of a bibliographic record is the bibliographic description of the document.
A bibliographic description, being the minimum necessary element of a bibliographic record, i.e. of a documented bibliographic message is, accordingly, a mandatory and minimally necessary element of any documented bibliographic information.
A bibliographic record acts as an element of a bibliographic manual - the main mode of existence and the main means of dissemination and use of documented bibliographic information. A bibliographic manual is an ordered set of bibliographic records united by the unity of the idea, purpose, form and (or) content of the bibliographic information contained in the manual.
The concept of "bibliographic aid" covers a very wide range of documented ways of existence of bibliographic information. Any bibliographic information recorded in some finished documentary form is a bibliographic aid.
In the theory of bibliography, in relation to bibliographic aids, the following main classification categories are used: form, type, genre, type.
There are the following main forms of bibliographic aids: bibliographic publications - non-periodic, periodic and ongoing; non-independent publishing forms (intra-book, intra-magazine, intra-newspaper, book, bibliographic materials); - card forms (file cabinets); - mechanized and automated bibliographic (documentographic) IPS, including those implemented on a computer basis; The main types of bibliographic aids are considered to be an index, a list and a review of literature.
A bibliographic index is a bibliographic manual that has a complex structure and is equipped with an auxiliary apparatus.
A bibliographic list is a bibliographic manual with a fixed structure without an auxiliary apparatus.
A bibliographic review is a bibliographic manual, which is a coherent narrative about documents that are objects of bibliography.
Special types of bibliographic materials are indexes to editions and auxiliary indexes to bibliographic manuals.
1. Theoretical model of bibliography
Theory is a mental reproduction of some object (in this case, bibliographic information) and, most importantly, its explanation. scientific knowledge relies on theory. Dozens of books and hundreds of articles are devoted to the theory of bibliography. Knowledge of bibliography initially begins with consideration and understanding of its theoretical model. The latter is formed by a presentation of the essence of bibliography and its conceptual apparatus, characterization of bibliographic information as the core of bibliography, its properties, forms of existence and functions, main types of bibliographic information, explanation of systemic links of bibliography and its role in the modern world.
The earliest elements of bibliographic information in the form of references to ancient books (epic poems and songs about Gilgamesh, etc.) were found by scientists in the texts of clay tablets written in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. and later on Ancient East. These elements can be called proto-bibliographic (from the Greek "protos" first, primary). The word "bibliography" came to European languages precisely from Ancient Greece. In the documents of the 5th century. BC. scribes were called bibliographers. From the beginning of the 17th century for more than three subsequent centuries, it is used in the sense of not "writing", that is, copying books; and in the other - "book description". in Russia in the 18th century. it was borrowed from French as a tracing-paper of the word "bibliographie".
The word "bibliography" used to refer to any list of books, journals, articles and other documents. However, as the range of objects of bibliographic reflection expanded (in addition to books, they became magazines, newspapers, articles and other documents), the development of bibliographic activity, the further evolution of ideas about bibliography led to the fact that the number of interpretations of its essence multiplied. According to A.I. Badger, the number of bibliographic definitions was close to 400. The very word "bibliography" in the middle of the XX century. was used, as established by I.I. Reshetinsky in ten meanings. The main ones were four: “book description and science about it”, “list of books, magazines, articles and other printed works” that make up scientific, fiction and other types of literature (XIX-XX centuries), “the field of scientific and practical activities ”(proposed by L.N. Tropovsky in 1936), “auxiliary discipline” (M.A. Briskman - p. 9 of the textbook “General Bibliography”, 1957). The merit of the last two definitions is the desire to establish generic bibliographic relationships. In other words, I understood not only the essence of bibliography, but also to determine to which social phenomenon it refers.
And subsequently, scientists sought to establish generic relationships of bibliography. It was called the area of "culture" (B.Ya. Bukhshtab - 1961), "practical activity" (I.I. Reshetinsky - 1969), "book business" (A.I. Barsuk - 1975), "cognitive infrastructure of book communication" (A.V. Sokolov - 2001). In various sources, bibliography was also called “scientific-practical and activity” (GOST 7.0-77), or referred to the infrastructure of the social communication system” (Terminological dictionary for librarianship and related branches of knowledge. - 1995), “social communication system” (Librarianship: Terminol.slov. - 1997). M.G. Vokhrysheva interprets bibliography as a system that organizes “the space of information and knowledge.
These statements are true insofar as, by its nature, bibliography is part of culture, economics, education, science, social communications, and even more so the “space of information and knowledge” where documents are created, moved and used. But they do not reveal its specifics as a whole. The latter is embodied by its main component - bibliographic information. In the most general interpretation, bibliographic information is information about documents, mostly alienated from them. based on this interpretation. O.P. Korshunov proposed to define bibliography in the broadest sense - as a system of activities covering all bibliographic phenomena and ensuring the functioning of bibliographic information.
Thus, the modern scientific understanding of bibliography is based on the interpretation of its essence, the concept of "bibliographic information" and referring it to the information sphere of society, referred to in the current GOST 7.0-99 Library and information activities, bibliography as "information infrastructure". This GOST defines the information infrastructure as a set of information centers, data and knowledge banks, communication systems that provide consumers with access to information resources (term 3.1.34). It should be clarified that the concept of "infrastructure" means a subsystem that is auxiliary to any area of social activity and ensures the functioning of the area of activity. From this point of view, the information infrastructure is a social system that organizes the preparation and functioning of social information, and the bibliography is its subsystem, which has its own infrastructure.
The informational nature of the bibliography can be considered generally recognized. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the following definition is proposed: Bibliography is a social information system that ensures the preparation and functioning of bibliographic information.
Bibliography during the Renaissance (late 16th–mid 18th centuries)
Back in the 5th century, the Catholic Church began to compile lists of banned books, such lists were later compiled in the territories of countries with the Orthodox faith. As I said, in 1559 the first ...
World History Bibliography
bibliography book-collecting alphabetic...
To understand the essence of bibliography, the reasons for its emergence and the prospects for future development, it is important to return to its origins. The word "bibliography" is of ancient Greek origin. Literally, it means "book writing" ("biblion" - a book ...
The history of the emergence and development of bibliography
bibliography information knowledge communication Public functions of bibliography, variety of their names. We noted that the bibliography is a social institution...
The history of the emergence and development of bibliography
1. Correspondence of the bibliography to the economic and socio-cultural conditions of society. 2. The bibliography does not lose anything of value achieved over the years of its development. 3...
Cultural concepts of the second half of the 19th and 20th centuries
The Dutch culturologist and historian J. Huizinga (1872-1945) represented culture through play. In the works "Autumn of the Middle Ages" (1919), "Man Playing" (1938) ...
The mentality of Soviet political culture
Before proceeding directly to the study of political mentality, it is necessary to find out what the very concepts of "mentality" and "mentality" mean...
Methodological traditions and innovation G.N. Gennadi and S.A. Vengerov in compiling bibliographic dictionaries
Still life as a genre of painting
Considering the genre of still life, you can see that it is distinguished by its peculiar principles. A still life becomes a work of art if the artist sees its plot, the features of the composition of the form, the color scheme...
rock garden
"right">The stones taught me silence. "right">The stones taught me patience. "right">The stones taught me calmness. "right">The stones taught me contemplation. "right">The stones taught me the infinity of the universe...
Compilation of an annotated bibliographic list of references: a series of books about the art of the publishing house "ART-RODNIK"
Culturally and historically, the concept of "bibliography" arises at a certain stage in the formation of information activity, when the need for a purposeful development of this most important sphere of social activity is realized...
The essence and functions of the museum
The result of the work done should be the content of the site for a given subject heading. To achieve this goal, the content of the sites was analyzed. Based on data...