To the CPSO:
The following comments are submitted by Maria Oldal, a member of the Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS/NA on behalf of the Committee.
********************
Cataloging manuscripts and manuscript-related material has a steep learning curve, so we are very glad that the CPSO has revised LCRI25.13 to include additional guidance. We feel, however, that there are some areas of the LCRI that need refinement or additional detail.
First, the LCRI is heavily weighted towards examples featuring named manuscripts. These represent a tiny percentage of all manuscripts. About 99.5% of all manuscripts do not have names, and are identified by users solely by their repository designation (name of the repository coupled with shelf number). The focus on named manuscripts in the LCRI may give catalogers, many of whom will have little experience in this area, the misleading impression that most manuscripts have a name, if only they will dig hard enough for it, and may lead to a great deal of misplaced effort trying to track these non-existent names down. It would be helpful to clarify this in the LCRI.
Second, we interpret the LCRI recommendation to "Always prefer the title or name of the manuscript to the repository designation" as making absolute what is merely a preference in AACR25.13. In other words, we interpret it as meaning that any name or title, no matter how ephemeral or infrequently applied, is to be preferred to the repository designation. Is this interpretation correct, or may the cataloger weigh other factors? One example to illustrate: it is common practice for the publisher of an expensive facsimile reproduction of a manuscript to assign the manuscript a catchy name as a marketing technique. One of the Pierpont Morgan Library's best known manuscripts, M.638, was never referred to as the "Crusader Bible" until the publisher of the 1998-99 facsimile came up with this appellation as a way of generating sales. To prefer a name of this type, simply because it happens to be a name, over a much more widely used repository designation runs counter to the usual practice in authority work of preferring the predominant name form, and we are not sure that this was the intent of AACR25.13.
Third, we think more guidance is needed in choosing among the different variants of a manuscript name or title. As noted above, publishers are very cavalier, not to say creative, with manuscript names. Scholars, too, tend to use manuscript names very loosely (cf. the interchangeable use of [Personal Name] Hours and Hours of [Personal Name]), since they regard them as nicknames rather than as official designators, and expect that the repository designations will always be used for identification and retrieval. Language variations are another problem. Manuscript names in facsimiles are often given as parallel titles, with the first title in the language of the publisher, and subsequent titles chosen on no discernible principle that we can see; cf. Das Schwarze Stundenbuch = The black hours = Les heures noires. Luzern : Faksimile Verlag, 2001 for a Flemish manuscript owned by the Pierpont Morgan Library. And of course a work about a manuscript will refer to the manuscript in the language of the publication*if a scholar writing in Hungarian had been the first to write about the decoration in the Farnese Hours, would the heading have been established as "Farnese hóráskönyv?"
In determing the name of the manuscript, the LCRI instructs catalogers to "consider the item being cataloged, the LC/NAF, and reference sources." As we have indicated, the item being cataloged is a very unsatisfactory source, and LC/NAF can only offer help by analogy. We would suggest that reference sources should be the first choice, and that the instructions in LCRI 25.2 (named individual works of art) for choosing among various reference sources are a good starting point, since the titles of manuscripts as objects share some of the same characteristics as works of art: titles/names are usually assigned after the creation of the object, fluctuate with changes in scholarship and/or ownership, and vary according to the language of the publication in which they are discussed.
The relevant part of LCRI 25.2 is:
"Use as the uniform title the title found in English-language reference sources. If not found in English-language reference sources, use other reference sources. However, a reference source that routinely uses one language for all titles should not be used unless necessary. If the evidence is inconclusive, use (in this order of preference) the title found in:
encyclopedias or dictionaries
indexes
a catalogue raisonné for the artist
catalogs issued by the body owning the work of art."
This would need some revision (e.g. a reference to manuscript censuses instead of catalogues raisonné) but would be a much better guide.
Fourth, it would be helpful to include instructions for cases where the popular name of the manuscript is non-distinctive. To mention but one example, there are several different manuscripts called the Black Hours (or non-English language equivalents). LCRI 25.5B, which deals with conflicts in named individual works of art, lists several different conflict resolvers. The most appropriate for manuscripts would be repository (with the shelfmark added in cases when two mss of the same name are owned by the same repository).
A few other smaller points: Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 seems an odd choice as an example in this LCRI. The name is simply a Latin, unstructured version of the repository designation. If this is acceptable, then why not "Cotton Nero ms. D. IV" or "Morgan manuscript 69"?
We assume that the $p in one of the see references to the Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 is an typo.
A welcome addition to the LCRI draft is the Bamberger Psalter example that shows object and work headings side by side. Previously catalogers had to put the pieces together from AACR2 22.25B and 25.13. It would even be more helpful to include a work/object heading pair with their respective 667 notes. (And the coding for Bamberger Psalter should be changed to 130 #0.)
The very last sentence of the draft under the heading Bible, Catholic Church Liturgy, etc., Manuscripts could use some clarification. It says: "Do not relate the two headings with see also references." Does this mean that catalogers are not to add mutual see also references to any work/object heading pairs, or are there categories where mutual see also references may be added? For example, the textual contents of books of hours, peppered with prayers that reflect the patron's taste or with references to local saints and holidays, are considered unique. Should these retain their mutual see also references?
It would also be helpful to include a few examples that represent more complicated situations, e.g. parts of a manuscript now stored in various repositories. This situation comes up more often than one might think. How should a cataloger construct a heading or headings for the physical objects?
We hope that the CPSO's consideration of these points and other issues raised on the PCCLIST will result in an even more helpful version of the updated LCRI.
**********************
cc PCCLIST
--
Maria Oldal
Head of Cataloging and Database Maintenance
The Pierpont Morgan Library
29 East 36th Street
New York, NY 10016-3403
TEL: 212 590-0382
FAX: 212 685-4740
NET: [log in to unmask]
Visit CORSAIR, the Library's comprehensive collections catalog,
now on the web at
http://corsair.morganlibrary.org
|