LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  January 2006

PCCLIST January 2006

Subject:

Re: Draft LCRI 25.13

From:

Maria Oldal <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:12:56 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager