Well, yes, but what provision in the rules disallows the use of the verb
or its abbreviation? I do not like the use of the term "sculp." because
the same individual might use sculp. sc. or even del. Gary Strawn is
correct in that the qualifying term need not be a noun, but I do think
that the verb is awkward and that you cannot (absent a provision in an
LCRI) create authority records with a term that is not present in some
source, something you can do for musicians. The hierarchy in the LCRI for
the choise of descriptors for otherwise identical surnames is 1) the chief
source of information, 2) elsewhere in the item, and 3) in reference
I would prefer to invoke the statement in the LCRI for 22.19 that, "When a
descriptive phrase is long or complex and would result in an awkward
addition to the heading, prefer the "flourished" or "century" date(s)."
Much of the time a surname with a fl. date or even a century date can
serve as a placeholder" to distinguish two otherwise identical names. If
there is no person identified by that surname, you need not even add a
date in the authority record and simply use a relator term or code in the
Since you will be doing a lot of these, investment in comprehensive
reference sources might be worthwhile. Karen might know of a few that not
even the Folger has.
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[log in to unmask]
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Karen Nipps wrote:
> I DO have a strong opinion ;) Do not use the verb or its abbreviation.
> O'Keefe, Doris N. wrote:
>> Hi Deborah,
>> I don't have a strong opinion but will point out that there are headings
>> for printers in NAF with a $c printer in the heading resulting in $c
>> printer, $e printer. Not nice to look at, I agree, but useful until better
>> headings (i.e., ones with distinguishing dates) can replace them.
>> /Doris O'Keefe/
>> /Senior Cataloger for Rare Books/
>> /American Antiquarian Society/
>> /185 Salisbury Street/
>> /Worcester, Mass. 01609/
>> /phone: (508) 471-2145/
>> /e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
>> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 31, 2008 2:04 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Name authorities for engravers
>> Dear colleagues,
>> I'd like to hear thoughts on the use of "sculp." and its variations in
>> NARs. Engravers often sign their work, with or without forename, followed
>> by "sc." "sculp." sculpt." and sometimes even spelt out as "sculpsit." The
>> LC/NACO Authority File has examples of catalogers using this form of
>> qualifier to break conflicts (example: 100 Andre, ác sculp.) Indeed, I
>> have done so myself.
>> The problem is that "sculpsit" means "engraved it," not "engraver." This
>> therefore means that we're using a verb as a "descriptive phrase."
>> Would it be appropriate to continue the practice of using a Latin verb
>> phrase as a descriptive phrase? Or would it be more appropriate to provide
>> an English approximation of what "sculpsit" indicates rather than using
>> the phrase itself (example: 100 Rivers, ác engraver). The downside of the
>> latter is that the qualifier will often be the same as the relator term.
>> In either case, would it be helpful to provide cross references to surname
>> only with the "descriptive phrase" when a name appears on works that way?
>> This has become a pressing topic for us since we're in the midst of a
>> grant project to catalog and digitize images relating to Shakespeare, and
>> we'll be submitting lots of NARs for engravers. This is an issue for
>> artists, too: "de." "del." "delt." &c. stands for delineavit (=drew it).
>> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
>> Head of Cataloging
>> Folger Shakespeare Library
>> 201 East Capitol St., S.E.
>> Washington, D.C. 20003
>> [log in to unmask] | _http://www.folger.edu_
> Karen Nipps
> Head, Rare Books Team
> Houghton Library
> Harvard University
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> (T) 617-496-9190; (F) 617-495-1376