On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 21:54:56 +0000, Adam L Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>continuation of (work): A work that is continued by the content of a later work.
>This relationship applies generally to serials.
>Reciprocal relationship: continued by (work).
>Since RDA says that "continuation of/continued by" applies generally to serials, I am wondering if "sequel to" is more appropriate?:
>sequel to: A work whose narrative is continued by the later work.
>Reciprocal relationship: sequel.
>If "sequel to/sequel" is not appropriate, then you could always go up to the high level designator that encompasses both "continuation of" and "sequel to":
>preceded by (work): A work that precedes, that is, is earlier in time or before in a narrative, etc., the succeeding work.
>Reciprocal relationship: succeeded by (work)
>Comment on the qualifier used in your 430 field. I believe you should punctuate it the same as the preferred name itself: (Jean, de Meun). "De Meun" is not a surname, it is an appellation associating him "with a place of origin or domicile" (RDA 220.127.116.11). RDA says to precede such words or phrases by a comma.
>You could also add:
>370 $g France $2 naf
>386 French $2 lcdgt
>386 Men $2 lcdgt
>And I would definitely suggest adding:
>500 1_ $w r $i Author: $a Jean, $c de Meun, $d approximately 1240-approximately 1305
>University of Washington Libraries
I also do not like "continuation of," but I like "sequel to" even less. I will try to explain why.
Guillaume's poem and Jean's poem TOGETHER constitute the work that is commonly published as and studied under the title "Roman de la Rose." The work cited in Yang's record evidently treats only Jean de Meun's portion of the poem. It is an exception. If Jean's portion is characterized as a "sequel," the danger exists that future catalogers of editions of and commentaries on the entire work will hastily assign only the name and title of the "original work."
(As an aside, I think "Rose" should be capitalized, as it is in some of the existing author-title records. This "Rose" is an allegorical figure in female form, not a literal rose, and as such it is a character in the poem, the poet's beloved, whose name is "la Rose.")
If we are not going to revert to the original form of the heading--a title, "Roman de la Rose"--and make that the authorized access point for all editions and commentaries, then the only reasonable solution is to establish "Roman de la Rose" under each author's name, without calling either part a "sequel." There could be a 667 explaining the situation, and a straight 500 author-title reference to the earlier/later author's name plus the title, without an "i" subfield.
Editions of the entire poem henceforth would be entered as compilations, under the title of the particular edition, with author-title added entries under each author's name. This is similar to current practice, except that now the main entry is under Guillaume, with a uniform title, and the added entry under Jean has no title component. Moving the author-title combination "Guillaume ... Roman de la Rose" to an added entry would be analogous to the change that happens now when AACR 2 cataloging for a compilation of two works by different authors is upgraded to RDA.
Works about the entire poem would be treated exactly as they are now, except the subject for Jean would have a title component (instead of the subdivision "Criticism and interpretation" that it rather inconsistently gets now). In practice, this has already frequently been applied, and we have two name-title subjects, without the name-title for "Jean, de Meun ... Roman" being established. See, for example, OCLC 1129397479 (a conference). In one case, OCLC 994368020, the only existing author-title heading under Jean (Roman de la Rose. ǂn Verses 4059-7230) has been mistakenly applied when apparently the entire poem, including Jean's entire contribution, is discussed.
(Again, an aside, and with apologies: I know Adam believes in the value and power of the 386 field, also for bibliographic records--I attended a very convincing presentation by him not long ago--but personally, I fail to see the utility at present of characterizing any particular work as by a creator or contributor in the category "Men." The newly released NACO Participants' Manual says "LC/PCC catalogers may use this field but are encouraged to wait until best practice guidelines are developed by the PCC.")
Perhaps Yang wouldn't mind holding off on this until I have drafted my own attempt at an author-title for "Jean, de Meun ... Roman de la Rose," as well as necessary revisions to the existing author-title for "Guillaume, de Lorris ... Roman de la Rose"?
I would also be happy to hear from anyone out there in PCC-land who deals on a day-to-day basis with the peculiar challenges of creating name-title and/or title authority records for medieval works, which frequently exist in multiple versions, the relationship among which is often opaque or uncertain.
Rare Materials Cataloger
Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints, and Photographs
The New York Public Library
Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
476 Fifth Avenue, Rm. 313, New York, NY 10018
My opinions, not NYPL's