Print

Print


John,

That is confusing about an earlier 5th ed. in 1846. I noticed that last evening, too. However, the first (5th) ed. that had additions by William Guy was in 1875, and Guy says in that preface that 1875 was when Henry Renshaw “arranged with me for a 5th ed.” So Renshaw was still alive in 1875. He says Renshaw had passed away before the 6th edition.

 

I think a “Henry Renshaw (Firm)” heading is the best solution, since the imprint continued after his death, at least till 1899. However, if we’re not going to change the date on the personal name heading, I think it should be deleted.  I can’t see any evidence an ending date 1851 is correct.

 

I don’t like [personal name] (Firm) headings very much, generally. We had a local one in our catalog some years ago that was changed to the name of a completely extraneous corporate body by LTI, because the [personal name] (Firm) was a 410 on its authority record. I think you should only use (Firm) dates if they are nationally established. But in this case, I think we’ve done enough research to identify Henry Renshaw as a real firm.

 

We use publisher names as added entries in our catalog for our special collections materials. It can be a hassle sometimes. The worst dilemmas are the “At the office of the [periodical]” imprints. I’m always torn between creating an artificial heading for the “office” or using the title of the periodical. Neither seems really correct.

 

Thanks, Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] When floruit dates are wrong

 

I’m not a big fan of fl. dates, but I would strongly advise against changing this heading without firm evidence.  There was a 5th edition already in 1846:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081667366

 

There is no advantage in changing a fl. date to a guessed-at death date.  This may be indicative of the kind of headaches we’ll get into if we start making “preferred access points” for each publisher in RDA.  And why do we need an added entry for the publisher of a late-19th century book?

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian

Langdell Hall

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 20:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] When floruit dates are wrong

 

Thanks a lot, Ed.

 

It looks to me as if from that preface, you could revise the dates for Henry Renshaw to, say, “d. ca. 1875.” The fifth ed. of “The Original,” the last edition the preface says Henry was involved in, was published in 1875. At least if you believe OCLC bib #62113710, the 6th ed. was also published that year, after the death of Henry. That preface shows it was published by his son William, retaining the imprint “Henry Renshaw.” So maybe “d. 1875?” would be more correct, if it’s legal. The 6th edition continued to be published by them until 1900.

 

Or would it be better to create a “Henry Renshaw (Firm)” heading to reflect the fact that the imprint continued after his death?

 

Thanks again,

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] When floruit dates are wrong

 

The “Henry Renshaw” imprint was continued after his death by his son William. Cf. pref. to 6th ed. of Walker’s Original. http://books.google.com/books?id=zlg_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] When floruit dates are wrong

 

I hope someone can enlighten me on this question.  

 

There is a heading Renshaw, Henry, fl. 1832-1851. He was a publisher in London. I notice a number of catalogers have used this heading for books that were published significantly after 1851. If you do a search on OCLC,  Publisher = Renshaw and Publisher location = London, you will not find any apparent break after the year 1851. There is no evidence that the name became corporate after his death in 1851, for example. You find the usage “Henry Renshaw, 356, Strand, London” on records from 1834 to 1899.

 

The person who created the authority seems to have based the dates on a listing in the British Book Trade Index. That is searchable online, and I found the entry. It gives dates 1832-1851, but couldn’t that just be incorrect or based on incomplete information?

 

Let’s say the Index has inside information, and Renshaw really died in 1851. But shouldn’t we at least avoid using that personal name heading for later publications?

 

Thanks

 

Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library