Stephen, I think entry under title sounds good. It seems absurd to set up separate personal name authorities for every book traditionally attributed to a famous person just because the subjects of the books seem diverse. Imagine a scenario where there are catalogers on the Moon that somehow have lost contact with the earth so they can’t get definite information on ambiguous authors here. They say, “this looks like a different subject. Maybe it’s a different person.” Sometimes they’d be right, but nothing but access to earth information would ever settle the matter. Given that the pseudo-Aristotles are generally ancient, it would be very hard to get information to distinguish them.


This is not to say there should never be separate authorities for the various pseudo-Aristotles, but it doesn’t seem practical to create them now.

Just my two cents.


Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 1:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Pseudo Aristotele


The LCNAF includes "Pseudo Aristotele" (n 2001003970), defined in a 670 attributed to Wikipedia as "a general cognomen for authors of philosophical or medical treatises who attributed their work to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, or whose work was later attributed to him by others."  Should it be coded as an undifferentiated name heading? And then what?


There are several titles attributed in LCNAF to "Pseudo Aristotele". Arguably this is a case where catalogers have inherited attribution to an undifferentiated name from classical scholarship. Nevertheless, should we break "Pseudo Aristotele" into separate, individuated authorities (implied in the work examples below) in accordance with the RDA and IFLA/LRM principle that authors must be real persons? That would also enable the work authorities to be more clearly distinguished as being by separate authors:


Pseudo Aristotele. $t De coloribus -> Pseudo Aristotele $c (Author of De coloribus). $t De coloribus


Pseudo Aristotele. $t Pepli epitaphia -> Pseudo Aristotele $c (Author of Pepli epithaphia). $t Pepli epitaphia


Pseudo Aristotele. $t Quaestiones mechanicae ->  Pseudo Aristotele $c (Author of Quaestiones mechanicae). $t Quaestiones mechanicae


Then there's Anaximenes of Lampsacus, whose work Rhetorica ad Alexandrum has been attributed at times to Aristotle and to Pseudo Aristotle. Should we change the 400s on the authority for the "Anaximenes ... $t Rhetorica ad Alexandrum" to:


400 0 $a Pseudo Aristotle $c (Author of Rhetorica ad Alexandrum). $t Rhetorica ad Alexandrum


Hopefully that would not entail also establishing " Pseudo Aristotle $c (Author of Rhetorica ad Alexandrum)" for which there is currently no attributed resource.


Alternatively, these could all be entered under title, with 400s for the former entries under "Pseudo Aristotele" (unqualified). With no need to attribute works to the differentiated identities of Pseudo Aristotele, we could dispense with re-establishing them individually--the 100 name heading would be superseded by 400 $a $t references to works entered under title.


Lastly, at the moment it appears that "Quaestiones mechanicae" has been established under both "Aristotle" and "Pseudo Aristotele" in LCNAF, so entry under title might be a way to resolve that argument.








Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

170A Wilson Library (office)

160 Wilson Library (mail)

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Ph: 612-625-2328

Fx: 612-625-3428

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242