You can create an authority record/AAP for works that are not extant, like this one. There are plenty of “lost” works that get written about, or reconstructed, etc., that may need access points, particularly as subjects. And as you point out, “Fragments” covers more than this particular work, so if you need an access point for it it’s fine to create one for the individual work “Sacred history” (or “Hiera anagraphē,” whichever you decide is the preferred title for this work based on application of the 184.108.40.206 exception for classical and Byzantine Greek works, that is, do you think “Sacred history” is “well-established” in English—it probably is).
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Euhemeris was a Greek author who wrote a book a while back called "Heira anagraphe (commonly referred to in English as "Sacred history")." The book is mostly lost, being extant only in descriptive citations from the likes of Kalimachus, Diodorus, and others.
Why do I care? I have a book here at my desk that offers criticism and interpretation of this work, and it seems a reasonable thing to have a subject heading
60000 Euhemerus, of Messene, active 4th century B.C. Sacred history
Question 1: Can we really call Euhemerus the author if the only extant portions of his book exist in the quite likely pitched citations of other authors? It's a lot easier to call him the author, and that's exactly what I plan to do, but considering that I don't get into this end of the pool too often it would behoove me to check with those who have a bit more experience.
Question 2: There exists an authority
1000 Euhemerus, ǂc of Messene, ǂd active 4th century B.C. ǂt Fragments
4000 ǂw nnea ǂa Euhemerus, ǂc of Messene, ǂd 4th cent. B.C. ǂt Fragments
4000 Euhemerus, ǂc of Messene, ǂd active 4th century B.C. ǂt Euhemeri Messenii reliquiae
667 THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED
670 Euhemeri Messenii reliquiae, 1991.
I glanced at the book cited in the 670, and the citations here aren't just Heira anagraphe but also bits about the author himself which he did not write. My question then, for the work I'm cataloging: is it appropriate to ignore this authority and construct one specifically for "Sacred history"? Or is it possible that this authority either intentionally or unintentionally represents ALL fragments by or related to Euhemerus?
I apologize for tossing this one out there among you all, but getting feedback from others with more experience in this is clearly the right path.
Thanks for any input you all might have.
Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger
Berkeley, CA 94720
If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts.
If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants