I agree with Preston’s points. Another factor is that we have already seen that works about the poet use the name Geoghegan, because what else could they use? Isn’t that the name under which users would look
for him? What is the value in establishing an access point that can’t be searched? There should be an instruction someplace that in order to be a name, it has to include at least some alphanumeric characters.
------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Salisbury, Preston
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 11:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] preferred name made out of symbols
While he may not have published poetry under his full name, he was known during his lifetime as the author of
The Monks of Kilcrea, per the Irish Monthly article.
I think we also have to take care not to back-cast notions of identity and anonymity on to people from past centuries. J. M. Barrie occasionally wrote articles under the name James Anon (sometimes for the sole
purpose of poking fun at himself, given the nature of some of the articles collected in
The Greenwood Hat.) But he also clearly did not regard this as a separate identity. Geoffrey Chaucer originally wrote
Canterbury Tales anonymously (as was the case for almost every work prior to the 18th century.) Jonathan Swift originally published
Gulliver’s Travels under Lemuel Gulliver.
While the short-lived and much lamented on both sides “fictitious characters” rules would have allowed for us to catalog
Gulliver’s Travels under the name of the original author, thankfully to my knowledge no one ever did so. I think most people would agree that Mary Anne Evans was not publishing under George Eliot in order to establish another identity, but to avoid her
work being ignored due to ideas concerning women’s authorship in the 19th century. There could be multiple reasons why Arthur Gerald Geoghegan would not use his name on his poems (the fact that he was Irish and, as a civil servant, working for the
occupying British government might have had something to do with it) that had nothing to do with desiring to establish a different identity.
In the end, though, it is cataloger’s judgement. My preference would be to use the authority record already in existence, but ultimately it is up to you.
Preston Salisbury
Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger
Mississippi State University
(662) 325-4618
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Luiza Wainer
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 9:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] preferred name made out of symbols
According to the cataloger who drafted the *** record:
“I think that the information at
http://www.from-ireland.net/people-irish-arthur-gerald-geoghegan/ shows that Geoghegan's use of the three asterisks "represents a deliberate attempt to create separate identities" as per Jessica's email. Geoghegan specifically uses the attribution "***"
for his poetry, according to this source, whereas in his professional endeavors as a civil servant, he uses his full name.”
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: 07 March, 2019 10:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] preferred name made out of symbols
But is it really a separate identity? The PCC FAQ on pseudonyms encourages us to err on the side of caution unless there is evidence that multiple name usage represents a deliberate attempt to create separate
identities, such as if someone exclusively publishes poetry under one name and prose under the other name. However, if *** and Arthur Gerald Geohegan are used in essentially free variation or if poetry originally published under *** was later published under
Arthur Gerald Geohegan or if he used a number of fanciful affectations interchangeably then it wouldn’t really be a pseudonym. Apologies if I am misunderstanding and your research has already confirmed the nature of the *** usage.
Jessica Janecki
Rare Materials Cataloger
David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library
Duke University
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Luiza Wainer
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 9:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] preferred name made out of symbols
Thanks for the resources, Preston.
The cataloger who drafted a record for *** here at PUL has noted that this author published poetry under the name *** but was known professionally/personally as Arthur Gerald Geohegan. Clearly these are two separate
identities of the same entity, so I’m not entirely comfortable putting *** as a 400 in Geohegan’s record.
Luiza
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Salisbury, Preston
Sent: 07 March, 2019 9:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] preferred name made out of symbols
And here is a more brief, but more easily accessible, link to information on the poet, who also apparently signed some poems with the “figure of a hand”
http://www.ricorso.net/rx/az-data/authors/g/Geoghegan_AG/life.htm
Hope this is helpful.
Preston Salisbury
Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger
Mississippi State University
(662) 325-4618
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Salisbury, Preston
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 8:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] preferred name made out of symbols
I’m not certain what the best way to handle this would be. However, the poet in question (I’m almost certain, unless multiple poets in 19th century Ireland signed their name thusly) already has an
authority record. n 2004063485, for Geoghegan, Arthur Gerald, $d 1810-1889.
Now the question becomes whether one should add a 400 to the record. I would lean towards the negative, but I do think a 680 field noting that he frequently signed his name with two asterisks would be helpful.
For a source on the three asterisks, see Irish Monthly, volume 13, 1885,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20497274?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents for a link.
Preston Salisbury
Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger
Mississippi State University
(662) 325-4618
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Luiza Wainer
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] preferred name made out of symbols
Dear collective wisdom,
Just wanted some guidelines on creating NARs for entities whose names consist entirely out of symbols or punctuation marks. I know records like these exist in the NAF, even though they are not searchable in OCLC or id.loc.gov: the band
!!! (no2005023261) was the only one I could think of off the top of my head besides Prince, of course, but there is no 400 for his love symbol #2.
In my case, I have a 19th century Irish poet who signed his works as
*** . Should I (or better yet: can I) have
*** as the main entry? Should I do something like
[three asterisks] or
[three stars] instead? Would it be necessary to qualify the preferred name by
$c (Poet) ?
Would love some input on this.
Thanks,
__
Luiza Wainer
Metadata Librarian
Princeton University Library
[log in to unmask] | (609) 258-2789
(Pronouns: they/them/theirs)