You are correct that in general, if you have a collection of the correspondence of 2 people it should be title main entry with added entries for the correspondence collections/selections of each author. I say in general because there are always edge cases where it is 99% the correspondence of person A with 1 or two letters from person B tacked on as an appendix.

Jessica Janecki

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 7:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Two-author correspondence collections in RDA
Whoops. Please disregard my last paragraph in the email below, the one about cuttering. My mind got tangled up and it doesn’t make sense. There was a kernel of sense at first but it’s just about disappeared.

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 26, 2019, at 6:30 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi all,


I am curious about decisions made in the cataloging of the book Dialogo entre filhos de Xango (2017313430). 


This is a collection of correspondence between Roger Bastide and Pierre Verger.  The 100-240 combination in the record represents the component work by Bastide, while Verger’s component work is in a 700 name-title entry. 


In RDA, shouldn’t both works be represented by 700 name-title entries, with the book being entered under the title proper?


This was the judgment expressed in an email from Kate James in January 2018 that I just now referred to.  But I believe I have seen other PCC records since then that were like the one for the Bastide-Verger collection.  So I’m wondering what the dogma is now.


Kate’s email was written in the context of discussion about a collection of correspondence between Albert Camus and Maria Casares (the record is 2017488613).  She said that this book should not be entered under either author.    


But now I find that while the two correspondence “works” are still in 700 fields in 2017488613 and there is no 240, there IS a 100 for Camus.  I’m not sure on what basis the 100 exists.  Having it on the Camus-Casares record while there are also two name-title work entries in 700 seems odd for an RDA record.  (I guess it is not too different from the practice of having a 100 in a record for a bilingual book while also having two 700 name-title entries for the different expressions manifested in the book.  But in that case, the author in the 100 really is responsible for the whole book.)


So anyway:  what should be done in the case of a collection of correspondence written by two authors to each other?  Do we enter under one of the authors, or under title?  And do we put the component works (represented by CCTs) of both authors in twin 700s, or one in a 100/240 and the other in a 700?


Furthermore, if we enter under title, how do we cutter?  In the case of the Bastide and Verger book, neither author is primarily literary and the book has a strong subject focus (Afro-Brazilian cults), so cuttering it by title doesn’t seem weird.  But it WOULD seem a bit weird to cutter the Camus-Casares collection by title.  Would you?




Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University