Print

Print


I think one of the principles of the PCC is to respect the judgments of our colleagues when it's not a clear error, and since Kathie seems to have investigated this area and has some expertise in it, I would suggest we let her come up with the best solution.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 00:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Open-ended cross-references

I also do not like "continuation of," but I like "sequel to" even less. I will try to explain why.

Guillaume's poem and Jean's poem TOGETHER constitute the work that is commonly published as and studied under the title "Roman de la Rose." The work cited in Yang's record evidently treats only Jean de Meun's portion of the poem. It is an exception. If Jean's portion is characterized as a "sequel," the danger exists that future catalogers of editions of and commentaries on the entire work will hastily assign only the name and title of the "original work." 

(As an aside, I think "Rose" should be capitalized, as it is in some of the existing author-title records. This "Rose" is an allegorical figure in female form, not a literal rose, and as such it is a character in the poem, the poet's beloved, whose name is "la Rose.")

If we are not going to revert to the original form of the heading--a title, "Roman de la Rose"--and make that the authorized access point for all editions and commentaries, then the only reasonable solution is to establish "Roman de la Rose" under each author's name, without calling either part a "sequel." There could be a 667 explaining the situation, and a straight 500 author-title reference to the earlier/later author's name plus the title, without an "i" subfield. 

Editions of the entire poem henceforth would be entered as compilations, under the title of the particular edition, with author-title added entries under each author's name. This is similar to current practice, except that now the main entry is under Guillaume, with a uniform title, and the added entry under Jean has no title component. Moving the author-title combination "Guillaume ... Roman de la Rose" to an added entry would be analogous to the change that happens now when AACR 2 cataloging for a compilation of two works by different authors is upgraded to RDA.

Works about the entire poem would be treated exactly as they are now, except the subject for Jean would have a title component (instead of the subdivision "Criticism and interpretation" that it rather inconsistently gets now). In practice, this has already frequently been applied, and we have two name-title subjects, without the name-title for "Jean, de Meun ... Roman" being established. See, for example, OCLC 1129397479 (a conference). In one case, OCLC 994368020, the only existing author-title heading under Jean (Roman de la Rose. ǂn Verses 4059-7230) has been mistakenly applied when apparently the entire poem, including Jean's entire contribution, is discussed.

(Again, an aside, and with apologies: I know Adam believes in the value and power of the 386 field, also for bibliographic records--I attended a very convincing presentation by him not long ago--but personally, I fail to see the utility at present of characterizing any particular work as by a creator or contributor in the category "Men." The newly released NACO Participants' Manual says "LC/PCC catalogers may use this field but are encouraged to wait until best practice guidelines are developed by the PCC.")

Perhaps Yang wouldn't mind holding off on this until I have drafted my own attempt at an author-title for "Jean, de Meun ... Roman de la Rose," as well as necessary revisions to the existing author-title for "Guillaume, de Lorris ... Roman de la Rose"?

I would also be happy to hear from anyone out there in PCC-land who deals on a day-to-day basis with the peculiar challenges of creating name-title and/or title authority records for medieval works, which frequently exist in multiple versions, the relationship among which is often opaque or uncertain. 

__
Kathie Coblentz
Rare Materials Cataloger
Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints, and Photographs The New York Public Library Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
476 Fifth Avenue, Rm. 313, New York, NY 10018 nypl.org

My opinions, not NYPL's