| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Area 7 version 10, part 1

Page history last edited by Margaret Nichols 12 years, 11 months ago

7. Note Area

[Notes that were temporarily put here have been moved to their respective sections--title, source of title, statement of responsibility, etc.--in this Area. MN]

Contents:

7A. Preliminary rule

7B. Notes

 

7A. Preliminary rule  

 

7A1. General instructions

7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, especially when the rules for such description do not allow certain information to be included in the other areas. Notes can therefore deal with any aspect of the manuscript.

 

7A1.2. Notes, by their nature, cannot be enumerated exhaustively, but can be categorized in terms of the areas of description to which they pertain. In addition to notes relating to these areas, there are notes that do not correspond to any area of the formalized areas of description. Occasionally it may be useful to group together notes that refer to more than one area, for instance when they are all based on one source within the work.

 

7A1.3. Use notes to capture aspects of the manuscript that cannot be fully explained in the preceding areas [EOK: does that includes the 1XX, or just the fields from 245 through 5XX?]. When appropriate, refer to detailed descriptions in standard catalogs, bibliographies or other sources. Provide sufficient information to identify the specific source, whether using a general note, a formal “References” note giving the source in prescribed form (see 7B14), or some combination of the two. [Note to us: The use of notes is much more common and abundant in the description of manuscripts because they do not commonly contain a formally presented description of themselves that can be transcribed in the preceding areas. Additionally, the concept of "unambiguous  identification" is a printed materials term. EOK: This is good point. Put in the introduction or the applications manual, or whatever]

 

(7A1.4 below has been changed back to mostly follow DCRM(B) wording, incorporating AB's and EOK's suggested adjustments for mss; deviations from DCRM(B) are in blue or green--MN)

7A1.4. Notes are also used may also be made to justify added entries additional [EOK: Note may be used to justify main entry or added entry] access points [manuscript reason for this change: they could be access points in a finding aid or in a bibliographic record] intended for personal or corporate names, titles, genres/forms, physical characteristics, provenance, etc.  Whenever possible, use terms making [EOK: creating? --access points are created or supplied] such notes and added entries access points, use, whenever possible, terms taken from lists of [or?] controlled vocabularies when creating such notes and access points. Prefer the terminology used in controlled vocabularies lists or authorized thesauri, such as the  Art and Architecture Thesaurus, the Occupational something something (Diane to provide full title), the Thesaurus of Graphic Materialsor the RBMS Controlled Vocabularies.

 

[Original from 'B' 7A1.4. Notes may also be made to justify added entries intended for special files of personal or corporate names, titles, genres/forms, physical characteristics, provenance, etc. Whenever possible, use terms taken from lists of controlled vocabularies when making such notes and added entries. Prefer the terminology used in controlled vocabularies lists issued by the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee. Terms from other authorized thesauri (e.g., the Thesaurus of Graphic Materials, Art and Architecture Thesaurus) may also be used as appropriate. AEB: is there a mss reason we replaced of 'Notes may also be made to justify ...' with 'Notes are also used to justify ...' I agree with changing 'added entries' with 'access points' as added entries is definatly a bibliographic cataloging term. I'm not sure there is a manuscript reason for rewording the first part of the 2nd sentence. Although I do agree that we cannot tell users to prefer the RBMS terms as stated in the 3rd sent. There is a mss reason for this as RBMS terms are too narrow for the wide variety of materials that manuscripts encompass.]

 

7A1.5. Notes are not always required, but are usually needed to describe the item more fully. Some notes are required in particular situations, and are so indicated in previous rules, e.g., [replace 1E3, 2A2, or 4A4], and in some of the rules for this area.[2]

 

[Original from 'B' 7A1.5. In general, notes are not required, but some notes are required in particular situations and are so indicated in previous rules, e.g., 1E3, 2A2, or 4A4, and in some of the rules for this area.[2] AEB: Not sure we have a mss reason for rewording the beginning of this. Of course we will need to replace the examples as I am sure these do not point to any of our rules.]

 

7A2. Punctuation

This rule applies to bibliographic records entered in a library catalog. For instructions on the use of spaces before and after prescribed punctuation, see 0E. For description of an item in an archival finding aid, or in a document in another format, this rule does not necessarily apply. Other references to punctuation may also not apply to archival description (cf. 7A4.1 end)

Start a new paragraph for each note. End each paragraph with a period or other mark of final punctuation.

Separate introductory wording from the main content of a note by a colon followed but not preceded by a space.

 

7A3. Sources of information

Take information recorded in notes from any suitable source. Square brackets are required only for interpolations within quoted material.

 

7A4. Form of notes

7A4.1. Order of information. If information in a note corresponds to information found in the title and statement of responsibility, edition (or version), or  EOK: we aren't using Area 2, so should we omit this from the list? AEB: agree  physical description areas, usually give the elements of information in the order in which they appear in those areas. In such cases, use prescribed punctuation, except substitute a period for a period-space-dash-space. [AEB: maybe I need to see an example of this, but this punctuation is kind of confusing to me.]

 

Corrected proof copy of: 3rd ed. London : Macmillan, 1953

 

7A4.2. Quotations. Record quotations from the manuscript or from other sources in quotation marks. Follow the quotation by an indication of its source.  Do not use prescribed punctuation within quotations. [AEB: this is probably a duh, but there is a mss reason for removing the statement "unless that source is the title page" from the second 2nd. But do we want to require the source of the quotation? If the document is only 1 page it kind of seems pointless; or in a finding aid it might seem like it is too much.]

 

[Need new examples]

"Extracted from the minutes of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts"

"Generally considered to be by William Langland"--Harvey, P. Oxford companion to Engl. lit.

"The principal additional music, contained in 72 pages, may be had, half bound, with or without the rules, price four shillings and ninepence"--Pref.

 

7A4.3. Formal notes. Use formal notes employing an invariable introductory word or phrase or a standard verbal formula when uniformity of presentation assists in the recognition of the type of information being presented or when their use provides economy of space without loss of clarity.

 

 

Evaluate this section once we've gone through the notes in general and see how we want them to appear [Manuscript-specific examples?] Is this where we could define some AMREMM-like notes with labels, e.g. "Collation:" etc., to be used where applicable? Some possibilities: Commonly known as: Signed:  Collation: Binding: Provenance: I'd like to make it optional to use these labels, though, since some mss. are really fairly simple affairs that can be described in a single sentence--MN  EOK: Should also make the point that the label need not be part of the note, if it's a field dedicated to a particular type of data, such as provenance or binding; the label can be set by the system. AEB: agree with Liz; many times this information, be it in a catalog record or a finding aid, already has a system set label for this information. Of course not everyone's OPAC utilizes all of these notes fields and many times just jumbles them altogether under the heading Notes. And then Finding aids have the style sheet behind them that are sometimes setup for a larger audience then your own library.

 

7A4.4. Informal notes. When making informal notes, use statements that present the information as briefly as clarity, understandability, and good grammar permit.

 

7A5. Notes citing other versions and works / EOK: citing other works and other versions or manifestations of the same work

 

7A5.1. Other versions or editions. In citing another version or edition of the same text work?, give enough information to identify the version cited. EOK: does this need to be separate from rule 7A5.2, or could it just be blended with it, since it deals with how to cite the other related works/versions/manifestations. Is there a difference between citing another version and citing another manifestation or work that justifies a separate rule? AEB: agree with Liz. I would say for manuscripts these two concepts are pretty much the same thing I would combine the rules.

 

[Give example of a note referring to another manuscript version of the same work--?] e.g. 2 versions of same things plus the galleys. Lalla Rookh (Liz, Morgan); Phyllis (Diane, Yale)

Revision of: 2nd ed., 1869

 

7A5.2. Other works and other manifestations of the same work. In citing other works and other manifestations of the same work, give whatever information is appropriate, such as the main entry heading, title proper (or uniform title), statement of responsibility, edition statement, or date of publication. Arrange the information provided in the form that makes most sense in the particular case. Abridge the information as needed without using the mark of omission.

Tea for Mussolini, John Mortimer's screen adaptation of book (Alison, Bancroft, two manifestations from John Mortimer f.a. online Series 1.6)

 

Tea with Mussolini (typescript) 1998 Aug.

 

 

Tea with Mussolini (manuscript) undated

 

Adaptation of: Bunyan, John. Pilgrim's progress

or Adaptation of: Pilgrim's progress / by John Bunyan

 

Manuscript copy of: 2nd ed., 1869

 

7B. Notes

Refer out to AMREMM if the cataloger/archivist wants to do a very detailed description of a scriptorium-era manuscript adding information such as "500 Collation:" "500 Decoration:" 500: Script," etc. AEB: agree; I think this could be for things like signature statements which only occur very rarely in post 1600 mss; or if something is more book like they can go to book rules for these types of things as well.

 

Some of the most common types of notes are listed below; other notes than those provided for may be made if considered important. Specific applications of many of these notes are provided in the preceding sections. Make notes as called for in the following subrules, and, generally, in the order in which they are listed here. If a particular note is of primary importance, it may be given first, regardless of its order in this list. When appropriate, combine two or more notes to make one note.

 

7B1. Administrative/Biographical History

 

  Give biographical or historical background information on the creator of the manuscript in this note, if such information is available, [EOK: and if it would provide ...] to provide context for the manuscript being described. Include biographical information for a person or family, the administrative history of a corporate body, or the publication [EOK: isn't publication history covered elsewhere? so don't we need to add an option to parse this info to a separate publication note? I find the lumping of all this data in a single field very finding aid specific; maybe we should say that. AEB: I agree I don't think we want to put publication history here.] or performance history of a work. (DACS 2.7, p. 34, and 10.1-10.36, p. 93-104) Or optionally, incorporate some or all of the Administrative/Biographical History, Scope and Content, and General Note elements in a single narrative in the Scope and Content note, if it is brief. If describing a single item within a finding aid for a larger collection, incorporate the biographical/historical information for the item into the biographical/historical information section for the collection as a whole.

 

EOK: (1) How do we define "creator of the manuscript? Is it just the creator of the physical manuscript, in which case we are telling catalogers, in cases where the ms is in another hand, to include info about a scribe or copyist, but not about the person responsible for the content of the ms, which I'm sure is not our intent. AEB perhaps: "Give biographical or historical information on the creator of the intellectual content of the manuscript in this note, if such information is available, to provide context for the material being described." I'm not sure that in most cases biographical information on the scribe or copyist is warranted here; although it might make sense to  note here biographical information on the compiler or collector if it helps shed some light on the collection.

(2) I understand that it's standard practice to include this information for finding aids, where the biog or historical info appears once, at the collection level. It would also be okay to do it in an item-level record, if you have one ms by the person. But I would discourage others from doing what PML did when we started out converting our files, which was to put the same brief bio identifier in every single letter by a person. (At least we didn't do it for well known figures:"Revolutionary General and first president of the United States") But the maintenance issues ... [Beside the fact that this type of info should live in the authority record anyway, if our systems would just support it. AEB I agree on both points. In family collections esp. there would not be room to describe all of the relationships between different people at the collection level and might make more sense at the series level or file level to state in a short statement who this person is. Usually just something like "Roger Smith was the uncle of John Smith."

(3) I'd also like to encourage catalogers to add information about related persons (e.g. signers, recipients of letters, petitionees, etc.) if that would help understand the context. It often happens that the writer of a letter is very well-known, but the recipient is less well-known; identifying the lesser-known person, even if he/she is not the "main entry," is very helpful. This info appears in PML records in the title field, qualifying the name of the recipient ("to his sister-in-law, Georgina Hogarth"); but it could appear in this note, I suppose. AEB: I agree.

 

AEB: I'm not sure this should be the very first note we mention since we do state that we want people to record their notes in the order they appear in here. I think restrictions should be first as this the most information a user needs so that they know that they need to contact the curator, or request the m/f or facsimile or that they need not bother to come at all (do we talk about these kind of notes?). It should be at the top of the notes though, possibly even 2nd.

Another point I think we want to strongly encourage is that this needs to be brief! And if the person is well known it is probably not necessary at all. If you feel that it would be helpful for users to point them to an outside biographical source then I would state that here.

Also it should be strongly encouraged to identify a person who might be confused with someone else with the same name; even with dates it might be useful to users to help differentiate them from someone else. For example cousins born around the same time with the same name who might be easily confused.

 

Whiting took part in the Battle of Concord. Joining the Continental Army, he served under Generals Arnold and Gates, and was with Washington until the latter assumed the immediate command against Cornwallis in Virginia.

 

John Taylor was the editor of the newspaper The Sun, and author of a memoir titled Records of my life. Thomas Hill was the editor of the Monthly Mirror. The title page of this manuscript claims that Hill was also believed to have been the original Paul Pry, "so admirably portrayed on the stage by Liston."

 

Elisha Harris was a farmer, the son of Joseph and Susanna Bates Harris of Cranston, R.I. He became a Quaker in 1777. His wife, Freelove (Dyer) Harris, was the daughter of Deacon John Dyer and Freelove Williams Dyer, also of Cranston, R.I. Elisha Harris and Freelove Dyer married in 1767.

 

John Glenn, astronaut (for more information, see John Glenn: A Memoir)

 

 The view of frankpledge was an annual court in which unfree and landless men of England were organized into tithings, hundreds, or other groups, bound together by mutual responsibility to keep the peace.

 

 Trier was made an archbishopric in 815. Its archbishops were electors in the Holy Roman Empire from the late 12th century until 1801.

 

British politician who served successively as a private secretary to William Gladstone, a Member of Parliament,a finance advisor to Benjamin Disraeli, secretary of state to India,  chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Foreign Secretary. He was created Earl of Iddesleigh in 1885.

 

AEB: While I think that the S&C note is very important I am used to seeing notes in this order: Restrictions (506), Biog/Hist (545), Language (546) and then Scope and Content (520). Since I don't have access to any other standards right now I am not sure where I originally got this order for notes. This is the order used at Bancroft I am sure and close to the order used at Folger which I based on one or more standards. Of course we should first figure out the language for the notes and then probably worry about the exact order later ...

 

7B2. Scope and content (Nature, scope, or form)

 

[Note to us: In manuscript description the subject content is often an important tool for identification, which is not the case in book description. Point this out in Introduction. EOK: I don't see why we couldn't mention subject under Scope and content. The same MARC field is used for both Scope and content and for subject summaries (different indicators differentiate);

7B2.1. General rule. Make a note on the nature, scope, or artistic form, subject, or historical context of the manuscript if not adequately explained in the preceding areas.

[In a footnote: The scope and content note provides information about the nature of the materials or the activities reflected in the item being described to enable users to judge its potential relevance. (Adapted from SAA workshop, "Applying DACS to Single-Item Manuscript Cataloging," handout p. 26)]

The following is directly from DACS. This needs to be rewritten to capture the essence of what should be recorded in a scope and content note. N.B. If you have a succinct description available to you, it is optional to parse this information out into other notes (e.g. provenance).[EOK: it seems to me that this is a case where the two traditions go different ways: the archivists are using to putting all this info in one field, but the librarians would have access to more narrowly defined fields (provenance, language and script, publication history, etc), which are distinctively labelled in their systems and which may even be indexed separately. So why not give examples of both approaches (or refer users to some MARC examples in the back)] AEB: I'm not sure all archivists lump all this information together; I certainly separated information out more when I was at Bancroft; whereas at my current position at the  Wis. Hist. Soc. I have seen this information all lumped together (which is hard to get used to, esp. when I am trying to find specific information about the collection and cannot find it because it is lumped in altogether.).

 

"The scope and content note may include information about any or all of the following, as appropriate: 

  • function(s), activity(ies), transaction(s), and process(es) that generated the material being described;
  • the documentary form(s) or intellectual characteristics of the manuscript being described (e.g. minutes, diaries, reports, watercolors, documentaries);
  • the content dates, that is, the time period(s) covered by the intellectual content or subject of the unit being described;
  • geographic area(s) and places to which the manuscript pertains;
  • subject matter to which the manuscript pertains, such as topics, events, people, and organizations; and any other information that assists the user in evaluating the relevance of the material, such as its completeness, changes in location, ownership and custody while still in the possession of the creator, etc. (DACS 3.1, p. 35)"
 

Manuscript deed, conferring on Samuel Mather a tract of land in Windsor, Connecticut. Signed by Samuel Gibbs and Mary Gibbs, and by witnesses Samuel Fox Ward, Nathan Gillet, and Josiah Grant. The document is dated February 20, 1707/8. [EOK: Not sure why the date is here; doesn't it belong in the production area?]

 

Deed of release and quit claim of and in the lands within the town of Waterbury, signed by the governor of Connecticut, Gurdon Saltonstall, and the secretary, Hezekiah Wyllys, Oct. 28, 1720. This is preceded by a true copy of record of the General Assembly held at New Haven, Oct. 13, 1720, approving a petition that a new deed of release and quit claim of and in the lands within the town be granted and signed. [Example of brief note combining scope/content with other info]

 

Manuscript play in two acts, written in 19th-century German script.

 

Manuscript chronology, in German, covering the years 1457-1503. On the verso of each leaf is the year and Brant's age that year; on the recto are the events of that year. Most of the events noted are births or deaths of contemporaries of Brant's, mainly Germans.

 

Poems by Drewe, dated "New York, 1777" on the title page, followed by newspaper clippings containing poems, anecdotes, and epigrams. The newspaper clippings were evidently added by another person who took over the book following Drewe's death in 1793. A resolution written by this person on the back pastedown of the book, dated Feb. 3, 1794, says, "Let me regularly cut out all that is curious or pleasing from n.[ews]papers or magazines, & stick them with this book. EOK: It's unclear from this note whether it's a printed book with stuff stuck in at the back or a bound manuscript. Could this be made clearer?

 

7BX. Basis of description. For multipart manuscripts, if the description is not based on the first part, identify the part used as the basis of the description.

 

Description based on: v. 2, created/completed in 2001  

 

7B2.2. Relation of the manuscript to the published version of the text. Make a note describing the relation of the manuscript to the published version of the text, if it can be determined.

 

Typescript manuscript used as prompt copy for the original production in London, 1894. The original title, Alps and Balkans, still appears in this copy. The title later changed to Arms and the man in the first published edition in 1898.

 

Shaw's handwritten manuscript draft to of his play, Getting married, with revisions. Complete to the last part of the play, corresponding to page 284 of the first English edition.


Apparently notes on lectures based on Mesmer's Aphorismes. The 142 selections are equivalent to the first 235 aphorisms, in the first 12 of 17 chapters in Mesmer's book.

 

Contains mining, mineralogical and gazeteer information. Includes data collected by Lavoisier and Guettard during 1767 trip in various sections of France. These vols. were probably used by Guettard in his Atlas et description minéralogiques de la France (1780).

 

AEB: See MN's note down in Edition/Version area. I actually think this note belongs down there and not in S&C.

 

7B3. Title proper

 

7B3.1. Devised title. Make a note that the title is devised, if considered important, and/or to avoid ambiguity as to the source of the title.


Title devised by cataloger.

 

Title devised by cataloger based on ... [AEB: I feel like I have used something like this but could not find an example]

Title devised by cataloger from caption: The Drama Mr. Forbes-Robertson As Hamlet Knickerbocker Theatre.

(comment: the devised title is Essay on Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson as Hamlet at the Knickerbocker Theater)

 

7B3.2. Source of title. If the manuscript has a formal title on the title page, in a colophon, or elsewhere on the item, make a note on the source of the title, if considered important (see 1C1.1). If the manuscript's title comes from a reference source, make a note on the source of the title (see 1B4.1).[EOK: cf. with 7B3.13, which is also about ms titles coming from reference sources; does the last sentence belong here?

 

No title page; title from spine.

The title of this excerpt is taken from a later typewritten note, tipped in. Move example down to 7B3.4? 

 

Title from caption on first page of work, which appears approximately halfway through volume, after p. 118 of item 1.

 

7B3.2.1. Verse. When using the first line of a poem, song, or hymn as the title, make a note on the source of the title.

 

Title from first line.

 

7B3.3. Original position of transposed title elements. If elements in the formal title other than the chief title have been transposed in the bibliographic record, make a note on their original position if considered important. Optionally, transcribe these elements in a note (see 1B2.1.1).

 

7B3.4. Title in a later script or hand. If the title information is in a script or hand later than the main body of text of the manuscript, make a note if considered important (see 1C1.2).

 

7B3.5. Formal title not transcribed in the title area. If devising a title for the manuscript because its formal title is inaccurate, misleading, struck out, illegible, or uninformative, make a note indicating the presence of a formal title if considered important (see 1C1.2.4.2).

 

Example? AEB: Do we want to add the example of "Ledger" as the cover title here? Also I think there must be some examples of how someone at a later date put a title on a binding that really does not accurately describe the item. I think the Folger has some examples of this, but cant remember them off hand right now. Usually this was a case of someone equating an item to the wrong person or time period.

 

7B3.6. Devised title for a manuscript known by a nickname. If the physical manuscript is known by a nickname (e.g., the Zimmermann telegram, the Trevelyon commonplace book), but the decision is made to devise a title to provide a more accurate designation for the manuscript, make a note on the source of the title, if considered important (see 1B5).

 

Manuscript known as Zimmerman telegram. [is this the kind of note we mean?]

 

AEB: I put all of the Trevilian information here. It was known as a commonplace book but as it does not fit the definition of a commonplace book the title was changed to Trevelyon miscellany.

100 1_ |a Trevilian, Thomas, |d b. ca. 1548.
245 10 |a Trevelyon miscellany |h [manuscript], |f 1608.
246 1_ |i Former title: |a Commonplace book, |f 1608
246 3_ |a Common-place book, |f 1608
246 1_ |i Folger card catalog title: |a Pictorial commonplace book, |f 1608
246 3_ |a Elizabethan pictorial and poetical manuscript commonplace book
246 3_ |a Epitome of ancient and modern history

Known as: Commonplace book; An Elizabethan pictorial and poetical manuscript commonplace book with original drawings in colours of Queen Elizabeth, King James, etc. (Maggs catalog no. 456, 1924, lot 155); Epitome of ancient and modern history (title on spine of former 19th-century binding).

 

7B3.7. (Delete?) Non-title information on the title page or colophon. Optionally, transcribe in a note non-title information appearing on the title page or colophon if it is considered important. Examples of non-title information include pious invocations, quotations, devices, announcements, epigrams, mottoes, dedications, or statements of patronage. (See 1C1.2.1 and 1C2.1.) AEB: I think this is unnecessary for manuscripts and would just confuse most people. If the cataloger/archivist finds this information to be important then they will note them.

 

7B3.8. (Delete?) Non-title elements transposed to another part of the description. If transposing non-title information which precedes or follows the chief title, make a note to indicate the original position on the title page or colophon of the transposed elements, if considered important (see 1C2.1).

AEB: agree; since we do not follow the same rules of transcriptions as books this just does not make sense for mss.

 

7B3.9. (Delete?) Part information. If the part information does not appear on the item, but can be inferred (as in the case of some fragments, or works whose chapter or part divisions were named subsequent to the version in hand), record the part information in a note (see 1B2.2.7.2).[EOK: We should include this. The ms may have a formal title, which does not include the part name or number; or in some cases, the chapter or part division was named subsequently; this should be recorded, if the info is available. AEB: agree.

 

Chapter 4 of his Potiphar Papers.

Comment: Titled From the summer diary of Minerva Tattle

 

7B3.10. Abridged title proper. If abridging the title proper, optionally, transcribe the remainder of the title in a note (see 1C2.4.1).

 

7B3.11. Other titles present on the manuscript. If the manuscript bears different titles in different places, make a note on any of the titles not treated as the formal title, if considered important (see 1C2.6.2).

 

7B3.12. Title from a location in the manuscript other than title page, colophon, or caption. If the manuscript has no title page, colophon, or caption, and its title proper comes from elsewhere in the manuscript or in accompanying material, including housing, make a note on the source of the title, if considered important (see 1C2.6.1). AEB: I think this is covered in 7B3.2 "or elsewhere on the item" and not needed here.

 

7B3.13. Title from reference sources. If the manuscript does not have a legible title, and its title is drawn from reference sources, make a note that the title is not present on the manuscript, if considered important. Also make a note citing the source of the title, if considered important (see 1C2.7). AEB: as per Liz's note above in 7B3.2, remove from those instructions and list here?

 

Need example

Title from published version of the poem.

 

7B2.x. Variations in title  

 

7B2.x.1. Make notes on titles borne by the manuscript, EOK: or appearing in accompanying documentation or published sources, other than the one chosen as the title proper. If nonroman text has been transcribed in the title proper without parallel romanization (e.g., as transcribed from the source or provided by 0F2.2), give a romanization of the title proper. EOK: Do we also need to deal with names by which the manuscript (and the work therein) has come to be known, e.g. the Drake manuscript (1586). Probably more common for earlier manuscripts, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some.EOK: THis is covered in 7B3.6, now, I think.

 

Title on added t.p.: La naturaleza descubierta en su modo de ensenar las lenguas a los hombres

Spine title: Bath Road acts

Engraved title page reads: The continental tourist

Spine title:  Speeches in Parliament, 1627-1628

Also known as the Muster roll of the Sons of Liberty.

Published as Elegy to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady in Pope's Works of 1717.

 

7B2.x.2. (Delete?) If considered important, also include here partial or complete transcriptions of title information to show the actual wording of the title page (e.g., when information has been omitted) and explanations of cataloger-supplied letters or words (e.g., when special marks of contraction have been used in continuance of the manuscript tradition). EOK: To what extent are we committed to transcribing at all? The point of doing it for published works is to compare records to identify variant issues. Seems out of place here. AEB: I think this is more important for literary text or text where there are multiple mss copies of it in existence and it can help to differentiate them.

 

Title from caption, leaf 1: A Recitall, Of the Celestiall Apparitions, of this present Trigon now in being.

 

Marks of contraction in title have been expanded    

 

7B2.x.3. Parallel titles and other title information Make notes on parallel titles appearing in the manuscript but not on the title page; also give other title information appearing in the manuscript but not on the title page if it is considered important. If parallel titles and other title information appearing on the title page have been omitted from the title and statement of responsibility area (e.g., because they could not be fitted into the body of the entry, or because they were very lengthy), they may be given here as notes.

 

Title on added title page: The book of exposition = Liber rubens

 

Subtitle: The medicinal, culinary, cosmetic, and economic properties, cultivation, and folklore of herbs, grasses, fungi, shrubs, and trees, with all their modern scientific uses

 

Title continues: & ye worship due to Him, the immortality of ye soul, a state of future rewards & punishments, an account also of their philosophy & morality.

 

Title reads in full: Breve raccoltadi di varie notizie contro le operazioni, e pregiudizi che risultano dal preteso, e non mai conosciuto Tribunale del S. Offizio che servir possono per istruzione d'ogni Deputato Eletto contro del medesimo.

 

7B2.x. Address information in a letter.  If describing a letter, record the creator's and recipient's full addresses in a note, if considered important.

EOK: this pertains only to devised titles; shouldn't it be moved to the section of the notes that deals with devised titles (7B3.1)? AEB: yes.

 

7B2.11. Manuscript without a collective title. If the manuscript contains two or more works and lacks a collective title, give detailed information about the contents in a note, if considered important (see 1B6). If one or more works contained in the manuscript are not named on the title page or colophon, optionally list all the works other than the first in a note; or if creating  a separate description for each separately titled work, linking the separate descriptions with “With” notes (see 1C4.2.1).

 

 Transcriptions or translations of works concerning alchemy, signed by C.W.H. Included are an English translation of the Liber lucis by Johannes de Rupescissa, dictated by him during his imprisonment by Pope Innocent VI, probably between 1356-1378, and first published in 1579 (p. 1-72); an English translation of Nota quod magister Arnaldus de Villa Nova dedit hanc receptam pro amore Dei Magistro Hospitalis S. Iohannis de Ultra Mare ad debellandum contra Saracenos (p. 73-146); an English translation of part three of Annulus Platonis (Aurea catena Homeri), titled The third book of the transmutation of the metals (p. 147-199); a manuscript captioned These next following processes are from the B. v. Andre which have been sent to him from my friend in order to prove them (p. 200-220); an English translation of the Monumenta sapientia by A. K. Sacerdos, titled Monuments of wisdom (p. 221-461); and Aquilla hometica, a manuscript in English that sets forth principles of alchemy and the nature of matter and of metals (p. [462-478]). (CUL 4600 Bd. Ms. 149)

 

7B3. Other title information

7B3.1. Other title information omitted from the title area. If other title information has been abridged in the title area, transcribe it in part or in full in a note if considered important (see 1C3.6).

Title continues: ... Exact descriptions of such places of note as were touched at; and variety of occasional remarks.  To which is added, a large and general table of longitudes and latitudes, ascertained from accurate observations, or (where those are wanting) from the best printed books and manuscripts taken from the Spaniards in this expedition:  Also the variations of the compass throughout the voyage, and the soundings and depths of water along the different coasts:  And lastly, several curious observations on a comet seen in the south-seas on the coast of Mexico. 

 

 

7B3.2. Other title information constituting a formal statement of contents. If all or part of the other title information following the manuscript's formal title constitutes a formal statement of the contents of the work, optionally transcribe it in a note (see 1C3.4).

 

7B3.3. Copyist of a manuscript copy. If the copyist of a manuscript copy is known, make a note, if considered important (see 1D1.2). (Move to SOR section?Yes, to 7B49--or whatever we end up numbering it.) AEB: agree.

 

7B4. Statement of responsibility

 

AEB: looking at all these rules about statement of responsibility is making me think BOOKS and transcription! I know we have a whole section in Area 1 on SofR and that we mention several times about making a note, but can we just have one or 2 rules here with just a general rule about them and that if someone thinks it is important to note it than they will.

 

Statements of responsibility EOK: There is a great divide between those manuscripts (mainly literary, but also scientific, historic, possibly journals) that present something comparable to a title page which is laid out according to title page

conventions, and those that do not (letters, documents, many literary, etc. manuscripts). AACR treats signatures as statements of responsibility for all types of material; APPM says record an explicit statement of responsibility only when it appears with a formal title on the t.p. of a single manuscript. For me, APPM better reflects the characteristics of the material being described.

EOK: I am  finding it hard to disentangle rules for dealing with formal SORs from rules for items without SORs. The latter should follow the former. Also, as I compared with our Area 1, I realized that  the General rule for SOR's, 1E1, needs to contain a reference to 1E14, No formal statement of responsibility, to save catalogers who are describing an item without an SOR from having to plod through all the non-applicable rules for SORs.

 

7B6.1. 7B4.1. Statement of responsibility on source other than title page. If a statement of responsibility appears in a source other than the title page, or in the colophon or caption, give it and its source in a note, if considered important.

 

Dedication signed: Increase Mather

Signed at end: A lover of truth

EOK: These are not formal statements of responsibility. We need something like: "by Joe Blow"  appearing on the cover or whatever

 

Cf. 1C2. Creator information from other sources

 

If recording a formal title, and creator information appears on a source other than on the title page, colophon, or caption, record the statement and its source in a note.

 

 

7B6.2. 7B4.2. Transposed statements of responsibility. Note the original position on the title page of statements of responsibility that have been transposed to the title and statement of responsibility area. Cut? MN EOK: I'm in favor of giving this the chop. We don't tell people to make a note in the instructions for transposition. AEB: agree.

 

On t.p., editor's name precedes title

 

7B6.x. [was 1C14.3.] 7B4.3. Abridgement of statement of responsibility concerning accompanying material.  Optionally, [re SOR phrases about notes, appendixes, and other such accompanying matter] if the phrases are very lengthy and can be abridged without loss of essential information, omit less important words or phrases, using the mark of omission. If considered important, transcribe omitted phrases in a note.

  

7B6.3. 7B4.4. Attributions 

(EOK: I think we need to treat situations where there is an SOR, however problematic, before addressing the issue of supplying creator information when it is lacking. The information goes in different places, depending on whether we are dealing with a formal title or a devised title.

Maybe devote 7B4.4.x to notes about problematic existing statements of responsibility (renumbering as needed):

SORS that are abbreviated, unclear, known to be pseudonyms, fictitious or incorrect (combine current 7B4.4.2 and 7B4.5; add 7B4.4.4.3 about false attributions in bib lit, though that applies also to devised titles)

SORS that are struck out or in a different hand (7B4.6)

SORS that are illegible (7B.4.8)

SORS that are ambiguous (7B4.7)

SORs with variant name forms (7B4.10)

SORS from mulitple tps with variants (7.B4.12)

 

Then comes the note for items that have formal titles, but that lack formal statements of responsibility (currently 7B4.4.1; could make it 7B4.5). Add a reference, "For creator information for mss with devised titles, see 1E14)". And substitute examples that clearly refer to mss with formal titles. ; the examples for 7B4.4.1 now are for mss with devised titles

Finally, the note about  persons or bodies not named elsewhere in the description (7B4.9). This applies equally to items with formal titles and items without formal titles.

 

7B6.3.1. 7B4.4.1. Manuscripts with formal titles lacking statements of responsibility. If a statement of responsibility for a person or corporate body connected with/responsible for? the work does not appear in the a manuscript with a formal title, and an attribution is available, give the information in a note. Include the authority for the attribution whenever possible.

 

[Need more examples?]

 

Manuscript commonplace books attributed to Courtois (no first name given).

 

Two marbled paper sample books attributed to the Menegazzi firm in Bassano, Italy.

 

Attributed to Jonathan Swift. See Teerink, H.  Swift (2nd ed.), 598

Published anonymously. By Stephen Jerome. Editor's dedication signed "R.H.," i.e., Robert Hobson, to whom the whole is sometimes erroneously attributed. Also erroneously attributed to Robert Harris and to Robert Henderson

Variously attributed to Dudley Fenner and to William Stoughton; sometimes also attributed to Henry Jacob  

 

7B6.3.2. 7B4.4.2. If a statement of responsibility recorded in the title and statement of responsibility area or in a note is known to be fictitious or incorrect, make a note stating the true or most generally accepted attribution. Give the authority for the information whenever possible.

 

Written by Robert Burns; signed "John Barleycorn."

 Charlotte Bronte used the pseudonym Lord Charles Wellesley for her juvenile works

 

 

By John Locke.

 

Author's name appears on t.p. of 3rd and subsequent editions

 

"[Gregory King] was consulted about the coronation ... and was the principal author of the ... volume containing descriptions and splendid engravings of that ceremony ... though he allowed Francis Sandford to affix his name to the title-page"--Dict. nat. biog., v. 10, p. 131

 

"The identity of Junius, which he concealed with great skill, has never been definitely established ... He is now generally thought to have been Sir Philip Francis"--Oxford companion to Engl. lit. (6th ed.), p. 546 (Comment: The pseudonym “Junius” appears on the title page)  

 

7B6.3.3. 7B4.4.3. False attributions appearing in the bibliographical literature or in library catalogs may also be noted, along with the authority for the false attribution and the authority for questioning it. EOK: is this the place to mention forgeries? Distinguishing between forgeries of text (the forger composed the text he attributes to X) and forgeries of manuscripts (the text is by X, but in the hand of the forger)

EOK: does this rule apply to all false attributions or only to those in SOR's? It is cumbersome to have two different rules, but if we are following an arrangement that deals first with notes referring to formal SOR's and then with items lacking SOR's, the rule would seem to apply only to the former.

 

Attributed to Daniel Defoe (see Moore, J.R.  Defoe, 511); attribution challenged by: Secord, A.W.  Robert Drury's journal and other studies

 

Manuscript Spanish translation of the Secretum secretorum, falsely attributed to Aristotle (described as his advice to Alexander the Great).

 

This tract was long supposed to have been written by Sir Francis Bacon.(LACKS SOR))

 

 

7B4.1. 7B4.5. Unclear or pseudonymous statement of responsibility. If the name(s) of the person or persons in the statement of responsibility is abbreviated, unclear, or known to be a pseudonym, make an explanatory note (see 1E1.2).

 

7B4.2. 7B4.6.  [was 1C1.3.] Statement of responsibility struck out or written in another hand. If the statement of responsibility is struck out, or written in a different hand from the rest of the manuscript, make a note (see 1E1.3).

 

NEED EXAMPLE {EOK: example should show Title and Note}

 

 

7B4.3. 7B4.7. [was 1C9.] Ambiguous statement of responsibility. If the relationship between the title of a work and the person(s) or body (bodies) named in the statement of responsibility is not clear, make an explanatory note (see 1E8).

 

 

7B6.x.x. 7B4.8. [was 1C1.4.] Illegible statement of responsibility. If the statement of responsibility is partially or wholly illegible, transcribe as much of the statement as is legible in the statement of responsibility area, and indicate lacunae with the marks of omission. Make a note indicating that the statement of responsibility is partially or wholly illegible.

NEED EXAMPLE

 

 

7B6.4. 7B4.9. Persons or bodies not named elsewhere in the description. Other contributors/ statements . Record the names of persons or bodies not primarily responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of the manuscript, e.g. illustrators, editors, copyists, scribes, secretaries, signers, witnesses, etc., or connected with a work, or with previous editions versions of it, if they have not already been named in the description; give the authority for the information, if necessary.

[EOK: I'm not sure about the "connected with a work or previous editions"--is it enough to say:

 

Record the names of persons or bodies connected with, but not primarily responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of the manuscript, e.g. illustrators, editors, copyists, scribes, secretaries, signers, witnesses, etc., if they have not already been named in the description, and if considered important; give the authority for the information, if necessary.

 

At head of title: Sub Carolo. V. Romanorum maximo Imperatore, primo Hispaniarum Rege

 

Illustrations are woodcuts by Dora Carrington. See Kirkpatrick, B.J.  Virginia Woolf, A2a

 

Woodcuts on leaves B2b and C5b signed: b

EOK: ALSO:signers of documents, copyists, scribes, secretaries, witnesses, endorsers (not sure they fit in here, but we always note the endorser)

 

Signed also by H. B. Legge and James Oswald. Signed also by a Royal tax official, the local head of the monastic order and others. Corneille signs as an official witness to the transaction.

                 Endorsed by Jefferson on the reverse.

                 In the hand of his secretary Friedrich John.

 

7B6.5. 7B4.10. Variant forms of names in the statement of responsibility. Note variant forms of names of persons or bodies named in statements of responsibility if the variant forms clarify the names used in main or added entry headings.

 

By Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury (Comment: Statement of responsibility reads: “by the Right Reverend Father in God, Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum”)

 

Charles Pigott is the author of The virtues of nature (Comment: Statement of responsibility reads: “by the author of The virtues of nature”)    

 

7B4.6. 7B4.11. Statements of responsibility on a manuscript with multiple title pages. If recording statements of responsibility for a manuscript that has no collective title and contains two or more works, each with its own title page, record significant variations in the statement of responsibility in a note, if considered important (see 1C4.2).

7B4.7. 7B4.12. No formal statement of responsibility. If creator information appears in the manuscript in a location other than the title page, colophon, or caption, or is taken from a reliable reference source, record the information in a note, indicating its location or source (see 1E14).

 

7B5. Edition or version

 

7B5. Edition EOK: Version? and bibliographic history EOK: Do we need to distinguish between edition (which relates to publications only) and draft or version (which relates to mss)? Manuscript C can contain a revised draft of the text in Manuscript B, which contains a revised version of the text published as Publication A.  7B7.1. Note the source of any element of the edition area when it is taken from elsewhere than the title page. Note the original position of any element that is transposed to another position in transcription. EOK: An edition statement (anywhere in the item) is pretty rare (except maybe for 20th century manuscripts, such as screenplays, where they often appear on a formal title page). And shouldn't we call it a draft or version statement (even if it uses the term "ed." I think we can put notes on the ms.'s bibliographic history in general here--MN

 

7B5.1. General rule. If an edition or version statement is present on the manuscript's title page, colophon or caption, record this information in a note.

 

 "Second draft continuity (revised)"--Cover.

 "Final revised draft."

  "First revised draft"--Cover.

 

EOK: the examples above are examples of formal statements, and follow the book cataloging pattern: transcribe, using quotation marks; give source unless it is the t.p., in which case you don't give the source. The examples below don't record edition or version statements; in fact, they seem to record manifestation or related work information, rather than edition or version information. Can we drop the language about statements, and just say:

"Record edition or version information in a note; give the source, if considered important."

The examples will include quoted statements and examples of edition or version information that are not statements from the ms.

 

Manuscript copy of a sonnet from the Rime, with anonymous commentary. (CUL 4648 Bd. Ms. 30)

 

Autograph copy, on a postcard addressed to Willard Fiske, of a sonnet which had earlier been printed by G. Ferrari, Parma, 1874. (CUL 4648 Bd. Ms. 3)

 

 

7B7.2. 7B5.2. Version and bibliographic history. Make other notes relating to the edition version being described or to the bibliographic history of the work, if they are considered important. In citing other works, and other manifestations of the same work, see 7A5. In citing bibliographies and catalogs, however, use the pattern for references to published descriptions shown in 7B14 whenever such a citation occurs in a formal “References” note.

Combine this rule with 7B2.2? (MN)

EOK: there is definitely overlap between this rule, 7B2.2,  and 7B5.3. I wonder whether it might be better to move all the notes about relationships (including publication history, which is a manifestation level relationship) to 7B2.2.  It seems odd to cluster these notes in an Edition or Version area, when we aren't using that area for manuscripts. They could be organized in 7B2.2.x as, relationship of  work in the ms to other works, such as adaptations and sequels and what not; relationship of work in ms to other ms versions or printed editions of same work; relationship of work in manuscript to other manifestations of the same work (ms copies; or publications) . Or all the examples could just be lumped in together, since the FRBR levels often mix and match in the same manuscript (this is the author's revised version of the text that was eventually printed as the second edition, but without the last three chapters [or whatever])

 

Revision of: 2nd ed., 1753

Sequel to: Mémoires d'un médecin A reissue of the 1756 ed., without the plates

Previous ed.: Norwich, Conn. : Trumbull, 1783

Detailed description of plates in: Abbey, J.R.  Travel, 23    

 

7B8. 7B5.3. Publication. (Cf. 7A5.2 and 7B2.2) If the text of the manuscript is known to have been published, make a note on the relation of the manuscript to the published version of the work if considered important. EOK: Shouldn't we limit to first time published (rather than entire publication history of the work?) AEB: agree; also note publications based on mss in hand (be it transcription or facsimile).

Combine this rule with 7B2.2? (MN) AEB: As I mentioned above in 7B2.2, I think this rule really belongs down here not in S&C.

 

"Constitutes the original material from which was made the 'fair copy' used ... for the book ... published in 1928"--leaf 2. The preface is the original one by Cameron, which in the printed edition was replaced by one written by W.F. Willoughby.

 

A note on the cover of v.1 reads: "This typescript, in five bound sections, represents the next to final draft of Robert Ruark's novel Uhuru, and if compared with the printed work will reveal the character and massive proportions of the author's cutting technique." 

 

 The text was later published by L. Chiala in the Rivista contemporanea, Turin, 1855, v. 4, p. 539-584. It was subsequently translated into French and annotated by C. Moreau in his Histoire anecdotique de la jeunesse de Mazarin, Paris, 1863.

 

Unpublished [when it's a work by a well-known author, and users might reasonably expect that it was published; see PML, 268559]

 

EOK: The PML example is about something that wasn't published. Add an extra instruction:

"Also make a note about non-publication, if considered important"

EXAMPLES:

Written for the Revue des deux mondes but never published there.

This revised edition, continued by Robert Wheaton after Henry Wheaton's death, was never published.

 

Manuscript copy of the book printed at London by William Jones, 1628. Pencil note on t.p. verso reads: "No copy of this work being known to exist in this vicinity, it is here reprinted from a transcript procured by Professor Sparks in England & communicated by F. C. Gray." [CUL 4600 Bd. Ms.102]

 

Manuscript fair copy of an English translation of a book by Károly Jenö Ujfalvy de Mezö-Kövesd, neatly written in the hand of Horace Kephart. Kephart translated only a part of the original work, Principes de phonétique dans la langue finnoise, published in 1870. "Constitutes the original material from which was made the 'fair copy' used ... for the book ... published in 1928"--leaf 2. The preface is the original one by Cameron, which in the printed edition was replaced by one written by W.F. Willoughby.

 

Typescript of Last Post, the last novel of the Tietjens tetralogy, with corrections in the author's hand. An ink inscription on the title page in Ford's handwriting reads: "This is the original typescript--my own typing--from which the English edition was printed. F.M.F."  

 

Evidently a manuscript copy of a book with imprint Jena: Johann Carl Wesselhöft, 1815, with "2nd edition" pencilled on the title page in a later hand.

 

 

Comments (1)

Alison said

at 4:14 pm on Apr 3, 2011

I have made my comments in orange; sometimes putting in what I think is the wording from 'B' when it varies greatly.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.