<html>
<body>
<font size=3>[A response to S.J. Wolfe's response to an exlibris-l query
(appended), posted to dcrm-l with her permission. I may be naive in
thinking <i>Asiatick Researches</i> to be an especially knotty case: Su
invites me to take a gander at AAS's records for Carey's Universal
magazine. - Richard]<br><br>
Su--<br><br>
Hmmm... Wow! First thoughts:<br><br>
These volumes constitute a significant test of rare book serial rules, at
the same time that they raise some very interesting FRBR questions. (I am
intrigued by FRBR as an attempt to generalize the bibliographical
taxonomy of printed texts, and the ways in which the generalization
itself gives one a new perspective on it. Serials, moreover, are a real
challenge to the older taxonomy, not least in that they raise very
interesting questions about how to present the genealogy of serialized
texts, and introduce some possibly productive complexities into the
conversation of the two systems.)<br><br>
As to the latter, I note that you've treated reprints--which in the case
of <i>Asiatic(k) Researches </i>extend to multiple and overlapping
reprints of reprints--as continuations, as if each entity designated by a
place/date-qualified uniform title could be seen as distinct from any
other entity distinguished by a different qualifier. In FRBR terms, I
think that this confuses, at the outset, the important distinction
between a work and its manifestations. (At least these are all at the
same level of expression, even though that may mask, in historical terms,
a distinction between "real time" first editions and reprints
of the individual volumes, on the one hand, and reprint editions or
reissues of whole or partial runs undertaken at one time; as well as
reprint editions or reissues of individual volumes produced on a case by
case basis to supply a continuing market--i.e. to keep, at various times
and in various combinations, the various parts of the work "in
print".)<br><br>
As I interpret FRBR, however, there is only one work here: volumes 1-20
of <i>Asiatic(k) Researches</i>, a work which was succeeded by another
serial work, <i>Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal</i>. The first
manifestation of this work is the whole body of first editions of each
volume printed in Calcutta. Under serial cataloguing protocols, the dates
of these editions become a standing element of the description of the
work--in MARC terms, the 362 field, which will be applicable, unchanged,
to any further manifestation of the work, so long as the text remains
more or less intact. This is true not only of manifestations produced in
chronologically parallel fashion ("real time") volume by
volume, but also to later comprehensive reprints (the serialistic
description of which produces bouts of cognitive dissonance in monograph
cataloguers).<br><br>
The 78X linking fields in MARC, as I understand them, concern only
relationships among <i>works.</i> If that is true, one cannot regard one
set of reprints as a continuation of an earlier set of reprints of the
same volumes (here understanding "volume" to mean a given
text). They are simply different manifestations of the same
work.<br><br>
What confuses this further, in the present case, is the (almost
certainly) insoluble complexity of the relationships among successive
manifestations of the individual volumes--i.e. the ultimate impossibility
of grouping them into fully distinct <i>collective</i> manifestations
exhaustive of the universe of manifestations. (The weakness of serial
cataloguing, for historical bibliographical purposes, is the utter
confusion that results from any attempt to map that universe on the basis
of serial bib records alone, in the absence of sufficiently detailed
volume-level description. I can say this confidently in the case of
<i>Asiatick Researches</i>, including even the very good records that
have been produced, including, by all means, your own.)<br><br>
Some questions that I cannot yet answer:<br><br>
- How many volumes were printed in quarto for the "Sewell,
Vernor and Hood [et al.]" line of reprints? Do we set aside the
quartos as a distinct collective manifestation of x-many volumes? Or do
we say that at some point that line continues within a manifestation that
comprises quartos and octavos?<br><br>
- How do I collect into one or more records two sets of
"Vernor, Hood, and Sharpe [et al.]" octavos, in which vols. 1-6
comprise, in one, a set of reprints printed in 1801 for Sewell, Vernor
and Hood [et al.] by various printers (the work being distributed for the
greatest possible simultaneity of production); in the other, v.1 5th ed.
1806, v.2-3 5th ed. 1807, v.4 (with title <i>Asiatic researches</i>) 4th
ed. 1807, v.5 5th ed. 1807, and v.6 undated but certainly printed ca.
1807 (the watermarks are 1806, as in preceding 1807 volumes); BUT the two
sets coalescing thereafter as they constitute "real time"
reprints of the Calcutta editions (reprints that apparently stop
appearing at some point--1818?--as indicated by various records). This in
the absence of any useful information concerning putative 2nd-4th
editions, not to speak of the possible need to relate these reprints to
some unknown number of octavo reprints (some referred to, for no stated
reason, as piracies) that commence in 1798, the imprints of which are
only sketchily indicated in most records.<br><br>
- What's with John Murray? Did he produce only v.12 (1818)? Was
that imprint given in the 260 in some of the sketchier WorldCat records
for runs of octavo reprints that are actually Sewell/Vernor and Hood with
the one Murray volume at the end? Yeesh...<br><br>
At its best, rare book cataloguing of serials should enable institutions
with comprehensive holdings to produce records that will provide
unambiguous information about manifestations to cataloguers faced with
mixed and partial runs. (Or at least records that are somewhat explicit
about ambiguities.) You're obviously trying to do something like that;
ESTC makes a brave show as well, as far as the C18 volumes go, as do some
cataloguers in various Oxford venues (as seen via OLIS). I suspect that
in the case of <i>Asiatick Researches</i> this may not be realizable by
means of serial records alone, absent some detailed, clearly structured
account of (at least) imprints and basic descriptive details for each
manifestation of each volume, rather than block notes containing a
Gordian knot of imprint variants.<br><br>
Any takers for the idea of beta-testing DCRM(S) on this critter--perhaps
leveraging the test into an actual work of scholarship with contributions
from a group of crazily dedicated cataloguers willing to haul out their
holdings and at least match them to a checklist? Am I nuts? (Or have some
beta tests already been run for a similarly messy case or two?)<br><br>
Sorry for the long post. Something for these long solstitial
nights.<br><br>
</font><tt>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU <br><br>
</tt><font size=3>At 12/7/2007 08:28 AM, S.J. Wolfe
wrote, in response to the appended exlibris-l query:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Richard, I just did our runs,
you might want to check our OPAC and see what my records looks like.
There were at least two London editions, and the title changes at various
points.<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF"><u>
<a href="http://www.americanantiquarian.org">
www.americanantiquarian.org</a><br>
</u></font><font size=3><br>
BY the way, I LOVE serials cataloguing and am recataloguing all of our
collection and making up some new rules as I go. Let me know if I can
help with anything!<br><br>
Su<br><br>
</font><font size=2 color="#800000"><b><i>S.J. Wolfe, M.L.S.<br>
Senior Cataloguer and Serials Specialist<br>
American Antiquarian Society<br>
</font><font size=2><a href="mailto:swolfe@mwa.org">
mailto:swolfe@mwa.org</a><br>
508-471-2144</i></b></font></blockquote><font size=3>Original exlibris-l
posting by R. Noble:<br><br>
Is anyone aware of a decent bibliographical study of editions of the
periodical Asiatick Researches/Asiatic Researches, Calcutta, 1788-1839,
and, more especially, of the various London reprint editions? I ask this
before finally throwing up my hands in despair over the disparate partial
runs here at Brown.<br><br>
Serial records from all over, including WorldCat, ESTC, BL, and OLIS,
allow only partial views, many built on and all collectively leading only
to inconclusive or unwarranted inferences. (The major reason why rare
book cataloguers hate serials.)<br><br>
<br>
</font></body>
</html>