Topic 6: Glossary: Title page and Title proper

[Robert Maxwell]

>Title page.  The leaf on which the  %title proper%  appears.  [Stet for
>remainder.]

I think the definition of title page needs to be quite a bit clearer than
it currently is, in conjunction with a revision of the rules dealing with
title page. OC3 states: "For publications issued without a title page ...
if a single title proper is available in a single source within the
publication, use this source as the title page substitute." Yet if the
title page is the leaf on which the title proper appears (and I agree with
Sandra's change, above), then what need is there for a title page
substitute? By definition, wherever the title proper appears, that is the
title page. I assume 0C3 is not contemplating using a binder's title as a
title page substitute. But aside from the binding, what other "single"
source other than one of the leaves could contain the title proper?

Further problem with the current definition (quoting): ""title page" refers
only to the recto of the leaf. (The verso of this leaf is not part of the
"title page" ...)" Well, suppose the "leaf" on which the "title proper"
appears is the last leaf, i.e., the colophon. Then the title may appear on
the verso of the leaf and not the recto. By the DCRB definition of title
page, the title page may be *any* leaf in the book, recto or verso (at
least so says the beginning of the rule); the only stipulation is that the
title proper appear on it. The stipulation that only the recto of the leaf
may be the title page is inconsistent with the stipulation that the title
page is the leaf where the title proper appears.

>
>Title proper.  [Stet, except omit "See also Chief title."]

The definition of title proper vis a vis the definition of title page is
circular and needs to be hammered out a quite a bit, I think. If the title
proper is the "chief title of a publication in the form in which it appears
on the title page (or substitute) [again, is there such a thing as a title
page substitute?]..." and the title page is the "leaf on which the title
proper appears," the two definitions are defining each other in a way that
is not helpful. Can we do something about this?

I also suggest, if we decide that there is no difference between "chief
title" and "title proper" (as per Sandra's revision of "Chief title"), that
a part of the revision of "title proper" include removing the word "chief"
from the first line, so it simply reads "the title of a publication in the
form ..."

An ultimate (as if!) question: why is it necessary to depart from the very
simple AACR2 definition of "title proper" ("The chief name of an item,
including any alternative title but excluding parallel titles and other
title information")? All the way through this revision, I think we should
ask ourselves why DCRB needs to depart from AACR2. I personally think the
AACR2 definition is adequate, at least as a base. And I really can't think
why rare materials are so "special" that they need to have a different
definition of title proper from that of other materials. (1) The long bit
of our definition spelling out that pious invocations etc. are not a part
of the title proper and (2) the part that says (negatively) that things
grammatically connected to the title proper are a part of the title proper
are both clearly covered by the AACR2 rules themselves, on which DCRB is
based and which are incorporated into DCRB, are they not, if not explicitly
contradicted by a rule in DCRB?

Bob
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
6428 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 378-5568
robert_maxwell at byu.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=