[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

[Laurence Creider]

This has been a great discussion, and I've gone back and forth on what I
think about collector as main entry for collections.  My instinctive
position favors using the collector as main entry under the limit
situations given in the CSB.  However, when I try to put my reasoning into
words I am finding it very hard to justify that decision.  Let me try to
describe my reasoning here; I apologize for the length of this as well as
for describing basic principles we all know. I'm  trying to explain my
reasoning.

First, my understanding of the manuals for special constituencies that
have proliferated since AACR2 (DCRB, Map Cataloging Manual, Conser Manual,
etc.) is that they combine a freedom to differ from the provisions of part
1 of AACR2 with fairly strict adherence to part 2 of the code, which
allows the addition of extra access points as long as those are
constructed according to AACR2.   I am reluctant to start messing with
part 2 of AACR.  APPM is the only one of these that significantly differs
from AACR2 in the choice of main entry, and even it conforms to AACR2 in
the cataloger is to formulate headings.   Frankly, I think that APPM's
attempt to provide a "simplified" version of part 2 is not successful.
Certainly, it hasn't been emulated.   Its main differences, however, are
the result of fundamental principles.  

The problem with the CSB provision for main entry under collector is that
it involves the very question of what authorship is.  The bibliographic
tradition at the base of Anglo-American cataloging is based on the
principle of the work and the identification of those responsible for its
content and identity.  That is why films are entered under title (there
are too many people and corporate bodies involved in the creation of the
content for one to be identified as the creator).  In this
Cutter-Lubetzky-AACR tradition, organizers, such as editors, are much less
privileged than authors.  In the bibliographic tradition, such figures are
treated as editors who cannot be responsible for the intellectual content.
The archival tradition's basic principle of organization is the identity
of a group of documents as a provenanced group.  Using this principle, the
question of who is intellectually responsible for the content of the
collection (or its parts) is not nearly as relevant as the question of who
is responsible for the creation and organization of the collection as
collection.  

Every justification that I can think of for entering these collections
under the name of the collector involves fudging with cataloging
principles.  The closest that I can come to is the notion that compilers
of bibliographies are the authors of their bibliographies, but such
bibliographers generally do more than edit or collect an existing list.
They are responsible for the content of entries.  One could argue that
entering a collection under its collector is similar to entering a catalog
or a book of reproductions of the paintings in a museum under the
corporate body that owns the items.  This is essentially arguing from an
analogy to another analogy (an person is analogous to corporate authors
who are viewed as analogous to personal authors).  Arguments based on the
notion that this is how people will look for the collection are ultimately
not helpful because they will lead to contradictory decisions by
catalogers that only confuse the users.  [Side rant: I think that one of
the most unfortunate phrases in the history of cataloging is "the
convenience of the user," and I was upset to see it given a place of honor
in the new "Berlin Principles."]  At any rate, one could equally argue
that what the users look for is the collection as a title or entity that
should be established as a uniform title or a corporate name.  Are people
going to look for the Otto F. Ege Palaegraphy Portfolio under title,
corporate body or Ege, Otto F.?  See  http://www.umilta.net/ege.html for a
discussion.  

Then there is the question: what are we describing?  We are not cataloging
the individual items, which have persons or bodies responsible for their
content.  We are describing these items as collections.  Whether or not
the materials are published is, as everyone commenting so far has
recognized, irrelevant. So, are these collections archives that have been
created by an individual or are they groups of materials that someone has
gathered and arranged, not unlike a microform set of 19th century women's
diaries?  Catalogers may legitimately differ in their answers depending on
the institutional context and on the nature of the particular collection.  

I don't believe the question is whether we will be "mainstream" or in a
backwater.  The question is which tradition we follow, bibliographic or
archival?  At some point, the two traditions may be able to do a better
job of merging, and John Attig is undoubtedly correct that at some point
cataloging theory will need to encompass archival description.  Catalogers
and archivists, however, haven't been able to devise a general theory that
will encompass both.  My experience with formulating rules for manuscript
cataloging makes me think that this process is going to be more difficult
than we would like or even think.  There are differences not only in
principles of organization and entry but also in the function and nature
of the catalog record (transcription of information existing in multiple
copies vs. construction by the archivist of information describing a
unique item).  

DCRM(B) can follow the CSB's view on collector as main entry, but if so, I
think we need to be explicit about why we are doing this and that we are
following archival principles here.   However, I am not sure that we need
to actually address this question in our rules.  There are no other
separate provisions for main entry in DCRM(B).  Nor, if I remember
correctly, are there discussions of main entry in the drafts for other
DCRM modules.  We could be silent and let catalogers use their judgment.
If a some institutions find that they wish to treat these as archival
entities and enter a few of these collections under the name of the
collector, I respect their judgment.  That is what living in a cooperative
environment means.  Fortunately, the number of collections that will be
both cataloged at the collection level and known primarily by the name of
the collector is surely going to be quite small (I think Jackie Dooley is
wrong in suggesting that "known" can refer to a small group of insiders.
"Known" in a cataloging sense usually implies some evidence in reference
sources, which could include articles citing the collection and existing
library descriptions of it).   The provision of added entries makes our
decision here less crucial as well.  Very rarely will anyone be doing
shared cataloging using these records, and the worst that will happen is
that those of us who look for examples of how others deal with a
particular cataloging situation (i.e., all of us) will have to think about
what we are doing.

Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu