[DCRM-L] Simplification of AACR2 ch. 21

[lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu]

I'm sorry to jump in on this so late.  I was on vacation when the topic came up 
and got back last night.  I'm writing from home, so please pardon any citation 
errors.  I think the rule Bob asked about is necessary in order to fulfill the 
basic principle that a work is to be entered under the person primarily 
responsible for the intellectual contents.  Even in a set of rules that shy 
away from the notion of main entry or uniform title, the problem of identifying 
a work remains.  In our tradition, that means attaching the work to a name when 
one person is basically responsible for the work.  I suppose it would be 
possible to identify these works by title only, but I would really hate to see 
that happen.  Differentiating them would be very difficult, and the titles can 
be very long.

The determination of who is responsible for the intellectual content of the 
work is complicated in these early dissertations and disputations.  The 
situation is often the reverse of modern practice where the candidate for the 
degree is responsible for creating the content of the work, even when the 
advisor (especially in the sciences) may have had considerable input on the 
direction of the research and framing of the results.  After all, graduate 
degrees are occasionally revoked on the grounds of plagiarism.  The 
term "auctor," in particular, may not mean the person who is responsible for 
the content.  Bob's examples show nicely how the praeses may be responsible for 
the content rather than simply being a presider over the disputation.  The 
respondent's contributions may not have been recorded in the publication.  

It would be nice if the footnote could be updated to include more recent works, 
particularly if ones in English.  On the other hand, it is comforting to have a 
reminder of the enduring value of some pieces of humanistic scholarship.

The JSC should not think that these dissertations are such a small problem left 
over from the past that the rule can be ignored.  Penn had a collection of a 
couple of hundred of these things on Biblical topics that were uncataloged that 
I believe are still waiting for someone with some time, and these works also 
tend to show up in microfilm (and probably increasingly digital) expressions.

I hope this is in time to be of some help.

Larry Creider
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces,

Quoting Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>:

> I did a little comparison of several examples of these in the BYU
> collection and discovered a number of examples where the contents of the
> book were identical but the title pages were different--the praeses
> remained the same on these title pages, but the respondent and the date
> and time of examination changed between the title pages. Which suggests
> to me that the praeses probably *was* the author and the respondent (at
> least in these cases) was supposed to respond (!) to the thing the
> praeses had written. But no, it is not at all clear if you aren't
> familiar with these and don't have a bunch to compare that the praeses
> is in fact the author, especially is the cataloger is thinking of modern
> practice of thesis examination. So I, too, agree that at least something
> needs to remain in the rules about choice of entry.
> 
> I recently did a SACO proposal, by the way, not yet approved, for
> "Academic disputations", to cover these and distinguish them from
> "Academic dissertations". If anyone's interested, the proposed is
> sh2005001106, and can be viewed at authorities.loc.gov, searching under
> subject.
> 
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568  
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Noble, Richard [mailto:Richard_Noble at brown.edu] 
> >Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 5:09 PM
> >To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu; dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu; Arvid Nelsen; Bob 
> >Hall; Brian Hillyard; Deborah Leslie; Eileen Heeran; Janice 
> >Matthiesen; Joe Springer; John Attig; Larry Creider; Lenore 
> >Rouse; Lucy Marks; Manon Theroux; Maria Oldal; Robert Maxwell; 
> >Windy Lundy
> >Cc: Mary L. Larsgaard
> >Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Simplification of AACR2 ch. 21
> >
> >If proper assignment of an authorial heading matters, then the 
> >rule needs to stay. Dissertation titles are complex--I'm not 
> >sure how simple the rule can be made without oversimplifying. 
> >The relationships expressed in the title pages of 
> >dissertations need to be explained, since they're not 
> >self-evident and require some knowledge of archaic academic practice.
> > 
> >There's a footnote to the rule, to a C19 work on cataloguing 
> >(author title not available to me at the moment) that includes 
> >a very wise chapter on this problem--the irony being that AACR 
> >didn't follow him. He says treat the respondent as author 
> >(responsible for intellectual content), not the praeses, 
> >unless there's good evidence to the contrary. It's the 
> >generally the respondent who's being examined, and whose work 
> >is being presented, though there are cases when the student is 
> >just a mouthpiece for his praesidential guru. AACR defaults to 
> >the praeses. [But then there are other rather odd rules--like 
> >the one that has us putting The Beggar's Opera under Pepusch 
> >(the musical arranger) rather than Gay (the author)].
> > 
> >Most cataloguers would need some guidance. Some books are 
> >hard. There are some among us who may be better acquainted 
> >with how this all works (e.g. Larry Creider?).
> > 
> >Richard
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu on behalf of Robert Maxwell
> >Sent: Thu 7/7/2005 3:39 PM
> >To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu; Arvid Nelsen; Bob Hall; Brian 
> >Hillyard; Deborah Leslie; Eileen Heeran; Janice Matthiesen; 
> >Joe Springer; John Attig; Larry Creider; Lenore Rouse; Lucy 
> >Marks; Manon Theroux; Maria Oldal; me; Windy Lundy
> >Cc: Mary L. Larsgaard
> >Subject: [DCRM-L] Simplification of AACR2 ch. 21
> >
> >
> >The JSC wants to simplify the rules currently in AACR2 chapter 
> >21, and proposes to eliminate or at least simplify some of the 
> >special rules. Included on the list of rules under 
> >consideration is 21.27, the rule for dealing with academic 
> >disputations. Since the rare materials community is probably 
> >the one most concerned with this rule, I'd like to respond as 
> >chair of the Early Printed Monographs Task Force; but I'd also 
> >like to expand the response to members of the DCRM-B list. 
> > 
> >Please have a look at the rule, and then ask yourself (a) is 
> >the rule necessary? (b) If so, is it already adequately 
> >covered by other more general rules in Chapter 21, i.e., is it 
> >redundant? (c) If it must remain as a separate rule, can it be 
> >simplified?
> > 
> >The following quote from the JSC simplification proposal might 
> >be helpful:
> > 
> >"As part of JSC's general review, current provisions for 
> >choosing main and added entries will be replaced by a greatly 
> >simplified instruction to designate one access point as the 
> >primary access point for purposes of citing the work. 
> >Constituencies should therefore provide a principle-based 
> >rationale for any proposals to either eliminate or simplify 
> >AACR2 Chapter 21 special rules, and give suggested wording 
> >only if necessary."
> > 
> >CC:DA is asking for a response by July 11, so if you all could 
> >respond quite quickly (by tomorrow) if you feel like you want 
> >to, and then I can compile a response for CC:DA to forward on 
> >to JSC about this particular rule.
> > 
> >Thanks,
> >Bob
> > 
> >
> >Robert L. Maxwell
> >Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
> >Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
> >6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> >Brigham Young University
> >Provo, UT 84602
> >(801)422-5568 
> >
> > 
> >
>