[DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

[Noble, Richard]

It's a very odd subdivision, though in the European cultural context it
roughly represents, I suppose, the Enlightenment/Post-Enlightenment
tideline. Apart from that, the restrictions on its use seem neither
necessary nor even logical. The primary advantage of the "Early works"
term is that it addresses the period of composition of the work or
expression, not the date of publication of its manifestations; the very
existence of these restrictions suggests that its utility in this
respect was evidently unrecognized. Furthermore, I find inexplicable the
notion that "the passage of time is of little consequence" in all but a
very few areas of study, which do not include the ones specified. The
omission following headings with date or period subdivision or
qualifiers goes so far as to confuse period of historical coverage
(subject) with period of composition/publication (description), a rather
simple-minded category error.

 

If a stand-alone 655 were wanted, I'd be happier with something like
"[nth]-century works". One of the hardest things to make a catalogue do
is to retrieve everything published about anything at a given time. But
even that requires comprehensive application to be of much use. Even so,
there may well be libraries-particularly smaller ones?-for whom an
"early works" heading could be very useful indeed. It's certainly worth
considering.

 

 

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:21 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

 

Hello, all,

 

I'm on a SAC subcommittee making recommendations for the disposition of
the genre/form subdivisions established as 185 records in the subject
authority file. We're discussing the subdivision -Early works to 1800
right now.

 

First, I assume we want to be able to continue using this as a
subdivision in 650 (etc.), correct?

 

Second, would there be interest in expanding its scope? At the moment
it's only allowed "under names of countries, cities, etc., and under
classes of persons, ethnic groups, and topical headings for individual
works written or issued before 1800." E.g., it can't be used under names
of persons in 600 fields; in addition, SCM 1576 forbids its use in the
following situations:

 

5.  When to omit the subdivision.  Do not use the subdivision in
situations for which the passage of time is of little consequence,
including the following: 

*   under names of persons, corporate bodies (except for geographic
names), or individual works (except sacred works) 

*   historical works; chronologies 

*   under headings with dates, or period subdivisions; under headings
with period qualifiers, for example, Science, Ancient 

*   works of belles lettres; works about belles lettres

 

I would personally like to see the subdivision become completely free
floating, i.e., allowed in any subject string without the omission
requirements of SCM 1576. What do the rest of you think?

 

Third, would there be interest in establishing the term "Early works to
1800" (or something similar) as a genre/form term, allowing its use in
655? 

 

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 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100423/2feffa63/attachment.htm