[DCRM-L] Early works to 1800

[Laurence Creider]

I'm glad you are on this subcommittee, Bob.

Continued use of the subdivision is perhaps a little more complicated. Why 
do we keep this when many systems can provide work arounds through 
limitations?  A more serious objection might be that the use of the 
subdivision segregates early materials from being considered as part of 
the same continuum as later materials.  That is, there is a lot to be said 
for having to confront Cyril of Alexandria on the Person of Christ along 
with Karl Barth or Rahner.

On the other hand, people do tend to treat the materials separately and 
look for them separately.  If you want to learn geometry, you don't start 
with Euclid. If you want the history of geometry, however, then you might 
do so.  Sometimes it is a crude way to gather individual sources on 
pre-19th century topics that are not included in Sources.  We special 
collections catalogers may sometimes use the subdivision as a crude way of 
gathering together our hand press publications.

All things considered, I vote for keeping the subdivision in 650 and/or 
using it as a genre term to be combined with other search terms.  No 
amount of changing subject headings will get people to use early materials 
if they think that only items published in the last 10 years are work 
looking at.

I am also in favor of making this subdivision's free-floating.  The 
limitations never made sense to me.  When you are dealing with Chaucer or 
Aquinas or Caesar, there are qualitative differences between the ancient, 
medieval, and early modern traditions on the one hand and the historical 
documentary approaches that gather more force in the 19th century and are 
still in play.

Finally, I think it would make a good free-standing genre term, not just 
for little libraries that want to pull what they have in those areas, but 
to enable more complicated keyword searches of specialized topics.

Larry

Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> 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
>