Re: Manuscript serial (Frieda Rosenberg) Marcia Tuttle 15 Jul 1997 13:55 UTC
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:44:07 +0600 From: Frieda Rosenberg <friedat@EMAIL.UNC.EDU> To: SEREDIT@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Manuscript serial (Heinrich Kuhn) In support of Dr. Kuhn's very well-expressed view: earlier this year I also brought up this question on the list; the title of our longhand "manuscript" was "Annual report," the reports bore years as designations; the author was a colonial administrator; there was presumably only one original, sent to the home office. Once it was microfilmed and sent out to libraries as part of a collection of colonial annual reports (some of them probably originally "published" in multiple copies), it too now certainly was both a manuscript and a publication. I elected to treat it as a serial and not a manuscript, having no other choice. ---------- Frieda Rosenberg Serials Cataloging Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill friedat@email.unc.edu On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 ERCELAA@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu wrote: > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 09:39:36 GMT+2 > From: "Heinrich C. Kuhn" <hck@IPP.MPG.DE> > Subject: Re: Manuscript serial (Robert Bremer) > > Concerning Robert Bremer's message: > > > I've some problems with terminology. "Manuscripts are > not published": o.k.. But in my understanding of the > terms printed volumes are not published either. It's > texts that are published. Some of them in printed form, > some of them in electronic form, some of them in manus- > cript form, some of them as monographs, some of them > as serials. > > If manuscript form is used to really *spawn* a text I'd > say the text is *published* in manuscript form: some > 2000 copies made on behalf of an ancient Roman writer > of one of his works: that's publication by manuscript; > spreading a papal bulla in lots of manuscript copies > over most of Europe and part of Asia: thats publication > by manuscript in my eyes; manuscript form doesn't necessarily > mean "not published". When Durandus a Sancto Portiano (early > 14th cent.) protested, that his own one and only copy of > one of his works, which he still considered to be a work > in progress, had been temporarily snatched from him in > order to spread lots of copies made from that text, he > complained about the *publication* of a text he did not > (yet) think fit for publication. I'll spare you other > examples: the ones above should suffice to illustrate *why* > I think there can be something like "publication in > manuscript form". > > And there probably can be something like the publication > of a manuscript serial as well. I remember having read > about some group of authors (18th cent. Europe as far > as I can remember) who did regularily send out reports > in manuscript form to some 50 recipients, and who used > the manuscript form in order to circumvent laws about > censorship, as these laws aplied to printed material > only ... . > > I agree: a serial has to be *published*. And very few > manuscript texts bearing consecutive numbers and/or > datestamps will have been published. But some of them > might have ... . > > Perhaps the views expressed above are a mere epiphenomenon > of my not being a native speaker of English. But to > some extend I doubt it ... . > > Regards > > Heinrich C. Kuhn > > +--------------------------------------------------------- > ! Dr. Heinrich C. Kuhn (coordinator libraries &c.) > ! Max-Planck-Gesellschaft / Generalverwaltung VIIIb3 > ! Postfach 10 10 62 / D-80084 Muenchen > ! T: +49-89-2108 1563 / F: +49-89-2108 1565 > ! eMail: hck@ipp-garching.mpg.de, kuhn@mpg-gv.mpg.de >