---------- 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
>