Conflicting titles of a manuscript.

By Anonymous on Wed, 05/14/2014 - 10:44

Forums

Dr. Asa Fitch collected firsthand accounts, newspaper articles, and some original documents for the purpose of writing a history of Washington County New York. The information was recorded in seven journals using article numbers. There have been several books complied using bits and pieces of these articles. A gazetteer, annotated index, was published in 1999 compiled by Kenneth A Perry. The original journals where donated to the New York Genealogical & Biographical Society who then donated them to New York Public Library. In 1952 New York Public microfilmed the volumes.

The gazetteer as does various publications of the New York Genealogical & Biographical Society refers to the journals as "Dr. Asa Fitch's Manuscript History of Washington County, New York." New York Public's title for the microfilm is Fitch, Asa, Compiler  Washington County, New York Vols. 1-7. New York Public's title for the actual journals is Notes for a history of Washington County, N.Y., manuscript.

I have not seen the original manuscript, but I do have a copy of the microfilm. The title of the microfilm implies at least to me that this is a book in seven volumes. My question is: would it be appropriate to add [Manuscript] to the beginning of the title of the microfilm for clarification?  

Thank you,

Ann Gilchrest

Submitted byEEon Thu, 05/15/2014 - 12:08

Ann,

EE would not recommend adding anything to the start of a title. Doing so would reposition the title to a different letter of the alphabet in any cataloging scheme, physical or digital.

The descriptive word "manuscript" has its own field in most citation formats. The most relevant sections of EE, given that you are working with preservation film rather than a film publication, would be 3.5, 3.17, and 3.19—as well as the QuickCheck Models at pp. 103–4.

 

 

Submitted byagilchreston Thu, 05/15/2014 - 16:33

Thank you, I didn't think about repositioning the title by adding to the begining of it! Now for the next problem.  Apparently when I requested New York Public to make me a copy of the film they made my copy mailed it and now the catalog lists it a s "missing in transit"

Submitted byagilchreston Wed, 10/21/2015 - 00:09

Here it is over a year later and I am finally getting back to this! New York Public now has the microfilm back in the catalogue. Here is the link to the microfilm entry http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b18208151~S1

This is the link to the original manuscript http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b17058963~S1 .

I have attached the pages I am looking at, and below is my citation.

"Capt. James Beaty, Mrs. Casparus Bain informs Asa Fitch," 30 October 1848; vol. 2, p. 116-9, entry no. "285. Neal Gillespie, Argyle," section k; History of Washington County, New York [microform]/ compiled by Asa Fitch; New York Public Library microfilm *R-USLHG *ZI-1315. The microfilm contains seven volumes of Asa Fitch's "Notes for a history of Washington County, N.Y.: manuscript." New York Public Library MssCol NYGB 18065.

My question is should the quotes be after Beaty or before the date? Since Article 285 starts with "Mrs. Casparus Bain informs me" should it be placed after "...Gillespie, Argyle," Or is this a case where I am over thinking!

Thank you for any suggestions,

Ann Gilchrest

Submitted byEEon Wed, 10/21/2015 - 18:27

Ann, your archival explorations do turn up some doozies.

Your suggested citation, I suspect, could be shortened considerably. Let's walk through some of the issues:

  • Given that your citation begins with "Capt. James Beaty, Mrs. Casparus Bain informs Asa Fitch," the natural inclination for anyone who uses your citation would be to look for a document that bears that label. It's presumably an exact title, because you've used quotation marks around those words. But the images you provide do not have that title.
  • Later in your citation, you include another phrase with quotation marks around it: "285. Neal Gilespie, Argyle." This phrase does appear as a subhead on the first image page that you provide. Why, then, would it not be the "title" with which you lead your citation?
  • On the other hand, why should a subhead be the title with which you lead your citation, given that you're citing a 7-volume manuscript by one author?   If you were citing a 7 vol. work by someone else, would you start your citation with a subhead from the middle of p. 116 of vol. 2?
  • Notice, too, that you're telling us three times that the material is microfilm and you're twice telling us that it's at New York Public Library. 
  • I haven't yet figured out where "section k" comes from. It's not on the images that you've shared and it's not in either of the two catalog entries that you supply.  Ergo, for my suggestion below, I'm not able to discern where it should be placed. (Is it section k of vol. 2?)
  • As for the phrase that represents the lead words in item 285, if you were citing a 7-vol. publication, would you feel it necessary to cite the lead words in the passage you used?  Actually, here, the lead words that you 'quote' are

"Capt. James Beaty, Mrs. Casparus Bain informs Asa Fitch," 30 October 1848

However, the actual lead words in the manuscript are, "Mrs. Casparus Bain informs me (Oct. 30 1848) ..."  Capt. James Beaty is not mentioned there, and Asa Fitch's name is not in the passage.

  • The format that you're using for the first part of the citation corresponds to that of a manuscript letter. Presumably, from your context in reading many more pages, you know or suspect this is a letter. But you're not actually dealing with a manuscript letter here. You're dealing with a 7-volume "book" that is still in manuscript form.  A comparative example here would be if you were citing a deed that is copied by a clerk into a conveyance register. You would not cite it as an original deed in a file or a collection. You would cite it as one item in a manuscript register.

All things considered, the simplest treatment would be the standard format for a manuscript volume that has been microfilmed. The QuickCheck Model on p. 101 ("unpublished narrative") has something comparable. The only significant difference is that the manuscript in your case has been microfilmed. 

In brief: Layer 1 would cite the manuscript volume. Layer 2 would cite the 'derivative' form in which you consulted it.

      Asa Fitch, "History of Washington County, New York," 7 vols. (MS, ca. 187_?), 2: 116–9, entry "285 Neal Gillespie, Argyle";  microfilm *R-USLHG *ZI-1315 (MssCol NYGB 18065), New York Public Library, New York City.

Does this omit anything that, from your broader study of the volume, you would consider essential?

Submitted byagilchreston Wed, 10/21/2015 - 20:37

Thank you! I have once again gotten mired in the details! I think I was trying to put information in the actual citation that should be in the "notes" for the citation. For example the date that Asa Fitch interviewed Mrs. Bain and that the information was relayed to Dr. Fitch by Mrs. Bain. I was also trying to figure out how to put the focus on James Beaty and not on Neal Gillespie. I am using the discussion about James' daughter Elizabeth who she was married to and what Mrs. Bain claims James left her. Which by the way does not match up with James' will. Most of this will be in a narrative form

You asked,

"I haven't yet figured out where "section k" comes from. It's not on the images that you've shared and it's not in either of the two catalog entries that you supply.  Ergo, for my suggestion below, I'm not able to discern where it should be placed. (Is it section k of vol. 2?)"

If you look at the pages I sent there are lettered sections on the left side of the page. Now that I think about it they are actually labeled paragraphs. In each of these paragraphs Mrs. Bain is talking about someone else from the family or neighborhood. The specific entry I am using for a specific assertion is paragraph k on page 119. This is the paragraph that starts with "Capt. James Beaty...." At the end of the paragraph is a symbol followed by 979.

Entry 979 is in volume 4 and titled "979 Capt. James Beaty Argyle (vide [Latin for see] (symbol) 285, k."

I don't know what the little symbol is called or how to reproduce it on the computer

Ann

Submitted byEEon Thu, 10/22/2015 - 08:59

Ann,

Thanks for clarifying what "k" refers to. Given that it's a paragraph within an "article," we would place that piece of data after the identification of the article.

Asa Fitch, "History of Washington County, New York," 7 vols. (MS, ca. 187_?), 2: 116–9, entry "285 Neal Gillespie, Argyle," para. k);  microfilm *R-USLHG *ZI-1315 (MssCol NYGB 18065), New York Public Library, New York City.

For your second issue, the desire to put the emphasis on James Beatty, two thoughts: If we cite him first "for emphasis," we are putting him in the author's position, which would be misleading or confusing. Your need here might be better described as not a need for "emphasis," but a need for "specificity"—to point out exactly what, in entry 285, para. k), the reader needs to consider. The conventional way of accomplishing that would be this:

Asa Fitch, "History of Washington County, New York," 7 vols. (MS, ca. 187_?), 2: 116–9, entry "285 Neal Gillespie, Argyle," para. k), "Capt. James Beatty ...";  microfilm *R-USLHG *ZI-1315 (MssCol NYGB 18065), New York Public Library, New York City.

 

Submitted byagilchreston Thu, 10/22/2015 - 11:35

I will be using this manuscript extensively. Dare I say that citations for 'common' records are resonably straight forward. This one had me stymied. Your thoughts on how to approach citations for this manuscript will serve me well when constructing the hundred or so to follow. Thank you.

Ann