Guidelines for Cataloging Liturgy

Guidelines for cataloging Liturgy

Descriptive cataloging: Uniform titles

“The editor’s name may be added following the rite to distinguish a variant edition from standard editions (AACR2 rule 25.22).

Subject Cataloging

Mary K. D. Pietris, chief of Subject Division at LC, has suggested the following subject array for liturgical works. [Cited by Berger and Wachs in JL 1:1, (Fall 1983), “Catalog Department” section.]

A standard Haggadah text, for example, would be analyzed like this:

1. Judaism—Liturgy—Texts.[1] 2. Haggadot—Texts. 3. Seder—Liturgy—Texts.

For a commentary, the format would be as follows:

1. [Religion]—Liturgy—Texts—History and Criticism. 2. [Uniform title of book] 3. [Heading for type of liturgical book]. 4. If appropriate, [Heading for particular ceremony or event]—Liturgy—Texts—History and criticism.

Example:

1. Judaism—Liturgy—Texts—History and criticism. 2. Haggadot. 3. Seder—Liturgy—Texts—History and criticism.

To include liturgical rite in the subject array, first heading would also need to be modified. In the case of Rabbinical Assembly publication, for example, the first heading would be

Conservative Judaism—Liturgy—Texts (JL 1,1 (Fall 1983), p. 13).

According to Theodore Wiener, Judaica Cataloger at LC, this specific heading would precede the generic heading in actual practice.

Why do we need Uniform titles and Subject headings? Isn’t this redundant?

According to Weinberg, since the marking of the rite never occurs in initial position, LC’s descriptive headings do not make it possible to identify, e.g., all Sephardic or Reform liturgical works. “To serve the purpose of gathering all prayer books on one rite, LC has come up with new subject headings …” (JL 1:1, p. 71).[2]

[1] What Weinberg, 1984, refers to as “generic posting”, i.e., “the assignment of a general as well as a specific subject heading, a practice which violates the basic principle of subject cataloging, i.e., to assign terms only at the level of specificity of the work”

[2] She continues: “We are now witnessing the establishment of the names of Jewish liturgical works in main and added entries in the singular form, while both singular and plural forms are used form the same works in subject headings, e.g., Haggadah/Haggadot” (p. 71). “The fact that Jewish liturgy is kept together by a library’s classification scheme is yet another argument for not duplicating this arrangement in the library’s subject catalog under the heading Judaism—Liturgy—Texts. “ She recommended the “conversion of redundant subject headings to cross references,” so that, for example, “Haggadot—Texts” is annotated: “see Haggadah in the author-title catalog” (which would save hundreds of cards, should we still be using such a system (73). She suggests “omnibus cross reference” so that a search on “Judaism—liturgy--texts” brings up the note: “See the following headings in the author-title catalog: Haggadah, Mahzor, siddur, etc.”