Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early
Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM) was developed at the Vatican Film Library at
Saint Louis University, whose main primary source research collection
consists of copies on microfilm of the medieval and Renaissance
manuscripts from the Vatican Library. You can find out more about the
library at http://www.slu.edu/libraries/vfl/. Our collections hold
approximately 37,000 Vatican manuscript codices on microfilm. Although
we post a shelfmark inventory of our materials on our website, we also
describe the manuscripts bibliographically using AMREMM through the
Saint Louis University Library online catalogue (see
http://www.slu.edu/libraries/pius/). At the very least, this affords us
author, title, and subject access to these materials as easily as any
other -- dare I use such an ambiguous term in this context -- book. You
can find a number of examples through the shelfmark by searching our
OPAC using an author search: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Or, you may
search a particular shelfmark designation, such as the Vaticani latini
collection, by a title search: Manuscript Vat. lat.
One can certainly employ AMREMM for cataloguing manuscripts on
microfilm, as we do exclusively. One catalogues the item or work on the
microfilm, rather than the microfilm itself. See the Library of Congress
Rules Interpretation for chapter 11, which sets out this commonly
followed principle (especially so for printed books): "Transcribe the
bibliographic data appropriate to the original work being reproduced
.." A very convenient and clear discussion of this subject is provided
in Maxwell's Handbook for AACR2, pp. 263-64. See also the scope note in
AMREMM, section 0A, p. 2, where it is stared that AMREMM can be used for
cataloguing reproductions of manuscripts in microfilm, though not for
printed, published manuscript facsimiles. There is certain information
added to the record to indicate the format of the item being catalogued,
but for the most part the bibliographic record represents the work on
the microfilm. The designation "[microform]" appears as part of the
title of each work clearly indicating that it is a copy. There is other
information in the record as well to indicate a microform copy.
There are, of course, limitations to cataloguing (online or in print) an
item from a microfilm; these are mainly codicological in nature.
Binding, for instance, may be reproduced on the microfilm, but it would
be highly imprudent to make any assertions on this basis. Depending upon
whether the microfilm is back and white or color, one may say more or
less about aspects of illumination: the color palette used obviously
cannot be observed in black and white, but this do not limit
identification of decorative, thematic, or iconographical features or
even artists. Collation certainly cannot be determined from a microfilm.
However, paleographical aspects can easily be identified and recorded
(an important dating feature), except perhaps when interpretation hangs
upon an erasure or a palimpsest. Other features can be read from the
microfilm, such as catchwords, layout, provenance evidence, etc. Without
valuing one over any other of the various disciplines embodied in
manuscript studies, however, the greater number of researchers are
interested in locating texts and authors. Working from microfilm offers
few if any real obstacles in identifying this type of information.
I would be happy to discuss this further with anyone who has questions.
Please contact me off list.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pass
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gregory A. Pass
Librarian, Vatican Film Library
Editor, Manuscripta
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
3650 Lindell Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
Tel. (314) 977-3096 / Fax (314) 977-3108
http://www.slu.edu/libraries/vfl
passga@slu.edu