----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Susan,
The rule interpretations on named works of art are 25.3A, 25.4A, and
25.5B1 (there's a condensed version of the rules and interpretations
at http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9783/utwksart.html ). If
the English-language sources are not uniform and the Dutch title is
more consistently given, I'd probably use the Dutch form. I see the
bias toward English-language heading as useful when there's
consistency but far less so when each source seems to be translating
at will. And don't forget to make the references from the variations,
of course.

Sherman
<a href="/scripts/wa.exe?LOGON=A3%3Dind9907%26L%3DARLIS-L%26E%3D7BIT7BIT%26P%3D96797%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252FplainTEXT%252FPLAIN%3B%2520charset%3DUS-ASCII%26pending%3D" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a>

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Catalogers,
> I know that entry (and cross references) for named art works by known
> artists has changed radically in the last couple of years.  Where does the
> rule for establishing entry reside?
> I have a Dutch work on Rembrandt's Anatomy lesson of Dr. Deijman, and I
> would like to submit a NACO record.  Since this book is in Dutch and
> includes no English title for the work, I've consulted "reference
> sources", but they aren't in complete agreement.  I'm not sure the rule
> will help, but it might?
> Thanks for any help,
> Susan Lentz
> Art Cataloger
> Davidson Library
> University of Calif.
> Santa Barbara, CA 93106
> 805-893-8946
>