[DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 0C2c as applied to Deodatus, Pantheum hygiasticum (1628/1629)

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Richard,



I agree with John that your situation falls under 0C2(c). In the absence of authoritative bibliographical information to the contrary, one assumes two issues of this edition (or, since I'm deep in RDA training, two manifestations of the work: expression), which requires two master records. And if we at the Folger found only one master record that didn't fit our issue, we'd create another.



Regarding the construction of the 260, DCRM(B) is very clear that there is no assumed precedence of publisher over manufacturer. Since the imprint on the chief source of information (which the engraved title page is, thanks to its later date), consists of a grammatically inseparable statement of manufacture and of publication &c., 4A6.3.1 applies. Any mention of Basel would be confined to a note and/or a 752.



By the way, the Folger buzz is that a certain Advanced Descriptive Bibliography course offered at Rare Book School is fantastic.

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of John Lancaster
Sent: Monday, 23 July, 2012 22:27
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 0C2c as applied to Deodatus, Pantheum hygiasticum (1628/1629)



I'd tend to prefer two separate records in this case - the bit that tips me in that direction is that König is clearly very separate from Darbellay, both in place and scope of business, and the letterpress title page looks perfectly good for a stand-alone publication.  Given the earlier date on the letterpress title page, it seems awfully likely that copies were issued in Porrentruy, even if a substantial portion of the edition went to Basel.



If only one master record were chosen, I think it would have to be on the assumption that the work requires the 1629 title page.  And on that basis, 0C2 is pretty clear: the criteria are to be applied in order, and c) deals with difference in date.  As you say, 0C2d is not applicable if you assume the presence of both title pages.  Even then, I'd be reluctant to treat the Darbellay imprint as manufacturing information - the way it's presented on the letterpress title page certainly looks a lot like what 4A6.2 was written to deal with.  (Which leads me even more firmly back to two records.)



As to including Basel in the 260, I think it's just a question of where to put the bracketed information - in subfield a, I'd think, since if you're assuming König to be the publisher, the place of publication is where he's located.



John Lancaster





On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:



> What would you all prefer to find in OCLC as the one record or two records of the very many that would best serve for Claudius Deodatus, Pantheumn hygiasticum (search: au= deodatus, claudius and yr: 1628-1629)?

>

> The letterpress title pages would render as:

>

> Bruntruti [Porrentruy, Switzerland] : Excudebat Wilhelmus Darbellay, Anno M DC XXVIII.

>

> (Porrentruy is majority French-Speaking; its German name is Pruntrut.)

>

> There is an added engraved title in many or most but by no means all

> copies (Brown has only a bound-in photocopy of it) with imprint here

> quoted

>

> 'Excusum Bruntruti et apud Ludovicum König inueniendum Anno MDCXXIX.'

>

> König was a large-scale bookseller in Basel, not the small town of Porrentruy (none of the OCLC records evidences awareness of his actual location). Quite how to render that in the 260 baffles me a bit, but the real question is: treat this as two issues (1628 without engr. ti., 1629 with)? Or as one edition, following the engraved title per 0C2c (choose later date) and note that the engr. ti. is missing in some copies, and was perhaps issued directly without it by Darbellay?

>

> I don't think 0C2d applies at all: the question is whether to treat the absence of the engraved title as copy specific and allow it to trump the letterpress title in a single master record, since it can probably never be proved that it wan't simply lost in all cases. The letterpress imprint could be treated as a manufacturing statement?

>

> I don't think the tactic of a single record for the 1628 imprint, with a note re engraved title, is quite right bibliographically speaking--the engraved title is a true issue variant, at least--but that's the preference of most of the existing "master" records, and tolerable I suppose.

>

> Advanced or even very advanced descriptive bibliography is easier than this sort of cataloging ...

>

> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN

> UNIVERSITY PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :

> RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120724/7dddf3f6/attachment-0001.htm>