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

Tue Jul 24 08:09:26 MDT 2012

My thanks to John and Deborah for bucking me up to do the right thing. I
can easily enough create a record for the 1628 issue, which is the work in
hand, obviously noting the existence of the reissue with added engraved
title page, indicating that some copies may simply have lost it in the
years since 1629. There are two manifestations, but identification of any
one copy as one or the other is to some degree indeterminate. Them's the
breaks, when you've got ca. 400 years for things to happen to books.

As to RBS ADB: My students forced me, very gently, to modify my syllabus
midstream, and do more of what I love doing: stand around a book with a
couple or three other people and address the question, "What *is* this?"
Something like a treasure hunt by way of an obstacle course...

For giggles, I presented some recently refashioned OCLC records as examples
of advanced descriptive something or other:

*Lives and Speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin* (1860)
*
*
   1012062 (Brown: http://josiah.brown.edu/record=b5395722 )
   621673738 (Brown: http://josiah.brown.edu/record=b4037250 )
   31413138 (Brown: http://josiah.brown.edu/record=b1844000 )

Hugo Grotius, *De jure belli ac pacis libri tres* (1625)

   37043635 (Brown: http://josiah.brown.edu/record=b2615285 )

So, on with our God-given good doctor, to tell *his* little story.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>wrote:

>  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 | 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****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120724/816b5b2b/attachment.htm>