[DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures

[Noble, Richard]

The later book was issued in a form that facilitated binding with a book
published 3 years earlier, either before or after sale of the latter--the
signatures do suggest that there were still unsold copies of the 1687
*Opera*, and it's possible, thought probably not provable, that Van der Aa
intended to market no more copies of the *Opera* without the supplement.
Nevertheless, each of them is complete as an issue without the other and
equipped to be sold separately: thus the 1690 title page.

A 501 note in either record implies that the presence of the other
publication is "called for" to constitute a complete copy of either one,
and this is simply not the case; if something is truly "issued with"
something else, neither constitutes a complete issue in itself, and these
*are* complete. Copies of the *Opera *with and without *De structura
glandularum* are simply in different states (see Bowers, pp. 70ff on this
phenomenon), given the continuation of signatures. Even "state" may,
however, be too great a level of distinction between copies of *De
structura*. They could be regarded as being in different *binding* states
(if that's a useful distinction at all); but consider that a previous buyer
of 1687 whose copy was already bound by 1690 would be unlikely to break
that binding in order to incorporate the supplement, even if it had been
purchased as such.

I might well consider reciprocal 700s to account for each as a related work
to the other. Oy... on and on.

The ICCU catalog can be helpful as not offering a great heap of dup records
such as one may find in the somewhat overwhelmed WorldCat. It clears the
mind.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:

>  Richard,
>
> Thanks for the help with this. Here’s one point, though: I would think you
> could use a 501 in the *De structura glandularum *record since the
> signatures suggest the edition is meant to be issued with the *Opera
> Omnia. *But definitely no 501 in its record. Don’t we have to assume that
> van der Aa produced this edition of *De structura glandularum *to be
> issued with his 1687 *Opera Omnia? *
>
>
>
> Thanks for the link to the ICCU catalog. Do you find that catalog helpful?
>
> Thanks, Ted
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 3:03 PM
>
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures
>
>
>
> Since it has its own title page it should definitely be cataloged as an
> independent publication. The fact that it was issued as a supplement or
> continuation still doesn't justify a 501 in the record for *Opera omnia*,
> which is a complete manifestation as issued without it in 1687; but the
> same is also true of *De structura glandularum*, since it can stand
> alone, despite the obvious link between the two publications indicated by
> the signatures. You should end up with two bib records containing
> complementary publication and "with" notes.
>
>
>
> Incidentally, the corresponding ICCU OPAC SBN records
> are IT\ICCU\UFIE\000616 (*Opera omnia*) and IT\ICCU\PUVE\010106 (*De
> structura glandularum*) at
>
>
>
> http://www.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/free.jsp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> It does have its own title page, with date 1690.
>
>
>
> Are you saying I should use two records, with the main one with a 500 note
> indicating that *De structura glandularum* is sometimes bound with Opera
> omnia, and a 590 indicating our library’s copy has it? Then on the second
> record, I might use a 501 indicating *De structura glandularum*  was
> issued with the Opera Omnia? That seems like it would cover the situation
> well.
>
>
>
> I notice that #223442238, along with the 501, uses a 740 for the 1690
> work rather than a second record. That seems less accurate to me since the
> date for the entire work, given in the fixed field, is 1687.
>
> Thanks, Ted
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:48 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures
>
>
>
> Off the top of my head: I assume that the 1690 *De structura gladularum* was
> issued as a supplement to *Opera omnia* (which were no longer truly
> "omnia"). Has it a title page of its own, or just a caption title? The only
> independent publication of it that I can find is the London edition
> published by Richard Chiswell--probably the first edition, as was the
> London edition of * Opera omnia*.
>
>
>
> If copies of *Opera omnia* that do contain this supplemental work have
> the original title page, then its presence in any one copy is essentially
> multiple-item-specific (so to speak). One should account for its possible
> presence in a 500 note in the general record; a "with" note relating to it
> would be local 590. An analytic ought to be made for the supplement, and
> since it doesn't appear to have been issued independently by Van der Aa, it
> should have a general note regarding the circumastances of its
> publication--which *could* be a 501, I suppose, though I don't think
> there's a great deal of gain in so tagging it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I notice there are a couple of records (#223442238 and 642461646) that
> treats the second work as issued with the Opera omnia since they note it in
> a 501 field.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Ted P Gemberling
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:41 PM
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List (dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu)
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures
>
>
>
> I am cataloging Marcello Malpighi’s Opera Omnia, published at Leiden by
> Pieter van der Aa in 1687. The OCLC record I am using is #4992775. I ran
> into an oddity that I wanted to run by people on the list. The last
> gathering in the 2-volume work is 3F(superscript 4). Immediately following
> leaf 3F4 in my copy is another work of his called De structurâ glandularum
> conglobatarum consiliúmque partium epistola, also published by van der Aa
> in 1690. The odd thing is that the signatures of this work are
> 3G-3H(superscript 4). Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the
> signatures are continuous though the date is later?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment.
>
>
>
> Ted P. Gemberling
>
> Historical Collections Cataloger
>
> UAB Lister Hill Library, rm. 234B
>
> 1720 Second Ave. South
>
> Birmingham, Ala. 35294-0013
>
> Phone: (205)934-2461
>
> Fax: (205)934-3545
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140827/410b0a98/attachment.html>