[DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures

Wed Aug 27 16:13:17 MDT 2014

Thanks again for the explanation and the reference to Bowers.

Do you download records from the ICCU catalog? I’m guessing you probably can’t contribute records to it, since it seemed all the holding institutions were libraries in Italy. It is nice to see a list of records that’s not so full of dups, as WorldCat is. Do you use other national libraries the same way, say, a German national library for a German author?
Best, 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 4:13 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Oddity of bound with/signatures

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<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<tel:401-863-1187>
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<tel:401-863-1187>
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%28205%29934-2461>
Fax: (205)934-3545<tel:%28205%29934-3545>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140827/a7eb7870/attachment-0001.html>