[DCRM-L] Bound-with query

[Moschella, Jason]

Hello all -

I am currently cataloging an early English bound-with and am encountering a situation that is not entirely unusual. Still, I feel like DCRM(B) creates a sort of inevitable ambiguity, and I am curious about how others might be interpreting the rules for this situation.

I have in front of me a very rare volume containing 7 plays by Thomas Nabbes (ca. 1605-1641). It's titled Playes, maskes, epigrams, elegies, and epithalamiums collected into one volumne [sic] by Thomas Nabbes. Each of the 7 titles within had been issued previously. At some point, the rights to all the titles were purchased by another publisher (Nicholas Fussell), who simply added a new, collective title page to what was likely a bunch of remainder stock and issued the lot together in one volume, which happens to be what I am working with right now. The title page dates the collection to 1639, but for various reasons, that date is somewhat suspect.

As one would expect in these circumstances, each individual play in the set retains its own title page, register, pagination (if any), etc., though some of the TPs have been cancelled. Because this volume is so scarce, the bibliographical literature is inconclusive re which titles were originally issued together and which may have been added later by subsequent owners. However, I have located a couple copies that appear to contain the same exact titles (though in different order). Thus the first problem is that, despite reasonable evidence that these were all in fact issued together, there is no definitive way to know. Some might have been issued together by Fussell, and some might not have.

The second problem, for me, at least, is the added title page. Had there been no added title page, I would consider this a fairly standard bound-with and would produce separate records for each title, along with the requisite note forms. But in this case, if I follow DCRM(B), and rule 7B18.1 in particular, the title of this collection, as issued by the publisher, will be relegated to an added entry, and nowhere in our catalog will there be a record for the singular publication called Playes, maskes, epigrams, issued in 1639 by Nicholas Fussell. At the same time, the list of added entries that will be generated for publishers, printers, etc. will inevitably be confusing to users. Still, I can't really think of a logical workaround within the confines of the current rules.

For those kind souls with a moment to spare, the relevant 510 data is:

510

4

$aBoston Public Library. Barton collection catalogue,$cp. 402

510

4

$aESTC$cS101446

510

4

$aNUC pre-1956$cNN0002043

510

4

$aPforzheimer,$c757

510

4

$aSTC (2nd ed.)$c18337

(The pforzheimer description, cited above, is particularly robust, and the British Library also holds a copy)


Our copy has actually been digitized already, and can be viewed here<This%20copy%20has%20actually%20been%20digitized%20already,%20and%20can%20be%20viewed%20here.>.

I am currently planning to follow the rules, as I interpret them, and will therefore create separate records for each of the 7 titles contained within, with an added entry for the collection title and an explanatory "with" note that will also enumerate the contents. Still, I wish there were some other way forward within the rules. Or perhaps there is? Any ideas?

Thanks in advance,

Jay

Jay Moschella
Rare Books and Manuscripts Librarian
Boston Public Library
700 Boylston Street
Boston MA  02116
617-859-2297
jmoschella at bpl.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140630/6f69c9bd/attachment.html>