[DCRM-L] Sur l'imprime?

[Lenore Rouse]

I have some French colleagues thinking about these questions too; one 
has kindly referred me to some literature, starting with this brief web 
article which contains some citations that I've not had time to check yet:

https://bibliomab.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/la-contrefacon-des-livres-sous-lancien-regime-savoir-reconnaitre-une-contrefacon/

Note: " ...page de titre : mentions telles que : « Suivant ou jouxte 
l’imprimé », « Sur l’imprimé » avec reprise de l’adresse originale."

When the "adresse originale" is all that is found on the piece, is there 
any reason to assume that the DATE which accompanies that imprint 
applies to anything other than the earlier edition? If not, when that is 
the only date present, (say XXXX) how would you date the item in hand - 
perhaps "[not before XXXX]"?

Lenore

-- 
Lenore Rouse, Curator
Rare Books and Special Collections
Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, DC 20064

Phone: (202) 319-5090
Email: rouse at cua.edu
RBSC Blog: http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/





On 2/10/2015 1:36 PM, Laurence S. Creider wrote:
> I really appreciate everyone taking the time to reply to this query;
> you've all made useful comments.
>
> My experience looking in WorldCat for "sur l'imprime" roughly parallels
> John's two-fold division.  Those that might be a pirated edition seem to
> have place and to use "sur l'imprime" as the sole imprint.  Legitimate
> editions give the imprint of the edition at hand and then say that this is
> "sur l'imprime" of an earlier edition, e.g.
>
> A Paris : $b Sur l'Imprime, $c 1685.
> A Paris : $b Sur l'Imprime, $c Paris chez Claude
> Boudeuille,
> Paris : $b sur l'imprime Leyde chez L. Elzevier, $c 1661.
> Montavban, $b Sur l'imprime Paris, I. Garrel, $c 1682.
> [Rouen, France] : $b Sur l'imprime Amsterdam, Rouen chez L. Maurry, $c
> MDCLXX [1670]
>
> Taking John's points, one would get a straight read of:
> Sur l'imprime, a Lyon, Chez Pierre Valfrey, rue Merciere, a la Couronne
> d'Or, M.DC. XC.
>
> Which I think in MARC would look like:
> $a [S.l.] : $b [s.n.], ($e [Lyon] :$f Sur l'imprime, a Lyon, Chez Pierre
> Valfrey, $f1690).
>
> More than one of the records in the Catalogue collectif de France, Base
> Patrimoine, simply record , 1690 (Lyon : P Valfrey), including a record
> from the Bibliotheque Municipale de Lyon (in OCLC, the version of the
> record in the BML's online catalog, says Lyon : Pierre Valfrey, 1690.
>
>  From my perspective, the problem with this approach is that it implies an
> edition published in Lyon by Valfrey in 1690.  The only evidence of such
> is the item I have in hand, so that this seems circular.  There is a later
> edition of this translation, but nothing earlier than 1690.  The later
> edition has a different extent, [32] 439 [459] p., as opposed to the [14],
> 370 p. of the one I am cataloging.
>
> It seems to me that I have the choice of
>
> 2. Sur l'imprime, a Lyon : Chez Pierre Valfrey ..., 1690.
>
> or
>
> 5. $a [S.l.] : $b [s.n.], ($e[Lyon] :$fSur l'imprime, a Lyon, Chez Pierre
> Valfrey ..., $f1690)
>
> or possibly:
> 6. $a [Lyon?] : $b [s.n.], ($f sur l'imprime, a Lyon, Chez Pierre
> Valfrey,$f1690)
>
> or even
> 7. $a [Lyon?] : $b [s.n.], Sur l'imprime, a Lyon, Chez Pierre Valfrey,$d
> 1690.
>
> At least, I feel reasonably comfortable eliminating 1, 4, and 5, i.e.,
>
> 1) Lyon : Sur l'imprime, a Lyon, Chez Pierre Valfrey ..., 1690.
> 3) A Lyon : Chez Pierre Valfrey ..., 1690
> 4) as no. 3, but with a note that the words "Sur l'imprime" precede "A
>>> Lyon" on the t.p.
>
> At this point, I think I am leaning towards no. 6.
>
> Anyone have any further suggestions?  I would like to get this done before
> I have to move to the RDA-compliant DCRM. :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
>

-- 
Lenore Rouse, Curator
Rare Books and Special Collections
Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, DC 20064

Phone: (202) 319-5090
Email: rouse at cua.edu
RBSC Blog: http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/