🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <29844.12.uupcb@cccbbs.UUCP> John Bealle <cccbbs!john.bealle@UCENG.UC.EDU> writes:
>On the matter of Original Dates, I too have created a separate
>field for this.  It is then a simple matter, I think, to create
>citations and references such as:
>
>(Foucault [1976] 1990)
>
>or, if this is the second 1990 entry for Foucault,
>
>(Foucault [1976] 1990a)
>
>As far as I know this works correctly.
>
>On other occasions when I cite and early edition, I might want to
>indicate that a more recent printing is available.  I have been
>using the "Notes" field for this but I'm not satisfied that this
>is the best way to do it.
>
>By the way, the Chicago Manual of Style does refer to original
>dates in 15.27, 16.58, and other places, but perhaps this isn't
>exactly what you mean.
>
>--John Bealle

The problem is that the U of Chicago specifies true reprints quite
nicely--that is, a reprint that has exactly the same pagination, etc.
But I frequently have the situation where I'm using a text that
is a modern edition of a 16th century text, which is, in turn,
reprinted.

So there are three dates:

1. original publication.  e.g., 1621.

2. publication date of an edition--say, 1933.

3. Reprint date of that 1933 edition--say, 1980.

The last two dates are ordinary bibliographical data.  The first date
would be included as a kindness to the reader, who might be interested
in the earliest publication info for historical reasons.  I believe that the
MLA form (not as done by Niles) has a provision for this original date
of publication.  Chicago never really gets into it, while they do
define dates #2 and #3 above quite reasonably.

Here are some examples:

Ascham, Roger. _The Scholemaster_. 1570. Ed. Lawrence V. Ryan.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press for the Folger Shakespeare Library,
1967.

	[This is NOT a reprint.]

Ariosto, Ludovico. _Orlando Furioso_. 1516, 1521, 1532. Trans. Sir
John Harington. 1591. _Ariosto's ORLANDO FURIOSO_, ed. R. McNulty.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.

	[It would be nice to have a field for date of translation.]

Note: this second case (Ariosto) has the dread condition of a title
within a title--which EndNote doesn't handle very well.  The title
of the book is: Ariosto's _Orlando Furioso_. But if one underlines the
title within the title, and that then occurs in a field that is supposed
to be italicized, one would hope that the embedded title would then
revert to the unitalicized font, as is recommended by most styles.

jgn+@osu.edu