🚀 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

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.

"As far as [you] know?"  Have you actually tried it?  I'll give it a 
try to see what happens.  If it does work, then I wonder why my 

(Foucault 1976/1990a) 

didn't work.  Could it be because the fields are adjoined with a slash?


> 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.

Probably is.  Thanks for the reference.  I'm impatient with big 
reference books, which is why I bought EndNote.  I was hoping not to 
have to think about formatting ever again.  Alas!  

Bill Blattner

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
|  William D. Blattner          |  wblattner@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu  |
|  Dept. of Philosophy          |                                      |
|  Georgetown University        |  (tel) 202-687-4528                  |
|  Washington, DC  20057-1076   |                                      |
|    USA                        |  (fax) 202-687-4493                  |  
|______________________________________________________________________|

> 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.
> 
> "As far as [you] know?"  Have you actually tried it?  I'll give it a 
> try to see what happens.  If it does work, then I wonder why my 
> 
> (Foucault 1976/1990a) 
> 
> didn't work.  Could it be because the fields are adjoined with a slash?

I have just tried Bealle's method, and LO, IT WORKS!  I now have no 
idea why my slashes didn't work.  Perhaps Avi could clarify.  

I'm not in the social sciences, and this method has been referred to 
as a social science method.  According to this method, where does one 
stick the original publication date in the bibliography entry?  In 
parens with the publication date of the edition actually cited?  The 
Chicago Manual doesn't seem to address this very well.  

Thanks to Bealle and Norman for helping out here.  

Bill Blattner

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
|  William D. Blattner          |  wblattner@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu  |
|  Dept. of Philosophy          |                                      |
|  Georgetown University        |  (tel) 202-687-4528                  |
|  Washington, DC  20057-1076   |                                      |
|    USA                        |  (fax) 202-687-4493                  |  
|______________________________________________________________________|