Forums
I am trying to construct a citation for an online image of a typescript (published) that's a collection of abstracts of wills. I would like to include the citation to the original source given in that collection.
Since this is an online image, I thought the citation should lead with the item in the image (as if I'm citing the original). I couldn't figure out how to cleanly include the citation to the original records, so I rearranged the layers of the citation, and ended up this way:
“Wills & letters of administrations of Westmoreland County Court House, Greensburg, Pennsylvania,” digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 08 Aug 2015); citing Della Reagan Fisher, abstractor, Wills and Letters of Administrations of Westmoreland County […] (n.l. : n.p., 1969), p. 84; citing Will Book 1 (1811-1819), p. 428, will no. 622, 15 Mar 1817, Conrad Coder; Westmoreland County Register of Wills, Greensburg
Is this arrangement clear? (I think my discomfort comes from having the reference to the publication in the middle of the citation - something I haven't done before.)
Brian
Brian, the "discomfort" you
Brian, the "discomfort" you are feeling would likely go away if you were not using the word "citing" for different purposes, in two different layers—i.e.:
“Wills & letters of administrations of Westmoreland County Court House, Greensburg, Pennsylvania,” digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 08 Aug 2015); citing Della Reagan Fisher, abstractor, Wills and Letters of Administrations of Westmoreland County […] (n.l. : n.p., 1969), p. 84; citing Will Book 1 (1811-1819), p. 428, will no. 622, 15 Mar 1817, Conrad Coder; Westmoreland County Register of Wills, Greensburg.
Let's tinker with this just a tad:
“Wills & Letters of Administrations of Westmoreland County Court House, Greensburg, Pennsylvania,” database with images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 8 Aug. 2015), image 86; imaging Della Reagan Fisher, abstractor, "Wills and Letters of Administrations of Westmoreland County Courthouse, Greensburg, Pennsylvania," MS (McKeesport, PA.: 1969), p. 84, entry 455, Conrad Coder will, 15 March 1817; citing "Bk 1 p 428 S. Huntington Twp., 1817."
In other words, Ancestry's database is imaging Fisher's manuscript; and Fisher's manuscript is citing the Conrad Coder will.
You'll also notice a few differences, that I'll flag first and then discuss
“Wills & Letters of Administrations of Westmoreland County Court House, Greensburg, Pennsylvania,” database with images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 8 Aug. 2015), image 86; imaging Della Reagan Fisher, abstractor, "Wills and Letters of Administrations of Westmoreland County Courthouse, Greensburg, Pennsylvania," MS (McKeesport, Pa.: 1969), p. 84, entry 455, Conrad Coder will, 15 March 1817; citing "Bk 1 p 428 S. Huntington Twp., 1817."
Explanations:
It's "discomforting" to not
It's "discomforting" to not notice things right under my nose! Thank you for noticing my misuse of citing.
You cited this as an unpublished manuscript. How does one generally determine whether a document was (or was not) published (even privately)?
I'd concluded it must have been privately published because I found on worldcat.org that it was held in "book" form at several libraries. (It wasn't the worldcat.org listing that caused me to conclude that - it was the form that it was held.) Subsequent to your reply I did more searching and found a web page that noted Mrs. Fischer had donated copies of a number of her works to several libraries. That certainly doesn't sound like publishing.
I'd made the same mistake on my dates in a previous post on this forum. I need to keep an eye on that.
Finally, thank you for reminding me to cite what I use. I will make sure my clarifications are separate notes.
Brian
Brian, "published" vs.
Brian, "published" vs. "unpublished" often is a judgment call. You've taken a worthy approach to the question, investigating the work in online catalogs, before reaching a conclusion. Other online sites that are useful to check would include the Library of Congress (where most but not all American publications can be found) and online dealer catalogs such as Amazon and Abe Books. WorldCat, as you've discovered, is a source that catalogs many manuscripts or typescripts that have been bound and placed on local library shelves.
EE 2.18, which you've likely seen, takes this approach:
Citing Published vs. Unpublished Materials
Many citation rules involve distinctions between published and unpublished material. Authorities define publications in various ways. In history research, the distinctions are typically these:
If the quotation marks denote
If the quotation marks denote an unpublished manuscript, is not the use of MS redundant? What would be an example of using quotation marks when a manuscript wasn't involved?
No, newonash, the use of "MS"
No, newonash, the use of "MS" is not redundant, here. It is still needed to inform readers that the item is a manuscript. The quotation marks around the manuscript title signify that the string of words given as the title is being quoted exactly. If we are citing a manuscript that does not have a formal or official title, we would label it "MS" in the appropriate field. Then we would devise a description to identify the manuscript; because that would be our own wording, the string would not go in quotation marks. Those words would use conventional headline-style capitalization to signal that they are being used in lieu of a title. See EE 2.72, p. 85.
Quotation marks are also used for titles when (a) we are citing a part of a larger standalone publication; and (b) we are citing exactly the title used for that part. Examples include chapter titles in a book, database titles at a website, articles at a website, articles in a journal, section titles in a chapter or a web article, poems in a book of poetry, maps within an atlas, etc. In these cases, the title of the larger, standalone publication (book, journal, website, etc.) is in italics. See EE 2.72, last para. pp. 85–86.
As always, you make it so
As always, you make it so clear. Thanks for clearing up my confusion.