Dear BiblioBull – dueling copyrights

Dear Biblio Bull-
I recently bought a lot of older, 19th century books.
Which publisher should I cite in this example?

Historical Sketches….. by Thomas Carlyle
London: Chapman and Hall, Ltd
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
1898

London is bold and listed first, and the copyright page cites:
Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majesty.
I was going to go with Chapman since the actual printer is noted as Edinburgh…
Am I correct?

signed
Confused Vendor

Dear Confused Vendor –

Not to confuse you more, but yes and no. Indeed the pages were printed in Edinburgh and the book was published in London by Chapman and Hall. However when the US rights were sold to Scribners, Chapman and Hall also sold them preprinted unbound pages – which were shipped to the US where Scribners ran them through the press once again to add their own imprint on the verso, before publishing their edition. If you were to cite merely Chapman and Hall the listing could be easily mistaken for a copy of the UK edition on which ONLY Chapman and Hall would appear.
Whereas if you cite Scribners there would be no confusion about which edition it is. This is similar to what we have now, were the verso would read ‘previously published by Dodd, Mead’ or something similar.

Biblio Bull-

, ,

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes