3

How do I cite a (reprinted) multivolume work in one volume, Turabian style? The way I see it, I have two options:

Fairbairn, Patrick. Typology of Scripture. [4th ed.?] 2 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1989.

or

Fairbairn, Patrick. Typology of Scripture. [4th ed.?] 2 vols. in 1. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1989.

Which is correct? Is there another, better option? Or does it simply not matter?

(The book retains the original page numbering [i.e. vol. 2 starts on p. 1], so I have to treat it as 2 volumes whichever form I pick.)

Improve this question
2
  • Write your info in a separate section so that we know which cell of that arbitrary text means what.
    – Mussri
    Jan 24, 2012 at 18:50
  • @M.Na'el, I don't understand what you're asking.
    – zpletan
    Jan 25, 2012 at 3:39

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

I would try to cite the edition. If the current edition of a multi-volume work you are using is no longer in multiple volumes then you can technically cite it as a single volume work. If it is the first edition you might specify 1st Condensed Ed. If each volume is still using the original page numbering then I would treat it as a multi-volume citation and simply use volume:page references in the notes, and standard citation in the bibliography.

Derived from:

A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (7th. ed.)

Specifically helpful sections:

Finally, this version of the guide is available for download.

Improve this answer
2
  • It retains the original page numbering, so I have to treat it as two volumes. The question, then, is do I cite it in the bibliography as "2 vols. in 1" or simply "2 vols."?
    – zpletan
    Jan 26, 2012 at 18:04
  • 1
    I would say cite it as 2 vols... If the title is identical then it is the same book(s). The practical question is: would a peer reviewer or objective assessor have any difficulty in finding your source, using your citation? If the answer to that is no, but you are still hesitant about your formatting, you could ask the person or group for whom your work is intended directly. My opinion is, if your citation is functional and you have made every effort to make it syntactically correct, what's left is a question of style and preference.
    – Steve the Maker
    Jan 26, 2012 at 18:53
0

Go for the first option. The "in 1." in the second option is more confusing, at least to me. I don't really understand what you mean by it.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.