Thanks Bob. I left out one important word in all of this: "reprinted" after "1931."
1931 would be the date of this manifestation (if we don’t consider new printings to constitute new manifestations). It is not necessarily the date of the Latin or English expressions, and certaily not the date of the three works (Tertullian, Apology; Tertullian, De specatculis; Minutius Felix, Octavius)
1. The works.
According to Brill’s New Pauly, Tertullian’s Apology was published about AD 197, so I’d use that as the date of the work.
Brill’s New Pauly doesn’t date De Spectaculis, but Wikipedia says it was written somewhere between 197-202, which seems reasonable so in the absence of better evidence (which I don’t have time to go track down now) I’d use that as the date of the work for De Spectaculis.
Octavius isn’t apparently very precisely dated. Brill’s New Pauly says it was written between 197 and 246. I’d record that as the date of that work if I were creating an authority record for it.
2. The Latin expressions reproduced in the Loeb publication:
According to p. xxii of the Loeb text, “the [Latin] text [of Apology] here printed is that of Oehler, the standard edition of the nineteenth century. … The text used here for the De Spectaculis is taken from the Vienna Corpus. … In each case, however, certain variants have been printed …”
According to OCLC, Oehler’s text of the Latin expression of Tertullian’s Apology was first published in 1849 so that would be the date of the Latin expression of Apology unless you want to consider that the “certain variants” added by the translator T.R. Glover create a new expression, in which case the date of Glover’s expression would be 1931. But since he makes such a big deal about saying he’s using Oehler’s text, I’d probably go with 1849 in the record for the expression and say that this is indeed Oehler’s expression.
The “Vienna Corpus” refers to the edition in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. According to http://www.tertullian.org/editions_critical/editions_critical.htm#csel De spectaculis was published in this Latin expression in 1890, edited by A. Rieffershceid and G. Wissowa. So the date of the Latin expression of De spectaculis published in the Loeb volume would be 1890.
According to p. 313 of the Loeb edition, the Latin text of the Octavius is “the text prepared by J.P. Waltzing for the Teubner series”. According to OCLC, the Waltzing expression was first published in 1912. So that would be the date of expression for the expression reproduced in Loeb since it’s the same text.
3. The English expressions of the works.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I usually assume the date of expression of the English translations in the Loeb series to be that of the earliest Loeb printing. It appears from a check on OCLC that the Glover and Rendall translations of these works were first published in the Loeb series, so the date of the three English expressions would be 1931.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Loeb classical library; authority work
Before I go to far into this and creating uniform titles for classical works in Loeb Classical Library, I would like to know what I use for the date of creation in the 046. Book in hand: Apology ; De spectaculis / Tertullian. Octavius / Minucius Felix. T.p. verso: first printed 1931, 1953, 1963, 1966. T.p.: MCMLXVI. The latter is in the imprint area.
I think the correct date of creation is 1931 even though the series was owned by another publisher allied with Heinemann. See record *39829413, LCCN: 31023025.