Chicago style error: article without author in edited book puts editor as author

erazlogo
I get:
Theo Cateforis, ed., “Cock Rock,” in The Rock History Reader (New York: Routledge, 2007).

Should be:
“Cock Rock,” in The Rock History Reader, ed. Theo Cateforis (New York: Routledge, 2007).
  • adamsmith
    @dunning are you already handling this in the 18th edition styles? I think this is right, we don't want to substitute editor in for book sections.
  • dunning
    edited 9 days ago
    This is true in many humanities styles, such as MHRA, but Chicago's approach is more complex.

    CMOS 14.24 states that in multivolume works, the notes should list editors after the title of the part for which they are responsible. For example:
    1. The Cambridge History of America and the World, ed. Mark Philip Bradley, vol. 3, 1900–1945, ed. Brooke L. Blower and Andrew Preston (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
    Even in a multivolume work, however, the editors are still substituted for the author if there is no part or volume title, such as in this example from CMOS 14.26:
    Cochrane, Eric, Charles M. Gray, and Mark A. Kishlansky, eds. Early Modern Europe: Crisis of Authority. Readings in Western Civilization, edited by John W. Boyer and Julius Kirshner, vol. 6. University of Chicago Press, 1987.
    CMOS 14.20 also gives examples showing that editor follows the title only in cases of titled multivolume works.

    It is an interesting idea that the editor should not be substituted for book sections. There is an example in CMOS 14.22 that appears to demonstrate this, but I think this is rather showing the multivolume rule. The Orestes examples in CMOS 14.24 and 14.26 appear to be illustrating the tendency to omit the author's name in notes (not the bibliography) if it is part of the title (which we cannot implement in CSL 1.0.2).

    I cannot find any other examples of chapters with only an editor, but please let me know if you find anything.
  • adamsmith
    FWIW, for the example specifically, i.e. the Cock Rock entry in the reader, you'll want "Rat Magazine" as an author as given in the ToC.

    More generally, I am also not seeing a clear-cut example of this in the reader and it seems unusual to have a chapter with an editor but no author, but I think it'd be in the spirit of the Manual to not list the editor first in those cases, just as it doesn't for the example in 14.22
  • dunning
    edited 9 days ago
    Let's take the example of Early Modern Europe: Crisis of Authority from CMOS 14.26, whose table of contents is on Archive.org:

    https://archive.org/details/earlymoderneurop00coch

    CMOS 14.26 is demonstrating how a citation of the same book differs based on whether one interprets it as a multivolume work or a book within a series. The question is how this would extend to chapters. If the rule is that editors follow the title corresponding to the volume for which they are responsible, then this would require the following quite different citations of chap. 13:
    1. Eric W. Cochrane et al., eds., “The Grand Remonstrance,” in Early Modern Europe: Crisis of Authority, Readings in Western Civilization, ed. Julius Kirshner and John W. Boyer, vol. 6 (University of Chicago Press, 1987).
    2. “The Grand Remonstrance,” in Readings in Western Civilization, ed. Julius Kirshner and John W. Boyer, vol. 6, Early Modern Europe: Crisis of Authority, ed. Eric W. Cochrane et al. (University of Chicago Press, 1987).
    If, however, a container title can be handled in the same way as a part title or volume title, then the first of these citations should be:
    1. “The Grand Remonstrance,” in Early Modern Europe: Crisis of Authority, ed. Eric W. Cochrane et al., Readings in Western Civilization, ed. Julius Kirshner and John W. Boyer, vol. 6 (University of Chicago Press, 1987).
    The latter approach seems more consistent. I've added this to the draft 18th edition styles if you would like to test it.
Sign In or Register to comment.