1

On my PhD thesis I'm frequently refering two versions of a work. For instance, a translation of Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire and the page on the german Marx-Engels Werke. Biblatex's \cites (or \footcites) handles both references just as expected on footnotes with the authortitle-dw style.

However, sometimes I quote some paragraph which happens to be the same on both subsequent citations. My question is: Can they be treated as if they were actually one sigle cite? In the following MWE, the last citation should be ibid. (or loc.cit.) instead of the repeated references.

\documentclass{scrbook}
\usepackage{filecontents}

\usepackage[style=authortitle-dw,loccittracker=constrict]{biblatex}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{MEW,
author = {Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich},
title = {{Werke}},
shorthand = {\textsc{mew}},
}
@book{Marx,
author = {Marx, Karl},
title = {The Eighteenth Brumaire},
}
\end{filecontents}

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}

\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

\begin{document}

First paragraph\footnote{\cite[23]{Marx}}

Another\footcite[23]{Marx}

Another\footcites{Marx}{MEW}

And so forth\footcites{Marx}{MEW}

\end{document}

1 Answer 1

1

From the perspective of a technical editor, the two works, while identical in the passage you mentioned, are not the same. Therefore, both must be cited when quoted passages are the same or very similar, while only the relevant one would be cited when then two versions of a quoted passage are different.

BibLaTeX is doing exactly what it is supposed to do---although perhaps not for the reason(s) you imagined.

3
  • 1
    I don't think this answers the question. I don't think the OP is suggesting treating the two works as one. Rather, it is asking if the second reference to both works can be treated as another instance of the immediately preceding reference to both works. That is, can biblatex treat \footcites{x}{y} as a repeat of \footcites{x}{y} in the same way that it can be induced to treat footcite{z} as a repeat of \footcite{z}.
    – cfr
    Oct 24, 2014 at 22:10
  • @cfr Thanks for the comment: that was precisely the question I was trying to make, because it looks inconsistent —from a reader viewpoint— to use sometimes ibid, whereas in some cases the footnote shows the repeated entries. It looks specially odd something like 1. Aristotle, Politics (greek), 1296a 2. Ibid (or loc.cit.) 3. Aristotle (english), p.137; Aristotle, Politics 1301b 4. Aristotle (english), p.137; Aristotle, Politics 1301b instead of 4. Ibid
    – Ludenticus
    Oct 25, 2014 at 4:10
  • Ibid. means in the same place, that is, in the reference just cited. Loc. cit. means in the place cited, meaning the same author, work, and page number. There is not, to my knowledge, an abbreviated way to refer to two (or more) cited works in the previous footnote, but I'm most familiar with Chicago and MLA styles. What style are you using?
    – Susan
    Oct 25, 2014 at 15:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .