1

I have a problem with philosophy-verbose: my work uses the book class and bibliography uses the style philosophy-verbose, all citations are done with \footcite{}. The problem is as follows: The first time I cite everything is fine and I get the original followed by its translated (in italian) version. The second time I cite the same work I want it to appear in short only with the author and the title of the TRANSLATED version. Here is how it shows:

1Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, University Chicago Press, Chicago 1958; trad. it. Vita Activa. La condizione umana, trad. da Sergio Finzi, Bompiani, Milano 1964, p. 4.

2Arendt, The Human Condition cit., p. 6.

Here how it would like it to be:

1Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, University Chicago Press, Chicago 1958; trad. it. Vita Activa. La condizione umana, trad. da Sergio Finzi, Bompiani, Milano 1964, p. 4.

2Arendt, Vita Activa. La condizione umana cit., p. 6.

Here are my bibliographic entries (translated version is assigned with the related field, as per the guide of the package):

@book{va-orig,
author = {Arendt, Hannah},
title = {The Human Condition},
publisher = {University Chicago Press},
year = {1958},
address = {Chicago},
related = {va-ita},
}
@book{va-ita,
author = {Arendt, Hannah},
title = {Vita Activa. La condizione umana},
publisher = {Bompiani},
year = {1964},
translator = {Sergio Finzi},
address = {Milano},
}

My style is as follows:

\usepackage[style=philosophy-verbose, backend=biber]{biblatex}

Both citations are done using: \footcite{va-orig}.

Anyone has a clue how to do it?

0

1 Answer 1

2

If you read the Italian version and refer to it you should definitely write \cite{va-ita}. With \cite{va-orig} on the other hand, you refer to the English text.

I suggest you change the relation between the two entries so that va-ita becomes the 'primary' one referring back to va-orig as translationof. You then cite only va-ita as the work you actually read.

\documentclass[italian]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage[style=philosophy-verbose, backend=biber]{biblatex}

\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{va-orig,
  author    = {Arendt, Hannah},
  title     = {The Human Condition},
  publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
  year      = {1958},
  location  = {Chicago},
}
@book{va-ita,
  author      = {Arendt, Hannah},
  title       = {Vita Activa. La condizione umana},
  publisher   = {Bompiani},
  year        = {1964},
  translator  = {Sergio Finzi},
  location    = {Milano},
  related     = {va-orig},
  relatedtype = {translationof},
}
\end{filecontents}

\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}

\begin{document}
Lorem\autocite[4]{va-ita}
ipsum\autocite{sigfridsson}
dolor\autocite[6]{va-ita}

\printbibliography
\end{document}

The output for the first citation is

Hannah Arendt, Vita Activa. La condizione umana, trad. da Sergio Finzi, Bompiani, Milano 1964; trad. di The Human Condition, University Chicago Press, Chicago 1958, p. 4.

and for subsequent citations

Arendt, Vita Activa. La condizione umana cit., p. 6.

4
  • Thank you so much for this! Your solution indeed works, but with an issue: instead of "trad. di" I'd need "ed. orig.", which I guess means I have to change the relatedtype field from "translationof" to something else. I tried to look online but couldn't find anything. I was wondering whether you had a solution. Once again, my deepest thanks.
    – fabercore
    Oct 3, 2017 at 23:14
  • @fabercore Mhhh, 'ed. orig.' looks more like 'originally published as' rather than 'trad. di' which is 'translation of'. But the work is a translation, not a simple reproduction of the original. I don't think you want 'ed. orig.', but you can have it with relatedtype = {origpubas}.
    – moewe
    Oct 4, 2017 at 8:07
  • @meowe thank you that's exactly what I need, but I have one more problem now: this way in the first citation latex does not include the year of publication of the original work, which in my case should go after Chicago. Any idea how to do that? thank you so much for your time!
    – fabercore
    Oct 4, 2017 at 17:54
  • @fabercore In my MWE I get 1985 after 'Chicago' in both the first citation and the bibliography. Did you try the MWE? Is there anything different in your actual document?
    – moewe
    Oct 5, 2017 at 8:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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