<html>
<body>
<font size=3>In a follow-up note to his question, Larry alluded to a
strategy that I initially suggested to Eileen Smith:<br><br>
"Eileen mentioned the 'signature sandwich' which I think would work
out to something like this: [A]^4(A2 +B^4(B2 + C^4)) if I understand her
example. The center gathering is what I think under any
circumstance would be called leaves C2 and C3, which are conjugate and
unsigned. There are catchwords that indicate how the leaves are to
be put together, but I am not clear that the signatures explain how the
book was printed very well. Bowers does not seem to cover this in
his section on the statement of signing (chapter 7)."<br><br>
I did initially suggest that notation to Eileen (when she was
encountering lots of similar Mexican devotional pamphlets at the JCB),
but later realized that it was fundamentally wrongheaded--a case of
letting the signature tail wag the structure dog. For instance, a folio
gathering of 10 leaves is a 10-leaf gathering made up from 5 sheets, no
matter how you sign it. If the signatures clearly designate it without
ambiguity, you use them to describe that structural element; if they
don't, then you find some other way to describe it and discuss the
signatures in a note.<br><br>
These pamphlets, as bound, consist of a single gathering of x-many
leaves. Since the correct collational formula for a finished book is the
issue formula, and the complexity of the signatures in this case fails to
reflect the simplicity of the structure, it is to be described as a
single unsigned gathering. The "signatures" designate not the
gathering but rather its constituent sheets, which means that the
"sandwich" formula is actually a printing formula. (The most
common difference between issue and printing formula involves the
division of a sheet between final and preliminary leaves: the issue
formula is e.g. A^6 B-D^8 E^2; the printing formula, if one wanted to
present one rather than simply say "gatherings A and E machined
together", would be something like B-D^8 (AE)^8, though here the
formula fails to indicate how the sheet is divided--in fact, the
formulary tends to break down when applied to the printing process in
this way. You could write (A^6/E^2)^8, I suppose, but it begins to look
rather hairy. Applied to cancels it would be a perfect horror.)<br><br>
Re the "complexity of the signatures/simplicity of the
structure": Note that in his original posting Larry referred to the
leaves containing pp. 21-24 as C7,8, when in fact they are (in the terms
used by the printer) A3,4; likewise C5,6 are actually B3,4. That's why
you describe it as "[unsigned, 1^12]"--it makes it a lot easier
to talk about. Beyond this, without knowing anything about the paper
evidence especially, I can't really reverse engineer this book. (Maybe
12mo consisting of three 4-leaf strips, rather than the standard 8-leaf
block/4-leaf strip?)<br><br>
While Bowers doesn't discuss this phenomenon at all (it just didn't occur
in the late C17 English plays that he cites in the <i>Principles</i>), he
does offer the example of gatherings containing direction numbering, i.e.
leaf numeration without a signature, which are to be treated as
unsigned (with a note as to the numbering). This instance of sheet
lettering, so to call it, is an obvious analogue: the
"signatures" don't name the gathering; they just indicate the
ordering of its parts.<br><br>
</font><tt>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU <br><br>
</tt><font size=3>At 4/21/2010 06:48 PM, you
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Folks,<br>
I am cataloging Commemorationes, seu, Suffragia sanctorum Ordinis minorum
S.P.N. Francisci .... Mexici :ex Typographia matritensi in via S.
Dominici & Tacubae, [17--]. [24] p. ; 15 cm.<br><br>
Medina 8973<br><br>
The pages are unnumbered and the only leaves signed are B1 and C1.<br>
In addition to 1 later blank leaf, conjugate with blank leaf at end the
item consists of leaf [1] conjugate with leaf [12], so what appears to be
[A1].[C8]<br>
leaf [2] conjugate with [11] [A2].[C7]<br>
leaf [3] conjugate with 10 B1.[C6]<br>
leaf [4] conjugate with 9 [B2].[C5]<br>
leaf [5] conjugate with 8 C1.[C4]<br>
leaf [6] conjugate with 7 [C2].[C3]--stiching through
here.<br><br>
I've looked at Gaskell's diagrams and nothing seems to fit. The
closest patterns are those for 12mos, esp. fig. 56. There appear to
be water marks on leaves B1 through [C5] or [C6], which does not make
sense and the chainlines are vertical. I am sure I am missing
something obvious (my visual imagination is not good), so can somebody
help?<br><br>
Thanks,<br>
Larry<br><br>
Laurence S. Creider<br>
Special Collections Librarian<br>
New Mexico State University<br>
Las Cruces, NM 88003<br>
Work: 575-646-7227<br>
Fax: 575-646-7477<br>
lcreider@lib.nmsu.edu</font></blockquote></body>
</html>