<font><font face="georgia,serif">Responses interpolated below</font></font><div><font><font face="georgia,serif"><br clear="all"></font></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY</font><div>
<font face="'courier new', monospace">BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: 401-863-1187</font></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><</span><a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace" target="_blank">Richard_Noble@Br</a><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><a href="http://own.edu" target="_blank">own.edu</a></span><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">></span></div>
</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Barbara Tysinger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:btysingr@email.unc.edu" target="_blank">btysingr@email.unc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I am cataloging a copy of <i>Bericht von den wunderbaren
bezoardischen Steinen</i> ... by Johann Wittich. Leipzig: Hans
Steinmanns Erben, M. D. LXXXIX. [1589]<br>
The chain lines are horizontal with no discernible watermarks. I
believe it is foolscap 4o. Actual pagination: [16], 146, [16],
147-181, [1] p.<br>
<br>
<u>My first question.</u><br>
The first two gatherings are signed with small letters enclosed in
reversed parentheses: )a( )a( ii )a( iii .... etc.<br>
Do I include the ")(" in the formula, which looks odd and makes it
difficult to read, or ignore the ")(" and simply record "a-b⁴" ?<br>
<i>[I'm inclined to ignore them because it does make the formula
difficult to read (see NYPL example below)]</i></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Just use the letters in this case, as one would if the parens were not reversed (though I'd certainly note how they were actually set). I've never before seen this trick. The usual German prelims simply use )(, )()(, )()()( etc. or sometimes ):( etc., which one does transcribe,even though it's a pain to look at (unless you;re in an environment where you can reduce the transcibed parens by 3 points or so, which does clean things up)</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
<br>
<u>Second question.</u><br>
One of the gatherings in the main text block is signed with question
marks enclosed in reversed parentheses ")?("<br>
Do I use the actual symbol "?" in the formula or treat it as I would
an unavailable character: [star] [dagger] [par.] ... etc.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'd yranscribe what I see: )?(. If the symbol is in the basic character set (low ASCII) it's usable-- so use an asterisk, not "[star]", unless you see some practical need to differentiate styles of stars; but yes, "[dagger]" etc. otherwise.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<u>Third question,</u> probably the most difficult. (Maybe even
impossible without examining the book!)<br>
The majority of signatures in the volume are fairly straightforward
through a-b⁴ A-S⁴, then things get odd at T (see below), but
normalcy resumes U-Z⁴.<br>
The binding is fairly tight, making it difficult to get a really
good look at the gatherings, but my initial attempt at the formula
looks like: <br>
a-b⁴ A-S⁴ [superscript chi]T⁶ ?⁴ T⁴ (-T1) U-Z⁴ [$3 signed
(+[superscript chi]T4; -a1, ?1, T2, Z3)] <br>
<br>
Then I found a record by NYPL in OCLC (#363204902) that used: <br>
)a(-)b(⁴ A-Z⁴ (interpolate: T⁴ chi1 )?(⁴, between T1 and T2)<br>
Which, if I am reading it correctly means that a singleton "chi1"
and a full gathering ")?(⁴" has been inserted between T1 and T2 ...<br>
<br>
So, short of unbinding the volume, is there any way to determine
what is going on between S⁴ and U⁴ ?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><i>Conjecture</i>: The answer depends on whether the presence or absence of T1 is anomalous, which will usually mean figuring out what's being done with the text. If T1 was meant to be cancelled, in the course of adding content contained in the chiT and )?( gatherings, that should be obvious when it has been retained. The NYPL formula would be incorrect. If the leaf was meant to be cancelled (i.e. is an ideal copy feature) you account for it exactly as you did; anomalous retention of the leaf would be a copy specific feature, well worth noting, since one does like to know what cancellanda contain. If, on the other hand, content is being interpolated between T1 and T2, the cancellation/insert formula is correct.</div>
<div> </div><div><i>Reality</i>: Now I've looked at the darned thing on Google Books</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=iXFVAAAAcAAJ&dq=wittich%20bezoardischen&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q=wittich%20bezoardischen&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=iXFVAAAAcAAJ&dq=wittich%20bezoardischen&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q=wittich%20bezoardischen&f=false</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>and it turns out that there's simply some fudging involved with an appended work, <i>Von dem Ligno Guayaco</i>, with its own special title page and prelims, which was probably printed concurrently. The main work ends with gathering T^6, which contains the final leaf of text (T1, p. 145-146), index (T2r-T5v), and a final blank leaf T6 (present in the copy I'm looking at online). This is followed by the title leaf and prelims for the second work--which occupy the whole of )?(^4-- and the text of that work beginning on T1r, a page of display text from which the signature has been omitted, though it has been numbered 147, and so the volume proceeds to p. 181, with second colophon (and the delightful Steinman "Lapis Testimonii" device) on [182]. There are probably two gatherings designated T because the printer slightly miscalculated where the first text, etc. would end.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So it's a-b^4 A-S^4 T^6, )?(^4 chiT^4 U-Z^4.</div><div><br></div><div>It's a toss-up as to which T gather gets the prefixed chi. The first T gathering is continuous with the preceding text, and so perhaps should not be considered anomalous; except that the second T gathering is also part of an integral unit, signed according to initial calculations that proved incorrect, so that the first T could be construed as an unanticipated anomaly. It doesn't matter, really, as long as they're differentiated, and you provide enough explanation of the textual state of affairs to enable your reader to see how it all fits together and makes perfect sense. I don't think printers and readers of the late c16 had any problem with the interpolation uncounted matter between p. 146 and 147--there's nothing "weird" about it. NB that <i>neither</i> T1 is or was meant to be cancelled; "-T1" should not appear in the formula.</div>
<div><br></div><div>No hair so fine ...</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Any guidance will be greatly appreciated!<br>
Barbara<br>
...................All opinions are entirely my
own....................<br>
<br>
Barbara R. Tysinger Phone:
<a href="tel:%28919%29966-0949" value="+19199660949" target="_blank">(919)966-0949</a><br>
Health Sciences Library Fax:
<a href="tel:%28919%29966-1388" value="+19199661388" target="_blank">(919)966-1388</a><br>
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill<br>
335 S. Columbia Street, CB# 7585<br>
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7585<br>
e-mail: <a href="mailto:Barbara_Tysinger@unc.edu" target="_blank">Barbara_Tysinger@unc.edu</a><br>
<br>
......."Non pilus tam tenuis ut secari non possit."-- St.
Minutia......<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>