[DCRM-L] FW: Area 7 Comments

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Posted for Joe Ross. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Ross [mailto:jross at nd.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, 13 September, 2006 10:18
To: Deborah J. Leslie
Subject: Area 7 Comments

Here are my comments, which are not repetitiious of those made by Ryan 
Hildebrand.


In 7B9.11, the font used for the document (Courier New) lacks the 
unicode characters for old cyrillic letters upper case izhitsa (unicode 
0474) and upper case ot (unicode 047E) .  The characters show up as a 
fill character (empty square). If this font is used, could those 
characters be converted to glyphs the way early letter forms were 
inserted in the text? That may, however,  make the signature statement 
look odd with the character inserted that way.   Otherwise, another font

must be used for those characters:  Arial Unicode MS font or Code2000 
are possibilities.  Neither Courier New nor Times New Roman includes the

older characters.  I don't know what font restrictions publishers impose

on authors.  Is it possible to use a different font for portions of text

or not?

On p. 136,  7B18.1, in the third line of this subsection there is a 
typographical error: "but which have been issued togther"

I agree with Ryan regarding the examples for 7B10.2.  The examples fit 
better under 7B10.1.  The fourth example "Volumes numbered: 1, 2A, 2B, 
2C, 3" would be a good example for 7B17.  Numbers borne by the 
publication, which currently lacks an example.

The full collation given in 7B9.12 looks odd to me.  Most bibliographic 
descriptions put the signature note "($3 (-H3) signed)" after the 
signature statement (A-H8) and before the number of leaves and 
pagination statement.  When I looked at this again in Bowers and 
Gaskell, I discovered that Bowers is not completely consistent on the 
point.  He does cite instances in the appendix where the signature note 
comes at the end of the pagination (Bowers, Appendix II, p. 478 
Collation for Ovid's Metamorphosis, 1678), but his next example, the 
collation for The Force'd Marriage, 1671, puts the signature note after 
the signature statement and before the pagination as I prefer.  See also

the next two collations and many others in the following pages.  The 
second example in Gaskell's sample bibliograhic descriptions: Appendix B

(p. 371)  gives the signature note after the list of signatures and 
before the pagination.  That is the way I was taught the formula, and it

is what I am used to seeing.  But as I say, I did see at least one 
example in Bowers where the signature note follows the pagination.  So, 
I would prefer the following collation statement, but I can't say that 
the collation as given is incorrect.  Check with other catalogers?

Collation: 8vo: A-H8 [$3 (-H3) signed], 32 leaves: p. [1-2] 3-62 
[63-64]; H4 blank.

Joe Ross
University of Notre Dame