[DCRM-L] Frontispiece conjugate with t.p.

Thu Sep 9 14:15:20 MDT 2010

The question is a bit of a sideshow here, but anyway--I read Bowers as
thinking that the English habit of starting the text with B was in order to
reserve A for the title gathering, which at least felt like a reason for
inferring the initial gathering as "[A]", instead of leaving the question
unsettled and having to think about it every time. I prefer chi for the next
gathering, only because in reference notation pi so clearly implies a
gathering or gatherings that "p[recede]" any other series; "[p]reliminary"
gets to be iffy, and once again you end up having to make judgments about a
really rather trivial matter, when what you want to do is just lay out the
structure and leaf relationships in a way that will support unambiguous
reference. So I guess I think of pi as representing "[p]rae".

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:55 PM, John Lancaster <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:

> Richard beat me to it - but to the last point (i.e. if there is no signing
> before B), it's an awkward situation, as Bowers reveals in wavering back and
> forth between inferring [A] for the first of two such gatherings, using chi
> for the second, or using pi, 2pi - he calls the latter a "conservative
> formula" (p. 215), but then on the next page says he prefers inference,
> saying the pi-2pi solution "exhibits an unnecessary, and even incorrect,
> conservatism."
>
> I prefer not to infer [A] for either gathering and would go with pi^2 2pi^6
> - whether that's "conservative" or not, I can't fathom.  But it doesn't seem
> to me there's any particular rationale for considering one or the other of
> such gatherings the reasonable precursor to the rest of the signing sequence
> (to "privilege" it, in the current jargon) - which, it seems to me, is the
> suggestion when an inferred signature is used.
>
> On the other hand, given the scenario described, it seems unlikely that
> there would be no signing in the first gathering, so the problem might never
> arise.  Randy, what is the signing (and pagination) of those first leaves in
> the examples you're working with?
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:
>
> If you were in RBS Des Bib, I'd have the right to tell y'all that the right
> way to describe this is pi^2 A^6 ... etc. The *printing *formula is A^8;
> but in the *issue* formula for the correctly finished book you always
> describe the structure in terms of the relationships of the bifolia (folds).
> To call these eight leaves A^8 leaves you with a formula that is, quite
> simply, incorrect: that superscript 8 has a very unambiguous meaning. (This
> is the most basic of all rules for this species of notation.)
>
> You may still--really should--explain how this bit of structure came about,
> since you need to make it clear that the frontispiece leaf is not a plate.
> Also, assuming that gathering A includes signatures, it may be that, say,
> leaf A2 in the book as bound is signed A3--in which case it must be noted as
> missigned. ("Missigned" doesn't necessarily mean that the printer made a
> mistake; it simply means that the signature doesn't correspond to the
> structure of the finished book.) If there are no signatures before B, the
> right formula would be [A]^2 chi^6 ..., though there's (just) wiggle room
> for debate about the designation of the second gathering.
>
> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>wrote:
>
>> Randy,
>>
>> I would stay away from your first example; there is no need to separate
>> 'A' out of the sequence, since the parenthetical doesn't affect the
>> number of leaves, but only gives more information about the content. One
>> way is to put this kind of information after a semi-colon at the end of
>> the signature statement. I.e., Signatures: A-Z[superscript8]; A8 is the
>> frontispiece.
>>
>> I like the wording of your note, though, which could be used along with
>> or instead of the information as part of the signature statement.
>> Perhaps a slight tweaking, something like: Leaf A8 is back-folded to
>> form the frontispiece.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Randal Brandt
>> Sent: Thursday, 09 September, 2010 13:48
>> To: DCRM Revision Group List
>> Subject: [DCRM-L] Frontispiece conjugate with t.p.
>>
>>   I'm trying to come up with a clear (and elegant) way to describe a
>> frontispiece that integral to the first gathering and is conjugate with
>> the title page. I have seen several examples of this situation, and a
>> couple of different ways to express it, and would appreciate it if
>> anyone on this list has something better to offer.
>>
>> Here's the deal: In, for example, an octavo, the frontispiece
>> illustration is printed on the verso of the last leaf (A8) of the first
>> gathering. The sheet is folded and opened (at least partially) before
>> binding, A8 is then folded around so that it precedes A1, thus forming a
>>
>> frontispiece that is conjugate to the t.p. (A1). Assuming the page
>> numbering starts with A1, the page number of B1 is then 15, and so on.
>>
>> Here are some ways of expressing this in the catalog record:
>>
>> Example 1:
>> Signatures: A[superscript 8] (A8=frontispiece) B-Z[superscript8]
>> Note: Frontispiece is conjugate with title page
>>
>> Example 2:
>> Signatures: A-Z[superscript8]
>> Note: Leaves A1.8 folded to form frontispiece (leaf A8) and title page
>> (leaf A1)
>>
>>
>> Any preferences for either of the above examples? Any other ideas? I've
>> looked through Bowers and Gaskell and cannot find anything like this.
>> (Most of the examples like this I have seen have been in German
>> imprints.)
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Randy
>>
>> --
>> __________________________
>> Randal Brandt
>> Principal Cataloger
>> The Bancroft Library
>> (510) 643-2275
>> rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
>> http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
>> "It's hard enough to remember my opinions without
>> remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100909/f78ca2eb/attachment.htm 