[DCRM-L] Frontispiece conjugate with t.p.
Randal Brandt
rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
Thu Sep 9 16:03:57 MDT 2010
Here is a typical signing/paging of the examples I have in front of me:
8vo, 8 leaves in the gathering, $5 signed:
Leaf 1: unsigned, unpaginated, recto blank, verso full-page engraving
(frontispiece)
Leaf 2: unsigned, unpaginated, recto title page, verso blank
Leaf 3: signed A2, paginated [3]-4, recto begins text
Leaf 4: signed A3, paginated 5-6
Leaf 5: signed A4, paginated 7-8
Leaf 6: signed A5, paginated 9-10
Leaf 7: unsigned, paginated 11-12
Leaf 8: unsigned, paginated 13-14
Leaf 9: signed B, paginated 15-16 ... [etc.]
I have another example that is the same as above, except that Leaf 9,
signed B, is paginated 17 (i.e. 15-16 are skipped in the numbering),
clearly indicating that the frontispiece is indeed printed on Leaf 8 of
gathering A and is not a plate.
I can see how the above could be given, as Richard originally suggested,
as pi^2 A^6 ... but, then would you also say that A1-4 are "missigned" A2-5?
Randy
On 9/9/2010 1:48 PM, John Lancaster wrote:
> Yes, very much a sideshow (and possibly only theoretical) - I guess I
> prefer having to think about it - clearly A is being reserved for the
> first gathering - but in the printer's terms, that's all eight leaves,
> one sheet, even though he of course knows how the book is supposed to
> end up. Since we can't use A for all the leaves, it feels awkward to
> me to use it for just one of the two resulting gatherings, even if one
> of them includes the title leaf.
>
> I do agree that chi should come after [A], if it's inferred. Bowers
> has an amusing sequence of possible examples for a slightly different
> situation: [A]^2 *^4 [B]^4 C-... ("somewhat irregular"); pi^2 *^4
> 2pi^4 C-... ("more conservative"); pi^2 *^4 [2*]^4 C-... ("clearer").
>
> I'd still be interested in knowing what the signing and paging of the
> actual examples are, and further whether these 8 leaves are in fact
> preliminaries (textually speaking).
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:55 PM, John Lancaster <jjlancaster at me.com
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Deborah J. Leslie
>>> <DJLeslie at folger.edu <mailto: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>
>>> [mailto: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
>>> <mailto:rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>
>>> http://bancroft.berkeley.edu <http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/>
>>> "It's hard enough to remember my opinions without
>>> remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
__________________________
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/20100909/7a8aaac1/attachment.htm
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list