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

Randal Brandt rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
Thu Sep 9 16:40:59 MDT 2010


  And here is another:

8vo, $2 signed:

Leaf 1: unsigned, unpaginated, recto blank, verso full-page engraving 
(frontispiece)
Leaf 2: unsigned, unpaginated, recto title page, verso blank
Leaf 3: signed *2, unpaginated, recto begins dedication
Leaf 4: unsigned, unpaginated, remainder of dedication
Leaf 5: signed A, paginated [1]-2, recto begins text ... [etc.]

One might be tempted to just say *^4, with *3 missigned *2, but the 
binding is loose enough to see that the frontis. and t.p. are conjugate, 
so the same situation as the others.



On 9/9/2010 3:03 PM, Randal Brandt wrote:
> 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.

-- 
__________________________
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/a702d89e/attachment.htm 


More information about the DCRM-L mailing list