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

Thu Sep 9 19:05:48 MDT 2010

My takes on Randy's examples below. The basic response is to say "signing $1
as $2" and such--i.e. remove any taint of atttributed error and simply state
the facts, and deal with the metafact that a bibliographer's concern with
structure may differ from a printer's plausible stab at indicating sequence,
or a compositor's faithfulness to the position of a type page in the forme,
where a sheet is destined to be parcelled out into multiple gatherings.

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Randal Brandt
<rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>wrote:

>  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.
>

RN per WWBD (perhaps): pi^2 *^2 A-..... [...signing *1 as *2 ...]

>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> You just deal with what the printer gives you. In the former case (leaving
aside debates about inference) [A]^2 chi^6 B- ...
[... signing A1-4 as A2-5 ...]; ... pp. [*2*]  [1-3] 4- ...

In the second case pp. [*2*] [1-3] 4-14 17- ...

It gets much wilder than this, of course, but start always with a correct
account of structure, then track the signatures and pagination as best you
can, following the printer's designations where it's possible, even if a bit
weird. You're talking to other bibliographers when you write this stuff, and
they'll attribute the weirdness correctly to the printer, not to you. It
can't be made clear to those who know little or those who know much with
purely discursive description--those who know little won't get it because
they don't know structure, while those who know structure will go nuts
trying to reduce your discourse to a sensible, compact formulation that can
be usefully compared with the compact formulation for similar books. (And
the may not trust you, because you seem to be ignorant of well established
descriptive conventions, and so perhaps also inept in analysis.) Where the
printer becomes terminally confused, the bibliographer takes over and
provides designations that work, with notes that express understanding of
and perhaps even sympathy for the printer's confusion (which may be the
fault of the author).

Sorry, I've let the substance of another thread leak into the paragraph
above. I know I'm talking to the analytically apt, but I'm also trying to
come up with some non-inflammatory response to people who seem, as a matter
of policy, to be annoyed by other people doing their best to care about
things that they themselves don't care about, with a strong whiff of
pseudo-populism just to make it clear what heartless elitists those other
people are when e.g. they try to account for the integrity of certain
"carriers" and their many leaves.

>
> 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?
>
> To sum up, you can take the curse from "missigning" by using the more
neutral "signing" when you're accounting for a tactic rather than a mistake.

Richard

>
> 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
>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> __________________________
> Randal Brandt
> Principal Cataloger
> The Bancroft Library
> (510) 643-2275rbrandt at library.berkeley.eduhttp://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.eduhttp://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/d74ced94/attachment.htm 