[DCRM-L] FW: [EXLIBRIS-L] Seeking leather bookbinding ID references

[John Lancaster]

In response to my note to the list, responding to Deborah Leslie’s original query, copied to Nicholas Pickwoad (who is not a member), Nicholas provided a response which he has given me permission to copy to the list, adding: "I would be happy for my replies on glossary matters to be posted on the DCRM-L list, as it would be good to have wider reactions to what we are doing. We plan to open the glossary to review, but we have some more work to do on it first."

John Lancaster


From Nicholas Pickwoad:

> The Ligatus glossary is designed using an XML hierarchical schema, and the probable hierarchy for this problematical leather would be:
> 
> Skin > Tanned  > Goat/sheep > Goat or Hairsheep or Sheep.  
> 
> It is a little clumsy, but the Goat/sheep entry would identify a skin within the goat/sheep spectrum (the same generation in the hierarchy would include calf, pig, etc.), but not specifically identified, and if the identification was clear, then the next generation of definitions could be used. Tawed and Parchment would be siblings of Tanned. Paper would be a sibling of Skin. 
> 
> Do you think that this makes sense? We are facing this kind of problem frequently, as many terms used in traditional cataloguing and in the booktrade are often imprecise or ambiguous and can mean different things to different people, or be applied to quite different materials or components (don't get me started on doublure, millboard, etc).  As for colour, do we record the colour as it is now (of little or no historical value) or the colour as it was when new (often quite different but to found often only on the tail-edge turn-ins or under the pastedowns), or is the colour in fact the colour of an applied stain and not the colour of the leather at all (as is often the case on the turn-ins of 17th/18th century bindings)?  Such questions are one of the reasons why the glossary is taking us a lot of time.




On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:53 PM, John Lancaster wrote:

> Deborah - 
> 
> What descriptor(s) do you recommend in place of “morocco”?  Especially given the difficulty determining whether a given skin might be goat or sheep, or knowing what the binding trade at the time might have called it (and given that the term has long been in widespread use among book people of all sorts)?
> 
> I’m not advocating the use of the term, but if it is to be avoided or replaced, there needs to be a shared understanding of what any terms used in place of “morocco” actually refer to - which is where the Ligatus glossary, and particularly the photographs illustrating the terms, will be indispensable.  Roberts and Etherington write in detail about many possibilities, but without standards to test examples against, it’s very difficult to be sure whether one is using any given term accurately.
> 
> I too eagerly look forward to the Ligatus glossary.  I hope it will offer a hierarchy of terms, such that a cataloguer can use some general term in the absence of the ability (for whatever reason) to determine what animal the skin came from, or what tanning or graining method was used, or where the skin originated.  
> 
> John Lancaster
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2011, at 9:42 PM, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> 
>> Most of you will perhaps have seen this, but for those who haven't: it's one of the reasons I advise catalogers against using the binding descriptor "morocco." It has meant a number of things over time. In addition, there is a species continuum between sheep and goats. I am all anticipation of the binding glossary promised by NP.
>>  
>> __________
>> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
>> djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rare book and manuscripts [mailto:EXLIBRIS-L at LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicholas Pickwoad
>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 04:20
>> To: EXLIBRIS-L at LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS-L] Seeking leather bookbinding ID references
>>  
>> I would like to inject a small note of warning into the discussion 
>> about using modern samples of leather for the identification of 
>> historic leathers used on books. The animals whose skins were used 
>> have changed over the centuries, and the hairsheep that was one of the 
>> most common sources of leathers for the booktrade will not feature 
>> among modern samples. This is important for the identification of 
>> skins on books, as it is these skins that are the hardest to identify 
>> (calf and pig are, by comparison, quite straightforward) as the skins 
>> of animals bearing coarse wool hairs as well a fine ones produce skins 
>> that are virtually identical to goatskin. The modern sheep, bred 
>> increasingly to eliminate the coarse wool hairs, has a skin that is 
>> entirely different in appearance.
>>  
>> The problem is compounded, not simplified, by the term 'morocco'. In 
>> France the term 'maroquin' was used to describe the highest quality 
>> skins of the type today found in northern Nigeria. Following the 
>> traditional habit of the European leather trades, the skin was named 
>> after the country from which it was shipped, in this case Morocco, 
>> where the native-dyed skins or possibly undyed crusts, were given 
>> final treatments, including dyeing, before export. It was for this 
>> reason that the same skins were known as 'Turkey leather' in Britain, 
>> as British merchants were only allowed to trade with the Ottoman 
>> empire through the port of Smyrna (modern Izmir). The British leather 
>> trade used the word  'morocco'  for the skins traditionally thought to 
>> have been procured in the 1720s for Edward Harley in Fez in an attempt 
>> to make good the short supply of Turkey leather in the early 
>> eighteenth century. The skins were bright and colourful and were 
>> imported directly from Morocco (hence the name), but were taken from 
>> hairsheep, not goats, and they have proved much less durable. The 
>> English booktrade maintained the distinction between 'turkey' and 
>> 'morocco' leathers until at least the 1780s.
>>  
>> Any sample book must, if it is to be helpful, use macro-photographs of 
>> genuine period skins identified by experts in such matters, but when 
>> Ronald Read (author of Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers, already 
>> cited in this correspondence and still far and away the best book on 
>> the subject currently available) admits that telling goat from 
>> hairsheep skins can be impossible by visual examination only, we need 
>> to be very careful in jumping to conclusions. Our ongoing work in the 
>> Ligatus Research Centre on a glossary of bookbinding terms is to 
>> include a set of such photographs, but that is, I am afraid, a year or 
>> two away as yet.
>>  
>> Nicholas Pickwoad
>>  
>>  
>> Professor Nicholas Pickwoad, River Farm, Great Witchingham,Norwich, 
>> NR9 5NA.
>> E-mail: npickwoad at paston.co.uk
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110724/af47e533/attachment.htm