[DCRM-L] Collation conundrum

[JOHN LANCASTER]

There are many cases in which signing does not agree with structure. The collation documents in the first instance the structure, not the signing. 

If there were a copy in a state of what could be considered original binding or sewing (whether stab-sewn or through the fold), that would be useful evidence. 

But if this is the only copy we have to work with, it's clearly (from the description) a gathering of ten leaves, five nested bifolia, and the collation should reflect that, whatever suppositions or inferences might be made about how it got that way or why, which can be dealt with in notes. 

It's easy to imagine a copy bound without the blank (A^8 [B]1) or with the blank leaf at the end (A^8 [B]^2 (B2 blank)), but that isn't what we have in this copy. 

John Lancaster



from my iPhone 

On Nov 23, 2012, at 10:24, Lenore Rouse <rouse at cua.edu> wrote:

> Thanks John and everyone else.
> 
> I agree that when binding decisions are conditioned by issue decisions they may not really be binding decisions. I'm not wedded to 4to in 8s, but the fact that my item is only signed through leaf A4, and would require renumbering  to accommodate the A^10 formula militated against that decision for me. 
> 
> The pamphlet in question is:
> 
> Complutensis Vniversitas, pleno doctorvm conventv coacto, omnem communionis....
> (Duke U has a copy :  OCLC 21948343)  Our/Duke's version is undated and without imprint, though almost certainly the product of the shop (in Alcala?) which printed a longer 22 page version of this pamphlet.
> 
> The longer pamphlet (WITH imprint) has been digitized and can been seen at
> http://books.google.com.br/ebooks?id=G1RlI6epH6YC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&pg=GBS.PP2
> Everything about this longer version has been reset, except for the t.p., and the latter bears closer inspection too. 
> 
> best,
> Lenore
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/20/2012 4:39 PM, JOHN LANCASTER wrote:
>> 
>> I have been on the road, or would have jumped in sooner.  I've seen the other suggested formulations, but am responding to the initial inquiry in order to return to the basics.
>> 
>> The pamphlet as it exists in this copy consists of a perfectly regular gathering of ten leaves, apparently (from the description) comprising two and a half sheets quarto.  I see no reason to postulate one or another complication of multiple gatherings; any statement of the structure should, in my view, begin with this fact.
>> 
>> Since the only signatures in the gathering are a sequence of As, A^10 seems the only logical structural formulation, if this copy is the only evidence.  The signing statement would of course have to indicate that A2-5 are signed 'A', 'A2', etc. (assuming that's the case).
>> 
>> If there is clear evidence (watermarks, uncut bolts or portions thereof) of which leaves were printed together on the same sheet, that of course can be added.
>> 
>> But I think the description of it as 'a 4to in 8s' is misleading - it's actually a 4to in a single gathering of 10.
>> 
>> Also, without other copies to compare, I don't see that having the blank first leaf placed where it is, is a necessarily a binding decision, rather than a decision of whoever issued the work.
>> 
>> It would be of interest to know what work this is, and what other copies exist, and how they are bound.  ESTC would presumably provide some leads, if not actual evidence.
>> 
>> John Lancaster
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Lenore Rouse <rouse at cua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hoping the collective wisdom can suggest the best way to formulate an early 18th-century continental pamphlet of 10 leaves. It's a  4to in 8s with an extra fold wrapped around the regular 8 leaf gathering thus:
>>> [1 blank leaf preceding t.p.],  normal 8-leaf gathering A,  [single leaf comprising p. 17 and blank [18]]
>>> 
>>> The simplest formula would seem to be:
>>> [pi]1 A^8  [chi]1
>>> 
>>> with a note explaining that pi and chi are conjugate. This should be simple, a common occurrence for pamphlets, but I find no direction in Bowers and wonder if something more complicated is in order? Because there is another edition of this title, virtually identical save for signings, it seems necessary to record collation in order to disambiguate the 2 (or more) extant versions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for any suggestions.
>>> 
>>> Lenore
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Lenore Rouse, Curator
>>> Rare Books and Special Collections
>>> Catholic University of America
>>> Room 214, Mullen Library
>>> 620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
>>> Washington, DC 20064
>>> 
>>> Phone: (202) 319-5090
>>> Email:rouse at cua.edu
>>> RBSC Blog:http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Lenore Rouse, Curator
> Rare Books and Special Collections
> Catholic University of America
> Room 214, Mullen Library
> 620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
> Washington, DC 20064
> 
> Phone: (202) 319-5090
> Email: rouse at cua.edu
> RBSC Blog: http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20121123/e21cb7f6/attachment.htm>