[DCRM-L] Collation conundrum (another example)

[Cates, Patrick]

The BSB copy is different than ours.  There are at least two issues
from 1541: one with a 6 leaf preliminary gathering including a Latin
t.p. and Latin and Hebrew prefaces (VD16 E1005); another with a 4 leaf
 preliminary gathering with a Hebrew t.p. and preface (VD16 E1006).
Additionally, some copies have at the end a 6 leaf gathering signed A
with a separate t.p. "Praefatio Hebraica ..." and a preface dated
1542.  Our copy of the 1560 has the 4 leaf Hebrew preliminary
gathering with a bifolium wrapped around it forming the 1st and 6th
leaves.  Of course, the bifolium could just as well have been bound in
front of the Hebrew gathering making A^2 [B]^4 ... (A2 signed 'A').

Patrick Cates
Technical Services Librarian
Christoph Keller, Jr. Library
General Theological Seminary
440 W. 21st Street
New York, NY 10011
646-717-9789


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:
> If I understand Patrick correctly, it would be A^6 (A6 signed 'A'), as he has suggested even as I'm writing this note.
>
> But if leaf  'A' is a preface, is it clear that the binding as a wrap-around is the correct placement?
>
> A quick look at the digitized BSB copy of the 1560 suggests a complication - there does seem to be the wrapped bifolium (though with the caveat that from a page-by-page reproduction, one can't tell conjugacy) - but if so, it's wrapped around the six-leaf "Praefatio" that is bound at the end of the BSB copy of the 1541 (i.e. following the colophon), and signed A, A2, A3 on leaves 1-3 - the signing and sequence of this one gathering following the left-to-right order of a non-Hebrew book, while everything else reads and is bound right-to-left.
>
> And the BSB 1541 doesn't appear to have an appropriate 4-leaf unsigned gathering.  Is that gathering new to the 1560 as well?
>
> But of course these are only two specific copies, which may have any number of errors (or at least idiosyncracies).  The curse of trying to do bibliography as a cataloguer.
>
> Richard Noble and I have since had the opportunity of a face-to-face discussion of the issues raised by Lenore's pamphlet; we will probably never entirely agree on the preferable formulary statement.  In the end, as long as all the leaves and their placements are accounted for, there will probably always be differing opinions on which statement best brings out the more important features - because we will differ on what's more important, or rather on where and how various features should be recorded and explained, and thus variously emphasized.
>
> Please don't accept uncritically anything any of us says - just be clear on your own reasons for doing whatever you decide to do, and make sure all the leaves are accounted for and, if necessary, discussed.
>
> John Lancaster
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:16 AM, "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be A^6 (A2 signed 'A') according to John's advice?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Cates, Patrick
>> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November, 2012 10:25
>> To: DCRM Revision Group List
>> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Collation conundrum (another example)
>>
>> I just came across situation similar to Lenore's pamphlet.
>> Birckmann's 1560 reissue of Levita's Lexicon Chaldaicum (originally
>> published: Isny : Fagius, 1541) has a bifolium with a new titlepage and preface wrapped around the first (unsigned) 4 leaf gathering of Fagius's edition.  The second leaf of the added bifolium is signed "A."  Following John's advice to Lenore, the collation would be: pi^6 ... (pi6 signed "A").
>>
>> Patrick Cates
>> Technical Services Librarian
>> Christoph Keller, Jr. Library
>> General Theological Seminary
>> 440 W. 21st Street
>> New York, NY 10011
>> 646-717-9789
>