[DCRM-L] More signature questions

[Barbara Tysinger]

Richard,
Yes, that is exactly what I'm seeing, but I had not considered that the 
appended title beginning with T⁴ was just a miscalculation on the part 
of the printer. That makes so much more sense!
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Barbara

On 8/1/2013 1:13 PM, Noble, Richard wrote:
> Responses interpolated below
>
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <Richard_Noble at Br <mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu 
> <http://own.edu>>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Barbara Tysinger 
> <btysingr at email.unc.edu <mailto:btysingr at email.unc.edu>> wrote:
>
>     I am cataloging a copy of /Bericht von den wunderbaren
>     bezoardischen Steinen/ ... by Johann Wittich. Leipzig: Hans
>     Steinmanns Erben, M. D. LXXXIX. [1589]
>     The chain lines are horizontal with no discernible watermarks. I
>     believe it is foolscap 4o. Actual pagination: [16], 146, [16],
>     147-181, [1] p.
>
>     _My first question._
>     The first two gatherings are signed with small letters enclosed in
>     reversed parentheses:   )a(    )a( ii   )a( iii  .... etc.
>     Do I include the ")(" in the formula, which looks odd and makes it
>     difficult to read, or ignore the ")(" and simply record "a-b⁴" ?
>     /[I'm inclined to ignore them because it does make the formula
>     difficult to read (see NYPL example below)]/
>
>
> Just use the letters in this case, as one would if the parens were not 
> reversed (though I'd certainly note how they were actually set). I've 
> never before seen this trick. The usual German prelims simply use )(, 
> )()(, )()()( etc. or sometimes ):( etc., which one does 
> transcribe,even though it's a pain to look at (unless you;re in an 
> environment where you can reduce the transcibed parens by 3 points or 
> so, which does clean things up)
>
>
>
>     _Second question._
>     One of the gatherings in the main text block is signed with
>     question marks enclosed in reversed parentheses ")?("
>     Do I use the actual symbol "?" in the formula or treat it as I
>     would an unavailable character:  [star]   [dagger] [par.]  ... etc.
>
>
> I'd yranscribe what I see: )?(. If the symbol is in the basic 
> character set (low ASCII) it's usable-- so use an asterisk, not 
> "[star]", unless you see some practical need to differentiate styles 
> of stars; but yes, "[dagger]" etc. otherwise.
>
>
>     _Third question,_ probably the most difficult. (Maybe even
>     impossible without examining the book!)
>     The majority of signatures in the volume are fairly
>     straightforward through a-b⁴ A-S⁴, then things get odd at T (see
>     below), but normalcy resumes U-Z⁴.
>     The binding is fairly tight, making it difficult to get a really
>     good look at the gatherings, but my initial attempt at the formula
>     looks like:
>     a-b⁴ A-S⁴ [superscript chi]T⁶ ?⁴ T⁴ (-T1) U-Z⁴ [$3 signed
>     (+[superscript chi]T4; -a1, ?1, T2, Z3)]
>
>     Then I found a record by NYPL in OCLC (#363204902) that used:
>     )a(-)b(⁴ A-Z⁴ (interpolate: T⁴ chi1 )?(⁴, between T1 and T2)
>     Which, if I am reading it correctly means that a singleton "chi1"
>     and a full gathering ")?(⁴" has been inserted between T1 and T2 ...
>
>     So, short of unbinding the volume, is there any way to determine
>     what is going on between S⁴ and U⁴ ?
>
>
> /Conjecture/: The answer depends on whether the presence or absence of 
> T1 is anomalous, which will usually mean figuring out what's being 
> done with the text. If T1 was meant to be cancelled, in the course of 
> adding content contained in the chiT and )?( gatherings, that should 
> be obvious when it has been retained. The NYPL formula would be 
> incorrect. If the leaf was meant to be cancelled (i.e. is an ideal 
> copy feature) you account for it exactly as you did; anomalous 
> retention of the leaf would be a copy specific feature, well worth 
> noting, since one does like to know what cancellanda contain. If, on 
> the other hand, content is being interpolated between T1 and T2, the 
> cancellation/insert formula is correct.
> /Reality/: Now I've looked at the darned thing on Google Books
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=iXFVAAAAcAAJ&dq=wittich%20bezoardischen&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q=wittich%20bezoardischen&f=false
>
> and it turns out that there's simply some fudging involved with an 
> appended work, /Von dem Ligno Guayaco/, with its own special title 
> page and prelims, which was probably printed concurrently. The main 
> work ends with gathering T^6, which contains the final leaf of text 
> (T1, p. 145-146), index (T2r-T5v), and a final blank leaf T6 (present 
> in the copy I'm looking at online). This is followed by the title leaf 
> and prelims for the second work--which occupy the whole of )?(^4-- and 
> the text of that work beginning on T1r, a page of display text from 
> which the signature has been omitted, though it has been numbered 147, 
> and so the volume proceeds to p. 181, with second colophon (and the 
> delightful Steinman "Lapis Testimonii" device) on [182]. There are 
> probably two gatherings designated T because the printer slightly 
> miscalculated where the first text, etc. would end.
>
> So it's a-b^4 A-S^4 T^6, )?(^4 chiT^4 U-Z^4.
>
> It's a toss-up as to which T gather gets the prefixed chi. The first T 
> gathering is continuous with the preceding text, and so perhaps should 
> not be considered anomalous; except that the second T gathering is 
> also part of an integral unit, signed according to initial 
> calculations that proved incorrect, so that the first T could be 
> construed as an unanticipated anomaly. It doesn't matter, really, as 
> long as they're differentiated, and you provide enough explanation of 
> the textual state of affairs to enable your reader to see how it all 
> fits together and makes perfect sense. I don't think printers and 
> readers of the late c16 had any problem with the interpolation 
> uncounted matter between p. 146 and 147--there's nothing "weird" about 
> it. NB that /neither/ T1 is or was meant to be cancelled; "-T1" should 
> not appear in the formula.
>
> No hair so fine ...
>
>
>     Any guidance will be greatly appreciated!
>     Barbara
>     ...................All opinions are entirely my
>     own....................
>
>     Barbara R. Tysinger                                Phone:
>     (919)966-0949 <tel:%28919%29966-0949>
>     Health Sciences Library                            Fax:
>     (919)966-1388 <tel:%28919%29966-1388>
>     University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>     335 S. Columbia Street, CB# 7585
>     Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7585
>     e-mail: Barbara_Tysinger at unc.edu <mailto:Barbara_Tysinger at unc.edu>
>
>     ......."Non pilus tam tenuis ut secari non possit."-- St.
>     Minutia......
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130801/f892402a/attachment-0001.html>