[DCRM-L] Odd signing

Thu Nov 20 09:04:14 MST 2014

I agree completely - and in case anyone might be amused by an even odder example, here’s one from an incunable, Buch der Kunst, dadurch der weltliche Mensch mag geistlich werden (Augsburg: Johann Bämler, 23 August 1491; Goff B-1267).

π8 M8 c8 χ8 D8 P8 E8 L8 I2 H8 G8 F8 K8 N8 Q4 (π1, Q4 blank).

Except for c and Q, $3 is signed with a lower-case letter corresponding to that of the first leaf, without a number (for example, M3 is signed “m”, and $2 is unsigned.  Gathering c is anomalous in the first two leaves, which are both signed in lower case: c1-3 are signed “cj”, “cij”, and “c”, respectively).

The text is in the correct order, as demonstrated by other editions.  There have been attempts to connect the order of letters to some arcane symbolism, but I have found no plausible explanation - and it’s hard to see how the signatures could be interpreted by a binder without a cheat sheet, beyond the fact that the sheets signed with lower-case letters nest within those signed with upper-case.

John Lancaster

On Nov 20, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu> wrote:

> About the only justification or explanation for the signing pattern that I could come up with had to do with planned 4s--for the whole edition--imposed and printed as 8s. Otherwise it seems confusing and uninformative, not something one would plan to do from the outset.
> 
> I see no reason to agonize too much about an adaptation of the standard notation for collations to accommodate such an eccentric and fortunately rare combination of signatures and format. For reference, you have the pagination. Even so, it might become necessary to use signature references, and in that case a formula A/B-2E/2F^8--obviously with just such an explanation as you propose for [1]-[15]^8--might do nicely. It gives you a perfectly clear reference system that is also true to the structure. So how about:
> 
> 8vo: A/B-2E/2F^8 [$1,2,3,5,6,7 signed, using 2 letters per gathering, A1 A2 A3 [A4] B1 B2 B3 [B4], etc.]. The format is evidenced by chainlines, sewing thread etc.; no evidence could be found to explain the signing pattern.
> 
> That's what I'd write, and I do routinely provide collational notes--not just "Signatures" notes--for c19 books, and even c20 ones if it might serve to distinguish editions or impressions. The "A/B" notation is ad hoc and needn't be taken as peculiar to this situation only--that's why you have to follow it up with words.
> 
> 
> 
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <Richard_Noble at Brown.edu>
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Robert Steele <rosteele at law.gwu.edu> wrote:
> Sorry I haven't replied sooner; I've been out sick with a cold.
> 
> The book is:
> 
> Disputatio historico-politica inauguralis :|bex jure publico promta,
> de Gulielmo III, principe Arausiaco, libertatis Europae contra
> dominationem Gallicam vindice /|cquam ... pro gradu doctoratus
> summisque in jure Romano et hodierno ... in Academia Lugduno-Batava
> ... submittit, Gulielmus van Hogendorp.
> Lugduni Batavorum :|bapud H.W. Hazenberg juniorem,|cMDCCCXIX [1819]
> 
> OCLC: 27994312
> 
> John: Chainlines and untrimmed edges show that the book is octavo.
> 
> Richard: I doubt that a dissertation (a real one, pre-degree, not a
> later commercial issue) would be put in standing type or for that
> matter printed from plates in 1819, since the print run would probably
> not support the expense, although my familiarity with Leyden printing
> practice is much less extensive than my familiarity with France and
> Italy. But my question is about how to construct the signature
> statement.
> 
> Deborah: Yes, I think the book is "signed" is some system or other,
> and so I would like to represent the "signings" somehow.
> 
> If the only purpose of the statement is to describe the book
> structure, them [1]-[15]⁸ certainly does it. But most signature
> statements represent the signings actually present, if for no other
> reason than ease of reference, at least when these signings do not
> contradict the actual book structure (as in the case of unused
> signings and/or re-use of plates).
> 
> I can see "[1]-[15]⁸" as the signature statement, but then ideally I
> would like a note like: Gatherings signed: A, A2, A3, -, B, B2, B3, -
> ; C, C2, C3, -, D, D2, D3, - ; etc.
> 
> Option:
> 
> A⁸ C⁸ ... 2F⁸; with note: A5,6,7 signed B1,2,3; C5,6,7 signed D1,2,3, etc.
> 
> But maybe this is too complex.
> 
> I would also like to see other publications by this printer to see if
> this was his common practice (which, by the way, is why I would like
> to see signature statements for all 19th century books, but that's a
> different conversation).
> 
> Robert Steele
> Jacob Burns Law Library
> George Washington University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Noble, Richard
> <richard_noble at brown.edu> wrote:
> > The only situation in which this might make sense would be composition of
> > the entire text for 4s or with the option to print in 4s, and a change of
> > mind or final decision to print in 8s, which implies the use of plates, or
> > non-letterpress printing of some sort--or 240 pages of standing type!
> >
> > I'm with John in wanting to know what book this is. I would be very grateful
> > if everyone with similar questions would henceforth provide a proper
> > citation. Something as laconic as "Leiden, 1819" is as much as many
> > inquirers provide, and all too often it just adds another round of
> > correspondence.
> >
> > RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> > BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> > <Richard_Noble at Brown.edu>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:28 AM, JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not the expert, but I'd find it useful to know more about the book:
> >> Author, title, imprint? And is there evidence for octavo beyond the fact
> >> that it's gathered in eights?  (Chain lines; watermarks?)
> >>
> >> John Lancaster
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2014 Nov 18, at 11:12, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It doesn't look like anyone has responded to this yet, Bob. I don't
> >> > think you can call it unsigned, so it's up to your 2nd or 3rd options. What
> >> > does the expert say? (I'm looking at you, Richard Noble.)
> >> >
> >> > Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
> >> > 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
> >> > folger.edu
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
> >> > Behalf Of Robert Steele
> >> > Sent: Friday, 07 November 2014 10:37
> >> > To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> >> > Subject: [DCRM-L] Odd signing
> >> >
> >> > Collective wisdom:
> >> >
> >> > I think something like this was discussed a few weeks ago, but this time
> >> > I can see the threads.
> >> >
> >> > Dissertation from Leiden, 1819. Octavo (as I said, I can see the
> >> > threads). The signings are in this pattern:
> >> >
> >> > A, A2, A3, -, B, B2, B3, - // C, C2, C3, -, D, D2, D3, - // etc.
> >> > throughout.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think this is a situation of "double signing," since plates are
> >> > unlikely to have been used for a dissertation in 1819. Also, since the pages
> >> > are untrimmed, I don't think the sheet could have been cut in half and
> >> > folded another way. I have no idea why the printer used these signings, but
> >> > anyway I want to construct a signature statement.
> >> > Would you suggest:
> >> >
> >> > Unsigned, [1]-[15]⁸?
> >> >
> >> > or:
> >> >
> >> > A⁸ C⁸ ... 2F⁸?
> >> >
> >> > or:
> >> >
> >> > A/B⁸ C/D⁸ ... 2F/2G⁸?
> >> >
> >> > or something else?
> >> >
> >> > Robert Steele
> >> > Jacob Burns Law Library
> >> > George Washington University
> >>
> >
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20141120/01159e3a/attachment.html>