[DCRM-L] Awkward signing

[Noble, Richard]

Since the printer's font lacked a distinct glyph for lc 'k', but your font
doesn't, the 'K' means something different coming from the printer than it
will coming from you. (Sorry--just musing on first or second principles
here.)

I assume that 2k's 'kk' signature is likewise represented by 'KK', so the
problem (of course) is the isolation of the k^6 gathering required by its
variant extent--but in so saying, I come to a conclusion that it *is* the
"k^6 gathering", to be referred to as such, and that the actual glyph is to
be noted in the signing statement, perhaps, depending on historical
bibliographical context, with a further note regarding the font and the
non-significance of the signature in any other respect.

The isolation of k^6 as 'K^6' on the basis of the glyph would entail
isolation of  2k^8: 2a-2i^8 2K^8 2l-2m^8; but this seems to suggest that
the signature "means" something, when it fact it doesn't, an undesirable
outcome. This is related to the rather vexed (that is, complicated)
protocols that Bowers devised for quoting/non-quoting of signatures with
respect to inserts, cancels, and the like. Whatever one thinks of the
result, the purpose was to maintain focus on the structural story that the
collational formula is designed to tell, which is a good principle--one
that can be invoked in the present case, I think.

But--what *really* tips it is the cap signatures, which include an
unambiguous K^8. That being so, for the sake of simplicity in reference to
structural elements of the book, the use of 'k^6' and implicit '2k^8' seems
by far the best way to go: the best combination of what and where.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:00 AM, JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:

> I’d be grateful for suggestion of the appropriate way to deal with this
> situation.
>
> The 1487 Brescia Dante is signed:
>
> &^8 a-i^8 K^6 l-r^8 aa-mm^8 nn^4 A^6 B^8 C-L^8.
>
> That is, the gathering that one would expect to be signed “k” has a
> capital “K” on all three signed leaves.
>
> How can this best be represented so that a reference to a leaf signed with
> “K” is unambiguous?
>
> Can the “k” gathering be recorded as “K[i.e. k]^6”, with an explanatory
> note?  Or, as I’ve seen elsewhere, just as “k^6” with a note that all three
> signed leaves are “mis-signed K”?
>
> There may be no really satisfactory way to do this in abbreviated form.
> But given that “k” is often a problem for early printers, this may not be a
> unique case. (I’ve seen “l” plus “round r” used as a substitute, but that’s
> easily dealt with.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Lancaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150615/f01615a1/attachment.html>