[DCRM-L] crazy signatures

Fri Sep 25 15:02:51 MDT 2015

Richard,

Thanks for these suggestions. First, yes, it’s 17, not 16, gatherings in 6’s—my mistake.
I feel like using pi^4 in this statement is correct because the first four leaves are unsigned. The fifth leaf (and beginning of a new gathering) is 1. So, technically, this is more or less the same thing as pi^4  A-R^6  S^2.

Here’s my new statement:

Signatures: pi⁴ [1]-[17]⁶ [18]²; the first 3 leaves of gatherings [1]-[17] are signed continuously from 1 to 51; first  leaf of gathering [18] is signed 52.

Nina
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 12:18 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] crazy signatures

To resolve any residual uncertainty in a reader's mind concerning a rather odd phenomenon (as in "I think I know what Nina means"), perhaps it could be phrased "first 3 leaves of gatherings 1-16 are numbered continuously from 1 to 51 (1,2,3,x,x,x/4,5,6,x,x,x/ ... /49,50,51,x,x,x); the first leaf of gathering 17 is numbered 52."

Partly this is because the leaves aren't really "numbered continuously"--the numbering of leaves isn't actually continuous, but meaningfully discontinuous (it's bifolia that are being continuously numbered); but I don't think "numbered cumulatively" resolves the uncertainty any better, and introducing the term "bifolia" begins to remind one of origami concentration camp. Better to risk slightly ridiculous explicitness than to court uncertainty.

Umm... It isn't [1]-[17]⁶ [18]²? Also, though it might seem odd to use "pi" in a formula that appears to be inferred throughout, I think it's just right in this context: the bibliographer's system is being substituted for that of the printer. There are good reasons why this system of "signing" was very little used ...

FWIW: Is this perhaps an 18mo?

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 Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Schneider, Nina <nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>> wrote:
Thanks to Jane (and Richard and Joseph), here’s what I came up with:

Signatures: pi⁴ [1]-[16]⁶ [17]²; first 3 leaves of each gathering are numbered continuously from 1 to 51; first  leaf of last gathering is numbered 52.

Would this make sense if you were reading the description without the book in hand?

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:04 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group

Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] crazy signatures

I like Jane's approach. It serves the formulary purpose quite elegantly, without saying (falsely) that the book is unsigned. The underlying principle is that one uses the printer's designations of gatherings if they are not confusing in the context of a collational formula.

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

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Carpenter, Jane <jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu<mailto:jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu>> wrote:
Nina,
I had a similar situation with parts of a 1520 Venetian Talmud—
I gave the collation in brackets, and then in a note, explained that the first four leaves of each gathering were numbered continuously:

Here’s the note as I wrote it:

[part 4 (Nezikin), 8]: Avodah Zarah [1520]]: 97 leaves; signatures: [1]-[11]⁸ [12]¹⁰; final blank leaf [12]₁₀ wanting; first 4 leaves of each gathering are numbered continuously from 1 to 44; first 5 leaves of last gathering numbered 44-49. ‡5 CLUS

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 9:03 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] crazy signatures

"Continuous bifolium numeration"--certainly as good a term as any--is obviously analogous to the direction numbering that one occasionally encounters in later books. Per Bowers one treats such gatherings as "unsigned", which is fine if they're isolated pi's or chi's; but because Nina's example is numbered in a way that could be used for reference, one searches for a way to incorporate the numbers into a formula.

Maybe (I dunno) 1/2/3-49/50/51^6 52^2? Explanation will be required, whatever one does, and it could just as well be [unsigned, 1-17^6 18^2], which tells the structural story very neatly, but doesn't work very well for reference; and a formula that doesn't refer well doesn't quite fulfill its purpose.

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

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Joseph Ross <jross at nd.edu<mailto:jross at nd.edu>> wrote:
Nina,

I seem to remember this as one of the unusual signature patterns of the manuscript period. The term that comes to mind is "continuous bifolia numeration."  There is no quire signature but the bifolia are numbered continuously from beginning to end.  It was not a common practice.  I don't remember if any printers used it.  Sorry I don't have any references I can quote.

Joseph Ross
Rare Books Cataloger
University of Notre Dame

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Schneider, Nina <nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>> wrote:
Another question for the advance bibliographers amongst us...

I have in my hand the French translation of Hystoyre et plaisante cronicque. It is printed in 1793/4 (an II) in Paris. It is signed in such a way that I'm at a loss on how to record it.

It starts off innocently enough: pi^4 but then this happens (and this is a page-by page recreation):
1,2,3, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 4, 5,6, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 7,8,9, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 10, 11, 12, [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned] ... 49, 50, 51 [unsigned], [unsigned], [unsigned], 52, [unsigned].

Is there a way to capture this in a signature statement or do I just include the whole thing? Bowers is failing me.

Chain lines run vertical. My uncut copy is 14 cm high.

Thanks in advance!

Nina

+---------------
Nina M. Schneider
Rare Books Librarian
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
2520 Cimarron Street
Los Angeles, CA  90018
(323) 731-8529<tel:%28323%29%20731-8529>

nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>
http://www.clarklibrary.ucla.edu/

** Please note that the Clark Library is currently CLOSED for our seismic retrofit **
****************************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150925/5bc923d3/attachment-0001.html>