[DCRM-L] compositors' errors[?] in Fasciculus temporum 1492

[JOHN LANCASTER]

Actually, Margaret Bingham Stillwell does mention the feature briefly in her useful article, "The Fasciculus Temporum: A Genealogical Survey of Editions before 1480,” in Bibliographical Essays for W. Eames (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1924), pp. 409-440, at p. 414, where she describes it as “a device which is of immense help to the reader of the book—by the merest glance you can tell exactly where you are, A.D. or B.C.”  Perhaps - if you’re good a reading inverted text.

Parts of Stillwell’s discussion relating to the editorial history are revised and corrected in an article by Lotte Hellinga and Margaret Lane Ford, "Deletion or Addition: A Controversial Variant in Werner Rolewinck’s ‘Fasciculus Temporum’ (Cologne, 1474),” in Essays in Honor of William B. Todd (Austin, Texas: Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin, 1991), pp. 61-79.

John Lancaster


> On Jan 25, 2019, at 7:01 PM, JOHN LANCASTER <jjlancaster at me.com> wrote:
> 
> This is a feature not a bug (as they say).  It is found in Latin editions as well - the years before the birth of Christ are set to be read “upside down”; after that, they read the same as the rest of the text.  I don’t know if there’s any treatise on the work that discusses the feature - I’ve just noticed it in other copies I’ve worked with.  Many editions (including yours) have had copies digitized (linked from ISTC and/or GW).
> 
> John Lancaster
> 
> 
>> On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Jennifer Dunlap <jrdunlap7 at gmail.com <mailto:jrdunlap7 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> We just acquired a German edition of Rolevinck's Fasciculus temporum printed by Prüss in 1492 (ISTC  ir00282000) and as I was cataloging it I noticed that in one line of the dating given on leaves ii recto-xlv recto there seems to be a compositor's error in that the text is set upside down and backwards. At first I assumed it was an error, then after seeing it happen leaf after leaf, I thought perhaps it was intentional, however from leaf xlv verso on all the text seems to be set "correctly." Can anyone else with a copy in their library confirm if this odd text setting occurs in your copy as well? I have not seen the oddity mentioned in any of the reference sources I have consulted (though I must admit that my German palaeography skills are not quite up to snuff to make out the paragraph at the end of the bibliographic citation in the GW record), nor have I been able to locate any other scholarly articles or book chapters that mention it. I will attach some images from our copy so you can see what I'm looking at. Thanks in advance for any light that can be shed on this. 
>> 
>> Best, 
>> Jennifer 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jennifer Dunlap
>> Rare Books Project Cataloger
>> Special Collections Research Center
>> University of Chicago 
>> <IMG_8278.JPG><IMG_8277.JPG>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190125/d48e7910/attachment.html>