[DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term

[Noble, Richard]

That European booksellers funded the printing *and* acted as wholesale and
retail merchants of books, in the period before the 19th century, is a
piece of esoterica that will  not always be "understanded of the people"
(esoteric phrase ... annoying, isnt it?). Their activity is in part what we
nowadays call publishing, and if discoverability is our goal, the dual "$e
bookseller, $e publisher" relators could aid in getting people to resources
that might serve their purposes.

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 Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> Thanks, Randy, for kicking off a discussion on early modern book trade
> relationships.
>
>
>
> The imprint in question:
>
>
>
> NEAPOLI, Typis Hectoris Cicconij, M.DC.LIII
>
> Expensis Io. Alberti Tarini Bibliop. Neap. CVM PRIVILEGIO
>
>
>
> The printer is clearly identified and given prominence. No problem there.
>
>
>
> Tarino, a Neapolitan bookseller, is explicitly identified as the person
> who financed the publication—that is, Tarino, the bookseller, is the
> publisher. If I could only pick one, I'd pick 'publisher' as the relator,
> but since I don't only have to pick one (following PCC guidelines on
> relationship designators
> <http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/sct/documents/rel-desig-guide-bib.pdf>)—I'd
> use both: , $e bookseller, $e publisher. (PCC standards require WEMI order,
> and Folger local policy to order elements at the same level alphabetically.)
>
>
>
> What do other catalogers do?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library
> | djleslie at folger.edu | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. | Washington, DC
> 20003 | 202.675-0369 | orcid.org 0000-0001-5848-5467
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Randal S. BRANDT
> *Sent:* Saturday, 06 July, 2019 22:21
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term
>
>
>
> Weighing from California Rare Book School:
>
>
>
> I concur with Deborah on the signatures questions.
>
>
>
> For the relator term, I would use "bookseller" because the imprint
> identifies him as such ("bibliop." = abbreviation of "bibliopola" =
> "bookseller" [and please forgive me if my Latin isn't perfect here]). The
> imprint statement does state that he funded the printing, but he identifies
> himself as a bookseller, so I'd go with that (or both, if you really feel
> you need to bring out the "at the expense of" aspect; but my personal
> preference in using these terms is to pick one).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 9:23 AM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
> wrote:
>
> What a doozy for your first original dcrmb record, Angela!
>
> I'll take the second question first. For early English imprints, the
> default relationship is 'bookseller' unless another relationship is
> specifically identified. This is usually expressed as *Printed for
> So-and-so. *But your book is continental. Still, the relationship
> translates *at the expense of* and indicates a publisher, which is the
> relator I'd use. Quite possibly also the bookseller, but I'll let my
> colleagues with more extensive experience with continental books comment.
>
>
>
> For the signatures, thanks for the opportunity to flesh out some of the
> more complicated collation situations we weren't able to cover in class.
> You have a partial duplication of an alphabet: two preliminary gatherings
> both signed [sec.]. Covered in dcrmb 7B9.3 *Special uses of pi and chi*
> which sends you to Gaskell p. 330. I'd say that the original *[sec*.*]*
> is the outlier, and as the first preliminary gathering, I'd render it: * Signatures:
> [superscript pi][sec.]6 [sec.]-4[sec.]4*  <…>
>
>
>
> *Caveat*: the following is oversimplified for the purpose of a cataloger
> determining the signatures of an individual book, my use of *assume* is
> meant to convey a tentative assumption of individual features, all of which
> is to be taken together for a final determination.
>
>
>
> For the final gathering, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
> default to the rule of assuming the next higher even number and qualifying
> it by which leaf is missing. So, a 6-leaf gathering with the final leaf
> absent. Now, look for other evidence to support that initial assumption.
>
>
>
> ·        Notice the signing. Printers typically used a consistent pattern
> throughout a book in how many leaves of each gathering they signed. The
> most common patterns were to sign the first half of the leaves (e.g., first
> four leaves in an 8-leaf gathering), half + 1 (first five of an 8-leaf
> gathering), or half – 1 (first three of an 8-leaf gathering). In your book,
> the first three leaves are signed, followed by the first two leaves for the
> rest of the book, so your printer's signing pattern is half the leaves.
> When you get to the final gathering, the first three leaves are signed,
> confirming evidence for a 6-leaf gathering
>
>
>
> ·        Check the sewing. Gatherings are sewn through the middle, so if
> you see sewing between the 3rd and 4th leaves, you have confirming
> evidence. If instead you see sewing between the 2nd and 3rd leaves, you
> have evidence for a 4-leaf gathering with the fifth leaf either inserted
> somewhere or appended as a singleton.
>
>
>
> ·        If the book has watermarks, check for conjugacy in the center of
> the gutter.  If you see a watermark spread between the 2nd/5th or 3rd/4th
> leaves, you have confirming evidence. If instead you see a watermark spread
> between the 1st/4th or 2nd/3rd leaves, you have evidence for a 4-leaf
> gathering.
>
>
>
> ·        If everything checks out, you can assume a 6-leaf gathering.
> Your final gathering is signed 4L, 4L2, 4L3; suggesting it's the last leaf
> missing rather than another leaf. So: <…> *4L6(-4L6)*.
>
>
>
> Let us know what you find.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jones,
> Angela
> *Sent:* Friday, 05 July, 2019 10:54
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This is my first question to the DCRM list – I took Deborah J. Leslie’s
> VERY helpful class on rare book cataloging last month, and I am now
> determined to make sure that all my original catalog of rare books is up to
> DCRMB standards!
>
>
>
> My first rare book that requires original cataloging is in front of me,
> and I have a few questions that I wanted to pose to those who have been
> doing this much longer than I have.
>
>
>
> My first question is in regards to signatures. The first part of the book
> has signatures using the [sec.] character. There is a gathering of 6 leaves
> signed with a single [sec.] character, then another sequence of a single
> [sec.] character, with a gathering of 4 leaves. Then the signatures are
> regular gathering of 4 leaves, through the 4th [sec.] character, followed
> by a fairly normal range of gatherings of 4 leaves designated with
> alphabets (with one exception). The last signature that is signed is
> designated LLLL, but there is a single unsigned leaf at the end.
>
>
>
> My attempt to note the signatures is: [sec.]⁶, [sec.]-4[sec.]⁴, A-4E⁴,
> 4F², 4G-4L⁴, [4M]1.
>
> Does it look correct, or am I missing something? In regards to the single
> gathering at the end, I wasn’t sure if I should infer it as an extra leaf
> in the 4L gathering, or as a single gathering.
>
>
>
> Also, I had a question about a relator term for one person named in the
> publisher’s statement. The full statement has a printing statement (Typis
> Hectoris Cicconij), but also a person whose name is prefaced with the term
> “expensis” (Expensis Io. Alberti Tarini Bibliop. Neap.). It seems that this
> is referring to the person who funded the printing of the book. At least, I
> think that is the case. If that is so, what is the correct relator term for
> the tracing of his name? Would it be “book producer” or something else? I
> looked through the LC relator code terms and didn’t find a relator code
> that really seemed to fit, but perhaps I am missing something.
>
>
>
> If it is helpful, a scanned version of the book can be found on Google
> Books at
> https://books.google.com/books/ucm?vid=UCM5323530628&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
>
> Any advice or words of wisdom would be much appreciated!
>
>
>
> Happy Friday,
>
> Angela
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Angela Jones
>
> Head of Technical Services
>
> Underwood Law Library, Dedman School of Law
>
> Southern Methodist University
>
> P.O. Box 750354
>
> Dallas, TX 75275-0354
>
> 214-768-1827
>
> arjones at smu.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Randal S. Brandt
>
> The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley
>
> 510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190710/fc04db71/attachment-0001.html>