[DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term

[Jones, Angela]

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who replied to my question about the signatures and relator term. I ended going with Deborah’s suggestion of using both “bookseller” and “publisher” as the relator terms. I decided to add them both to a single instance of the name heading in question (Tarino, Giovanni Alberto).

Thank you all again, your help is much appreciated!

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<mailto:arjones at smu.edu>

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 3:02 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term

Another option for multiple relationship designators, and allowed by the PCC Guidelines (Guideline 10, with third example), is to repeat the whole field with differing relationship designators, rather than adding them all in a single field. There are lots of reasons why this is an appealing solution (including not worrying about WEMI order):

700 1_ Tarinus, Io. Albertus, $e bookseller.
700 1_ Tarinus, Io. Albretus, $e publisher.

Our  browse index displays and indexes the relationship designator so this results in a more precise index not possible when all the designators are strung along in a single field. Unfortunately we have a mix of practices in our catalog, so the more precise index is more of an ideal than a reality, but at least we’re part way there.

Bob


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 10:37 AM
To: rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu<mailto:rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>; DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about signatures and relator term

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<mailto: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] 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<mailto: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<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> |

From: DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<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<mailto: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<mailto:arjones at smu.edu>



--
Randal S. Brandt
The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley
510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu<mailto:rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190712/cf380bd2/attachment-0001.html>