[DCRM-L] Tironian "et" revisited: not an ampersand
Erin Blake
erin.blake.folger at gmail.com
Wed Sep 22 17:22:56 MDT 2021
In fact, I think the confusion goes the other way around. A stylized
Tironian "et" can look like an "e" and a "t" smooshed together, but not
like an ampersand. It's a single piece of type that represents the
coordinating conjunction in whatever language was being used, but it's a
hybrid symbol in a transitional period, not one or the other.
Sometimes the "and" character is obviously an ampersand (looks like "&" and
is higher than the x-height), sometimes it's obviously a Tironian et (looks
like 7 or a crossed 7 and does not extend above x-height), but others could
go either way:
1. Looks like a 7 with a big curl leading up to it, like that font's *x*,
and mirroring that font's *h* and *n*, e.g.
https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/165788 and
https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/22373003 (but could also be
seen as an e-t ligature that doesn't look like *&*)
2. Looks like a crossed 7 with a big curl leading up to it:
https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/16181377 (but could also be seen
as an e-t ligature that doesn't look like *&*)
3. Looks like a crossed 7 with the top bar shortened, e.g.
https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/11506108 (but could also be
seen as an e-t ligature that doesn't look like *&*)
It's not that catalogers are confusing a gothic *&* with a gothic *⁊*,
(there are gothic fonts where it *is *obviously a *⁊*), it's that the
single piece of type used for the coordinating conjunction was designed to
look reasonable either way the reader is inclined to see it.
if *&* and *⁊* do end up being treated differently in DCRMR, there needs to
be an "in case of doubt" instruction pointing catalogers one way or the
other.
Erin.
______________________
Erin Blake, Ph.D. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library |
201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003 | eblake at folger.edu |
www.folger.edu
<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-t5RCjRgpBtArRXC7R7_2?domain=urldefense.com>
| Pronouns: she/her/hers
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:16 PM Jessie Sherwood <jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> Hi Deborah,
>
> For me, part of the difficulty of transcribing a Tironian et as an
> ampersand is that it's confusing for researchers/readers who do know the
> difference and it contributes to DCRMB's general inconsistency around
> transcribing abbreviations/brevigraphs, which is a headache for me whenever
> I work with incunabula (follow the rule or follow the examples? if I'm
> following the examples, which one do I take as a model?).
>
> I have seen Tironian ets in print, and my general sense is that while
> they're unusual in Roman and italic typefaces, they do show up in early
> blackletter, which is, not surprisingly, consistent with what was happening
> in manuscripts (and may be why I'm more familiar with them than those who
> work more with literature and the classics).
> Examples:
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_01_ex01.pdf
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_03_ex03.pdf
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_05_ex05.pdf
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_06_ex06.pdf
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_09_ex09.pdf
>
> Best,
> Jessie
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 12:55, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Counsel for the opposition reporting in.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm no expert, but here's some of the context surrounding the decision to
>> transcribe a 'Tironian et' as an ampersand. As Erin mentions, a lot of
>> people were mistaking a blackletter ampersand for a Tironian et. I
>> consulted Paul Needham, incunabulist. Skipping to the end of our
>> conversation, he said that he transcribes all sigla representing 'and' in
>> whatever language as an ampersand. This approach to transcribing all sigla
>> representing 'and' in print simplifies things and doesn't require that a
>> cataloger know what Tironian notes are.
>>
>>
>>
>> Almost all the opposition to this change came from folks in the
>> manuscript community. This got me thinking "why."
>>
>>
>>
>> - Tironian notes <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes> were
>> developed as a system of shorthand. Can you call a symbol a Tironian et if
>> other notes from the system aren't also in use? I could argue that a
>> 7-shaped symbol for 'and' is just a graphical variant of an ampersand, just
>> as both long and short s's are graphical variants of the letter 's'.
>> - The widespread misidentification of Tironian et, even by highly
>> experienced catalogers, argues for simplification of treatment in favor of
>> consistency of meaning.
>> - Tironian notes are a manuscript tradition. DCRM(B), and for the
>> moment DCRMR, concerns itself with printed text. I have limited experience
>> with incunables myself, but haven't seen use of Tironian notes (not just
>> the 'et') in use in print. I would be interested to be proved wrong.
>> - As a system of manuscript shorthand that doesn't generally apply to
>> printed text, it should be a part of manuscript-specific instructions. I
>> would further venture to argue that Tironian et's should only be considered
>> such when they are used with other Tironian notes as part of a system of
>> shorthand. Otherwise, it's just a siglum representing 'and' and the best
>> representation of that is an ampersand.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________
>>
>> Deborah J Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare
>> Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 |
>> djleslie at folger.edu | www.folger.edu | Opinions her own
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Erin Blake
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 September, 2021 12:24
>> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Tironian "et" revisited: not an ampersand
>>
>>
>>
>> Belatedly realized that there's a super-easy way to tell the difference
>> between a Tironian sign "et" and an ampersand, I just didn't think to
>> articulate it before: an ampersand extends above x-height, a Tironian sign
>> et does not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Erin.
>>
>> ______________________
>> Erin Blake, Ph.D. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library |
>> 201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003 | eblake at folger.edu |
>> www.folger.edu
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/G6_BCzp4MAt37BLHXdW1D?domain=urldefense.com>
>> | Pronouns: she/her/hers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 5:28 PM Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think Jessie Sherwood is right: the bottom two examples are just fancy
>> Tironian signs (and if I'd opened up my copy of Jean F. Preston and
>> Laetitia Yeandle's *English Handwriting 1400-1650*, which was on my desk
>> while I was writing, I'd have seen that their list of typographical
>> examples includes the exact same shape as the first one).
>>
>>
>>
>> I was trying to make an e-t ligature out of them, but looking at
>> handwritten Tironian "et" examples (and handwritten examples where "&"
>> replaces the sound "et" in a word that isn't "and"), they're not
>> [additional evidence: my own online folder of examples is called "Fancy
>> Tironian et"].
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm going to update the blog accordingly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Erin.
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________
>> Erin Blake, Ph.D. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library |
>> 201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003 | eblake at folger.edu |
>> www.folger.edu
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/G6_BCzp4MAt37BLHXdW1D?domain=urldefense.com>
>> | Pronouns: she/her/hers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 5:14 PM Jessie Sherwood <
>> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Also, to my eye, the bottom two examples under ampersand look more like
>> Tironian ets with swanky approach strokes than e-t ligatures.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 12:43, Jessie Sherwood <
>> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Is it time to move the Tironian sign "et" into DCRMR's "Brevigraphs"
>> chart, leaving "&" behind in the "Early letterforms and symbols" chart?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think so. As you say, the Tironian et and the ampersand are not at all
>> the same thing: & is a ligature, while the Tironian et is part an early
>> form of shorthand.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 11:34, Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Julie Kemper posed an excellent question on the Folger blog post about
>> Brevigraphs
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/6CKXCADX3rHg8oYH9BRuS?domain=collation.folger.edu>
>> last week, "
>>
>> One question I have is why ampersands and Tironian notes are treated the
>> same. To me they are separate symbols and ampersands should be transcribed
>> as “&” while Tironian notes should be transcribed as “[et]”. Am I being
>> overly pedantic about something which hardly anyone cares about?
>>
>>
>>
>> That gave me a deja-vu feeling, so I went to the DCRM-L archives, and
>> sure enough, back in 2003
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/qkblCBBX3vS1ymofjH2yY?domain=listserver.lib.byu.edu>,
>> then again in 2011
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/sa8ACDkZ3xi1ymPflBi4_?domain=listserver.lib.byu.edu>,
>> and again in 2013
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Y5cnCERX3ytmYGPCQUeX-?domain=listserver.lib.byu.edu>
>> the collective "we" of this list identified the instruction to transcribe a
>> Tironian sign “et” (⁊) as an ampersand as a problem: mounting evidence
>> showed that "[et]" would be a more appropriate transcription than "&" but
>> the problem was set aside until "the joint DCRM" was being written. In
>> other words, the time is now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking back at the discussions, I think the problem originated because
>> gothic type ampersands (in no. 1 of the blog post, an "e" and "t" combined)
>> were being conflated with the Tironian sign "et" (no. 8, short-hand
>> representation of the sound "et"):
>>
>> *1.*
>> *[ampersand] *This is the easy one. Ampersands are still in use today,
>> so instead of expanding the brevigraph *&* in square brackets, rare
>> materials catalogers simply use an ampersand.
>> = & (Latin, see in context
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/2WTICG6X3AHm6lgC14cW3?domain=collation.folger.edu>
>> )
>> = & (English, see in context
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Sus3CJ6K31HRVzXTyQFAd?domain=collation.folger.edu>
>> )
>> = &c. (Latin, see in context
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/kZcKCKr73GUl6wJH2K9Ot?domain=collation.folger.edu>
>> )
>> *8. **[**7** at beginning of word]*
>> An alternative shape for *&*, but actually the Tironian short hand
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/PVVBCL913GTA7OvC5zTFe?domain=en.wikipedia.org>
>> symbol *⁊*, which represents the *sound* “et” (rather than the word as
>> such). If a particular font didn’t have a dedicated Tironian sign et, then
>> *ꝛ* (a small “r rotunda
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/7sY2CM8K3Xtg78lHNuMWG?domain=en.wikipedia.org>“)
>> could be used. Because the symbol is a representation of *&* and because
>> *&* is still used today, rare materials catalogers silently replace it
>> with *&*. See no. 1 for ampersandy ampersands.
>> = & (Latin, see in context
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/4su3CNkK3GiAzxRClfz4y?domain=collation.folger.edu>
>> )
>> = &[cetera] (Latin, with r-rotunda, see in context
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/2TUiCOYX3GiJMXGsR4xgC?domain=collation.folger.edu>;
>> see no. 3 for [cetera])
>>
>> Is it time to move the Tironian sign "et" into DCRMR's "Brevigraphs"
>> chart, leaving "&" behind in the "Early letterforms and symbols" chart?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Erin.
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________
>> Erin Blake, Ph.D. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library |
>> 201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003 | eblake at folger.edu |
>> www.folger.edu
>> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/G6_BCzp4MAt37BLHXdW1D?domain=urldefense.com>
>> | Pronouns: she/her/hers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
>>
>> Associate Librarian
>>
>> The Robbins Collection
>>
>> UC Berkeley, School of Law
>>
>> Tel: 510.643.1236
>>
>> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
>>
>> Associate Librarian
>>
>> The Robbins Collection
>>
>> UC Berkeley, School of Law
>>
>> Tel: 510.643.1236
>>
>> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
> Associate Librarian
> The Robbins Collection
> UC Berkeley, School of Law
> Tel: 510.643.1236
> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20210922/b95b251e/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list