Aaron T. Pratt
@aarontpratt.bsky.social
Pforzheimer Curator of Early Books & Manuscripts at the Harry Ransom Center. Bibliographer, book historian, and VHS guy.
Not in person, alas! (At least not to my knowledge.)
November 5, 2025 at 11:46 PM
Not in person, alas! (At least not to my knowledge.)
Thanks so much for bringing the group—was a blast!
October 20, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Thanks so much for bringing the group—was a blast!
Oh fun. So analogous to what's happening at the front.
September 24, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Oh fun. So analogous to what's happening at the front.
Oh wait—looked at your pagination statement. Looks like it's just 1 leaf and not an 11-leaf monstrosity.
September 24, 2025 at 7:40 PM
Oh wait—looked at your pagination statement. Looks like it's just 1 leaf and not an 11-leaf monstrosity.
Oh, incidentally—I'd avoid superscripted 1s. For those single-leaf deals, just so a regular ole "1". Tell me about that final gathering? 11 leaves? What is the actual structure of it? Where does the non-conjugate leaf fall?
September 24, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Oh, incidentally—I'd avoid superscripted 1s. For those single-leaf deals, just so a regular ole "1". Tell me about that final gathering? 11 leaves? What is the actual structure of it? Where does the non-conjugate leaf fall?
OK, so I'd probably do Aaaaa1 "5A"-"5E"². (You could even do 5A1 "5A"-"5E"².) I don't employ quotation marks in collation statements lightly, but this is an instance where conventional shorthand creates ambiguity about what's on the sheets.
September 24, 2025 at 7:36 PM
OK, so I'd probably do Aaaaa1 "5A"-"5E"². (You could even do 5A1 "5A"-"5E"².) I don't employ quotation marks in collation statements lightly, but this is an instance where conventional shorthand creates ambiguity about what's on the sheets.
Sorry, I'm seeing your other reply now. Actually "5A". And everything from leaf forward has "5" prefixed rather than five actual letters?
September 24, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Sorry, I'm seeing your other reply now. Actually "5A". And everything from leaf forward has "5" prefixed rather than five actual letters?
Or, wait: is it that you have one system, where alphabets double by adding minuscules, and another, where alphabets are all caps? Aaaaa vs. AAAAA? If that, I'd avoid doing any xA and just expand 'em.
September 24, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Or, wait: is it that you have one system, where alphabets double by adding minuscules, and another, where alphabets are all caps? Aaaaa vs. AAAAA? If that, I'd avoid doing any xA and just expand 'em.
If there are two leaves signed "Aaaaa," I'd go this route: ᵡ5A1 5A-5E². An alternative would be to do 5A1 ²5A-5E², but since you're just looking at a single leaf, it'd be a little odd to have it count as a whole alphabet.
September 24, 2025 at 7:03 PM
If there are two leaves signed "Aaaaa," I'd go this route: ᵡ5A1 5A-5E². An alternative would be to do 5A1 ²5A-5E², but since you're just looking at a single leaf, it'd be a little odd to have it count as a whole alphabet.
Actually, the $1(+[pi]2) bit could just be $2 depending on whether you think the main signing count should reflect structural modifications—or something else entirely, of course, depending on how the rest of the book shakes out.
September 24, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Actually, the $1(+[pi]2) bit could just be $2 depending on whether you think the main signing count should reflect structural modifications—or something else entirely, of course, depending on how the rest of the book shakes out.
Or if you’re not a Tansellean stickler like I generally am:
π²(π1 + a²) [$1(+π2); π2 = ‘b’]
π²(π1 + a²) [$1(+π2); π2 = ‘b’]
September 24, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Or if you’re not a Tansellean stickler like I generally am:
π²(π1 + a²) [$1(+π2); π2 = ‘b’]
π²(π1 + a²) [$1(+π2); π2 = ‘b’]
That slash notation is unfamiliar to me.
A situation like this one is why collation formulas should be coupled w/ signature statements: you can deal w/ structure & odd signing separately. I’d do:
π²(π1 + 1.2) [$1(+π2); π(1) = ‘a’; π2 = ‘b’]
(if a2 is signed, then add “π(2) = ‘b2’)
A situation like this one is why collation formulas should be coupled w/ signature statements: you can deal w/ structure & odd signing separately. I’d do:
π²(π1 + 1.2) [$1(+π2); π(1) = ‘a’; π2 = ‘b’]
(if a2 is signed, then add “π(2) = ‘b2’)
September 24, 2025 at 2:02 PM
That slash notation is unfamiliar to me.
A situation like this one is why collation formulas should be coupled w/ signature statements: you can deal w/ structure & odd signing separately. I’d do:
π²(π1 + 1.2) [$1(+π2); π(1) = ‘a’; π2 = ‘b’]
(if a2 is signed, then add “π(2) = ‘b2’)
A situation like this one is why collation formulas should be coupled w/ signature statements: you can deal w/ structure & odd signing separately. I’d do:
π²(π1 + 1.2) [$1(+π2); π(1) = ‘a’; π2 = ‘b’]
(if a2 is signed, then add “π(2) = ‘b2’)
Such a cool book. I got a bit overzealous at an auction a few years ago after losing the lot I really wanted and ended up with a 1613. Glad I did!
September 22, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Such a cool book. I got a bit overzealous at an auction a few years ago after losing the lot I really wanted and ended up with a 1613. Glad I did!
Here's the label:
![Biblia latina (Mainz: Johann Gutenberg and Johann Fust, between 1454 and 1456). 603 verso and 604 recto
Today, we expect the text in most books to be black. To navigate pages, we rely on variations in typography and layout: display fonts, centered text, indents, and other creative uses of white space. These design elements signal chapter, paragraph, and other content divisions. When Gutenberg and his team were developing their new printing technology, though, color often did this work. Aware of readers’ expectations, they developed a two-pass process for including red text alongside black but quickly judged it too time-consuming. After only five pages with red print, they began leaving blank spaces for customers to fill in later, by hand.
For initial capitals, chapter numbers, and running headers, the scribes who helped turn Gutenberg’s black-and-white sheets of print into readable pages needed to be reasonably familiar with the Bible and fluent in Latin. In the leftmost column, for instance, the scribe had to know that “dmone” calls for an “A” in front. Admone illos. Admonish them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, mistakes with initials were not uncommon. Here, the red “P” beginning “Philemoni” appears on top of a blue “T.” A scribe had originally written the letter that begins “Thytum” in the preface to Titus, which is on the previous page.
Gutenberg’s team did try, at least, to eliminate guesswork when it came to the longer text marking transitions between books and prefaces: they printed all of it in an eight-page guide that survives today in only two copies. If followed, each space would be perfectly filled. The Carthusians who first owned the Ransom Center’s Bible, though, frequently misjudged what to write, suggesting that they didn’t have the guide at hand. Here are the four pieces of transitional text that should appear in this opening: [image showing the lines as they appear in the guide].](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ixfqdtqfdxcgymc3665hjnvu/bafkreidul3exsd5bduxgpcrmmpardbpijupcst6fcfwwx46hjynpck2jl4@jpeg)
September 9, 2025 at 3:51 PM
Here's the label:
Here are the two pages on display from our cover-to-cover digital facsimile:
603v: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
604r: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
603v: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
604r: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
September 9, 2025 at 3:50 PM
Here are the two pages on display from our cover-to-cover digital facsimile:
603v: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
604r: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
603v: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
604r: hrc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/coll...
Yeah, I think the best approach would be to do what we do when there are too many authors: throw in an "etc" (as opposed to an "et al.," since places aren't people) unless a full list is needed to disambiguate very similar bibliographic entities.
August 13, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Yeah, I think the best approach would be to do what we do when there are too many authors: throw in an "etc" (as opposed to an "et al.," since places aren't people) unless a full list is needed to disambiguate very similar bibliographic entities.
Does the Zotero implementation at least have a rule to apply places to < 1900 pubs?
August 13, 2025 at 1:40 PM
Does the Zotero implementation at least have a rule to apply places to < 1900 pubs?
Here’s what appears to be a nail/brad head in the @ransomcenter.bsky.social’s lone Catholicon leaf, from the Galliziani impression (or, if you insist, issue):
August 11, 2025 at 3:10 PM
Here’s what appears to be a nail/brad head in the @ransomcenter.bsky.social’s lone Catholicon leaf, from the Galliziani impression (or, if you insist, issue):