[Ads-l] ESTC and TMI [Was: "man" avoidance]
robin.hamilton3 at VIRGINMEDIA.COM
Mon Sep 26 18:39:44 EDT 2016
> As the footnote says, "usefully". If one is interested in different
> imprints or different impressions, then the citation number is a more specific
> entry point to the ESTC than author/title, and the physical format information
> may be helpful.
In this case, I'm putting title/publisher details in the body of the text, and
the ESTC number in the footnote for mostly those reasons. Anyone who wants to
chase more details can do that via the ESTC number, and the rest can simply
ignore the (I hope, non-intrusive) footnotes. Also, of course, those lucky
enough to have access to both EEBO and ECCO can chase the actual text fairly
easily. For me, 1700 is the cut-off point between EEBO and ECCO, so after then,
I'm left staring at the Promised Land.
> P.S. I wonder if the explanation "1 sheet ( p.) ; 1/2⁰," which
> expands to, "A two-page work printed on both sides of a single folio sheet" is
> correct. One sheet of two pages would not fit the meaning of "folio" as "one
> sheet folded"; that would be four pages.
If you work back from 1/2⁰=folio <= half a broadsheet/full sheet, you have, "A
single [the 1 above] folio [1/2⁰] sheet, printed on both sides [thus producing
the 'p.' above]," which was what the physical image did indeed show.
(I had to use a cheat-sheet to work this out, initially --
> I don't know what the "1/2⁰" means, unless perhaps "a half sheet" (in
> which case the footnote explanation seems again wrong).
1/2⁰=folio as above, as per the good people at the Exceedingly Useful Folger
> A half-sheet with two pages (two printed sides) could be produced from a
> full sheet by taking one impression, then turning the sheet over reversing it
> end to end for a second impression, then cutting the full sheet in half to
> produce two identical copies. (In 18th-century Boston, four-page newspapers
> were produced like this, only with the two impressions being pages 1 & 4 and
> then 2 & 3, and folded rather than cut.)
Yeah, but the printers I'm working on at the moment were *really* downmarket --
mostly print in double columns on one or sometimes both sides of a single folio
sheet, no labour other than the (relatively easy) setting of a single forme. It
they were being really classy, they'd go for 8-page pamphlets -- a single folio
sheet folded twice. More trouble to set up two formes for four pages each, but
still no cutting (let the punters go to that trouble if they wanted to) or
Respectable printers wouldn't touch the printing of Sessions Trials. (State
Trials -- more fully reported, often with full shorthand transcription of every
word said, and Deeply Boring -- at least to me -- were another matter. Which is
a shame, as they're a damn sight easier to read,)
(Mostly to Joel, but anyone else to whom this might be relevant -- Working with
Zotero and ESTC in tandem is utter magic, as I only discovered last week, if you
want to chase printers hither and yon. At least for English/London imprints.
Dunno how useful it would be for American imprints. Backchannel me if you want
more detail on this -- I'm still coming to terms with it, but so far ... like,
> From: Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton3 at VIRGINMEDIA.COM>
> When is TMI not TMI?
> Reason I say this, is that seconds before I write this, I'd spent more
> time than
> it deserved on the following footnote:
> "ESTC Citation No. R177278, via the British Library (http://estc.bl.uk/ ).
> references, where appropriate, will be given in the form, "ESTC [NUMBER].
> English Short Title Catalogue usefully provides full publication details
> among other things, the physical format of the work, in this case, "1
> sheet (
> p.) ; 1/2⁰," which expands to, "A two-page work printed on both sides of
> single folio sheet."
> TMI or EI? You tell me, sunny jim.
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l