University of Virginia Library

Anomalous Signings

While several gatherings can have the same signature, the reverse can
also happen, or at least appear to happen, with two sets of signatures in one
gathering. One example, not very confusing, has already been mentioned,
with the signing of the Cantus Primus in Example 55. A very similar pattern
appears in another Roman edition:

• 61. Alias Cantiones sacras à 3, ed. Sylvestris. Rome: Michele Cortellini, 1655.

  RISM 16551. Copy at Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale.

  [A:] a20; [T:] b20; [B:] c20; [Organum:] d20.

  Signatures: the same pattern in all books:] —, a2, A, A2, A3-A8, [10
  unsigned folios].

Given the signatures, one would expect the book to be constructed as a2
A18. However, it is clearly one continuous gathering of ten bifolios. There
are few plausible reasons why a single gathering should follow this pattern.
One, and the best, may be simply that the first bifolium, containing only
preliminary matter, was originally to have been a free-standing bifolium.
In this case, it may have been incorporated into the gathering so that it
could be conjugate with added folios at the back. This is to some extent
supported by the contents as listed at the end of the volume. After fourteen
compositions ascribed to various Roman composers, which end on the verso
of folio 18, there is added a setting of Quem vidistis pastores, which is ascribed
as a Melos Rusticum. If Sylvestris had wanted to end with the previous
piece, the printer would have been left with no room for a table of contents.
It seems possible therefore that the original preliminary bifolium was
converted at this stage into four folios, wrapped around the rest, initially
to contain the table. As a result, Sylvestris added one more piece, this one
anomalous in that it is not collected Ab Excellentissimis Musices Auctoribus,
as the title-page says (with headlines naming the composers), but is anonymous.

There are other problems with signatures and signing patterns, not all
of them related to the collation. It is notable how many of the following
instances, and also how many of the earlier problem cases, come from
printers working in Rome.

Some printers signed each sheet, rather than each folio, in the first half
of each gathering. In these cases, the gathering structure, and hence the
collation is likely to be straightforward:

• 62. Cifra: VI Madrigali à 5. Rome: Luc' Antonio Soldi, 1623.

  RISM C2225. Copy at Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale.

  Quarto: [C1:] A12; [C2:] B12; [A:] C14; [T:] D12; [B:] E10; [Basso per
  L'Istromenti:] F8.

     

  ---

  226

  
  
  
           

  Gatherings	Signatures
  [C1:]	—	A1	A2	—	A3	—	[6 unsigned folios]
  [C2:]	—	B2	B3	B3	B4	B5		[6 unsigned folios]
  [A:]	—	C2	C2	—	C3	—	C4	[7 unsigned folios]
  [T:]	—	—	D2	—	D3	—		[6 unsigned folios]
  [B:]	—	E2	E2	—	E2			[5 unsigned folios]
  [Basso (Continuo):]	—	F1	F2	F2				[4 unsigned folios]

Here, the plan was apparently to sign each partbook with the same
letter, and number each sheet consecutively. This pattern was not followed
very successfully although the intention is clear. The only completely systematic
part is the Canto Primo: the Tenore and the Continuo books are
correct, although the actual signing is anomalous, while the other three
books contain errors. The evidence is as if the compositor was more used to
signing folios and kept forgetting that he had been instructed to sign each
sheet only once.

If this example showed signing by sheets with the same signature letter
in each gathering, another Roman, Paolo Masotti, could occasionally sign
by the sheet, and give each sheet a different letter, even when two or more
were in the same gathering:

• 63. Arcadelt: Madrigali a quattro . . . corretto . . . Da Claudio Monteverde.
  Rome: Paolo Masotti, 1627.

  RISM A1362 = 16277. Copy at Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale.

  Quarto: Canto: [I]16; Alto: [II]16; Tenore: [III]16; Basso: [IV]16.

  Signatures:

           

  folios:	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
  Canto	—	A2	B	B2	C	C2	D	D2	[8 unsigned folios]
  Alto	—	E2	F	F[2]	G	G2	H	H2	[8 unsigned folios]
  Tenore	—	J2	K	K2	L	L2	M	M2	[8 unsigned folios]
  Basso	—	N2	O	O2	P	P2	Q	Q2	[8 unsigned folios]

There are problems here with creating a collational formula, and also
with referring to individual folios. The collation probably has to be written
with editorial symbols for each gathering (as I have done). It would not be
possible to describe the Canto as A-D16, for that would imply four large
gatherings. The only viable alternative is to call the Canto A16 (signed A-D),
the Tenor E16 (signed E-H), etc., which is itself clumsy. It seems clearer to
give a separate list of signings and as simple as possible a collation line,
using editorial collational signs (here roman numerals).

In the same way, there is no easy way to use the signature letters to refer
to individual folios: the fourth folio is part of the sheet B (B2), and so are
the thirteenth and fourteenth (which are actually B3 and B4), while the
fifteenth is part of A (A3)! Again, the editorial signing (the roman numerals)
allows one to cite folios correctly, with or without adding the signatures found
on the page. In effect the book is best treated as though it were unsigned.

Books like this provide an exception to my suggestion (presented below)
that signatures, rather than pagination, should normally be used for citation.
Fortunately, it is also one where the pagination is correct throughout.