Bookseller Terminology

Tom,

Here's my interpretation of the following:

(recte 913, p. 68-97 omitted, 101-102 twice),

From the OED: recte: correctly.
Used to indicate that the word or phrase following it in a parentheses
is the correct version of text which immediately precedes the insertion.

Thus, "813,(recte 913)" would mean that 913 is the correct page number
of the page identifed as 813 ( or whatever page it was before the
parentheses).

p.68-97 omitted: Self-explanatory; they're not included in the book.

101-102 twice. Yep. Two of them. Somewhere, there is probably a copy
that is missing that sheet, but which has double sheets of something
else. =A0 My indexes for the 1776 edition of the Rambler are reversed
and have duplicate pages. Fleeman's bibliography of Johnson's works
cites another copy of this set with the same error.

Yeah, the pagination is mixed up, but you and I explained exactly how it
was mixed up.

If you want to have fun, do some research on the etymology of the word,
"recte." Etymology means where the word comes from.

According to the OED, "recte" was first used in the context we
described in 1886 in the Transactions of the Philological Society.

The word, "recte", could be derived from the word, "rectify;" The OED
cites a work from the 1400s as when "rectify" was first used. A
derivation, "rectification," was first used in 1460. Robert Burton used
the word, "rectification," in 1621 in his Anatomy of Melancholy.

"Recte" could also be derived from the words, "rectum" and "rectus,"
meaning "right."

Indeed, in Diversions of Purley, London, 1786, John Horne Tooke touches
upon the word "rectum" in his chapter titled the "Rights of Man." A
play on words, this essay is not a philosophical work, but rather a
philological work. It pertains to the usages of the word, "right:" A
man's Right...a Right conduct...a Right reckoning...a Right line...the
Right road....to do Right...to be in the Right...to have the Right on
one's side...the Right hand.....

Tooke writes:

"Right is no other than the Rect-um ( regitum), the past participle of
the Latin verb regere.. Whence in Italian you have Ritto; and from
Dirigere, Ditto, Dritto: whence the French have their antient Droict and
their modern Droit: the Italian Dritto and the French Droit, being no
other than the past particle, direct-um.

Tooke even uses the Latin word "recte" while quoting Vossius:

"....Insidorus regem ait dici a recte agendo...."

I've sent this sentence, and the entire paragraph it came from, to two
friends who are pretty good at translating Latin.

As for me, I'm pretty good at translating old English definitions into
terms of modern usage. Yep!

Here's some compound words of the word, "Rectus," extracted from the
1775 edition of Bailey's Dictionary, together with my explanations of
modern usage below each one:
Rectus in Curia: =A0 [ie. Right in Court]

Signifies one who stands at the Bar, and no Man objects any thing
against him; also one who has reversed an Outlawry.

The Morris Explanation of Modern Usage:

Nowadays, we call that person a lawyer.....sometimes we call that person
something else.....


Rectus Major. [In Anatomy]

A Muscle in the Head, inserted in the hinder Part of the Os Occipitis.

The Morris Explanation of Modern Usage:

Etymology of the phrases, "Get your head out of your ass" and "shit for
brains."


Rectus Palpebr=E6 Superioris:

A Muscle that lifts up the upper Eye-lid.

The Morris Explanation of Modern Usage:

Up to your eyeballs in shit. Caution. Don't blink!


Cheers,
Jerry Morris

.............................................................

sabran.TakeThisOut@lintern-mole.fsnet.co.uk (Tom=A0L-M) So,
I took this:
(recte 913, p. 68-97 omitted, 101-102 twice), to mean pages 68-97 are
missing, and 101-102 printed twice - but I have been told it actually
means the paignation is mixed up. So - can anyone clarify this?
Cheers,
Tom L-M





Welcome to Moi's Books About Books: http://www.tinyurl.com/hib7
My Sentimental Library http://www.picturetrail.com/mylibrary and
moislibrary.com http://www.tinyurl.com/hisn
 >> Stay informed about: Bookseller Terminology 

Jerry Morris wrote:

 > Thus, "813,(recte 913)" would mean that 913 is the correct page number
 > of the page identifed as 813 ( or whatever page it was before the
 > parentheses).

Interesting. I didn't think of it like that. I took it to mean that
the book had 913 pages, as called for. On reflection, though, you are
quite possibly right, though it seems odd to describe page [?813]
before describing pages 68-97 and 101-102.

 > p.68-97 omitted: Self-explanatory; they're not included in the book.

I don't agree that it is self-explanatory. As I said in my previous
posting, there is the issue of whether there is any textual content
missing or whether there is simply an error in the page numbering, and
this description doesn't address that. From what Tom says, the latter
appears to be the case.

 > 101-102 twice. Yep. Two of them. Somewhere, there is probably a copy
 > that is missing that sheet, but which has double sheets of something
 > else. My indexes for the 1776 edition of the Rambler are reversed
 > and have duplicate pages. Fleeman's bibliography of Johnson's works
 > cites another copy of this set with the same error.

Well, not if I've understood Tom aright. He seems to be saying that
the *numbering* is repeated on pages with different content (i.e.,
that it was a pagination error). I have a couple of books with this
kind of flaw in them at home; I'll look them up when I get back from
work.

----
John
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://rarebooksinjapan.com" target="_blank">http://rarebooksinjapan.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bookseller Terminology 

Tom,

I stand corrected. 913 does not stand for the page number; it denotes
the correct total number of pages in the book. Moreover, the rest of
the information really is meaningful, because it demonstrates how and
why the total number of pages was corrected.

For the line:
(recte 913, p. 68-97 omitted, 101-102 twice),

Take 913 pages, add 30 pages (68 to 97), subtract 2 pages (101-102)
equals 28 pages. Now, add 28 to 913. You get 941.

The incorrect number of pages was 941.

Now do it backwards:

Take 941 pages, subtract 30 pages (68 to 97) and add 2 pages (101-102)
equals 28 pages. Now, subtract 28 pages from 941.

The correct number of pages is 913.

Hence the line should now read:
941 (recte 913, p. 68-97 omitted, 101-102 twice),

Cheers,
Jerry Morris




Welcome to Moi's Books About Books: http://www.tinyurl.com/hib7
My Sentimental Library http://www.picturetrail.com/mylibrary and
moislibrary.com http://www.tinyurl.com/hisn
 >> Stay informed about: Bookseller Terminology 

Jerry Morris wrote:

 > I stand corrected. 913 does not stand for the page number; it
 > denotes the correct total number of pages in the book.

OK, but I stand corrected too, since - as you point out -

 > the rest of the information really is meaningful, because it
 > demonstrates how and why the total number of pages
 > was corrected.

If you are right - as I suspect you are - about the original being

 > 941 (recte 913, p. 68-97 omitted, 101-102 twice)

then you have not only done a neat bit of detective work yourself, but you
demonstrate that the original description was itself very neat, saying, in
elegantly brief form, "the last page of the book is numbered 941, but really
there are only 913 pages, since on the one hand the numbering jumps from 68
to 97 (though the text is continuous, with no gaps) and on the other pages
numbered 101-102 occur twice (but with different content)".

--
John
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://rarebooksinjapan.com" target="_blank">http://rarebooksinjapan.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bookseller Terminology