Endleaves/guardleaves encoding

[eu-genia]

I think there is still discussion potential for encoding endleaves.

Unfortunately there is no standard either in the traditional catalogues or in digital catalogues or even within TEI, mostly because of the disagreement whether endleaves are part of the textblock or part of the binding.

(1) physical makeup - support-

• Bm practice: we usually describe their material and size with the main support description
• Gumbert and many others would describe endleaves and flyleaves as part of binding, so the material/size would also be part of binding description

- foliation -

• Bm practice for newly catalogued mss): continuous foliation beginning with "1" that includes all endleaves
• most analogue catalogues and many digital ones, including e.g. CaNaMEI: separate numbering of endleaves (e.g. with Roman numerals)
• Subsequently - Bm practice for encoding existing catalogue descriptions - separate numbering of endleaves https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/1314

(2) content

• Bm practice: we usually describe texts inserted in the guardleaves as additiones; there have been cases where endleaves, especially when these have been recycled from other manuscripts (makulatur), have been encoded as msPart
• other catalogues (e.g. Gumbert) would describe the guardleaves fully as part of the binding, both the materiality and the content
• TEI practice: not fully standardized. Fihrist Oxford cataloguing guidelines suggest to always encode endleaves with text as msPart of type="endleaf", see https://msdesc.github.io/consolidated-tei-schema/msdesc.html#mssEndleaves

<msDesc xml:id="MS_Auct_D_2_14" xml:lang="en">

Gospels; Italy, 7th century MS. Auct. D. 2. 14 - endleaf, fol. 173 (fol. 173r) Old English (fol. 173v) Latin England, Bury St Edmunds (?) 11th century, second half 'Bealdewuine abb.', fol. 173r, probably Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds (d. 1098).

- I found also this example from the Greek Manuscripts in Sweden project (with their own TEI customization, see https://www.manuscripta.se/guidelines):

                <msContents>

Blank endleaves Table of contents Blank endleaves

                </msContents>

but actually when one looks their XML one sees that they in practice did in the end like us, listing the content as `addition`es.

I am not sure that anything must be modified (e.g. folio numbering - I would leave it as is) but I frankly speaking find the Oxford example very nice and clear, with a possibility of adding its own physical description/history etc to the leaves, which is relevant especially if these are not original, or come from an earlier ms

Just food for thought
@thea-m @DenisNosnitsin1970 @CarstenHoffmannMarburg @abausi 

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

Foliation of the guard leaves should be (quire A) i, ii, ii, iv and (quire B) v, vi, vii.... or again i, ii, iii...?

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

Ok, I see, obviously the first quire A) i, ii, ii, iv and (quire B) v, vi, vii, to be recorded also as 4+...+3.

[eu-genia]

On foliation we stick as discussed https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/1314 I was rather wondering about additiones vs msParts

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

I think as it is now is ok, both additiones and msParts for makulatur.

[eu-genia]

we should be then more consistent and in all cases where the guardleaves are not contemporary with the textblock enclode them as msPart, this has not always been the case, only occasionally we could also consider the introduction of a @type for such msPartsas above

[thea-m]

The diversity of description and encoding reflects also the reality that there are MSS whose "endleaves" relatively certainly were recycled from existing MSS (and contain their text) and others whose endleaves were produced and bound simultaneously with the rest of the textblock. There are MSS in which it can be determined somewhat with certainty that text written on endleaves was added as an addition after the production of the manuscript. That said, there are many (more?) cases in which the situation is far less certain (especially when only working from catalogue descriptions). So the current encoding possibilities of endleaves as msPart or of their text as additions both are useful, and I would like to keep them. I think that additionally introducing a type for msParts as in the Oxford description would be helpful particularly in ambiguous situations, of which there are many.

[CarstenHoffmannMarburg]

Thank you for opening this issue and giving this overview and comments on the situation.

I agree that we should continue the current practice with minimal modifications. First, because it is useful to have the ability to describe as msParts when relevant information on provenance, dimensions etc is available and can be easily added, which is not the case within a physDesc for all. Secondly, because we already have very many records for both cases and I assume it would be too cumbersome to rework them in a reasonable time.

Regarding the introduction of "type", I do not really understand where this is going to be inserted and what is the advantage of it. Is it useful to search for "guardleave" or "flyleave" or is it easier and more feasible for the encoder to use <msPart type="flyleaf" xml:id="p1">?

[CarstenHoffmannMarburg]

Foliation of the guard leaves should be (quire A) i, ii, ii, iv and (quire B) v, vi, vii.... or again i, ii, iii...?

I have to admit that my current practice is slightly different in that I use capital Roman numerals: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, etc. The reason for this is that I often add loci, for example by defining the back of a first leaf as Iv (i.e. <locus from="Iv">). If I were to use uncapitalised numbers, this would be <locus from="iv"> and then there is an ambiguity about the Roman number 4.

NB. In my opinion, this is all the more reason to number folios beginning with 1 in all newly catalogued manuscripts, to avoid such difficulties.

[eu-genia]

On type see the Fihrist example above.

[eu-genia]

NB flyleaf is a subtype of endleaf. On terminology see Gumbert http://www.cei.lmu.de/extern/VocCod/WOR10-1.pdf http://www.cei.lmu.de/extern/VocCod/WOR10-2.pdf http://www.cei.lmu.de/extern/VocCod/WOR10-3.pdf

[CarstenHoffmannMarburg]

NB flyleaf is a subtype of endleaf. On terminology see Gumbert http://www.cei.lmu.de/extern/VocCod/WOR10-1.pdf http://www.cei.lmu.de/extern/VocCod/WOR10-2.pdf http://www.cei.lmu.de/extern/VocCod/WOR10-3.pdf

Strelcyn used the term "flyleaf" for protective leaves in front and behind and so did I in many BL records.

[eu-genia]

On foliation see above. Continuous for new mss Separate for already described or foliated as in issue #1314 I.e. all Arabic numbers in extent 3+163+2

[CarstenHoffmannMarburg]

Gumbert defines endleaves as leaves before or after the text block. This goes against intuition. I prefer to use 'endleaf' only for leaves behind. Gumbert defines 'flyleaves' as mobile (=movable) leaves. I cannot tell from pictures, but I am pretty sure that this is different from what Strelcyn meant in his descriptions. He usually uses the term flyleaves for any kind of protective leaves. I do not think that these leaves are all mobile leaves. If it is obligatory to be consistent with Gumbert at this point, I will have to rework all the records based on Strelcyn's catalogue. Do you think it is reasonable to replace the term 'flyleaf' by 'endleaf' or 'guardleaf' or 'protective leaf' in any of these records?

[eu-genia]

I think it would be nice if we all stick to one term for the same thing, if possible.

It probably would be sensible for us to have our own project glossary/vocabularly somewhere, but for glossaries it is always nice to start from an existing one, so I personally use Gumbert and Ligatus as the authority for binding https://www.ligatus.org.uk/lob/aae/alphabetical , see also https://www.ligatus.org.uk/lob/concept/1346 but it seems that it is just me )

see also this definition https://www.lostmss.org.uk/project/how-use-site/terminology-fragments Flyleaf: as the name suggests, this is a folio that is free to move, in as much as while it is stuck in the binding at its edge, the whole is not glued to another part of the binding. The leaf is cut to be approximately the same size as the pages of the book (pieces which are smaller than this tend to be described as a binding strip). Sometimes a flyleaf is conjoint with a pastedown. Both flyleaves and pastedowns are forms of endleaf, and the preferred terminology for flyleaves in [the Ligatus vocabulary](http://www.ligatus.org.uk/lob/concept/1346) is 'free endleaves' [Image: [Harsnett H.d.9 i](http://lostmss.dev.agile.coop/fragments/colchester-university-essex-library-harsnett-hd9-i) (recto of front flyleaf)] and even this https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/endleaf

I understand that you instinctively think that an end must be at the end but this is not so.

If you do a google search for "protective quire" you will see the results, and these are not in our favour ) (Italian interference here, from foglio di guardia)

[CarstenHoffmannMarburg]

I understand. Do you recommend to clean the existing records and replace "flyleaf" for "endleaf" in all BL-records, that I have encoded so far (around 30 records)?