[DCRM-L] Fists or Manicules?

Thu Oct 30 10:16:32 MDT 2025

Yikes! I volunteered to create A proposal for printers' fists And it fell off my radar. looks like it's time To put it back front and Center

In short, manicules identify manuscript pointy hands, while use of fists for the printed character will be proposed for reinstatement. I'll see what the research turns up, but I seem to remember from when I investigated this thoroughly some time ago, Printer's fists also had significant Warrant.

With apologies,
Deborah

Deborah J Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | Opinions her own

This email may have been voice-typed. Please excuse odd capitalization and punctuation

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Hoover, Sarah via DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 3:35 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Hoover, Sarah <sehoover at email.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fists or Manicules?

One of the main points that came up in the earlier CVEG discussion about the need to distinguish the two types of pointing hands, manuscript vs. printed, is that the manuscript ones are an indication of reader interaction with the text while the printed marks are there from the time of publication and don’t indicate any kind of interaction, so they are likely to be of interest in different contexts. I agree with that separation and think that having the collational formula match the term for the printed mark, in contrast to the manuscript mark, makes sense.

We now have volunteers working on the proposals around these terms and revisions, so stay tuned for further discussion of those in the future!

Sarah

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Karen Attar via DCRM-L
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 12:21 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Cc: Karen Attar <karen.attar at london.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fists or Manicules?

It’s an intriguing discussion.

I rather like retaining “fist” in a collational formula, referring to a printed fist that has no intrinsic meaning. The aim of the collational formula is to be as concise as possible, and a shorter word aids concision.

And I like “manicules” as a term favoured by researchers when the mark, printed or manuscript, is within the text and has a purpose in pointing to something important.

Differentiating might actually be useful in preventing noise if a user is looking specifically for one use over the other.

Best wishes,

Karen

Dr Karen Attar

Curator of Rare Books and University Art

Senate House Library, University of London

Senate House

Malet St

London WC1E 7HU

Tel. 020 7862 8472

https://research.london.ac.uk/search/fellow/516/dr-karen-attar/

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Hoover, Sarah via DCRM-L
Sent: 22 October 2025 15:36
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Hoover, Sarah <sehoover at email.unc.edu<mailto:sehoover at email.unc.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fists or Manicules?

Hello!

Erin is correct that this has come up in the RBMS Controlled Vocabularies Editorial Group, most recently shortly after the new vocabulary was released. The initial discussion at that time was in favor of separating the terms for printed and manuscript marks into Fists and Manicules, respectively, but since it involved needing a new term proposal for Fists and a change proposal for the existing term Manicules (as well as Indexes, which references Manicules) we put it on hold until we had those proposals to formally discuss. That discussion was a while back now, so if this thread prompts anyone to be interested in working on that set of proposals, please feel free!

Best,

Sarah

CVEG co-editor

Sarah Hoover

Special Collections Cataloger

Wilson Special Collections Library

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

sehoover at email.unc.edu<mailto:sehoover at email.unc.edu>

919-962-4305

she/her/hers

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Erin Blake via DCRM-L
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:21 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Erin Blake <EBlake at FOLGER.edu<mailto:EBlake at FOLGER.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fists or Manicules?

I’ve got a memory of this being under discussion in the RBMS Controlled Vocabularies Editorial Group, with the thought that “fist” is the appropriate term for the printed symbol and “manicule” for the hand-drawn one.

I think it was set aside during the moratorium, when the old vocabularies were merged into one and migrated from MultiTes to the LC Linked Data Service.

...but it’s entirely possible that this is a conversation Deborah J. Leslie and I were having at the Folger, and it hasn’t gone beyond us, so I’m hoping she’ll jump in.

Erin

_______________________________

Erin Blake, PhD | she/her | Collections Management Systems Administrator and Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | Washington, DC 20003 | eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>
[Folger Shakespeare Library logo]

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Christine Megowan via DCRM-L
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 8:00 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Cc: Christine Megowan <cmegowan at gmail.com<mailto:cmegowan at gmail.com>>
Subject: [DCRM-L] Fists or Manicules?

Hello DCRM-L colleagues,

One of our cataloguers is preparing a signature statement for a book which includes a gathering signed with a pointing hand, which prompted some discussion within our team about the use of "fists" vs. "manicules" in catalogue records.

DCRM(B) 7B9.2 and DCRMR 6.215.44.2 both instruct the cataloguer: "If the gatherings are signed with other unavailable characters, substitute a descriptive term or an abbreviation for that term if a standard abbreviation exists." In both texts, the examples include a pointing hand for which the descriptive term [fist] has been supplied.

If I remember correctly, "fists" was at some point the authorized term for this character in the RBMS Provenance Thesaurus, although I see that it is now a UF under Manicules. I have certainly encountered the term "manicules" more frequently than "fists" when chatting with other bibliophiles.

I confess I am somewhat bothered by the idea of using one term in a signature statement and another in a genre/form heading, but I wondered what the prevailing opinion might be. Would you follow the example and use [fist] in a signature statement, or favour consistency with CVRMC and go with [manicule]?

Best wishes,

Christine Megowan

(Research Collections Discovery & Projects Manager, Heritage Collections, University of Edinburgh)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20251030/0f5969a8/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4356 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20251030/0f5969a8/attachment-0001.png>