Clustering Running Titles to Understand the Printing of Early Modern Books
Nikolai Vogler, Kartik Goyal, Samuel V. Lemley, D. J. Schuldt, Christopher N. Warren, Max G'Sell, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick
TL;DR
The paper addresses how to infer printing workflows in early modern books by clustering running titles to reveal underlying skeleton formes. It introduces two kernel-based approaches, a domain-informed Lev kernel and a neural ViT cross-encoder kernel, integrated into a spectral clustering framework that leverages sheet-side structure and book gatherings. Evaluation on about 1600 running titles from eight books shows the Lev kernel generally outperforms the neural approach and that incorporating gathering information yields robust forme-based groupings, including perfect clusterings on several held-out formats. The work offers a scalable, non-OCR-based tool for bibliographic analysis with potential applications to EEBO-like digital corpora and censorship studies.
Abstract
We propose a novel computational approach to automatically analyze the physical process behind printing of early modern letterpress books via clustering the running titles found at the top of their pages. Specifically, we design and compare custom neural and feature-based kernels for computing pairwise visual similarity of a scanned document's running titles and cluster the titles in order to track any deviations from the expected pattern of a book's printing. Unlike body text which must be reset for every page, the running titles are one of the static type elements in a skeleton forme i.e. the frame used to print each side of a sheet of paper, and were often re-used during a book's printing. To evaluate the effectiveness of our approach, we manually annotate the running title clusters on about 1600 pages across 8 early modern books of varying size and formats. Our method can detect potential deviation from the expected patterns of such skeleton formes, which helps bibliographers understand the phenomena associated with a text's transmission, such as censorship. We also validate our results against a manual bibliographic analysis of a counterfeit early edition of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651).
