# Eighteenth-century book with knots

**URL:** <https://discourse.igkt.net/t/eighteenth-century-book-with-knots/4141>\
**Category:** Knotting Concepts & Explorations\
**Created:** [14 August 2011 12:01 UTC](https://discourse.igkt.net/t/eighteenth-century-book-with-knots/4141 "2011-08-14T12:01:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Lehman](https://discourse.igkt.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Dan\_Lehman](https://discourse.igkt.net/u/Dan_Lehman)\
**Post date:** [16 August 2011 18:54 UTC](https://discourse.igkt.net/t/eighteenth-century-book-with-knots/4141/8 "2011-08-16T18:54:09Z")

</div>

> [@dfred post:2](#):
>
> … a few interesting and unusual things in it…
> 
> 1. #1242, one of the sack/bag/miller’s knots.  
> “Nodus instar forficis intra anulum”
> 
> - possibly incorrect Google translation is “Within the ring like a knot [scissors?]”.

?! Where do you see that quote? What I see, on the page preceeding  
the images (or succeeding --forget which I opened, but it names knots)  
is “Nodo a forbice in Anello”, which by the clumsy/comical free  
translator available on a quick search yields “Node scissor in ring”.  
Comical, yes, but matching, at least (typographically) with the  
translation for the --what we call-- clove hitch, so we might infer  
that what was intended (by the author(s)) was in fact that same  
knot but shown tied in a ring (and that the artist royally botched  
the illustration (hardly uncommon, alas). .:. a _new_ knot is born!!  
–which (Xarax should have fun with this) is in some sense still  
symmetric, despite appearances, in the same way that the  
Munter hitch / crossing knot / mezzo barcaiolo is : i.e., in  
most of its in-use orientations it’s not, but the two loaded  
forms are, of each other (some capsizing is involved …).  
This knot, at least in one capsized form, makes a nice,  
strong-looking, secure, easily untied ring & spar hitch.

Slid off of the object (break the ring …), it is a fig.8  
–so much for likeness to the clove!

> 9. [i][u]Boas/Inuit Bowline[/u][/i]. I can't remember seeing such an old book with a Boas/Inuit in it. Anyone else know of one?

I can’t remember one, even now! I.e., you’re into an illusion,  
as #9 is but a sheet bend, shown as an option to #6, the  
reef knot, nearby. It is interesting to note that while this  
is a same-sides version, the slipped version shown as #19 isn’t;  
the doubled version shown at #10 is. Again, we have this  
artist to blame, likely --and maybe some careless author(s), et alia.

> 10. Unidentified bend. Seems from the name it might have been intended to be a [i]double sheetbend,[/i] but it is not. (fooled me initially)

I see “Capio col Nodo alla Bufalora” which by using the underscored  
name for the shown sheet bend I’d say confirms it as ONE OF the  
forms a _doubled_ version (cf. [u][ABOK](https://discourse.igkt.net/t/9845) #488, is it?).

> 19. Slipped bowliform knot. This is the slipped form of the "bowline" in which the bight is formed in the standing part and the hitch/gooseneck made through that. Not a particularly great knot. Perhaps intended to be a quick release knot, but it unfortunately leaves a half-hitch after pulling the slipped portion. The name being "Nodus ad usum Bubulci", like 9. above, makes me wonder if this is the orientation intended there too? That is, in fig. 9, the standing part would be the lower end, it is shown as being slightly longer.

See above. Not sure how you’re able to have anything left  
after pulling out the slip-bight --poof, all is gone!

Derek asks

> Could they be acting as some sort of intelligent pulley anchor?

No, it’s an UNintelligent person(s) acting as artist!  
(or “artistic license”, no pixel-peeping, knots-devining intended)

# –dl\*

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.igkt.net/t/eighteenth-century-book-with-knots/4141)._