5

What's the difference between sqq. and ff.?

The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas by Bernhard Pick has, for example, these 4 references in a row:

Hennecke, N eutestamentliche Apokryphen, 1904, 358 ff.
Handbuch, 1904, 359 sqq.
Schmidt, Acta Pauli, 1904, 145-161.
Bardenhewer, Patrology, p. 102 ff.

Why the variation?

Laurel
  • 66,382
Ross Klatte
  • 51
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
    Hmm, ff means "the following pages" (in German, IIRC), and "sqq" means "and what follows" (ditto Latin). Maybe Pick, here, is using ff to mean "and the next few pages", and sqq to mean "and everything that follows"? Or maybe the manuscripts have a different format? – Dan Bron Jul 19 '16 at 19:52
  • 3
    I've no idea why your source used both. It's worth noting that the Wikipedia page of List of Latin abbreviations has f/ff = folio/foliis = "and following" This abbreviation is used in citations to indicate an unspecified number of pages following the specified page. They don't include *sqq* at all, but thefreedictionary has sqq abbreviation for "the following ones" [from Latin sequentia]. They imply it's a specifically *legal* usage. – FumbleFingers Jul 19 '16 at 19:55
  • 1
    Bear in mind that typesetting a book at the time was an intensive process, no ctrl+h to replace something, My guess is that the author used ff in a first edition and then sqq in a second revised one and did not bother replacing what had already been done. – P. O. Jul 19 '16 at 19:55
  • @P.Obertelli It may not be so simple as that. See this crazy footnote, for example. And even Cambridge Modern History uses both. – Dan Bron Jul 19 '16 at 19:59
  • ok, this picks my interest. – P. O. Jul 19 '16 at 20:04
  • 2
    @P.Obertelli First, I can't help it, piques. Sorrysorrysorry. Second, I am becoming more and more convinced that the difference reflects a difference in the format of the work cited. According to this question and its answers, for example, a "folio" wasn't originally just "a book", it was "a short work of writing which would take about an hour to make a copy of". So "following folios" doesn't precisely mean "following pages". – Dan Bron Jul 19 '16 at 20:08
  • 2
    Ok, a little Google research turns up that most contemporary writers consider the abbreviations synonymous, as well as obsolete. But given the wealth of works I've been able to turn up which use both, consciously, I think there was originally a difference. First, as FF says, often sqq (or "et seq") is used in legal contexts. But I think that's a consequence of the distinction between a "folio" and a "page". I think the major difference is that "et seq" (sqq) is means "the following [abstract] sections", where "ff." means more literally "the following [well-defined] folios". – Dan Bron Jul 19 '16 at 20:22
  • @DanBron Folio at the time also meant a book of big format= > 30 cm – P. O. Jul 20 '16 at 11:45
  • @DanBron I may have a hint at a solution, by browsing through a few 19th century books I noticed that you can find the combination sq/sqq (singular/plural) or, as in your example, a combination ff-sqq, but I could not find a combination of ff/sq/sqq. According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ff FF can alos be used for ONE page only, whereas sqq is always plural. So I guess, when used in opposition to sqq, ff mean just the one following page for some authors. A way to check it would be to check the references in the source and see if effectively they refer to only one page or not – P. O. Jul 25 '16 at 19:00
  • In practical terms, I'd say the difference is mainly that f(f). is in very common use in scholarly writing, while sqq. is rare to the point of obscurity. As an editor at a publishing house that publishes scholarly works exclusively, I have never seen sq(q). used, whereas there is almost certain to be at least one f(f). in every one of our books. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Dec 04 '16 at 02:54

1 Answers1

4

The variation appears to be accidental. Pick cites the same 1904 work by Hennecke elsewhere and uses ff, not sqq, in those citations:

Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 1904, pp. 357 ff. and Handbuch, pp. 358 ff. (Pick, p. 1.)

"Petrusakten" in Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 1904 383 ff.; in Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, 1904, 395 ff. (Ibid., p. 50.)

Schimmelpfeng-Hennecke in Hennecke, Neutestamentaliche Apokryphen, 1904, 459 ff.; Handbuch, 1904, 544 ff. (Ibid., p. 200.)

Raabe-Preuschen in Hennecke, Neutest. Apokryphen, 1904, 473 ff., and in Handbuch (1904) 563 ff. (Ibid., p. 222.)

Further, on page 359 of his 1904 Handbuch, Hennecke discusses the acts of Paul and Thecla, which is the same topic for which Pick has cited 359 sqq of that work. (Pick, pp. 8, 9.) The first full paragraph of that page begins, Ueber die Acta Pauli et Theclae, ... ("About the Acts of Paul and Thecla, ...")

Community
  • 1
apt
  • 41