<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Bookman Old Style";
panose-1:2 5 6 4 5 5 5 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
tt
{mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#5C4676;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>[I think that there may be an apples-and-oranges element in this
discussion, since I tend to converge cataloging and bibliography to a certain
extent, whether wisely or not. In any case, it does recapitulate in short form
a part of Tanselle’s 1970s article on bibliography vs. library cataloging,
and I offer it only for what it’s worth as a statement of principle. As
an argument concerning cataloging practice, it chiefly concerns the utility of the
collational formula note. – rcn]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>I suspected that in the context of library cataloging my approach
might be a bridge too far: thus that little concession at the end.
Nevertheless, I could not recommend, as adviser or as instructor, the
“incl.” approach (so to call it) for formal bibliographical work,
in which a proper analytical account of the structure of letterpress sheets
requires their distinction and the segregation of their description from that
of other matter produced by other means.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>The description of structure may indeed, as a matter of convenience
for reference, make use of the printer’s designations for structural
components; but the foundational principle is that the collational formula and
pagination register together constitute the basic armature for an account of
the distribution of the contents as it originates in formes of type. For our
more immediate purposes, in the context of the ESTC as a bibliographical
catalog (I’m now an editor, by the way), it is equally indispensable as a
consistent presentation of key physical evidence by which one identifies books
as specimens in our taxonomy of editions, issues, and states.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>I suppose, therefore, that I have a rather Tanselle-ish attitude
towards the notion of “extent”, as a categorically
non-bibliographical basis for description, since it mixes up precisely the
elements that an analytical approach (=figuring out what what’s really in
front of you) requires one to tease out. In working with RBS students, I hammer
a bit on the point that there should be as much correlation as possible between
the simplicity or complexity of the book and its description, a principle that
extends to the various elements that make up the book as much as it does to the
book as a whole. Plates and other non-letterpress elements may present complex
variations among copies of an edition that is otherwise simple and invariant,
or that has its own tracks of variation. That all needs to be readily apparent
in the descriptive formula, which in turn enables us to explain clearly what we
found and where we found it. This is all the more important when our file
structure precludes much degressive compression, so that a group of entries
require reciprocal notes that express as succinctly and consistently as
possible the relationships among the bibliographical entities that each entry
represents, as well as any tolerable range of variation among the exemplars of
any one entity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'>“Extent”, as in AACR2 and even as considerably refined
in DCRM(B), is a pretty crude tool at best for all these purposes—which
is why I generally provide a proper formula in a note, if only as a hedge
against the occurrence of variants not known to me. I may be a victim of my own
inclinations in this very small matter that is so large a part of what I do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>RICHARD NOBLE :
RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style","serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John
Lancasters<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>Thanks to Richard and Deborah, who
have staked out the two basic positions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>What I’d <i>really</i> like
to be able to do is use the old “incl.” here: “xii,
[13]-281, [1] p. incl. plates” <or perhaps “(incl. [2] leaves of
plates)”>, with a note making clear where and what the plates are.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>But since I can’t do that, I
lean toward Deborah’s inclination; I’ve always felt that a
pagination statement that gives as concise a sense of the extent as possible
(and I know it’s not always possible) is desirable. (For instance,
“100 [i.e. 104] p.” with a note that numbers 79-82 are repeated in
the paging, rather than ESTC’s “82, 79-100 p.”) Of
course the details must be spelled out, but even in a bibliographic description
(rather than a catalogue record) I’d like an overview as well (though
since a statement of leaves typically follows the signature collation, perhaps
that’s enough of an overview).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>It would seem that it was clearly
the intent of whoever was responsible for designing the volume I’m
working on that the plates be counted in the pagination, and though the
designer’s (author’s, printer’s, binder’s) intent need
not dictate an analytical description, it carries some weight, and must be
somewhere described. In a catalogue record, I’d rather see it in
the formulaic statement of pages, with the analysis carried out in the note.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>In Richard’s example, it
doesn’t seem that the plates actually exactly correspond to the missing
page numbers (and if the pagination ends with an odd number on a verso,
there’s something else to be sorted out), but I’d still be more
inclined to state “[8], 111 [i.e. 62], [2] p. and then lay out the
details in a note – but perhaps the statement of leaves provides as much
of an overview as needed – so I won’t push that too far.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>Seriously, though, what would be
wrong with bringing back “incl.” – usage carefully defined
– for such situations (mine, not Richard’s – i.e., where the
missing letterpress pages are exactly supplied by the plates)? It would
always require an explanatory note, but it would allow a concise and clear
statement of the situation in the “statement of text” (or whatever
“the first part of the statement of extent” ends up being called).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>I’ll be away for the next two
and a half weeks, with no access to e-mail (or highly intermittent at best), so
I won’t be able to respond to further comments until early April.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>John Lancaster (<a
href="mailto:jlancaster@amherst.edu">jlancaster@amherst.edu</a>)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>P.O. Box 775<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>Williamsburg, MA 01096-0775<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'>413-268-7679</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Deborah
J. Leslie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#5C4676'>I was a little surprised not to see this addressed in DCRM(B),
because I remember discussing this exact problem in the context of fully
incorporating the 19c and later into the rules. The popularity of lithography,
especially chromolithography, in the 19c means there are lots of books out
there with plates incorporated into the pagination. Now that I think about it,
it may have been discussed at the 2003 DCRMB working conference, but then
forgotten and so never made it into the text. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#5C4676'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#5C4676'>My inclination is opposite of Richard's for a library catalog
record. Not that I wouldn't agonize all over again should I have to catalog
such a volume, but it seems cleaner and more comprehensible to include the
plates in the statement of text*, and make a note specifying which page numbers
are in fact plates. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#5C4676'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#5C4676'>*I think I'll write a separate email on this, but by
"statement of text" I mean the first part of the statement of extent.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#5C4676'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard
Noble<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 17 March, 2009 01:50<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I agonized about this for a
while, then decided that the principle that trumps all is the strictest
possible separation in the treatment of letterpress and plates, the final test
being a proper correlation between the pagination statement and the collational
formula. The printer's method of numbering, and degree of success or failure in
following it, are secondary to the integrity of the structural description.<br>
<br>
It's messy--i.e. you'll need to do some explaining--no matter what you do, but
it always seemed more confusing, and to require more complicated explanation,
if I tried to treat the plates and the letterpress leaves as an integrated
sequence.<br>
<br>
A good example (or ill, depending on whether or not you think this is the
correct approach) is no. 101 in the Malkin catalogue, <i>Dancing by the Book</i>
(in Amherst Coll. special collections GV1643.M36 2003), where the formula
(minus diacritics and with superscripts lowered) is:<br>
<br>
8o: engr. ti. + a4 A-D8 [$4 (-a2,3,4, A4) signed]; 36 leaves, pp. [<i>8</i>]
1-12 17-28 31-34 39-40 49-52 55-56 59-60 63-64 74-77 80-81 84-85 94-103 108-111
<i>112-113</i> [=64] + plates, ff. [<i>6</i>], pp. [<i>58</i>]<br>
<br>
Of this it is noted, "The first part consists of the engraved title page
followed by a letterpress text into which 35 leaves of numbered engraved plates
have been inserted. The gaps in the letterpress page count allow for these
numbered plates, though the result is not perfect ...", followed by a
couple of yards of discursive goose chase through the vagaries of numbering and
occasionally misnumbering plates to fit into letterpress gaps. I think it's
much better to reserve such crankiness for the notes and keep the formula
clean: 72 pages ([64] + <i>8</i>) = 36 leaves of letterpress, with just this
gappy pagination. The letterpress is quite simple, and it helps immensely to
establish that up front as the background to the more complicated story of the
plates.<br>
<br>
It's quite possible that a case where the numberings line up properly would fit
well enough into a single pagination register, but I prefer to have a good
general rule that can handle the harder cases and still not make too much of a
mess of the simpler ones. The dance books demanded a lot of this sort of
extrapolation from WWBD ("What Would Bowers Do"), since Bowers never
dealt with books of this sort; but I think that Bowers had it right about
making plates and letterpress stand in opposite corners. (If I had it to do
over again, the Malkin catalogue rule of thumb would have been "What Would
Allan Stevenson Do", since the best model would have been his volume of
the Hunt catalogue.)<br>
<br>
In the case cited, that would mean: pp. [i-iv] ix-xii, to be described as a
4-leaf gathering with a non-letterpress bifolium inserted between leaves 2 and
3 and counted by the printer as pp. [v-viii], 'cause that's what it is. That
reflects the fastidiousness of an obsessive bibliographer. Recalling that we
librarians have only just begun treating an engraved title page as a plate, I
suppose there might be some dissent among my colleagues.<br>
<br>
<tt><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN
HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY</span></tt><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'><br>
<tt>PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : <a
href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</a> </tt><br>
<br>
</span>At 3/16/2009 07:04 PM, John Lancaster wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I have a 19<sup>th</sup>-century book in which there are two
leaves of engraved plates that are clearly not part of the letterpress sheets
(paper is completely different in color, thickness, and texture), but that are
included in the pagination. I can find no guidance in DCRM(B) for the
correct way to record this (any solution will require a note in addition to the
pagination and illustration statement), and welcome any thoughts on both the
specifics and the general issue. I’m sure there are other examples
out there.<br>
<br>
The details are: The first gathering in the book is a normal gathering of
4 leaves letterpress, with the two (conjugate) leaves of plates (one an
engraved title page) nested within the letterpress, sewn as a single gathering
of 6 leaves. Most pages are unnumbered, but the paging of the letterpress
ends: ix, x, xi, xii. A new gathering begins with page 1 of the text, and
the rest of the book is unremarkable.<br>
<br>
Many thanks.<br>
<br>
--<br>
John Lancaster (<a href="mailto:jlancaster@amherst.edu">jlancaster@amherst.edu</a>)<br>
P.O. Box 775<br>
Williamsburg, MA 01096-0775<br>
413-268-7679<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>