[DCRB-L] Beta version; counting firms

[Deborah J. Leslie]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:51:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Laurence Creider <lcreider at lib.NMSU.Edu>
To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Comments on beta version (fwd)

I think that the editorial committee has performed its work excellently;
my comments are all fairly minor ones and follow.  
	Larry Creider

DCRM(B) Beta comments

<...> 
4C6.  "Include the number of omitted publishers (or firms) and the
number  of omitted places (if more than one) in the supplied phrase."
When are
partnerships firms?  Or more precisely when is a partnership created
merely for one particular project and when is it more enduring?  Do we
care?  I am worried about how to count some of the early 18th century
English bookseller combines for specific editions or titles.

[DJL] 
 I think a good rule of thumb is how the names are presented in the
imprint. Although a few partnerships were enduring (such as Hitch &
Hawes), most were fluid. We don't need to worry about whether a
partnership is enduring to count it as a firm in the imprint. Here are
some typical 18c English examples:

		London : Printed for Allen and West; J. Mundell and
Company, Edinburgh; and J. & A. Duncan, Glasgow.
 
 There are 3 firms in preceding imprint.
 
		 London : printed for T. Longman, B. Law, C. Dilly, G.G.
and J. Robinsons, R. Baldwin, W. Richardson, W. Otridge and Son, J.
Mathews, W. Goldsmith, S. Hayes, J. Scatcherd, W. Bent, and Vernor and
Hood, 1795.
 
There are 13 firms in preceding imprint.
 
		London : Printed for T. Longman, B. Law, G. G. J. & J.
Robinson, T. Pote, R. Baldwin, F. & C. Rivington, and W. Goldsmith,
1792.

Likewise, there are 7 firms in preceding imprint. 
 
These examples are not surprisingly all from the 1790's, when one sees a
noticeable increase in the number of firm firms, so to speak. In earlier
imprints, even temporary partnerships were typically listed as separate
names. The thing is not to confuse the issue of how to establish the
heading with how to count when cataloging a single work. I never
remember having a problem with this, even though I had to do a lot of it
when working with the ESTC when it was still the 18th-century short
title catalogue. I think a well-chosen example in the rules ought to do
the trick.

Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie at folger.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20040317/8326a1f9/attachment.htm