[DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I’m gratified that John is leaning toward my position, and I wish I could return the favor in full. 

 

One of the revisions in DCRM(B) was to take away the option of putting notes in the statement of extent, for the sake of decluttering that element. For example, you'll see that the option of adding notes about blank pages or leaves (5B3.1) or advertisements (5B5) to the 300‡a is no longer given. I appreciate the clarity of separating statement of extent from notes about the nature or content of the extent. Even if that were not a principle of DCRM(B), it isn't efficient, because with "(incl. plates)" you'd still have to make a note explaining what you meant. 

 

Likewise [Dislikewise?], I have the same dislike of the "[i.e.]" in the 300‡a, except if the last page is unnumbered.  "100 [i.e. 104]" is a formulation that frustrates me I just find it harder to visualize what's going on with the pagination. Nevertheless, that way of representing internal, non-self-correcting  mispaginations is an option in DCRM(B), so it's a matter of institutional/personal choice. 

 

Bon voyage, John; have a great holiday without giving a single thought to plates or statements of text or MARC tags.

__________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
Head of Cataloging 
Folger Shakespeare Library 
201 East Capitol St., S.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20003 
202.675-0369 
djleslie at folger.edu | http://www.folger.edu 

 

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of John Lancaster
Sent: Wednesday, 18 March, 2009 19:21
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates

 

Thanks to Richard and Deborah, who have staked out the two basic positions.

 

What I’d really 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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

--

John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)

P.O. Box 775

Williamsburg, MA 01096-0775

413-268-7679

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:55 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

*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. 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Noble
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March, 2009 01:50
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates

 

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.

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.

A good example (or ill, depending on whether or not you think this is the correct approach) is no. 101 in the Malkin catalogue, Dancing by the Book (in Amherst Coll. special collections GV1643.M36 2003), where the formula (minus diacritics and with superscripts lowered) is:

8o: engr. ti. + a4 A-D8 [$4 (-a2,3,4, A4) signed]; 36 leaves, pp. [8] 1-12 17-28 31-34 39-40 49-52 55-56 59-60 63-64 74-77 80-81 84-85 94-103 108-111 112-113 [=64] + plates, ff. [6], pp. [58]

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] + 8) = 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.

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.)

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.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 

At 3/16/2009    07:04 PM, John Lancaster wrote:

I have a 19th-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.
 
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.
 
Many thanks.
 
--
John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)
P.O. Box 775
Williamsburg, MA 01096-0775
413-268-7679
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090319/a4519724/attachment.htm