[DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates

Mon Mar 30 07:08:58 MDT 2009

[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]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of John LancastersSent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:21 PM
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/20090330/5743920a/attachment.htm 