[DCRM-L] Pagination includes plates: Extent

Tue May 12 09:43:15 MDT 2009

[This note was stimulated by the discussion, now some time back, that arose from my query about pagination that includes plates.  I hope it does not simply rehash discussion that went on during and after the process of editing DCRM(B) – if so, I apologize.  However, given the range exhibited by the relatively few responses, it seems that the issues are still very much alive.  Since all of them revolve around the question of the statement of extent (300 subfield a) and overlap with one another, I have put my comments into a single post rather than respond separately to each comment, and included (in Arial and in green, for those who can view HTML) the original comments relevant to each of mine.]

I completely agree with Richard that “extent” is a pretty crude descriptive tool, even in DCRM(B) (and more or less the same rules are followed in ESTC, at least with regard to the letterpress leaves, in that all pages must be accounted for, whether blank or printed – it’s too bad that ESTC deals so summarily with non-letterpress material).  [I too am an editor of ESTC, and find all too often that records for reissues or reprintings have different statements of pagination, sometimes even when there is a note linking the records – and I’m referring to cases where I can verify the agreement in pagination by examination of copies.]  And ESTC all too seldom includes a signature collation, let alone a complete pagination formula.  So I’m not sure ESTC is a very good example of a model bibliographical catalogue (leaving aside entirely the differences in records supplied from STC, Wing, NAIP, and the original E[ighteenth Century]STC).

I also agree that a “proper formula” should be provided in a note as part of a good descriptive catalogue record – all the more reason not to clutter up the statement of extent with more details.  Tanselle suggests that a single number, giving the total number of pages regardless of whether or how numbers are printed, is perfectly adequate to indicate the extent of a work for reference purposes in a library catalogue record, which has the advantage of not being misleadingly suggestive of analytical detail – but to start doing that would require a massive re-orientation on the part not only of cataloguers, but of all those who are accustomed to having at least a semblance of physical detail provided.  That is, as a matter of practicality, I don’t think we can do away with indicating last numbered pages in each sequence (and for DCRM(B) cataloguing, adding sequences of  unnumbered pages) in 300 subfield a – at least unless LC issues a decree.

In short, I don’t see how the “statement of extent” in a catalogue record, using the current rules or anything similar, can possibly be manipulated to provide an adequate descriptive formula, which is why a concise summary statement seems preferable, with all details (collational formula and pagination register, as well as all the details about non-letterpress material) provided in notes.

Richard Noble wrote:

[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.

On another aspect of “extent”: 

As someone who catalogues 19th-century books almost as often as earlier ones now, I find a problem with DCRM(B) 5B1.1:

“The statement of extent should account for every leaf in the volume as issued by the publisher, including leaves of text, leaves of plates, and blank leaves. It should not include leaves added as part of the binding or the binding itself.”

Since the endleaves and binding are in fact part of “the volume as issued by the publisher” in many post-1800 books (and not infrequently contain text or illustration), it seems to me the rule should read something like:

“The statement of extent should account for every leaf in the volume as issued by the publisher, including leaves of text, leaves of plates, and blank leaves, other than leaves added as part of the binding or the binding itself.”

And text or illustration on endleaves should be mentioned in a note (or at least the option should be urged; I suppose this is covered by 7B10.4, but a positive suggestion or example would be helpful).

With regard to Deborah’s comments:

“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.”

I’m quite happy to have the content notes (e.g. blanks, ads) removed from the statement of extent – they do clutter the summary.  But a statement with “incl.” is not a content statement; rather it states a relationship among the elements that have to be included in the statement of extent anyway.  “xii, 188 p. (incl. [2] leaves of plates)” is no longer or more cluttered than “[4], ix-xii, 188 p., [2] leaves of plates”, and to my mind gives more useful information.  In either case, a detailed note of explanation is needed.

Finally, a thought or two prompted by Deborah’s note about the two parts of the statement of extent:

“I've twisted my tongue for years trying to use formal language to make distinctions between the two parts that together make up the statement of extent. I'm hoping this community can establish a convention for referring to these two parts, and throw this out as a suggestion. 

*         The "statement of text" = the first sub-element of the statement of extent, comprising the extent of letterpress leaves (or plates, if the book is wholly or primarily plates as in 5B1.4)  

*         The "statement of plates" = second sub-element of the statement of extent, comprising the extent of plates

“It's imperfect, because what's on the letterpress may not be text, but I can't think of anything better. 5B1.4 itself provides a precedent: "If the leaves are all or chiefly non-letterpress, record them as leaves or pages of text  ..."

Although those two phrases fit very well the books of the hand-press period generally, and carry over pretty well for later books (leaving aside the use of the term “letterpress” to designate text [see note below]), I wonder if it might be preferable to characterize the parts as

-- Primary statement of extent (typically text)

-- Secondary statement of extent (typically inserted plates)

with a series of criteria for distinguishing primary from secondary in cases where they are not obvious.

Basically, the statement of extent differentiates between two parts of a book that are typically produced by different processes, or at least in different production streams, and brought together before binding to create the book as a finished entity.  Usually the text part predominates, and usually the secondary part consists of illustrations and is of lesser extent than the text part, but there are many exceptions, and in some cases it may be difficult to decide which part is predominant.

It’s not terribly uncommon, by the way, to find yet a third part, produced in yet another production stream, namely guard sheets with printed text, one preceding each plate.  I don’t know if it’s ever been suggested that these also be included in the statement of extent, though logically it seems to me they should be.  (If the guard leaves are unprinted, they would be just “part of the binding,” like endleaves.)  One could imagine a fourth or fifth component, though I can’t recall ever having seen a book with more than three.

A note on “letterpress”:  Once offset printing enters the picture, it becomes increasingly the case that nothing in a book is printed letterpress, even though the plates may be printed separately and inserted.

And even before that happens, it’s frequently the case that both text and plates are printed letterpress, usually on different paper.

Use of the term “letterpress” seems to be a vestige of earlier iterations (BDRB, DCRB), despite the statement in I.2 extending the scope of DCRM(B) to “printed monographs of any age or type of production.”  I’m not suggesting that the term be eliminated, but perhaps a note in the definition about the change in the post-1800 period would be useful, and some rewording of the relevant sections (e.g. definition of “plate”, and some sections of 5B).

--

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/20090512/0f80eaef/attachment.htm 