[DCRM-L] almanac dating and fixed fields

[JOHN LANCASTER]

I’m afraid I don’t see any rationale in the STC statement - just a statement of practice, which has no particular value or authority beyond STC, any more than modern practice with regard to modern books.  And it states clearly that “printing usually took place during the preceding autumn”.

The majority of the STC entries with alternative dates (many of which have been incorrectly entered in ESTC as “[i.e. <date>]”) are in fact records of colophon dates that differ from the title-page dates, which are entered in STC within, as the introduction calls them, “round brackets”.  These should not be confused with corrections, which I believe (impressionistically; I haven’t tried to count) are mostly providing a later date than that in the imprint, i.e. for reissues or concealed reprintings.

John Lancaster


On Jul 11, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu> wrote:

> To clarify: STC does not correct the imprint date for almanacs, although it does for other inaccurate imprint dates, and thought a discussion on their rationale would be instructive. 
> 
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 11:55 AM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] almanac dating and fixed fields
> 
> Here's what STC (2nd ed.) says about it (v. 1, p. 15): 
> 
> "The year for which the almanacks were calculated ordinarily serves both as title and as imprint date. Though printing usually took place during the preceding autumn, such imprint or colophon dates as do occur are generally the same as the year of calculation. Where differences have been observed, they are noted, e.g. 443.7 [in which the colophon is dated the preceding year than the title page]"  
> 
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of JOHN LANCASTER
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:37 PM
> To: DCRM Revision List
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] almanac dating and fixed fields
> 
> In every case I’m aware of from the 18th century, where there is documentation in the form of advertisements or inscriptions with a date of purchase, almanacs were available for sale (and thus I would argue, published) in the year preceding that for which they were designed.  I would need clear evidence that publication was delayed until the year of use to accept that as a publication date.  Almanacs printed by the Bowyers were usually printed several months before the year’s end, sometimes even as early as August.  It’s hard to imagine that they would be embargoed until January 1.
> 
> Just because we ignore such evidence in modern books (because it’s easier to do so?) doesn’t make it correct.
> 
> John Lancaster
> 
>