| ||
IV
All of these characteristics, which constitute the main part of a bibliographical description of paper, have to do with the sheet, not the leaf — that is, they are characteristics of the paper itself, not of the paper as it happens to be folded in a particular book (though some of them obviously must be inferred from the paper as folded). But at the end of the description two characteristics of the leaf — or the paper as it appears in the finished book — ought to be appended: the dimensions of the leaf[81] and the total bulk of the leaves.[82] These figures are important, first of all, because they represent direct measurements and thus serve as documentation for some of the inferences presented earlier in the description. In addition, being directly observable, they are sometimes of more immediate assistance to users of a bibliography than such figures as those for the dimensions and thickness of the sheet. Even for a book published before the time of edition binding, every copy of which may exhibit a different leaf size, a report of the leaf dimensions of the largest known copy is helpful, both to support the inference about sheet size and to serve as a conveniently usable standard of comparison. As for bulk, even though
The kinds of detail and the accuracy of measurement suggested here represent a somewhat fuller description of paper than is often found in bibliographies but clearly not the most elaborate description possible. Indeed, the procedure recommended here is intended to occupy a middle ground — detailed enough to provide information for identification and for historical study, and yet not so burdensome as to be self-defeating. It may be helpful to think of this procedure as occupying the middle stages in a series of graduated levels.[84] The lowest level, frequently employed in bibliographies in the past, is the simple designation of paper as either laid or wove. A second level, only slightly more detailed, includes a brief indication of any watermarks and perhaps a reference to color and finish. Although there will continue to be situations in which this brief sort of description is
After these characteristics of paper have been ascertained, there remains the problem of how best to record them in a descriptive bibliography. Since so little attention has been given to paper in the past, no accepted practice in this regard has become established. The only tradition which can be said to exist derives from the two major bibliographies which include paragraphs on paper, Gaskell's Baskerville and Stevenson's Hunt catalogue; their record of paper takes the following forms:[86]
Paper: Brownish, poor quality Large Printing Demy laid, watermark fleur-de-lys / IV, size of sheet 21 x 17¼ in.
Paper: Crown, Genoese, with double chains, countermarked IV and
This pattern — the size-name of the paper, followed by a designation of chainlines and marks, with the leaf measurement at the end — is the basis for the sample forms presented below. They are purely hypothetical examples, designed to suggest ways of handling a variety of situations:
paper. Sheets: at least 500 x 376 mm. (probably Crown, 508 x 381); laid, with dolphin mark (Briquet 5873), 35 x 1[23]1 (B4) / 0[23]2 (G3), and countermark 'IV', 10 x 6[13]6 (B1); thickness .244 (B4), bulking .250 (B-P); light gray (Centroid 264). Plates: laid, chainlines 22 mm. apart; thickness .272; light gray. Leaves: at least 376 x 250 (B4); chainlines vertical; total bulk 14 mm.
paper. Sheets (A-D, I-M): wove, unwatermarked; thickness .203 mm. (I1), bulking .207 (I-M); bluish white (Centroid 189); glossy. Sheets (E-H): wove, unwatermarked; thickness .221 (E1), bulking .227; white (263); glossy. Frontispiece: wove, unwatermarked; thickness .279; bluish white; glossy. Leaves: total bulk 20.5 mm.
The first represents a book which is printed on laid watermarked paper and for which the format can be determined; the second represents one which is printed on two kinds of wove unwatermarked paper and for which the format is not known. Various modifications will naturally suggest themselves in particular instances. It is more important, of course, to be concise, unambiguous, and consistent within a given bibliography than to follow uncritically a form prescribed in advance; on the other hand, in the absence of special difficulties, a prescribed form is to be preferred over individual variations, since it leads to greater uniformity among bibliographies in general and thus to greater ease of reference.
The approach to the description of paper suggested here would not, in most cases, involve a great investment of time, nor would the resulting paragraph occupy much space on the printed page. Yet the information amassed in this way — particularly after a large number of bibliographies had recorded such details — would be of incalculable value to the historian of paper and of book production; and a descriptive bibliography cannot be said to have fulfilled its function unless it provides this kind of historical data. In any event, paper is a major ingredient of the printed book, and it is only common sense to expect a description of a book to include some comments on paper. There are signs that more bibliographical attention is now beginning to turn
| ||