University of Virginia Library

Victorian Periodicals and Books: Similarities and Differences

Certainly one reason to foster bibliographical study of periodicals is, simply put, that periodicals are more like books than is generally thought, and thus lend themselves to bibliographical analysis in the same ways and for many of the same reasons as books. But descriptive bibliography of Victorian periodicals must rest on a clear understanding of the ways in which periodicals are likely to differ (or not to differ) from books. Overemphasis on ultimately unimportant distinctions has contributed greatly to the relative neglect of periodicals. As John Winterich discovered, periodicals have often been characterized as unlike books, specifically as more ephemeral than books, more collaborative or group-oriented, and less bibliographically complex. Since these assumptions are so firmly entrenched, I will take up each of them in some detail. The main point, however, is this: while to some extent, the first two assumptions (of ephemerality and group-orientation) are correct, they are irrelevant to the question of whether periodicals are appropriate subjects of bibliographical analysis and description. As for the assumption that periodicals are less bibliographically complex than books, it is clear that the opposite is true: periodicals are often more complex, and for that reason demand more rigorous examination than has previously been attempted.

Perhaps the most common misconception about periodicals is that they are invariably ephemeral. The first sentences of Margaret Beetham's essay "Towards a Theory of the Periodical as a Publishing Genre"[11] exemplify this way of thinking:

The concept of the ephemeral periodical can be challenged in several ways, depending on the particular kind of ephemerality one has in mind. It is hardly possible to defend the notion of the contents of any periodical becoming "obsolete"; the historical value of periodicals is unquestionable, and there are any number of scholarly uses to which even the most insignificant-seeming article or advertisement might someday be put.

As for the physical manifestations of periodical "obsolescence," it is important to remember the wide variation that has existed, and still exists, among serial publications. It is true that publishers and readers understand at least some periodicals to be throwaway publications; evidence for this may be provided by the cheap, even shoddy materials from which some serials are manufactured, though inexpensive materials might only indicate that an item was produced by a small press on a limited budget. If in general periodicals tend not to be as sturdy as hardcover books (especially Victorian periodicals, given the acidity of nineteenth-century papers[12]), this aspect can be exaggerated, and leaves out any consideration of periodicals printed on higher-quality paper or encased in bindings other than paper wrappers. Further, while it seems obvious that some periodicals were intended for a longer reading life than others, we are forced to generalize about this point in the absence of hard data. One of the important ways that descriptive bibliography could contribute to our understanding of periodicals would be by recording those visual and physical markers that might indicate the relation between a publication's physical characteristics and the fate intended for it by its publishers. Is it always true, as the Manual for Bibliographical Description suggests, that "Double columns, paper wrappers, price one penny suggests a publication intended to be cast aside" while "Octavo in size, two hundred and fifty pages per number, and selling at six shillings almost certainly designates a quarterly, destined to be bound for the shelves of a gentleman's club or his private library" (5)?

For our purposes, the most important point is that what makes a piece of print suitable for bibliographical analysis is not the literary merit of its contents or its intended or actual physical life span, but the value of the bibliographical information that might be gained from examining it. The fragility of many Victorian periodicals is only relevant in underscoring the need to describe them, in whatever detail their condition permits, before they are gone forever.

It is also commonly held that serials, unlike books, are by nature collaborative; as Brian Aveney explains,

Not all periodicals are "the products of many hands"; many are strongly influenced by their editors, who might also be the primary contributors. But for the sake of argument, we will grant that many periodicals contain the work of multiple writers, who represent a variety of topics and genres. Most descriptive bibliographers share G. T. Tanselle's understanding of bibliography as essentially biographical,[14] which makes it that much harder to understand why so many proceed as if the history of an author's life as a writer is demonstrated only through his or her published books, virtually ignoring the bibliographical details of periodical publications in which a given author is but one of many contributors. A focus on a single author in no way rules out periodical contributions, which have the advantage of providing special insight into the contemporary context of a writer's work. The relevant considerations are time, space, and the bibliographer's particular interests; and with these in mind, one might still discover circumstances that warrant the expansion of author bibliographies to include single numbers of periodicals to which the author contributed; one might even consider descriptive bibliographies devoted exclusively to an author's periodical contributions (an especially attractive project for authors who published serialized fiction). Nor does the popularity of author bibliographies prevent bibliographers from constructing other kinds of bibliographies, among which could be a descriptive bibliography of a periodical run. Such bibliographical studies might be especially useful in the exploration of the concept of the social text. As Jerome McGann reminds us (most notably in A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism [1983]), literary and other texts always "enter general society through the mediation of complex publishing and academic institutions" (121). Descriptive bibliography offers a way of exploring and documenting the visual and physical results of such mediations, one of the most important of which for Victorian writers was the periodical.[15]

The final and most damaging assumption about periodicals, that of their relative bibliographical simplicity, is easy to unseat. Scott Bennett complained about this misconception in 1978:

Despite information to the contrary, bibliographers and textual critics still seem to believe that the printing history of most periodicals is uncomplicated when compared to that of most books. We do not habitually think of editions of periodicals: whereas books may be reprinted over a number of years, we assume that periodicals are printed only once, in a limited number of identical copies.

In actuality periodicals, like books, can exist in multiple editions, and single editions can contain multiple impressions. William B. Todd's study of the Gentleman's Magazine from 1731 through 1754 demonstrates this point for eighteenth-century periodicals. While similar studies have yet to be completed for periodicals of the nineteenth century, there is no reason to think that they will be any less complex. In the "Introduction" to her study of the Household Words office book,[17] Anne Lohrli mentions that "The printed text of Household Words numbers was reproduced on stereotyped plates, copies in addition to those originally issued being printed from the plates as demand warranted" (45). In other words, each number of Household Words may have gone through several impressions, and Lohrli reports several variations within numbers that might provide evidence of a series of printings.[18] Reports of reprintings of Victorian periodicals are actually quite frequent, and further demonstrate the potential for textual as well as other kinds of variation. Victorian printing trade journals carried reports of numbers

hurriedly reprinted to meet unexpected demand, as when the Printing Times and Lithographer reported that Harper's Magazine had "endeavoured to reprint back numbers promptly, but the demand has again and again outrun their expectations" (ns 8 [April 15, 1882]: 83); and in an April 1882 number of Harper's Weekly, a "special notice" informed readers that "several numbers and volumes of the Magazine are out of stock" and would be shipped "as soon after July 1, 1882, as they can be printed" (26, no. 1319 [April 1, 1882]: 207).

Corrections of errors can, in periodicals as well as books, result in variant states. The matter of copyright could cause particular problems for illustrated periodicals, as the Printing Times and Lithographer reported in March 1882:

Of special significance is the tendency for periodicals to correct typographical and other errors in subsequent numbers, or in an errata slip included in the bound volume. The Printing Times and Lithographer made note of one such correction: "The Christian World of the 11th inst. says: — 'Our printers, by the change of one letter, represented us last week stating that the Bishop of Ripon had discarded "garters and apron"; the word should, of course, have been "gaiters"'" ("Printer's Errors," ns 10 (October 15, 1884): 227.

The aggregation in volumes of periodical numbers can result in distinct issues and even editions. The Manual for Bibliographical Description of Periodicals designates three patterns of aggregation: "active aggregation, as when a publisher reissues parts in volume form to sell to a new market; semi-active aggregation, as when a publisher issues a title-page and index to subscribers to enable them to convert parts into permanent volumes; and passive aggregation, when the publisher indicates only by the sequence of volume and/or page numbering that one volume has ended and another begun" (67). The category of "active aggregation" should include reprinting as well as reissuing, and to the category of "semi-active aggregation" I would add the practice of selling cloth cases

to readers who would then take the collected volume to a local bindery. Advertisements often indicate the variety of forms in which a periodical was offered for sale; for example, Macmillan's Magazine (volume XLIII, November 1880 to April 1881, bound in publisher's case), advertises "volumes I. to XLIII., comprising numbers 1 — 258. Handsomely bound in cloth, price 7s 6d. each"; readers could also buy reading cases for monthly numbers or cases for binding volumes themselves.

A new edition can result from a change in the size of a periodical, which might require resetting of earlier numbers so that the volume can be bound. Two such cases were mentioned in The Printing Times in 1873:

And important lessons for bibliographers and textual critics as well, who always need to be aware of the difference that can exist between a number as originally published and the number as it appears in a bound volume.

The international publication of nineteenth-century periodicals almost guaranteed significant physical and textual variation. The contents of a periodical published in more than one country frequently change, both to accommodate copyright restrictions and to serve the interests of a different readership. The British version of Harper's Magazine is a case in point. As the Printing Times and Lithographer reported in 1880,

Some idea of the kinds of changes that might be expected when a British periodical begins United States publication might be gained from comparing the British Strand with its American version, which began publication in January 1891. Frederick Faxon reported a number of differences between the two versions, starting with a change in the date of the American edition.[19] To make up for the time lost in transit from Britain, the wrapper on some American editions was dated a month later (that is, the British October 1891 Strand was dated November for American sales, a practice which continued through 1894). The British Strand for December 1895 (No. 60) followed the British tradition of offering a lengthy and considerably more expensive Christmas number; the American Strand for December 1895 (No. 60) was shortened by nearly 80 pages so that the price would not have to be raised. Other differences in the contents of the two magazines included the omission from the American edition of A. Conan Doyle's Rodney Stone, which was published serially in the British edition for 1896.

Leaving aside irrelevant and inaccurate distinctions made between books and periodicals, there remains one valid and crucial difference between the two forms of publication: books sometimes (but not always) exist in a series, but periodicals always exist in a series (or projected series). That is to say, the bibliographically relevant characteristics of the periodical always derive from the ways in which the periodical differs as a publishing genre from books and other printed materials, and the most important factor in differentiating the two genres is the degree of seriality that they display. It is possible for books to be classified as serials; multivolume reference works, monograph series, and other such publications would fit into this category. But books in series generally present no real challenges to current bibliographical protocol, the reason being the much lesser degree to which certain characteristics of the serial are usually manifested in them.

Instead of thinking in terms of distinct categories of "book" and "periodical," it is better to think in terms of the whole range of printed materials, within which we find some publications that are issued as individual works, and others that are issued in relation to a series of other printed materials that extends over time. This way of thinking best accommodates the tendency of actual printed texts to blur, or even ignore completely, any rigid categories we might attempt to create for them. As the Manual for Bibliographical Description of Serials explains, "seriality . . . consists in the combination of a number of attributes, not all of which will necessarily be present in every type of serial"; for this reason, the Manual's definition of seriality attempts to "say what the serial is rather than what is excluded" (16). I would argue that the bibliographer does not even really need to "say what the serial is" (which is why I am not offering my own definition); rather, we need only to establish the degree to which an item maintains — bibliographically speaking — an

individualized or a corporate identity, and to take the independence or corporateness of the item into account in the process of analysis and description.

Since one of the primary ways in which a serial publication manifests its corporate identity is through temporal markers, most definitions of the periodical place emphasis on its relationship to time. Thus the American National Standard for Periodicals: Format and Arrangement, Z39.1 — 1977 [20] defines a periodical as

The emphasis on continuity, consecutive issue, and frequency of issue also occurs in the definition given in the Manual for the Bibliographical Description of Serials: The effect of the periodical's relationship to time on the process of bibliographical analysis and description is obvious: the bibliographer must seek and record evidence of a periodical's adherence — or intended adherence — to a set timetable of publication. Such evidence would include statements of the volume, number, and date of publication by which each number of the periodical is identified (usually found in several places including the wrapper), as well as explanations of the periodical's timetable of aggregation (that is, an explanation of when volumes begin and end, how many numbers normally are included in each volume, and so on). Of course, volume/number/date statements, as well as statements about aggregation, are no more to be trusted on their own merits than are dates on the title-pages of books; with periodicals, however, dates should be viewed with greater suspicion, since the reader's demand for "timeliness" can tempt the publisher to alter or omit a number's (or a reprint's) actual publication date.

What underlies the periodical's adherence to a predictable timetable of publication ("regular" intervals) is the need to establish consistency, that is, to indicate that separately published items are in fact connected to each other. Equally important in the effort to signify the periodical's corporate identity is consistency in the periodical's "title, format, and general character" (Manual for the Bibliographic Description of Serials [20]). The maintenance of a consistent and easily identifiable format (including wrapper design, size, arrangement of contents, page layout) enables readers to recognize individual numbers as part of the periodical series. Arguably the most effective means of establishing continuity is through a highly stylized wrapper, featuring distinctive typography and illustration that can be repeated from number to number. Wrappers tend to serve multiple purposes, including linking the periodical to the series, announcing the number's particular contents and place in the series, and providing space for advertisements and other text. What this means for the bibliographer is that periodical wrappers, unlike most book bindings, must be compared to the wrappers of other periodicals preceding and following the publication of the number in question, so that the typical design of the series, and variations from it, can be identified. Also, the need to account for the various functions that a particular wrapper design serves will significantly determine how the description is structured.