University of Virginia Library

I

One of the basic physical attributes of any object is its size, and the dimensions of the sheets of paper used in the production of a book naturally constitute one of the most important characteristics of that paper. Obviously the bibliographer, in order to determine those dimensions, cannot simply measure the sheet directly, since in most cases he has before him a copy of a finished book, in which the dimensions of the sheet have been obscured through folding and perhaps trimming. Specifying the dimensions of the original sheet can come only through the process of analyzing the evidence present in the finished book; even if the bibliographer has access to external documents (such as printers' or publishers' records) which list the size of

the paper, he must still check the accuracy of the documents by examining the physical evidence.

A consideration of the sizes of paper used in books therefore necessarily involves the question of format.[11] As a concept, of course, format has nothing directly to do with size, for it is merely an indication of the number of leaves which result from the folding of a sheet, whatever the size of the sheet. Quarto format means that a sheet has been folded twice to produce four leaves, but the term implies nothing about the dimensions of the sheet or the resulting leaves.[12] The designation of format in a bibliographical description, according to the Greg-Bowers formulary, is the first element in the collation line, not part of the description of paper: format is not one of the properties of paper but represents something done to the paper. However, since the bibliographer can measure directly only the dimensions of a leaf, he must know the format if he is to arrive at the size of the unfolded sheet. There will be many instances in which he has insufficient evidence to establish the format, and in these cases all he can give is the leaf measurement; but whenever the format can be discovered, he should provide an indication of the sheet, as well as the leaf, measurement.

The use of certain characteristics of paper, such as chainlines and watermarks, to assist in determining the format of a book was one of the earliest techniques of bibliographical analysis. William Blades explained the method in the Library in 1889,[13] and further instructions appear in any of the introductory manuals of bibliography, such as those of McKerrow and Esdaile.[14] Many people, even with only a

slight knowledge of bibliography, are acquainted with the well-established rules: vertical chainlines, watermark in the center of the leaf, and large rectangular shape signify folio; horizontal chainlines, watermark centered at the gutter in two leaves, and squarish shape signify quarto; vertical chainlines, watermark at the top edge of the gutter in four leaves, and rectangular shape signify octavo; and so on. It is true that this system will serve to identify the format of the large majority of books printed before the nineteenth century,[15] but there are instances in which it does not apply. For one thing, the procedure assumes that chainlines always run parallel to the shorter dimension of the original sheet and that the principal watermark is placed in the center of one half of the sheet. Actually, it is more accurate to say that chainlines run parallel to the shorter dimension of the mould; sometimes large moulds were used to produce either double-size paper or two sheets side by side, with the result that the half-sheets or individual sheets — though the size of ordinary sheets — had chainlines running in the opposite direction from those in ordinary sheets.[16] Examples of these "turned chainlines," as they have been called, are not uncommon from the late seventeenth century onward, and bibliographers must keep the possibility in mind when determining format. But even though one recognizes turned chainlines, one cannot always be sure whether the original sheet was one of double size (cut in two before printing) or one of two separate sheets produced in the same mould. The pattern of deckle edges would of course settle the question, but for books of this period — before the introduction of publishers' binding — one rarely encounters copies which have not been trimmed down in the course of binding and rebinding, thus destroying the evidence which the deckle edge could provide.[17] When the matter cannot be settled conclusively, the clearest course is to follow Bowers's recommended procedure and use such a phrase as "(4°- forme) 8°" — meaning that the book has most of the characteristics of a quarto but is octavo in the sense that the amount of paper for eight of its leaves was in the mould at one time.[18] As for watermarks, their positions, too, can sometimes vary from the normal;[19] if, therefore, all the evidence except the watermark points to a particular format, the position of the watermark does not necessarily disprove it. Finally, the usual method presupposes the presence of chainlines and watermarks, but some books printed in the late eighteenth century, when the use of wove paper was increasing, do not offer these aids to bibliographers.

In the case of later books, it is not the frequent absence of chainlines and watermarks which causes the chief difficulty in determining format but rather the widespread use of machine-made papers. Before the introduction of paper-making machines early in the nineteenth century, the size of sheets was limited to the size of the mould which one man could pick up; but after the technological revolution, which produced presses that could print larger sheets and machines that could manufacture them, the sizes of sheets used for books showed much greater variety. In addition, any chainlines present in machine-made paper are of no use for analysis since they are not a natural result of the manufacturing process but merely a design impressed upon the paper. Of course, whenever nineteenth- and twentieth-century books have been printed on handmade paper with chainlines, the standard method of analysis can be used just as effectively as for pre-1800 books;[20] but the point is that for the majority of books of these two centuries the traditional procedure is of no help. A modern book, for example, may have the same general shape as an old octavo and may even be gathered in eights, but it may well have been printed on quad sheets, each of which furnished four eight-leaf gatherings, so that the format is 32°. Although the number of leaves in a gathering cannot be taken in the books of any period as an indication

of format, the two figures correspond far less often in post-1800 books than in earlier ones. It has long been recognized that the format of machine-printed books can frequently (perhaps usually) not be determined from physical evidence,[21] and bibliographers from McKerrow to Bowers have recommended that, for modern books, the dimensions of a leaf be substituted in the collation line for a designation of format.[22]

As bibliographers begin to turn their attention to problems of machine-printed books, various new techniques for ascertaining format may be developed. But at present one of the few techniques available is the analysis of the edges of leaves, a technique which presupposes the existence of an untrimmed copy — indeed, an unopened copy, or at least one opened in such a way that it is still possible to tell which leaves were originally joined at the edges. Such conditions, while not common, are more easily found in nineteenth- and twentieth-century books than in earlier ones, since most modern books have been issued in publishers' bindings and, if issued untrimmed, may still remain so. In the case of an untrimmed — and, preferably, unopened — machine-printed book, one can sometimes work out the format by observing the pattern of joined leaves, or of rough edges where joined leaves have been opened. Using this method Oliver L. Steele has shown that the first edition of The Scarlet Letter was printed on double-size sheets, each of which formed two of the eight-leaf quires;[23] the format of the book could thus be described as octavo-form sextodecimo, and the size of the sheet could easily be calculated by multiplying both dimensions of the leaf by four. Steele has also detected in this way the 32° format of Cabell's Jurgen and the 64° format of Cabell's Gallantry and has recorded the patterns of the edges which can be used to recognize half-sheet imposition of eight-leaf quires in these two common formats.[24] One is often not so fortunate, however, in finding untrimmed copies and in working out the format,

even with the aid of imposition diagrams in printers' manuals.[25] When this approach is not successful, one must search for errors or damage which can reveal format. For instance, if the leading and following edges of a forme receive most stress, examination of the locations of in-press type or plate damage may disclose the imposition and thus the format; Steele has used this technique to demonstrate that Glasgow's The Wheel of Life is 32°, with each sheet furnishing two copies of two consecutive eight-leaf gatherings.[26] In addition, such rare occurrences as errors in folding the sheets, creases which marred the sheets before folding, and failure to eliminate imposition figures can serve, when available, to help determine format.[27] But in many cases the format cannot be established, and the bibliographer must then of necessity allow a leaf measurement to stand as a substitute for an indication of format.

For books of all periods, once a format has been determined, the bibliographer is ready to supply the first element in a description of paper — the specification of the size of the sheet. He simply multiplies the dimensions of the leaf the proper number of times to correspond with the format[28] and checks to see whether the resulting dimensions approximate one of the sheet sizes known to have been standard, or at least common, during the period in question. The match can rarely be more than a rough approximation for two reasons: the dimensions of the original sheet can be expected often to be larger than those obtained by multiplying the dimensions of the leaf, since the sheet

may have been trimmed in binding (and, in the case of repeatedly rebound older books, trimmed several times); and paper sizes in use at any time have always exhibited numerous variations from the norms, while the norms themselves have shifted from period to period. Nevertheless, the bibliographer, in his role as historian, should attempt to make some correlation between the size he has calculated and one of the sizes actually available at the time.

Despite the considerable amount of historical research on paper,[29] information about paper sizes in different periods is not easy to come by. The English paper trade, from at least some time in the seventeenth century,[30] has employed a series of names — ranging from "Post" through "Crown" and "Demy" to "Royal" and "Imperial" — to designate sheet sizes, and these names were also common in America[31] until the twentieth century. Apparently some of the names originally referred to watermarks but gradually came to stand for certain relative sizes of sheets, regardless of what watermarks they bore. Although a great many names have been used at various times, there are only seven of primary importance in connection with paper for printing: Foolscap, Post, Crown, Demy, Medium, Royal, and Imperial. However, with the addition of such adjectives as "Super," "Large," "Double," "Extra," and the like, a bewildering array of individual designations has been constructed. While the relation of all these names to each other has remained virtually unchanged over the years, the specific measurements attached to each have varied considerably, and the standard sizes adopted by law or agreement in one period are not always retained unaltered by a later generation.

The whole matter is extremely complex, and it seems unrealistic to require of descriptive bibliographers any great precision in the naming of these sizes. Sometimes the differences between two standard

sizes are small enough that the bibliographer, unsure how much paper has been trimmed off in the copies he has examined, will have no basis for choosing between them; in any case, he cannot always know with certainty the exact dimensions of the sizes available. What seems more reasonable, therefore, is to expect him only to name the general size class to which the sheets he is describing probably belong. It is more meaningful historically to refer to the sheets of a given post-seventeenth-century book as "Crown," if they seem to fall within the range of the sizes which at one time or another have been labeled "Crown," than to attempt to infer the exact measurements of the sheets used, since these inferred measurements may not in fact have been the actual ones. Although many books provide short lists of these English size names, the most useful source for the bibliographer is E. J. Labarre's Dictionary and Encyclopaedia of Paper and Paper-Making (2nd ed., 1952), which contains a long table of names (pp. 252-267), arranged alphabetically and giving the various dimensions which have been attached to each name.[32] For quick reference, the following brief list may prove convenient. It shows the modern standard and the customary range of variation for the seven basic names, as extracted from Labarre's table and his individual entries for these words; the first figures are inches, those in parentheses millimeters:                      

	Standard	Variation
Foolscap	17 x 13.5	15 x 12.75 / 18.5 x 14.5
	(431.8 x 342.9)	(381 x 323.85 / 469.9 x 368.3)
Post	19 x 15	18.75 x 15.25 / 20 x 16
	(482.6 x 381)	(476.25 x 387.35 / 508 x 406.4)
Crown	20 x 15	19 x 15 / 20 x 16.5
	(508 x 381)	(482.6 x 381 / 508 x 419.1)
Demy	22.5 x 17.5	18 x 14.5 / 23 x 18
	(571.5 x 444.5)	(457.2 x 368.3 / 584.2 x 457.2)
Medium	23 x 18	21 x 16.5 / 24 x 19
	(584.2 x 457.2)	(533.4 x 419.1 / 609.6 x 482.6)

       

Royal	25 x 20	22.25 x 18 / 26 x 20
	(635 x 508)	(565.15 x 457.2 / 660.4 x 508)
Imperial	30 x 22	28 x 20.5 / 36 x 24
	(762 x 558.8)	(711.2 x 520.7 / 914.4 x 609.6)

A companion table in Labarre, which may be of even greater initial use to bibliographers, arranges the names in the order of the sizes (pp. 268-272). All the sizes of printing papers recorded in his table are listed below (along with the millimeter equivalents in paren-theses):

• 15 x 12.5 (381 x 317.5) Pott
• 17 x 13.25 (431.8 x 336.55) Foolscap
• 17 x 13.5 (431.8 x 342.9) Large Foolscap
• 18.5 x 14.5 (469.9 x 368.3) Small (or Pinched) Post
• 19 x 15 (482.6 x 381) Post
• 20 x 15 (508 x 381) Crown
• 20 x 16 (508 x 406.4) Copy; Tea Copy
• 20.75 x 14.375 (527.05 x 365.13) Music Demy; Short
• 21 x 14 (533.4 x 355.6) Large Half Royal
• 21 x 16.5 (533.4 x 419.1) Large Post
• 22.5 x 17.5 (571.5 x 444.5) Demy
• 23 x 18 (584.2 x 457.2) Medium
• 23.5 x 19.5 (596.9 x 495.3) Sheet-and-a-half Post
• 24 x 19 (609.6 x 482.6) Small Royal
• 25 x 15 (635 x 381) Double Pott
• 25 x 20 (635 x 508) Royal
• 26.5 x 16.5 (673.1 x 419.1) Double Foolscap
• 26.5 x 22.5 (673.1 x 571.5) Sheet-and-a-half Demy Square
• 27.5 x 20.5 (698.5 x 520.7) Super Royal
• 28 x 21 (711.2 x 533.4) Double Music
• 28 x 23 (711.2 x 584.2) Elephant
• 29 x 19 (736.6 x 482.6) Small Double Post
• 30 x 20 (762 x 508) Double Crown
• 30 x 22 (762 x 558.8) Imperial
• 30 x 25 (762 x 635) Quad Pott
• 30 x 30 (762 x 762) Sheet-and-a-half Demy Double
• Crown
• 30.5 x 19 (774.7 x 482.6) Double Post
• 33 x 17.75 (838.2 x 450.85) Sheet-and-a-half Demy Usual
• 33 x 21 (838.2 x 533.4) Double Large Post

---

40




• 33 x 22 (838.2 x 558.8) Large News
• 34 x 27 (863.6 x 685.8) Quad Foolscap
• 35 x 22.5 (889 x 571.5) Double Demy
• 36 x 23 (914.4 x 584.2) Double Medium
• 38 x 28 (965.2 x 711.2) Double Globe
• 40 x 25 (1016 x 635) Double Royal
• 40 x 27 (1016 x 685.8) Double Elephant
• 40 x 30 (1016 x 762) Quad Crown
• 40 x 32 (1016 x 812.8) Quad Post
• 41 x 27.5 (1041.4 x 698.5) Double Super Royal
• 44 x 30 (1117.6 x 762) Double Imperial
• 45 x 35 (1143 x 889) Quad Demy
• 50 x 40 (1270 x 1016) Quad Royal
• 55 x 31.5 (1397 x 800.1) Double Atlas
• 56 x 38 (1422.4 x 965.2) Quad Globe

The bibliographer who has reason to feel confident that he has determined the exact dimensions of a sheet can, by checking this list, cite a precise name (a basic name with its modifying adjectives).

Although these lists will serve to identify in general terms the sheet sizes of the majority of English and American books since the seventeenth century, they can profitably be supplemented by other tables or sources of information for particular periods. A bibliographer dealing with eighteenth-century books should certainly take advantage of the research of Philip Gaskell and Allan Stevenson, both of whom have worked out tables for that period.[33] At other times one can utilize specimen books which reflect the standard practices of a period. For instance, the book of paper samples issued in 1855 by T. H. Saunders of London gives 151 specimen sheets of handmade, machine-made, and special papers, along with a table of contents providing the name for the size of each sample.[34] Modern American paper, following the standardization codified in 1923 by the National Bureau of Standards (and revised in 1932), is not referred to by the traditional English names but simply by the dimensions of the standard

sheets (millimeters are given here in parentheses):

• 29 x 26 (736.6 x 660.4) 44 x 33 (1117.6 x 838.2)
• 32 x 22 (812.8 x 558.8) 44 x 34 (1117.6 x 863.6)
• 35 x 22.5 (889 x 571.5) 45 x 35 (1143 x 889)
• 36 x 24 (914.4 x 609.6) 46 x 33 (1168.4 x 838.2)
• 38 x 25 (965.2 x 635) 48 x 36 (1219.2 x 914.4)
• 39 x 26 (990.6 x 660.4) 50 x 38 (1270 x 965.2)
• 40 x 26 (1016 x 660.4) 51 x 41 (1295.4 x 1041.4)
• 41 x 30.5 (1041.4 x 774.7) 52 x 29 (1320.8 x 736.6)
• 42 x 28 (1066.8 x 711.2) 56 x 42 (1422.4 x 1066.8)
• 44 x 28 (1117.6 x 711.2) 56 x 44 (1422.4 x 1117.6)
• 44 x 32 (1117.6 x 812.8) 64 x 44 (1625.6 x 1117.6)

Foreign paper sizes, though different from the English and American in dimensions and names, are roughly parallel to them, and introductory information on the foreign systems is available in Labarre (pp. 251-252, 282-290) and in Stevenson's table. For books issued during the first two centuries of printing, when paper sizes were less standardized and names had not become attached to particular sizes, the bibliographer can do little more in describing a given book than report the inferred sheet-dimensions of the largest copy known; but in addition he may wish to survey other bibliographies and bibliographical studies[35] in order to gain some idea of the sizes prevalent at the time and make some comparative comment. Sometimes an estimate of a sheet size can be made on the basis of the size of the type page and the inner margin[36] or on the basis of the location of the tranchefiles, which often appear as chainlines traversing a sheet of paper roughly six or seven millimeters from each end. Regardless of the period, the lengths to which the bibliographer is obliged to go in attempting to establish actual sheet sizes depends on the individual situation — the condition of the books he is describing (whether or not they are uncut or are thought to be only slightly trimmed), taken in conjunction with the characteristics of the period involved (whether or not paper sizes were standardized or at least fairly regular). When these factors allow the possibility of accuracy in naming the sheet size, the bibliographer ought to do whatever research is necessary to achieve that accuracy; but when, as is more often the case, these factors permit only a rough approximation in specifying the sheet size, the bibliographer can simply refer to such lists as those provided here.

Once the original sheet size is ascertained, either precisely or approximately, the bibliographer has to decide how to enter the information in his description. Since minimum sheet-dimensions can be calculated on the basis of direct measurement of the leaves and since any indication of the original name or size of a sheet is generally an inference based on that direct measurement, the description should emphasize the former (which constitutes demonstrable evidence) rather than the latter (which usually constitutes speculation). An economical way of achieving this emphasis is to begin the description with the demonstrable measurement (the longer dimension preceding the shorter), followed in parentheses by the speculated name or dimensions of the original sheet. When an uncut copy is available for examination, the calculated dimensions and the original dimensions coincide, and the figures can be given without qualification; but when trimmed, or possibly trimmed, copies are the only ones available, the measurements based on the largest examined copy must be prefixed with "at least," or some equivalent phrase, and the inferred name or size with "probably":

• 25 x 20 (Royal) . . .
• 24.5 x 19.5 (a variety of Royal) . . .
• at least 24.5 x 19.5 (probably Royal) . . .
• at least 24.5 x 19.5 (probably Royal, 25 x 20) . . .
• at least 26 x 19.75 (probably a variety of Royal, 26 x 20) . . .
• at least 31 x 21.75 (probably 32 x 22) . . .

Thus the first two examples are based on uncut copies, and the figures can be taken as proved facts; in the first instance the dimensions are exactly those of the standard Royal sheet, but in the second — as the phrase "a variety of Royal" makes clear — they fall within the range historically covered by the name "Royal." The third example, based on a trimmed copy, gives the minimum sheet-dimensions (signaled by "at least"), based on the maximum known leaf-dimensions; since these figures come close to the standard for Royal, one can then add the speculation "probably Royal." If there is additional evidence for judging the amount cut off, one may wish to include a specific estimate of the dimensions, as in the next two examples. The last illustration represents a trimmed modern American book, with the probable standard sheet size given only in figures and not named. This arrangement of the information not only emphasizes what is factual and subordinates what is conjectural but also provides a standardized form applicable to all circumstances — for whenever a regular or probable size cannot be postulated, as often with early books, the parenthetical comment can simply be eliminated. It goes without saying that, when format itself cannot be established and the leaf-measurement replaces the format abbreviation in the collation line, nothing need be said about size in the paragraph on paper.

Two further problems in the specification of size should be commented on: the degree of accuracy required and the system of measurement to be employed. Questions of accuracy are part of the whole matter of tolerances,[37] but in general it can be said that one should follow Bowers's recommendation of measuring leaves to the nearest thirty-second of an inch (Principles, p. 431) — or, in the metric system, to the nearest millimeter. In practice, however, only the bibliographer who is intimately acquainted with a particular situation can say just what tolerance is meaningful or appropriate. The presence of deckle edges in an untrimmed copy of a given book may render ridiculous the idea of measuring to the nearest millimeter, though one should attempt, as Bowers suggests, to measure to an imaginary line drawn through the base of the deckle (checking the measurement in several leaves). On the other hand, a situation may arise, in connection with a machine-trimmed book, which requires the bibliographer to take readings to the nearest half-millimeter if he is adequately to distinguish certain states, issues, or impressions.

The question of what system of measurement to use — inches or millimeters — has been discussed in the past[38] with inconclusive results. Although the theoretical advantages of the metric system are obvious, English and American bibliographers are accustomed to measuring in inches, and paper sizes in both countries have traditionally been expressed this way. Despite the weight of tradition, it seems desirable to utilize the same system of measurement throughout a bibliographical description, and the metric system has already become established for certain measurements, particularly those relating to

typography in incunabula (the dimensions of the type page and the size of the type face as reflected in the measurement of twenty lines). Furthermore, it has been recommended for the typography of all periods,[39] and whatever system is adopted for type measurements should certainly be employed for paper measurements also, to facilitate the comparison of type-page size with leaf size. The DIN system of standardized paper sizes, based on the metric system, has been adopted by many countries, and in 1959 the British Standards Institution endorsed it as an alternative to the traditional British system.[40] There is no question but that, in the field of paper as in most other fields, the general trend in measurement is increasingly toward the metric system. In the light of these considerations, as well as of the inherent convenience of the millimeter as a unit, the bibliographer would be well advised to adopt the metric system.[41] For this reason, the lists given above provide metric equivalents for the usual inch-sizes of paper (1” = 25.4 mm.); if the bibliographer feels awkward in mixing the traditional names with millimeters, he can always include both sets of figures: Inserting the inch measurements should eliminate any objection to the historical inappropriateness of associating the metric system with the size names; and the slight inconvenience of making the adjustment is far outweighed by the advantages gained in the ease with which the figures can be manipulated and compared with others in the description.