University of Virginia Library

II

After the specification of the size of the sheet, the next fact to be recorded in a description of paper is an indication of the markings in the sheet — chainlines and watermarks. An adequate accounting of these features involves (1) stating whether the paper is laid or wove and, if laid, measuring the distance between the chainlines;[42] and (2) describing any marks present (watermarks or countermarks), identifying them if possible. All paper before approximately 1756 was "laid" — that is, made in moulds, the bottoms of which consisted of wires parallel to the longer dimension and crossed perpendicularly at wider intervals by heavier chains. After that date, with the introduction of moulds containing a finely woven wire mesh, "wove" paper (which bears no easily discernible crossing lines) was possible, though it did not come into wide use until near the end of the century.[43] Nineteenth- and twentieth-century machine-made paper can also be classified as "laid" or "wove," but the terms in this connection refer only to patterns impressed on the paper, since those patterns are not the result of anything functional in the manufacturing process. In the bibliographical description of pre-1800 books, therefore, it is unnecessary to specify the paper as "laid": any paper not specifically labeled can be assumed to be laid, and those late eighteenth-century instances of wove paper can be explicitly marked "wove." Strictly speaking, the mention of "laid" is superfluous even for later paper, since the indication of the distance between the chainlines makes clear the fact that the paper has a laid pattern; nevertheless, since the laid pattern is no longer predominant, it is probably more sensible in post-1800 books to specify "laid" or "wove" in each instance. For

books of all periods, if there is no watermark, this part of the description is quite simple: it consists either of the single word "wove" or of a phrase such as "laid, chainlines 18 mm. apart."[44] Of course, "unwatermarked" is understood in each case, but it does no harm to add the word "unwatermarked" (or "unmarked") after the words "wove" and "laid."

When a watermark is present, it is the bibliographer's duty to provide as accurate a description of it as possible, following the general procedure which he would use in describing any other kind of pattern[45] — that is, a combination of a verbal statement with a reference to a visual standard. The verbal statement may be expanded or contracted according to the relative accuracy and accessibility of the illustration cited as a standard, but certain minimum information should always be included: a brief indication of the general form of the mark (as "crown" or "bull's head") and a measurement of the maximum height and width of the mark (with the height preceding the width).[46] Allan Stevenson has suggested a convenient system for recording such measurements so that they reveal, at the same time, the distance between the chainlines and the position of the watermark in relation to the chainlines.[47] In this system, whichever dimension of the watermark crosses the chainlines is recorded in brackets, with the distance to the nearest chainline on either side entered on each side of the brackets. Thus the notation "6[28]4" would mean that the mark is 28 mm. wide at its widest point, with one chainline running 6 mm. to the left and another 4 mm. to the right, when the mark is viewed "right side up" and from the mould side of the sheet (the side with the indentations from the chains and wires); and the chainlines would be 38 mm. apart. If a chainline cuts through the watermark, the bracketed measurement can be divided with a vertical stroke at the proper place: thus in "6[13|15]4," the chainlines are 19 mm. apart, and one of them runs through the watermark 13 mm. from one side and 15 mm. from the opposite side. It is frequently unnecessary,

therefore, to specify separately the distance between chainlines, since this system of watermark measurement includes that information and, in addition, shows the relationship between the two measurements: In this example the chainlines are 17 mm. apart, and it would be superfluous to add a phrase explicitly saying so. For machine-made papers, however, the relationship between the laid pattern and the watermark is less important, and it may seem more sensible in some instances — particularly when the watermark appears several times in a sheet in different positions relative to the chainlines — to give the measurements separately: In handmade papers, on the other hand, any difference in the position of a watermark relative to the adjacent chainlines provides significant evidence for bibliographical analysis, and the variation should always be noted:[48] It is also a good idea, for purposes of documentation, to cite after every measurement a leaf (or leaves) which provides an example of the watermark with the specified measurements: Watermarks obviously will be easier to measure in some formats than in others — indeed, when handmade papers are involved, folio is generally the only format in which one can measure the entire watermark at one time. Nevertheless, it is often possible to construct an accurate measurement by piecing together the measurements of the portions of the watermark visible in various leaves; but when too much of the watermark is hidden in the gutter of a tightly bound volume or has been trimmed off in the process of binding, an approximate measurement must be given, preceded by some such notation as "at least" or "about."

Following the verbal description of the watermark should come a parenthetical reference to an illustration of that mark. Such a reference is an important part of the bibliographer's responsibility: it helpfully supplements the verbal description, since some users of a bibliography may require, in particular instances, a more precise idea of the design than can manageably be expressed in words and figures; and it places the mark in a larger historical context through associating it with a published illustration which has been (or can be) cited by other bibliographers under similar circumstances. A number of large compilations of tracings of watermarks have been published; when the bibliographer locates in one of them a tracing which is identical with (or closely resembles) the mark in question, he can enter the name of the work and the tracing number in his description. If no standard collection of tracings seems to include the mark, the bibliographer can provide an illustration in his own section of illustrations (and the parenthetical reference would then be simply to this illustration in the same volume). It is usually preferable in descriptive bibliography, when one is dealing with designs or patterns, to cite whenever possible a separately published standard rather than an illustration provided for the particular occasion. With watermarks, however, the situation is different. Since tracings are inadequate for modern bibliographical analysis of watermarks, a reference to a tracing is less helpful than a reproduction of a good photograph of a watermark. If large collections of photographs of watermarks were available in published form, it would often be unnecessary to provide individual photographs; but since no such reference works exist at present, a bibliographer who furnishes photographs of watermarks, far from creating an unnecessary proliferation, is usefully contributing to the meager published supply. These considerations are not meant to suggest that there is no point in referring to the standard collections of tracings, for they have their uses: they assist in classifying watermarks; they provide approximate representations of a large number of marks; and they furnish leads for additional research. Citations of published tracings are, therefore, still appropriate; but, ideally, reference should also be made to photographs.

To understand why tracings are inadequate — in fact, to make any positive identification of a watermark at all — the descriptive bibliographer must be familiar with the revolutionary techniques which Allan Stevenson has developed for analyzing watermarks. In a series

of brilliant articles beginning in the late 1940's, he demonstrated some of the ways, unrecognized before, in which watermarks can furnish evidence for bibliographical analysis;[49] the monument of the method, his book on The Problem of the Missale speciale (1967), draws all these techniques together and uses them to solve a celebrated problem.[50] As a result of his work, analysis of watermarks is now an established bibliographical tool, and no bibliographer can be said to have examined a book properly without giving its paper the same careful attention which has long been accorded to typographic matters. Stevenson's method stems from the basic discovery that individual watermarks can be positively identified by their "sewing dots." In the mould, the watermark pieces were attached to the wires and chains by means of thin wire thread; at each of the points where the watermark was fastened, this thread formed a small lump which left its mark in the finished paper as if it were part of the design itself. Since only a remote coincidence could result in any two watermarks of the same design being attached to the wires and chains at exactly the same spots with the same relative amounts of thread, examination of the patterns of sewing dots can provide conclusive identification of the mould in which a given piece of paper was produced. Moulds were regularly used in pairs with supposedly identical watermarks,[51] and many pairs, unrelated to each other, contain quite similar designs; but analysis of the sewing dots can distinguish between individual moulds in every instance. Tracings are not detailed enough for this kind of research, whereas photographs[52] — or, preferably, beta-radiographs[53] which reproduce watermarks without reproducing the inked type-impressions over them — can be better for study than the paper itself. Indeed, the future of watermark study lies in radiography, and the student of paper will need to carry with him a Carbon 14 source.

Stevenson has further shown how variant states of individual watermarks can be recognized and employed for such purposes as dating. As a mould was used, some of the threads would loosen or break and allow the watermark to slip or to bend out of shape; and periodically, as this deterioration was noticed, it would be repaired, but the repaired state would not be identical with the original state. Therefore, by examining sewing dots, one can not only identify a watermark but also place any state of it chronologically in relation to another state of the same watermark; in other words, one can distinguish variations which signify separate watermarks from those which merely constitute states of a single watermark. Since the life of a mould in normal use was about a year, and since long runs of paper in a book are more significant for dating than stray remnants which the printer may have had on hand for a considerable time, one is sometimes able, by combining all the evidence, to date a book with remarkable precision — just as Stevenson assigns the Missale to 1473, probably between February and October.

The descriptive bibliographer cannot be expected to consider an extensive investigation of watermarks — of the kind Stevenson performed for the Missale — a routine part of his description of every book. What should be expected is that he be aware of the techniques at his disposal; that he employ them whenever necessary to establish, or assist in establishing, basic facts in the printing and publishing history of a book; and that in every case his ordinary description of paper reveal his awareness of the needs of bibliographers who employ these techniques. For example, providing the measurements of a watermark in addition to a brief verbal description helps in itself to distinguish among similar watermark designs; but if the bibliographer also includes in his figures the relation of the watermark to the chainlines, he is, in brief space and with little additional effort, offering a fact of great potential usefulness to those engaged in paper study.

Since the watermark ordinarily slipped to the right in the mould (to the left on the sheet, viewed from the mould side), observation of the shifting distances between the watermark and the adjacent chainlines can help to establish a sequence of successive states of the watermark.[54] Such evidence must eventually be used in conjunction with that from sewing dots; but since the precise locations of sewing dots cannot be indicated conveniently or accurately in words or numbers and since the locations of the chainlines in relation to the watermarks can be so indicated, the descriptive bibliographer is in a position to supply at least this much initial data about watermark states. The fact that he does not find it necessary, in terms of the book he is describing, to pursue the investigation of the watermark further does not mean that another bibliographer, dealing with a different book which may have been printed on the same paper, will not be greatly assisted by the information. The second bibliographer will no doubt have to look at the paper himself, but the point is that the first man's bibliography served as a guide telling him where he could go to find some paper relevant to his own study. As more bibliographies include this kind of information, the mass of accumulated data will become increasingly useful, and bibliographies will be fulfilling all the more successfully their role as storehouses of information on the bookmaking practices of a given period.

The identification of a watermark, as Stevenson has revealed, involves more than the location of a similar mark in one of the published collections of tracings. But the bibliographer who understands the limitations of such collections will also know how to utilize them intelligently, and providing references to these collections must remain a requirement of any description of a watermark. Stevenson has offered good instruction in this area by explaining how to use Briquet's Les Filigranes in his introduction to the Paper Publications Society's magnificent edition of that work (1968).[55] The bibliographer cannot claim to have done his basic research if he has not attempted to locate any watermark he describes in the relevant published collections. The largest and most famous is Charles M. Briquet's Les Filigranes (1907), with its 16,112 tracings; but since it does not extend beyond 1600 and does not cover Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia, and Britain, the bibliographer must expect to turn to other collections as well and should be familiar with the most important ones. The Paper

Publications Society, founded in Hilversum, Holland, in 1948 by E. J. Labarre, has performed an invaluable service both in fostering the production of new works on watermarks and in reprinting older ones with masterful commentary and annotation. Its edition of Briquet, for example, contains 151 large pages of supplementary material, including many pages of addenda and corrigenda; and the wealth of information available in its main series of volumes, the "Monumenta Chartae Papyraceae Historiam Illustrantia," should not be overlooked by any descriptive bibliographer. Students of English books should in particular know the following works, two of which were issued by the Paper Publications Society (PPS):

• Edward Heawood, "Sources of Early English Paper-Supply," Library, 4th ser., X (1929-30), 282-307, 427-454; "Papers Used in England after 1600," XI (1930-31), 263-299, 466-498; "Further Notes on Paper Used in England after 1600," 5th ser., II (1947-48), 119-149; III (1948-49), 141-142. [567 tracings][56]
• W. A. Churchill, Watermarks in Paper in Holland, England, France, etc., in the XVII and XVIII Centuries and Their Interconnection (1935). [578 tracings]
• Edward Heawood, Watermarks, Mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries (PPS, 1950). [4078 tracings][57]
• Alfred H. Shorter, Paper Mills and Paper Makers in England, 1495-1800 (PPS, 1957). [217 tracings]

But since a large proportion of English books before the seventeenth century were printed on imported papers, the bibliographer of these books must also be acquainted with Briquet; and bibliographers in general should also know the principal foreign collections, at least the ones brought out by the Paper Publications Society — those by Zonghi, Eineder, Uchastkina, Lindt, Tromonin, Bofarull y Sans, and Voorn, and The Nostitz Papers — and a few others such as Midoux-Matton, LeClert, Nicolaï, Piekosinski, Klepikov, and Likhachev.[58] When it is necessary to go beyond these works, a convenient list to consult is E. J. Labarre's A Short Guide to Books on Watermarks (1955),[59] which describes 82 titles.

A bibliographer, finding in one of these books a tracing which corresponds to the watermark in question, enters the name of the author and the serial number of the tracing in his description; if he provides a photograph of his own, his primary reference is to that photograph, with an added note asking the reader to compare certain published tracings:

Since tracings are never exact reproductions, it is unnecessary to use "cf." when the only reference is to one tracing (though it may be prudent to do so).[60] When the match is so inexact that nothing more specific than a whole class of marks can be cited, the "cf." can conveniently be used with the inclusive numbers referring to that class; it can also be employed when two or more individual tracings are cited, as a way of indicating the less exact of them. The brevity and wording of the verbal description are to some extent determined by the citations. If there are no citations of published tracings — either because the watermark is in modern machine-made paper or because, even though earlier, it does not correspond with any located tracing — the verbal description must be more ample than would otherwise be necessary; but if a tracing is cited or a specific photograph is provided, the verbal description can be quite brief. The form of the wording, however, should in all cases conform as much as possible to an accepted standard, so that the same figures will not be called different names by different bibliographers. A. F. Gasparinetti has suggested, to bring about this uniformity, that Briquet's terms (or their equivalents in other languages) be used, even when one is referring to other works.[61] The proposal is sensible, since Briquet's collection is the largest and since the equivalents of his French terms have been provided in several languages both in The Briquet Album and in the 1968 edition of Les Filigranes.[62] Longer verbal descriptions, when required to compensate for the lack of citations, need not be elaborate but should always include quasi-facsimile transcriptions of words or numbers; when the situation warrants, of course, more detailed treatment can be furnished, either as an appendage to the paragraph on paper or in the "Notes" section. Any countermarks or subsidiary marks can be recorded in exactly the same way as the main marks. Stevenson, in the Hunt Catalogue, employs a long equals sign between the description of a main mark and that of a countermark;[63] the device is convenient, but, if one wishes to use words instead, one can simply insert "countermark" ("cornermark," "edgemark") or "countermark reading": This treatment of watermarks, countermarks, and chainlines is not time-consuming and requires little space in the final description; yet it provides essential information for an identification of paper and records facts of potential significance for further bibliographical analysis.