University of Virginia Library

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

it is difficult to obtain precise figures, sometimes two issues of a book differ so greatly in bulk that even approximate figures are adequate to distinguish them. For example, two issues of the first printing of O'Neill's The Moon of the Caribbees and Six Other Plays of the Sea (1919) can be distinguished by the paper: one bulks 18 mm. and the other 24 mm. The difference is pronounced enough that, even though the figures are not really precise, one has no difficulty in determining to which issue a particular copy belongs.[83] In this case the figures for total bulk are more immediately useful for identification than the information that the thickness of each sheet of one issue is .160 mm. and of the other .216 mm. Furthermore, if the bulking thickness were reported as .165 mm. for the first and .220 for the second, the figures for total bulk would be necessary to indicate the basis of the calculation. Leaf dimensions and total bulk, therefore, though not actually characteristics of paper itself, serve an important function in a bibliographical description of paper. Also, it is useful to record at this point, for laid paper, the direction of the chainlines in relation to the leaf.

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

sufficient, it cannot now be considered appropriate for a full-scale descriptive bibliography. Instead, the descriptive bibliographer will operate on one of the next two levels: the third, which entails direct measurements with a ruler (distances between chainlines, dimensions of watermarks, and total bulk and dimensions of the leaves); and the fourth, which involves inferences (to establish the dimensions of the sheets), recourse to reference works (to identify the watermarks), and use of a micrometer (to measure the thickness of individual sheets).[85] Beyond this level, two more may be postulated, but the bibliographer will move to them only in unusual cases: the fifth, in which the paper is subjected to one or more laboratory tests; and the sixth, in which the paper, on the basis of these tests, or reference to specimen books, or other research, is traced to an individual manufacturer or mill. The bibliographer who has examined a large number of copies of a given book will be best able to judge whether or not laboratory tests are worth investigating in that particular instance; though bibliographers in the past have been excessively reluctant to avail themselves of such assistance, it would be equally foolish to overestimate the value of laboratory tests for bibliographical work. As a general rule — subject to exceptions in special cases — what one can reasonably expect of a bibliographer in his description of paper is a level of detail equivalent to the fourth level described here.

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]

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:

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

in this direction. Even the technical research into paper deterioration has given some impetus to the historical study of nineteenth-century paper[87] and has caused certain present-day publishers to include in their colophons the results of various paper tests.[88] And Allan Stevenson's work has dramatically demonstrated to bibliographers that the investigation of paper can play a significant role in bibliographical analysis. A bibliographer cannot know just what aspects of paper are going to take on greater importance for analysis in the future but by recording certain basic facts about size, watermarks, thickness, and the like he can help to accumulate the data upon which new discoveries will rest. The descriptive bibliographer is a historian, and one measure of his success is the extent to which he gives paper — like any other element of the book — its rightful place in the total picture.[89]