University of Virginia Library

Collation. This collation is shown to illustrate a problem posed by the pagination here that did not arise with the Bentley edition: there are no running titles or page numbers on the pages that begin new chapters. This fact would be reported in the paragraph on typography, but it also needs to be taken into account in the register of pagination here. For this book, it seems sufficient to insert a parenthetical explanation rather than to enumerate the 61 affected pages, but for another book (particularly from an earlier period and with irregular pagination) the decision might be different. In any case, the sequence "14-390" should not be interrupted 61 times—a procedure that would require the reader to look carefully through the entire series of numbers. If the numbers are to be recorded, they should be brought together in the appended parenthesis.

Contents. Only the end of the contents paragraph is shown here to make the point that advertisements on integral leaves must be reported in this paragraph, because they constitute part of the contents of the sheets. (But advertisements that form a separate gathering and were inserted by the binder are not included in the collation or contents paragraphs but only in the binding description.)

Typography. The section on typographical variation is given here because it raises a different problem from the shifting type in the Bentley edition. Here there is some question whether two 1849 printings in fact occurred, and the uncertainty must be explained (with a cross-reference to the fuller comment at D2.2) so that readers have a basis for judging for themselves the status of copies they examine.

Bindings. Here the heading is in the plural and the paragraph divided into two subsections, since the Harpers made Redburn available in both cloth and paper. The description of the wrappers would conform to the same plan as that of cloth bindings: description of the material (whether paper or some other material, and its style, thickness, and color) would be followed by an account of the front cover, the spine, the back cover, and the edges (and, when there is printing on them, the inside covers). Because wrappers are generally of paper and contain a considerable amount of printed text, the problems they pose for description are analogous to those offered by dust jackets—see Tanselle 1971(2), which includes sample descriptions (p. 114). The subsection on wrappers would of course identify (by copy number) which copies examined are in wrappers—just as any other feature not identical in all copies is documented by reference to specific copies. I have treated the wrappers here as a variant binding, not as a feature indicative of a separate issue, although one could argue that they represent a discrete (if simultaneous) marketing effort. In an instance of this kind (as opposed to the Bentley situation above), it is a matter of little moment whether or not one introduces the issue classification: to do so would make the arrangement of material under D2.1 somewhat less convenient and would produce no compensating advantage (conceptual or practical). One should in general be conservative in the designation of issues, and when there is no compelling need for the classification it probably should be avoided. For an exposition of the view that such decisions ought to be a matter of reasoned judgment, not of mechanical rule, see Tanselle 1975, esp. pp. 42-56, which also develops a working definition of issue.