 | Notes on Recent Work in
Descriptive Bibliography |  |
FORMAT
"The Concept of Format" was published in Studies in
Bibliography, 53
(2000), 67–115. In it I offered a new definition
of format based on the
number of page-units selected to fill
each side of a piece of paper or
parchment of a given size; this formulation makes
the concept applicable
to manuscripts as well as printed matter of all kinds and
periods. A few
years after my essay appeared, B. J.
McMullin provided what he called
"an extended, if somewhat discursive,
footnote" to it: "Some Notes on
Paper and Format," Bibliographical
Society of Australia and New
Zealand
Bulletin, 28.4 (2004), 92–104. He summarizes my
arguments and gives
several illustrative examples, and I appreciate his careful
consideration
of the points I made. I especially like his observation that, in cases
where
the format is uncertain and requires explication, "we should not
agonise
over ascribing a particular notation to the volume." His discussion
does
not require any modification in my essay, but readers will benefit
from
following his line of thinking about specific books.
I do wish, however, to comment on his final paragraph. Since there
are cases where
the designation of format varies according to the bibliog-
rapher's way of
approaching it (as when double-size paper is cut before
printing), he asks, "If
format is an intrinsic characteristic should it ever
be subject to variant
designations, dependent on how it is defined?" He
raises here a basic philosophical
point, which relates to all description. If
we grant that objects do have intrinsic
qualities (as opposed to what we
project onto them), those qualities can only be
apprehended and reported
as filtered through our individual perceptions and
judgments. Every part
of a bibliographical description necessarily involves analysis
and interpre-
tation, and the format statement is no exception. Nor is there reason
to
believe that, by devising a comprehensive concept of format, we might
be
"trying to force discrepant items into a uniform mould." The fact that we
may
not be able (or at least so far have not been able) to determine with
certainty the
format of many nineteenth- and twentieth-century books
does not mean that the
concept has failed. Indeed, a single concept is
necessary to make clear how
situations differ.
The difficulty of determining the format of books printed on unwater-
marked wove
paper (which became increasingly common during the sec-
ond half of the eighteenth
century) has long been recognized, and recent
research on the transitional period
before and after 1800 provides the
major analytical techniques to be
added to those mentioned in my es-
say. McMullin, in
another article ("Watermarks and the Determination
of Format in British Paper,
1794 –circa
1830," Studies in Bibliography,
56
[2003–04], 295–315), shows that format can be established for
hand-
a watermark as a result of a legal requirement. A refund of part of the
paper tax for exported books was available if a date-watermark were eas-
ily visible; thus moulds were constructed with such marks along edges,
usually one or both of the longer edges, sometimes in opposite corners
and sometimes in all four corners, and often with the maker's name as
well. McMullin provides diagrams showing the positions of these marks
in various formats, and by reference to these diagrams (which form a use-
ful supplement to Gaskell's diagrams in A New Introduction to Bibliography
[1972, 1974]) one can determine the format of books printed on such
paper. (A further diagram, showing edgemarks along the shorter sides of
the mould, is given by Carlo Dumontet in "An Unrecorded Position of
Watermarks in Early Nineteenth-Century English Paper," Script & Print,
35 [2011], 111–113.) That the dates in these watermarks must be used with
caution was made clear in an earlier article by Hilton Kelliher ("Early
Dated Watermarks in English Paper: A Cautionary Note," in Essays in Pa-
per Analysis, ed. Stephen Spector [1987], pp. 61–68): some papermakers
did not change the "1794" watermark in later years, and it could happen
that a mark would be postdated.
McMullin also discusses another development of the same
period: the
growing use of machine-made paper. Although he indicates some
ways
of distinguishing machine-made from handmade paper, along with
the
possibility in some instances of identifying format by examining the
pat-
tern of original edges in uncut copies, he notes that the cutting of
paper
in edition-binding eliminates that possibility for most books beginning
in
the 1820s. One clue that remains, however, is the seam marks (that
is, the
imprint left in the paper by the seams joining the ends of the
wire-mesh
conveyor belt that replaced the hand-held mould); and Catherine M. Ro-
driguez has explained how the pattern of occurrences of
these seam marks
can sometimes enable one to learn the format (see "The Use of Web
Seam
Evidence to Determine Format," Bibliographical Society of
Australia and New
Zealand
Bulletin, 28.3 [2004], 122–124).
A few years later, McMullin pursued this point in an
impressive article
that should be read by every bibliographer dealing with
pre-1850 books
printed on machine-made paper ("Machine-Made Paper,
Seam Marks,
and Bibliographical Analysis," The Library, 7th
ser., 9 [2008], 62–88). He
gives a clear description of the process of
producing paper by machine
and the resulting characteristics of the paper (not only
seam marks and
evidence of wire-belt repairs but also a thinning along the original
edges
as a result of slippage of the pulp under the deckle straps). Seam
marks
may be either vertical or horizontal in the leaves of books, or
approxi-
mately so—but sometimes at angles that cause them not to run through
grams). The pattern of occurrences of seam marks in a book, when stud-
ied with the help of these diagrams and the standard imposition diagrams,
can occasionally enable the bibliographer to determine the format—but,
as McMullin cautions, additional evidence is usually needed to make a
conclusive determination (except when a seam mark spans two or three
gatherings). One must remember, in dealing with seam marks, that they
may be present in some, but not all, copies of a gathering and thus that
their pattern of occurrence will vary among the copies of an edition.
(McMullin also discusses a few other analytical uses of seam marks: see
below, under "Paper.")
Another difficulty related to format in books from the later eigh-
teenth and the
early nineteenth century is posed by the increasing use
of eighteenmo (see above,
under "Collation"), which raises the question
of how to tell whether a book gathered
in sixes is duodecimo or eigh-
teenmo. Pamela E. Pryde has
answered it by summarizing three imposi-
tion schemes for duodecimo in sixes and two
for eighteenmo in sixes,
established by drawing information from eight printers'
manuals (plus
Gaskell); and she adds two more for eighteenmo in sixes, with
diagrams
("Determining the Format of British Books of the
Second-Half of the
Eighteenth Century Gathered in Sixes," Bibliographical Society of
Australia
and New Zealand
Bulletin, 23 [1999], 67–77 [cited for a different purpose
in
note 42 of my essay]).
All the imposition diagrams mentioned above supplement those re-
ferred to in note
82 of my essay. The relevant lists in my Introduction
to
Bibliography (2002 revision) are sections 9D6, 9F3–4, 9G6, and
9H5
(pp. 267–268, 291–293, 309–310, and 315, respectively). My Bibliographi-
cal Analysis (2009) briefly summarizes the
primary means for determin-
ing format on pp. 38–39, 47, 53, 57–58, and 100–101
(note 12). Since
format is a basic fact about every book, bibliographers should
employ
all available techniques for trying to discover it; thus the progress that
is
being made in learning how to use the evidence in machine-made paper
is
particularly welcome.
| Notes on Recent Work in
Descriptive Bibliography | |