held a number of roles during her time at the Folger, including Editor of The Collation (2011–2015). She is the author of Studying Early Printed Books 1450-1800: A Practical Guide, co-editor of PBSA (The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America) and occasionally still writes a blog and newsletter, which can be found from her website. — View all posts by Sarah Werner
Stay connected
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Comments
Excellent questions! One of the hardest things about cataloging (in my opinion) is the mental anguish of having to leave some things out of the description. If you catalog ten books a month with as much detail as possible rather than fifty books a month with a reasonable amount of detail, you’ll be left with forty books that scholars can’t get access to at all.
We’re gradually putting cataloging policy on Folgerpedia so that researchers will have an idea what they can expect in newly-created records (and in older ones that have been enhanced). In a nutshell, though, we start with the Folger’s mission “to advance understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare’s writings and the culture of the early modern world.” It would be great if we had the resources to note all booksellers’ notations, but we don’t, so catalogers only routinely note the presence of early modern prices (“the culture of the early modern world”). Shakespeare is the exception: an “understanding…of Shakespeare’s writings” includes understanding the market for those writings right up to the present day.
Thanks, Erin. I really wasn’t advocating that these marks have to be included in cataloging—it would slow the process down to a crawl, which wouldn’t serve anyone’s needs. I am interested in the ways it reveals the scholarly and library worlds’ understanding of what marks are significant and for what reasons. And it’s not just catalogers who skip over these marks. My sense, from years of teaching students to examine books closely for signs of user interaction, is that even with those explicit instructions to LOOK AT books, these types of marks often don’t register. What does that tell us about how these books are used today and what uses libraries enable? (I do think posting a cataloging policy on Folgerpedia is a great idea!)
Good questions. I have actually had some discussions on this topic recently in regards to whether or not to transcribe such marks/notations by later booksellers, librarians, etc. for the manuscripts we are transcribing and encoding for EMMO. We are experimenting with using a specific tag for added notes like these to differentiate them from the original text of the manuscripts but still include them in case someone is interested in these notations at some point in the future.
Another reason it’s easy to skip over dealers’ pencil annotations is that they can be, quite literally, cryptic. If you see “bought of Mr. Waller 24 Nov. for 12/” it registers as memorable information (http://hamnet.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=133271 in case you were wondering). But a few random letters? Or a pattern of lines and dots? The codes that canny antiquarian booksellers use to disguise when they purchased something and for how much register as white noise.
I am for a bibliographic field called Provenance.
Put everything you find about the owners of this copy of the work of author/title/subjects/publishers/places X in that field.
No thinking (the cataloguer’s worst vice – disguised as virtue). Just jot the stuff down there 😉
Comments
Excellent questions! One of the hardest things about cataloging (in my opinion) is the mental anguish of having to leave some things out of the description. If you catalog ten books a month with as much detail as possible rather than fifty books a month with a reasonable amount of detail, you’ll be left with forty books that scholars can’t get access to at all.
We’re gradually putting cataloging policy on Folgerpedia so that researchers will have an idea what they can expect in newly-created records (and in older ones that have been enhanced). In a nutshell, though, we start with the Folger’s mission “to advance understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare’s writings and the culture of the early modern world.” It would be great if we had the resources to note all booksellers’ notations, but we don’t, so catalogers only routinely note the presence of early modern prices (“the culture of the early modern world”). Shakespeare is the exception: an “understanding…of Shakespeare’s writings” includes understanding the market for those writings right up to the present day.
Erin Blake — October 7, 2014
Thanks, Erin. I really wasn’t advocating that these marks have to be included in cataloging—it would slow the process down to a crawl, which wouldn’t serve anyone’s needs. I am interested in the ways it reveals the scholarly and library worlds’ understanding of what marks are significant and for what reasons. And it’s not just catalogers who skip over these marks. My sense, from years of teaching students to examine books closely for signs of user interaction, is that even with those explicit instructions to LOOK AT books, these types of marks often don’t register. What does that tell us about how these books are used today and what uses libraries enable? (I do think posting a cataloging policy on Folgerpedia is a great idea!)
Sarah Werner — October 8, 2014
The one thing we can be certain of is that these pencilled inscriptions weren’t made by Readers!
Richard M. Waugaman — October 7, 2014
Good questions. I have actually had some discussions on this topic recently in regards to whether or not to transcribe such marks/notations by later booksellers, librarians, etc. for the manuscripts we are transcribing and encoding for EMMO. We are experimenting with using a specific tag for added notes like these to differentiate them from the original text of the manuscripts but still include them in case someone is interested in these notations at some point in the future.
Paul Dingman — October 8, 2014
Another reason it’s easy to skip over dealers’ pencil annotations is that they can be, quite literally, cryptic. If you see “bought of Mr. Waller 24 Nov. for 12/” it registers as memorable information (http://hamnet.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=133271 in case you were wondering). But a few random letters? Or a pattern of lines and dots? The codes that canny antiquarian booksellers use to disguise when they purchased something and for how much register as white noise.
Erin Blake — October 8, 2014
I am for a bibliographic field called Provenance.
Put everything you find about the owners of this copy of the work of author/title/subjects/publishers/places X in that field.
No thinking (the cataloguer’s worst vice – disguised as virtue). Just jot the stuff down there 😉
kneistonie — October 24, 2014