
          Early Hort. Lit

-11-

Appendix A

’’BIBLIOGRAPHICAL” DESCRIPTION

The term "bibliography" has various applications, but in this report "bibliographical
details " and "bibliographical data " refer to those features of cataloging that 
describe
the physical entity of the book, rather than its contents.

In general, any book can be identified by two features:  its title and its imprint.
The necessity of correct titles is fully recognized, although it is not always definitely
shown when they are derived from captions, colophons, frontispieces &c.
But many otherwise
excellent bibliographies are inadequate because they omit the name of publisher or
printer. It may not be necessary for modern books, but it is indispensable for many old
ones.  Evelyn's "Kalendarium Hortense" (9th ed., 1699), has two issues of the same place,
date and number of pages, but different publishers; Belon’s "De arboribus coniferis" was
published Paris, 1553, under names of three different printers or publishers. The issues
are probably all alike in text and paging, and equally desirable for references uses; but
they are not identical.  I have therefore emphasized imprint as the most essential character, 
and do not consider any entry complete without the name of the printer or publisher
or both, unless it is clearly shown that it is not found in the book itself.

Collation is not usually important, but should be included in authoritative 
bibliographical
description as an adjunct to the primary features of title and imprint. 
Unnumbered
pages added together in brackets are worthless, though found in some good catalogs.
It is useful to give numbered paging, and signatures for old books that are unpaged. An
example of useful paging is Evelyn's "Kalendarium Hortense" (10th ed,, 1706), having two
issues by the same publisher, but with different paging, the one being a handy 12mo, the
other an appendix to the "Sylva" in folio. Size is generally not bibliographically significant; 
as so many old books have been rebound and trimmed till their centimeter size
is meaningless, and I have ignored it except for folios. Probably "elephants" and the
like should be measured precisely, but very large formats are rare among 16th and 17th
century books. Illustration, in the form of plates, should be accurately recorded, and
frontispieces and title-vignettes are often important.  Woodcuts may be of critical interest, 
as certain series of figures or the work of a certain engraver, may show the 
relation 
of different issues in a sequence of editions. Typography may have a similar use
in identification of early works, but I do not recall any cases in the present list.
        