Tanselle Reproductions Scholarship

Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia
Reproductions and Scholarship

Author(s): G. Thomas Tanselle
Source: Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 42 (1989), pp. 25-54
Published by: Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371897
Accessed: 01-10-2015 00:05 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Studies in Bibliography.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and Scholarship
Reproductions
by
G. THOMAS TANSELLE
Parker Winship,reportingin 1913on the activities

oftheJohnCarterBrownLibraryduringtheprecedingyear,
p- said, "A purchasewhichhas had an unexpectedinfluence
upon thedevelopmentoftheLibraryis thatofa mechanical
photographing machine/1 It maybe hardforus nowto imaginehowthe
role of photocopying- once a processforit was readilyavailable-could
everhavebeen "unexpected,"forthepresentacademicworldis a place
thatGore Vidal has withjusticecalled "Xerox-land."1Many,perhaps
most,scholarsin the humanitiestodaywould say thatthe widespread
accessto inexpensivecopyingfacilitieshas transformed- forthebetter-
theirmannerofworking.Somehaveevenbeen heardto nametheXerox
Corporationalongwithtwoor threeinspiringteachersor seminalthink-
ersin theirfieldas thedominantinfluences on thewaytheirown work
has developed.Although few voices have been raisedin complaint,the
adventof cheap photocopying is not an unmixed blessing.One of the
pejorativeimplications of Vidal's phraseis obviouslythatphotocopying
has enabled scholarsincreasingly to pack awayendlessbits of informa-
tion withoutdigestingit. Unquestionablyforsome scholarsthe act of
placingmaterialin a filegivesthema senseofcontrolovertheirsubject
matter;and a bulgingfileofxerographic copiesis likelyto providethem
greatersatisfaction thanthesmallerfileofsupposedlylessreliablehand-
writtenor typewritten notesthatcould havebeen producedin thesame
amountoftime(eventhoughthelatterwould at leasthave necessitated
readingthe material).But therehave alwaysbeen scholarswho do not
knowhowto makeconstructive use oftheiraccumulateddata and others
who clearlydo knowhow: the ubiquityof copyingmachinesdoes not
changethat.In anycase,thedisturbing aspectofXerox-landthatI wish
to addressis quite different, but equallyfundamental:the totallack of
understanding of the natureof documentary evidencethatis exhibited
by most scholars in their use of photocopies.
Even so thoughtful a bibliographicaland historicalscholaras Win-
ship could say in that 1913 report,"The machinedoes accuratelyand
26 STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHY
morequicklywhatthe humancopyisttranscribes withconstantlikeli-

hood oferror."2Winshipwould certainlyhave understoodthatphotog-
raphyis not error-free, but he chose not to weaken his enthusiastic
endorsement of the new machineby mentioninganyof its limitations.
Latercommentators, speakingbothof photocopying a fewpagesand of
microfilming entire books, have usually taken the same line,thoughwe
in
maybe less inclined many instancesto believe that any reservations
had occurredto them. One outspokencritic,however,was William A.
Jackson,who addressedthe BibliographicalSocietyof Americain 1941
on "Some Limitationsof Microfilm/' He began by assertingthatthere
is reallynothingto sayexceptthat"microfilms are microfilms and not
the originalbook or manuscript, and [I could] then down,mycase
sit
beingstated,and allow theimplicationsof thatstatement to be worked
out by each one of you accordingto yourown experience."But, he
added, "I am down forfifteen minutesand so I shall employthe rest
of themin elaboratingthis point."3He was rightthatnothingmore
oughtto need saying;but I, too, shall make some furthercomments,
not because I have an allottednumberof minutesor pages to fillbut
becauseso manypeople behaveas if theydo not understandthe differ-
encesbetweenreproductions and originals.
I shallbe speakingspecifically ofreproductions ofdocuments(manu-
or
script printed sheets or books)containing verbal texts,but the points
I shall makeare of courseapplicable to documentscontainingmusical
or dance-notational textsas well,and theyare further applicableto re-
productions of works of visual art.4
When I use the word "reproduction"
(and, moreloosely,"photocopy,""photofacsimile," and so on), I mean
theproductofanychemicalorelectrostatic processthataimsto represent
withexactness(thoughperhapson an enlargedor diminishedscale) not
onlythetextofa givendocumentbut also thedetailsofitspresentation,
insofaras theycan be duplicatedon a different surface.Sometimes-in
the pastmorethannow- the textof a printeddocumentis resetin the
sametypeface as theoriginaland withspacingand lineationintendedto
imitatetheoriginal,and theresultis calleda "type-facsimile";5 butsuch
a "facsimile"is not a reproduction as heredefinedbecauseit involvesa
new typesetting. Most people, I believe, recognizewhy this kind of
"facsimile"cannotbe regardedas theequivalentoftheoriginal,whereas
theyfrequentlydo not see whythe same is true of photographicand
xerographiccopies.I shouldlike to exploreboth the practicaland the
theoreticalreasonsformaintainingthatreproductions are not substi-
tutesfororiginalsand thenexaminea fewprominent recentinstancesof
confusionon thispoint.
REPRODUCTIONS AND SCHOLARSHIP 27
I
The bulk of thewritingabout microfilms and otherphotocopiesof
and
manuscript printed material (and there is a considerableliterature
ofthesubject)6doesnotallude to thepossibility ofinaccurateor mislead-
ing reproduction. Indeed, what is often stressed is the absolutefidelity
ofphotographic copies.For example,CharlesF. McCombs,in hiswidely
circulatedpamphletThe Photostatin ReferenceWork(firstpublished
in 1920),7speaksof the "unlimitedpossibilities*' of photostatsbecause
of "the advantagesof an absolutelyaccuratecopy" (p. 4), a copy "free
fromerrorsand omissionsto whichthemostcarefulcopyistor typistis at
timesliable" (p. 5). The nextyeartheBibliographicalSocietyofAmerica
devoteda wholeissueofitsPapersto thesubjectof"Photographic Copy-
ing"(thetitleon thecoverlabel,thoughtheprimary topicwasthephoto-
stat),and in thecourseof53 pages8thereare onlytwobriefreferences to
any limitations of photocopies: Henrietta C. Bartlett is as
quoted saying
thatthephotostat "shouldnotbe consideredofequal valuetothestudent
withtheoriginal"(p. 15),and in thediscussionoftheacceptanceofpho-
tostatsin court"Mr.Winshipand othersspokeofthepossibility ofalter-
or
ing fakingphotostatcopies" (p. 50). Otherwise it is all praise,farless
perceptivebibliographically than one would expect in the publication
of a bibliographicalsociety.Thus George Watson Cole (Huntingtori
Library),in his surveyof "valuable and interesting . . . information"
fromthe responsesto a questionnaire,quotes FrederickW. Cook (Ar-
chivesDivision,Commonwealthof Massachusetts) as sayingthat "the
machinemakesno mistakes"(p. 5); AlexanderJ. Wall (New-YorkHis^
toricalSociety)writesin his replythat"photostatreproductions answer
everypurpose for the student ofAmerican history and we bind them the
sameas anypamphlet and treatthem as an originalpublication in their
classification"(p. 10); JamesThayerGerould(PrincetonUniversity Li-
brary)says,"In manycases the photographis more satisfactory forthe
scholar'suse thanthe original"(p. 11); and Cole, in his concludingre-
marks,statesas a factthata photostat"requiresno readingback" to
checkit foraccuracy(p. 16).
Such blind faithin thevirtuesof photography, on the partof those
who should know better,has continued.Keyes D. Metcalfreported
uncritically in 1938,"It is generally concededthatit [microphotography]
will be usedextensively bylibrariansin theplaceoftheoriginalofbooks
and MSS." He added, even more astonishingly, that in photographs
"booksand MSS. whichcould not otherwisebe foundin librarieswill
becomeavailable and may be studiedfroma bibliographicalpointof
view"-and thisstatement (liketheonescitedbyCole earlier)appearedin
thejournaloftheBibliographicalSocietyofAmerica.9 A quarter-century
laterthesamejournal publisheda piece by RichardW. Hale, Jr.,who
tookas hisstarting point"thesimplethoughtthata photographic repro-
ductionof bibliographicalinformation is textuallytrustworthy."10 In
between,Library Trends published an articleby Herman H. Fussier
implyingthatmicrofilm eliminatesthe necessityof seeingtheoriginal:
it "permitsthehistorianin Athens,Georgia,forexample,to haveaccess,
withoutleavingAthens,toan important collectionofmanuscripts in the
at of
BancroftLibrary theUniversity California. The cost is clearlyless
thanthatofgoingto California to consult the originals(unlessthenum-
berofmanuscripts requiredis verylarge)."11 And JamesG. Hodgson,in
an earlypamphleton xerography (which,its subtitlepredicts,"maybe
a tool ofgreatimportanceto libraries"),welcomedthe processbyassert-
ing that"the finalformis a veryexactreproductionof the original."12
There is no needto multiplyexamples,foreveryoneknowsthatsuch
statements abound-thoughit is disturbingto findthatat leastone bib-
liographicalsocietyand severalrare-book librarians(on whomone might
to
expect rely forcarefully considered views on thissubject)have en-
dorsedthecommonbeliefthatphotocopiesdo not lie. The reasonsfor
being suspiciousof reproductions have not gone entirelyunexpressed,
however;and one shouldnotbe surprisedthattheessentialpointswere
made at a meetingof the London BibliographicalSocietyas earlyas
themid-i92os.The March1926numberoftheLibrary,whichprintsthe
papersdeliveredat the December 1925 meetingand a summaryof the
ensuingdiscussion,13 containstwostatements thattogethermakethepri-
mary case againstreproductions and suggesthow copies may appro-
priatelybe used. W. W. Greg, in his paper,said simplythat"no process
but in some measureobscureswhat it reproduces"(p. 321). And the
president oftheSociety,FrederickGeorgeKenyon,said in thediscussion
thatphotographic copies "shouldbe regardednot as substitutes forthe
originals,but as approximations in
onlyhelpful suggesting pointswhich
mustsubsequently be verified"(p. 327). A decadelatertheBibliographi-
cal Societypublished,as the tenthof the Supplementsto its journal,
R. B. Haselden's ScientificAids for the Studyof Manuscripts(1935),
whichwas consideredthe standardtreatment of itssubjectin theyears
thatfollowed.Because thebook is largelyconcernedwiththe examina-
tion of the physicalcharacteristics of manuscripts, it naturallybegins
fromthe premisethatone is studyingthe originals;but Haselden does
sayexplicitly, in his chapteron photography, "No authoritative conclu-
sion regardinga manuscriptcan be based on the examinationof any
knownformof reproductionthereof;the originalmustalwaysbe con-
sulted"(p. 70).
REPRODUCTIONS AND SCHOLARSHIP
2£
Six yearslatercameW. A. Jackson'sforceful paper,mentionedabove,
assertingflatly that"no photograph can take the place of the original"
(p. 287). In the next decade Jerry McDonald's "The Case againstMicro-
filming,"14 although it deals with the filming of business firms'archives
(and partly from the economic of
point view),15 makesmanyofthepoints
thatone would have to make in evaluating the reliabilityof filmfor
scholarlyresearch:McDonald commentson the necessityfor"inspect-
ing" microfilms (by whichhe impliescollationand spot-checking for
legibility,ifnotfullproofreading), thelossof detailin them,the draw-
backsofnotseeingcolorsor embossings, theerrorsproducedbyfluctua-
tionsin theelectriccurrentsuppliedto microfilming machines,and the
distortions produced by variations in the temperature oftheplaceswhere
microfilms are stored.In 1961LaurenceA. Cummings,writingon "Pit-
falls of PhotocopyResearch,"16added to this catalogueof problems:
photographers omitmaterialthroughoversight or the assumptionthat
it could not be significant enough for the customer to wishto pay for;17
picturesmay not be in sharp focus if the leaf photographed does not lie
flator ifadjustments are not made whenthe lens-imagedistanceshifts
becauseof the thickness of thebook beingphotographed; and erasures,
show-through from the reverse side of a leaf, uneven surfaces,and spots
on thepaperor on thelensall can cause photographs to be misleading.18
Cummingsconcludes,"anyseriouseditorialworkbasedon examination
of microfilms, photostats,and otherreproductionswithoutfirst-hand
consulting of the originalmustbe tentative.The cameralens cannot
replace the scholar's eye."The word"editorial"could be omittedfrom
thisstatement, ofcourse,becausetheproblemsenumeratedwouldaffect
anyseriouswork,whethertextualor not.The samepointcould be made
about a 1968commentof FranklinB. Williams,Jr.:"no one questions
theprinciplethatan editormustworkfinallywiththeoriginals."19 For
"an editor"one could substitute"all seriousreaders"-thoughthe idea
that "no one" questionssuch a statement, or even the more limited
originalone, is farfrom beingliterally true (thephrasereallymeans"no
one who has thought the matter through with logicalrigor").Williams
the
has provided best historical survey of the productionoffacsimiles of
pre-1641Englishbooks,20 accompanying it with what he calls a "cau-
tionary"listingof photofacsimiles and indicatingmany instancesof
faultyreproductions, ranging from those based on defectivecopies to
thosethatmistaketype-facsimiles fororiginals.
Mostofthecriticisms ofreproductions, includingsomeof thosejust
cited,havefocusedon specificexamples,and it is worthmentioning sev-
eral of themhereto suggestthe kindsof problemsthatactuallyoccur.
One largeclassofproblemsconsistsof errorsarisingin theplanningor
productionof photocopies.Sometimessuch mistakesare inadvertent,

but at othertimestheyresultfrommisguidedattemptsto be helpfulby
tamperingwiththe images.Instancesof the formerare theomissionof
the dedicationleaf fromthe 1931 CountryLife facsimileof Tusser's
Good Husbandry(reportedbyWilliams)and thatofthelastpageoftext
fromthe Garland facsimileof William Biggs'sNarrative(reportedby
David Vander Meulen). Besides omittingmaterial,reproductions can
also presentmaterialin incorrectorder:Glenn H. Blayneyreports that
the HuntingtonLibrarymicrofilm ofA YorkshireTragedypresentsthe
facingpages B3v/B4rwhereA3v/A4roughtto be (and vice versa)-be^
cause it was made fromphotostats, not directlyfromthe original,and
twoofthephotostats gotswitched.Williamscalls attentionto theuse of
Smeeton'stype-facsimile of Kyd's Solimon and Perseda and Ashbee's
hand-traced facsimileof JackJugeler,ratherthan the originals,as the
bases forFarmer'scollotypefacsimilesof thesetitles;and he notesthat
Farmer'scollotypeof Rastell'sOf Gentylnesand Nobylytereproduces
theBritishLibrarycopywithoutindicatingthatfourleavesin thatcopy
are in type-facsimile,just as the Scholars'Facsimiles& Reprintsseries
includes,withoutnotice,a pen-facsimile titlepage in itsreproduction of
Palladis Tamia. The 1977Arno Pressfacsimileof Donne's Biathanatos
representsa compoundingof errors(discoveredby ErnestW. Sulli-
van II): it reproducesnot the originalbut Hebel's 1930 facsimile(for
the FacsimileText Society),whichin turnincorporatedopaquing (to
eliminateshow-through) thatwipedout morethana hundredpunctua-
tionmarks(someofwhichwerereplacedbypen).21
The intentionalcreationof errorsby opaquing and retouchingis
widespread.Of course,thoseresponsibledo not thinkof themselves as
creating errors;but if a facsimilepurports represent originalas
to an
as
closely possible,any alterationthatremovesdistracting markspresent
in theoriginal(as opposedto thoseintroducedbythecameralensor the
surfaceof thecopyingmachine)producesby definition an error-to say
nothing of the inadvertent erasuresthat often accompanyanycleaning
up. One ofthemostfamousexamplesofwhatopaquingis likelyto lead
to is the 1954 Yale facsimileof the FirstFolio of Shakespeare,which
containsan erratalistin itssecondprintingand somerestoredreadings
in its thirdand which,as FredsonBowersreportedin his thoroughre-
view, containsan enormousnumber of additional errors,especially
erasuresofline-endpunctuation.Colin McKelvie's1976facsimileofthe
ArmaghPublic Librarycopy of Gulliver'sTravels (forScholars'Fac-
similes& Reprints)contains,as Donald Greenehas shown,alterations
thatgo beyonderasuresin the reproductions of pageswithmanuscript
revisionsin whatmaybe Swift'shand: on one pageoftheoriginal,"Red"
and "Green"are enteredside byside in themargin,whereasin the fac-

simile "Red" appears below "Green"; on anotherpage the marginal
words"Horn and Crown"are muchreducedin size fromthe original;
and on a thirda largeblotin theoriginalis replacedbya seemingly hand-
lettered"and" in thefacsimile. twochangesweremadebecause
The first
theleafsizeofthefacsimilewouldnototherwise haveaccommodated the
annotation(and thereare instancesof marginalnotesthatdo not show
up at all); thethirdwas madeon theassumptionthatthe blot was acci-
dental,thoughit wasarguablySwift'swayofdeletingthe"and". Greene
concludes,"It is clearthatwitha littlejudiciousairbrushing and a sharp
pen, and photographic enlargement and reduction, a 'facsimile*can be
made to say the thingthatis not." That facsimiles, like otherprinted
books,can varyfromone printingto anotheris illustratednot onlyby
the Yale Folio but by the Scolar Press reproductionof Pope's 1729
Dunciad Variorum:in the firstprintingof this facsimile(1966) two
superscript footnotelettersare properlypresenton pages 14-15,but in
the second printing(1968) a thoroughcleaningof marginalspotshas
takenaway theseletters.David Vander Meulen has foundstill other
instancesof tamperingin thisfacsimile:the errataleaf is placed in its
conventionalpositionat the end of the book, althoughit occursin a
different locationin theBritishLibrarycopy,whichthefacsimileclaims
to reproduce;threeblankleavesare insertedwithoutcomment,appar-
entlyto markdivisions,wheretheoriginalhas none; and thepagesbear-
ing ornamentsor platesare slightlyenlarged,suggesting thattheymay
havebeen producedbya different process.22
If all suchintentionaland inadvertent departuresfromtheoriginals
constitute one category ofproblemsthatreproductions present,theother
largecategory consists
of those in
instances which reproductions thatcan-
not be called inaccurateare nevertheless misleading. There are many
placesin manuscripts, forexample,thatcannotbe properlyinterpreted
unless the variousinks or pencilsinvolvedcan be distinguishedand
unlessthemarksthathave bled througha sheetfromtheotherside can
be recognizedforwhattheyare. Yet mostreproductions do not offera
broad enoughrangeof gradationin tone to make such discriminations
possible;and frequently thephotographicadjustments necessary to make
thefaintestinscriptions showup cause distortionin theheavierinscrip-
tions.Almosteveryonewho has everused reproductions of manuscripts
is likelyto have misinterpreted themat one pointor another,eitherby
thinkingsomethingis illegiblewhenit is notor by investingsomething
with an unwarrantedsignificance. We should not be surprisedwhen
JerryMcDonald says that "the chiefengineer's'hen scratchings'are
mucheasierto decipherin the originalthantheyare on film"(p. 348),
or when Laurence Cummingsreportsthatwhat he thoughtwere Sir

WalterRalegh'sinitialsin a Renaissancemanuscriptexaminedon film
turnedout to be "a fewrandompen scratches and an interesting pattern
ofwrinkles"(p. 101).
A prominentinstanceof scholarlyworkvitiated(amongotherrea-
sons) by relianceon photocopiesthat exhibitsuch problemsis Hans
WalterGabler'seditionofJoyce'sUlysses.JohnKidd has demonstrated
thattimeaftertimetheerrorsin Gabler'stextcan be explainedbycom-
paringthe publishedfacsimilesin The JamesJoyceArchive(1978-79)
with the originals.Gabler prints"Captain Culler" at a point where
Joyce'sinscriptionon a survivingproofsheet clearlyreads "Captain
Buller", presumablybecause the high-contrast reproductionin The
JamesJoyceArchivemakesa printer'spencil markat this spot look
something likea "C". At anotherpointon a survivingproof,Joycewrote
"cremede la creme"in ink,and at a laterstagethe circumflexes were
changed in blue pencil to grave accents; Gabler does not report the
circumflexes, which in the facsimileare hidden by the heavypencil
marks.Kidd showstheconsiderablesignificance of theseparticularmis-
for
readings interpretation, but even those of less importancedemon-
stratethepointthatfacsimiles can be misleading.It is crucialforstudy-
ingthedevelopment ofJoyce'stextto distinguish twotypesofblack-lead
pencil as well as the colors of both ink and lead markings;but the fac-
similesdo not permitsuch identification, and it is not providedby
Gabler- thoughhe does tryto recorderasuresand inevitablymisses
manyand inventsothers.Kidd concludesthatthe Gabler edition"is a
studynotofJoyce'smanuscripts but of inadequatefacsimiles."23
of
Reproductions printed material can be equallymisleading.Some-
timeslightinkingorwornspotson a printedpagecausetypeimpressions
not to showup at all in reproductions, and suchreproductions can then
give rise to the belief that variants existwhere in fact thereare none.
Williamsmentionsthatthreefacsimilesof the 1597 RichardHI show
no paragraphsignbeginningthe imprintbecausetheyused theDevon-
shire(now Huntington)copy,in whichthe titlepage is wornand the
paragraphsignfaint.Sometimestypeimpressions, like handwriting, are
in
uncleareven theoriginal, and a facsimile interposes yetanother bar-
rierin thewayof interpreting suchambiguousspots.A case in pointis
WilliamBiggs'sNarrative(citedin anotherconnectionabove): thetitle-
page date is unclear(1825 or 1826),particularly so in theNewberryLi-
brarycopyused fortheGarlandfacsimile, in which thevolumeis identi-
fiedas representing an 1825edition.Uncritical users ofthisfacsimilewill
assumethatthe 1825 date has been definitely established and thatthe
indistinctdate on the titlepage probablyreflects a flawin the photog-
raphy,whereasin truththis book is regularlycatalogued(following

Cecil K. Byrd'sA BibliographyofIllinois Imprints,1814-58 [1966]) as
from1826. An even more commonsituationis thatreproductionsof
printedmatterare misleadingbecause the copy chosenis defectiveor
containsvariantsthatmake it a poor representative of an editionas a
whole.Accordingto ErnestSullivan,the Hebel facsimileofBiathanatos
is basedon "a probablyunique and textuallysuspectcopy"; and Frank-
lin Williams discoveredthat the title-pagedate is missingfromthe
Scholars'Facsimiles& Reprintsreproductionof The BeggarsApe be-
cause it was made fromthe BritishLibrarycopy,which is cropped.
Rollo Silverhas reportedthatthe Readex Microprintreproductionof
thefirstEnglishBible printedin Americawasapparentlymade froman
imperfectcopy that does not contain the Congressionalresolutions
authorizingthe printing.And CharlyneDodge describesa photocopy
of Harold Frederic's"Prefaceto a UniformEdition" in In the Sixties
(1897) that failsto show Frederic'sinitialsat the end because it was
madefroma copythathad been printedon a tornsheet:theflapcreated
by the tearwas turnedback duringprintingso thatone of the initials
fellon it and one struckthehole; whenthe flapwas laterput in place,
no initialstherefore appearedon the recto(and one askewinitialwas
on the verso).Withoutseeingthe originalone would have no way of
knowingthatthisphotocopyof the "Preface"does not representa vari-
ant stateor impression.This printingerroris unusual,but thelessonit
teachesappliesto everyuse ofa reproduction.24
n
These examplesshowa fewof thewaysin whicherroneousand mis-
leadingreproductions to imaginea situation
occur.Clearlyit is difficult
so far-fetchedthatit cannotbe seriouslyconsideredas thecause forone
or anotherproblematicphotocopy.Accidentsdo happen,and reproduc-
tionsdo mislead.Everyoneknowsthat; and everyoneknows(though
manypeopleactas iftheydo notknow)thateveryformofreproduction
can lie, by providinga rangeof possibilitiesforinterpretation thatis
different fromtheone offered by the original.What is less well under-
stood is that even if the productionof copies were alwaysaccurately
handledand even ifthe reproductions themselves wereneverdistorted
or misleadingin theirrepresentation of the originals,theywould still
be unsatisfactory.
The recitingofexamplesis actuallyirrelevant, because
even if no one had everfoundany problemin any previousreproduc-
tion,therewould stillbe no reasonto trustreproductions or to let them
serveas substitutesfororiginals.The essentialfactone mustcome back
to is thateveryreproductionis a new document,withcharacteristics of
itsown,and no artifact can be a substituteforanotherartifact. This point

is morewidelyrecognizedin somefieldsthanin others;as faras verbal
compositionsare concerned,many people thinkthat the wordscan
easilybe transferred fromone physicalsurfaceto anotherwithno loss,
because theydo not understandthe role of physicalevidencein inter-
pretingwhat communicationsin fact consistof. Any reproduction,
whetherclearor indistinct, mustbe suspectsimplybecauseit is notthe
ultimatesource: documentarytexts,like all otherartifacts, must be
examinedfirst-hand if one is seriousabout approachingthemas his-
toricalevidence.
Even thosepersonswhohaveshownthemselves in printto be critical
of photocopieshave generallynot alluded to thisunderlying reasonfor
the inadequacyof all reproductions; insteadtheyhave oftensuggested
that copies could indeed replace originalsif only the technologyof
copyingcould be improvedso as to eliminateitspresentdefects(though
how thepossibility oferrorcan everbe eradicatedis hardto see). Frank
Weitenkampf, example,discussingfacsimilesof all kinds,saysthat
for
despitetheadventofphotographic processes"thereis stillsomeneed for
caution in acceptingresults,particularlythose of the earlieryearsof
theseprocesses."25 The last nine wordssuggestthatthe growthof tech-
nology can make reproductions respectable.Weitenkampf s next sen-
tencereinforces the point: "Even someof thelaterones maynot quite
come up to the mark"-in otherwords,a markdoes exist (even if it
has not been reached)at whichcopies can be substitutes fororiginals.
At the end he asserts,"We cannotcarryon certainstudieswithcopies
thatare not 'exact1" (p. 130). He places "exact" in quotationmarks,
recognizingthatno copyreproduceseveryfeatureof the original,and
yethe seemsto believethatcopiescan reacha levelofexactnessadequate
for"certainstudies"-thosestudiesapparentlybeingthe moredemand-
ing ones,whereasless exact copies are seeminglysatisfactory forother
studies.
The samemisunderstanding of thenatureofdocumentary evidence
is shownbyanotherclassofcriticsofreproductions: thosewhocomplain
thatreproductions, particularly microfilms and microfiche, are difficult
to use. Indeed, most people who raise objectionsto photocopiesare
thinkingnot of the accuracyof the reproductionbut of theirown dis-
comfortin sittingin frontof a microfilmor microfiche reader.The
trivialityof thispoint of view would make it scarcelyworth notingif it
werenot fortheprominenceofmanyof thepeople who haveexpressed
such sentiments in recentyears.Their commentssuggestthatthereis
nothingwrong with microfacsimiles exceptthe awkwardness of using
them; but that is enough (since research should presumablybe com-
REPRODUCTIONSAND SCHOLARSHIP 35
fortable)to providegroundsforprotest.The shallowness of thisgeneral

line is wellrepresented a
by 1958 statement of Lawrence S. Thompson's:
it mustalwaysbe remembered thatmicrofacsimileswill alwaystakesecond
placeto thecodexbook,at leastuntilsomegeniusdevelopesa wayforread-
ingthemeverywhere thatbookscan be read:in thesubway, in thebathtub,
in a fishing and thevariousotherplaceswhencereadersare wontto
skiff,
repair.Microfacsimilescan neverprovidethefeels,thesmells,or thegood
bookishdustand dirtthatmadebibliophiles ofmostofus.26
There is no hinthereoftheseriousreasonsforpreferring originalbooks
to photocopiesor of whybibliophilyis important.An almostequally
superficialview of the relationbetweenbook collectingand photo-
copyinghad muchearlierbeen expressedby WillardAusten,librarian
at Cornell:
Forpracticaluse forscholarly purposesthephotostat copyseemsto giveall
thatis desired.It doesnotofcoursesatisfy desire,whichonly
thecollector's
theoriginalcan do,but as originalcopiesare limitedand transportation is
riskyat best,research helpedbythecopiesand thepossessor
is greatly ofthe
originalis nonethepoorerbysharing thesubstancewiththeworld.27
Such a commenttrivializesbothhistoricalresearchand book collecting,
showingno recognition ofhowthe"substance"ofa verbalartifactis con-
nectedto itsphysicalform.Unfortunately theproblemsinherentin this
statement wouldnotbe noticedeventodaybymanypeople.
Over the yearsdiscussionsof photocopying have intermittently ad-
dressedthequestionoftheadmissability ofphotocopiesin courtsoflaw,
and in the processtheyhave exhibitedyetagain a failureto focuson
basic issues.In 1921 bothJohnClementFitzpatrick(of the Libraryof
CongressManuscriptDivision) and JohnS. Greene (of the Photostat
Corporation)statedthatphotostatsare acceptedas evidencein court,
whereasphotographs are not,because (in Fitzpatrick'swords)"nothing
intervenesbetweenthe originaland the photostatprint,whichis not
thecase witha photograph, whichhas the developedplate betweenthe
original and the finishedreproduction"and therefore(in Greene's
words) "it is an easy matter to rearrangea photograph."28 Greenewas
so rashas to saythat"thephotostatprintcannotbe changed,"but there
are now millionsof usersof xerographiccopyingmachineswho would
understand whythatstatement is notthewholetruth.29 JerryMcDonald,
in the courseof his criticaldiscussionof microfilm, says,"The legality
of microfilm is prettywell established,"althoughjudges can decide in
individualcaseswhatis acceptable:"If youencounterone whohashad a
bad experiencewithfilm,he mayrejectit as primaryevidence."All one
can sayis thatanyjudgeswho do acceptreproductions are loweringthe
evidentiary standardsoftheircourts;certainly no reproduction can offer

"primary evidence*' unless the reproduction itselfis the document at
issue.Nor does certificationhelp: Edward Tweedell noted in 1921 that
theCrerarLibraryhad providedmanyphotocopiesin patentcases,"for
whichcertified copiesare furnished"- as ifcertification werewhatgave
themlegalstanding.30 But certificationonly means that the persondoing
the certifying believes the copy to be faithful;if the originalexists,
second-handtestimonyis unnecessary.That courtssometimesaccept
photographicand xerographiccopies should affectno one's thinking
about the appropriateness of reproductions as evidence;the definition
of primaryevidenceoughtto be the same in scholarlyresearchand in
courtsof law, but neitherscholarsnor judges are immunefromlapses
in logic.All the commentsI have quoted here about the legal uses of
photocopiesmisstheessentialpoint:thatphotocopiesare different docu-
mentsfromthe originals.It is ironic that legal procedure,which is
foundedon a criticalapproachto evidenceand whichdoes not tolerate
a confusionofhearsayand primaryevidencewherehumanwitnesses are
concerned,can sometimesfail to recognizethe same confusionwhen
the witnessesare documents.31 That thisconfusiondoes occur in court
is a measureof how deeplyseatedis the beliefin the transferability of
documentary texts from one document to another- a belief that has
probablyintensified withthe increasein the use of copyingmachines,
in spite of the undeniablywide recognitionof the alterationof docu-
mentarytextsthattakesplace in copyingcenterseverywhere.32
Althoughdifferent methodsof reproductionmayofferdifferent op-
portunities for errorand forintentionalalteration,all are alike in pro-
ducingnew documentsthatin one degreeor anotherare not identical
withthedocumentssupposedlybeingcopied. And whetherthosedocu-
mentscontainhandwritten or printedtextsis ofcourseirrelevant. I have
therefore madeno distinctions hereamongthevariouscopyingprocesses
or betweenmanuscriptand printedmaterials.There is one way,how-
ever,in whichprintedmaterialsdo pose a special problem.Nearlyall
suchmaterialswereoriginallyprintedin editionsofmorethana single
copy; and, if morethanone copyof an editionsurvivestoday,anyone
wishingto makea reproduction of thateditionmustdecidewhichcopy
to use. Copies of an edition(thatis, copiesprintedfromthesame type-
setting)cannotbe assumedto be identicalto each otherforthe same
reason that reproductionscannot be assumed to be identical to the
originals:theyareseparatephysicalobjects,separatedocuments.Indeed,
as analyticalbibliographers havebeenshowingfora centuryor so,copies
of printededitionsfromthe fifteenth, sixteenth,and seventeenth cen-
turiescan be expectedto varyas a resultof stop-press alterationsmade
duringthe courseof printing;and copies of later editionsoftenvary

becauseoftheexcisionand substitution ofleavesor entiregatherings and
becauseofchangesmade between pressruns. A reproduction anyone
of
copyof a printeditem represents only thatcopy,not the editionas a
whole; yetboth producersand usersof photofacsimiles of printedma-
terial oftenassume thatthe facsimilecan stand forthe edition.This
problem,to be sure,is notlimitedto reproductions, forthesamepeople
would obviouslynot realizethatin usingan originaltheywould need
to collateit againstothercopies.
Wheneverone needsto talkaboutan entireedition-as in a scholarly
criticaledition,or a descriptivebibliography, or a criticalessay-one
must be aware of the differences among copies of the edition.33If a
published facsimile is to be of service to scholarship,it ought to be
accompaniedby a record of the ways whichthe copyphotographed
in
variesin textfromothercopies.When a reproductionof printedma-
terial does not include such information, one thereforehas further
reasonforbeing cautious,in additionto the reasonsthatapply to all
reproductions. It is in factnot necessary fora photofacsimile of printed
materialto be limitedto thepagesofa singlecopyofan edition,unless
theaim is to reproducea particularcopy.FredsonBowers,whohas given
this question its most thoughtfultreatment, believesthat "the ideal
photographic facsimile- the
containing necessary apparatus-shouldcon-
sistof a collectionof formes from any number of copies,theseformes
beingchosenfirstaccordingto the principle of their textualstate,and
secondaccordingtoclarityand fidelity oftheinking."34 The mostpromi-
nent use of thisapproachthusfaris CharltonHinman's The Norton
Facsimile:The FirstFolio ofShakespeare(1968),in whichthecorrected
stateof each formeis represented.Hinman's apparatusidentifiesthe
copies used, as well as the "substantiveand semisubstantive" variant
readingsof the uncorrected states.Such a reproductiondoes in a sense
represent theeditionas a wholebecauseit drawson evidencepresentin
a largenumberofthesurvivingcopiesand risesabove theidiosyncrasies
of individualcopies,withtheirfortuitous assemblagesof sheets.It is a
of
product scholarship and serves a purposethatno unannotatedfac-
simileofa singlecopy,and indeedno singlecopyin theoriginal,could
serve.As a collectionof photographs, it cannot escape the problems
inherentin all reproductions; but,giventhatlimitation,it showshow
the difficultiespresentedby printededitionscan be responsibly accom-
modatedin a facsimile.
Reproductionsdo have theiruses,as long as one understandswhy
theymustalwaysbe approachedwithcautionand whytheycan never
be thoughtto obviateexaminationoforiginals.35 There is an enormous
difference betweenthe attitudeunderlyingthe carefulproductionof

facsimileeditions,involvingthoroughproofreading and the writingof
notescommentingon potentiallymisleadingspots,36 and the frameof
mind exhibitedby personswho orderphotocopiesand proceedto use
themas the equivalentof the originals,nevermakingany directcom-
parisons.Someof thelargecommercialprojectsforsupplyingextensive
seriesof microfilm, microfiche, or xerographiccopiesare unfortunately
muchnearerto thelatterthantheformer.If one Los Angelescompany,
afterexaminingtheresultsofitsorderforthemicrofilming of2,300,000
documents,had to require the refilming of 35,ooo,37one can imagine
how oftenthe microfilms thatscholarsuse may be defective,forthey
are not alwayssubjectedeven to thekindof inspection(whichpresum-
ably did not includeproofreading) thatthiscompanyundertook.Every
reproduction of a written or printedtext,whetherpreparedby a pub-
lisherforpublicdistribution or byan individualforpersonaluse,should
be proofreadagainstthe originaljust as carefullyas if it werea newly
typesettext,and notesshould be made describingthe originalat those
placeswherethereproduction misrepresents it enoughto cause a reader
to
possibly misinterpret the text.38Even a reproduction ofa manuscript
that is to be used, or published,with an accompanyingtranscription
should be supplementedwithsuch notes,whichin effectexplain how
some of the wordsor punctuationmarksin the transcription werear-
rivedat.
Handled in thisway,reproductions can serveas a usefulstopgap,
untilone can returnto theoriginalsfora finalcheck.They can thusbe
a trueconvenience,whereaswithouttheseprecautionstheirhelpfulness
is illusory.There is no waythatreproductions-regardless of whattech-
is
nology developed in the future39- can ever be the equal of originals
as documentary evidence, for there is no way gettingaroundthe fact
of
thattheyare one step(at least)removedfromthoseoriginals.And there
is no waythattheexistenceofreproductions, howeverhightheirquality,
can justifythe destructionof originals.No one seemsto have trouble
understanding whya reproduction ofa vase cannotreplacetheoriginal
foranyseriousstudy;butmanypeopleapparently failto see thata paper
withwrittenor printedwordson it is also an artifact,containingan
unreproducibleassemblageof clues to its own genesis.40 Originalsare
clearlynecessary forthestudyofthedistribution or publishingofverbal
works;but theyare also essentialforthestudyof thetextscontainedin
thosedistributedobjects,whethermanuscripts or printedbooks. The
wordsthatcometo us fromthepast,transmitted by paperand ink,can-
not be assumedto reflectaccuratelywhat theirauthorsintended;in
orderto assesshow thewordsthatare presentin documentscame to be
there,andindeedto tryto makesurethatwe knowwhatwordsarein

ofall theevidencethatcomeswith
factthere,we mustavailourselves
them.The studyofthepastrequiresartifactsfromthepast;reproduc-
tionsaretheproducts timefromthatoftheoriginals
ofa different they
attempt andtheytherefore
toduplicate, us toa different
transport time.
in
Thattheseconsiderations havenotalwaysbeenunderstood bythose
to whomwe oughtto be able to turnforguidancein suchmatters has
beenrepeatedly demonstrated in recentyears.Forexample, in A Guide
toDocumentary Editing(1987),written byMary-Jo KlinefortheAsso-
ciationforDocumentary Editing, theprincipal discussion oftheuseof
originalsconsists of the following: "Whenever possible,transcriptions
shouldbe perfected against theoriginals oftheirsourcetexts, notmerely
againstphotocopied versions. When this is not feasible, the edition's
introduction shouldmakethisomission clear"(p. 178).41 The second
sentenceis certainly true:readersof an editionshouldalwaysbe in-
formed whena transcription hasnotbeenreadagainsttheoriginal. But
thefirstsentence, a the
prescribingreadingagainst original "Whenever
possible,"failsto conveya senseof theimportance of theprocedure,
suggestingonly that it is desirable,not that itis A fullerstate-
essential.
menton thismatter is a conspicuous lackin a bookthatplacesconsid-
erableemphasis on theuseofphotocopies.42 Nearthebeginning weare
told,"Modern scholarly editing was made a practicalpossibility bytech-
nologicaladvances in one area-photoduplication" (p. 23); and the book
treatsinsomedetailthecollecting andcataloguing ofphotocopies in the
The equivalenceoforiginals
editorialoffice. and copiesis impliedby
suchstatements as this:"The manuscript reliablephotocopy
or a is to
be preferred overanylaterscribalcopiesortranscriptions as the source
text"(p. 82).In thesectionon "Microform Supplements" (i.e.,toletter-
presseditions),thechoicebetweenfilmand ficheis addressed (pp. 70-
71),butnothing is saidabouttheproofreading thatsuchfacsimile pub-
licationsrequire.There is eventheassertion thatthe"fathers of ex-
pandedtranscription," JulianBoydand LymanButterfield, did not
recordin letterpress editionscertainkindsofdetailsfrommanuscript
textsbecausetheyassumed"thatmicroform editionsoftheirprojects'
archiveswouldmakefacsimiles ofthesesourcetextsavailabletoa wide
audience"(p. 128).Perhapstheydid; butsurely somefurther comment
iscalledfor,inanintroductory guide of thissort, explaining onlythe
not
limitationsofmicrofilm butalsothecontribution madebya fullrecord
in print.The term"sourcetext,"ratherthan"sourcedocument/' is
repeatedly used, implying that the text is easilyextractable from the
4© STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHY
artifactthatpreservedit. In the contextof thisbook,the absenceof a

detailed warningabout the problemspresentedby reproductionsis
positivelymisleading.
The treatment of reproductions in thisGuide shouldbe contrasted
withthat in an earlier comparableguide, the 1967 Statementof Edi-
torialPrinciplesof the Center forEditionsof AmericanAuthors.This
Statementinsistsat theoutsetthat"if theeditoris usingphotocopiesof
manuscripts, he mustread his workingcopyagainstthe originalsto be
certainthathe has notmissedchangesor additionsor cancellationsthat
do not showup in photocopy"(p. 2). A fewpageslatera moredetailed
and forcefuldirectiveis issued:
If thecopy-textis manuscript or author-corrected proofs, theeditoror
someonetrainedin readingtheauthor'shandmustpreparetypedworking
copy,normally fromphotocopy. . . . But photocopy is unreliablein that
marginal correctionor additionmay not be included,that lightpencilmay
notshowup clearly, thaterasures in theoriginalwhicharereadableagainst
thelightwill failto showin reproduction, and thatvariations in colordis-
appear. The basicrequirement therefore is that the fullycorrected
typescript,
againsteverything recoverable in the photocopy, must be read againstthe
originalmanuscript at leasttwice.There is some advantage in a second read-
ingat a laterdate;but theeditormaybe able to visitthemanuscript only
once,and will therefore necessarilyperform thisdoublecheckduringthe
courseof hisone visit.If theeditorhas notmadethedoublecheckon his
originalvisitandis dealingwithmanuscripts thatarewidelydispersed, such
a singleeditornamedbythegeneraleditormaytravelto perform
as letters,
thissecondcheckforothereditors, ora competent localscholarmaymakeit.
The nameofthetraveling editoror thelocalscholarshouldbe citedin each
volumewherehishelphasbeenenlisted, (pp.5-6)
Both thesestatementsare repeatedin the revisededitionof 1972 (en-
titledStatementof EditorialPrinciplesand Procedures),withthe first
one expandedto includea warning againstreading"as punctuation in
thephotocopies whatareactually
smudges, or
specks, holesin the manu-
script"(p. 1). The Committee on Scholarly
Editions,whichsucceeded
theCEAA,endorses thesameprocedures and issueda setof"Guiding
Questions"fortestingeditions, includingthe question(quotedhere
fromtheApril1977version), "Wherecopy-text ismanuscript, howhave
thetranscriptionsorcopiesofmanuscriptbeenverifiedagainsttheorigi-
nal?"The CEAA/CSErequirement ofchecking transcriptionsagainst
whichhadthusbeenin effect
originals, fortwenty yearsat thetimeA
Guide to Documentary Editingwas published,is of coursetheout-
ofa
growth longerscholarly tradition.
Againstthisbackground thestate-
mentsaboutphotocopies in the Guideappearparticularly weakand
REPRODUCTIONS AND SCHOLARSHIP
4^
disappointing,and the Guide in thisrespecttakes a large step backward.

Another egregious recent instance of misunderstandingthe nature
of reproductionsis provided by a policy of the Harry Ransom Humani-
ties Research Center of the Universityof Texas. Decherd Turner, a few
months afterhe became its director,proclaimed his views in "An HRC
Decalogue,'1 published in the personal newsletter he had established
(HRC Notes, No. 3, Thanksgiving 1980). The sixthitem in his decalogue
reads in full as follows:
Changingtechnologyraisessome dramaticquestionsforHRC. With the

adventof Xerox and othercheap copyingtechniques,the uniquenessof the
HRC holdingsbecomes threatened.The purpose of the 9 million literary
manuscriptsat HRC has been to gatherin one place materialsnot available
elsewhereas a supportto fullresearch.Such researchat thistimeresultsin the
publication of approximatelysixtybooks per year-with no way of fully
knowinghow manyperiodicalarticles.We will not purchasematerialswhich
have alreadybeen Xeroxed and/or microfilmed. Why should we? If copies
existelsewhere,whyshould we spend the dollarsand the talentto purchase
and classifythem?These technology-instituted issuesare immenselycritical
to HRC.
The patent absurdityof this statementis compounded when one reads
the second item of the decalogue:
HRC has the higheststake in the fieldof conservationof any major
libraryin the world.The preeminenceof our manuscriptcollectionsbrings
with it the preeminentthreatof destruction.Since mostof the manuscript
holdingsare of nineteenth- and twentieth-centuryliterature,we are, in this
library.If the conservationissue is not solved at this
sense,a self-destruct
time,in sixtyyearsa goodlyportionof HRC can be sweptup witha broom
and dustpan.Each day's delay in the establishmentof a full and operative
conservationlaboratoryis a day courtingthedisdain of history.
When one puts thesetwo statementstogether,the incredible incoherence
of the position becomes apparent. If it would be a waste of money to buy
manuscriptmaterials of which "copies exist elsewhere/' then the copies
must be fullythe equal of the originals. In that case, why spend money
on the conservation of the original documents already on hand, when
inexpensive photocopies of them could be made? Indeed, why should
good moneybe spent on originals at all, even virgindocuments that have
never been violated by camera or copying machine? Let other libraries,
foolishenough not to object to materialsthathave been reproduced, buy
the originals; Texas could then forcomparativelylittle money build up
a magnificentcollection of photocopies.43
It is difficultto believe that, once Turner's decalogue was in print,
therewas not enoughforcefuloppositionto thisstandon reproduction

to resultin an alterationof the policy.But the standcontinuedto be
enunciated.In theninthnewsletter, dated31 March1984,one sectionis
entitled"The Copy Machine/'Afterasserting,"Perhapsno develop-
mentlike theXerox copyhas so identified the distinctionsbetweenthe
needsofthelibrarian and those of theprivatecollector/' Turnermakes
hisprincipalpoint:
For theprivatecollector, his loveof his originalletterbyJamesJoyce
is notdiminished by the factthat Xeroxcopiesexist,sinceafterall, the
fifty
collectorhas theoriginal.Forthelibrarian, an entirely different
perspective
prevails.The existence of thecopies,or evenpublicationof theletter, has
fulfilled
thelibrarian's
basicmotivation- theletterhasbeensaved.To spend
institutional
dollarson manuscript materialswhichhavebeencopiedandare
thusavailableis dubiouswisdom.
Turner here places "the librarian"in the unenviablepositionof be-
lievingthattheexistenceofa Xeroxcopyofa document-or a published
textof it!- drainsthe originalof scholarlyvalue. Yet a fewsentences
earlierhe had said,"The objectofa librarian'sdollaris to gatherunique
materialsintoone place forpurposesof research."To insurethatthey
are unique, one must insiston certification that theyhave not been
copied: "Without the
certification, librarian is in seriousjeopardyof
spending resources formaterials which are not unique,thuscallinginto
his
question judgment." But if copies are as good as originals,whatis
thepointofassembling"unique materials"insteadofencouragingtheir
multiplication?44 And if anyoneis everallowed to publishthe textsof
the"unique materials,"was the "librarian'sdollar"well spentafterall?
Does not thisapproachto a researchcollectionlead to a situationin
whichmaterialsare gatheredto be hiddenfromviewratherthanmade
availableforscholarly dissemination?45 Turner'spositionis byno means
representative ofthatofotherspecial-collections librarians;indeed,it is
so extremethatit is perhapsnot takenseriouslyby anyofthem.Yet the
belieffromwhichit springs-thatcopiescan taketheplace oforiginals-
is widespread,and the implicationsof it are frightening, as is the fact
thatevenone directorofa majorlibrarycan hold it.
Fromthe pointof viewof thenumberof people involved,themost
significantrecentinstancesof misunderstanding the relationbetween
copiesand originalshaveoccurredin connectionwiththebook-preserva-
tion movement.The immenseproblemsposed by the deterioration of
booksprintedon acidicpaperin thenineteenth and twentieth centuries
are finallybeing addressedseriouslyby manyinstitutions and individ-
uals,and we mustbe gratefulforthat.But thepublic statements by the
personsactivein thiseffort nearlyalwaysfailto recognizethelimitations

ofphotocopiesas documentary evidence.The debatesoverthe usageof
thetwotermsconservation and preservation at leastcall attentionto two
distinctkindsof activity:operationsintendedto extendthe lifeof the
originalphysicalbook and operationsintendedto transfer the textto a
new physicalobject. In the libraryworldthe treatment of originalsis
increasingly comingto be called conservation, withpreservation used as
thebroadertermthatencompasses the transfer oftexts. One personwho
has been vocal in makingthisdistinctionis Pamela W. Darling,but in
theprocesssheillustrates a commonconfusion."In themuseumworld/'
she says,"whereeveryitem is unique, conservationis- quite properly
in myview-thedominanttermsincephysicalcare is virtuallytheonly
option. Microfilmingthe paintingsor recordingthe appearance of
woven basketson an optical disc and discardingthe originalswould
hardlydo!"46The implicationis thatbooksare different: that,in con-
trastto all otherhuman products,theyare not unique and that,once
theirtextshavebeen copied,nothingis lostby discardingthem.Verbal
worksare indeeddifferent frompaintingsin thattheydo not existon
paper in the waypaintingsexiston canvas,forlanguageis an abstract
medium;but thosewho believethatverbalworkscan simplybe copied
on filmare failingto recognizethecontribution physicalevidencemakes
towardassessingthe reliabilityof a giventextas a representation of a
particular verbal work. In addition, of course, every book is a piece of
evidenceforthestudyofpublishinghistory.47
Preservationis much in the news,and librarianshave frequently
been interviewedon the subject,veryoftenwithunfortunate results.
For example,the Yale AlumniMagazineforSummer1987reportedon
thepreservation programin theYale librariesin theseterms:"The deci-
sionson whatto save and whatto reformat aren'tmade lightly.As an
overallrule,booksvalued fortheirinformation are givena new format.
Books and documents valued as objectsare conserved."48 This distinction
is in factnonexistent: all booksare potentially valuable fortheir"infor-
mation"(theirtexts),and all are worthsavingas artifacts, as evidences
of pasthumanactivitydirectedto the transmission texts.What this
of
statement is in practicelikelyto meanis thatbooksofhighmarketvalue
will receiveexpensiveconservation treatment, and otherbookswill be
microfilmed or photocopiedand thenthrownout. Such a policyis not
worthyof a researchlibrary.A fewmonthsafterthisarticleon Yale, a
similarpiece about Columbia appearedin theColumbia alumnimaga-
zine,withthesamefalsedistinction between"intrinsicvalue" and "con-
tent":"For themostpart,Columbiaconserves onlybooksthathavesome
intrinsic value,suchas thosewithmarginalnotes,elaboratebindings,or
excellentillustrations thatwould not microfilm well. Worksvaluable

only fortheir content and forwhich replacement copiesare notavailable
are usuallygivena new format, suchas microfilm, microfiche, or photo-
copy/149Microfilm is several
times referred to in such terms as "the only
provenmedium"(p. 16) or "a technology thatwe knowworks"(p. 18);
whatshouldhave been said insteadis thatwe know it does not work.
Librariansadmit,accordingto thearticle,that"fewscholarslike to use
microfilm" (p. 18); but the basis of the complaintis the expectedone,
thatmicrofilms are notas easyto use as books,and nothingis said about
thestatusofreproductions as secondary, not primary, evidence.
To raisetheseissuesis not to object to the microfilming of endan-
geredbooks:thereis no questionthatvastquantities of books are crum-
blingapartand thathavingtextson microfilm is betterthannothaving
themat all. But thewidespreadmisunderstanding of documentary evi-
denceleads to the unnecessary destruction of booksin thename of tex-
tual "preservation." An articlein the New York Times describesthe
usual procedure:
The NewYorkPublicLibrary's microfilmingdivisionis thesecondlarg-
estin thecountry afterthatof theLibraryof Congress. Dozensof timesa
day,booksare "guillotined"-theleavesare severedcloseto thespine-then
microfilmed twopagesat a time.Ten full-timecameraoperators snapmore
thantwomillionframes a year.The remainsofthebooksare tossedintothe
trashunlessa collector
claimsthem,and anyvaluablemapsor illustrations
are,ofcourse,savedand placedin protectiveMylarsleeves.In specialcases,
thebookitselfis spared:thepagesare shotunsevered, and thevolumeis
encasedin a custom-made boxofacid-free
cardboard.50
The "special cases" referredto are by definitionuncommon,and the
generalrule in preservation-microfilming operationsis to discardwhat
is leftofthebooksaftermicrofilming. An articlein theWashingtonPost
describesthefateofa 1909bookbytheAmericanexplorerFannyBullock
Workmanaftera readerat theLibraryofCongresscalled forit and thus
broughtitsconditionto theattentionofthelibrarystaff:"Once thefilm-
ing was complete,the physicalremainsof the book were takento the
Exchangeand Giftsdivisionwheretheywereboxed up withotherli-
brarywastepaper and shippedto a pulpingcompanyin Baltimoreto
be turnedintopulp."51Althoughthisarticletakesmoreseriouslythan
it shouldthecomplaintsabout theinconvenience ofmicrofilm, it is un-
usual in being generallycriticalof the aftermath of microfilming and
puts theproblemconcisely when it says,"Spinesare stillbeingsplit and
pagespulpedas booksdisappearintoinformation."52
The determination of which books to microfilm(or to microfilm
first)and thento destroyis a centralissuein preservation-microfilming

circles,and the thinkingabout it furtherillustratesthe confusionbe-
tween documentsand "information"(or "statements,"or "works").
The mentalitythatdoes not distinguishcopies fromoriginalsis likely
also to treatdifferent editionsof a workas unnecessary duplicationsof
information and is readyforthenextstepof believingthatsomeworks,
havingapparentlybeen supersededby others,need no longerexist.De-
cidingto microfilm greatquantitiesof materialin a givenfieldduring
a particularperiod"savestime"-accordingto thearticleon Columbia
quotedjustabove- "but riskswastingresourceson booksthatwill never
be used" (p. 19). What will be used,of course,can neverbe predicted.
But thiswayof thinkinghas led to the formation of groupsof scholars
to selectthe mostimportanttitlesin theirfieldsformicrofilming. In
1984 the American Philological Association a to
began project place
on microfiche thetextsofthemostimportantclassicalstudiespublished
between1850 and 1918,and a 1987 reportof thisundertaking53 states
near thebeginningthatwe mustnot "wasteour resourceson materials
thatare unimportant." Commenting on thealternative"vacuumcleaner
approach" ("preserving on a wholesale basis everything froma par-
ticularrangeof datesor place of publication"),the authorsrecognize
the argumentthat "theremightsomedaybe a use even formaterials
whose importanceis not evidentat present";but theyproceedto say
in the next sentence,ratherincoherently, thatthe major weaknessof
thisapproachis "thatmaterialswhichmayneverbe neededby scholars
take up time and moneyand thus displace more importantmaterials
thataren'tin thechosengroup"(p. 141). If titlesmustbe selected,ask-
ing a group of scholarsforadvice is appropriate;but the committee
should not fool itselfby thinkingthatsome workslack usefulness, for
thereis no productofthepastthatis notusefulin studyingthepast.
The APA reportis noteworthy forshowingthat even a group of
specialistsin an important area, givingprotracted thoughtto thedetails
of a large microfiche project, can neglectentirelythe question of the
statusofreproductions as documentary evidence.Although,theauthors
say, the "involvement of scholars in preservation decisionmakinghas
sharpened our sense ofsome of thekey issuesin preservation,bothphilo-
sophical and pragmatic"(p. 144), the philosophical considerationsdo
not include this mostbasic one. When the authorsreportthat "most
preservation programsconcentrate on preserving thecontentsof brittle
materialswithlittleartifactualvalue" (p. 140),thereis no criticismof
thelastphrase;and althoughtheprojectpolicyallowsfortheretention
ofsomebooksafterfilming, it "aimsat minimizing theretentionofbadly
damaged books" (p. 145). Rather than savingbooks forscholarswho
dislikefiche,a "deliberatestrategy"of the projectis to workto over-

come "scholarlyresistance"to microforms- withthe resultthat"schol-
arly attitudestoward preservation filmingwill be improved"(p. 142).
This goal seemsso importantto theauthorsas to constitutethesubject
oftheirfinalparagraph :
The reasonsforand consequences of preservation
microfilmingneed to be
madecleartoscholars. The activeinvolvement ofscholarsin thedesignand
execution ofpreservation canhelpin thisslowtaskofeducationand
projects
lead to greateracceptance by thecolleaguesof thoseinvolved,thusmaking
scholarsparticipantsratherthanobstructions in thetaskof developing the
scholarlyinformation systems ofthe nextcentury.
A different programof educationwould seem to be needed. Scholars
shouldnotbe scoldedforbeing"obstructions" to thediscardingof arti-
facts,buttheyshouldbe taughtthatthereis a farmoreimportant reason
forfighting thatbattlethanthemerediscomfort ofhavingto sitin front
ofmachinesto do theirreading.That scholarsare in need ofthislesson
is clearfroma February1988"SummaryReporton Preservation Initia-
tiveamongACLS Societies,"based on responsesfromconstituent socie-
ties to a requestforinformation fromthe presidentof the American
Council of Learned Societies.It seemsapparentfromthisreportthat
onlytwoof therespondingsocieties,theAmericanAntiquarianSociety
and theBibliographicalSocietyofAmerica,called attentionto thecon-
nectionsbetween"physicalformand intellectualcontent";and there-
porttreatedtheirconcernas applyingto a specialcategoryof material
ratherthanto all material.54
An apropriatemechanismforthe educationof scholars(and other
readersas well) regardingtherelationofcopiesto originalswould now
seemto exist,in theCommissionon Preservation and Access.This Com-
missionwasestablishedin 1986bytheCouncil on LibraryResourcesto
confronton the nationallevel the problemof "capturingand making
accessiblethe contentof brittlebooks" (in the wordsof its reportfor
the yearending30 June 1987). The goal is, "in effect, to forma new
nationalcollectionof preservedmaterials"by coordinatingthe filming
of at least threemillionvolumesover a twenty-year period.This am-
bitiouseffort hasalreadyachieveda greatdeal ofvisibility,
and itsactive
of
program public educationincludes a widely distributedfilm,Slow
Fires, that aims to help forma "cohesive senseof a preservation ethic
forthe productof mankind'saccumulatedlearningand experience."55
The undertakingis a noble one, but thusfarthe Commissionhas not
made an emphaticstatementabout the importanceof the physicalevi-
dence presentin everyartifact.56This projectcould be noblerstillifit
includedin its educationalobjectivesthe teachingof thisfundamental
truth.The value of theCommission'smicrofilming programwould not
be undercut-quite thereverse-bya frankacknowledgment ofthelimi-
tationsof microfilmand a carefulexplanationof the meaningof docu-
mentaryevidence.If the Commissionwould thenput theseideas into
practiceand directthattheremainsofeverymicrofilmed book be saved
forwhateverbibliographicalevidenceit stilloffers,theresultwould be
an even greatercontributionto the avowed goal of preserving our in-
A centralrepositorycould be establishedforre-
tellectualheritage.57
ceivingthebooks,if thelibrariesthatpossessedthembeforemicrofilm-
ing did not wishto keep them.By theseactionsthe Commissioncould
be a powerfulinfluencein demonstrating to the general public and
scholarsalike thateveryscrapof artifactualevidenceis worthsaving,
thatall books(not just "rare" books)are importantas objects,even to
personswhoare not particularly concernedwithpublishinghistoryand
whoseonlyinterestis in understanding the textsin books.No one has
ever beforebeen in such a favorablepositionas the Commissionon
Preservation and Accessforpublicizingtheseideas,and by doingso it
could contributeimmeasurablyto the cause of historicalscholarship,
withoutaddinggreatlyto thecostofitsendeavoras a whole.
If thismomentis not seized,the nightmarevisionof microfilming
thatWilliam A. Jacksondepictednearlyfifty yearsago may become
a reality:
To all theclassic"Enemiesof Books"has now beenadded thisdevouring
monster of themicrofilmpressuretable.By cajolery,threats, exhortation,
and constantvigilancethe librariansof todaymustguardtheirtreasures
againstthisdangerwhichlurksin thedistantcornerwhere,amidhis livid
lightsand chemical thephotographer
smells, hashislair.(p. 288)
Jacksonmightbe surprised-but, on second thought,probablywould

notbe- bythesignificance thathisphrase"devouringmonster"hastaken
on as the yearshave passed.Microfilming equipmentneed not be the
monsterit sometimesis, and booksneed not be abandonedaftertheir
encounterwith it. But if librariansare to protectthose books,they
mustcome to understandthattheirtreasuresare all the booksin their
charge,not just thosein "treasurerooms."Microfilms and otherrepro-
be to
ductionscan helpful scholarship if theirproper use is recognized;
but equatingthem with originalsundermines scholarshipby allowing
precisionto be replacedwithapproximationand secondaryevidenceto
be confusedwithprimary.The textsof manydocumentsthatonce ex-
isted are now lost forever,and the textsof othersare knownonly in
copies.We use whateverthereis; but whenthereare originals,we must
supplantthemas the best evidencewe can have for

not let substitutes
recovering statementsfromthepast.
Notes
i. Letter ("Placing Oscar Wilde") to the Times Literary Supplement, 30 October-5
November1987,p. 1195.
2. Report to the Corporation of Brown University,June 19, 1913, p. 8. Another use
of the machine, he says, is "furnishinga convenientand relativelyinexpensive means of
copyingforour own filespamphlets,broadsides,and newspapersof which we do not possess
the originals,and which we are not likelyto have an opportunityto buy." In the following
year's Report (dated 18 June 1914), Winship returned to the subject (pp. 11-12): "The
photostathas been in steadyuse during the year,"he said; and the "principal serviceupon
which the Library is now engaged is an attempt to furnishexperimentalevidence of the
practical usefulnessof our photographic copying machine for reproducingcolonial news-
papers." Although these statementsdo not suggest that copies can fully substitute for
originals,they imply no question about the accuracyof photographiccopies.
3. Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 35 (1941), 281-288 (quotations
frompp. 282-283).
4. Even though the relation of the work to the artifactis very different:in the case
of paintings,watercolors,engravings,and the like, the work and the artifactinhabit the
same physical space, since the work uses tangible media; in the case of literature,music,
and dance, the texts embodied in artifactsdo not constitutethe worksbut only attempts
at conveyinginstructionsfor recreatingthe works. (I have elaborated this point in my
Rosenbach Lectures,A Rationale of Textual Criticism,forthcomingfrom the University
of PennsylvaniaPress.)
5. The best study of type-facsimilesis Allen T. Hazen, "Type-Facsimiles,"Modern
Philology,44 (1946-47), 209-17. For an early criticismof such facsimiles,see Henry Wilson,
"Remarks on Facsimile Reproductions," Library Association of the United Kingdom
Monthly Notes, 1 (1880), 33-40.
6. See, for example, Carole Louise Money, Xerography: An Annotated mouograpny
(1970); and Michael R. Gabriel, Micrographics,1900-1977: A Bibliography (1978). A brief
pamphlet, MicroformInformation: First Sources was published by the Reproduction of
Library Materials Section of the American Library Associationin 1973 and has since been
revised. Most of the literatureof this field naturally deals with technical matters.Some
historical accounts of the growth of the field (with referencesto other writings)can be
found in Frederic Luther, Microfilm:A History,1839-1900 (1959); Robert F. Clarke, The
Impact of Photocopyingon ScholarlyPublishing (Rutgers diss., 1963); Xerographyand Re-
lated Processes,ed. JohnH. Dessauer and Harold E. Clark (1965); H. R. Verry,Microcopying
Methods (1954; rev. Gordon H. Wright,1967); "Sources forthe Historyof Micropublishing,"
in Studies in Micropublishing,1853-1976: DocumentarySources,ed. Allen B. Veaner (1977),
pp. 79-150; JackRubin, A Historyof Micrographicsin the First Person (1980).
7. It originallyappeared in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 24 (1920),
535-540; a revisededition of the pamphlet formappeared in 1925. Perhaps not surprisingly,
many of the early commentsdisplay an enthusiasmthat seems determinedto avoid recog-
nizing problems. Richard Garnett,speaking on "Photographyin Public Libraries" at the
1884 conferenceof the LibraryAssociationof the United Kingdom,eloquentlyadvanced the
view that national librarieshad a responsibilityto establish photographydepartmentsand
in the course of his remarkssaid: "Though, as recentlypointed out by Dr. Hessels, the
photographmay not be absolutelyunerringin the reproductionof minute facsimile,if made
with due care it is practicallyadequate in the vast majorityof instances."He then added,
as if this statementwere too cautious, that "save as a matterof sentiment"it would "be
almost indifferent" whethera libraryhad an original or a facsimile(Transactions and Pro-
ceedings,1884,pp. 66-73, 142-144;quotations frompp. 66-67). Even A- W. Pollard suggested
in 1893 that photocopies of early books be used forpermanentexhibitionsin librariesthat
did not possess originals ("On the Exhibition of Facsimiles of Rare Books in Public Li-
braries/'Library,1st ser., 5 [1893],260-264). (An exhibition of photostatswas held in 1916
at PrincetonUniversityLibrary.)In 1916,Walter T. and Maude K. Swingle ("The Utiliza-
tion of PhotographicMethods in Library Research Work, with Especial Referenceto the
Natural Sciences,"American Library Association Bulletin, 10: 194-199) believed that pho-
tographywould enable Americanscholarshipto come of age: "There is no longer any need
for any competentscholar to be hampered for lack of material provided arrangementsare
made to install photostatsin Old World librarycenters"(this statementoccurs in the last
section of theirarticle,entitled "Every Book and Manuscriptin the World Placed Within
the Reach of the Investigatorby Photographic Means"). Earlier they declared, "In the
copying of ancient manuscripts the photostat method is absolutely necessary to secure
accuracy" (p. 196).
8. Consistingof five articles and the reports of two meetings: George Watson Cole,
"The Photostatin Bibliographicaland Research Work- A Symposium,"pp. 1-16; Chester
March Cate, "The Photostatand the HuntingtonLibrary,"pp. 17-21; Edward D. Tweedell,
"The Use of the Cameragraphin the John CrerarLibrary,"pp. 22-23; LodewykBendikson,
"Photographic Copying and Reproducing,"pp. 24-34; Frederic Ives Carpenter,"The Pho-
tographicReproductionof Rare Books," pp. 35-46; reportsof discussionat the Swampscott
(June 1921) and Chicago (December 1921) meetings,pp. 47-53.
9. "Microphotographyand Bibliography, PBSA, 32 (1938), 65-70 (quotations from
pp. 65, 66).
10. "A Journeyof BibliographicalExploration,"PBSA, 57 (1963), 33-41 (quotation from
P- 33)-
11. "Photographic Reproduction of Research Materials," Library Trends, 2 (1953-54).
532-544(quotation fromp. 534).
12. The Use of Xerographyin Libraries (1952), p. [3].
"
13. 'Facsimile*Reprintsof Old Books," Library,4th ser., 6 (1925-26), 305-328 (A. W.
Pollard, "PreliminarySurvey,"pp. 305-313; GilbertR. Redgrave,"PhotographicFacsimiles,"
pp. 313-317; R. W. Chapman, "Oxford Type-Facsimiles,"pp. 317-321; W. W. Greg,"Type-
Facsimiles and Others,"pp. 321-326; discussion,pp. 327-328).
14. American Archivist,20 (1957), 345-356; reprinted in Veaner (see note 6 above),
pp. 269-279.
15. An article strictlyfrom the economic point of view is Ralph R. Shaw, "Should
ScientistsUse Microfilm?",Library Quarterly,14 (1944), 229-233. (Another article with a
promisingtitle,but dealing only with the duplication of titlesin microfilmingprojects,is
Robert B. Eckles,"Some Problemsin ScholarlyUses of MicrophotoPublication," American
Archivist,27 [1964!,565-567.)
16. Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 65 (1961), 97-101; reprinted in Veaner
(see note 6 above), pp. 290-204.
17. Blank leaves,for example, are oftenskipped,even in published facsimiles.Franklin
B. Williams,Jr.(see note 19 below) properlyobserves,"A facsimilereprintshould be biblio-
graphicallycomplete,with notice of blank leaves regardlessof their presence in the base
copy" (p. 117). David Vander Meulen has shown (Scriblerian,17 [1985] 178-180) how the
omission of some blank pages and an insufficient commentaryon physical structureaffect
the interpretationof the evidence presented in the photographsin Maynard Mack's The
Last and GreatestArt: Some Unpublished Poetical Manuscriptsof Alexander Pope (1984).
(Some reviewersof this work implied that the inclusion of blanks did not serve much pur-
pose: James McLaverty [Analyticaland Enumerative Bibliography,n.s., 1 (1987), 89] and
Howard Weinbrot [Studies in English Literature,25 (1985) , 696] expressed their readiness
to exchange the blanks for reproductionsof other material, Weinbrot calling the blanks
"curious" and describingthem as having been "superstitiouslyreproduced.")
18. Anotherproblem,often encounteredin xerographiccopies, is that the copy is not
identical in size with the original; some discussion of the reproduction ratios of xero-
graphic machinesappears in the Wall StreetJournal,24 September 1984,p. l, col. 4.
19. "Photo-Facsimilesof STC Books: A CautionaryCheck List," Studies in Bibliography,
ti (1968), 109-130 (quotation from p. 109). At about the same time, FrederickAnderson
provided a concisestatementof the "Hazards of PhotographicSources" forthe firstnumber

(March 1968)of the CEAA Newsletter(CenterforEditions of AmericanAuthors)."It appears
to be inevitable," he said, "that the person filmingor xeroxing material will omit some
of it" (p. 5), and he commentedon the difficulty of reading cancellationsin photocopiesand
on the likelihood of interpretingstraymarks as punctuation. ;
20. Other historical accounts appear in the articles gathered in the Library in 1926
(note 13 above).
21. The examples in this paragraph are fromWilliams (note 19 above), p. 117; Vander
Meulen, letterto me; Blayney,"An Errorin Microfilm,"Library,5th ser.,8 (1953), 126-127;
Williams, pp. 111, 114, 114, 117; Sullivan, "Bibliographyand Facsimile Editions," PBSA, 72
(i978)> 327-329-
22. The examples in this paragraph are fromBowers,"The Yale Folio Facsimile and
Scholarship,"Modern Philology, 53 (1955-56), 50-57; Greene, in The Eighteenth Century:
A CurrentBibliography,n.s., 3 (for 1977), 283-285; Vander Meulen, letterto me.
23. "The Scandal of Ulysses,"New York Review of Books, 30 June 1988, pp. 32-39,
Anotherexample fromJoycematerial,furnishedto me by Kidd, illustratesthe point that
different facsimilesof the same material may read differently: the firstpage proof for page
153 of Ulyssesis reproducedboth in The JamesJoyceArchive(23: 115) and in Philip Gas-
kell's From Writerto Reader (1978), pp. 231, 242; in the former,where the photographhas
a line around it, the word in the upper rightcornerappears to be "fivebarred",but in the
latter,which shows the uneven edge of the proof,it seems to be "fivebarre".
24. The examples in this paragraph are fromWilliams (note 19 above), p. 114; Vander
Meulen, letterto me; Sullivan (note 21 above); Williams,p. 117; Silver,Writingthe History
of American Printing (American Printing HistoryAssociation Award Lecture, 1977), p. 7;
Dodge, "PhotographicCopies vs. Original Documents,"PBSA, 71 (1977), 223-226.
25. "What Is a Facsimile?",PBSA, 37 (1943), 114-130 (quotation fromp. 126).
26. "The Microfacsimilein American Research Libraries," Libri, 8 (1958), 209-222
(quotation fromp. 221).
27. Quoted by George Watson Cole in his surveyof responsesto his questionnaire (see
note 8 above), p. 10. Surprisingly,Randolph G. Adams seemed to take this sort of point
moreseriouslythan it deserves:"The matterof facsimilesvs. originalswill always be argued
between bookloversand mere scholars" (Three Americanists[1939],p. 26). (He added, how-
ever,"All of us use facsimiles,photostats,or even films,when we cannot get the original.. . .
But we do not preferfacsimiles,we simplyuse them when we cannot have ready access to
the original" [pp. 26-27].) Gordon N. Ray commentsbrieflyon the problems photocopies
can cause in the relationsbetween collectorsand scholarson pp. 56-58 of his Clark Library
seminartalk,"The PrivateCollectorand the LiteraryScholar,"published in Louis B. Wright
and Gordon N. Ray, The Private Collectorand the Support of Scholarship(1969), pp. 25-80.
28. Quoted by Cole (see the precedingnote), pp. 11, 14.
29. Is it this widespread understandingof how easily reproductionscan be doctored
that has led New York Telephone to ask its customersto returnthe "originalpaymentdocu-
ment,not a reproducedcopy" and has caused Time Incorporatedto issue checkswith a line
at the top reading, "The face of this document has a colored background- not a white
background"?One filmthathas givenpublicityto the legal questionsposed by reproductions
is The Verdict(1982).
30. For McDonald, see note 14 above (quotation fromp. 351); for Tweedell, see note
8 above (quotation fromp. 22).
31. Of course,if the authenticityof a documentis questioned,an expertin the forensic
examination of documentsmay when testifyingwish to use photographs(such as enlarged
photographsof segmentsof documents).For a thoroughdiscussion,see Wilson R. Harrison,
SuspectDocuments (1958; with supp., 1966).Ways of recognizingsome well-knownreproduc-
tions (including some produced with intent to deceive) are detailed in Leonard Rapport,
"Fakes and Facsimiles: Problems of Identification,"American Archivist,42 (1970), 13-^58.
32. One manifestationof the general failureto differentiate photocopies fromoriginals
was describedby the songwriterSammyCahn during an interviewregardingthe copyright
protectionof popular songs: "You'd be surprisedhow many people have asked me to auto-
graph a Xerox of the sheet music forone of mysongs!" (New York Times, 16 January1984,
p.Cio).
:. 33. In descriptivebibliographyan argumenthas oftenbeen made (since HenryStevens's
Photo-Bibliographyin 1878) in favorof substitutingphotographsof title pages for quasi-
facsimiletranscriptions.Among other problems raised by this argumentis the fact that a
photograph records a single copy, whereas a bibliographical description(unless it is in a
catalogue of a collection)aims at describinga whole edition. See myessayson "The Concept
oi Ideal Copy," SB, 33 (1980), 18-53,and "Title-Page Transcriptionand SignatureCollation
Reconsidered,"SB, 38 (1985),45-81.
34. "The Problem of the Variant Forme in a Facsimile Edition," Library, 5th ser., 7
(1952), 262-272 (quotation from p. 263). Bowers's view is that uncorrectedformesshould
normally be reproduced,because correctedformesare likely to have more compositorial
spelling and punctuation,as well as errorsin substantivesmade in the processof correcting
othererrors.
35. I have made some commentson the production and significanceof facsimileedi-
tions in "Textual Scholarship,"in Introductionto Scholarship in Modern Languages and
Literatures,ed. JosephGibaldi (1981), pp. 29-52 (esp. pp. 34-37).
36. The CenterforEditions of AmericanAuthorsin 1972prepared a "Guide forVetting
Facsimile," which included these points: "the editor of the facsimilewill be required to
make a final collation of the sheets of the facsimileagainst the manuscript to determine
if anythinghas been lost in the printingprocess. It is the vettor'sresponsibilityto satisfy
himself. . . that anything(i.e., colors of paper and writing)that has been lost in the repro-
duction process is noted in the apparatus" (CEAA Newsletter,No. 5 [December 1972],
pp. 9-10).
37. McDonald (note 14 above), p. 351.
38. If the reproductionis to be published, any page containingsuch spots should be
rephotographedto see whethera more faithfulreproductionof the original can be obtained.
39. Some hint of the sophisticationof present technologycan be found in "Facsimile
Publishers,"A bbeyNewsletter,11 (1987); 81.
40. As Kevin S. Kiernan says at the end of the prefaceto "Beowulf and the "Beowulf
Manuscript (1981), "paleographical and codicological factsmust ultimatelybe evaluated, as
they can only have been gathered,by direct and prolonged access to the MS, not to the
FSS, no matterhow faithfulor reliable they may seem" (p. xiii). He is able to present a
considerable amount of new evidence because, remarkably,"the Beowulf MS has scarcely
been studied at all. . . . most editors of the poem have relied on photographicFSS of the
MS, and, often enough, modern transcriptionsof the FSS, rather than on the MS itself"
(P. 3).
41. Two pages earlierthisstatementoccurs: "Perfectionis the termused by some editors
to describe checkingeditorial transcriptionsmade fromphotocopied source texts against
the originals for each text." The passage does not go on to say that such checking is
imperative.
42. Perhaps the strongeststatementabout originals in the book has a similar failing:
"The age and condition of the manuscriptsthat bear the auhor's scriptmay make even a
rough transcriptionof their contents difficult.In such cases, the editor must verifyhis
transcriptionsagainst the originalsbefore even beginninghis assessmentof the importance
of each detail of inscription.And he may have to referto those originals again and again
during the period in which he labors to establish their texts for his edition" (p. 90). The
phrase "In such cases" suggeststhat referenceto originals is not a basic routine but an
exceptional practiceforunusual situations.
. 43. A plan similar to this has actually been proposed. Winston Broadfoot,in "How
Inflation AffectsInstitutional Collecting," Manuscripts, 31 (1979), 293-296, claims that
academic libraries"are not in the businessof preservingartifacts,"their functionbeing "to
supply the scholar with reliable data for his research." "Until the recent technologyin
photo-duplication,"he goes on, "the scholar had to see original documents. This is no
longer necessary,as proved by the great outpouring of substitute forms(film,fiche,and

xerox) of libraryresources,including manuscripts. . . We are still paying thousands of
dollars for original documents and giving away the informationat ten cents a page. . . .
Propelled by inflationand protectedby reliable copies, private academic libraries should
begin to sell their valuable manuscripts.. . . Perhaps the need for ambience will require
the retentionof some display pieces" (pp. 295-296). This foolish argument was fittingly
replied to by StanleyWertheim,who said, among other things,that photocopies "are in no
way adequate substituteforms,and forpurposesof textualand bibliographicalresearchthey
are most oftenuseless" ("Libraries as ConservingInstitutions:A Reply to Mr. Broadfoot,"
Manuscripts,32 [1980],120-124).
44. This newsletter,like the earlier ones, also emphasizes conservationand does not
recognizethe contradictionat the heart of the argument.Three years later, in his twelfth
newsletter(1 April 1986), Turner reiterated the same muddle. On the one hand, "The
biggestissue facingthe rare books world today is the need foran overwhelminginvolvement
and investmentin conservation."On the other,the HRC "will not purchase materialswhich
have been copied in any form,and requirescertification to the effectthat theyhave not been
is required that all such copies are being
copied; or, if copies have been made, a certification
surrenderedwith the originals."
45. The HRC has achieved some notorietyfor being difficultin the matter of giving
permissionto publish the textsof materials in its collections.Most librariesdo not control
the literaryrightsto such texts; in some instancesauthors or their heirs have relinquished
theirliteraryrightsto the librariesholding theirpapers, but generallylibrariescontrolonly
the access to the physicalitems in their collections,not the decisions regardingpublication
or republication of texts. Turner, however,says that the HRC acquires, along with "the
physical property,"the "full academic rights to its use." Such rights are, he says, "in-
terpretedas unlimited use by accredited scholars and students for papers, dissertations,
teaching,and publication in learned journals, up to and including publication of books by
a Universitypress" (HRC Notes, No. 9). Whetheror not this "unlimited use" includes pub-
lishing texts in their entiretyis not clear, and furtherdoubt is cast on the matterby the
way the point is stated in a later newsletter:"Full academic rightsare definedas the right
of all students,faculty,and scholars to examine, make notes,prepare papers, writedisserta-
tions, and publish their conclusions in learned journals or through a universitypress"
(No. 12). Given the frameof mind reflectedin Turner's newsletters, one is not surprised(only
furthersaddened) to note that an act passed by the Texas legislaturein 1987 contains this
provision: "Rare books, original manuscripts,personal papers, unpublished letters,and
audio and video tapes held by an institutionof higher education for the purposes of his-
torical research are confidential,and the institutionmay restrictaccess by the public to
those materials to protectthe actual or potential value of the materials and the privacyof
the donors" (70th Legislature,Chapter 408, H.B. 2136, amending the Education Code, Sec-
tion 51.910). Respecting "the privacyof donors" is unobjectionable: donors have the right
to require that certain material be closed for a time. And if protecting"the actual or po-
tential value of the materials" means protecting them from destruction or mutilation
("value" referringto historicaland scholarlyvalue), therecan again be no objection. But if,
as unfortunately seemsmorelikely,"value" refersto monetaryvalue, the idea that a state or
one of its institutionswould classifymaterials(includingpublished books) as "confidential"
on the assumption that their market value was therebybeing maintained is deplorable:
such a practice would be antithetical to the aims of any institutiontrulydevoted to the
encouragementof scholarship.
46. "Preservationvs. Conservation,"Abbey Newsletter,9 (1985), 96-97.
47. Discussionsof "intrinsicvalue" in the preservationliteraturetake the position that
some materials have it and some do not. I have not seen any discussion of preservation
acknowledgingthat everyartifacthas intrinsicvalue. See, for example, "IntrinsicValue in
Archival Material" (National Archivesand Records ServiceStaffInformationPaper No. 21,
1982), reprintedin part in Abbey Newsletter,6 (1982), 66-67; and R. Gay Walker, "The
Book as Object," in Research Libraries Group PreservationManual (2nd ed., 1986), re-
printed in Abbey Newsletter,11 (1987), 4. Anotheraspect of preservationis the attempt to
alleviate furtherdeteriorationof materials recognized to have intrinsicvalue by asking
readersto use facsimilesinsteadof originals.This practiceis unobjectionableas long as those
responsibleforadministeringit recognizethe situationswhen use of the original is essential.
FredericVergne,curatorat the Cond£ Museum, is reportedto have said that everyonewill
henceforthhave to use the facsimileof "Les Tres Riches Heures du Due de Berry": "I sup-
pose some visitinghead of state mightbe shown it if he asked, but the public and scholars
no longerhave directaccess." Bernard Meehan of Trinity College Library,Dublin, plans to
ask scholars to use the facsimileof the Book of Kells when it is completed: "Research into
pigments and writing techniques are about the only reason anyone needs access to the
original." (Paul Lewis, "PreservationTakes Rare Manuscriptsfromthe Public," New York
Times,25 January1987,sect. 2, pp. 1, 23.)
48. Kristi Vaughan, "Crumbling Culture," Yale Alumni Magazine, 50, no. 8 (Summer
X9^7)»34~3^ (quotation from p. 37). Two other approaches are mentioned: (1) "Searches
are made to see if the same edition of the book can simplybe replaced" (as if all copies of
an edition are alike); (2) "Some of the most difficult
decisions involveonly slight differences
among volumes.Is it worththe effort, forinstance,to save several translationsof the Greek
classics?"(as if textual variantsmake no differenceand the historyof translationis unim-
portant).
49. Barbara L. Mount, "Save the Books," Columbia, 13, no. 3 (December 1987), 14-19
(quotation fromp. 17).
50. Eric Stange, "Millions of Books Are Turning to Dust- Can They Be Saved?",
New York Times Book Review, 29 March 1987,pp. 3, 38.
51. Joanna Biggar, "Our Disappearing Books, Washington Post Magazine, 3 June
1984, pp. 12-15; reprintedin condensed form in Abbey Newsletter,8 (1984), 84-85. The
readerwho asked to purchaseat least the photographsand maps fromthe guillotinedWork-
man book was told that governmentpropertycould not be sold or given to individuals,and
theseparts of the book were also destroyed.
52. A report in Abbey Newsletter(12 [1988], 2) of an International Symposium on
Newspaper Preservationand Access (London, August 1987) states,"There was concern ex-
pressed by a number of participantsthat U.S. institutionsdiscard verybrittle newspapers
after filming.The consensus was that one copy of every newspaper published should be
preservedin the original, by somebody,somewhere,somehow, and should be accessible;
but who will pay for it?" Proposing to save one copy of everynumber of everynewspaper
is a move in the rightdirection,but one copy can scarcelystand for an edition as a whole,
which may well have included variant issues.
53. Roger S. Bagnall and Carolyn L. Harris, "Involving Scholars in PreservationDeci-
sions: The Case of the Classicists,"Journal of Academic Librarianship, 13 (1987), 140-146.
54. The New York Document ConservationAdvisoryCouncil has mounted a vigorous
campaign to arouse public interestin the state's historical records,both manuscriptand
printed, and has published an impressivebooklet, Our Memory at Risk (1988). But the
booklet takes the usual line on intrinsicvalue: "Institutionsshould surveytheirholdings to
identifymaterial with intrinsicvalue" (p. 21). Another recent publication destined to be
widely read, the American Library Association's Preservation Microfilming:A Guide for
Librarians and Archivists(ed. Nancy E. Gwinn for the Association of Research Libraries,
1987), unfortunatelyperpetuates the same misconception.Wesley L. Boomgaarden,in the
chapter on "Selection of Materials for Microfilming"(pp. 26-60), says, "Even though most
items in a research collection are valued primarilyfor their intellectual content,certain
items may possess intrinsicvalue as artifactsor objects and should be preservedand re-
tained in their original or near-originalforms"(p. 55). In her review of this book (-Rare
Books & Manuscripts Librarianship, 3, no. 1 [Spring 1988], 59-63), Cathy Henderson use-
fullypoints out that Boomgaarden'schapter "reinforcessome prevalent biases that should
at least be questioned" (pp. 61-62). The first,she says, is "to allow very real economic
pressuresto cause you to view the decision to retain an item or collection after micro-
filmingas a necessaryevil"; and she cautions against an easy acceptance of the "film-and-
destroyhabit" (p. 62).
55. Peter Winterble in National PreservationNews (the newsletterof the National
PreservationProgram Officein the Library of Congress),No. 7 (May 1987), p. 7. Issues of

this newsletter(along with those of the Abbey Newsletter)offera good way to keep abreast
of preservationactivities.
56. In its early booklet (when it was called "Committeeon Preservationand Access"),
Brittle Books (1986), it made the usual kind of statement: "Many individual volumes of
intrinsicvalue (e.g., those with importantmarginal notes; those that are exceptional exam-
ples of bookmaking)should be safeguardedas artifacts"(p. 8).
57. The argumentthat other copies of these books still exist carriesno force:the micro-
filmedcopy may differin various ways fromother copies; and the destructionof any copy
(no matterhow large the edition) carriesaway with it part of the evidence for generalizing
about theedition as a whole.

Tanselle Reproductions Scholarship

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tanselle Reproductions Scholarship

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia

Reproductions and Scholarship

Parker Winship,reportingin 1913on the activities

morequicklywhatthe humancopyisttranscribes withconstantlikeli-

productionof photocopies.Sometimessuch mistakesare inadvertent,

and "Green"are enteredside byside in themargin,whereasin the fac-

or when Laurence Cummingsreportsthatwhat he thoughtwere Sir

raphy,whereasin truththis book is regularlycatalogued(following

itsown,and no artifact can be a substituteforanotherartifact. This point

fortable)to providegroundsforprotest.The shallowness of thisgeneral

evidentiary standardsoftheircourts;certainly no reproduction can offer

duringthe courseof printing;and copies of later editionsoftenvary

difference betweenthe attitudeunderlyingthe carefulproductionof

there,andindeedto tryto makesurethatwe knowwhatwordsarein

artifactthatpreservedit. In the contextof thisbook,the absenceof a

disappointing,and the Guide in thisrespecttakes a large step backward.

Changingtechnologyraisessome dramaticquestionsforHRC. With the

therewas not enoughforcefuloppositionto thisstandon reproduction

personsactivein thiseffort nearlyalwaysfailto recognizethelimitations

excellentillustrations thatwould not microfilm well. Worksvaluable

first)and thento destroyis a centralissuein preservation-microfilming

dislikefiche,a "deliberatestrategy"of the projectis to workto over-

Jacksonmightbe surprised-but, on second thought,probablywould

supplantthemas the best evidencewe can have for

provided a concisestatementof the "Hazards of PhotographicSources" forthe firstnumber

longer necessary,as proved by the great outpouring of substitute forms(film,fiche,and

PreservationProgram Officein the Library of Congress),No. 7 (May 1987), p. 7. Issues of

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen