Eine Tagung in München:
http://www.bsb-muenchen.de/Einzeldarstellung.408+M50458706a65.0.html
Aus den Abstracts:
[1] Björn Dal (University Library, Lund, Sweden): Duplicates or unique objects: Changing
perceptions of books in the hand-press period
The library world has for centuries made a distinction between manuscripts, meaning unique
documents in handwriting or hand sketching, and printed material, duplicated through different
printing methods. This view of the material is connected with the fact that libraries have collected
texts (the content of the books), cataloguing them under author and title.
It is only in our day that book history research has sent us a different message - the whole object
is unique. With its marks and defects it is a source of information from which knowledge can be
obtained. Choice of material, design, notes, numberings, repairs and all other details tell the
story of the book as an object, regardless of which work the ink is conveying.
Until the mid 19th century, books were products of craftsmanship. Both the production process
and printing procedure generated prints which were not mass-produced, i.e. produced in a large
number of identical copies. By definition, the prerequisite for identical copies is a mechanical
production process. During the hand-press period, books were created with the help of simple
machinery, and the skill of the craftsmen was vital for the result. Each piece of paper was handmade;
the colour was applied manually to the printing forme; the impression was done by hand –
there were never two identical printed sheets.
Many libraries have had the policy to weed books, preserving only one copy of each title and
edition – but for prints from the hand-press period such measures can never be justified by the
argument that the books are duplicates.
Wir haben hier diese Position immer vertreten: Bei frühneuzeitlichen Drucken kann es keine "Dubletten" geben.
Die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, die diese Tagung veranstaltet, sieht das ganz anders, sonst hätte sie den skandalösen Umgang mit den frühneuzeitlichen kapuziner-Büchern in Eichstätt beanstanden müssen:
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4962435/
Fakt ist: die Eichstätter Bibliothekare, die jeder buchhistorischen Einsicht ins Gesicht geschlagen haben, als sie massenhaft Dubletten der Kapuzinerbücher verkauften, wurden von der BSB reingewaschen. Auch die vor 2007 gültigen Aussonderungsrichtlinien in Bayern haben der Unikat-Eigenschaft der frühen Drucke in keiner Weise Rechnung getragen.
Eine Tagung veranstalten, die die Provenienzforschung unterstützt, und andererseits Dublettenverscherbelungen gutheißen ist ganz offenkundig doppelte Moral.
http://www.bsb-muenchen.de/Einzeldarstellung.408+M50458706a65.0.html
Aus den Abstracts:
[1] Björn Dal (University Library, Lund, Sweden): Duplicates or unique objects: Changing
perceptions of books in the hand-press period
The library world has for centuries made a distinction between manuscripts, meaning unique
documents in handwriting or hand sketching, and printed material, duplicated through different
printing methods. This view of the material is connected with the fact that libraries have collected
texts (the content of the books), cataloguing them under author and title.
It is only in our day that book history research has sent us a different message - the whole object
is unique. With its marks and defects it is a source of information from which knowledge can be
obtained. Choice of material, design, notes, numberings, repairs and all other details tell the
story of the book as an object, regardless of which work the ink is conveying.
Until the mid 19th century, books were products of craftsmanship. Both the production process
and printing procedure generated prints which were not mass-produced, i.e. produced in a large
number of identical copies. By definition, the prerequisite for identical copies is a mechanical
production process. During the hand-press period, books were created with the help of simple
machinery, and the skill of the craftsmen was vital for the result. Each piece of paper was handmade;
the colour was applied manually to the printing forme; the impression was done by hand –
there were never two identical printed sheets.
Many libraries have had the policy to weed books, preserving only one copy of each title and
edition – but for prints from the hand-press period such measures can never be justified by the
argument that the books are duplicates.
Wir haben hier diese Position immer vertreten: Bei frühneuzeitlichen Drucken kann es keine "Dubletten" geben.
Die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, die diese Tagung veranstaltet, sieht das ganz anders, sonst hätte sie den skandalösen Umgang mit den frühneuzeitlichen kapuziner-Büchern in Eichstätt beanstanden müssen:
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4962435/
Fakt ist: die Eichstätter Bibliothekare, die jeder buchhistorischen Einsicht ins Gesicht geschlagen haben, als sie massenhaft Dubletten der Kapuzinerbücher verkauften, wurden von der BSB reingewaschen. Auch die vor 2007 gültigen Aussonderungsrichtlinien in Bayern haben der Unikat-Eigenschaft der frühen Drucke in keiner Weise Rechnung getragen.
Eine Tagung veranstalten, die die Provenienzforschung unterstützt, und andererseits Dublettenverscherbelungen gutheißen ist ganz offenkundig doppelte Moral.
