{"word_count": 358, "character_count": 2655}
Eine Tagung in München:http://www.bsb-muenchen.de/Einzeldarstellung.408+M50458706a65.0.htmlAus den Abstracts:[1] Björn Dal (University Library, Lund, Sweden): Duplicates or unique objects: Changingperceptions of books in the hand-press periodThe library world has for centuries made a distinction between manuscripts, meaning uniquedocuments in handwriting or hand sketching, and printed material, duplicated through differentprinting methods. This view of the material is connected with the fact that libraries have collectedtexts (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 objectis unique. With its marks and defects it is a source of information from which knowledge can beobtained. Choice of material, design, notes, numberings, repairs and all other details tell thestory 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 processand printing procedure generated prints which were not mass-produced, i.e. produced in a largenumber of identical copies. By definition, the prerequisite for identical copies is a mechanicalproduction process. During the hand-press period, books were created with the help of simplemachinery, 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 andedition – but for prints from the hand-press period such measures can never be justified by theargument 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/4962435Fakt 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.