Problematic Pagination, or Why the Digital Beehive Doesn't Use Page Numbers
by David Ragnar NelsonWhat’s the problem with Pastorius’s page numbers?
The user of the Digital Beehive may be frustrated that the Beehive Team has chosen to refer to pages in the Beehive through their volume and image number. After all, these image numbers are a mere byproduct of digitization and privilege the digital surrogate over the paper original. Why can’t we just use page numbers?
As we quickly learned while creating the table of contents, there is no single system of page numbers we can use. At the bottom of the recto of each folio, a librarian penciled in page numbers. These page numbers, which are used by Penn in Hand, would seem to be the most obvious choice. However, the librarian page numbers do not include volume 3, which has no page numbers from either Pastorius or a later reader. We needed a uniform system that covered all three volumes, and in the absence of consistent page numbers from either a librarian or Pastorius himself, volume and image number was the most obvious solution.
What about Pastorius’s own page numbers? Should we not privilege Pastorius’s own system of numbering? After all, Pastorius frequently refers to parts of the Beehive through his page numbers. We even have a metadata category for the index entries for references to page numbers! It would seem his page numbers would take priority.
Unfortunately, Pastorius’s system of pagination is extraordinarily complex, confusing, and contradictory. As I will discuss in this blog post, Pastorius reuses page numbers throughout the Beehive. We have been able to determine at least three pages numbered 88 at some point in time. Here, I’ll show where Pastorius’s system of pagination starts to break down and why this is a problem for the Digital Beehive.
So, let’s start on page one! If we start from the beginning of volume one, we run into the first numbered page on image 46. A clear “36.” in the corner indicates that we have reached the 36th page of the manuscript. If we count from the beginning of the manuscript, we find we have indeed reached page 36.
From page 36, pagination continues normally until image number 60, which has a clear “50” in the corner.
The next page, however, is marked “Pag. 1.”
The following few folios have suffered damage that obscures page numbers; however, we can infer that Pastorius starts pagination over at this point, numbering pages in ascending order. If we would number the pages from the beginning of the manuscript to this point, we would either end up with all page numbers doubled, or would mark this page, very clearly designated “page 1” by Pastorius, with page 51, the following, marked by Pastorius as 2, as 52, and so on. Neither solution is terribly satisfying.
Additionally, this is not the only time Pastorius doubles up page numbers. From this new page 1, pages continue in ascending order as we would normally expect. Occasionally, it seems Pastorius had to sew in additional leaves and, in order to preserve the pagination, he would start doubling page numbers. We see this very clearly in the book list, where he marked the recto of a given folio with “1st” and the verso with “2d.”
We thus end up with page 551st and page 552d; page 561st and page 562d. This problem is not insurmountable, but it does add further complexity to Pastorius’s system of pagination. At page 67, we can see that Pastorius went all the way up to page 674th. These pages are also interesting as we see the corner has been sharply cut away, indicating Pastorius had revised a previous system of pagination.
Pastorius’s pagination continues more or less as expected, despite a number of doubled pages, until image number 1.228, clearly marked “Pag. 129.” After this point, there is some unnumbered miscellaneous material, including blank pages and stray Onomastic Symbols, but also a title deed for land in Germantown and what appears to be an old binding. On image 1.238, the verso of the old binding, pagination resumes again, with “pag. 853d.” The next image is marked “Pag. 863d” and the following “Pag. 873d.”
With the next image, the beginning of the Onomastical Considerations, Pastorius writes simply “Pag. 88” and continues pagination in ascending order from there.
This is very frustrating, as Pastorius already used page 88 in the middle of the Germantown Silva! In fact, the majority of page numbers for the Onomastical Considerations have already been used. Moreover, Pastorius’s use of “3d” following these pages is inconsistent with his previous usage. Earlier, it marked two adjacent pages with the same number, but here it seems to imply the number is being used elsewhere as well. Why he chose to mark these pages as “3d” but not others as “2d” or “1st” is unclear.
All of this is already very confusing. Unfortunately, it gets worse. Occasionally, we find references to previous systems of pagination. For example, on image 1.35, the index to the Onomastical Considerations, Pastorius writes that these considerations “begin page 63. & 111.”
However, we have just seen the beginning of the Onomastical Considerations is marked page 88. We must assume that the manuscript was reordered at some point and the pagination revised. How do we know, then, which system Pastorius is using at any given moment? For a particularly easy example, I turn to the word “genethliacum” in the index. Following “genethliacum,” Pastorius writes “p. 63”:
The page that should be page 63 in the Beehive has suffered damage and therefore no page number is visible on either side of the folio. However, we can infer that images 1.131 and 1.132 are pages 631st and 632d, respectively. This recto of this leaf contains non-Quaker additions to the book list, while the verso contains Quaker titles. None of the titles readily seem connected to “genethliacum,” which relates to birth and birthdays. On the other hand, if we turn to image 1.241, the beginning of the Onomastical Considerations, currently marked page 88 but formerly page 63, we note the first word on the page is “GENETHLIACUM.” Thus, it appears Pastorius intends to refer to the older system of page numbers in this case.
How do we deal with this problem? Some entries in the index reference current page numbers, some former page numbers. Pastorius provides the reader with no indication which system he intends, and it is up to the reader to check both. Yet the older system of pagination has often been literally cut off the page. This means we have to try to reconstruct it through the various page references he leaves. When we can confirm an older page number, we mark it in the Table of Contents. However, we have yet to track down every possible reference. At some point, it may be possible to use these page numbers to “version” the Beehive. However, we first have to track down and verify more references to older page numbers. Even if it is then possible to partially reconstruct older states of the Beehive, these page numbers would still be of dubious value as a system of reference. In addition, we have learned it is much easier to puzzle through Pastorius’s pagination in the physical book, where we can quickly page through large sections. For the Digital Beehive, volume and image number, as well as the persistent identifiers for each page, are much easier for the user. For now, the Digital Beehive will continue promoting the use of volume and image number as a stable mode of reference for the Beehive.
N.B. The Digital Beehive is indebted to former project manager Jehnna Lewis for much of the initial work on deciphering the Beehive’s page numbers.