Produced by David Starner, Dave Morgan, JoAnn Greenwood
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net






Transcriber's Note:

    _Underscores_ surround italicized text.
    Carats (^) indicate that the characters following are superscripts.

    Remaining notes are at the end of the text.

       *       *       *       *       *




               A
            History
              of
       Bibliographies of
         Bibliographies

             _by_
         Archer Taylor


      The Scarecrow Press
    New Brunswick, N.J. 1955




Copyright 1955, by Archer Taylor.




            _For_
      _Stanley Pargellis_




Preface


In the following essay I use the term "bibliography of
bibliographies" only for works of universal scope. Accordingly I
discuss neither such national bibliographies as Giuseppe Ottino and
Giuseppe Fumagalli's _Bibliotheca bibliographica italiana_ (Rome,
1889) nor such special lists as Gabriel Peignot's _Répertoire des
bibliographies spéciales_ (Paris, 1808) and _A List of Bibliographies
of Special Subjects_ (Chicago, 1902) issued by the John Crerar
Library. I exclude also lists of reference works.

Other groups of books have demanded less arbitrary handling.
In general, I have ruled out chapters on the bibliography of
bibliographies in handbooks of library science. By the same token,
I have included neither classified library catalogues, public or
private, nor catalogues of private libraries owned by scholars or
bibliographers in special fields. Finally I discuss only those
subject indexes that were published before the bibliography
of bibliographies was recognized as an independent scholarly
undertaking, such as Conrad Gesner's _Pandectae_ (1548) and Israel
Spach's _Nomenclator_ (1598). All later subject indexes in which the
bibliography of bibliographies is subsidiary to other purposes, have
been excluded.

The bibliographies cited by short titles or the author's names are
listed in full in the Bibliography. I have given locations for rare
books only, and then only for the copies that I have used. I have
not tried to identify the works cited in quotations illustrating
bibliographical method or to correct errors in such quoted titles,
except when the book is difficult to identify or when a correction is
pertinent to the discussion of the writer's bibliographical technique.

Various friends have generously read this essay in manuscript and
have offered suggestions for its improvement. I am greatly indebted
to them for this assistance. Dr. Arnold Weinberger of Harvard
University Library has given me general advice and many comments on
details. Taylor Starck of Harvard University, Lawrence S. Thompson,
Director of the University of Kentucky Library, and Hugh G. Dick
of the University of California at Los Angeles have given me good
counsel. Anne E. Markley of the University of California, School of
Librarianship read the manuscript with painstaking care and helped me
to avoid many errors.




Table of Contents


    Preface                                                       vii

      I. The Beginnings of the Bibliography
         of Bibliographies                                          1

     II. The Bibliography of Bibliographies Comes
         of Age                                                    21

    III. Lists of Books Entitled "Bibliotheca"                     47

     IV. The Bibliography of Bibliographies Begins Anew            61

      V. Bibliographies of Bibliographies as Periodical and
         Cooperative Enterprises                                  105

     VI. Conclusion                                               131

    Bibliography                                                  137

    Index                                                         147




Chapter I

Beginnings of the Bibliography of Bibliographies


The introduction to St. Jerome's _De viris illustribus_ written in
A.D. 392 may contain the first bibliography of bibliographies. Here
we find a list of nine men who had written bibliographies of various
kinds. St. Jerome writes as follows:

    You urge me, Dexter, to arrange ecclesiastical writers in
    imitation of Suetonius[1] and to do for men of our faith
    what he has done in listing men famous in heathen letters.
    Among the Greeks some have done the same thing: Hermippus
    Peripateticus,[2] Antigonus Carystius,[3] the learned
    Satyrus,[4] and Aristoxenus, the musician,[5] who was by
    far the most learned, [and] furthermore, among the Romans,
    Varro,[6] Santra,[7] Nepos, Hyginus, and Suetonius, whom you
    cite as a model.[8]

After a brief digression St. Jerome refers to Eusebius,
_Ecclesiastical History_, which he has found very useful, and then
concludes with an allusion to Cicero, whom few would now think of as
a bibliographer. In this passage he makes it clear that bibliography
was not highly esteemed even in A.D. 392:

    And so I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that, since your master
    Cicero, who stood at the pinnacle of Roman eloquence, has not
    disdained to compile a list of orators in the Latin language in
    his _Brutus_, I may execute such a task worthily, pursuant to
    your request, by listing the writers of His church.

St. Jerome's list is an altogether acceptable bibliography of
bibliographies. It includes Antigonus Carystius and Satyrus who wrote
general biobibliographies, and Aristoxenus who listed the pupils of
Isocrates or the writers of tragedy. We can infer that St. Jerome saw
a common element in the works of all these men. This common element
is the idea of a list or bibliography. Had he cited only writers of
general biobibliographies, we might imagine that he thought of them
as historians or chroniclers. In the context of an introduction to
his own bibliography of Christian writers he must have thought of
them as bibliographers. He neglected to mention many other early
bibliographers with whom he was probably familiar.

Almost thirteen centuries later Philip Labbé, whom we shall learn
to know as the first author of a bibliography of bibliographies to
be published as a separate work, found St. Jerome's list and after
making some additions, put it in alphabetical order. He could not
find a proper place for it in his own bibliography of bibliographies,
the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ of 1664, and buried it without
any apparent reason immediately after a reference to a book by
Constantinus Felicius that dealt with Cicero's exile and glorious
return. I suspect that the slip containing this information had been
misplaced in his manuscript. Labbé wrote as follows:

    Besides Damastes Sigiaeus,[9] many have written on the
    lives of scholars, for example, Agatharcides of Cnidus,[10]
    Amphicrates,[11] Antigonus Carystius, Aristoxenus, Artemon
    of Magnesia,[12] the Carthaginian Charon,[13] Clearchus
    of Soli,[14] Hermippus of Smyrna, Satyrus, Timagenes of
    Miletus,[15] and others, and among Latin writers, Varro,
    Santra, Nepos, [and] Hyginus, whom St. Jerome cites along with
    Suetonius on p. 62.[16]

Labbé's careless treatment of this information suggests that he had
not finished preparing it for publication. The text itself is not
entirely intelligible. He did not put it, as St. Jerome had done, in
the introduction and failed to find any other logical place for it.
St. Jerome's list obviously interested Labbé, for he quoted it again
in the article "Sanctus Hieronymus." When Antoine Teissier revised
and enlarged the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ in 1686, he came
upon this duplication and retained only the passage in the article
"Sanctus Hieronymus."

Except the long-forgotten Labbé, subsequent bibliographers know
nothing of St. Jerome's brief list. It did not set anyone to writing
bibliographies of bibliographies, and no example has been reported
in the almost uncharted area of bibliographical history that lies
between St. Jerome and the Renaissance.

Modern bibliographies of bibliographies begin as sections in general
subject indexes. In any such index bibliography is, as a matter of
course, represented. Conrad Gesner's _Pandectae_, 1548,[16a] which
is the first subject index to be printed, begins with bibliography.
The first book (_liber_) of the _Pandectae_ is entitled "De
grammatica" and deals with the classification and organization
of knowledge.[17] Chapter (_titulus_) XIII, with which we are
especially concerned, is a treatise on general bibliography.[18] Its
eight sections (_partes_) deal with books of general usefulness
and some related matters. Pars i, "Greek and Latin Writers of
Miscellanies and of Books Containing Critical Comments on More than
One Author," is well described by its title. Gesner divides it into
two parts: "Greek Miscellanies," including such works as Aelian,
_Varia historia_;[19] Athenaeus, _Deipnosophistae_;[20] Clement
of Alexandria, _Stromata_;[21] and Johannes Tzetzes, _Historia
varia_.[22] Books of this sort were reference works consulted
for information on almost any subject. To this alphabetical list
Gesner adds three titles: the accounts of marvels found in various
works by Aristotle; Julius Pollux, _Onomasticon_; and Plutarch,
_Symposium_.[23] For a bibliography of books of table talk similar
to Plutarch's work Gesner refers the reader to _Liber Politica,
Titulus Convivia_.[24] He adds a concluding remark that Caelius
Rhodiginus and Nicolaus Leonicenus--men who had written widely used
contemporary miscellanies--as well as other makers of compilations
have drawn freely on the authorities that he has listed. Gesner is a
good bibliographer. He has arranged these titles carefully and has
clearly indicated how much he knows about them and the translations
of them.

The second part of Titulus XIII, Pars i, is devoted to Latin
miscellanies. It begins with Alexander ab Alexandro (Alessandro
Alessandri, d. 1523), _Geniales dies_, "which contains grammatical
and legal collectanea and comments on various authors." Gesner
remarks that he has preferred to cite miscellanies and collections
of _loci communes_ because a separately printed treatise can be
easily found but the information in a miscellany is likely to be
overlooked.[25] He then names some fifteen Latin miscellanies of
various dates according to the first names of the authors. Among
them are the writings of Angelo Poliziano, Aulus Gellius, the
_Adagia_ of Erasmus, the _Varia_ of Cassiodorus, the _Saturnalia_
of Macrobius, the _De honesta disciplina_ by Petrus Crinitus, and
the _De inventoribus rerum_ by Polydore Vergil. This mingling
of classical and contemporary authorities is characteristic of
Renaissance scholarship. Gesner concludes with a citation of a
quarto _Miscellanea_ printed in Paris by Gormont and written by an
unidentified author (_nescio quo authore_).[26]

Gesner's free use of cross-references shows how carefully he planned
his book. For example, he reminds the reader that miscellanies
dealing with such natural objects as metals, stones, animals, and
plants will be found in the book entitled _Physica_,[27] those
concerned with the words and deeds of famous men will be found in
Caelius Rhodiginus,[28] and epistolographers, who may be thought
of as authors of books of a miscellaneous character, will be found
in a later section.[29] In a subdivision indicated by a paragraph
sign but without a centerhead Gesner says that dictionaries contain
miscellaneous information, cites examples, and adds a cross-reference
to his discussion of dictionaries. As is evident, he has covered the
sources of miscellaneous information rather fully.

In a second division of this part Gesner names writers who have
written comments on several authors and have printed them in a
single volume. He cites eleven examples, beginning with Bassianus
Landus (Bassiano Landi, d. 1562), _Epiphyllides_[30] and including
the manuscript notes of his contemporary, the Neapolitan grammarian,
L. J. Scoppa. Since the _Epiphyllides_ does not seem to have been
printed and a contemporary scholar's manuscript notes are obviously
difficult to find, Gesner can be said to have taken great pains with
the list. He excludes those who have written one or more volumes of
commentary on a single author.

In Pars ii, _De indicibus librorum_, an extremely interesting
discussion of indexes with rather little bibliographical baggage,
Gesner differentiates and discusses several varieties and brings
his discussion of methods to a close with some remarks about page
numbers and chapter numbers.[31] A paragraph sign sets off a list
of indexes to various books, chiefly editions of the classics and
Biblical or patristic writings. This list would have been very useful
to H. B. Wheatley in writing _What is an Index?_ (London, 1879).
On the next page (fols. 21^a-21^b) Gesner names a few publishers'
catalogues and, after a paragraph sign, a few library catalogues.[32]
Pars ii ends with a long discussion of the ways of cataloguing books
(fols. 21^b-22^b).

Pars iii, _Problemata, Quaestiones & Disputationes_, is a strictly
bibliographical account of special varieties of miscellanies.[33]
The next two Partes contain a discussion of the methodology of
note-taking and are not directly bibliographical in nature. Pars vi
lists some forty collections of commonplaces (fols. 27^b-28^a). Among
them are Antonius Corvinus's arrangement of Erasmus's _Apophthegmata_
in commonplaces,[34] Stobaeus, Thomas Hibernicus,[35] Maximus
Planudes (who expurgated and arranged the Greek Anthology in _loci
communes_), Otto Brunfels (whose _Pandectae sacrae_[36] Gesner has
used freely), and Valerius Maximus. Such books were more or less like
general reference works. Here, as elsewhere, Gesner names classical
and contemporary writers in a single list.

We have been examining thus far Gesner's account of general reference
works and come finally to the seventh pars, which is the most
interesting division of the titulus for a student of bibliographical
history. It is entitled _Bibliographies, i.e. alphabetical list of
catalogues of books, the classification of books, the care of them,
mottoes, and the buildings_.[37] This title is virtually the table
of contents of a handbook of library science.[38] We shall consider
only the first sections of this pars and in particular Gesner's
bibliography of bibliographies.

Gesner begins the seventh pars with miscellaneous notes on pertinent
books and on libraries. He carefully separates these notes from the
following bibliography of bibliographies. This is an alphabetical
list of thirty-one names, beginning with

Alberti Magni de antiquis authorib. astronomiae liber[39] Amphicrates
de viris illustrib. scripsit, Athenaeo teste Apollodorus Athenien.
Bibliothecae pars etiamnun extat.

In this list Gesner includes both general and special bibliographies.
He cites St. Jerome's _De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis_ (a variant
title of the _De viris illustribus_) and the continuations by Bede,
Gennadius of Marseilles, Honorius Augustodunensis, Isidore of
Seville, and Sigebert of Gembloux; Johannes Tritheim, who compiled
the original work of St. Jerome and the continuations into a single
volume; and Sophronius, who translated it into Greek. He cites
contemporary legal bibliographies, one by Bernardinus Rutilius
(Bernardino Rutilio, 1504-1538), who dealt with men of his own time,
and another by Johannes Fichardus (Johann Fichard, 1512-1581), the
often published _Juris consultorum vitae veterum quidem_, which
surveyed older authorities.[40] He has seen or heard of Jacob Rueff's
survey of astrologers, Lilio Gregorio Giraldi's literary history,
Otto Brunfels's bibliography of medicine in classical times, and
Philip Ribot's biobibliographical dictionary of the Carmelite order.
The last he has not seen but believes to have been utilized by
Johannes Tritheim.

These names illustrate the variety of bibliographies known to Gesner
and his clear conception of what a bibliography of bibliographies
should be. He has admitted only pertinent books and has arranged
their titles carefully in alphabetical order according to first
names. He has given sources for citations that he has not verified
and for books that he knows to be in manuscript or probably lost.
He has commented occasionally on the quality of a book or has told
how it was arranged. For example, he says that Rueff's astrological
bibliography contains pictures of men and instruments and comments in
German verse. He does not give the dates and places of publication,
but bibliographers have been slow to learn the importance of citing
these details. No doubt he expected his readers to consult his
biobibliographical dictionary, the _Bibliotheca universalis_ of 1545,
for that information. A sixteenth-century scholar, who was accustomed
to find books arranged according to format, might have complained
that Gesner did not indicate the size of the books. In his procedure
he goes beyond St. Jerome, who was content to cite only names. Gesner
cites titles.

In Pars viii, "De mirabilibus," the last subdivision of Titulus
XIII, Gesner gives a hasty account of books about marvels and
noteworthy things. Although he cites several lost classical works on
the subject and Alessandro Alessandri, _Geniales dies_, which had
appeared in print a generation before the _Pandectae_, he makes no
great effort to deal bibliographically with the subject. He obviously
regards such works as collections of odds and ends and therefore
akin to miscellanies. He says, for example, that geographers tell
strange tales about the shapes and manners of men and the nature
of countries, skies, and seas. He could, he says, have given here
references to ancient statues and inscriptions, but has preferred
to classify them under history. Poetry and invented tales might
also be mentioned and riddles, he thinks, are not to be neglected.
The remaining tituli of the first book deal with matters akin to
grammar in its usual modern sense but include several specialized
bibliographies that we need not examine closely.[41] Gesner's
bibliography of bibliographies represents an auspicious beginning of
a very difficult variety of bibliography.

The foregoing details about the first book in Gesner's _Pandectae_
make clear Gesner's skill in organization and classification as well
as the place that the bibliography of bibliographies had in his
scheme. They give some notion of sixteenth-century scholarship and
explain why Gesner's _Pandectae_ failed to be continued or revised
and, more especially, why his bibliography of bibliographies has not
been noticed. Even A. G. S. Josephson, who had a very sharp eye for
bibliographies of bibliographies concealed as chapters in subject
indexes, did not come upon Gesner's work. Josephson's study will be
mentioned in its proper place at the end of this essay. Gesner's
subject bibliography was not appreciated fully because it contained
many references to classical sources and did not give a comprehensive
account of contemporary writings. Although Gesner's classification
was logical and although he adhered with remarkable care to the
categories that he set up, no one but Gesner himself could make
additions to the book or revise it.

It remains to say a word about the relation of the _Pandectae_
to the book of which it forms a part. Gesner published four
volumes--the _Bibliotheca universalis_ of 1545, the _Pandectae_ of
1548, the _Partitiones_ of 1549, and the _Appendix_ of 1555--that
are ordinarily regarded as a single work. The _Bibliotheca_ and
the _Appendix_ constitute a biobibliographical dictionary. The
_Pandectae_ and the _Partitiones_ are a subject index that lacks
a promised section on medicine. The dictionary and the index have
no close relations to each other, except to the degree that the
dictionary gives additional information about books cited by authors'
names in the index. In Gesner's situation a modern scholar would have
distributed according to subjects the slips that he had made for his
biobibliographical dictionary and would thus have obtained a subject
index almost immediately. Gesner did not proceed in this way, but
undertook and completed the subject index as a virtually independent
work.

The next man to write a bibliography of bibliographies gives no
evidence of having read Gesner's work or, more specifically, of
having come upon Gesner's bibliography of bibliographies. He is
Israel Spach (1560-1610), who wrote a general subject index at
the end of the sixteenth century. In the bibliographical section,
"Writers of Bibliographies (Bibliothecarum scriptores)," of his
_Nomenclator philosophorum et philologicorum_, (1598), Spach
names twenty-nine books. Of these only two medical and two legal
bibliographies were known to Gesner, and one of these legal
bibliographies is cited in a better edition that appeared long
after the publication of the _Pandectae_. Spach's emphasis lies on
contemporary works. Although he mentions the medieval continuators
of St. Jerome, he does not mention St. Jerome himself. Inasmuch as
these continuators were brought together in Johannes Tritheim, _De
viris illustribus_, which he cites,[42] he could have dispensed
with them. He begins with Antoine du Verdier's supplement (1585) to
Gesner's _Bibliotheca universalis_ and then mentions Apollodorus,
whose _Bibliotheca_ was still unpublished. Apollodorus and
Claudius Ptolemy, _Sententiae_ (also unpublished) are the only two
bibliographers of classical times that he names. Spach knows general
works like Conrad Gesner's _Bibliotheca_, Robert Constantin's
compilation (1555) that purported to be a supplement to it, and
Nicolaus Basse's cumulation (1592) of the semi-annual catalogues of
the German booktrade; national bibliographies like Anton Francesco
Doni's _La libraria_ (1556)[43] and John Bale's list of English
authors; and, finally, bibliographies of special disciplines like
ecclesiastical history, medicine (Otto Brunfels and Symphorien
Champier), and law. In these categories he has chosen appropriate
books. Although he includes Hierimias Paduanus, who wrote a very
popular collection of _loci communes_ that circulated also under the
name of Thomas Hibernicus (Thomas Palmer),[44] he agrees with Gesner
in preferring to list such works separately.

In the fifty years between the publication of Gesner's _Pandectae_
and Spach's _Nomenclator_ bibliographers had come to recognize
the value of several kinds of compilations that Gesner had not
chosen to include. For example, Spach cites the catalogues issued
by publishers,[45] a category that Gesner knew but separated from
his bibliography of bibliographies. He includes some titles that
most bibliographers would not now include in a bibliography of
bibliographies, for example, a book dealing with the book trade,[46]
a book dealing with a particular library,[47] a famous catalogue of
Greek manuscripts at Augsburg.[48] Titles such as Wolfgang Lazius,
_Catalogus partim suorum, partim aliorum scriptorum_[49] do not
indicate clearly the contents of the book. Spach has thrown his net
wide and has caught some fish that we can not call bibliographies.
Nevertheless, all the works that he cites deal with books, and we
shall not quarrel with him for including treatises on the Frankfurt
book fair or the Vatican library. Two titles show how widely he
ranged in the search for materials. John Boston's fourteenth-century
union catalogue of manuscripts owned in England has come to his
knowledge,[50] and he has picked up Claudius Ptolemy, _Sententiae
sive de utilitate librorum_,[51] which was, in one form or another,
a popular book about books during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. Spach's omission of regional or national bibliographies
and biobibliographical dictionaries, except for Bale and Doni, and of
biobibliographical dictionaries of the religious orders is obvious.
Perhaps he regarded them as historical rather than bibliographical
reference works.

As we have seen, Spach offers a good account of sixteenth-century
bibliographies and especially of those published in the latter
half of the century. When taken in conjunction with Gesner's
earlier bibliography, which reviewed classical writers and his own
contemporaries, Spach's list provides us with a good account of
sixteenth-century bibliography.

The bibliographical section, "Writers of Bibliographies
(Bibliothecarum Scriptores)," in a general subject index entitled
_Bibliotheca philosophica_ (1616) by Paulus Bolduanus continues the
tradition represented by Gesner and Spach. I have not been able
to learn much about the life and works of this obscure Pomeranian
minister of the gospel, who apparently lived and died in or near the
village of Stolp.[52] He wrote bibliographies of theology, history,
and philosophy between 1614 and 1622, publishing in the latter year
a supplement to his theological bibliography. Petzholdt rightly
commends (pp. 458-459) the _Bibliotheca philosophica_ as superior
to Spach's _Nomenclator_ but curiously fails to see that Bolduan's
notion of philosophy was in general use in the first half of the
seventeenth century. A _bibliotheca philosophica_ of that time would
include as a matter of course everything but theology, law, and
medicine. Petzholdt praises (pp. 771-772) Bolduan's _Bibliotheca
historica_ (1620) as a respectable work that shows bibliographical
skill and accuracy. These are kinder words than Petzholdt can
ordinarily find for a seventeenth-century bibliography and are a
corrective to Burkhard Gotthelf Struve's harsh judgment: "In our day,
when other works of this sort are available, we can easily dispense
with these efforts."[53]

Bolduan's bibliography of bibliographies[54] is both longer and more
carefully made than Spach's. He has arranged nearly seventy titles
alphabetically according to the first names of the authors. He cites
catalogues of university libraries (only the Leyden catalogue of
1595 could have been within Spach's reach and he did not know it),
the compilations made for the book trade by Nicolaus Basse, Johannes
Clessius, and Henning Grosse, the ubiquitous publisher's lists
issued by Goltzius and Oporinus, and bibliographical dictionaries of
various subjects and the religious orders. Like Spach, whose list he
seems to have taken over completely, he has heard of John Boston's
catalogue and, like Spach, is ignorant of the author's first name
and is compelled to cite it under "Bostonus." He corrects Spach's
misspelling of Muzio Pansa's name. He does not, however, include any
classical Greek or Latin bibliographers. We can therefore infer that
he did not find Gesner's bibliography of bibliographies, where they
were mentioned. He might have omitted them on principle, but he also
fails to mention some early sixteenth-century bibliographies known
to Gesner which he would surely have included, had he known them. An
example of such a bibliography is Jacob Rueff's book on astrology.
Bolduan names no title that cannot be called a bibliography in
some sense. In both extent and accuracy he surpasses Spach. As
comparison with Theodore Besterman, _The Beginnings of Systematic
Bibliography_,[55] shows, this competent workman gives a good account
of the bibliographies available in 1616.

A dozen years later, in 1628, Franciscus Sweertius (Francis Sweerts,
1567-1629) printed a bibliography of bibliographies about as large as
that by Bolduan. He does not cite his predecessors and probably did
not know them. This learned Antwerp merchant and author of several
scholarly works printed his bibliography of bibliographies in his
_Athenae Belgicae_.[56] It has no organic relation to Sweerts's
purpose of writing a Belgian biobibliographical dictionary. In this
compilation, which has a slightly stronger theological tinge than
its predecessors, Sweerts lists seventy-eight bibliographies in
twenty paragraphs according to subjects. This is, therefore, the
first classified bibliography of bibliographies. Except in five
instances with such headings as "De Bibliothecis" and "De Vitis &
Scriptoribus Ord. S. Dominici," the subjects are to be inferred from
the typographical arrangement. Although he has not completely worked
out a scheme of organization, he progresses from general works on
libraries and books to special bibliographies of theology, law,
and medicine. He is less careful than Spach and Bolduan about the
bibliographical details of place and date of publication, but the
need for this information was just beginning to be recognized at
the time when he wrote. He adheres closely to the idea of listing
bibliographies and admits only one perhaps pardonable interloper, a
compilation of the Church Fathers. It is curious that he cites the
_Bibliotheca theologica_ by Johannes Molanus (Jean van der Meulen),
which was published in 1618, as being still in manuscript. Later
bibliographers have picked up all the titles cited by Sweerts and
his selection does not differ sufficiently from that made by Spach
and Bolduan to need characterization by quoting titles. Sweerts
wrote the first independent or almost independent bibliography of
bibliographies and at the same time the first classified bibliography
of bibliographies.

The four bibliographies of bibliographies published in the eighty
years between Gesner's _Pandectae_ (1548) and Sweert's _Athenae
Belgicae_ (1628) are, as their authors intended them to be,
relatively complete. In _The Beginnings of Systematic Bibliography_,
Theodore Besterman adds only a few rather unimportant titles
and these may indeed not have seemed to be bibliographies or to
have deserved mention in the eyes of Gesner and his successors.
Instructive technical developments are evident in these first four
compilations. Gesner cites both classical Greek and Latin works and
contemporary bibliographies. Spach, Bolduan, and Sweerts adopt the
modern practice of preferring to list bibliographies of contemporary
usefulness. Gesner, Spach, and Bolduan do not separate their work
from the larger task of writing a general subject index. Sweerts
sees that the bibliography of bibliographies can be an independent
enterprise. Gesner, Spach, and Bolduan offer alphabetical lists.
Sweerts adopts the modern plan of a classified list. Although the
bibliography of bibliographies has continued to be a necessary part
of a general subject index, I shall limit myself in the following
discussion to bibliographies of bibliographies that have been
published as separate works.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] St. Jerome has in mind the _De illustribus grammaticis_ and
_De rhetoribus_ by Suetonius. For a discussion of Latin writers of
biobibliography see Wilhelm Ludwig Schmidt, _De Romanorum imprimis
Suetonii arte biographica_ (Diss.; Marburg, 1891).

[2] Hermippus of Smyrna wrote on legislators, the Seven Sages, and
the pupils of Isocrates. He or another Hermippus wrote a _De viris
illustribus_, which is probably the book intended by St. Jerome. For
more information about Hermippus and the other writers mentioned
in this passage see Joannes Jonsius, _De scriptoribus historiae
philosophiae_ (Frankfurt a.M., 1659) and such a modern authority as
Wilhelm von Christ, _Geschichte der griechischen Literatur_ (6th
ed., Munich, 1920). I recommend Jonsius because he makes clear the
bibliographical aspect of these writers. There is no adequate account
of classical Greek and Latin bibliographical writings.

[3] Antigonus, who is often cited by Diogenes Laertius in his
biobibliography of philosophers, wrote a general biobibliography that
is now lost.

[4] Satyrus wrote a _De viris illustribus_ in dialogue that may have
been Plutarch's model.

[5] The polymath Aristoxenus is credited with a book on the writers
of tragedy. This may be the book intended here. Plutarch admired his
biographical dictionary. See Jonsius, pp. 73-78.

[6] Pliny (_Natural History_, 35.2) cites Varro's _De imaginibus_
which contained five hundred or more _imagines_ or characterizations,
probably with illustrations. Varro also wrote accounts of poets,
rhetoricians, and libraries.

[7] Like the following authors, Santra wrote a biobibliographical
dictionary.

[8] Quoted from the edition of St. Jerome's _De viris illustribus_ in
J. A. Fabricius, _Bibliotheca ecclesiastica_, Hamburg, 1718, p. 13.
I have used this edition because it contains useful notes on these
authors.

[9] A pupil of the Milesian historian Hellanicus and author of an
account of the ancestors of the men who fought at Troy, a catalogue
of tribes and cities, and a book on poets and sophists.

[10] The author of various geographical treatises, among which I see
nothing clearly bibliographical in nature. See a very interesting
account in Jonsius, pp. 173-175, which begins by raising the question
whether Agatharcides is to be considered a writer of bibliography.

[11] The author of a general biobibliography.

[12] The author of a book on famous women.

[13] The author of four books on famous men and four books on famous
women.

[14] A disciple of Aristotle and the author of a collection of
biographies.

[15] The author of a treatise on Heraclea in Pontus and its famous
men. This is an early instance of a regional biobibliography.

[16] See _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ (Rouen, 1672), p. 40, Leipzig,
1682, p. 67. I have not tried to run down Labbé's reference to "St.
Jerome, p. 62." Something has gone wrong with Labbé's introductory
words: "Ex antiquis Damastae Sigiaeo facile quoque fuerit plures
qui de vitis Eruditorum Hominum scripserunt, puta Agatharcidem
Cnidium,..." The sense is, however, obvious.

[16a] For the bibliographical details of the bibliographies of
bibliographies cited in this essay see the "Bibliography."

[17] Fols. 1^a-42^b. This meaning of _grammatica_ (grammar) is still
seen in the titles of such books as Cardinal Newman's _An Essay in
Aid of a Grammar of Assent_ (London, 1870); Karl Pearson's _The
Grammar of Science_ (London, 1892); and Kenneth Burke's _A Grammar of
Motives_ (New York, 1945). For other references see _A New English
Dictionary_, s.v. "grammar," 6.

[18] "De varijs," fols. 18^a-30^b.

[19] There is an unpublished translation by Conrad Clauser. Gesner
gives this information and the information in the four following
notes. I have quoted it to show his careful procedure as a
bibliographer.

[20] Stephanus Niger (fl. 1498) has translated a large portion and
there is also, it is said, a translation by Hieronymus Parisetus
(1520-1600). A complete translation, which is said to exist in Italy,
has not yet been printed.

[21] Fragments are extant, and scraps have been printed in Heraclides
Ponticus, _De furtis poetarum_. [This is a reference to Heraclitus
(sic) Ponticus, _Allegoriae in Homeri fabulas_ ... _Conradi Gesnero
interprete_ (Basel, 1544. MH)].

[22] Except for Melanchthon's translation of Book VII, c. 6, this is
not available in translation.

[23] Rodolfus Gualtherus has translated Pollux. Both the Latin and
the Greek _Onomasticon_ have been printed. The Greek _Onomasticon_
has a Latin and a very rich Greek index.

[24] This is a reference to fols. 321^a-322^b.

[25] "Cur autem illorum, qui Varia scripserunt (quibus etiam Locos
communes adnumero) potius quam illorum qui certum quodpiam argumentum
tractaverunt, capita Pandectis nostris inseruerim, haec causa est:
quoniam in uno argumento qui quaerendum sit facile intelligitur, in
variis non idem."

[26] This is evidently the anonymous _Miscellanea ex diversis
historiographis, oratoribus et poetis excerptis_ (Paris: Joannes
Gormont, 1519), which I cite from G. W. Panzer, _Annales_, VIII
(Nuremberg, 1800), 59, No. 1122, or the [1520] edition, for which see
Panzer, VIII, 69, No. 1230.

[27] He gives no precise reference, but intends the reader to turn to
fols. 192^b-194^b.

[28] This is Ludovico Ricchieri (1450-1520), _Lectionum antiquarum
libri triginta_ (Basel, 1517). There are later editions.

[29] Again he gives no precise reference. The pertinent passage is
Liber I, Titulus XVIII (fols. 32^b-34^b).

[30] I can find no reference to a publication of this book. See
Conrad Gesner, _Bibliotheca_ (ed. Josias Simler; Zurich, 1583), s.v.
"Bassiani Landi," where we read "praeterea fertur scripsisse librum
cui titulus est Epiphyllides."

[31] Hugh G. Dick calls attention to some interesting remarks on the
development of pagination as an answer to the needs of scholars in P.
S. Allen, _Erasmus Lectures and Wayfaring Sketches_ (Oxford, 1934),
pp. 32-34.

[32] He promises to give a longer list of library catalogues and
redeems his promise on fols. 29^a-29^b, where he adds a reference to
his discussion of libraries in classical antiquity in the preface to
the _Bibliotheca universalis_. Such cross-references show Gesner's
control of his materials.

[33] Fols. 22^b-23^a (misnumbered 24^a).

[34] I do not find this book by Anton Rabe or Zythogallus (1501-1553)
in the catalogues of the British Museum or the Bibliothèque
Nationale. C. G. Jöcher, _Allgemeines Gelehrtenlexikon_, I (Leipzig,
1750), cols. 2125-2126, cites "argutissima quaeque apophthegmata
ex Erasmi operae selecta," without date or place of publication.
For a reference to the edition of Magdeburg, 1534, see _Bibliotheca
Belgica_, Series 2, Vol. VIII (Ghent, n.d. [1891-1923]), p. 377. I am
indebted to Dr. Arnold Weinberger for these references.

[35] This is Thomas Palmer, Hibernicus, whose _Flores omnium pene
doctorum_ was published in several editions with varying titles in
the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century.

[36] A short title for the _Pandectarum Veteris et Novi Testamenti
libri XXII_ (Strassburg, 1532). There are other editions.

[37] "De Bibliothecis, id est, catalogus scriptorum ordine
literarum; deinde etiam de locis librorum [,] custodia, insignibus,
& structoribus eorum." A literal translation of the first two words
would be "Concerning Bibliographies," or "On Bibliographies," but
this does not seem to me to be current English style and I have
preferred to give a modern idiomatic rendering here and elsewhere of
titles in foreign languages. I have also quoted the original titles.

[38] Compare such modern works as Arnim Graesel, _Grundzüge der
Bibliothekslehre_ (Leipzig, 1890 and later eds.); Svend Dahl (ed.),
_Haandbog i Bibliotekskundskab_ (Copenhagen, 1912 and later eds.);
Fritz Milkau (ed.), _Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft_ (Leipzig,
1931-1940).

[39] For Albertus Magnus see George Sarton, _Introduction to the
History of Science_, II (Baltimore, 1937), 937 and Lynn Thorndike,
_A History of Magic and Experimental Science_, II (New York, 1923),
692-717. The _Speculum astronomiae_, which Gesner has in mind, has
also been ascribed to Roger Bacon, but this is probably an error.

[40] See an important article on sixteenth-century legal
bibliography: Wilhelm Fuchs, "Die Anfänge der juristischen
Bibliographie im 16. Jahrhundert," _Archiv für Bibliographie, Buch-
und Bibliothekswesen_, II (1929), 44-54.

[41] These are bibliographies of Latin dialogues (a favorite
Renaissance literary form for exposition and controversy),
epistolographers, bilingual and multilingual dictionaries, Greek
grammars, and Hebrew grammars.

[42] Spach knows only the editions of 1494 and 1531 and overlooks the
largest and best edition of 1546.

[43] The date should be 1557. He does not know the first or the
latest edition of this book.

[44] See above, n. 35.

[45] See "Joan. Castelli, Catal. officinae Goltzianae." For
references to Hubert Goltzius, a famous printer at Bruges in the
second half of the sixteenth century, see Adrien Baillet, _Jugemens
des savans_ (Amsterdam, 1725), V, ii, p. 66; Michael Maittaire,
_Annales typographicae_ (The Hague, 1719-1741), III, 568; H. Marcel,
"Hubert Goltzius, éditeur et imprimeur," _Annales de la Société
d'émulation pour l'étude de l'histoire de la Flandre_ (Bruges),
LXVIII (1925), 21-34. Spach also cites "Joan. Oporini, Exuviae,"
a publisher's catalogue that, like the Goltzius catalogue, often
appears in lists of bibliographies; see J. W. Spargo, "Some Reference
Books of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," _Papers of the
Bibliographical Society of America_, XXXI (1937), 145. Book titles in
quotation marks indicate books that I have not examined.

[46] "Stephanus, Francofurdiense emporium," which was published at
[Geneva] in 1574 and translated by James Westfall Thompson, _The
Frankfort Book Fair. The Francofordiense emporium of Henri Estienne_
(Chicago, 1911).

[47] Muzio Pansa (not Pensa), _Della libraria Vaticana_ (Rome, 1590.
ICN).

[48] _Catalogus Graecorum Codicum qui sunt in Bibl. Reip. Augustanae
Vindelicae_ (Augsburg, 1595). For a reference to it see J. M.
Francke, _Catalogus Bibliothecae Bunavianae_, I (Leipzig, 1750), i,
840. David Hoeschel compiled this catalogue, which was four times
as large as the catalogue made twenty years earlier by [Hieronymus
Wolff].

[49] Published at Vienna, but Spach gives no date. For many studies
of Lazius see Karl Schottenloher, _Bibliographie zur deutschen
Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 1517-1585_ (Leipzig,
1933-1940), I, 437-438 and V, 151. These do not seem to deal with the
_Catalogus_.

[50] For an excellent account of this catalogue see E. A. Savage,
"Notes on the Early Monastic Libraries of Scotland, with an account
of the Registrum Librorum Angliae and of the Catalogus scriptorum
of John Boston of Bury St Edmunds," _Publications of the Edinburgh
Bibliographical Society_, XIV (1928), 1-46.

[51] See the edition entitled "Centum dicta, sive fructus librorum
suorum" in Claudius Ptolemy, _Opera_ (Basel, 1541. MH). The British
museum, catalogue lists it as _Centiloquium_.

[52] I cannot follow further the only clue to information that I
have discovered. In J. C. Fischer (ed.), B. G. Struve, _Introductio
in notitiam rei litterariae_ (Frankfurt a.M., 1754), p. 394, where
libraries in Germany are discussed, I read "Stolpensis: Chr. August.
Freybergii Programma de Bibliotheca Stolpensi, Dresdae 1723. Eiusdem
Programmata VIII. de Scholarum praesertim Saxonicarum, hyeme, (in
quibus simul Bibliothecae Stolpensis memorabilia sistit,) Dresdae,
1726. 1738. 4-to." No doubt Freyberg mentioned Bolduan.

[53] J. F. Jugler (ed.), B. G. Strove, _Bibliotheca historiae
litterariae selecta_ (4 v.; Jena 1754-1785), I, 88.

[54] _Bibliotheca philosophica_, pp. 644-648.

[55] 2d ed.; [Oxford] and London, [1936].

[56] See pp. 56-58.




Chapter II

The Bibliography of Bibliographies Comes of Age


In the seventeenth century several bibliographies of bibliographies
were undertaken as independent enterprises. One of them was actually
completed and published and after several editions had the good
fortune to be revised and to receive a supplement. A century after
Gesner had published his bibliographies of authors and subjects,
in the decade between 1643 and 1653, Jodocus a Dudinck, who did
not fulfill his promise, and Philip Labbé, sought to survey all
scholarship and hit upon the idea of a bibliography of bibliographies
as a means to this end. Like Conrad Gesner's _Bibliotheca
universalis_ of 1545-1555 (which was a list of all writers and their
works), Philip Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ of 1653 (which
was a bibliography of bibliographies) enjoyed a successful career
for a little more than a generation and then disappeared from view.
After the first revisions and supplements no one chose to continue
either Gesner or Labbé. This analogy between the century that began
with the invention of printing and ended with Gesner's survey of
1545-1555 and the following century that ended with Labbé's survey
of 1653 is perhaps more curious than important. It does nevertheless
emphasize a twice-repeated interruption in the historical development
of bibliographies. In the two generations between 1643 and 1705 men
in various countries compiled or promised to compile bibliographies
of bibliographies and with the beginning of the eighteenth century
they ceased to do so.

The first separately published bibliography of bibliographies is,
if it actually exists, Jodocus a Dudinck, _Bibliothecariographia_
(Cologne, apud Jodocum Kalcoven, 1643.) No one has ever seen it and
many have searched for it during the last three centuries. Back in
the seventeenth century the Lutheran theologian Caspar Sagittarius
(1643-1694) sought it in vain. A little later Johann Andreas Schmidt
or Schmid (1652-1726), who was both a theologian and a writer on
library science, was similarly defeated in an effort to find the
book. Probably Hieronymus Augustinus Groschufius was right when he
said in one of the earliest treatises on rare books (1709-1716)
that the _Bibliothecariographia_ was never printed.[57] The first
reference to the book is found, as far as I know, in a Belgian
biobibliographical dictionary of 1643 and all our information
about the book and its author goes back to this source.[58] The
announcement is not particularly suspicious because the publisher
Jodocus Kalcoven of Cologne seems to have been an agent or a limited
partner of the famous firm of Willem Blaeu (later Jan Blaeu) of
Amsterdam.[59] This firm used Kalcoven's name on various scholarly
books.[59] Little as we know about Dudinck's book, its title
indicates that he clearly understood the nature of a bibliography
of bibliographies. He called it "A Bibliography of Bibliographies.
A list of all authors and works that have appeared under the
title of bibliography, catalogue, index, list, athenae, and so
on."[60] Jodocus a Dudinck had a very good eye for opportunities
in the bibliographical field. He announced a general treatise on
libraries[61] and both a bibliography of the Virgin Mary and an
account of the places associated with her.[62] No one has even seen
any of Dudinck's books, but the fact that books on all these subjects
were written by other hands within a generation shows his ingenuity
and judgment as a bibliographer. Nothing appears to be known about
Dudinck beyond what Valerius Andreas has to say. He was a priest in a
small village in the Rhineland, "multae vir lectionis."

Ten years after the announcement of Dudinck's book Philip Labbé
(1607-1667) printed a bibliography of bibliographies as a supplement
to his _Novae bibliothecae specimen_ (1653).[63] He seems to have
regarded this later as a separate publication and has caused some
confusion by doing so. On its separate title page the date of this
supplement is 1652, but the supplement does not appear to have been
issued separately and the title page of the book bears the date 1653.
This bibliography of bibliographies is entitled: "Supplementum novae
bibliothecae, sive speciminis antiquarum lectionum, coronis libraria.
Hoc est, Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum, & Catalogus Catalogorum,
Nomenclatorum, Indicum, Elenchorum, &c. quibus Scriptores in quavis
arte & professione praecipui, &c. libri ferme omnes, partim editi,
partim inediti repraesentantur." Here Labbé has defined the proper
contents of a bibliography of bibliographies. He has included
very few inappropriate titles in his list of nearly three hundred
separately published bibliographies, bibliographies that were still
in manuscript, and bibliographies published in non-bibliographical
works. There are very few examples of the last category. He
is careful about his work. For example, he cites a manuscript
biobibliographical dictionary by Alfonsus Ciaconius (Alfonso Chacón,
1540-1599) and gives his authority in Antonio Possevino, _Apparatus
sacer_ (Cologne, 1608). Chacón's dictionary was not printed until
1731, and then only as a fragment. Labbé knows Alfonso Barvoet's
catalogue of manuscripts in the Escorial; Alfonso García's list of
famous Spaniards; Ambrosio Gozzi's biobibliographical dictionary
of Dominicans; Andreas Quercetanus's (André Duchesne, 1584-1640)
bibliography of French history (three editions are cited);
autobibliographies like "Index librorum F. Angeli Rochensis.
Romae 1611"; national bibliographies like that for France by
Antoine du Verdier; and a classical miscellany like Athenaeus,
_Deipnosophistae_, which scholars then regarded as a bibliography. In
other words, Labbé has named examples of varieties of bibliographies
that we now recognize. Although he mentions a publisher's catalogue
(which he has not seen), he seems doubtful about its pertinence to
the task. He comments, for example, on a collective volume in the De
Thou library that contained catalogues issued by Plantin, Froschauer,
Wechel, and other publishers and says that he is not including it.
Labbé's comments are abundant and informative. This first independent
bibliography of bibliographies is a commendable piece of work.

Labbé realized that he had hit upon a new and important idea and
worked diligently to improve and enlarge his collections. In 1662
he published a sample of his plans for several bibliographies under
the title of _Sexdecim librorum initia_. This consisted of the first
eight pages of each of ten bibliographies on which he was working
and discussions of six more that he expected to write. The first
eight pages of the bibliography of bibliographies extend to Antonius
Possevinus (inclusive). A comparison of the complete list of 1653,
the sample of 1662, and the book that was finally printed in 1664
is necessarily limited to a portion of the alphabet. In 1653 he
cited fourteen names (some of these authors were responsible for
several bibliographies), in 1662 he cited thirty-three names, and in
1664 he cited sixty-eight names (including the additions made in a
supplementary alphabet). In 1653 he regretted his inability to find a
publisher's catalogue issued by Aldus Manutius. In 1662 he reported
that he had not found it. In 1664 he cited publishers' catalogues
issued by both Aldus Manutius and Aldus Manutius, Junior. In both
1662 and 1664 he made additions to the titles listed under various
names, introduced new cross-references, and made improvements in
details. As an example of an improvement, note his correction of the
name Antonius Bumaldus to Joannes Antonius Bumaldus. This apparently
minor change is important because Labbé's arrangement of authors
according to their Christian names required him to transfer the name
from the letter "A" to the letter "J."

Although Labbé greatly improved his book between 1653 and 1664, he
nevertheless published it without incorporating all the additions
into the main alphabet and without making full and accurate indexes.
Subsequent editions did not completely remedy these serious defects.
In 1672, when Labbé had been dead for five years, an anonymous editor
combined the additions with the main alphabet, but did not correct
errors in the text or improve the indexes. In 1678, the unsold sheets
of the 1672 edition were issued with a new title page and a brief
appendix containing John Selden's numismatic bibliography. The last
edition of the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ was printed at Leipzig in
1682. It is called "enlarged (auctior)," but in a rather extensive
comparison I have found only one new title. The German editor removed
some of Labbé's comments on Protestant writers but did little more.

Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ is an alphabetical list
according to first names of some eight hundred authors of
bibliographies. According to Besterman, it includes about fifteen
hundred titles. Labbé's arrangement according to first names causes
no difficulty to a modern user because he provides an index of
family names. Unfortunately, however, this index of family names is
incomplete, and the lack of care in its preparation is evidence that
Labbé hurried to get his book to the printer.

Eight subject indexes--only the fourth is not alphabetical--make
the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ fully usable. When the reader
has familiarized himself with them (and apparently very few have
done so), he can understand the book and its value to a scholar.
In working with the indexes he will discover that Labbé did
not make them complete and reliable. Part of the difficulty in
understanding and using the indexes arises from Labbé's old and
unfamiliar classification according to men instead of subjects.
This classification was firmly established when Labbé wrote and
he probably never thought of any other. St. Jerome had called his
book by the alternative title "De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis,"
that is to say, "Ecclesiastical Writers," but it was a bibliography
of ecclesiastical literature. A bibliography of astrology was, in
Labbé's conception, a list of men who wrote on astrology. He soon
ran into difficulties and adopted devices to get around them that
show bibliographical method in a transitional state. In "Index I.
Practitioners of Various Arts and Sciences (Index Primus. Professores
variarum scientiarum atque artium representans)" we find such
entries as "Advocatorum Consistorialium, Advocatorum Parisiensis
Curiae, Aristotelis Graecorum Interpretum, Arithmeticorum," which
we can translate (changing to the nominative case) as "Consistorial
Lawyers, Lawyers of the Parisian Court, Greek Interpreters of
Aristotle, Arithmeticians." These designations are to be understood
as references to as many subjects. "Index II. [Bibliographies of]
Nations and Countries" and "Index III. [Bibliographies of] Religions
and Religious Orders," which does not include non-Christian religions
or heretical sects, give him no trouble. In the fourth index Labbé
meets his Waterloo. This "Index IV. Authors Writing on Various
Subjects" is awkwardly conceived in terms of the authors but is
arranged according to the theological merit of the subjects on which
they wrote. It descends from the Virgin Mary to inventions in the
following order: (1) writers about the Virgin Mary, (2) [writers
about] the Immaculate Conception, (3) writers who were popes, (4)
writers who were cardinals, (5) writers who were French cardinals,
(6) women writers, (7) writers about heretics, (8) writers on the
prohibition of heretical books, (9) compilers of catalogues of
manuscripts, (10) compilers of catalogues of ancient and modern
libraries and writers on library science, (11) writers on academies,
universities, and Jesuit colleges, (12) writers of catalogues and
eulogies of individual academies and their faculties, (13) writers
on the inventors of things, arts, and sciences. In order to fit his
material into this pattern Labbé changes his procedure and writes
in an individual entry in No. 10 above: "Manuscriptorum catalogus
varias exhibent Antonius Sanderus, Aubertus Miraeus,..." In other
words, the subject heading takes the place of a heading in terms
of the author. The fifth index lists bibliographers of men who
have borne the same name. Anton Sander's book on Antonies is an
example. Such works were very popular in Labbé's day and deserved
this special attention. The sixth index is a list of bibliographies,
which are often autobibliographies, of individual writers and of
indexes to their works. The seventh index includes publishers' and
booksellers' catalogues. In the somewhat confused eighth index, which
again illustrates the difficulty already discussed, Labbé intended
to list bibliographies having a proper name in their titles. Here
are found books on the Ambrosian and Amsterdam libraries, Labbé's
own anti-Jansenist bibliography, and an anonymous catalogue of
anti-Jesuitica. He preferred to put the last two bibliographies here
and not in the third index, which contained religious bibliographies.
He had already set up a category for writers about the Virgin Mary
in the fourth index, but he named others in the eighth. I cannot
see why he placed writers of dictionaries in the eighth and not
in the fourth index, and certainly he should have put writers on
chemistry and politics in the first and not the eighth index. These
irregularities are difficult to explain. In a search for a subject
bibliography a modern reader must turn to the first, fourth, and
eighth indexes. He will find a national or local biobibliography in
Index II, a biobibliography of a religious order in Index III, a list
of works on homonyms in Index V, a bibliography of an individual
author in Index VI, and a catalogue issued by a publisher or
bookseller in Index VII. The classification is complicated but not
altogether unusable.

In the eleven years that passed between the first publication of the
_Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ and its final appearance in 1664, Labbé
might have worked out the details more carefully than he did. We can
of course pardon some faults because modern bibliographers are more
demanding than those of 1664. We may, however, say fine words about
these demands and be forced to eat our words when we look later in
this essay at the modern bibliographies of Léon Vallée, Henri Stein
and the very recent work of Hanns Bohatta and Franz Hodes. While we
are mindful of the old saying about those who live in glass houses,
we can nevertheless point out inconsistencies, irregularities in
procedure, awkward arrangements of materials, and outright errors.
The faults to be found in Labbé's book are relatively slight and do
not seriously impair its value.

Labbé is inconsistent and irregular in method. He seems to have
learned to cite titles in the original languages when he was nearly
through collecting them. It was too late to change and furthermore
his sources probably often gave him Latin and not the original French
or Italian titles. For example, he cites a book by Augustinus
Superbus by its Latin title and adds the note "Italicè."[64] In the
seventeenth century this was an altogether regular way of citing an
Italian title. He also cites the same book with an Italian title.
In reading the proof he could have removed the duplication. The
article on Augustinus Marloratus seems to have been written before he
realized the necessity of bringing the author's name into the first
place for the purpose of alphabetizing the entries. He is irregular
in regard to critical comment, which the plan of his book did not
require. He usually adds none, but see, as exceptions, the remarks on
Angelus Roccha, Conradus Gesnerus, Conradus Lycosthenes, and Joannes
Neander. It will be noticed at once that all but one of these men are
Protestants. In a few instances Labbé gives additional information
about the subject of the book that he is citing. For example, he
adds a paragraph to the citation of a catalogue of heretical writers
compiled by Bernardus Luxemburgensis:

    Regarding these men [i.e., heretical authors] ancient writers
    ought also to be consulted: Philastrius, Augustine, the author
    of _Praedestinati_ (edited by Sirmondus), St. Epiphanius, St.
    John Damascene, and others.

This paragraph may indicate that Labbé considered including subjects
but did not find a way to do so. Critics of the _Bibliotheca
Bibliothecarum_ and among them Adrien Baillet, who should have known
better, have called for interpretative and critical comments. They
ought to have perceived that such comments, although useful, would
have greatly exceeded Labbé's purpose. In all the later history of
bibliographies of bibliographies only two men--Gabriel Peignot and
Julius Petzholdt--have made a systematic effort to add comments.
Labbé does, to be sure, often express his opinion about heretical
books, and his warnings have awakened Protestant wrath and have
caused Protestant bibliographers to speak harshly of him. He has
rarely expressed himself so vigorously as he does in the article
"Robertus Cocus" (Robert Cooke, 1550-1615), where he writes:

    He wrote _Censura Patrum_ (London, 1623. 4^o; 1614. 8^o), but it
    ought to be utterly rejected, along with Rivet's _Criticus_,
    Scultetus's _Medulla_, the outburst of Hottinger, and similar
    commentaries of the most virulent heretics, by all holding the
    Catholic faith or it ought to be put far away in the castle
    of Hell, whence it is forbidden to depart, along with the
    Magdeburg Centuriators, Mathias Flaccius Illyricus, and the
    works of others that have been assembled in several volumes. I
    hear also that a criticism of ancient writers by the same Cooke
    was published at Helmstadt in octavo in 1655.

Labbé makes mistakes in details and perhaps more mistakes than a
modern bibliographer. We can easily pardon minor troublesome mistakes
in alphabetization. In an index according to Christian names it is
not fatal to have the last name of Christophorus Ferg misspelled
Freg.[65] Labbé should have eliminated many duplications like those
of Christophorus Giarda and Christophorus a Giarda or Philibertus
Fezaius and Philibertus Fresalius (the latter is an error).

A comparison of Labbé's text with the indexes discloses serious
discrepancies that reduce the value of his book. One can usually go
from the indexes to the text without much trouble, although a few
references lack the name needed as a guide.[66] A reverse comparison
of the text with the indexes is much less satisfactory and shows that
Labbé added names to the text after he had made the indexes.[67]

We can justly object to Labbé's inclusion of subject entries in an
alphabet of authors.[68] Had he given more thought to them, he would
no doubt have hit upon the idea of a dictionary catalogue of authors
and subjects and might have simplified the complicated indexes.
His plan required him to put subjects into the indexes, but he had
no good place to put an article "Bibliothecae." This contains a
classified list of catalogues and libraries that I shall discuss in
the next chapter. He put it in its alphabetical place, in a list of
names. A curious bibliography of fictitious bibliographies is entered
under "Fictae Bibliothecae." When Labbé put a bibliography of guides
to university studies at the end of his alphabet of authors, he
showed his realization of the fact that he had no place for it.

As all bibliographers have at one time or another, Labbé included
some titles that had little to do with his task. The differentiation
of biography and bibliography was perhaps less clear then than now,
and general treatises on scholarly matters probably seemed more
closely akin to bibliographies than we find them to be. Honoratus
Montecalvus, _Speculum tragicum Regum, Principum & Magnatum
superioris seculi celebriorum ruinas exitusque calamitosos breviter
complectens_, which is adequately described by its long title, is
not a bibliography but one of many accounts of the mishaps that have
befallen great men. Jacobus Gretser, _De jure et more prohibendi,
expurgandi et abolendi libros haereticos et noxios_ is obviously a
book about books, but it is scarcely a bibliography. Although Jacobus
Middendorpius's famous treatise on universities is a general account
of its subject, Labbé is probably too generous in admitting it. These
examples suggest some laxity in Labbé's definition of bibliography.

In its conception and execution the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_
is excellent. Although rarely consulted, it is still valuable for
reference purposes. An occasional difficulty will arise, but a modern
reader must not object to Labbé's short titles.[69] _Theatri_, which
was then immediately understood as a citation of Theodor Zwinger, the
Elder (ed.), _Theatrum vitae humanae_, a standard sixteenth-century
encyclopedia, was then no more difficult to understand than _The New
International_ might be today.[70] Labbé is a good bibliographer
because he cites pertinent references to non-bibliographical
books.[71] He is careful to indicate whether he has seen the book
he is citing[72] and occasionally comments on its bibliographical
value.[73]

In brief, Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ is well conceived,
neatly arranged, and relatively accurate in details. In plan and
arrangement it surpasses, for example, such a modern work of similar
size and purpose as _A Bibliography of Bibliographies_ that the
famous bibliographer Joseph Sabin published in 1877. As I have
already said, the references are as accurate as those to be found in
three of the bibliographies of bibliographies published in the last
seventy years. His choice of an arrangement according to authors'
names has been adopted only by Joseph Sabin (1877) and Léon Vallée
(1883-1887). Unpopular as it has been, it nevertheless seems to me
a good method of dealing with intractable material. A classified
bibliography requires both an index of subjects and an index of
authors. An alphabetical index of subjects requires cross-references
and an index of authors. Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ needs
only a new index of subjects to become a reference work useful to a
modern scholar.

The time was not ripe for a bibliography of bibliographies and
Labbé's contemporaries and immediate successors neither perceived the
novelty of his idea nor fully appreciated its value. Contemporary
recommendations of the book have a perfunctory flavor. Valentin
Heinrich Vogler, who wrote an admirable survey of scholarly books
entitled _Introductio universalis in notitiam cuiuscunque bonorum
scriptorum_ (Helmstadt, 1670), is representative. He passed a
judgment on a book that he had not seen. When Heinrich Meibom made
a new edition of Vogler's handbook in 1691, he summarized Vogler's
comment and having seen Labbé's book, added some characteristic and
interesting remarks of his own:

    Vogler did not see it [the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_].
    Nevertheless, with only a few excerpts available to him, he
    did not use bad judgment in saying that it offers only a brief
    review of authors arranged according to their names[74] and
    makes no comments on the way in which these men have dealt
    with their materials. Still, the work is very useful (_Utilis
    tamen valde labor est_), although I have found many authors
    cited, of whom some have no pertinence and others tell the
    lives of men who are famous for their reputations and deserts
    rather than in literary endeavors and writing. From not a
    few entries it would also appear that he has often not seen
    the books, but, deceived by the title, he has nevertheless
    cited them. This is, for example, the case when he cites
    David Frölich, _Viatorium_.[75] And he does not blush to make
    venomous remarks in his usual fashion about some excellent men,
    especially those who differ from him in religious matters.

Meibom speaks harshly, and more harshly than Labbé has deserved, but
he does grudgingly acknowledge that the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_
is useful. Daniel Georg Morhof, whose _Polyhistor_, a general
treatise on university studies, demanded some mention of indexes,
bibliographies, and reference works, expresses much the same judgment
on Labbé and leaves one in doubt whether he has actually seen the
book. In a chapter entitled "De catalogorum scriptoribus," Morhof
begins with general remarks about the kinds of bibliographies that
a scholar then had within his reach, but fails to identify clearly
the bibliography of bibliographies as a special variety. He does,
however, go on to say, "Like Hodegeta and Janus Patulcis, Philip
Labbé is vigilant at the very entrance to learning."[76] This means
that he recognized Labbé's book to be one of the first books to
be consulted in undertaking an investigation. He should have said
more. Perhaps Vogler, Meibom, and Morhof, whose acquaintance with
the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ seems superficial, knew it only
from book reviews, especially Denis de Sallo's review in _Le Journal
des sçavans_. Adrien Baillet, who quotes this review, mentions
also a brief notice by Henning Witte, who seems to have an equally
superficial knowledge of the book.[77]

A few scholars did understand what Labbé had done. Probably Vincent
Placcius (1642-1699), who spent his life in the study of anonyma and
pseudonyma, would have continued the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ in
Labbé's spirit.[78] Theophilus [or Gottlieb] Spitzel (1639-1691), a
very intelligent bibliographer and theological writer of Augsburg,
gave more attention to the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ than anyone
else of his generation. He obtained it after considerable delay and
with some difficulty. After reading the preface, in which Labbé
explains his plan, he characterized Labbé's flamboyance as "really
gorgeous indeed (satis profecto splendidam Praefationem)."[79] In
order to justify his criticism of the book, he reprinted the eighth
index--a list of men who had compiled bibliographies (_bibliothecae_)
and similar general works--and added a supplement to show how many
titles Labbé had overlooked. Spitzel's additions amount to nearly
one hundred titles, which are grouped in sixty categories. They
show that Spitzel understood the true nature of a bibliography of
bibliographies, but they do not show the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_
to be seriously incomplete or unsatisfactory. Some additions--for
example, the Oriental bibliographies by Paul Colomies--were published
after Labbé had given the last touches to his book or indeed after
he had died. Others are bibliographies hidden in non-bibliographical
works. For example, one can suspect his pleasure in adding "Joh.
Nadasi, in libro cui Tit. Annus dierum memorab. S. l. [sine loco]
ed. Antw. 1665"[80] to the bibliographies of the Jesuits. Labbé was
a Jesuit and seems to have been caught napping, although he had
cited Rivadaneira's bibliography of the Jesuits and had published
his own bibliography of French Jesuits. Spitzel did not point out
that the first edition of Labbé's book was printed in 1664, a year
before the book cited by Spitzel appeared, and that Labbé died in
1667, five years before the second edition was published. Labbé could
not have included this title. Such victories are easy. Furthermore,
Spitzel did not learn to use Labbé's indexes. His failure brings some
comfort to a modern reader who does not find them very convenient.
In his additions, for example, Spitzel cites some bibliographies
of medicine. Labbé had found them, too, and had cited them in the
first index, where they properly belonged according to his plan.
Spitzel should have seen that Labbé cited Michele Poccianti's list of
Florentine authors and Cornelius Loos's list of German authors in the
right places.

A generation after Spitzel, J. F. Reimann (1668-1743), a theologian
and the author of several very curious surveys of the history of
learning, showed his full appreciation of Labbé's _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_. His praise is significant because he was not
accustomed to stint himself in condemning books that he did not
like. In the _Versuch einer Einleitung in die Historiam Litterariam,
so wohl insgemein, als auch in die Historiam Litterariam derer
Teutschen_ (Halle, 1708-1713), he writes: "Let this book of Labbé's
be commended to you for diligent study above all others, for
(disregarding the obscenities, which are scattered about in it like
mouse dirt in pepper) it is one of the very best works in the field
[of general bibliography]." He concludes his remarks on this field
by recommending it a second time, when he mentions along with it the
anonymous _Bibliographia Historico-politico-philologica curiosa_
as a meritorious work.[81] After this, Labbé's book ceases to be
mentioned because it was replaced by a new edition, to which we now
turn.

In 1686 Antoine Teissier (1632-1715), a Frenchman who became
historiographer at the court of Frederick I of Prussia, published a
revised and enlarged edition of Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_
and gave it a new title: _Catalogus auctorum, qui librorum catalogos,
indices, bibliothecas, virorum literatorum elogia, vitas, aut
orationes funebres, scriptis consignarunt_. This new title, which
he signs "By Antoine Teissier (Ab Antonio Teisserio)," obscures the
fact that the _Catalogus_ is essentially a new edition of Labbé's
bibliography. The title page gives credit to Labbé only for an
appendix entitled _Bibliotheca nummaria_. Teissier could, to be
sure, claim that his emphasis on eulogies, biographies, and funeral
orations representing a category of biographical writings that
Labbé had not included amounted to a sufficiently large alteration
to justify a claim to authorship. We can at least say that he did
not treat his predecessor generously. In a preface addressed to the
reader he says that he has doubled the number of bibliographies cited
and has added twelve hundred biographical works.[82] He has made
the _Catalogus_ both an index to biographies and a bibliography of
bibliographies. He could scarcely have added the biographies if he
had fully perceived the nature and usefulness of a bibliography of
bibliographies.

Teissier was a diligent collector and a good organizer. Although
he has corrected errors and has filled in gaps in the _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_, he was not always as careful as he should have
been. He added two new indexes: Index V (_Catalogus_, pp. 353-355),
listing writers of biobibliographies of miscellaneous scope (i.e.,
works that were not restricted to men of a particular country or
profession), and Index X (_Catalogus_, pp. 364-400), listing the
men who were the subjects of biographies. These indexes show that
Teissier was chiefly interested in biography. He transferred an index
of last names that Labbé had given in the preliminary pages to the
end of the Catalogus and made it Index XI. He showed bibliographical
sense in perceiving and remedying the serious difficulties that
the references to "Anonymus" in Labbé's indexes had caused. In
order to run them down in the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ one
must read the entire book. Teissier assembled all anonymous works
in a single place ("Auctores anonymi," pp. 319-332) and thus made
it possible to identify a reference rather easily. He removed the
brief account of fictitious libraries to a new place (_Catalogus_,
p. 363) and added to it a short but very interesting list of sixteen
seventeenth-century catalogues of private libraries.

Teissier did not learn from Labbé's experience that titles should
be cited in the original languages. Consequently, the _Catalogus_
offers the same mixture of Latin titles translated from the
vernacular and vernacular titles as we found in the _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_. Probably he could not have achieved any substantial
improvement in this regard. He could not see many books that he
cited and the sources from which he took the titles usually gave
them in Latin translation. Like Labbé, he cited bibliographical
sections of non-bibliographical works.[83] He made some mistakes
and corrected some that Labbé had made.[84] His most serious fault
is his failure to verify his references. In the seventeen pages
devoted to authors whose first names begin with "H" (_Catalogus_, pp.
121-138) Teissier cited eight books with the remark "He is said to
have written--(scripsisse dicitur)." This number is much larger than
it should be. Since he usually neglects to cite his source (Labbé is
more careful in this regard), search for the title may be difficult.
He is often careless in details.[85]

Teissier did not improve his technique in the _Auctuarium_, a
supplement published in 1705. This book of 388 pages contains many
new bibliographies and substantial additions to the indexes.[86] He
has turned up some new bibliographers of classical times that had
escaped Labbé and were not included in his revision of 1686. For
example, he cites Xenocrates as the writer of a list of geometricians
and Varro as the writer of a list of poets. He has brought up to date
the list of English bibliographers by adding Henry Holland, who is
the H. H. of the _Herwologia_,[87] Richard Smith, whose library was
the subject of an early catalogue; and William Winstanley, who wrote
on English poets. He knows "Rossus Warwicensus" from John Pits's
biobibliographical dictionary of English authors, but of course
has not seen Thomas Hearne's edition, which came out a few years
later.[88] He is as neglectful as he had been in the _Catalogus_
about giving dates and places of publication and citing authorities
for titles that he has not seen and works in manuscript.

Labbé's original plan survived without substantial change in
Teissier's revision of 1686 and supplement of 1705. In the
_Auctuarium_, the fourth index, "Writers on Various Subjects (De
variis argumentis scriptores)," has grown enormously. If Teissier
had given any attention to remaking the structure of the book, it
might have suggested to him the idea of an alphabetical subject
index. He has no longer adhered strictly to listing bibliographies
in terms of men who specialized in various subjects but shifted
somewhat in the direction of an emphasis on the subject. He could
have introduced many practitioners of various arts and sciences into
the first index, but his decision to put them into the fourth index
shows a breaking down of the scheme that Labbé had invented. When he
says (_Auctuarium_, p. 398) that the seventh index will supplement
the list of library catalogues, which are in the eighth index, he is
confessing to uncertainty about the scheme. Wavering of this sort
is evidence that he did not fully understand the scheme or did not
choose to adhere to it.

Although scholars no longer remember Antoine Teissier and his
bibliographies, the _Catalogus_ and the _Auctuarium_ offer a
uniquely useful summary of seventeenth-century scholarship. In
them we find such bibliographies as a list of twenty-two medical
bibliographers (_Auctuarium_, p. 288), fifteen writers (_Catalogus_,
p. 349) on academies and universities (these authors are scarcely
bibliographers, but contemporary practice did not separate them
sharply from bibliographers), twenty compilers of catalogues of
manuscripts (_Catalogus_, p. 352), twenty authors of lists of
famous women (_Catalogus_, p. 352), and four bibliographers of
dictionaries (_Auctuarium_, p. 298).[89] There is even a reference to
a bibliographer of books of anagrams.[90]

The reception of Labbé's and Teissier's books shows that the world
was not ready for a bibliography of bibliographies. We can see
additional evidence to this effect in the announcement in 1680 of a
bibliography of bibliographies that did not get into print. Cornelius
a Beughem (fl. 1678-1710), a Dutch bookseller who compiled and
published several bibliographies, borrowed the title _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_ from Labbé and the title _Bibliothecariographia_
from Dudinck for books that never got into print. Presumably the
_Bibliothecariographia_ was a treatise on library science. In his
subtitle Beughem makes clear what he intended to include in the
_Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_. It was to be _An Account and Fuller
Listing of all Books and Works that Have Appeared up till now under
the Titles Bibliotheca (Bibliography), Catalogus, Index, Athenae,
etc._[91] We can perhaps infer that he did not include bibliographies
published in non-bibliographical works. His bibliographies of
incunabula and of medical, juridical, and historical writings as well
as his survey of articles in journals (a Poole's _Index_ at the end
of the seventeenth century!) show him to have been a most diligent
worker.[92] We can only regret his failure to print his two books on
bibliography and library science.

With Cornelius a Beughem's unfulfilled promise of a _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_, Antoine Teissier's _Catalogus_ and _Auctuarium_,
and Charles Moëtte's lost manuscript bibliography of bibliographies
that I shall mention in Chapter IV, the making of bibliographies of
bibliographies came to a temporary end shortly after 1700. Scholars
do not seem to have esteemed Teissier's books very highly then or
later and Teissier himself concealed their nature by including a
large number of biographies. The tentative efforts to write lists
of books entitled _Bibliotheca_ that might have developed into
bibliographies of bibliographies are the subject of the next chapter,
but it may be said in advance that they had no important result.

Explanations for the disappearance of bibliographies of
bibliographies around 1700 are readily found. Even a casual reading
of the subject indexes to Labbé or Teissier reveals few themes to
attract eighteenth-century scholars, who were studying theological,
political, economic, historical, literary, and scientific problems
in new ways. The great encyclopedias, of which Moréri's _Le Grand
dictionnaire_, first published at Lyons in 1674 and revised,
enlarged, and supplemented down to 1759, is typical, gave scholars
information that they might otherwise have sought in bibliographies.
The changes in the intellectual climate around 1700 are too varied
and numerous to discuss here. It is enough to note that they included
the disappearance of bibliographies of bibliographies from the list
of scholarly tools.

FOOTNOTES:

[57] I am indebted to Johannes Vogt, _Catalogus librorum rariorum_
(5th ed., Frankfurt a.M., 1793, p. 313) for these details. The
reference to Groschufius is "Praefat. de Libris rarior. p. 16." This
is the _Nova librorum rariorum conlectio, qui vel integri inseruntur,
vel adcurate recensentur_ (5 pts.; Halle, 1709-1716).

[58] Valerius Andreas, _Bibliotheca Belgica_ (editio renovata;
Louvain, 1643), p. 593.

[59] For references to the use of Kalcoven's name by the Blaeus see
Emil Weller, _Die falschen und fingirten Druckorte_ (Leipzig, 1858),
p. v and "Jost Kalcoven," _Serapeum_, XXVIII (1867), 303-304. The
subject needs more investigation.

[60] For the Latin title see the "Bibliography" below.

[61] _Palatium Apollonis ac Palladis, h. e. [hoc est] Descriptio
praecipuarum bibliothecarum veteris et novique seculi._ Louis Jacob
undertook and completed a book on this subject; see the _Traicté des
plus belles bibliothèques_ (Paris, 1644).

[62] _Mundus Marianus, hoc est: Specificatio omnium mundi locorum, in
quibus B. Virgo Deipara miraculose colitur._ This work and Dudinck's
promised _Synopsis bibliothecae Marianae_ were duplicated by
Hippolytus Marraccius (1604-1675). His _Bibliotheca Mariana_ (Rome,
1648) filled the place of the _Synopsis_. Marraccius, who gave his
life to the service of the Virgin, tried vainly to find Dudinck's
books. He said in 1648 of his search for the _Mundus_ and _Synopsis_:
"Illa etenim licet ardentissima concupitata, videre adhuc non meruit"
(_Bibliotheca Mariana_, p. 813). If Marraccius, whose brother
listed one hundred and fifteen works from his pen, published and
unpublished, all dealing with the Virgin, could not find Dudinck's
books soon after their supposed appearance, we cannot hope to be more
successful. The _Mundus Marianus_ is now replaced by E. M. Oettinger,
_Iconographia Mariana oder Versuch einer Literatur der wunderthätigen
Marienbilder, geordnet nach alphabetischer Reihenfolge der Orte, in
welchen sie verehrt werden_ (Leipzig, 1852). Only three fascicles of
L. Clugnet, _Bibliographie du culte local de la Vierge Marie. France_
(Paris, 1902-1903) were published.

[63] This publication in 1653 or, perhaps more correctly, 1652
explains why Labbé called the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ of 1664 a
second edition. This designation confuses A. G. S. Josephson; see his
_Bibliographies of Bibliographies_, p. 7. For the details of these
publications see Augustin and Aloys de Backer and Carlos Sommervogel,
_Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus_ (nouvelle edition; Brussels,
1893), IV, cols. 1319-1320, No. 68 and cols. 1322-1323, No. 71.

[64] This and subsequent references will be found in the _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_ under the writer's Christian name. The pagination of
the editions varies and a page reference would be useful for only one
edition. I have usually made no effort to identify the authors and
books, since the quotations concern Labbé's bibliographical technique
and not the books.

[65] His name is often misspelled. He is the author of a famous
catalogue of the Ingolstadt university library that employed a
novel scheme of classification. All or almost all the references
to Ferg and the catalogue have been made at second-hand. I have
seen half a dozen different dates of publication. I believe it was
never published. At any rate, the manuscript catalogue by Ferg was
carried off in 1945 "by unknown persons in an unknown direction"
from the place where the manuscripts belonging to the library of the
University of Munich were stored.

[66] Typical examples are the entries in the eighth index, where
one should supply the name Arnoldus Wion in the blank space after
"Benedictina" and Christophorus Ferg in the blank space after
"Ingolstadiensis." I have not discovered what name Labbé meant to put
in the blank space after "Philologica."

[67] I cannot find Thomas de Malvenda among the bibliographers of
the Dominicans, Thomas De Minis among the bibliographers of the
Camaldolese order, and Thomas Reinesius, the polymath, in the places
where they should respectively appear. They are in the text.

[68] See, for example, the article "Juris Auctores."

[69] For example, the reference to "Thomas Reinesius ep. 38" in the
article Joannes Frinsheimius was not very difficult to find in 1664.
Only the _Epistolae_ addressed to Caspar Hoffmann and C. A. Rupert
(Leipzig, 1660) were then in print. Henri Stegemeier has kindly
verified the reference, which will be found on p. 311, in the copy at
the University of Illinois. There are, to be sure, other collections
of letters by Reinesius, but these were published after 1664.

[70] For the reference to "Theatri" see _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_,
ed. 1688, p. 217 and ed. 1682, p. 366.

[71] See the previously cited entry under Joannes Frinsheimius
(_sic_). It concerns Freinsheim's edition of Quintus Curtius Rufus.
The editor gives a bibliography of recent studies on Alexander the
Great.

[72] See as examples the entries Bostonus; Buriensis; Martinus
Salius; and Claudius Flemmus.

[73] The authority cited in the article on Claudius Flemmus is "in
Parnasso Euganeo," which a modern reader will probably find difficult
to identify immediately. Labbé is referring to Jacobus Philippus
Tomasinus (Jacopo Filippo Tomasini, 1597-1654), _Parnassus Euganeus
sive de scriptoribus ac literatis huius aevi claris_ (Padua, 1647.
28 leaves). In the article on Tomasinus Labbé damns the _Parnassus_
wholeheartedly: "In fact, this book is so full of errors [I use the
modern bibliographer's cliché] that one scarcely finds three or four
articles correct and complete. (Verum hic liber mendosissimus est,
ut vix tria quatuorve nomina sincera atque integra reperias)." This
_Parnassus_, which is the only one that Labbé knew or, at least,
chose to cite, is different from Tomasini's _Parnassus Euganeus sive
museum clarissimorum virorum et antiquorum monumentorum simulacris
exornatum_ (Padua, 1647. 10 leaves). The first is a collection of
biobibliographies, and the second is an account of the portraits
on the walls of Tomasini's villa. For comment on these works see
Christian Bruun's essay on Tomasini's friend, Johan Rode, in _Paa
Hundrede-aarsdagen efter at det store kongelige bibliothek blev
erklaeret for at vaere et offentligt bibliothek_ (Copenhagen, 1893),
p. 45.

[74] This remark shows that Meibom did not understand the subject
indexes. Meibom's review does not display any clear understanding of
what Labbé had written. It is perhaps pertinent to say that Vogler's
book is not a bibliography of bibliographies, although Theodore
Besterman includes it in _A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_,
2d ed., I, 322. There are copies of the 1670 edition in ICN, NN, and
my own library. This passage is quoted from the edition published at
Helmstadt in 1691, of which there is an enlargement from a microfilm
in my library; see pp. 160-161.

[75] Meibom is correct in his objection, but (it seems to me)
somewhat captious. The title of the book is deceptive and if Labbé
had cited it in full, he would have given his reader some useful
information and would have made clear that the book belonged to
a class that his contemporaries often regarded as closely akin
to bibliographies. The title is: _Bibliotheca, seu cynosura
peregrinantium, hoc est, Viatorium ... in duas partes digestum:
quarum prior ... complectitur I. Centuriam cum decuria problematum
apodemicorum. II. Multiplicia peregrinationis praecepta. III.
Methodum rerum explorandum. IV. Indicem viarum, etc. Posterior pars
exhibet I. Geographiam apodemicam. II. Historiographicam apodemicam.
III. Diarium apod[emicum] perpetuum, etc. IV. Precationes et hymnos
apodemicas_ (Ulm, 1643-1644. MH [Prior Pars only]). The book is
curious and little-known.

[76] Vestibulum ante ipsum nobis hic quasi Hodegeta & Janus Patulcis
excubat Philippus Labbaeus. Quoted from Morhof, _Polyhistor_, I, c.
18 (ed. Lübeck, 1747, I, 196). The first edition of the _Polyhistor_
appeared in 1688.

[77] See Baillet, _Jugemens des savans_ (Amsterdam, 1725), IIA, p.
24. This book was first published in 1685-1686. For Sallo's review
see _Le Journal des sçavans_, Feb. 2, 1665.

[78] Morhof cites Placcius's plan in the passage quoted in n. 76
above.

[79] _Sacra bibliothecarum illustrium arcana retecta_ (Augsburg,
1668. ICN), p. 344. He says of his additions: "Quam multa in ea
[_Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_] Bibliothecarum pariter ac Authorum qui
de iisdem scripsere nomina desideruntur, ex nostro hocce supplemento
apparebit" (p. 351).

[80] A copy in the Bibliothèque nationale. For a bibliographical
description see Augustin and Aloys De Backer and Carlos Sommervogel,
_Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus_ (nouvelle édition; Brussels,
1894), V, col. 1535, No. 44.

[81] See Reimann, Versuch, I, 227 and 229. There are copies of this
book in the University of Chicago Library (in part, at least, a
later edition) and my own library. Reimann's mention of the wretched
_Bibliographia_ shakes one's faith in his critical judgment.
The _Bibliographia_, an unauthorized edition of J. H. Boecler's
orientation lectures at Strassburg, was first printed in 1677 and
reprinted in 1696. It deserved neither publication nor reprinting.
In 1715 J. G. Krause added new materials from Boecler's lecture
notes and improved the quality of the critical remarks without
remedying the bibliographical defects. This new edition was entitled
_Bibliographica critica_ (Leipzig, 1715). There are copies of the
1677 and 1715 editions in the Newberry Library and in my own library.

[82] See _Catalogus_, p. [4]. He estimates the number of
bibliographies in the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ at eight hundred
and in his own book at fifteen hundred.

[83] See as examples the entries Rudolphus Hospinianus (_Catalogus_,
p. 285) and Samuel Rachelius (_Catalogus_, p. 287).

[84] He writes Guilielmus Ersengrenius (_Catalogus_, p. 187). The
name is Eysengreinus. He omits Labbé's incomplete reference to a
philological bibliography; see note 10 in this chapter.

[85] In casually turning the pages of the _Catalogus_, I note
Moroffius for Morhoffius (p. 39), the omission of Claudius Chelemont
(p. 49) in the list of Cistercian bibliographers (p. 296),
Christophorus Hemdrich for C. Hendreich (p. 45), Ioannes Seldemel for
Ioannes Seldenus (p. 361). Alfonsus de Roxas (p. 9) and the Orden de
la Merced are not mentioned in the bibliographies of religious orders
(pp. 295-296).

[86] Theodore Besterman estimates the number at 3000, but this must
include the biographies. A generous guess would be 1500.

[87] See A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, _A Short-Title Catalogue_
(London, 1926), No. 13582. Teissier calls him Hugo Hollandus for some
reason. Since the _Auctuarium_ is arranged according to first names,
this is an annoying mistake.

[88] _Ioannis Rossi Antiquarii Warwicensis historia Regum Angliae.
E codice MS. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana descripsit, notisque & indice
adornauit_ Thom. Hearne (Oxford, 1716).

[89] The numbers are actually much larger because I have, for
convenience, cited either the _Catalogus_ or the _Auctuarium_ as an
illustration and the work that I do not cite gives more references in
all these categories, except the last.

[90] See _Auctuarium_, p. 297, citing a book by Christian Serpitius.
H. B. Wheatley overlooked it in his excellent study, _Of Anagrams_
(London, 1862).

[91] For references to these books see Theodore Besterman, _The
Beginnings of Systematic Bibliography_ (2d ed.; [Oxford] and London,
[1936]) and _A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_ (2d ed.;
[Oxford] and London, 1947-1949).

[92] For a contemporary reference to the book see Teissier,
_Auctuarium_, p. 53. Beughem made the announcement in his
_Bibliotheca juridica & politica_ (Amsterdam, 1680), p. [vii]. The
subtitle translated above reads in the original: Enarratio ac plenior
Enumeratio, omnium Librorum, Operumque quae sub titulo Bibliothecae,
Catalogi, Indicis, Anthenarum &c. hactenus typis prodierunt. I have
used a copy of the _Bibliotheca juridica_ in my own library.




Chapter III

Lists of Books Entitled "Bibliotheca"


The listing of books that contain the word _Bibliotheca_ in their
titles is a special bibliographical development in the seventeenth
century and continues into the eighteenth. It might have led by
easy stages to making a bibliography of bibliographies, but it
unfortunately attracted little notice and maintained a tenuous
existence for only about a century. The word _bibliotheca_, which
often appears in titles, has such more or less bibliographical
meanings as bibliography, subject index, catalogue of a public
or private library, and collection of materials dealing with
a particular subject. Consequently, a list of books entitled
_bibliotheca_ has much in common with a list of reference works
and, more particularly, a bibliography of bibliographies. Although
there was no proper place for such a list in his _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_, Philip Labbé included one under the heading
_Bibliotheca_ in an alphabet of authors.[93] This is an early example
of a list of books chosen according to their titles.

Labbé limited himself strictly to works of a bibliographical nature.
He did not, for example, include the collections of the church
fathers that were very familiar to him, although they bore the title
_Bibliotheca_. Many books that he cites are hard to identify: some
titles seem to have been made up and others refer to books that were
never printed. Labbé uses the term _bibliotheca_ so loosely that
we do not always know whether he is referring to a library and
its catalogue (for example, _Bibliotheca Augustana_ may mean the
library or may be a short title for its catalogue) or a book (for
example, Conrad Gesner's _Bibliotheca universalis_). In either case,
he is thinking as a bibliographer, and we can easily conceive the
enlargement of his list into a bibliography of bibliographies.

Labbé's classification of books entitled _bibliotheca_ shows
a remarkable understanding of their different kinds and calls
attention to their remarkable variety. I cannot easily cite an
equally instructive and suggestive review of bibliographies.[94]
Labbé's classification is as follows: (1) _Bibliothecae_ named for
places (_vel a locis dictae_): Augustana,[95] Floriacensis,[96]
Ingolstadiensis,[97] etc.: (2) _bibliothecae_ named for persons
(_vel a personis_): Borromaea,[98] Bodleiana,[99] Thuana,[100]
etc.; (3) _bibliothecae_ named for rulers (_vel a principibus_):
Regia Gallica,[101] Caesarea,[102] Bavarica,[103] etc.; (4)
_bibliothecae_ named for religious orders (_vel a Ordinibus Sacris_):
Augustiniana,[104] Carmelitica,[105] etc.; (5) _bibliothecae_ named
according to the subjects with which they deal (_vel a materia
quam tractant_): Chymica,[106] Concionatoria,[107] Juridica,[108]
etc.; (6) _bibliothecae_ named according to their arrangement or
like circumstances (_vel a forma similibusve circumstantiis_):
Classica,[109] Selecta,[110] Universalis.[111]

The anonymous author of _The Newly Opened Library (Die neu-eröffnete
Bibliothec), in which good information about libraries as well
as convenient directions for acquiring, maintaining, and using
them are put into the hands of students and inquiring friends. To
which are added: the chief European libraries and what travelers
ought to notice in visits to them_ (1702) hit upon the same idea
of listing _bibliothecae_.[112] In this book a special section
or appendix labelled "A List of Authors Who Have Written Books
Entitled 'Bibliotheca' and Books about Libraries (Series Authorum
qui Bibliothecas & de Bibliothecis scripserunt)" names books
called _bibliotheca_, catalogues of libraries, and treatises on
library science. The selection is obviously even more definitely
bibliographical in character than Labbé's list had been. The compiler
arranges the titles alphabetically according to the author's last
names or, in the case of an anonymous work, according to an important
word in the title. This arrangement and the choice of titles show
that he had no knowledge of Labbé. Like Labbé, he includes none of
the collections of texts that were entitled _bibliotheca_.

Our author begins with Valerius Andreas, _Bibliotheca Belgica_
(1643), a biobibliographical dictionary of writers in the Low
Countries. In the letter "A" he includes the _Augustanae Bibliothecae
Catalogus_ (1633), which he also enters under the name of the
compiler, Elias Ehinger, librarian at Augsburg. He cites the
_Bibliothèque universelle_, a critical journal edited by Jean
Leclerc, because the title contains the word _Bibliothèque_. Such
titles show that he was thinking in bibliographical terms, for
Andreas's book and the Augsburg catalogue are bibliographies and
Leclerc's journal was a review of current publications.

The titles in this list are interesting because some are rarely
mentioned and others are difficult to track down. Examples are
"Augusti sereniss. Ducis Brunsvicensis Bibliothecae Sciagraphia,
Bibliothecae Catalogus. Wolfenb. 1650. in 4-to;"[113] "Henricii
Furenii Bibliotheca Medica." Hafn. 1659. in 4-to;[114] "Hamburgensis
Bibliothecae scripta memoria." Hamb. 1651. fol.;[115] and Bartol.
"Moseri Thesaurus Bibliatricus seu Bibliotheca gemina Onomastica
& Classica." Dilingii. fol.[116] The list includes a few
autobibliographies, for example, those written by such librarians and
bibliographers as Peter Lambeck (Lambecius) and Philip Labbé. The
most surprising title that the compiler names is "Joan. Brunderii
[sic] index librorum MS quae in Bibliothecis Belgicis extant."[117]
This union catalogue of manuscripts owned in the Low Countries was
made by the Belgian Dominican Johannes Bunderius or Bunderus (b.
1481 or 1482, d. 1557). Down to 1666 it is mentioned occasionally by
men who had consulted it, but our author probably never saw it and
no fragment of it is known to have survived the dispersal of Anton
Sander's library. A reference to such a manuscript was by no means an
idle display of erudition. Allusions in various seventeenth-century
works show that men used this union catalogue. For example, the
Spaniard Pedro de Alva y Astorga, the author of several very rare
encyclopedic works, which were published at Madrid and Louvain,
drew upon it, and the Italian Antonio Possevino quoted it in his
_Apparatus sacer_.

This curious list in _Die neu-eröffnete Bibliothec_ shows some signs
of carelessness. Its compiler has not seen all the books in it. For
example, he assigns Petrus Bertius's catalogue of the university
library at Leyden to 1591 instead of 1595 (this error is probably a
slip of the pen) and mentions the famous ghosts announced by Jodocus
a Dudinck. He credits the _Philobiblon_ to both Richard de Bury
and Richard Dunelmensis (De Bury's name as Bishop of Durham). With
all its faults, this "Series" is nevertheless a respectable piece
of work by a man who saw clearly the nature of a bibliography of
bibliographies.

A generation later, in 1734, Johannes Gottfried Unger published a
pamphlet entitled _De libris bibliothecarum nomine notatis_, a
classified list of books entitled _bibliotheca_, and added critical
and descriptive comments. Julius Petzholdt, who is often a severe
judge, deals with it generously, when he says (p. 79) that it is
worth a glance and can then be forgotten. Although he seems to be
unaware of any predecessor, Unger's idea was not novel. His execution
of the idea leaves much to be desired. Since his list contains few,
if any, books that cannot be easily found elsewhere, his list has
little value and his comments do not enrich it. His strict adherence
to the task of collecting books entitled _bibliotheca_ prevented him
from seeing the possible greater usefulness of what he was doing.

After some general remarks on libraries and bibliographies and
a definition of the task, Unger cites seven general works:
Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ (he mentions here Teissier's
_Catalogus_ and _Auctuarium_, but he has not seen them); G. M. König,
_Bibliotheca vetus et nova_; Latinus Latinius, _Bibliotheca sacra
et profana_; Jean Leclerc, _Bibliothèque universelle et historique_
(this is the _Bibliothèque universelle_ and its continuation, the
_Bibliothèque historique_); Conrad Gesner, _Bibliotheca universalis_;
Johannes Groeningius, _Bibliotheca s[ive] codex operum variorum_; and
Louis Ellies DuPin, _Bibliothèque universelle des historiens_. "And
these are the books entitled Universal Library or: Bibliography."
His comments contain some information but do not on the whole show
much familiarity with the books. For example, the remarks on König's
late seventeenth-century biobibliographical dictionary are lifted
from D. G. Morhof, _Polyhistor_. He points out that the subtitle
of Latinius's _Bibliotheca_ gives a good idea of its contents:
"Observationes, correctiones et variae lectiones in sacros et
profanos scriptores, ex marginalibus notis codicum ejusdem [Latini
Latinii] a Dominco Marco editae." In other words, the book is a
miscellany of emendations and critical comments rather than a
bibliography. He describes Leclerc's journals by a long quotation
from the preface to the first volume. They are, he thinks, a better
example of this genre of books than Latinius's collectanea. He
dismisses Gesner's _Bibliotheca universalis_ with the remark that it
"also deserves mention (praeterea notatu digna est)" and a reference
to Morhof, _Polyhistor_. He does not describe the book by Johannes
Groeningius.[118]

Unger's account of forty-one theological bibliographies and
collections of texts entitled _bibliotheca_ is not altogether bad.
He often quotes the titles of chapters from these books or says
that a book is a collection of texts and not a bibliography. Much
of this information was even then available in well-organized
reference works, and Unger's only contribution is the selecting of
the books entitled _bibliotheca_. His account of legal bibliographies
begins with Martin Lipenius, _Bibliotheca juridica_, "which was
published at Frankfurt in 1607 as a folio and was enlarged by F.
G. Struve in 1720." This is not a good start, for the first date
is wrong (it should be 1679) and he would have found five more
legal bibliographies entitled _bibliotheca_ by opening Lipenius. In
this category he cites nine more titles, counting three works by
Caspar Thurmann as one book. This combination is not particularly
objectionable. Thurmann had made a classified legal bibliography and
finding no publisher, had printed portions as small bibliographies.
Unger then proceeds to historical, medical, and philosophical
categories, but we need follow him no further. He finally resigns
himself to naming titles in a confused order. His disappointing
performance has the merit of naming books called _bibliotheca_,
but it does not suggest, as Labbé and the anonymous author of
_Die neu-eröffnete Bibliothec_ had done, that they were primarily
interesting as bibliographies.

The sixty folio pages (double columns) filled with entries beginning
with the word _bibliotheca_ in Michael a San José, _Bibliographia
critica_ (1740-1742) have the appearance of a list of books, but on
closer examination many titles prove to be made up. In other words,
San José offers what amounts to a general survey of bibliography.
Since his book is almost unknown and the entries are often curious, a
brief description will not be out of place. The articles are arranged
alphabetically according to the adjective that follows the word
_bibliotheca_. Thus, the list begins with J. F. Reimann, _Bibliotheca
acroamatica_ (Hannover, 1712), a condensation of Peter Lambeck's
catalogue of manuscripts in the Imperial Library at Vienna. The next
entry consists of two columns headed "Bibliotheca Adriani Baillet"
and is a brief discussion of the _Jugemens des savans_ (1685-1686)
and a long summary of a prospectus of a philosophical dictionary
that Baillet planned but never published. More entries follow in an
alphabetical order according to proper names or adjectives derived
from proper names or the subject matter. Laurentius de Cremona,
_Bibliotheca aethiopica_ is entered under "Aethiopica," and Albert
Bartholin, _Liber de scriptis Danorum_ under "Alberti." It is
difficult to discover the plan of arrangement, and equally difficult
to see the reasons for choosing the books. The presence of more than
twenty entries entitled "Bibliotheca Biblica" is not surprising, but
eleven botanical bibliographies and twelve pages summarizing the
Linnean classification seem an unnecessarily generous allotment
to that subject. A few pages later San José cites collective
works--not bibliographies--that deal with Byzantine history
and canon law, but he ordinarily limits himself to bibliographies
and biobibliographies. He shows no sense of proportion in the choice
of titles. Out of hundreds of regional biobibliographies he chooses
one for Naumburg for mention. It can have meant very little to most
readers of his book, and he might have omitted it. A "Bibliotheca
occulta concionum P. Paulini a S. Joseph" (Rome, 1720) did not
deserve three pages or a revision of Antonio León Pinelo, _Epitome_
(an early bibliography of American subjects) five. San José is
careless with names and titles. Martin Hancke, the writer of a
Silesian biobibliography (p. 528), acquires an Oriental look, when he
is called Han Kii. San José's strange medley may yield a curious bit
of information now and again, but it need not detain us longer.

The last list of books entitled _bibliotheca_ is the _Dissertation
sur les bibliothèques_ (1758) by J. D. Durey de Noinville
(1683-1768).[119] He does not hold to the purpose announced in the
heading "Alphabetical list of both works published under the title
of _bibliothèque_ and printed catalogues of collections in France
and foreign countries."[120] He offers virtually a bibliography of
bibliographies. His use of an asterisk to mark works containing
an alphabetical index of authors shows some bibliographical sense,
but the lack of a clear plan of selection and organization makes
the book unusable. In a hodgepodge of seven hundred and fifty
titles--I take the figure from Besterman--Durey de Noinville may
list a book according to its author or its subject without any
apparent reason for his choice of either method. His knowledge of
available bibliographies is entirely inadequate. The accounts of
reference books dealing with Belgium, church history and France are
scanty,[121] the list of learned journals is almost worthless,[122]
and the remarks about journals entitled _Mercure_ exceed somewhat the
scope of his enterprise.[123] In addition to these faults Durey de
Noinville makes bad mistakes in details.[124] His virtually worthless
compilation yields an occasional nugget, but such discoveries are
rare.[125] His book is only interesting or important for showing how
a bibliography of bibliographies might have grown out of a list of
books entitled _bibliotheca_.

The efforts that we have surveyed in this chapter produced nothing of
lasting value. The list written by the author of _Die neu-eröffnete
Bibliothec_ did not lead to either a bibliography of bibliographies
or a guide to reference works. Durey de Noinville's disorderly book
was not good enough to suggest making anything better. All these
writers worked independently and made little or no use of their
predecessors. We might see in this fact an omen of the course of
bibliographies of bibliographies in the next century.

FOOTNOTES:

[93] See ed. 1664, pp. 21-22, eds. 1672 and 1678, pp. 30-31, ed.
1682, pp. 50-51.

[94] The only parallel that occurs to me is in John Ferguson's book
that is discussed below.

[95] The noun "bibliotheca" is to be understood here and in
conjunction with the following proper adjectives in his list. By
Bibliotheca Augustana Labbé meant the library at Augsburg. At the
time when he was writing, several catalogues of manuscripts and books
in this library had been published. He could have referred to them by
this short title made up for the purpose.

[96] Labbé refers to the library at Fleury and, in particular,
to Joannes a Bosco (Jean du Bois-Olivier), _Floriacensis vetus
bibliotheca benedictina_ (3 pts; Lyons, 1605. Copy in the
Bibliothèque nationale). For accounts of this library see Edward
Edwards, _Memoirs of Libraries_ (London, 1859), I, 281-287, 2d
ed. (Newport, Isle of Wight, 1885), pp. 54-60; E. G. Vogel, "Die
Bibliothek der Benediktinerabtei Saint Benoit oder Fleury an der
Loire," _Serapeum_, V (1844), 17-29, 46-49.

[97] For the unpublished catalogue of the university library at
Ingolstadt see Chapter II, n. 65.

[98] I am not sure what Labbé means. He may be referring to the
Ambrosian Library or to Cardinal Federicus Borromaeus, _Meditamenta
literaria_ (Milan, 1613), which contains an autobibliography. I cite
this book, which I have not seen, from the _Bibliotheca Cyprianica,
sive Catalogus liborum historico-theologicorum, quos Ern. Sal.
Cyprianus ... conquisivit_ (Gotha, 1726), p. 66.

[99] There were several early catalogues of the Bodleian Library.

[100] The library of Jacques de Thou and the De Thou family; see J.
Quesnel (comp.), _Bibliotheca Thuana_ (2 v.; Paris, 1679. ICN).

[101] The Royal Library at Paris.

[102] The Imperial Library at Vienna.

[103] The ducal library at Munich. See, for example, the _Catalogus
graecorum codicum manuscriptorum, qui adservantur in inclyta
serenissimi utriusque Bavarice Ducis Bibliotheca_ (Ingolstadt, 1602.
CS).

[104] Perhaps Labbé is referring to Thomas Gratianus (d. 1627),
_Anastasis Augustiniana in qua scriptores ordinis eremitarum s.
[sive] qui abhinc saeculis aliquot vixerunt, una cum neotericis, in
seriem digesti sunt_ (Antwerp, 1613) or Cornelius Curtius, _Virorum
illustrium ex ordine eremitarum D. Augustini elogia_ (Antwerp, 1636).
I have not seen the first of these and a copy of the second is in
my library. I do not find any bibliography of the Augustinians that
might have been available to Labbé was entitled _bibliotheca_.

[105] Petrus Lucius (Pierre de Licht, d. 1603), _Carmelitana
bibliotheca, sive Illustrium aliquot Carmelitanae religionis
scriptorum, & eorum operum cathalogus_ (Florence, 1593).

[106] Petrus Borellus (Pierre Borel, ca. 1620-1689), _Bibliotheca
chimica_ (Paris, 1654).

[107] Labbé is probably referring to one or another of the preacher's
guides by such men as Louis (or Jean) Bayl, Pierre Blanchot,
Francois Combefis, and G. B. Pontanus, all of whom wrote before the
publication of the _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ in 1664. Their works
were entitled _Bibliotheca concionatoria_.

[108] Labbé is referring to various early legal bibliographies by
such men as Laurent Bochel, Henri Justel, and Guillaume Voel.

[109] Georg Draud (d. 1635), _Bibliotheca classica_ (Frankfurt
a.M., 1611, 2d ed., 1625). See a copy of the first edition of this
classified universal bibliography with an index of authors' names
in the Newberry Library and copies of both editions in my library.
The date of Draud's death is disputed, but Richard Browne, who has
investigated it, prefers 1635.

[110] Antonius Possevinus (Antonio Possevino, 1534-1611),
_Bibliotheca selecta, qua agitur de ratione studiorum in historia,
in disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda_ (Rome, 1593). There are
copies of this or a later edition in the Newberry Library and my own
library.

[111] Conrad Gesner (1516-1565), _Bibliotheca universalis_ (Zurich,
1545-1555). The identification of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
books that are cited by title only is often very difficult. I do
not feel sure that I have always hit upon the book that Labbé was
thinking of.

[112] See ed. 1704, pp. 294-298. _Die neu-eröffnete Bibliothec_
has a title of a sort that was popular at this time. The earliest
parallel that I have noted is J. U. M., _Neu-eröffnete Schaz-Kammer
verschiedener Natur- und Kunst-Wunder_ (Nuremberg, 1689). See also P.
I. M. [Paul Jacob Marperger], _Die neu-eröffnete Kauffmanns-Börse_
(Hamburg, 1704) and I. M. P. a W., _Die neu-eröffnete Berg-Werck_
(Hamburg, 1704). The latest example that I have found is the
anonymous _Neu-eröffnete Vorraths-Kammer allerhand rarer und
nützlicher Kunst-Stücke_ (Frankfurt a.M., 1760). _Die neu-eröffnete
Bibliothec_ is obviously a piracy containing an unnamed professor's
lectures on the history of scholarship.

[113] For a description of this book see Jakob Burckhard, _Historia
Bibliothecae Augustae_ (Leipzig, [1744]), I, 148-150. For an
ascription to Samuel Clodius see Otto von Heinemann, _Die herzogliche
Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel_ (2d ed.; Wolfenbüttel, 1894), p. 72, n.
2 and Adelung's supplement to C. G. Jöcher, _Gelehrtenlexikon_, II
(Leipzig, 1787), 376-377. I am indebted to Dr. Arnold Weinberger and
Professor Heinrich Schneider for these references. The date 1650 is
probably wrong. The foregoing authorities give the date 1660. The
_Catalogi Bibliothecae Thottianae_, VI (Copenhagen, 1798), 386, No.
972, cites a copy with the date 1659. The _Sciagraphia_ is strangely
lacking in the first book to which one turns: Hermann Conring, _De
Bibliotheca Augusta_ (Helmstadt, 1661; "editio nova," 1684), which
is reprinted in J. A. Schmid and J. J. Mader, _De bibliothecis atque
archivis_ (Helmstadt, 1702-1705). In this famous letter Conring
discusses a proposal to make a catalogue of the books at Wolfenbüttel
and reaches the conclusion that it cannot be executed. His neglect of
his predecessor is curious.

[114] For a reference to this book see Petzholdt, p. 584 (he did not
see the book). The author's name is Fuiren. There is a copy in the
Royal Library at Copenhagen.

[115] This is Michael Kirsteinius (Michael Kirsten), _Memoria
bibliothecae Hamburgensis_ (Hamburg, [1651]). There are folio and
quarto editions. For references to it see J. F. Jugler (ed.), B.
G. Struve, _Bibliotheca historiae litterariae selecta_ (Jena,
1754-1763), pp. 483-484 and the British Museum catalogue.

[116] This book, if it was ever printed, has probably disappeared.
I can find no reference to a copy of it. In his _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_, Philip Labbé continues the title as follows: "quarum
prima omnium Scriptorum qui artem Medicam excoluerunt nomina,
aetatem, libros, &c. continet; secunda per classes rerum praecipuas
ac titulos artium digesta cujuvis materiae Medicae, &c. Dilingiae
apud Gaspardum Sutorem in folio." I do not know where he found this
information. Dr. Arnold Weinberger tells me that Bartholomäus Moser
(d. 1678), "fürstlich augsburgischer Rat und Leibmedikus," wrote a
biography of Francis Bacon (1645) and made a gift to the University
of Dillingen in 1676. See Thomas Specht, _Geschichte der ehemaligen
Universität Dillingen_ (Freiburg i.B., 1902), I, 405.

[117] Cunibert Mohlberg collects information about this catalogue;
see "Nachrichten von belgischen Sammelkatalogen des 15./16.
Jahrhunderts," _Historisches Jahrbuch_, XXXIII (1912), 365-375.
In "Quellen zur Feststellung und Geschichte mittelalterlicher
Bibliotheken, Handschriften und Schriftsteller," _Historisches
Jahrbuch_, XL (1920), 44-106, Paul Lehmann adds more information and
corrects Mohlberg in some details. Lehmann makes a very interesting
attempt to reconstruct the catalogue from quotations.

[118] I have been unable to see any books by this author and have
been unable to collect much information about them or the author.
Groeningius announced a _Polyhistor bibliothecarius_ in 1700, which
was to deal with law after the fashion of Morhof's "Polyhistor." He
planned the _Fasti rei litterariae_ as a continuation of Morhof and
published it in 1702 under the title of _Relationes rei publicae
litterariae_, but this was only a sample of what he had in his
mind. See J. F. Jugler (ed.), B. G. Struve, _Bibliotheca historiae
litterariae selecta_ (Jena, 1754-1763), pp. 52-54. Petzholdt cites
(p. 658) legal bibliographies by Groeningius and a _Bibliotheca
universalis_, of which they formed a part.

[119] The book is in two parts. The list of dictionaries in the
second part will not be discussed here, but see a contemporary
parallel cited by Léon Vallée (p. 268, No. 3145: Joh. Heumann) and
earlier bibliographers of dictionaries as cited by Teissier. The
preface (pp. 1-66) to the _Dissertation sur les bibliothèques_ is an
account of ancient and modern libraries. I do not recommend it.

An excellent survey of theological reference works in the preface to
J. G. Walch, _Bibliotheca theologica selecta_ (Jena, 1757-1765) is
sometimes called a list of books entitled _bibliotheca_. It contains
many such books, but is not a list of them.

[120] "Table alphabétique tant des Ouvrages publiés sous le titre de
Bibliothèque; que des Catalogues imprimés des Cabinets de France &
des Pays étrangers," pp. 67-156.

[121] See pp. 75, 93-96, and 101-102, respectively.

[122] See pp. 114-116.

[123] See pp. 127-130.

[124] A few examples will suffice. Bucardi (i.e., Burkhardi)
Gotthelffi Struvii appears under the letter "B" (p. 81) and later
("Philosophique," p. 137) loses his family name. In the entry
"Belgique" (p. 75) the third item is credited to "id." which refers
back to Valerius Andreas, but the book meant is by J. F. Foppens,
whose name does not appear at all. A line or more has dropped out
at the bottom of p. 83. The dates of publication are unreliable:
Borellus, 1754 should be 1654 (p. 78); Justinianus, 1712 should be
1612 (p. 117); and Lambecius, 1610 should be 1710 (p. 118). Labbé's
_Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ was printed in 1664, not 1674 (p. 118).

[125] I note (p. 155) a reference to an article on universal
bibliographies in the _Journal de Verdun_, February, 1749, p. 89. I
have not verified the reference.




Chapter IV

The Bibliography of Bibliographies Begins Anew


Comprehensive authoritative bibliographies of the most popular
fields of scholarship are characteristic products of the eighteenth
century.[126] They began to appear in the last years of the
seventeenth century, when Giulio Bartolocci (1613-1687) published
the _Bibliotheca magna rabbinica_ (3 v.; 1675-1693) which Carlo
Giuseppe Imbonati (d. after 1696) completed and provided with the
supplementary _Bibliotheca latino-hebraica_ (1694). There are many
standard bibliographies to set beside it. Barthélemy d'Herbelot [de
Molainville] compiled the _Bibliothèque orientale_ in 1697, Johann
Albert Fabricius published the first edition of the _Bibliotheca
latina_ in the same year and continued with such larger and more
important works as the _Bibliotheca mediae et infimae latinitatis_
(6 v.; 1734-1746) and his masterpiece, the _Bibliotheca graeca_ (14
v.; 1705-1728). In 1693 Ellies Du Pin published the first volume
of the long theological bibliography that only his death was to
interrupt. Many of these works were revised and enlarged during
the next century and a half. The _Bibliothèque orientale_ was
republished for the last time in 1781-1783. An edition of the even
more successful _Bibliotheca latina_ was begun in 1773 and remained
incomplete. The new edition of the _Bibliotheca graeca_ begun in
1790 was brought to an end, although the work was still incomplete,
with an index published in 1838. Excellent bibliographies which are
still worth consulting were written for every subject of particular
interest to eighteenth-century scholars. J. C. Wolf published four
thick volumes of a _Bibliotheca hebraea_ in 1715-1733. William Cave,
who had begun his bibliographical activities in the seventeenth
century, Jacques LeLong, and (after the middle of the century) J.
G. Walch satisfied the demands of theologians. Langlet du Fresnoy,
Johann Burkhard Mencken, and B. G. Struve compiled exhaustive lists
of historical materials and investigations. The many bibliographies
by Johann Albert Fabricius reviewed such subjects as church history,
missions, and classical, Christian, Jewish, and heathen antiquities.
In brief, the eighteenth-century scholar had on his shelves excellent
bibliographies of the subjects that he found most interesting.
However, he did not have any good guide to them in the form of a
bibliography of bibliographies.[127]

The only bibliography of bibliographies that can be dated in the
eighteenth century has, as far as I know, disappeared entirely. It
is a manuscript dated 1707 that was sold at Amsterdam in 1743. From
the brief auctioneer's description we can infer that it resembled
Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ and was a continuation of that
bibliographical tradition. I have been unable to learn anything about
its author. The description is as follows:

    Bibliotheca Alphabetica à Carolo Moëtte collecta cum Indice
    Auctorum, Parisiis 1707. NB. Opus hoc propriè est Bibliotheca
    Bibliothecarum, MSS. ineditum.[128]

Each epoch in the history of bibliographies of bibliographies has
an individuality of its own. In the hands of Conrad Gesner and his
successors this variety of bibliography slowly established itself.
In the next epoch the work of Philip Labbé attracted contemporary
scholars to continue and improve it. Although Antoine Teissier was
the only one to publish the revision of a predecessor's work, his
procedure is characteristic of seventeenth-century scholarship. The
eighteenth century neglected the bibliography of bibliographies and
let the writings of the sixteenth and seventeenth century in this
field sink into obscurity. In the nineteenth century, as we shall
see, men undertook to compile bibliographies of bibliographies with
an astonishing disregard of the difficulties of the task and a
surprising neglect of previous efforts. Without an exception these
men were librarians and should therefore have been fully aware of
what they were doing and of what had been done. Their behavior is
nothing less than amazing. I may anticipate the theme of the next
chapter by saying that the characteristic aspect of the making
of bibliographies of bibliographies in the twentieth century is
cooperation.

When the great French bibliographer Gabriel Peignot (1767-1849)
published his _Répertoire bibliographique générale_ in 1812, he
declared that he had hit upon an entirely new idea. Although he knew
and cited such predecessors as Labbé and Teissier, he did not clearly
see that he was undertaking the task that they had already completed.
He did not use their books systematically, and he did not exhaust the
information that they had collected.

Peignot shows his competence as a bibliographer in various ways.
Like his predecessors (although he seems not to have intentionally
imitated them), he includes bibliographies printed as parts
of non-bibliographical works. For example, he quotes at the
very beginning a bibliography of books about bees from a local
agricultural journal. Within the various articles he arranges the
titles chronologically and thus suggests the historical growth
of knowledge and bibliography in a particular field. Although
bibliographers before him had often added comments, Peignot is more
systematic and generous than his predecessors. For example, his
account of bibliographies of ana--a subject to which he had himself
made an important contribution a few years before the publication
of the _Répertoire_--even includes useful references to book
reviews. Particularly interesting as a technical improvement in
bibliographical method are his frequent references to the number of
titles in the book that he is citing. Bibliographies published before
the _Répertoire_ rarely give this information. During the course
of the history that we have surveyed, the standards of accuracy
and completeness rose and Peignot attains a very high level in this
regard. The index of authors in his _Répertoire_ is both complete and
accurate and so, also, are his citations of titles.

Peignot's _Répertoire_ contains perhaps a thousand articles extending
from "Abeilles (bees)" to "Zoologie." According to Theodore
Besterman, it names two thousand bibliographies. Since Peignot is
primarily interested in surveying eighteenth-century scholarship,
he does not exhaust Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ and its
continuations.

Peignot's decision to arrange his bibliography of bibliographies in
an alphabet of many small subject headings has necessarily reduced
the permanent value of his labors or, more correctly, has made it
more difficult for us to benefit from them. The _Répertoire_ suffers
from the unavoidable difficulties that arise from the choice of
headings.[129] A reader can never know whether a particular subject
will appear as a separate entry or as a subdivision of a larger
field. Will heresy stand alone or under theology? What will the term
philosophy include? Peignot gives no cross-references to aid his
reader. Nor is there an alphabetical subject index that would guide
the reader to the bibliographies included in the larger headings.
Such an alphabetical subject index would have been useful, but I
grant at once that an alphabetical subject index to an alphabetical
list of subjects seems a strange duplication. There is, to be sure, a
brief classified subject index (pp. xv-xix).

A serious and inescapable handicap to the permanent usefulness of
Peignot's alphabetical list of many small headings is the rapid
obsolescence of technical terms. In some cases we can no longer
know exactly what Peignot meant by a particular term and therefore
cannot immediately turn to a desired entry. For example, "histoire
littéraire" does not mean the history of literature or at least
of literature in the sense of belles lettres. In Peignot's use
"métaphysique" includes demonology or, as a modern bookseller would
say, "occult" books. A specialist in the history of theological
studies will know that Peignot's "théologie positive" refers to
theology based on God's revelations to man, but two professors in
a divinity school did not recognize the term. I am all the more
sympathetic with them when I read in Neville Braybrooke's account of
Christianity in England the comment on Mr. Billy Graham: "In his way
he stood for 'positive theology'."--Cited from _The Commonweal_, LX
(1954), 194. Here the term seems to mean "a convincing religion for
the man in the street."

Peignot does not offer an index of subjects because he believes
that his table of contents and his alphabetical arrangement make it
unnecessary. This belief is not well-founded because he subdivides
many long articles and gives no cross-references and no indication
of subdivisions in the table of contents. The bibliography of an
individual classical author appears in its alphabetical place in
the article "Classiques" (pp. 155-244) and of a religious order
in "Ordres monastiques" (pp. 432-437). Without a cross-reference
from "Bible" (pp. 26-32) one will perhaps fail to find a list of
polyglot Bibles under the heading "Polyglottes" (p. 447). It is not
immediately obvious that Peignot has arranged his valuable list (pp.
40-75) of catalogues of public libraries alphabetically according to
places. He would have added little to the size of his book by adding
cross-references and he would have made it much easier to use.

Although Peignot feels the temptation that comes to every
bibliographer to wander afield and include works of little pertinence
to the task, he apologizes for yielding to it in a prefatory "Nota"
to the useful article "Bibliothèques" (pp. 32-135). He includes here
such works as Richard de Bury, _Philobiblon_ (a book about collecting
books); Claudius Clement, _Musaei_ (a general treatise on library
science that contains little bibliographical information); and Louis
Jacob, _Traicté des plus belles bibliothèques_ (an excellent account
of European libraries in the early seventeenth century). In general,
however, Peignot adheres very strictly to his intention of listing
only bibliographies.

We must look with a critical eye at Peignot's classification. Since
he has an article on the bibliography of bibliographies, he should
not put Labbé, _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_, in "Des livres en
général" (p. 387). Boulard's treatise on bibliographical method
stands on the border of what is admissible and should certainly not
be placed with "Des livres rares," a list of catalogues of rare
books (p. 396). Georg Draud, _Bibliotheca classica_, a classified
compilation of titles listed in the semi-annual catalogues of the
German booktrade, includes juridical works as a matter of course,
but it is not correctly placed in "Droit" (p. 254). Anton Francesco
Doni's _La libraria_ is a catalogue of Italian books and is not, as
Peignot lists it (p. 95), a catalogue of a private library.

Peignot has seen many of the books that he cites and in this regard
surpasses his predecessors. He does not, however, report German
authors' names and titles (even titles written in Latin) with
satisfactory accuracy.[130] I am not disposed to judge him very
harshly for this fault because the language was no doubt strange to
him and the books were probably not available. A more serious fault
is, it seems to me, his neglect of obviously important books that
he either could have seen or should have known. I cannot understand
how he overlooked such authorities on church history and theology
as Louis Ellies Du Pin, Jacques LeLong, and J. G. Walch. He knows
only two of the six eighteenth-century bibliographies of diplomatics
that Namur commends (pp. xvii-xix), but all of them are, it must be
acknowledged, German works and therefore probably not within his
reach.

These comments on Peignot's faults can easily obscure our estimate
of his merits. His succinct and abundant comments were no doubt
useful when he wrote and are still valuable. His chronological
arrangement of titles is a spur to historical meditations on the
development of many fields of study. A modern scholar finds it hard
to duplicate some information that Peignot has assembled. Where
else can he easily find bibliographies of the collections of Latin
poets,[131] dictionaries,[132] encyclopedias,[133] translators of
the classics,[134] and accounts of royal and noble writers?[135]
His review of bibliographies of incunabula lays a foundation for
a history of such works,[136] and so also does his survey of
bibliographies of medicine.[137] The most amusing list in Peignot's
_Répertoire_ is a collection of bibliographies of men who practised
trades or were members of professions having little connection with
literature.[138]

Peignot's abundant and informative critical notes deserve special
praise. For example, he comments on catalogues of public libraries
(pp. 40-75), and although we have longer lists of these catalogues,
his comments have not been superseded. A modern cataloguer would
probably have separated the catalogues of manuscripts from the
catalogues of books. An even more important survey deals with
catalogues of private libraries (pp. 75-135) arranged according to
the owners' names. He tells the number of lots offered for sale,
remarks on the presence or absence of indexes, and warns us when
the catalogue was printed in a small edition. He praises the superb
_Catalogus Bibliothecae Bunavianae_ (p. 86), calls attention to
varying editions of the Cambis catalogue (pp. 87-88), and commends
the Imperiali catalogue (pp. 104-105). He points out the noteworthy
collections of journals entitled _Mercure_ and books on the theatre
in the Pompadour catalogue (p. 119). He often notes the use of a
novel system of classification. One could only wish that Peignot
had devoted even more effort to this list. He would have enriched
the comments and would have eliminated various works that are not
properly included among catalogues of private libraries.[139]

In sum, then, Peignot's _Répertoire_ represents a definite advance
in the progress of bibliographies of bibliographies for its relative
accuracy and its abundant comments. It is what he intended it to
be: a survey of eighteenth-century bibliography rather than a
comprehensive bibliography of bibliographies.

Pie Namur, who wrote a very large bibliography of bibliographies a
short generation after Peignot, regarded the _Répertoire_ and two
contemporary compilations by T. H. Horne and A. F. Delandine as his
only predecessors. Although these compilations are brief selective
lists of a sort not included in this essay, Namur's recognition of
them makes it necessary to characterize them briefly.

The bibliographical portion (pp. 403-758) of Thomas Hartwell Horne
(1780-1862), _An Introduction to the Study of Bibliography_ (1814) is
mentioned here only because Pie Namur, the author of a bibliography
of bibliographies next to be discussed, names it along with A. F.
Delandine's "Bibliographie spéciale" and Peignot's _Répertoire_ as a
predecessor. Like other writers of handbooks of bibliography, Horne
cites bibliographies without aiming at completeness. Horne's Part
III, "A Notice of the Principal Works, Extant on Literary History in
General, and on Bibliography in Particular," gives the information
that it promises but contains no subject bibliographies and therefore
cannot be called a general bibliography of bibliographies. It
contains a brief account of "Dictionaries of Literary History" or
works that we would call universal biobibliographies (pp. 403-408).
The interesting survey of "Treatises, &c. on Literary History" (pp.
408-418) includes G. M. König, _Bibliotheca vetus et nova_ (1678)
and J. P. Niceron, _Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des hommes
illustres dans la république des lettres_ (43 v.; 1726-1745) that
should have appeared in the preceding section and two histories of
philosophy for which his plan had no place. "Writers on British
Literary History" (pp. 419-431) and "Writers on Foreign Literary
History" (pp. 431-447) are accounts of national biobibliographies,
histories, and bibliographies of literature, and of specialized
biobibliographical writings. One finds in them occasional titles of
infrequent occurrence like Christopher Wordsworth, _Ecclesiastical
Biography, or Lives of eminent men connected with the history of
religion in England, from the commencement of the Reformation to
the Revolution_ (6 v.; London, 1810) or Giovanni Agostini, _Notizie
istorico-scritiche intorno la vita e le opere degli scrittori
Vineziani_ (2 v.; Venice, 1752). His rather full account of British
works has some value but his incomplete foreign list is noteworthy
chiefly for such curiosities as Matthias Bellus, _Exercitatio de
vetere litteratura Hunno-Scythica_ (pp. 433-434) or Giambattista
Toderini, _Della letteratura turchesa_ (p. 447). Horne devotes the
following sections to writers on the materials used in writing and
printing (pp. 448-450), writers on the origin of languages, letters,
and writing (pp. 451-469), and writers on the history and the art
of printing (pp. 469-513). A strictly bibliographical "Chapter IV.
Books" (pp. 513-550) contains books on bibliomania, handbooks of
bibliography, catalogues of rare books and incunabula, dictionaries
of anonyma and pseudonyma, and lists of burned, suppressed, or
censured books. The most valuable part of Horne's _Introduction_
is the fifth chapter, on bibliographical systems and catalogues.
The account of bibliographical systems (pp. 551-563) is not very
important, but the review of British and foreign public and private
library catalogues (pp. 564-733) has not been entirely superseded.
Although far from complete, it contains information not easily found
elsewhere. It resembles Peignot's similar review, on which Horne
has drawn heavily. He concludes with a brief survey of publishers'
catalogues (pp. 733-741), references (pp. 741-742) to two of
Peignot's bibliographies that he believes to be adequate guides to
subject bibliography, and addenda (pp. 743-758). Horne did not intend
his _Introduction_ to be a bibliography of bibliographies and we need
say no more about it.

A "Bibliographie spéciale et chronologique des principaux ouvrages
sur l'imprimerie et la bibliologie" by Antoine François Delandine
(1756-1820) is printed in his _Bibliothèque de Lyons_ (Paris, 1816).
I have not seen Delandine's original list but have used a later and
slightly enlarged version. In this, Etienne Psaume has, according
to Namur, added a few books printed between 1812 and 1822 and the
new title "Appendice de l'Essai sur la bibliologie" (1824). This,
is an annotated chronological list of nearly three hundred and
fifty books on the history of printing, catalogues of public and
private libraries, and bibliographies of miscellaneous scope. This
somewhat casual performance is useful at best for a few curious or
informative notes. The bibliographies do not amount to many more than
a hundred and do not offer either in number or variety a satisfactory
survey of bibliography. A selection of good catalogues of private
libraries (chiefly French) is the best feature of the "Appendice."
The distressingly careless citations show that the compilers did
not see some of the books. This list shows some originality and is
worth reading, but it deserves no significant place in the history of
bibliographies of bibliographies.

Almost a generation passed after the publication of Peignot's
_Répertoire_ before anyone tried again to write a bibliography of
bibliographies. [Jean] Pie Namur (1804-1867), a librarian ("second
bibliothécaire") at the University of Liége, gave a sample of such
a work in his _Manuel du bibliothécaire_ in 1834 and published his
complete _Bibliographie paléographico-diplomatico-bibliologique
générale_ in 1838. Despite its many serious faults this forgotten
book deserves some recognition. Namur emphatically disclaimed (I,
p. xiv) any dependence on Peignot's _Répertoire_, which he called
a "chaos" that yielded only a few titles. In writing his _Manuel_
he had perceived that there were no adequate bibliographies of
paleography, diplomatics, and "bibliologie" and he therefore
set about compiling them. In the section of "bibliologie" he
recognized only Peignot's _Répertoire_, Horne's _Introduction_,
and Delandine's or Psaume's list as predecessors. Although he
found them unsatisfactory, he would have left his collections
unpublished but for the urging of friends, especially Baron de
Reiffenberg, librarian of the Royal Library at Brussels (see I, p.
xx). The announcement of his plan led L.-A. Constantin, who wrote
a short handbook of library science a few years later, to send two
hundred slips and to renounce the idea of making a bibliography of
bibliographies (I, pp. xxi-xxii).

We can best appreciate the not inconsiderable merits of Namur's
_Bibliographie_ by squarely facing its faults. A comprehensive
bibliographical account of paleography, diplomatics, the history of
printing and the booktrade, bibliography, the history of libraries,
and literary and critical journals is too large a task for one man
or one book. I confine my comments to a discussion of the fourth
section, which deals with bibliography.[140] Here as well as
elsewhere Namur's choice of a classified arrangement involves great
difficulties in arrangement. Namur's table of contents is inadequate
and he provided no subject index. In assigning books to categories
Namur fails sadly. He apologizes in a footnote (II, 5, n. 1) for a
confused alphabetical list of 198 general bibliographies by saying
that he has been unable to see the books and therefore cannot
classify them. In this tangled heap lists of books recommended for
various kinds of specialized libraries, trade catalogues, critical
journals, Giovanni Cinelli (later Giovanni Cinelli Calvoli), _Della
biblioteca volante_ (a bibliography of ephemeral publications), G.
F. DeBure's _Musaeum typographicum_ (a list of rare books),[141]
and general bibliographies lie side by side. Even if he had had to
leave a few titles unidentified, he had sufficient bibliographical
resources within easy reach to bring order into this confusion. But,
he should not be judged on the basis of a list that he confessed
himself unable to classify. The following section 3, which should
have been numbered 2, is entitled "Bibliographie des livres rares,
etc." (II, 12-14). This heading gives the reader no good idea of
what to expect. Namur includes here lists of rare books, lists of
ana, John Hartley's _Catalogus universalis_ (which is described by
its title), and J. B. B. van Praet's catalogues of books printed
on vellum. The anomalous items are in all perhaps a dozen of the
fifty-two titles in this section. If we disregard the interlopers,
which could easily have been put elsewhere, this section is a not
altogether unsatisfactory account of a very important variety of
eighteenth-century bibliography. Almost all catalogues of rare books
can be readily recognized by their titles and a critical account
of them--an account which is greatly to be desired--might begin
with Namur's list. In section 4, the bibliographies of anonyma
and pseudonyma, Namur succeeds better than in section 3. These
bibliographies are usually sufficiently identified by their titles
and mistakes should not occur. Two black sheep have, however, found
a way into the fold (II, 14, Nos. 272, 273). Books like these with
the title _Bibliotheca anonymiana_ are sale catalogues and not lists
of anonymous writings. The title corresponds to the modern "Library
of a Distinguished Collector" and Namur should have recognized it.
This error shows the dangers that a bibliographer runs in classifying
books without examining them.

Bibliographies of the individual languages and literatures are
ordinarily easy to recognize, but Namur makes a few egregious
mistakes in classifying them. One example is sufficient. He puts a
book on Icelandic literature correctly in the same class with books
on Danish and Swedish literature and then enters it once more among
American bibliographies. He introduces a further complication by
copying "Irlandiae" that a predecessor had misread for "Islandiae"
in the title of a second book by the same author and puts it among
British biobibliographies. Nor is this enough. He cites the author's
name, Hálfdan Einarsson, as both "Hálfdanus Einar" and "Einari, H."
and enters the first under "H" and the second under "E" in the index
of authors.[142] One can grant that the proper form of entry for
Icelandic names is difficult for foreigners, but a bibliographer
must learn it or at least adopt a consistent rule of his own making.
Although Namur knows directly or indirectly many bibliographies, he
has failed to find obvious titles. A librarian at Liége who knows
Anton Sander's Flemish biobibliography should also have known his
local books of similar character for Bruges and Ghent.[143]

Enough of this! The picture is not all black. Namur's account of
dictionaries of anonyma and pseudonyma[144] contains more titles
printed before 1838 than any other bibliography. There are some
duplications but few outright errors. His important list of books
dealing with the history of libraries and including catalogues
of institutional libraries[145] is the most useful one that I
know. He has ranged so widely as to cite the library catalogues
of the American Philosophical Society and the Library Company of
Philadelphia and (inaccurately) the Harvard College Library catalogue
of 1790. Such titles rarely come to the knowledge of European
bibliographers. The following section (II, 167-226, Nos. 721-2573)
is an equally full review of catalogues of private libraries. As he
says in a footnote at the beginning, he has made a special effort
to attain completeness. I can cite no list of trade catalogues
and publishers' catalogues comparable to Namur's (I, 171-193,
Nos. 1283-1857). I cannot judge competently his list of printer's
type facsimiles (I, 144-146, Nos. 673-768), but its extent and
the variety of printers named is impressive. His list of national
biobibliographical dictionaries (II, 106-122, Nos. 86-390) is far
from complete, but I see in the Italian section (II, 108-110, Nos.
129-169) several unusual titles. The subject bibliographies seem less
rich to me, but there are one hundred and sixteen bibliographies
of medicine (II, 77-83, Nos. 1457-1573) and eight bibliographies
of veterinary medicine (II, 84, Nos. 1574-1581). More examples of
Namur's diligence would be wearisome and would add nothing to the
picture. In spite of vexatious errors of all kinds Namur often names
a title not easily found elsewhere.

A development characteristic of nineteenth-century bibliography
consists in the publication of collectanea at more or less regular
intervals in appropriate journals. These collectanea may be lists
of recently published books and articles, books received, or brief
critical accounts of current publications. Since they do not intend
to be comprehensive, we need not examine at length those including
bibliographies. A. G. S. Josephson mentions perhaps a score of
such periodical bibliographies of bibliographies.[146] Perhaps
the earliest and most influential publications of this sort were
those in the _Anzeiger für Literatur der Bibliothekswissenschaft_
(1840-1846), which was continued until 1886 by the _Neuer Anzeiger
für Bibliographie und Bibliothekswissenschaft_. The editor,
Julius Petzholdt, used these lists of current bibliographical
publications, bibliographies of particular subjects, and critical
comments on antiquarian catalogues in the making of his _Bibliotheca
bibliographica_, but those published after 1866, when the
_Bibliotheca_ appeared, are not very well-known. Various other
journals devoted to bibliography, bibliophily, library science,
criticism, and the interests of publishers and dealers printed
similar collectanea. For example, a very full and carefully compiled
list of current bibliographical publications may be found in the
_Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, which was founded in 1884. These
numerous lists are convenient collections of useful materials, but
I am not sure that the makers of bibliographies of bibliographies
have, with the exception of Petzholdt, made full use of them. With
the rise of annual bibliographies of bibliographies[147] that aim
at comprehensiveness their importance has somewhat declined. I have
mentioned these collectanea because they represent a new development
and are to some extent the foundation of the book next to be
discussed.

After the lapse of nearly three generations the _Bibliotheca
bibliographica_ (1866) by Julius Petzholdt (1812-1891) is still a
standard bibliography of bibliographies. Its position will doubtless
remain unchallenged. More recent works--notably Theodore Besterman,
_A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_--contain more titles and
naturally include those published after 1866, but Petzholdt's
critical comments and careful collations are still indispensable. The
_Bibliotheca bibliographica_ deserves its reputation for its great
merits. It also owes this reputation to some extent to Petzholdt's
position as head of the famous library at Dresden with a long and
honorable bibliographical tradition,[148] his editorship of a
successful journal of library science, his standing as the author
of professional handbooks, and, last but not least, his vigorous
condemnation of other bibliographies. Petzholdt's self-assurance now
and again arouses resistance, and leads one to judge him as severely
as he judged others, but the _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ will remain
a landmark in bibliographical history.

Petzholdt's _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ is noteworthy for its
extent, its careful organization, its detailed collations, and
its useful critical comments. We must nevertheless admit some
qualification of all these merits. In extent, Petzholdt falls short
of his predecessor Pie Namur. Namur had in 1838 cited 10,236 titles.
Many of these did not, to be sure, fall within the limits set by
Petzholdt for his work. A generation later Petzholdt cited only an
estimated 5500 titles (I take the figure from Besterman). He achieved
this figure by excluding many old bibliographies (chiefly works of
the seventeenth century), disregarding bibliographies published as
journal articles, and including antiquarian catalogues and a few
catalogues of private libraries. Although completeness is desirable,
it is also unattainable. A comparison in terms of numbers is not very
important.

In the matter of organization the _Bibliotheca bibliographica_
has long been regarded as a model. Nevertheless one cannot defend
Petzholdt's inclusion[149] of a detailed list of schemes for
classifying books. He had collected a great deal of information
about such schemes because they interested him as a librarian, but
the subject is not pertinent to a bibliography of bibliographies.
Petzholdt's relegation of the alphabetical index of authors to a
clerk or, if he did have a clerk, to as inaccurate a clerk as he
chose, was unfortunate. His decision to provide no alphabetical index
of subjects makes the _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ hard to use. His
exclusion of articles in journals denies the purpose and spirit of
bibliography. If bibliographical collections are to guide seekers
after knowledge to information, then a bibliographer cannot justify
the deliberate neglect of materials which do not happen to be in a
particular physical condition. The best bibliography of the Tuamotus
may be, let us say, in a journal article. The bibliographer who is
aware of it and omits it merely because it is a journal article
is guilty of a serious fault. We can pardon him for not finding
it, but we cannot pardon him for rejecting it. We must not confuse
the situation by making such an excuse as "avoiding the burden of
inconsequential references." Petzholdt deliberately omitted journal
articles and therefore does not serve the man who comes to his book
as fully as he might have served him. Petzholdt's inclusion of
books dealing with the invention, history, and practice of printing
stretches the definition of his purpose, but custom is on his
side and we shall not protest unduly. Lists of books issued by a
famous publisher are of course within the scope of the _Bibliotheca
bibliographica_.

A serious criticism of Petzholdt's plan concerns the inclusion of
bibliographies, which (although pertinent) can be easily found and
might have been dealt with briefly. The bibliography of individuals
"Personale Literatur," (pp. 156-272) is a branch of bibliography
and must therefore be included. Nevertheless, few bibliographies
are more easily found than lists of an author's works. The great
biobibliographical dictionaries from Conrad Gesner's _Bibliotheca
universalis_ of 1545 down to the various editions of the _Biographie
universelle_ and the _Nouvelle biographie universelle_ contain this
information. Biographies, wherever published, ordinarily contain
bibliographies of the books written by the author in question.
There are excellent indexes of these biographies. Antoine Teissier
had added, in his _Catalogus_ and _Auctuarium_, some two thousand
biographies to Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_. E. M. Oettinger
had just published two editions of the _Bibliographie bibliographique
universelle_,[150] which is still a very convenient and full list of
biographies. Any good edition of a classical text is almost certain
to contain bibliographical information, and scarcely needs to be
cited in a bibliography of bibliographies.[151] He could have written
an entirely adequate bibliography of bibliographies of individuals in
much less than a hundred and sixteen pages. He might, for example,
have omitted the bibliography of R. Salomo b. Abraham b. Adereth (p.
166)--I cite the first name in his list--that is found in a biography
of this worthy and the bibliography of Martial (p. 226) that is found
in an edition of his works. Such omissions would not have impaired
his book and would have substantially reduced its bulk.

This section devoted to bibliographies of individual authors
exhibits some faults typical of Petzholdt's plan. A subdivision (pp.
156-166) without any heading begins the section and is terminated by
three asterisks in the middle of the page. Although it is set off
typographically, the lack of a heading makes it difficult to perceive
that we have in it a list of the very important biobibliographical
dictionaries of religious orders and learned academies. There is no
indication of this category in the table of contents and the names
of the religious orders and the academies do not appear in the
index. I do not see how one can readily find a biobibliographical
dictionary of the Dominicans or the Jesuits in this arrangement.
Not all of us can bring to mind immediately the names Quétif and
De Backer that are needed to find the references. In his list of
individual bibliographies Petzholdt goes so far as to include books
(not bibliographies, be it noticed) dealing with such artists as
Jost Ammann, Rembrandt, and Velasquez. He could have found another
place for books about famous publishers named Aldus and should
probably have made a special place for dictionaries of homonyms.[152]
He follows this section of individual bibliographies with a list
of books containing portraits ("Ikonographische Literatur," pp.
273-279). Its pertinence to a bibliography of bibliographies seems
debatable to me.

Petzholdt's execution of his plan leaves something to be desired.
He provides the obviously necessary table of contents, but fails
to include in it many subdivisions that he expresses by means of
headings or typographical devices or only implies by the arrangement
of titles. Experience teaches a reader that Petzholdt begins a
section with general works, often a modern annual bibliography,
proceeds through a chronological list, and concludes with specialized
antiquarian catalogues. This is an altogether logical order.
Subdivisions of a large category follow the general section. After
the general bibliography of medicine, for example, Petzholdt
continues with bibliographies of pathology and therapeutics (pp.
597-600). This arrangement makes necessary a full record of the
subdivisions in an index, but Petzholdt's index is only an author
index. There are occasional failures to include authors' names in the
index. We must judge these flaws kindly, for all men are fallible,
and bibliographers are no exception to the rule.

Writers of bibliographies of bibliographies have usually preferred a
classification according to subjects to an alphabetical arrangement
of titles with subject indexes. Joris Vorstius defends their
preference eloquently and with good arguments.[153] There is,
however, something to be said against it. Convenient as a classified
bibliography is as first issued, it cannot be easily revised or
enlarged.[154] When library cataloguers adopt new methods, when
new categories are set up in science, theology, law, and literary
history, a classified bibliography of bibliographies becomes
difficult to use.

In the history of bibliographies of bibliographies we can look
back to at least three occasions when men discarded the classified
bibliographies made by their predecessors. Men of the seventeenth
century seem to have made little use of Gesner's _Pandectae_, men
of the eighteenth century found as little use for the difficult
classification employed in Labbé's and Teissier's books, and few of
us can use Petzholdt's categories easily. The lesson is that each age
must create its own bibliography of bibliographies.

Petzholdt's _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ is a classified bibliography
that shows signs of obsolescence. The organization of knowledge and
the categories that seemed suitable to Julius Petzholdt in 1866 are
often confusing rather than helpful today. Keenly interested as
he was in the theory of classification, no one was more competent
than he to select the right headings. But a modern scholar who
consults the _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ must put himself in the
place of a man who lived almost a century ago. For example, he must
remember that Hungary was associated politically with Austria and
Austrian cataloguers and dealers listed and sold Hungarian books.
Consequently, Petzholdt cites (pp. 320-321) bibliographies of
Hungarian books along with bibliographies of German books and makes
no entry in the table of contents for Hungarian bibliographies. I do
not say that he was wrong, but I do say that a modern reader must
remember the political situation of 1866 to use Petzholdt's book.

Petzholdt's adoption of a classified arrangement required him to be
very careful in assigning books to categories and to provide abundant
cross-references. As we have seen, his subdivisions of categories
are not clearly marked and may escape the notice of an experienced
user of bibliographies. For example, a bibliography of "Programme"
(learned essays issued with the annual reports of German secondary
schools) appears (p. 293) properly enough among the bibliographies
of German and Swiss publications but few will find it. A few pages
later (pp. 298-299) Petzholdt lists bibliographies of German and
Swiss journals. Since these two categories are not named in the
table of contents or the index, the information is almost completely
buried. "Prognostica" or prophecies of future events--a genre of
writings that was very popular in the late Middle Ages and the
Renaissance--gave Petzholdt trouble. Some of these are listed as
pseudo-philosophy (see p. 467: Heuschling), and others are perhaps
more appropriately found with almanacs ("Calenderliteratur," pp.
539-540). A bibliography of Swedish almanacs (p. 399) appears in
the section for Swedish literature without a cross-reference to or
from the bibliography of almanacs. "Loosbücher" or books telling how
to interpret omens are in the section for psychology (p. 467), and
this is a heading under "Philosophische Litteratur." Examples are
wearisome, and I shall give no more.

A classified bibliography must have an exhaustive table of contents,
a full index of authors, and an adequate alphabetical subject index.
Petzholdt's _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ is probably as carefully
made as any such book can be made, but its table of contents is a
scanty recapitulation of the very largest headings, its index of
authors is incomplete, and a subject index is lacking. I have already
expressed sincere admiration for the book and feel all the more
keenly the presence of these defects.

Petzholdt's frequent disparaging remarks show that he did not
esteem highly the bibliographical achievements of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. We need not defend them here, but we must
recognize that his low opinion of them explains many omissions of
early bibliographies in his own work. His admirable survey of books
that a scholar would find useful in 1866 gives no adequate account
of the historical development of bibliography or of the wealth of
bibliographical work before 1750. His very convenient chronological
arrangement of titles in the various categories does often suggest
the historical development and at times his choice of older books is
generous.

Petzholdt has not compared his accounts of some fields with easily
available bibliographies and therefore fails to include obviously
important books. In the field of national bibliographies, Petzholdt
chose to pass over many older bibliographies that seemed to him to be
no longer useful. Both the Latin and the German editions of Heinrich
Pantaleon's rare sixteenth-century German biobibliography could
perhaps be dispensed with, and I shall not object to his omission of
them.[155] I think he should not have passed over without mention
Henning Witte's biobibliographical dictionaries, which are still
useful sources of information about obscure seventeenth century
writers. To be sure, Witte's _Repertorium biblicum_ is cited (p.
286), but this is the least useful of Witte's books. Petzholdt's
account of German regional biobibliographies (pp. 299-322) can only
be called superficial. In Robert F. Arnold, _Allgemeine Bücherkunde
zur neueren deutschen Literaturgeschichte_,[156] which I have
compared only for the first page (the entries extending from Aargau
through Bayern), I find twelve books published before 1866 that
Petzholdt does not name. If we turn to works of larger scope, one
cannot easily find a reason for omitting D'Herbelot, _Bibliothèque
orientale_. First published in 1697, improved and enlarged in later
editions, and brought up to date by J. T. Zenker's continuation of
1846-1861, it remains the only general account of Oriental studies
for its period. Petzholdt neglects to mention the seventeenth-century
biobibliographies of Italian and French Orientalists compiled by Paul
Colomies and deemed worthy of revision by no less a scholar than
J. C. Wolf. With all its faults Namur's _Bibliographie_ could have
helped Petzholdt to fill such gaps.

Petzholdt lavishes labor and space on antiquarian catalogues. He
cites them in closely printed pages in double columns at the end of
every major subject division and obviously intends the reader to
regard them as subject bibliographies. Some antiquarian catalogues
are very valuable and others are worthless for this purpose. We
have no adequate appraisal of them except these lists by Petzholdt
and for this reason he deserves high praise. In fields where no
good bibliography is available we are glad to use these catalogues,
even though the books have been dispersed. When institutions
have purchased the collections _en bloc_, the catalogues have a
special importance because the books can still be found with little
difficulty. Kuczynski and Knaake are such well-known guides to the
poorly-recorded books of the Reformation that they are ordinarily
cited simply by the authors' names.[157] The sale catalogues of
the libraries of K. W. L. Heyse, K. H. G. Meusebach, and Viktor
Manheimer are indispensable aids in the almost uncharted sea of
German seventeenth-century literature.[158] Bibliographers and
bibliophiles use antiquarian and sale catalogues in tracing the
history of particular copies of famous rarities.[159] A student of
the Dance of Death consults the Susan Minns catalogue,[160] and Mario
Praz compiled a bibliography of emblem books almost exclusively from
antiquarian catalogues and catalogues of private libraries.[161]
Indispensable, then, as these catalogues often are, the compiler of
a list should be alert to reject those of little value. Petzholdt
should not have devoted seven pages (pp. 691-696) to antiquarian
catalogues of classical Latin and Greek authors. Excellent
bibliographies were available and a highly selective list of
catalogues would have been sufficient. He could surely have omitted a
catalogue (p. 696) of twenty pages issued by E. Weingart in 1864 that
contains chiefly ordinary German books. The choice of catalogues for
permanent record in a bibliography of bibliographies calls for the
judgment and experience that Petzholdt had and did not use.

The list of catalogues (pp. 98-101) appended to the general
bibliographies is perhaps the most unfortunate exhibit of
Petzholdt's selections. His wide experience in this field should
have told him the right catalogues to cite. He offers us a strange
hodgepodge consisting of one early eighteenth-century catalogue (the
_Duboisiana_), a handbook of bibliography, several nineteenth-century
catalogues of private libraries, and a few dealers' catalogues.
The _Duboisiana_, Michael Denis's _Einleitung in die Bücherkunde_,
and Part II of the Libri catalogue (1861) are not hard to justify,
but the remaining titles appear to be a random selection. Inasmuch
as he devotes almost one quarter of the space to a full-length
citation of a part of the Libri catalogue, he should have taken
the trouble to find the other parts. Although Petzholdt's list of
catalogues interesting to bibliographers has the merit of being
more international in scope than most of his lists for special
disciplines, he overlooked many large and admirable polymathic
catalogues. He does not mention the Thott and Heber catalogues or the
_Firmiana_, to name no others.

Petzholdt's abundant descriptive and critical comments ensure
the _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ of a permanent place on every
bibliographer's desk. He expresses an extensive analysis and usually
accurate opinion about almost every book that he cites. It did not
occur to him to tell the reader the number of titles in these books,
but bibliographers have been slow to realize the value of this detail.

There are, however, some qualifications of any praise of
Petzholdt's comments. His unsympathetic feeling for sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century bibliographers leads him to dismiss (p.
7) Teissier's bibliographies of bibliographies with "Virtually
worthless today (Gegenwärtig so gut wie werthlos)." His condemnation
of Raffaelle Soprani's Genoese biobibliography (pp. 360-361) and
Leo Allacci's _Apes Urbanae_ (p. 362) for listing authors by their
first names can be properly called naive. In describing Agostino
Oldoini's similar book for Perugia (p. 363), he says that this was
the usual procedure in the seventeenth century and involved only the
inconvenience of consulting an index of last names. These Renaissance
bibliographers had inherited this procedure from medieval scholars
who knew men by their Christian names and used other designations
only when a differentiation of individuals was necessary. Even today
a bibliography arranged in this fashion can prove to be a useful
tool. The medieval mathematician Richard Suisset, whose last name
occurs in various spellings, can be easily tracked down by use of his
Christian name. He is not easy to find in a modern book unless one
remembers the particular spelling of his name that the author prefers.

Petzholdt passes some very severe judgments on some books that
were once highly esteemed and on some that are unique surveys of a
particular field. Whatever defects such books may have, they should
not be damned hastily and completely. For example, Petzholdt's
rejection (p. 160) of Johannes Tritheim's catalogue of Carmelite
writers as "bibliographically completely worthless (Bibliographisch
ganz ohne Werth)" is far too harsh. In 1576, after it had circulated
in manuscript for almost a century, the Carmelites believed it
deserved to be printed. Three more editions (1596, 1624, and 1643),
all of which Petzholdt cites, came out during the next seventy
years. Men obviously found it useful, and it is the basis of the
modern Carmelite bibliography. The remark "Of altogether inferior
bibliographical value (Bibliographisch von ganz untergeordnetem
Werthe)" is even more unjust to Theodore Petreius's Carthusian
bibliography (p. 161). However bad it may be, Petzholdt knew no other
Carthusian bibliography. The only bibliography of a field may be
incomplete, inaccurate, or badly arranged and it may even have all
these defects, but it cannot be altogether worthless. Paul Lehmann, a
competent authority in medieval bibliography and literary history,
mentions Petreius and some other early writers of biobibliographies
of religious orders and says that scarcely one of these writers
has been superseded, although details in their work may need
correction.[162]

Petzholdt's critical remarks on bibliographies written in the second
half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century
are very full and informative. Rarely does he err as badly as he does
in a comment on Emil Weller's _Annalen_. This partial revision of G.
W. Panzer, _Annalen der deutschen National-Literatur_ (1792-1805)
is, like the original work, still valuable for German publications
between 1500 and 1525. Weller's notes on books that he had seen
contain no great number of serious mistakes. Nevertheless, Petzholdt
says (p. 708): "A book that deserves very much to be noticed,
although it by no means lacks bibliographical defects and [shows]
hastiness and carelessness. It owes its great value to the wealth
of the collections that the compiler was able to use." Weller was
as difficult in his manners as Magliabecchi, Fontanini, and other
bibliographers have been on occasion and had spoken unkindly of
Petzholdt, but he did not deserve such a patronizing slur.

Petzholdt's self-assurance carries him to the length of condemning
books that he has not seen. Of a _Catalogo di commedie italiane_
published in 1776 he says: "It is said to be an extremely rare
pamphlet that contains all the Italian comedies arranged in
alphabetical order according to the authors' names. The rarity of the
pamphlet seems to be greater than its bibliographical value."[163]
As he indicates by an asterisk, he has not seen the _Catalogo_.
Any complete or relatively complete account of Italian comedies is
obviously a useful book.

All that I have said in qualification of Petzholdt's merits does
not diminish my admiration for him and his book. The _Bibliotheca
bibliographica_ deserves a close and critical reading and only
a great book survives such study. It is a masterpiece of modern
bibliography.

I turn now to a smaller book by another famous bibliographer. It is
one of his minor efforts and will not detain us long. Joseph Sabin
(1821-1881), a bibliographer of Americana, found John Power's little
_Handy-Book about Books_ (London, 1870) very unsatisfactory. Although
Power intended only to offer a brief selective list of books useful
to a bibliographer or bibliophile, Sabin rejected it and wrote a
much larger list. He entitled it _Bibliography of Bibliography, or a
handy book about books which relate to books, being an alphabetical
catalogue of the most important works descriptive of the literature
of Great Britain and America, and more than a few relative to France
and Germany_ (1877). It names perhaps twelve hundred titles and
includes a few bibliographies printed as parts of non-bibliographical
works and a few journal articles. The word "literature" in the title
means publications in any field of learning and not merely belles
lettres. Since Sabin provides neither a table of contents (his
strictly alphabetical arrangement did not call for one) nor a subject
index, one must read his book from cover to cover to find what it
contains or to discover a particular subject bibliography. His
occasional brief critical comments are often drawn from Petzholdt.
As his subtitle indicates, he has included many books that are not
bibliographies. Some he has carried over from Power's list that he
has included in its entirety, although with misgivings, and some he
has added on his own responsibility. Beloe's _Anecdotes of Literature
and Scarce Books_ contains much bibliographical information, but
can hardly be called a bibliography. Bonnardot's treatises on
repairing bindings, Botford's and Clarke's books about libraries,
and Constantin's treatise on library economy are books about books
in the modern sense of the term. Like most writers of a bibliography
of bibliographies, Sabin includes works dealing with the history of
printing.

In his title Sabin announces an intention of naming chiefly
bibliographies written by British and American scholars or
dealing with British and American subjects. Since he was an
agent and bookdealer specializing in Americana and the author
of a bibliography in that field, his account of bibliographies
of Americana is naturally adequate. It begins with Bishop White
Kennett's _Bibliothecae Americanae Primordia_ (1713) and extends
through later standard works down to the antiquarian catalogues of
such dealers as Frederik Muller, Otto Rich, and Henry Stevens in
Sabin's own day. His selection of strictly British bibliographies
is more cursory. Although he had Petzholdt's description before
him, he reports John Bale's sixteenth century biobibliographies
inaccurately. He passes over John Pits's Renaissance account of
British authors without mention. Thomas Tanner's _Bibliotheca
Britannico-Hibernica_, which was still a very valuable reference
work when Sabin was writing, either was so rare that it escaped his
notice or seemed, although wrongly, to have been replaced. Sabin
is obviously not much interested in British biobibliographies. His
account of bibliographies in special fields is fairly satisfactory.
He gives many useful references to British and American catalogues
of private libraries, and his comments on them are often helpful.
His arrangement of these titles is extremely clumsy. I cite the
catchwords under which Sabin lists a few of these catalogues: Askew,
Bibliotheca Heberiana (he neglects to mention the thirteenth part),
Bibliotheca Smithiana, Catalogue of Books ... in the Collection of
Colonel Joseph Aspinwall, and Crevenna. These are references now
to the collector's name and now to the first word in the title.
_The Catalogue of the Valuable Library of Stanesby Alchorne,
Esq._ is under the compiler's name, T. F. Dibdin. There are no
cross-references and the arrangement is confusing. Sabin's interest
in T. F. Dibdin led him to cite an autobiography, a book that cannot
be called a bibliography.

Sabin promises to give "more than a few" bibliographies relative to
France and Germany, but does not make clear how he chooses them. He
passes over Johannes Tritheim and Conrad Gesner without mention and
seems to know little about other sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
bibliographies. His wide acquaintance with Americana leads him to
mention Antonio León Pinelo's _Epitome_ of 1620, perhaps the first
important bibliography of Americana. On the whole, his choice
of eighteenth century bibliographies is judicious. He cites the
encyclopedic Georgi and such standard catalogues of rare books as
Clement and Freytag, although he does not know the last and largest
edition of Johannes Vogt, _Catalogus librorum rariorum_. He makes
a good selection of eighteenth-century subject bibliographies,
which were for the most part still valuable reference works in
the 1870's. History is sufficiently represented by Lenglet du
Fresnoy and Meusel's edition of Struve. Cave, Du Pin, and Walch
are the right books to recommend to a theologian. As far as he
goes, Sabin is generally successful in naming histories, which
are virtually bibliographies, of national literatures, but J. A.
Fabricius, _Bibliotheca mediae et infimae latinitatis_ and J. C.
Wolf, _Bibliotheca hebraea_ are lacking. He mentions only a few
regional biobibliographies and seems to have had no plan in selecting
them. I have examined only his references to Italian examples of
this genre, but these are well-known and easily found. In other
fields than history and literature he has usually chosen wisely. He
knows Pritzel's botanical bibliography and Van der Linden's medical
bibliography. He has a blind eye for bibliographies of the religious
orders. As we might expect, De Backer's Jesuit bibliography is
present, but it is surprising to see no mention of Wadding's account
of the Franciscans, who had a large share in the cultural development
of the Spanish colonies in America, or Quétif and Echard's
biobibliographical dictionary of the Dominicans. In brief, Sabin's
book is probably as good a book as can be written in one hundred and
fifty pages. A classified and an alphabetical index of subjects would
have vastly increased its usefulness. Had he made them, he would have
perceived and filled the gaps.

Sabin's purpose in writing _A Bibliography of Bibliographies_ remains
somewhat mysterious. I cannot understand how he failed to see the
necessity of making indexes. How, for example, is the user to
discover the bibliographies of precocious children, mnemonics, and
chess in F. Cancellieri, _Dissertazione intorno agli uomini dotati
ad_ [read _ed_] _a quelli divenuti smemorati, colle biblioteche degli
scrittori sopra gli eruditi precoci, la memoria artificiale ed il
giuoco degli scacchi_ (pp. xxviii-xxix) without a subject index?
We can commend Sabin for enlarging Power's dilettante list into
a reference work. We can commend his care in citing books and his
industry and judgment in choosing them, but accuracy, industry, and
learning are not the only virtues required of a bibliographer. A
bibliographer must be a practical man who sees how his book will be
used.

Sabin's book has remained almost unknown, but the next book to be
discussed has an unenviable reputation. No one has a kind word for
Léon Vallée, _Bibliographie des bibliographies_ (1883-1887), but
in damning it few have effectively supported their opinions. It is
not a good book, but it has perhaps been judged too severely. As an
example of a sweeping and unsupported condemnation I cite what A. G.
S. Josephson wrote in 1901:

    This work is of comparatively slight value in spite of the vast
    material that it contains. It is very uncritical and gives in
    most cases no hint as to the whereabouts of bibliographical
    materials in the books referred to. The alphabetical
    arrangement by authors, even with the subject index, makes the
    work difficult to consult. [It may] be a useful basis for a
    more scholarly work.[164]

This is not only Josephson's judgment but also the judgment
that bibliographers have generally passed on Vallée. Reviewers
contemporary with Vallée are perhaps somewhat more favorable in their
estimates, but make their dissatisfaction altogether plain. In an
article suggested by Josephson's bibliography in which this criticism
appears, Vilhelm Grundtvig expressed an equally condemnatory
opinion about Vallée's book.[165] He declares that only Petzholdt's
_Bibliotheca bibliographica_ and Henri Stein's _Manuel_ (which
is yet to be mentioned) deserve mention among bibliographies of
bibliographies. This means passing over Labbé, Teissier, and Peignot,
who were very respectable workers indeed. He goes on to say that
Vallée's book does not even deserve review and is altogether unworthy
of a member of the staff of the greatest library in the world.
Theodore Besterman's judgment (I, p. x) is equally severe:

    It is difficult to say much in praise of this compilation,
    which has, indeed, been universally condemned. Its general plan
    is basically wrong, and it contains far too many irrelevancies,
    mistakes, omissions, and second-hand descriptions. To indicate
    the general standard of accuracy maintained by Vallée, it is
    perhaps enough to say that, although a large part of his volume
    was taken bodily from Petzholdt, that scholar's name is spelt
    incorrectly throughout the entries under his name.

Vallée's book is unsatisfactory, but I cannot listen to this chorus
without examining the criticisms briefly. Josephson's damning notice
signifies very little. As far as such rough tests as I have used
can show, Vallée does not include an unreasonable proportion of
unsuitable titles. I have examined the first entry on page 25, and
each succeeding twenty-fifth page without finding an instance of
a non-bibliographical title. If Josephson means that Vallée gives
many unnecessary references, I should agree with him. Vallée should
not choose to cite Thomas Stapleton's biography of Sir Thomas More
(p. 519, No. 6048) because it contains bibliographical information
or to give hundreds of similar references. I cannot however agree
with Josephson's remark that Vallée fails to indicate where this
bibliographical information appears in the books cited. It seems
altogether unnecessary to cite a bibliography found in a biography,
an edition of a classical Latin or Greek author, or a general
treatise on some subject, but when Vallée cites it, as he does in
imitation of Petzholdt with distressing frequency, he ordinarily
gives reference to pages. I cannot see that an alphabetical
arrangement according to authors with a subject index is very much
more difficult to use than an alphabetical or classified arrangement
according to subjects with an author index, but in this opinion I
stand alone against general bibliographical practice and shall say
no more here. In any event, Vallée's choice of arrangement seems a
comparatively minor fault, when compared with Petzholdt's and Stein's
choice of a classified arrangement with altogether unsatisfactory
subject indexes and hastily-made author indexes. I speak in Vallée's
behalf partly because of Josephson's arrangement of a bibliography to
be mentioned at the end of this essay. Josephson chose to arrange the
titles in chronological order without providing either an author or a
subject index. No one has ever recommended such an arrangement.

I shall let Vallée's book speak for itself. Like the bibliographers
who immediately preceded and followed him, Vallée struck out for
himself and gave little heed to earlier work. This appears even
in his references to bibliographers of bibliographies. In an
"Avertissement" he recognizes only three predecessors: Tonnelli in
1782, Petzholdt in 1866, and Sabin in 1872 [the date is wrong].
This is a bad start. Francesco Tonnelli's book[166] is a worthless
mixture of a biobibliographical dictionary and a bibliographical
handbook. The biobibliographical information is a disorderly
collection of notes, referring chiefly, but by no means exclusively,
to men whose names begin with the first letters of the alphabet. The
bibliographical information is a miscellany of facts about libraries.
Tonnelli, who has occasionally buried bibliographies in this rubbish
heap, had no intention of writing a bibliography of bibliographies.
I cannot guess what use Vallée made of Tonnelli's queer book. If he
actually consulted it, he should have objected to its disorderliness
and its lack of materials for his needs. Petzholdt's book is, as
Vallée says, a classified bibliography of bibliographies made by a
competent scholar. It is regrettable that he did not fully accept it
as his model. He gives the wrong date for Sabin's book, which began
to appear serially in 1875 and was published in 1877. He does not
make it clear that he has seen and used it.

If we turn to Vallée's references to the works mentioned in
this essay, we find nothing to encourage us. He puts Peignot's
_Répertoire_, Teissier's edition of Labbé's _Bibliotheca
bibliothecarum_, and Labbé's first edition in the _Novae bibliothecae
specimen_[167] of 1653 in a section entitled "Bibliographies
générales." In other words, he does not consider them to be
bibliographies of bibliographies. I cannot see that he cites Labbé's
_Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ at all. Namur's _Bibliographie_ is in a
section entitled "Bibliologie" (p. 621) with a mistake in its title.
All this indicates, I am afraid, that Vallée did not recognize a
bibliography of bibliographies when he saw it. This grievous fault
is all the more grievous because he emphasizes in his preface the
importance of careful classification.

Vallée is guilty of many more faults. He includes titles that do not
belong in a bibliography of bibliographies.[168] As I have already
said, their number does not seem to me to be very large and many
of them lie on the fringes of bibliography. His descriptions and
entries are incomplete and inaccurate.[169] He cites bibliographies
that can be easily found and scarcely need mention.[170] He fails to
analyze the long subject entries in his index.[171] He makes serious
errors in names, dates, titles, and places of publications and is
careless about editions and the continuations of works that spread
over several years. In his supplement of 1887, he fails to repair the
faults that reviewers had pointed out. More serious than anything
in this long list of faults is, in my opinion, his rash attempt to
survey all bibliographies anew with little or no regard for his
predecessors.

Two things must be said in reduction of this severe judgment on
Vallée. He is the first compiler of a bibliography of bibliographies
to base his work on the books in a particular library and to
indicate, although incompletely and inaccurately, what he has seen
there. He has included many references to bibliographical sections
in non-bibliographical books. Although these and other references of
slight value are numerous, he has accumulated a very large number
of bibliographies. Almost everyone will find something useful
in Vallée's book. The first volume contains 6894 titles, and the
supplement raises the total to 10,246. In a savage criticism[172]
Henri Stein declared that perhaps 2500 titles should have been
omitted and 3000 should be added. This amounts to saying that Vallée
collected about three-quarters of the bibliographies he should have
found. I cannot vouch for the correctness of these estimates but they
may suggest what the book is worth. It is regrettable that Henri
Stein, to whom we now turn, did not give the additional titles as a
supplement instead of writing a new bibliography of bibliographies.

In the _Manuel de bibliographie générale_ (1897) Henri Stein
(b. 1862), a member of the staff of the Bibliothèque Nationale,
offered the world a new bibliography of bibliographies. He calls it
nothing less than a summary of all bibliographies published before
1897,[173] but seems at times to be content to supplement Petzholdt's
_Bibliotheca bibliographica_. He falls far short of completeness
and does not make his intention entirely clear. Although the task
that he undertook is beyond any man's strength, his treatment of his
colleague Vallée does not awaken sympathy for him.

Stein yields to the same temptation to which his predecessors
had succumbed. He includes material of little pertinence to a
bibliography of bibliographies. For example, he could have omitted
a long list (pp. 555-636) of places where books were printed before
1800 and the names of the printers. This information is very useful
to a historian of printing, but has no proper place in Stein's book.
His list of indexes to journals is useful but is also not altogether
pertinent.[174] His long list of printed catalogues of public
libraries, a list which is limited almost exclusively to rather
recent publications, is something of a luxury.[175] Neither logic nor
custom justifies an objection to the inclusion of bibliographies of
individual authors, but Stein could have reduced their number without
loss.[176]

Stein based his classification on Petzholdt's book but introduced
modifications of his own. As Vilhelm Grundtvig correctly says, the
classification is "at times nothing less than amazing, for example,
hippology is under 'sciences pédagogiques' [and] dentistry under
'medicine interne.'"[177] Although he provides a table of contents
and an alphabetical subject index, he has not made his book easy to
use. There is no index of authors' names.

The _Manuel_ does not contain all the available bibliographies or
even a satisfactory collection of the best ones. Stein's surveys of
universal and national bibliographies are inadequate and so, too, are
the sections dealing with philosophy, chemistry, education, sport,
and linguistics.[178] He shows very little interest in bibliographies
printed before 1800. He does not carry out systematically or
successfully an announced intention of expressing critical
judgments.[179] Finally, he is inaccurate in details.[180]

This recital seems to leave little to be said in Stein's favor, but
no bibliographer who has made a serious effort to write a useful book
has ever failed to be helpful. Any list of 5500 bibliographies--the
figure is Besterman's--will contain titles and information worth
noting and remembering. He calls attention to books that other men
have not seen or have neglected to cite. For example, I have not seen
"Ahm. Zeki-Bey, _Elmevsonat_ (Boulak, 1904)," which he describes (p.
264) as a bibliography of Arabic encyclopedias, mentioned elsewhere.
We owe to him the interesting and important fact that the unpublished
manuscript of Mazzuchelli's enormous work, _Gli scrittori d'Italia_,
is in the Vatican Library.[181] He adds many titles to those cited
by Petzholdt and Vallée. I lay aside the _Manuel_ with the regret
that Stein's zeal has given us a less useful book than we might have
hoped for. Had he named, as I have suggested, the three thousand
bibliographies lacking in Vallée and had he continued the collection
from Vallée's supplement of 1887 to his own publication in 1897, he
would have given us an invaluable book. What we have is one more
demonstration of the unwillingness of bibliographers in his century
to join hands with their predecessors and contemporaries.

FOOTNOTES:

[126] For identification and description of these bibliographies see
Theodore Besterman, _The Beginnings of Systematic Bibliography_ (2d
ed.; [Oxford] and London, [1936]) and Petzholdt.

[127] He probably consulted the many treatises on what was
then called _historia litteraria_, but these were historical
accounts of the development of the various disciplines rather
than bibliographies. Two brief guides to these great specialized
bibliographies are well hidden. They are Benjamin Hederich, _Notitia
auctorum antiqua & media, oder Leben, Schrifften, Editiones und
Censuren der Biblischen und entweder noch gantz oder auch nur in
considerablen Fragmentis vorhandenen fürnehmsten Griechischen
und Lateinischen Kirchen-Scholastischen- und Profan-Scribenten_
(Wittenberg, 1714), "Einleitung," pp. 2-144 and G. C. Hamberger,
_Zuverlässige Nachrichten von den vornehmsten Schriftstellern vom
Anfange der Welt bis 1500_ (4 v.; Lemgo, 1756-1764), I, 1-54,
"Erste vorläufige Abhandlung. Von der Kentnis der Schriftsteller."
These very interesting and instructive compilations are selective
guides to the best bibliographies and are intended to aid students.
They are limited almost exclusively to bibliographies of classical
Greek and Latin literature, church history, and the related
disciplines. Since the books in which they appear deal only with
authors and subjects belonging to the period before 1500 and the
bibliographies are similarly limited in scope, the usefulness of the
bibliographies is obviously confined to giving information about the
best current reference works in a few fields. No doubt the abundant
bibliographical information in such a work as Heinrich Zedler,
_Grosses vollständiges Universal Lexikon aller Wissenschaften und
Künste_ (68 v.; Halle, 1732-1754) was sufficient for most scholarly
needs.

[128] See _Bibliotheca selectissima_ (Amsterdam, 1743), I, 340, No.
2985. There is a copy of this catalogue in the Newberry Library.

[129] For a discussion of these difficulties see H. B. Van Hoesen's
review of the _Bibliographic Index_ in the _Library Quarterly_, X
(1940), 272-274.

[130] See a review by A. S., _Heidelbergische Jahrbücher der
Literatur_, 1812, pp. 644-656. The reviewer points out inaccuracies
of various kinds, complains bitterly about the inconveniences of the
alphabetical arrangement, and cites many lacking titles.

[131] Pp. 232-236.

[132] Pp. 249-252.

[133] Pp. 275-286.

[134] Pp. 470-472.

[135] Pp. 450-452.

[136] Pp. 263-274.

[137] Pp. 409-419.

[138] P. 427.

[139] He would have removed publishers' catalogues (p. 97 [Estienne]
and p. 118 [Plantin]), a weekly catalogue of the booktrade (p. 103),
various catalogues of libraries owned by institutions (pp. 101, 105).
The last of these should have been put in the list on pp. 40-75.

[140] This section, which does not include biobibliographies,
contains 1861 titles. There are 586 biobibliographies in the
following, fifth section.

[141] For a description of this book, which was published in only
twelve copies, see Petzholdt, p. 113. See an enlargement of a
microfilm in the Newberry Library.

[142] See II, 26, No. 483; II, 131, No. 390; II, 121, No. 378.

[143] See II, 119, No. 7, where he cites "Sanderus, A. de
scriptoribus Flandriae lib. III. Antv. 1624, in.-4.," but omits _De
Brugensibus eruditionis fama claris libri duo_ (Antwerp, 1624) and
_De Gandavensibus eruditionis fama claris libri tres_ (Antwerp, 1624).

[144] See II, 14-17, & 4, Nos. 268-312.

[145] See II, 140-167, Nos. 131-720.

[146] See "Bibliographies of Bibliographies," _The Bulletin of the
Bibliographical Society of America_, III (1911), 50-53.

[147] For brief comment on these bibliographies see below.

[148] In the eighteenth century J. M. Francke, who compiled the great
_Catalogus Bibliothecae Bunavianae_ (3 v.; Leipzig, 1750-1756), came,
with the Bünau library, to the Dresden library. In the first quarter
of the nineteenth century F. A. Ebert completed the _Allgemeines
bibliographisches Lexikon_ in the same library.

[149] Pp. 20-65.

[150] Leipzig, 1850; 2d ed., Brussels, 1854. These are many later
indexes to biographies. See, as examples, Max Arnim, _Internationale
Personalbiographie_, 1850-1935 (Leipzig, 1936) and a second edition
(Leipzig, 1944-1952) that has been expanded backwards and forwards
to cover the years between 1800 and 1943 and Luigi Ferrari,
_Onomasticon. Repertorio biobibliografico degli scrittori italiani
dal 1500 al 1850_ (Milan, 1947).

[151] I do not see what principle guides him in the choice of
bibliographies published in the editions of an author's works.
He does not include, for example, a very curious bibliography in
Marcus Meibomius (ed.), Diogenes Laertius, _De vitis, dogmatibus et
apophthegmatibus clarorum philosophorum_ (Amsterdam, 1692). It is
the first bibliography, as far as I know, to give systematically
the locations of the books cited. The first example of a reference
to the place where a book may be found is, I believe, in Giovanni
Nevizzano (Johannes Nevizzanus), _Quaestiones_ (ed. L. Gómez;
Venice, 1525). I quote it from Wilhelm Fuchs, "Die Anfänge
juristischer Fachbibliographie," _Archiv für Bibliographie, Buch- und
Bibliothekswesen_, II (1929), 49.

[152] See, for example, a list of men named Alard (p. 167).

[153] "Petzholdt redivivus. Zur Theorie und Praxis eines allgemeinen
internationalen Bibliographienverzeichnisses," _Zentralblatt für
Bibliothekswesen_, LXIV (1950), 413-438.

[154] I am of course aware that the _Guide to Reference Books_
originally written by Alice Kroeger has passed through many editions
and has had two subsequent editors. Its well-deserved success is no
very strong argument for the usefulness of a classified arrangement.
The _Guide_ is, it must be recognized, a very special sort of
reference work. It has been intended from the beginning to serve
reference librarians and has been improved and enlarged for that use.
In other words, it has always had very limited and highly trained
readers familiar with its special methods. The latest edition is by
Constance M. Winchell (7th ed.; Chicago, 1951).

[155] _Prosopographia & heroum atque illustrium virorum totius
Germaniae_ (Basel, 1656-1566); _Teutscher Nation Heldenbuch_ (Basel,
1567-1570). The two editions differ somewhat in contents.

[156] Third ed.; Berlin, 1930, pp. 186-200.

[157] Arnold Kuczynski, _Thesaurus libellorum reformationis
illustrantium_ (Leipzig, 1870. ICN; MH. Supplement, 1874. MH); Oswald
Weigel (comp.), _Bibliothek J. K. F. Knaake. Katalog der Sammlung von
Reformationsschriften des Begründers der Weimarer Lutherausgabe_ (6
pts. and list of prices. Leipzig, 1908. DLC [6 pts.]; ICN [complete];
MH [pt. 1]).

[158] These are, respectively: _Bücherschatz der deutschen
National-Litteratur des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts_ (Berlin, 1854.
CU; MH); _Verzeichniss von Büchern vorzüglich aus der Freih. v.
Meuse-bach'schen Bibliothek_ (2 v.; Berlin, 1855, 1856. CU; MH);
Karl Faber und Emil Hirsch, _Sammlung Viktor Manheimer. Deutsche
Barockliteratur von Opitz bis Brockes_ (Munich, 1927). The Prussian
state library bought the Heyse and Meusebach collections.

[159] Examples of catalogues used for such purposes are the
_Bibliotheca Heberiana_ (13 pts.; London, 1834-1837. The thirteenth
part was published in Brussels. ICN [pts. 1-12]); the Robert Hoe
catalogue (5 v.; New York, 1911-1912); and the A. H. Huth catalogue
(6 v.; London, 1911-1920).

[160] _Illustrated Catalogue of the Notable Collection of Miss Susan
Minns..._ (New York: American Art Association, 1922. ICN; MH).
There are several other important catalogues of this sort in the
bibliography of the Dance of Death.

[161] _A Bibliography of Emblem Books_, Studies in
Seventeenth-Century Imagery, 2=Studies of the Warburg Institute, 3
(London, 1947).

[162] _Historisches Jahrbuch_, XL (1920), 49.

[163] See p. 712. This pamphlet (ICN) is an anonymous catalogue of
the library of Tommaso Giuseppe Farsetti. G. A. E. Bogeng calls it a
model piece of work; see _Jahrbuch für Bücherkunde und Liebhaberei_,
II (1910), 44. In his treatise _Die grossen Bibliophilen. Geschichte
der Büchersammler und ihre Sammlungen_ (Leipzig, 1922), III, 30,
Bogeng names Giacomo or Jacopo Morelli (1745-1819) as the author.
Gustave Brunet, who has seen the _Catalogo_, says: "Ce petit volume
de 207 pages offre l'inventaire raisonnée d'une collection fort
importante de rarétés dramatiques appartenant au bailli Farsetti.
De notes nombreuses et parfois d'une certain étendue lui donnent du
prix" (_Dictionnaire de bibliographie catholique_ [Paris, 1860], col.
631). Curiously enough, Frati's account of Italian book-collectors,
bibliographers, and librarians does not include Farsetti and makes
no mention of this and other catalogues of the Farsetti library in
the article on Jacopo Morelli; see _Dizionario biobibliografico dei
bibliotecari e bibliofili italiani dal sec. XIV al XIX_ (Florence,
1933), pp. 379-384.

[164] _Bibliography of Bibliographies_ (Chicago, 1901), pp. 25-26.

[165] _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, XX (1903), 406-407.

[166] _Biblioteca bibliografica antica e moderna d'ogni classe e
d'ogni natione_ (2 v.; Guastella, 1782-1783: MH). Those who cite this
as a bibliography of bibliographies cannot have looked beyond the
title page.

[167] He cites this book by the title _Speciminis antiquarum
lectionum supplementa decem_, which is the title of the appendix to
Labbé's book. See Chapter II, n. 7. Did Vallée actually see the work
that he is citing?

[168] See, as examples, a list of characters performed on the stage
by Jehn Bannister (No. 31) and a book on how to tell a Caxton (No.
844). Checklists of batrachia (No. 1687 _bis_) and other zoological
genera (several entries after No. 1712) are accepted by Besterman,
although he does not include these particular works because they are
not separately published books.

[169] The description of the _Catalogue de la bibliothèque du roy_
(No. 1336) is incorrect and incomplete, Nos. 2307 and 2398 _bis_
should have been entered under the author's or the compiler's names.
Francesco Agostino della Chiesa di Saluzzo (No. 2526) should not be
under "F." Growaeus Sudovolgiensis (No. 2875) is William Crowe; see
Donald Wing, _A Short-Title Catalogue_, C 7868. A cross-reference to
Danz (No. 783) is needed under Walch (No. 6631).

[170] Bibliographies of classical authors found in standard editions
might have been omitted; see No. 2652 (Aulus Gellius), Nos. 5897 and
5898 (Seneca). Bibliographies found in biographies (No. 4048) and
bibliographies in doctoral dissertations (No. 2923) could be omitted
without serious loss.

[171] See "Allemagne" (pp. 600-602), "Amérique" (pp. 603-604), and
"Imprimerie" (pp. 685-687).

[172] Cited in the Bibliography below.

[173] "La synthèse de toutes les bibliographies publiées jusqu'à la
fin de l'année 1896" (Introduction, p. [i]).

[174] See pp. 637-710. For a bibliography of such indexes see Vilhelm
Grundtvig, _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, XX (1903), 428-430,
438-439. See such recent compilations as Norma Olin Ireland, _An
Index to Indexes. A subject bibliography of published indexes_.
Useful Reference Series, No. 67 (Boston, 1942); D. C. Haskell,
_Checklist of Cumulative Indexes to Individual Periodicals in the New
York Public Library_. (New York, 1942).

[175] See pp. 711-768. See a list of similar bibliographies in
Grundtvig, pp. 439-440.

[176] See pp. 497-554. Compare my criticism of Petzholdt's list of
bibliographies of individual authors, pp. 79-81, above.

[177] See Vilhelm Grundtvig, _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, XX
(1903), 409, n. 2.

[178] Grundtvig, pp. 409-411.

[179] For example, he calls Bigmore and Wyman, _A Bibliography of
Printing_, a rather poor piece of work (p. 438), but it has not yet
been replaced and was recently found worthy of reprinting.

[180] He commends Johann Albert Fabricius, but fails to note that
the last three volumes of the _Bibliotheca graeca_ were not included
in Harles's edition and that the first edition of the _Bibliotheca
latina_ was published in 1697 and not in 1728. See Stein, pp.
244-245. Petzholdt gives full and accurate information about these
books.

[181] See p. 302. He might have added a reference to Enrico Narducci,
"Intorno alia vita del conte Giammaria Mazzuchelli ed alla collezione
de' suoi manoscritti ora posseduta della biblioteca vaticana,"
_Giornale Arcadico_, N.S. LII (1867). I have not seen this article,
which is said to extend to sixty-four pages.




Chapter V

Bibliographies of Bibliographies as Periodical and Cooperative
Enterprises


In the historical development of bibliographies of bibliographies two
aspects become especially prominent after 1900. Periodical surveys
become a characteristic form of publication and cooperation in the
making of bibliographies becomes more frequent or is at least more
frequently called for. I shall speak only briefly about periodical
publications because they aim at completeness, if they make such an
effort at all, only for annual or other limited periods of time.
Julius Petzholdt published lists of bibliographies that came to his
attention around the middle of the nineteenth century in the _Neuer
Anzeiger für Bibliographie und Bibliothekswissenschaft_. Editors of
other journals for bibliography, library science, the book trade,
and related fields have published similar lists and have in some
instances endeavored more or less successfully to convert them
into surveys of current bibliographies of current bibliographical
publications. A rapid growth of periodical bibliographies of special
fields is characteristic of nineteenth-century scholarship. At the
end of the century bibliographers advanced to the stage of compiling
annual bibliographies of bibliographies. Such periodical surveys
had long been established in fields like theology and classical
literature and were now somewhat tardily created for bibliography
itself.

The first annual survey of current bibliographical publications
seems to be the _Bibliographia bibliographica_, which appeared in
six volumes between 1898 and 1903. Librarians inspired and guided
this cooperative enterprise. The list, which includes bibliographies
published in non-bibliographical works, is arranged according to
the decimal system of classification and was no doubt handicapped by
this fact. Since the editors offer a brief outline of the decimal
classification in place of a table of contents and provide no
alphabetical index of subjects, the _Bibliographia bibliographica_
is not easy to use. The lack of an author index was remedied by the
publication of an index for the first two volumes that appeared at
the end of the second volume. The _Bibliographia bibliographica_
aroused very little interest among librarians and bibliographers.
I have found no reviews of it in the contemporary journals for
bibliography and library science. Harvard University Library
purchased only the first two issues and these were so little used
that, after the lapse of fifty years, they are still unbound.

A second annual survey of the current output of bibliographies is
the _Bibliographie des Bibliotheks- und Buchwesens_, edited by
Adalbert Hortzschansky from 1905 to 1925 with an interruption of
eight years from 1913 to 1921. This supplement to the _Zentralblatt
für Bibliothekswesen_ had a longer and more successful life than its
predecessor. It surveyed all publications that fell within the field
of the journal and therefore included much more than the bibliography
of bibliographies. In 1926 it became an independent publication
with a slightly different title but with no change in the subjects
reported upon. This _Internationale Bibliographie des Buch- und
Bibliothekswesens_ continued to be issued down to the outbreak of war
in 1939. An enterprise of somewhat similar scope, the _Literarisches
Beiblatt der Zeitschrift_ (later: _zum Jahrbuch_) _des deutschen
Vereins für Buchwesen und Schrifttum_ began to appear in 1924 and
continued to 1939. Since these annual surveys include more than the
bibliography of bibliographies, I shall not discuss them further.

Three reviews of contemporary bibliographical work have appeared
during the last twenty-five years. One of them is limited to
bibliographies of a particular kind, and the other two are more
or less complete periodical surveys of bibliographical writings.
I mention them here as the last examples of the development of
periodical bibliographies of bibliographies and as a means by which
one can estimate the task of any modern compiler of a bibliography
of bibliographies. The first of these, the _Index bibliographicus_,
which first appeared in 1925, offers an interesting example of
specialization within the field of bibliographies of bibliographies.
The _Index bibliographicus_ is general in scope but cites only
bibliographies of bibliographies that appear as current serial
publications. In the six years between its first appearance in
1925 and its republication in enlarged and improved form in 1931
the number of currently appearing serial bibliographies rose from
1025 to 1900. Some of these had been overlooked in 1925, but many
of the additions concerned bibliographies of bibliographies that
had been established during the six years between the two editions.
The _Index bibliographicus_, which was compiled with the assistance
of the League of Nations, assumed a more definitely international
and cooperative aspect when Joris Vorstius joined Marcel Godet
as editor.[182] A third edition of the _Index_ made by Theodore
Besterman in 1952 is still larger than either of its predecessors.

The _Internationaler Jahresbericht der Bibliographie_, which
flourished from 1930 to 1940 under the editorship of Joris Vorstius,
enables us to survey quickly the current annual production of
bibliographies. Critical comments attached to the titles make it
one of the most readable bibliographies of bibliographies. Like
caviar, the genre is digestible only by those who have acquired a
taste for it. The organization of the _Internationaler Jahresbericht_
is skillful, and the comments are judicious and instructive. Since
Vorstius was editor of the previously mentioned _Internationale
Bibliographie des Buch- und Bibliothekswesens_ as well as the
_Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, he saw a very large number
of bibliographies. He was compelled to hold very carefully to the
definitions of his closely related and very similar tasks. The
_Internationaler Jahresbericht_ of course lists only bibliographies.

The H. W. Wilson Co. has published the most comprehensive of all
periodical surveys of bibliography. Starting in 1938, the quarterly
issues are cumulated in annual volumes and these are, in turn,
cumulated in volumes for periods of variable length. A cumulation
of the bibliographies published in the years between 1937 and 1942
appeared in 1945, and a second cumulation for the years 1943-1946
appeared in 1948. This is the first virtually complete account of
current bibliographical production, and the picture is amazing.
Between 1937 and 1942 some fifty thousand bibliographies were
published. The editors of the _Bibliographic Index_ have classified
them in almost ten thousand categories.

The foregoing discussion of these annual or otherwise chronologically
limited surveys of bibliography is incidental to the main
historical purpose of this essay. Such surveys illustrate very
effectively an emphasis which has become characteristic of much
modern bibliographical work, and especially of bibliographies of
bibliographies, since Gabriel Peignot's book of 1812. Being concerned
solely with the current production of bibliographies, they have
obviously had no occasion to deal historically with bibliographies
or to cite bibliographies published before the limits that they set
for themselves. This emphasis on currently useful bibliographical
tools goes hand in hand with the cooperative aspect of making
bibliographies that I shall stress in this chapter. Already in his
_Répertoire_ of 1812 Gabriel Peignot had reviewed eighteenth-century
bibliography with occasional citations of earlier works that had not
been superseded. In 1866 Julius Petzholdt had dealt somewhat more
generously than Peignot with Renaissance and seventeenth-century
bibliographies, but had scarcely included enough of them to give a
picture satisfactory to a historian. Like these predecessors, Joseph
Sabin, Léon Vallée, and Henri Stein had shown a marked preference for
contemporary works. The uses which bibliographies of bibliographies
ordinarily serve explain this preference and make it a reasonable one.

The history of mass-production methods in the making of
bibliographies has not yet been written. I conjecture that it begins
with bibliographies produced more than a century ago by the German
publisher Wilhelm Engelmann. His firm continued and revised some
bibliographies established by Johann Samuel Ersch (1766-1828), whose
scholarly and bibliographical activity began in the eighteenth
century. It is not entirely clear whether Ersch himself had already
adopted something like mass-production methods. However this may
be, the titles and the nature of many bibliographies produced by
T. C. F. Enslin (1787-1851) and Wilhelm Engelmann (1808-1878), who
made new editions of some of Enslin's bibliographies as well as many
of his own, virtually imply such methods. Information about the
making of these bibliographies and those of F. A. Wilhelm Müldener
(1830-1900), who seems to have worked in the same way, is difficult
to obtain.[183] The compilation and publication of bibliographies
by printers and publishers rather than scholars has been continued
by such American firms as the Library Bureau (now no longer in
existence), R. R. Bowker & Co., and H. W. Wilson Co. These firms have
actively supported the making of bibliographies in this country for
more than two generations.[184]

An admirable essay, _Some Aspects of Bibliography_ (1900), by
John Ferguson (d. 1916) suggests the cooperative aspect that
is characteristic of bibliographical studies in the last two
generations. Although it is not a full-length bibliography of
bibliographies, it reviews the kinds of bibliographies that have been
made and appeals to scholars to compile the bibliographies necessary
to satisfy the most obvious needs. Ferguson's modest list of some
four hundred bibliographies is intended to serve two purposes. It
is an effort to show the great variety of bibliographies that have
been made and it offers a supplement to Petzholdt's _Bibliotheca
bibliographica_. Ferguson's clear and very instructive classification
of bibliographies is as follows: bibliographies according to (1)
date; (2) place; (3) printer; (4) material;[185] (5) type;[186] (6)
size;[187] (7) illustrations; (8) language; (9) subject; (10) groups
of authors;[188] (11) individuals; (12) single books;[189] (13)
anonymous books;[190] (14) suppressed books;[191] (15) rare books;
(16) general bibliographies.

Some categories of bibliographies might be added to this list. For
example, he probably includes bibliographies of private presses in
(3). He has no good place for bibliographies of translations, which
do not fit easily in the ninth category of bibliographies according
to subjects. Nor is there a convenient place for bibliographies of
belles lettres according to genres like the novel, the essay, or the
book review.

The first bibliography of bibliographies published in the twentieth
century is _A Register of National Bibliography with a selection
of the chief bibliographical books and articles printed in other
countries_ (3 v., 1905-1912) by W. P. Courtney (1845-1913). It is
also the first effort of this sort to be made by an Englishman. Like
the American Sabin, Courtney limits the bibliographies published in
languages other than English to a selection. In the course of twenty
years Courtney had accumulated a great many references and four
years of work in preparation of the _Register_ greatly increased the
number. He acknowledges the assistance of G. L. Apperson, who later
published a useful collection of English proverbs, and Robert A.
Peddie, who wrote a very large subject bibliography. He has taken
references from Henri Stein's _Manuel_, especially references in the
Slavic languages.

He found that the vast number of bibliographies in print made
necessary some limitations on the scope of his work. He excludes sale
catalogues (although a few are cited), catalogues of manuscripts,
and lists of maps and charts. Probably few will quarrel with his
decision. He also omits many headings in the bibliography of geology,
India, and other unspecified large fields. Here it would be helpful
to know more accurately what these omissions were.

Courtney's _Register_ lists some 30,000 titles in a main and two
supplementary alphabets. The rapid growth of the material as he
proceeded with his work explains this inconvenient division. The very
numerous citations of bibliographies in non-bibliographical works
contribute to this large figure. I cannot estimate closely the number
of small headings, which run into the thousands. The bulk of the
_Register_ and the ease with which it can be used make it valuable.
As examples of the wealth of information in it, I cite his references
to thirteen bibliographies of bacteriology, seventeen bibliographies
of hymns, nine bibliographies of insanity, and three bibliographies
of swimming. One will rarely leave the _Register_ empty-handed.

Courtney could have greatly reduced the size of his book without a
sacrifice of convenience or the loss of significant references. His
alphabetical arrangement makes it unnecessary to repeat the headings
in the index. He could have profitably used the space saved to
add a descriptive word that would differentiate the various works
by one author. The dozen references to J. C. Pilling, who wrote
bibliographies of American Indian languages, might, for example,
have been identified by appropriate adjectives. Courtney could
have reduced the size of his book substantially and without loss
by omitting bibliographies printed in obvious places, to which one
needs no reference. For example, he could have spared references to
bibliographies in four editions of _Beowulf_. The poorly-organized
longer articles in the _Register_ are often burdened with
miscellaneous or unnecessary information. The article "Bibliography"
includes, for example, the universal bibliographies by Georg
Draud and Theophil Georgi, (but not Conrad Gesner); Olphar Hamst,
_Aggravating Ladies_, which is a list of pseudonymous books written
by "A Lady";[192] the bibliographical journal _La Bibliofilia_;[193]
and a bibliography of church history. This is not a display of good
workmanship. The article "Libraries" is a similar farrago of Namur's
bibliography of bibliographies, Wheatley's book on how to make a
library, Edward Edwards' book on libraries and their founders,
Meusel's biographical dictionary of German artists, and other books
of as little pertinence. There is very useful information to be
gleaned from Courtney's _Register_ and one can easily find it in the
chaff.

We are still too close to the latest bibliographies of bibliographies
to see them in a true perspective.[194] Efforts to make a
comprehensive bibliography of bibliographies continue and a new
development that was foreshadowed in Sabin's restriction of his
work to a single language with "more than a few" titles added to
fill it out is apparent in some less extensive but very excellent
bibliographies of bibliographies.

The death of Vilhelm Grundtvig (1866-1950) and the destruction of his
collectanea during the war make it certain that the bibliography of
bibliographies that he and Joris Vorstius planned will never appear.
He had called for help in the enterprise in an article[195] published
in 1926 and had obtained approval of it at the international meeting
of librarians at Madrid in 1935. During the course of his work he
succeeded in gaining the assistance of Joris Vorstius, whom we
have learned to know as the editor of annual surveys of current
bibliographies. He wrote in 1940 in a review of Theodore Besterman,
_A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_, that his collectanea were
arranged according to countries for submission to various workers
who might criticize and supplement them.[196] The loss of this
compilation is greatly to be regretted because the experience and
good judgment of the two editors make it certain that the book would
have been comprehensive, well-planned, and satisfactorily executed.

On several occasions Grundtvig stated briefly the task of making
a bibliography of bibliographies. His ability to see clearly its
difficulties, his wide reading, and his recognition of the many
types of bibliographical works that must be considered make these
preliminary statements valuable. A long article of 1903 entitled
"Gedanken über Bibliographie"[197] was suggested by A. G. S.
Josephson's pamphlet, which will be mentioned later. Here Grundtvig
points out the varieties of existing bibliographies and their defects
and gives examples of unfamiliar or neglected varieties. For example,
he comments (pp. 415-417) on the lists of antiquarian catalogues
and catalogues of private libraries. Although we now have more
information about these catalogues than Grundtvig found in 1903,
we still have no critical bibliographies of them. He points out
(p. 418) the unsatisfactory quality of bibliographies of ephemeral
publications (chapbooks and the like) and surveys the available
lists. He has, to be sure, overlooked one of the earliest of such
lists--Giovanni Cinelli Calvoli, _Della biblioteca volante_ (Padua,
1677-1716; 2d ed., 1734-1747. ICN [2d ed.])--but it is rare and
virtually unknown. He comments incisively on the lists of collective
biographies (pp. 420, 441) and suggests the need for a more critical
survey of them.[198] Although Grundtvig's article is not easy
reading, it is a very stimulating survey of bibliographies. Any
writer of a bibliography of bibliographies should read it attentively.

Grundtvig's pamphlet of 1919, entitled _Om Bibliografi og
Bibliografier_, is much more conveniently arranged than the article
of 1903. It is a review of the bibliographical chapter in Svend Dahl,
_Haandbog i Bibliotekskundskab_. He finds it very unsatisfactory
and shows how it might have been written. He gives a brief survey
of bibliographies in general (pp. 8-10), comments on the making of
collectanea and their arrangement (pp. 10-13) and the varieties of
bibliographies including those in non-bibliographical works (pp.
14-19), and surveys bibliographies of bibliographies (pp. 19-23),
international bibliographies (pp. 23-25), and national bibliographies
(pp. 25-29). In keeping with his purpose, he names only the most
obvious works.

We come now to the largest of all bibliographies of bibliographies:
Theodore Besterman, _A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_
(1939-1940; 2d ed., 1947-1949). Since the two editions do not differ
essentially in character, I have found it convenient and probably
more helpful to the reader to cite illustrations of Besterman's
method from the second edition and to conclude my remarks with
brief comment on the changes and improvements made in this edition.
The plan of Besterman's book is novel in many details. It is, like
Peignot's _Répertoire_ of 1812, an alphabetical list of many small
headings. Courtney had adopted the same plan in his _Register_
(1905-1912), but few others have seen the great merits of this
arrangement. In giving bibliographical details Besterman goes far
beyond anything that had been previously attempted. He gives more
complete collations than any of his predecessors except Petzholdt
had given, and in several regards surpasses Petzholdt. He describes
carefully such long sets as the _Catalogue of Books in the Library
of the Surgeon Generals Office_ (cols. 1866-1867), the many national
bibliographies made by booksellers or librarians, and the annual
bibliographies of special fields like _The Record of Zoological
Literature_ and its continuation (cols. 3187-3189). He goes beyond
Petzholdt and most other bibliographers by estimating the number of
titles cited in the books that he lists. He ranges farther afield
than any of his predecessors. He includes lists of maps and printed
music, registers of documents and charters, and indexes of laws
and patents. He includes catalogues of manuscripts and specialized
catalogues of books in institutional libraries but not general
catalogues of books owned by the same libraries. He includes a
generous selection of specialized catalogues of private libraries. He
brings more Finnish, Hungarian, and Slavic titles than anyone before
him and regrets his inability to include books in Oriental languages.
In the first edition he intended to cite all bibliographies printed
as books that had appeared before 1936 and succeeded in picking up
a large number of those printed between 1936 and 1939. He says that
he has cited three times as many bibliographies printed before 1860
as Petzholdt had found. This comparison gives an idea of the amazing
extent of Besterman's work.

Besterman sees clearly the difficulties inherent in his choice of an
alphabetical arrangement of many small headings and finds perhaps
the only answer. It is to offer an abundance of cross-references.
Although these headings can be found in special dictionaries that
cite synonyms and related words, it remains to be seen how well they
will stand the test of time. A suggestion of what may happen is
perhaps already to be found in the general unfamiliarity of scholars
with these dictionaries. Librarians know and use them, but scholars
do not. The time may come when only a specialist and indeed only a
specialist acquainted with the history of his discipline will know
the meaning of many headings. The headings used in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries are obsolete. As we have seen, Petzholdt
did not recognize the meaning of philosophy that was accepted in the
early seventeenth century. I have remarked upon the unfamiliarity of
modern students of theology with Peignot's term _théologie positive_.
Can we expect future scholars to perceive readily the difference
between psychiatry and psychoanalysis? Unless they do, they will not
find it easy to use a bibliography of bibliographies arranged as an
alphabetical dictionary of many small headings. There is, as a matter
of fact, no better illustration of these difficulties than the word
"bibliography" itself. This very interesting word needs a historical
and lexicographical investigation that will continue Pierre Frieden's
article, "Bibliographie. Etymologie et histoire du mot," _Revue de
synthèse_, VII (1934), 45-52. During this century "bibliography" has
been used more and more often to refer to either a study of a book as
a physical object or to a list of titles having some common quality.
In such titles as Theodore Besterman, _A World Bibliography of
Bibliographies_, and Norman E. Binns, _An Introduction to Historical
Bibliography_ (London, 1953), the word has two quite different
meanings.

Besterman's enormous compilation does not include all the available
bibliographies. Vilhelm Grundtvig found some four hundred titles that
had escaped Besterman in the first edition and came regretfully to
the conclusion that the hope for a wholly satisfactory international
bibliography of bibliographies was now unlikely to be realized.[199]
His judgment is severe and the second edition has no doubt gone a
long way toward removing these defects. A third edition of the _World
Bibliography_ (1955) is now in process, with the first volume already
off the press. It will contain some 80,000 titles, an increase of
one-third over the second edition.

A few difficulties in Besterman's bibliography concern what have been
called "linked" books. These are works having their own title pages
but issued in conjunction with another book.[200] Unless they have
been catalogued as separate works, they are virtually impossible to
identify. We have already seen what annoyance a title of this sort
can cause in the case of Labbé's bibliography of bibliographies
published in 1653.

I cannot reach a decision altogether satisfactory to myself regarding
Besterman's inclusion of "abridgments of patent specifications"
(I, p. xv). These contain bibliographical information not readily
obtainable from any other source, and my disposition is inclined
toward generosity. By including them Besterman offers a much more
adequate representation of scientific and technological bibliography
than would otherwise have been possible. As he correctly says (I,
p. xvii), an interest in the fields of humane studies has been
predominant in earlier bibliographies of bibliographies. On the
other hand, Besterman seems, in including these abridgments, to
have stretched to the breaking point his rule for the exclusion
of bibliographies contained in non-bibliographical works. If
these abridgments are to be included, then one is tempted to call
attention to the fact that many German doctoral dissertations offer
good bibliographies of small subjects and can be very useful on
occasion.[201]

Any definition of a bibliography is difficult to formulate and even
more difficult to adhere to. I cite only one more illustration of
the problems that arise. Besterman cites (col. 1040) Antti Aarne's
catalogue of printed and manuscript versions of Finnish tales. This
is clearly within his definition of a bibliography. Perhaps a score
of similar catalogues for the tales of countries from Iceland to
Rumania are in existence and might equally well have been cited.
Although it is not made according to Aarne's pattern, the _Typen
türkischer Volksmärchen_ (Wiesbaden, 1953) by Wolfram Eberhard and
P. N. Boratav is a similar catalogue of tales. How far shall one go
in seeking out such extremely technical reference aids as these?
The specialist will know them, and few others can use them with any
comfort. Students of folklore have done a great deal of indexing and
cataloguing and have produced works that can only be separated from
bibliographies with difficulty. What shall one say of John Meier,
_Kunstlieder im Volksmunde_ (Halle, 1906)? This is a catalogue of
German songs that have been heard in oral tradition but can be
traced back to known authors. Meier gives full references to the
sources in both the printed works of the authors and the collections
of folksongs. To return to tales once more, I mention two books of
an apparently wholly bibliographical nature that Besterman does
not mention. A. C. Lee, _The Decameron. Its Sources and Analogues_
(London, 1909) is, as its title indicates, a compilation of tales
related to those in the _Decameron_. The _Anmerkungen zu den Kinder-
und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm_ (5 v.; Leipzig, 1913-1932) by
Johannes Bolte and Georg Polívka is a bibliography of parallels to
the _Household Tales_.

Some details in Besterman's work call for comment or correction,
but their number is negligible in view of the vast number of titles
with which he deals. There are instances in which I should disagree
with him in the classification of titles. For example, the Augsburg
library catalogue of 1600 (col. 626) is not a bibliography of
classical literature but a general catalogue of books and manuscripts
in the Augsburg municipal library. Furthermore, its inclusion
contradicts the principle stated in the Introduction (I, p. xiv)
according to which general catalogues of institutional libraries are
omitted. J. B. Mencken's _Gelehrten-Lexicon_ with the second and
third editions by C. G. Jöcher is cited (col. 331) as a universal
bibliography, but Jöcher's later and much larger revision with its
continuations is cited (col. 343) in a different category as a
select universal bibliography. Errors in names, place names, and
dates appear to be very few. I note that Thomas Cremius (col. 340)
should be Thomas Crenius. Such details scarcely call for comment, and
their lack of importance is itself a characterization of Besterman's
skill. I could wish that the Preface to volume III had explained at
greater length the alphabetization of anonymous titles beginning
with such words as "Catalogue" or "Index." For example, I cannot
find the _International Catalogue of Scientific Literature_ in the
Index, although Section N for Zoology is cited in col. 3188. Nor
is the _International Catalogue_ in the article "Science" (cols.
2725-2749), where a _List of Journals_ connected with it is cited
(col. 2727).

Besterman's bibliography deserves special praise for the fact that
it rests on a personal inspection of virtually all the works cited.
It needs scarcely to be said that he could have executed this task
only at the British Museum or in a few other very great libraries.
We can probably infer that Conrad Gesner handled the bibliographies
that he cited in 1548, but few later workers have been equally
successful in seeing all the books that they name. In this regard
Gabriel Peignot made a long step in advance in the _Répertoire_ of
1812. The character of his comments makes it clear that he had a
firsthand knowledge of the books that he cites. In 1838 his successor
Pie Namur yielded countless times to the temptation to cite books
from secondary sources, which moreover he does not name. In 1866
Julius Petzholdt established the standards of bibliographical
accuracy that ought to be observed and indicated the books that he
had not consulted, but his successors have not in general approached
these standards. It is therefore altogether gratifying to praise
Besterman's attention to such bibliographical details as collations,
the citation of editions, and the identification of pseudonyms. In
addition to these merits the correctness of the Index calls for
particular mention. The bibliographies named in this essay have
not always required an index, but those which do contain one have
usually served their readers poorly. Philippe Labbé was the first but
by no means the last of our bibliographers to offer his reader an
unsatisfactory index. Even Julius Petzholdt left much to be desired
in this regard. The index to Henri Stein's _Manuel_ is conspicuous
for its faults. In comparison with his predecessors Besterman's
success in the making of an index is all the more meritorious.

In a second edition published between 1947 and 1949, Besterman
revised his bibliography to include books printed as late as 1944 and
1945. Since I have referred to this and not to the first edition in
my comments, it is sufficient to quote Besterman's statement of the
differences between the two editions. The improvements and changes
are important to every user of the book but do not affect its nature
in any fundamental way.

    Large parts of the field have been surveyed anew, the text has
    been minutely revised throughout, and improvements made. The
    number of cross-references has been multiplied. Most important,
    however, are the new entries, which make this edition over
    55 per centum bigger than the first. The number of volumes
    recorded and separately collated is now about 65,000. Nearly
    all intermediate editions [between the first and last] have
    now been deleted; they have only been retained, in fact, for
    bibliographies first published before 1800, and for those of
    special interest or importance.[202]

And now, five years after the completion of the second edition,
Besterman has begun to print a third edition, which he declares to
be a "final" edition. As he writes in a letter of July 27, 1954,
the new edition will show "the normal increase in size due to the
passage of time." A systematic check of Library of Congress holdings
has enabled him to strengthen considerably the coverage of American
bibliographical publication, north and south. He has also made
renewed efforts to improve the representation of scientific and
Slavic books. The first volume, which is now in proof, will appear
early in 1955 and three more volumes will follow. One lays _A World
Bibliography of Bibliographies_ aside with astonishment that one man
had the courage to conceive the task and the strength to complete
it. In its conception of universality and its success in approaching
completeness Besterman's book is a climax in this history of
bibliographies of bibliographies.

An emphasis on the current usefulness of the works cited is
characteristic of the last four bibliographies of bibliographies
that I shall name. These compilations by Bohatta, Funke, and Hodes;
by Collison; by Malclès; and by Totok and Weitzel are intentionally
selective in nature and will therefore require only brief comment.
Incidentally, they do not owe their origin to Besterman's suggestion:
"it will no doubt eventually become necessary to publish a general
bibliography of _best_ bibliographies" (I, p. xvii), although they
serve this purpose more or less adequately. The practical emphasis in
these four bibliographies betrays the training of their authors in
librarianship.

There is a significant difference between the idea of a bibliography
as a complete record of books on a particular subject or of a
particular kind and that of bibliographies of bibliographies as
they have been ordinarily made. To some extent every bibliography
serves a practical need, but bibliographies of bibliographies have
at first served this need somewhat unconsciously and have served it
more and more deliberately as time has passed. As my comments in
this essay have shown, the bibliography of bibliographies has been
characteristically a tool having immediate practical usefulness.
There are few exceptions to this rule: Namur's careless book of
1838, Besterman's book that we have just examined, and Josephson's
bibliography of bibliographies of bibliographies that we shall
mention at the end of this chapter include works that the compilers
regarded as having historical interest rather than practical value.
Conrad Gesner named in 1548 a considerable number of classical Greek
and Latin works because they seemed to his contemporaries to serve
their needs. This aspect of immediate contemporary usefulness has
remained characteristic of bibliographies of bibliographies down
to the present time. References to classical authorities had still
a certain degree of practical value for Labbé (1664) and Teissier
(1686, 1705). They have disappeared completely or almost completely
from later bibliographies of bibliographies. During the last century
this emphasis on immediate contemporary usefulness has perhaps
expressed itself more clearly in acts than in words. For example,
Peignot in 1812 is already looking in this direction. Although
subsequent bibliographers may include outmoded books, their eyes
turn, as Petzholdt's did in 1866, more and more consciously to modern
writings. The four most recent bibliographies of bibliographies
recognize fully that they intend to be primarily guides to the best
modern sources of information.

In spite of its brave title, _Internationale Bibliographie der
Bibliographien_ (1939-1950), this book by Hanns Bohatta (1864-1950),
Walter Funke, and Franz Hodes belongs on the level of bibliographies
by Durey de Noinville and Michael de San José. It will only rarely
aid either the beginner or the more advanced scholar. It is a
selective bibliography and the choice of titles will satisfy no
one. Obvious books are lacking[203] and worthless compilations are
present.[204] The authors pay little attention to the categories that
they set up.[205] The references are incomplete and inaccurate.[206]
The comments are often misleading or erroneous. For example, the
remark that Giuseppe Fumagalli, _La bibliografia_, is much less
complete than Giuseppe Ottino and Giuseppe Fumagalli, _Biblioteca
bibliografica italiana_, is a fundamental misapprehension of both
works. The first is a handbook of general bibliography; the second
is a bibliography of bibliographies written in Italian or concerned
with Italy. The second book belongs elsewhere and the supplements to
it should be cited at length because they were written, in part, by
other authors. A comparison of the two books is without point. With
all its faults this disorderly _Internationale Bibliographie der
Bibliographien_ yields useful information.[207]

The most ambitious and the best of these four modern selective
bibliographies is L.-N. Malclès, _Les Sources du travail
bibliographique_, I (Geneva, 1950). This deals with general works
and cites almost exclusively bibliographies. A second volume (2
pts., Geneva, 1952), which deals with the humanities, has recently
appeared. A third volume, which will deal with the sciences, is
promised. An abbreviated edition has been published even though
volume 3 has not yet been issued. Both the second and the promised
third volume are subject bibliographies and therefore need no
mention here. The first volume contains some information about books
that are not bibliographies, although they are somewhat similar in
nature to bibliographies. There is, for example, a very interesting
chapter on encyclopedias (pp. 213-224) and another chapter (pp.
225-237) on collective biographies. The wholly practical spirit
of Mlle. Malclès's endeavor appears clearly in her list of German
encyclopedias. She is right in thinking that a modern worker will
rarely look at a German encyclopedia older than Ersch and Gruber
("1818-1889, 97 vol. 4^o [A-Z]"). The reference is, incidentally,
not quite accurate, since large portions of the alphabet were never
written. We hear nothing of the early German encyclopedist J. H.
Alsted, who lived and wrote two generations before Louis Moréri (he
is mentioned as the first French author of an encyclopedia on p.
219), or of Krünitz and Zedler, who wrote vast encyclopedias almost
two centuries ago. Such German works are not appropriate to Mlle.
Malclès's purpose, but their absence means that her book does not
serve a student who wishes to inform himself about the historical
development of encyclopedias. In other words, Mlle. Malclès has
deliberately and successfully satisfied the needs of French scholars.

Mlle. Malclès's admirably organized and very rich list of currently
useful bibliographies is, as Joris Vorstius says in his review,
indispensable to every librarian. Particularly interesting are the
introductory remarks in each chapter. These describe the general
nature of the works listed and offer comparisons and critical comment
on the value and purpose of the different works. This excellent
orientation supplements the brief descriptive remarks attached to
the titles. As I have already implied, _Les Sources du travail
bibliographique_ has been written for French reference librarians.
For this reason Mlle. Malclès is often content to cite secondary
authorities for bibliographies not written in French or concerned
with subjects of minor interest to French students. This admirable
book stands at the peak of selective bibliographies of bibliographies
and is therefore a companion to Besterman's comprehensive work.

Robert L. Collison, _Bibliographies Subject and National. A Guide to
their contents, arrangement and use_ (London, 1951) is a pleasant
little book containing the information promised in its title. It
is a rare example of a bibliography written in a descriptive style
that relieves the tedium of a list. The author has intended to offer
no more than a brief handlist of currently useful works with some
interpretative comments. He has succeeded well in his purpose.[208]

A recently published German counterpart to Malclès and Collison is
Wilhelm Totok and Rolf Weitzel, _Handbuch der bibliographischen
Nachschlagewerke_ (1954). Less comprehensive than the French
book and much richer than the English one, it is a meritorious
compendium of currently useful bibliographies in all fields. The
authors list bibliographies, library catalogues, biographical and
biobibliographical handbooks, general and specialized encyclopedias,
and treatises of various sorts that contain bibliographical
information. Historical and descriptive remarks that are often
very instructive introduce the chapters and sections and critical
comments usually are appended to the titles cited. The choice of
titles will, as the authors no doubt intended, serve best German
readers. For example, no Spanish, Latin American, or Russian
dictionaries of anonyma and pseudonyma are mentioned (pp. 70-73).
I should scarcely agree with the opinion (p. 70) that interest
in dictionaries of this sort subsided after the first decades
of this century. An emphasis on modern writing often leads the
authors to overlook earlier bibliographies that have not lost their
usefulness. For example, Mundt's incomplete list (extending only
to R) of European dissertations published before 1900 (p. 75) is
not "the only means of identifying older university publications
(dissertations)." The _Catalogus dissertationum academicarum quibus
nuper aucta est Bibliotheca Bodleiana MDCCCXXXII_ (Oxford, 1834)
will serve this purpose very well and extends to the end of the
alphabet. Bibliographies of university dissertations were, moreover,
published in the early eighteenth century. I cannot understand why
the authors chose to omit John Meier's enormous bibliography of
German folklore in Hermann Paul, ed., _Grundriss der germanischen
Philologie_, III (2d ed., Strassburg, 1909) or why they preferred
Wilhelm Pessler's handbook of German folklore to the exclusion of the
convenient bibliography in Adolf Spamer, _Die deutsche Volkskunde_
(2d ed. [unchanged], Berlin, 1934-1935). Suggestions of this sort
occur readily enough to any attentive reader and are intended to
characterize the book rather than to point out its deficiencies. In
my opinion, the authors have succeeded well in their intention which
was to write a book occupying a position between a bulky guide to
information and a beginner's handbook ("Vorwort," p. v).

We have come finally to the last bibliography of all. Its date
(1901) entitles it to the first place in this chapter, but it stands
last because it is an even more specialized compilation than a
bibliography of bibliographies. This bibliography of bibliographies
of bibliographies, that is to say, a bibliography in the third
degree, is entitled _Bibliographies of Bibliographies_. The author
is Aksel G. S. Josephson, a former member of the staff of the John
Crerar Library. It is a chronological list of one hundred and
fifty-six bibliographies of bibliographies. The conception is not
new, but this pamphlet is the first separate publication of such a
list. Similar lists are found of course in Peignot's _Répertoire_
of 1812, Petzholdt's _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ of 1866, and a
great variety of other reference works. The pertinent sections in
handbooks of library science, bibliography, and the like are usually
of little interest or value, but Josephson lists them carefully.
Perhaps forty titles that he names are significant. He has chosen
the strange plan of a chronological arrangement of titles and adds
to its inconvenience by providing neither an author nor a subject
index. He has yielded to the temptation to include titles of no
pertinence like treatises on systems of cataloguing (Nos. 41,
43),[209] H. B. Wheatley's _What Is an Index?_ (No. 59), a guide for
making a pastor's library (No. 77), a list of fictitious books (No.
80), and guides to the use of a library (Nos. 67, 69, 104). The many
references to bibliographies in the _Neuer Anzeiger für Bibliographie
und Bibliothekswesen_ are no doubt pertinent but are scarcely as
important as they are numerous. He has probably more references to
bibliographical lists published in journals of library science
than any other source of information.[210] The value of Josephson's
pamphlet lies in an arrangement that makes apparent the historical
development and emphasizes the growth of bibliographical lists in
journals. Mistakes seem to be few.[211]

In making a second edition of the _Bibliography of Bibliographies_
Josephson profited greatly from the long criticism by Vilhelm
Grundtvig that we have already discussed. He replaced the
chronological arrangement by a classified arrangement, within which
he arranged titles chronologically. He added many new titles that he
had found or had excerpted from Grundtvig's criticism. His retirement
from active duty and long delays in publication greatly handicapped
him in producing a satisfactory piece of work.

FOOTNOTES:

[182] Vorstius rightly believed in 1948 that the _Index
bibliographicus_ was entirely out of date; see his _Ergebnisse
und Fortschritte der Bibliographie in Deutschland seit dem ersten
Weltkrieg, Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, Beiheft 74 (Leipzig,
1948), p. 36. Besterman's third edition goes far to meet Vorstius's
objections.

[183] The biographies of Enselin and Engelmann in the _Allgemeine
deutsche Biographie_ are quite inadequate, and Wilhelm Müldener
is not included in it. See several references to the Enslin and
Engelmann firms in the _Katalog der Bibliothek des Börsenvereins der
deutschen Buchhändler_ (2 v.; Leipzig, 1885-1902), I, 221, II, 880.

[184] The United States Government might also be mentioned as a major
supporter of bibliography.

[185] He is referring to lists of books printed on vellum or colored
paper.

[186] He cites no example of such a bibliography.

[187] He is referring to lists of miniature books.

[188] He probably means bibliographies of religious orders but some
of the examples could be put in other classes.

[189] Examples are bibliographies of editions of the Bible, the
_Imitatio Christi_, Ariosto's _Orlando Furioso_, and Tasso's
_Gerusaleme liberata_.

[190] He includes dictionaries of pseudonyma.

[191] He includes bibliographies of obscene books here, but might
perhaps have set up a separate class for them.

[192] This book by Ralph Thomas does not appear in the article
"Pseudonyms."

[193] This does not appear in the list of bibliographical journals at
the end of the article.

[194] I mention here Winslow L. Webber (b. 1898), _Books about Books_
(Boston, 1937), primarily because of its title. This annotated list
of books and articles useful to collectors of incunabula, English and
American first editions and rarities, and Americana does not intend
to be a general bibliography of bibliographies. Webber's comments
are occasionally instructive or entertaining, but his references are
distressingly careless. "Pretsholdt's" (p. 19) for "Petzholdt's"
speaks for itself. The chapter "Magazine References" (pp. 136-162),
which contains a survey of articles published in British and American
journals between 1900 and 1937, is perhaps the most useful part of
the book.

[195] "Bibliographie der Bibliographien--eine internationelle
Angelegenheit," _Archiv für Bibliographie, Buch- und Bibliothekswesen_,
I (1926), 188-200.

[196] _Nordisk tidskrift för bok- und bibliotheksväsen_, XXVII
(1940), 61.

[197] _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, XX (1903), 405-444.

[198] See R. C. Christie's important remarks in "Biographical
Dictionaries" in his _Selected Essays and Papers_ (London, 1902), pp.
1-57.

[199] _Nordisk tidskrift för bok- och biblioteksväsen_, XXVII (1940),
65.

[200] See Joannes Rhodius's list of pseudonyms (col. 130). For the
identification of this see Taylor and Mosher, p. 262.

[201] The example readiest to hand is a dissertation by Hugo Paas
cited in Taylor and Mosher, p. 84, n. 14. This contains a good
bibliography of German studies in the law of pseudonyms.

[202] The quoted passages will be found in the Preface to the Second
Edition (I, p. [vii]) and the Introduction (I, p. xxiii).

[203] I choose examples from the first fascicle. The later fascicles
do not rise above it in quality. Among general works on bibliography
(pp. 3-4) the authors should have mentioned John Ferguson (see above,
pp. 110-111) and David Murray, "Bibliography: its scope and method
with a view of the work of a local bibliographical society," _Records
of the Glasgow Bibliographical Society_, I (1912-1913), 1-105.

[204] Durey de Noinville might have been omitted.

[205] The category of bibliographies of bibliographies (pp. 3-4)
includes bibliographical journals, general bibliographies, special
bibliographies (which should have been put in later sections), and
lists of medieval catalogues of libraries.

[206] For example, "J. B. Childs, Sixteenth-century books. Chicago,
1923" is inaccurate in details and lacks the essential information
that it appeared in the _Papers of the Bibliographical Society of
America_, XVII (1923), 73-152. Olga Pinto, _Repertori bibliografici
nazionali_ is a reprint from a journal and has been replaced by _Le
bibliografie nazionali_ (Milan, 1935), which is now in turn replaced
by a second edition. The books by Alice B. Kroeger and Isadore G.
Mudge are cited separately, but Miss Mudge's _Guide to Reference
Works_ is a revision of the earlier work. The earlier work need not
have been mentioned.

[207] See references to an article on printed catalogues of Scotch
libraries (p. 3), a Russian bibliography of library catalogues (p.
3), and several obscure studies of anonyma and pseudonyma (pp. 19-22).

[208] Bibliographies of bibliographies found in handbooks of library
science and bibliographies of reference works (which may often be
bibliographies) have not been included in this essay. There are good
books of these kinds that might seem to have been overlooked. For
example, Georg Schneider, _Handbuch der Bibliographie_ (4th ed.;
Leipzig, 1930) names only currently useful lists of books and no
bibliographies of subjects. His account of the bibliographies of
incunabula (pp. 85-103) is an excellent introduction to a difficult
subject, but gives no idea of the historical development of these
works and cites the earliest bibliographies (p. 92, n. 1) in such a
way that only an expert can interpret the references. A good American
parallel to Schneider's book is H. B. van Hoesen and F. K. Walter,
_Bibliography, practical, enumerative, historical: an introductory
manual_ (New York, 1928); a new edition is in preparation. John
Minto, _Reference Books_ (2 v.; London, 1929-1931) and Constance M.
Winchell, _Guide to Reference Books_ (7th ed.; Chicago, 1951) are
guides to reference books, not bibliographies of bibliographies,
Frantz Calot and Georges Thomas, _Guide practique de bibliographie_
(Paris, 1936; 2d ed., Paris, 1950) is often a helpful guide to
information, but it is not a bibliography of bibliographies.

[209] The numbers refer to the edition of 1901.

[210] See especially Nos. 153-157. The section "Literatur und
Miscellen" (No. 86) in the _Neuer Anzeiger_ should have been listed
under 1856, when the journal began, rather than under 1886, when it
ceased to appear.

[211] Tosselli (No. 8) is Tonnelli. The description of F. Perennès,
_Dictionnaire de bibliographie catholique_ (No. 33) is incomplete.




Chapter VI

Conclusion


Four centuries have elapsed since Conrad Gesner published the first
modern bibliography of bibliographies in the _Pandectae_ of 1548.
Although it was only a section in a general subject index, it shows
Gesner's clear understanding of the task and a competent choice
and arrangement of materials. Few later efforts have been equally
successful. His definition of a bibliography is both narrower and
broader than the one that has since found general acceptance.
He does not include, for example, biobibliographical accounts
of religious orders and nations. He was familiar with them but
probably looked upon them as historical rather than bibliographical
compilations. Like most later bibliographers, he does not include
publishers' catalogues and catalogues of books owned by institutions
and individuals. In 1598 Israel Spach employed what is virtually
the modern definition of a bibliography. Like Gesner, he includes
bibliographers who wrote in classical times. In 1628 Francis Sweerts
almost takes the decisive step of making an independent list composed
of bibliographies of bibliographies. The three folio pages in his
_Athenae Belgicae_ on which this list appears have no organic
connection with that biobibliographical dictionary. Sweerts includes,
furthermore, no ancient bibliographers. His work has a modern look.

In 1643 the bibliography of bibliographies comes of age with the
announcement of Jodocus a Dudinck, _Bibliothecariographia_. The
book is lost or more probably was never published, but its subtitle
shows a clear comprehension of the nature of a bibliography
of bibliographies. Philip Labbé published a bibliography of
bibliographies in 1653 and a new edition of it in 1664. His loyalty
to Catholicism and his exclusively French associations hindered its
wide acceptance and use. Few of his contemporaries understood what he
had done, and few learned how to use his book. Even Antoine Teissier,
who revised and enlarged it, showed an imperfect understanding of its
nature. The age was not ready for a bibliography of bibliographies.
Cornelius a Beughem, a man of many bibliographies, may have perceived
the situation, for he never published the compilation that he had
announced in 1680. With the publication of a supplement to Teissier's
revision of Labbé, efforts to make a bibliography of bibliographies
came to a dead stop in 1705. They had resulted in a formulation of
the task.

After 1705 no bibliography of bibliographies appeared for more than
a century. The fragmentary tradition of listing books entitled
_bibliotheca_, i.e. bibliography or catalogue, that might have led
to one produced only withered shoots and ended in 1758 with Durey de
Noinville's wretched compilation. During the eighteenth century the
bibliography of bibliographies is, at best, only a chapter in surveys
of learning. No doubt the great encyclopedias of the time satisfied
scholarly demands so well that men did not perceive the place that a
bibliography of bibliographies might fill.

Conrad Gesner, whom I regard as the first modern writer of a
bibliography of bibliographies, aimed at comprehensiveness and
included works of all ages as far as they came to his knowledge. He
named Amphicrates and his contemporary Jakob Rueff in the same list
without making a distinction between them. Almost immediately the
bibliography of bibliographies became a guide to currently useful
reference works and it has retained that function. Writing in the
early years of the seventeenth century, Paul Bolduan and Francis
Sweerts took a step away from comprehensiveness. They included no
classical Greek and Latin authorities and very few medieval ones.
This exclusion of classical writers runs parallel to the similar
treatment of classical writers of history. In a list of classical
historians we no longer cite Xenophon and Caesar along with Grote
and Gibbon. No one thinks of naming a bibliographer like Cicero,
Suetonius, or St. Jerome in the company of Petzholdt and Brunet.
Although this rejection of ancient bibliographers began in the early
seventeenth century, neither Labbé in 1664 nor Teissier in 1705 fully
accepted it.

By 1812 we find a completely modern conception of bibliography.
Gabriel Peignot cites no bibliographer from classical times and
names only such older writers of the Renaissance as have not been
superseded by more recent authorities. This definition of the
bibliography of bibliographies makes it practically useful to the
writer's contemporaries. With the exception of Theodore Besterman,
the subsequent writers of bibliographies of bibliographies have
been practical men who see a modern librarian's needs and more
especially, when that functionary is invented, the needs of a
reference librarian. Julius Petzholdt admits many old bibliographies
to his _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ of 1866, but gives them room only
for historical reasons or in the absence of a modern work. Joseph
Sabin goes somewhat farther by restricting himself to British and
American bibliographies with only a side glance at those in other
than European languages. Léon Vallée, Henri Stein, W. P. Courtney,
and those who come after show a more and more definitely acknowledged
restriction to modern works and especially those within the easy
reach of their readers. The bibliography of bibliographies becomes
an ever more skilfully fashioned key to unlock modern learning and
modern libraries. In the last two generations cooperative effort
has become characteristic of much bibliographical work and the
publication of periodical surveys limited to brief periods and
cumulated for longer intervals reflect both the difficulty of the
task and the emphasis on contemporary usefulness. The standards
of accuracy and, within the limits that have been accepted, the
standards of completeness have enormously improved.

This brief historical summary makes it plain that a bibliography is
or, at least, it has become a reference work that gives a limited
amount of information of a very special kind. It is immediately
useful in an emergency and less likely to be helpful in surveying
historically any particular field of study. A corollary is the
fact that a bibliography of bibliographies will ordinarily give a
student little or no new information about a subject with which
he is familiar, but can be a valuable aid to him in an unfamiliar
field. A student of Renaissance English literature will not consult
a bibliography of bibliographies to learn of such works as the
_Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature_ or A. W. Pollard
and G. R. Redgrave, A _Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in
England ... 1475-1640_. He already knows them. He may be very glad to
find the titles of bibliographies of theology, history, or science
that meet his needs. He should consult, also, the older books
that Besterman alone among modern writers of the bibliography of
bibliographies is likely to cite. Joris Vorstius rightly emphasizes
the fact that a bibliography of bibliographies serves primarily a
reference librarian.[212] I should only enlarge upon his remark by
saying that the older bibliographies of bibliographies are invaluable
and all too little known aids to understanding the historical
development of a discipline or the background of an earlier period.

With all their faults and insufficiencies--and what human works lack
them?--bibliographies of bibliographies are very valuable aids to
scholars. As an introduction to a strange field one will naturally
consult only the most recently published examples, beginning with
Julius Petzholdt, _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ (1866) or perhaps even
with Theodore Besterman, _A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_
(2d ed., 1947-1949; 3d ed., 1955-). In studying the historical
development of a discipline or subject one can neglect the four
oldest bibliographies of bibliographies. Gesner's _Pandectae_,
Spach's _Nomenclator_, and Bolduan's _Bibliotheca philosophica_ are
general subject bibliographies of a sort that I hope to discuss at
another time. These books and Sweert's _Athenae Belgicae_ contain
little or nothing as far as bibliographies are concerned that
cannot be more easily found in other books. With the sole exception
of Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_, which was absorbed into
Teissier's _Catalogus auctorum_, a student of the historical aspect
of a subject must consult all the bibliographies of bibliographies
printed after 1664. They are independent or almost independent
compilations and supplement one another. Fortunately they are not
extremely difficult to obtain. In consulting them the modern scholar
should give thanks to those who have labored so diligently in his
behalf.

FOOTNOTE:

[212] See his important article, "Petzholdt redivivus.
Zur Theorie und Praxis eines allgemeinen internationalen
Bibliographienverzeichnisses," _Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_,
LXIV (1950), 413-438.




Bibliography


I indicate the libraries where the rare books cited below may be
found by the following abbreviations: CU (University of California,
Berkeley); DLC (Library of Congress); ICN (The Newberry Library,
Chicago); MH (Harvard University Library); NN (New York Public
Library). Books for which no locations are given will be found in
most large libraries. I have not tried to record all the copies owned
in the United States.


Besterman, Theodore. _A World Bibliography of Bibliographies._
London, 1939-1940. Pp. xxiv, 588; [iv], 644. 2d ed.; London,
1947-1949. Pp. xxviii, cols. 1450; [i], cols. 1451-3196; [i], cols.
3197-4111. 3d ed.; Geneva, 1955-. The author index in the third
volume of the second edition is printed in three columns. The second
edition is cited as Besterman.

    Reviewed: Vilhelm Grundtvig, "En Verdensbibliografi over
    Bibliografier," _Nordisk tidskrift för bokväsen_, XXVII (1940),
    58-65; Marc Jaryc, _Papers of the Bibliographical Society of
    America_, XXXVI (1942), 321-324.

Beughem, Cornelius a. _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum._ Never published.

_Bibliographia bibliographica_, I (1898)-VII (1904). Bibliographia
universalis, Contribution No. 31. Brussels: Institut Internationale
de Bibliographie, 1900-1906.

    For a collation see Besterman, I, cols. 324-325 (only vols.
    I-VI). The first five volumes were issued with a new titlepage
    as _Bibliotheca bibliographica universalis ... 1898-1902_
    (Brussels, 1904. DLC).

_Bibliographic Index. A Cumulative Bibliography of Bibliographies.
1937-1942._ New York, 1945. Pp. [xxxiii], 1780. Printed in two
columns.

_----. ---- 1943-1946._ New York, 1948. Pp. [xx], 831. Printed in two
columns.

    _The Bibliographic Index_ appears in quarterly issues, which
    are cumulated in annual volumes. The first annual volume was
    that for 1937 and was issued in 1938. The annual volumes are
    cumulated in volumes of irregular extant. For a collation see
    Besterman, I, cols. 328-329.

    Reviewed: H. B. Van Hoesen, _The Library Quarterly_, X (1940),
    272-274.

_Bibliographie des Bibliotheks- und Buchwesens._ "Beihefte zum
Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen," XXIX and subsequent issues (not
continuously numbered). Bearbeitet von Albert Hortzschansky. Leipzig,
1905-1925.

    There were no annual issues for 1913-1921. It was continued
    by the _Internationale Bibliographie des Buch- und
    Bibliothekswesens_ (which see). For a collation see Besterman,
    I, cols. 325-326.

Bohatta, Hanns, Walter Funke, and Franz Hodes. _Internationale
Bibliographie der Bibliographien._ Frankfurt a.M., 1939-1950. Pp. 652.

    Reviewed: Theodore Besterman, _The Library_, 4th Ser., XXII
    (1943), 49-52.

Bolduanus, Paul. _Bibliotheca philosophica._ Jena, 1616. Pp. [xxiv],
647, [viii]. ICN; Library of Archer Taylor (enlargement of microfilm).

Collison, Robert L. _Bibliographies Subject and National. A Guide to
their contents, arrangement and use._ London, 1951. Pp. xii, 172.

Courtney, W. P. _A Register of National Bibliography, with a
selection of the chief bibliographical books and articles printed in
other countries._ London, 1905-1912. Pp. viii, 314; [iv], 315-631; v,
340.

Delandine, Antoine François. _Bibliothèque de Lyon. Catalogue des
livres qu'elle renferme dans la classe des belles-lettres._ I (Paris,
1816).

    Contains (pp. 108-176) "Bibliographie spéciale et chronologique
    des principaux ouvrages sur l'origine et l'histoire de
    l'imprimerie, les bibliothèques, et les premiers essais de
    l'art typographique dans les diverses villes de l'Europe."

    Not seen; cited from Petzholdt, p. 444.

Dudinck, Jodocus a. _Bibliothecariographia. Enumeratio omnium
autorum, operumque, quae sub titulo Bibliothecae, catalogi, indicis,
nomenclatoris, athenarum etc. prodierunt._ Cologne, 1643.

    A bibliographical ghost.

Durey de Noinville, J. B. _Dissertation sur les bibliothèques._
Paris, 1758. Pp. 156, [3]. ICN; MH; Library of Archer Taylor.

Ferguson, John. _Some Aspects of Bibliography._ Edinburgh, 1900. Pp.
[8], 102, [2].

Gesner, Conrad. _Pandectae sive partitionum universalium ... libri
XXI._ Zurich, 1548. Fols, [vi], 375. CU (photostat); DLC; ICN
(lacking the section on law); MH (two copies); NN.

Godet, Marcel. See _Index bibliographicus_.

Hoecker, Rudolf. See _Internationale Bibliographie_.

Hortzschansky, Adelbert. See _Bibliographie des Bibliotheks- und
Buchwesens_.

_Index bibliographicus. Répertoire international des sources de
bibliographie courante (périodiques et institutions)._ Ed. Marcel
Godet. Geneva, 1925. Pp. xvi, 233. 2d ed. by Marcel Godet and Joris
Vorstius. Berlin, 1931. Pp. xxiii, 420. 3d ed., with the subtitle
_Directory of Current Periodical Abstracts and Bibliographies_, by
Theodore Besterman. 2 v.; Paris: Unesco, 1952. Pp. xi, 52; pp. xi, 72.

    For collations of the first two editions see Besterman, I, col.
    327.

_Internationale Bibliographie des Buch- und Bibliothekswesens mit
besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bibliographie._ Bearbeitet von Rudolf
Hoecker und Joris Vorstius. Neue Folge, I (1926)-XIII (1940).

    For collation see Besterman, I, col. 326 (vols. I-X only).

_Internationaler Jahresbericht der Bibliographie_, I-XI. Ed. Joris
Vorstius. Leipzig, 1930-1940.

    For collation see Besterman, I, cols. 327-328 (vols. I-X only).

Josephson, Aksel G. S. "Bibliographies of Bibliographies," _The
Bulletin of the Bibliographical Society of America_, II (1910),
21-24, 53-56; III (1911), 23-24, 50-53; IV (1912), 23-27; _Papers
of the Bibliographical Society of America_, VII (1912-1913), 33-40,
115-124.

    A revised, re-arranged, and enlarged edition of the following.

----. _Bibliographies of Bibliographies, chronologically arranged
with occasional notes and an index._ "Bibliographical Society of
Chicago. Contributions to Bibliography," No. 1. Chicago, 1901. Pp. 45.

Krüsike, Johannes Christophorus. _Vindemiarum litterarium specimen.
I. quo de re libraria universe agitur. Accedit appendix de scriptis
rei bibliothecariae adfectis. II. quo index scriptorum exhibetur,
qui de libris, illorumque scriptione, commentati sunt._ Hamburg,
1727-1731. Pp. 40; [6], 64.

    Cited from Josephson, "Bibliographies," _The Bulletin of the
    Bibliographical Society of America_, II (1910), 23; Vilhelm
    Grundtvig, _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, XX (1903),
    435. Although Josephson refers to a copy in the United
    States, I have been unable to find it. Petzholdt's comment
    (p. 443) shows that he misunderstands the nature of this
    book. It is necessarily a very slight work because it is a
    supplement to Johannes Andreas Schmid (Schmidt) and J. J.
    Mader, _De bibliothecis atque virorum clarissimorum libelli
    et commentationes_ (Helmstadt, 1702-1705). For the contents
    of Schmid-Mader, which was the standard eighteenth-century
    treatise on library science, see Peignot, _Répertoire_, pp.
    34-35. Petzholdt does not mention it.

Labbé, Philip. _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum._ Paris, 1664. Pp. [32],
394. CU; ICN. Rouen, 1672. Pp. [32], 398. ICN. Rouen, 1678. Pp. 32,
398, 27. MH; Library of Archer Taylor. Leipzig, 1682. Pp. [72], 671,
38. ICN; Library of Archer Taylor.

    Josephson suggests ("Bibliographies," II, 21-22) probably
    correctly that the 1678 edition consists of the sheets of the
    1672 edition with a new title page and John Selden's numismatic
    bibliography.

----. _Novae bibliothecae specimen._ Paris, 1653. CU (positive
microfilm); ICN (positive microfilm); NN.

    The tenth appendix (pp. 389-428) is entitled "Supplementorum
    Novae bibliothecae, sive speciminis antiquarum lectionum,
    coronis libraria. Hoc est, Bibliotheca bibliothecarum &
    Catalogus catalogorum, nomenclatorum, indicum, elenchorum
    &c. quibus scriptores in quavis arte ac professione
    praecipui & libri ferme omnes, partim editi, partim inediti,
    representantur."

    Josephson seems to have confused this book with Labbé,
    _Nova bibliotheca MSS. librorum_ (Paris, 1657); see his
    "Bibliographies," II, 21.

----. _Sexdecim librorum initia._ Paris, 1662, 1664. CU, ICN.
Microfilms of both editions in both libraries.

    This work consists of the first eight pages of ten
    bibliographies on which Labbé was working and description of
    six more. The pagination is necessarily not continuous.

_Literarisches Beiblatt zur Zeitschrift_ (later: _zum Jahrbuch_) _des
Deutschen Vereins für Buchwesen und Schrifttum_, I-XIII. Leipzig,
1924-1936.

    For a collation see Besterman, I, cols. 326-327.

Malclès, L.-N. _Les Sources du travail bibliographique._ I:
_Bibliographies générales._ Geneva, 1950. Pp. xvi, 364. II:
_Bibliographies spécialisées (sciences humaines)_. Geneva, 1952. Pp.
954.

    Reviewed: Joris Vorstius, _Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_,
    LXV (1951), 460-463 (volume I).

Moëtte, Charles. _Bibliotheca alphabetica._ A lost manuscript.

Namur, [Jean] Pie. _Bibliographie
paléographico-diplomatico-bibliographique générale ou Répertoire
systématique indiquant 1^o tous les ouvrages relatifs à la
paléographie; à la diplomatique; à l'histoire de l'imprimerie et
de la libraire; à la bibliographie; aux biobibliographies et à
l'histoire des bibliothèques; 2^o la notice des recueils périodiques,
littéraires et critiques de différents pays._ Liége, 1838. Pp. xxvii,
226, [2]; vi, 306.

_Die neu-eröffnete Bibliothec, worinnen der studirenden Jugend und
deren curieusen Liebhabern guter Unterricht von Bibliothequen,
nebenst bequemer Anleitung dieselben anzulegen, wohl zu unterhalten,
und nützlich zu gebrauchen, an die Hand gegeben wird. Welchen
angefügt die vornehmsten Bibliothequen in Europa und was Reisende
vornehmlich bey deren Besichtigung zu beobachten haben._ Hamburg,
1702. DLC; ICN. Hamburg, 1704. Library of Archer Taylor. Hamburg,
1711. CU. The Harvard copy is Theil 2 of _Der geöffnete Ritterplatz_
(Hamburg, 1705-1706). The pagination of all copies is the same: pp.
[x], 298.

Peignot, Gabriel. _Répertoire bibliographique universel, contenant
la notice raisonnée des bibliographies spéciales publiées jusqu'à
ce jour, et d'un grand nombre d'autres ouvrages de bibliographie,
relatifs à l'histoire littéraire, et à toutes les parties de la
bibliologie._ Paris, 1812. Pp. xx, 514.

Petzholdt, Julius. _Bibliotheca bibliographica. Kritisches
Verzeichnis der das Gesammtgebeit der Bibliographie betreffenden
Litteratur des In- und Auslandes in systematischer Ordnung._ Leipzig,
1866. Pp. xii, 939.

Psaume, Etienne. _Dictionnaire bibliographique, ou Nouveau manuel du
libraire et de l'amateur de livres._ 2 v. Paris, 1824.

    See "Appendice de l'Essai sur la bibliographie," I, 216-264.

Sabin, Joseph. _A Bibliography of Bibliographies, or a handy book
about books which relate to books. Being an alphabetical catalogue
of the most important works descriptive of the literature of Great
Britain and America, and more than a few relative to France and
Germany._ New York, 1877. Pp. cl, i.e. 150.

    This was published as a supplement to the _American
    Bibliopolist_, VII (1875)-IX (1877).

San José, Michael de (Michael a S. Joseph). _Bibliographia critica._
Madrid, 1740-1742. 3 v. DLC; ICN; Library of Archer Taylor.

    See the articles beginning with the word _bibliotheca_, I,
    472-533.

Spach, Israel. _Nomenclator philosophorum et philologicorum. Hoc
est: succincta recensio eorum, quo philosophiam omnesque eius partes
quovis tempore idiomateve usque ad annum 1597 descripserunt,
illustrarunt, & exornarunt, methodo artificiosa secundum locos
communes ipsius philosophiae._ Strassburg, 1598. ICN (microfilm);
Library of Archer Taylor (enlargement of microfilm).

Spizelius, Theophilus (Gottlieb Spitzel). _Sacra bibliothecarum
illustrium arcana retecta, sive MSS. theologicorum, in praecipuis
Europae bibliothecis extantium designatio; cum preliminari
dissertatione, specimine novae bibliothecae universalis, et coronide
philologica._ Augsburg, 1668. Pp. [200], 384. CU; ICN; MH; Library of
Archer Taylor.

    Spitzel's comments (pp. 344-355) on Labbé's _Bibliotheca
    bibliothecarum_ were reprinted in J. A. Schmidt and J. J.
    Mader, _De bibliothecis nova accessio collectioni Maderianae_
    (Helmstadt, 1703), pp. 181-183. The reprint does not include
    Spitzel's additions to Labbé.

Stein, Henri. _Manuel de bibliographie générale_ (Bibliotheca
bibliographica nova). Manuels de bibliographie historique, 2. Paris,
1897. Pp. xx, 805.

    For reviews see H. C. Bolton and Charles Martel, _Publisher's
    Weekly_, LV (1899), 386-389; F. J. Teggert, _Library Journal_,
    XXIV (1899), 73-75; Charles Martel, _Bibliothèque de l'école
    des chartes_, 1899, pp. 521-525.

Sweertius, Franciscus (Francis Sweerts). _Athenae Belgicae._ Antwerp,
1628. Pp. 16, 727. DLC.

    See "Syllabus eorum qui bibliothecas, elogia, effigies vitasq.
    virorum litteraria illustrium scripserunt et evulgarunt," pp.
    56-58.

Teissier, Antoine. _Catalogi auctorum qui librorum catalogos,
indices, bibliothecas, virorum litteratorum elogia, vitas aut
orationes funebres, scriptis consignarunt auctuarium ... sive ejusdem
Catalogi pars altera._ Geneva, 1705. Pp. [6], 368. ICN; MH; Library
of Archer Taylor. Cited as Teissier, _Auctuarium_.

----. _Catalogus auctorum qui librorum catalogos, indices,
bibliothecas, virorum litteratorum elogia, vitas, aut orationes
funebres, scriptis consignarunt._ Geneva, 1686. Pp. [6], 559, 27, 3.
ICN; MH; Library of Archer Taylor. Cited as Teissier, _Catalogus_.

Totok, Wilhelm and Rolf Weitzel. _Handbuch der bibliographischen
Nachschlagewerke._ Frankfurt a.M., 1954. Pp. xxii, 258.

Unger, Johannes Godofredus. _De libris bibliothecarum nomine notatis,
ubi centum et triginta libri antiqui pariter atque et novi secundum
seriem facultatum ac disciplinarum, intermixtis ultro citroque
virorum judiciis, exhibentur, atque ad illustrandum historiam
litterariam operose collecti recensentur disserit...._ Leipzig,
[1734]. Pp. 24. CU (microfilm); ICN (enlargement).

Vallée, Léon. _Bibliographie des bibliographies._ Première partie.
_Catalogue des bibliographies générales et particulières, par ordre
alphabétique d'auteurs...._ Séconde partie. _Répertoire des mêmes
bibliographies par ordre alphabétique des matières._ Paris, 1883. Pp.
vi, [2], 773, [1].

----. ----. _Supplément._ Paris, 1887. Pp. [2], 354.

    For reviews see Phil. Min., _Le Livre_, IV (1883), 400-402,
    VIII (1887), 525-526; C. A. C[utter], _Library Journal_, VIII
    (1883), 104-105, XII (1887), 305; Henri Stein, _Bulletin
    critique_, V (1883), 265-269, IX (1888), 89-95; _The
    Nation_, XXXVI (June 21, 1883), 535-536; _Zentralblatt für
    Bibliothekswesen_, I (1884), 35-36.

Vorstius, Joris. See _Index bibliographicus_; _Internationale
Bibliographie des Buch- und Bibliothekswesens_; _Internationaler
Jahresbericht der Bibliographie_.




Index of Bibliographies of Bibliographies


    Besterman, Theodore, 35, 114, 115-122, 123, 133, 134, 135, 137
    Beughem, Cornelius a, 44-45, 134, 137
    _Bibliographia bibliographica_, 105-106, 137
    _Bibliographic Index_, 108, 138
    _Bibliographie des Bibliotheks- und Buchwesens_, 106, 138
    Bohatta, Hanns, Walter Funke, and Franz Hodes, 124-125, 138
    Bolduan, Paul, 16-18, 19, 132, 135, 138

    Collison, R. L., 127, 138
    Courtney, W. P., 111-113, 116, 133, 139

    Delandine, A. F., 71-72, 139
    Dudinck, Jodocus a, 21-23, 131, 139
    Durey de Noinville, J. D., 57-58, 124, 132, 139

    Ferguson, John, 48, 110-111, 139
    Funke, Walter. See Bohatta, Hanns

    Gesner, Conrad, 4-13, 16, 19, 21, 80, 121, 123, 131, 132, 135, 139
    Godet, Marcel. See _Index bibliographicus_
    Grundtvig, Vilhelm, 95, 113-115, 118, 130

    Hodes, Franz. See Bohatta, Hanns
    Horne, T. H., 69-71, 72
    Hoecker, Rudolf. See _Internationale Bibliographie des Buch- und
        Bibliothekswesens_
    Hortzschansky, Adalbert. See _Bibliographie des Bibliothek- und
        Buchwesens_

    _Index bibliographicus_, 107, 139-140
    _Internationale Bibliographie des Buch- und Bibliothekwesens_, 106,
        140
    _Internationaler Jahresbericht der Bibliographie_, 107-108, 140

    Jerome, St., 1-3
    Josephson, A. G. S., 76-77, 95-96, 114, 123, 129-130, 140

    Krüsike, J. C., 140-141

    Labbé, Philip, 3-4, 21, 23-39, 47-50, 51, 80, 95, 98, 121, 123,
        131-132, 135, 141-142
    _Literarisches Beiblatt der Zeitschrift_ (later: _zum Jahrbuch_)
        _des deutschen Vereins für Buchwesen und Schrifttum_, 106, 142

    Malclès, L.-N., 125-127, 142
    Moëtte, Charles, 45, 63, 142

    Namur, J. P., 72-76, 78, 98, 123, 142
    _Neu-eröffnete Bibliothec, Die_, 50-53, 59, 142-143

    Peignot, Gabriel, 64-69, 72, 95, 98, 108, 109, 116, 121, 124, 133,
        143
    Petzholdt, Julius, 16, 77-91, 95, 100, 109, 110, 116, 121, 124, 133,
        135, 143
    Placcius, Vincent, 37
    Psaume, Etienne, 71-72, 143

    Sabin, Joseph, 91-95, 97, 98, 133, 143
    San José, Michael a, 56-57, 124, 143
    Spach, Israel, 13-16, 19, 131, 135, 143-144
    Spitzel, Theophilus, 37-39, 144
    Stein, Henri, 95, 100-103, 121, 133, 144
    Sweerts, Francis, 18-19, 131-132, 135, 144

    Teissier, Antoine, 4, 40-44, 80, 95, 98, 123, 132, 135, 144-145
    Totok, Wilhelm and Rolf Weitzel, 127-129, 145

    Unger, J. G., 53-56, 145

    Vallée, Léon, 95-100, 133, 145
    Vorstius, Joris, 107, 108, 114, 134, 144

    Weitzel, Rolf. See Totok, Wilhelm
    Wilson Co., H. W. See _Bibliographic Index_


       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's Note

Obvious typographical errors have been repaired.

P. 130: "criticism by Vilhelm Grundtvig that we have already
discussed"; original displayed a footnote anchor after this text
([33]), for which there was no corresponding footnote. The anchor has
been removed.

Footnote 202 had no anchor in the original text. Anchor placement
assumed after block quote.