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
{'title': 'A History of Bibliographies of Bibliographies by Archer Taylor', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}