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.