Bibliographies of Bibliographies as Periodical and Cooperative
Enterprises
In the historical development of bibliographies of bibliographies two
aspects become especially prominent after 1900. Periodical surveys
become a characteristic form of publication and cooperation in the
making of bibliographies becomes more frequent or is at least more
frequently called for. I shall speak only briefly about periodical
publications because they aim at completeness, if they make such an
effort at all, only for annual or other limited periods of time.
Julius Petzholdt published lists of bibliographies that came to his
attention around the middle of the nineteenth century in the _Neuer
Anzeiger für Bibliographie und Bibliothekswissenschaft_. Editors of
other journals for bibliography, library science, the book trade,
and related fields have published similar lists and have in some
instances endeavored more or less successfully to convert them
into surveys of current bibliographies of current bibliographical
publications. A rapid growth of periodical bibliographies of special
fields is characteristic of nineteenth-century scholarship. At the
end of the century bibliographers advanced to the stage of compiling
annual bibliographies of bibliographies. Such periodical surveys
had long been established in fields like theology and classical
literature and were now somewhat tardily created for bibliography
itself.
The first annual survey of current bibliographical publications
seems to be the _Bibliographia bibliographica_, which appeared in
six volumes between 1898 and 1903. Librarians inspired and guided
this cooperative enterprise. The list, which includes bibliographies
published in non-bibliographical works, is arranged according to
the decimal system of classification and was no doubt handicapped by
this fact. Since the editors offer a brief outline of the decimal
classification in place of a table of contents and provide no
alphabetical index of subjects, the _Bibliographia bibliographica_
is not easy to use. The lack of an author index was remedied by the
publication of an index for the first two volumes that appeared at
the end of the second volume. The _Bibliographia bibliographica_
aroused very little interest among librarians and bibliographers.
I have found no reviews of it in the contemporary journals for
bibliography and library science. Harvard University Library
purchased only the first two issues and these were so little used
that, after the lapse of fifty years, they are still unbound.
A second annual survey of the current output of bibliographies is
the _Bibliographie des Bibliotheks- und Buchwesens_, edited by
Adalbert Hortzschansky from 1905 to 1925 with an interruption of
eight years from 1913 to 1921. This supplement to the _Zentralblatt
für Bibliothekswesen_ had a longer and more successful life than its
predecessor. It surveyed all publications that fell within the field
of the journal and therefore included much more than the bibliography
of bibliographies. In 1926 it became an independent publication
with a slightly different title but with no change in the subjects
reported upon. This _Internationale Bibliographie des Buch- und
Bibliothekswesens_ continued to be issued down to the outbreak of war
in 1939. An enterprise of somewhat similar scope, the _Literarisches
Beiblatt der Zeitschrift_ (later: _zum Jahrbuch_) _des deutschen
Vereins für Buchwesen und Schrifttum_ began to appear in 1924 and
continued to 1939. Since these annual surveys include more than the
bibliography of bibliographies, I shall not discuss them further.
Three reviews of contemporary bibliographical work have appeared
during the last twenty-five years. One of them is limited to
bibliographies of a particular kind, and the other two are more
or less complete periodical surveys of bibliographical writings.
I mention them here as the last examples of the development of
periodical bibliographies of bibliographies and as a means by which
one can estimate the task of any modern compiler of a bibliography
of bibliographies. The first of these, the _Index bibliographicus_,
which first appeared in 1925, offers an interesting example of
specialization within the field of bibliographies of bibliographies.
The _Index bibliographicus_ is general in scope but cites only
bibliographies of bibliographies that appear as current serial
publications. In the six years between its first appearance in
1925 and its republication in enlarged and improved form in 1931
the number of currently appearing serial bibliographies rose from
1025 to 1900. Some of these had been overlooked in 1925, but many
of the additions concerned bibliographies of bibliographies that
had been established during the six years between the two editions.
The _Index bibliographicus_, which was compiled with the assistance
of the League of Nations, assumed a more definitely international
and cooperative aspect when Joris Vorstius joined Marcel Godet
as editor.[182] A third edition of the _Index_ made by Theodore
Besterman in 1952 is still larger than either of its predecessors.
The _Internationaler Jahresbericht der Bibliographie_, which
flourished from 1930 to 1940 under the editorship of Joris Vorstius,
enables us to survey quickly the current annual production of
bibliographies. Critical comments attached to the titles make it
one of the most readable bibliographies of bibliographies. Like
caviar, the genre is digestible only by those who have acquired a
taste for it. The organization of the _Internationaler Jahresbericht_
is skillful, and the comments are judicious and instructive. Since
Vorstius was editor of the previously mentioned _Internationale
Bibliographie des Buch- und Bibliothekswesens_ as well as the
_Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, he saw a very large number
of bibliographies. He was compelled to hold very carefully to the
definitions of his closely related and very similar tasks. The
_Internationaler Jahresbericht_ of course lists only bibliographies.
The H. W. Wilson Co. has published the most comprehensive of all
periodical surveys of bibliography. Starting in 1938, the quarterly
issues are cumulated in annual volumes and these are, in turn,
cumulated in volumes for periods of variable length. A cumulation
of the bibliographies published in the years between 1937 and 1942
appeared in 1945, and a second cumulation for the years 1943-1946
appeared in 1948. This is the first virtually complete account of
current bibliographical production, and the picture is amazing.
Between 1937 and 1942 some fifty thousand bibliographies were
published. The editors of the _Bibliographic Index_ have classified
them in almost ten thousand categories.
The foregoing discussion of these annual or otherwise chronologically
limited surveys of bibliography is incidental to the main
historical purpose of this essay. Such surveys illustrate very
effectively an emphasis which has become characteristic of much
modern bibliographical work, and especially of bibliographies of
bibliographies, since Gabriel Peignot's book of 1812. Being concerned
solely with the current production of bibliographies, they have
obviously had no occasion to deal historically with bibliographies
or to cite bibliographies published before the limits that they set
for themselves. This emphasis on currently useful bibliographical
tools goes hand in hand with the cooperative aspect of making
bibliographies that I shall stress in this chapter. Already in his
_Répertoire_ of 1812 Gabriel Peignot had reviewed eighteenth-century
bibliography with occasional citations of earlier works that had not
been superseded. In 1866 Julius Petzholdt had dealt somewhat more
generously than Peignot with Renaissance and seventeenth-century
bibliographies, but had scarcely included enough of them to give a
picture satisfactory to a historian. Like these predecessors, Joseph
Sabin, Léon Vallée, and Henri Stein had shown a marked preference for
contemporary works. The uses which bibliographies of bibliographies
ordinarily serve explain this preference and make it a reasonable one.
The history of mass-production methods in the making of
bibliographies has not yet been written. I conjecture that it begins
with bibliographies produced more than a century ago by the German
publisher Wilhelm Engelmann. His firm continued and revised some
bibliographies established by Johann Samuel Ersch (1766-1828), whose
scholarly and bibliographical activity began in the eighteenth
century. It is not entirely clear whether Ersch himself had already
adopted something like mass-production methods. However this may
be, the titles and the nature of many bibliographies produced by
T. C. F. Enslin (1787-1851) and Wilhelm Engelmann (1808-1878), who
made new editions of some of Enslin's bibliographies as well as many
of his own, virtually imply such methods. Information about the
making of these bibliographies and those of F. A. Wilhelm Müldener
(1830-1900), who seems to have worked in the same way, is difficult
to obtain.[183] The compilation and publication of bibliographies
by printers and publishers rather than scholars has been continued
by such American firms as the Library Bureau (now no longer in
existence), R. R. Bowker & Co., and H. W. Wilson Co. These firms have
actively supported the making of bibliographies in this country for
more than two generations.[184]
An admirable essay, _Some Aspects of Bibliography_ (1900), by
John Ferguson (d. 1916) suggests the cooperative aspect that
is characteristic of bibliographical studies in the last two
generations. Although it is not a full-length bibliography of
bibliographies, it reviews the kinds of bibliographies that have been
made and appeals to scholars to compile the bibliographies necessary
to satisfy the most obvious needs. Ferguson's modest list of some
four hundred bibliographies is intended to serve two purposes. It
is an effort to show the great variety of bibliographies that have
been made and it offers a supplement to Petzholdt's _Bibliotheca
bibliographica_. Ferguson's clear and very instructive classification
of bibliographies is as follows: bibliographies according to (1)
date; (2) place; (3) printer; (4) material;[185] (5) type;[186] (6)
size;[187] (7) illustrations; (8) language; (9) subject; (10) groups
of authors;[188] (11) individuals; (12) single books;[189] (13)
anonymous books;[190] (14) suppressed books;[191] (15) rare books;
(16) general bibliographies.
Some categories of bibliographies might be added to this list. For
example, he probably includes bibliographies of private presses in
(3). He has no good place for bibliographies of translations, which
do not fit easily in the ninth category of bibliographies according
to subjects. Nor is there a convenient place for bibliographies of
belles lettres according to genres like the novel, the essay, or the
book review.
The first bibliography of bibliographies published in the twentieth
century is _A Register of National Bibliography with a selection
of the chief bibliographical books and articles printed in other
countries_ (3 v., 1905-1912) by W. P. Courtney (1845-1913). It is
also the first effort of this sort to be made by an Englishman. Like
the American Sabin, Courtney limits the bibliographies published in
languages other than English to a selection. In the course of twenty
years Courtney had accumulated a great many references and four
years of work in preparation of the _Register_ greatly increased the
number. He acknowledges the assistance of G. L. Apperson, who later
published a useful collection of English proverbs, and Robert A.
Peddie, who wrote a very large subject bibliography. He has taken
references from Henri Stein's _Manuel_, especially references in the
Slavic languages.
He found that the vast number of bibliographies in print made
necessary some limitations on the scope of his work. He excludes sale
catalogues (although a few are cited), catalogues of manuscripts,
and lists of maps and charts. Probably few will quarrel with his
decision. He also omits many headings in the bibliography of geology,
India, and other unspecified large fields. Here it would be helpful
to know more accurately what these omissions were.
Courtney's _Register_ lists some 30,000 titles in a main and two
supplementary alphabets. The rapid growth of the material as he
proceeded with his work explains this inconvenient division. The very
numerous citations of bibliographies in non-bibliographical works
contribute to this large figure. I cannot estimate closely the number
of small headings, which run into the thousands. The bulk of the
_Register_ and the ease with which it can be used make it valuable.
As examples of the wealth of information in it, I cite his references
to thirteen bibliographies of bacteriology, seventeen bibliographies
of hymns, nine bibliographies of insanity, and three bibliographies
of swimming. One will rarely leave the _Register_ empty-handed.
Courtney could have greatly reduced the size of his book without a
sacrifice of convenience or the loss of significant references. His
alphabetical arrangement makes it unnecessary to repeat the headings
in the index. He could have profitably used the space saved to
add a descriptive word that would differentiate the various works
by one author. The dozen references to J. C. Pilling, who wrote
bibliographies of American Indian languages, might, for example,
have been identified by appropriate adjectives. Courtney could
have reduced the size of his book substantially and without loss
by omitting bibliographies printed in obvious places, to which one
needs no reference. For example, he could have spared references to
bibliographies in four editions of _Beowulf_. The poorly-organized
longer articles in the _Register_ are often burdened with
miscellaneous or unnecessary information. The article "Bibliography"
includes, for example, the universal bibliographies by Georg
Draud and Theophil Georgi, (but not Conrad Gesner); Olphar Hamst,
_Aggravating Ladies_, which is a list of pseudonymous books written
by "A Lady";[192] the bibliographical journal _La Bibliofilia_;[193]
and a bibliography of church history. This is not a display of good
workmanship. The article "Libraries" is a similar farrago of Namur's
bibliography of bibliographies, Wheatley's book on how to make a
library, Edward Edwards' book on libraries and their founders,
Meusel's biographical dictionary of German artists, and other books
of as little pertinence. There is very useful information to be
gleaned from Courtney's _Register_ and one can easily find it in the
chaff.
We are still too close to the latest bibliographies of bibliographies
to see them in a true perspective.[194] Efforts to make a
comprehensive bibliography of bibliographies continue and a new
development that was foreshadowed in Sabin's restriction of his
work to a single language with "more than a few" titles added to
fill it out is apparent in some less extensive but very excellent
bibliographies of bibliographies.
The death of Vilhelm Grundtvig (1866-1950) and the destruction of his
collectanea during the war make it certain that the bibliography of
bibliographies that he and Joris Vorstius planned will never appear.
He had called for help in the enterprise in an article[195] published
in 1926 and had obtained approval of it at the international meeting
of librarians at Madrid in 1935. During the course of his work he
succeeded in gaining the assistance of Joris Vorstius, whom we
have learned to know as the editor of annual surveys of current
bibliographies. He wrote in 1940 in a review of Theodore Besterman,
_A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_, that his collectanea were
arranged according to countries for submission to various workers
who might criticize and supplement them.[196] The loss of this
compilation is greatly to be regretted because the experience and
good judgment of the two editors make it certain that the book would
have been comprehensive, well-planned, and satisfactorily executed.
On several occasions Grundtvig stated briefly the task of making
a bibliography of bibliographies. His ability to see clearly its
difficulties, his wide reading, and his recognition of the many
types of bibliographical works that must be considered make these
preliminary statements valuable. A long article of 1903 entitled
"Gedanken über Bibliographie"[197] was suggested by A. G. S.
Josephson's pamphlet, which will be mentioned later. Here Grundtvig
points out the varieties of existing bibliographies and their defects
and gives examples of unfamiliar or neglected varieties. For example,
he comments (pp. 415-417) on the lists of antiquarian catalogues
and catalogues of private libraries. Although we now have more
information about these catalogues than Grundtvig found in 1903,
we still have no critical bibliographies of them. He points out
(p. 418) the unsatisfactory quality of bibliographies of ephemeral
publications (chapbooks and the like) and surveys the available
lists. He has, to be sure, overlooked one of the earliest of such
lists--Giovanni Cinelli Calvoli, _Della biblioteca volante_ (Padua,
1677-1716; 2d ed., 1734-1747. ICN [2d ed.])--but it is rare and
virtually unknown. He comments incisively on the lists of collective
biographies (pp. 420, 441) and suggests the need for a more critical
survey of them.[198] Although Grundtvig's article is not easy
reading, it is a very stimulating survey of bibliographies. Any
writer of a bibliography of bibliographies should read it attentively.
Grundtvig's pamphlet of 1919, entitled _Om Bibliografi og
Bibliografier_, is much more conveniently arranged than the article
of 1903. It is a review of the bibliographical chapter in Svend Dahl,
_Haandbog i Bibliotekskundskab_. He finds it very unsatisfactory
and shows how it might have been written. He gives a brief survey
of bibliographies in general (pp. 8-10), comments on the making of
collectanea and their arrangement (pp. 10-13) and the varieties of
bibliographies including those in non-bibliographical works (pp.
14-19), and surveys bibliographies of bibliographies (pp. 19-23),
international bibliographies (pp. 23-25), and national bibliographies
(pp. 25-29). In keeping with his purpose, he names only the most
obvious works.
We come now to the largest of all bibliographies of bibliographies:
Theodore Besterman, _A World Bibliography of Bibliographies_
(1939-1940; 2d ed., 1947-1949). Since the two editions do not differ
essentially in character, I have found it convenient and probably
more helpful to the reader to cite illustrations of Besterman's
method from the second edition and to conclude my remarks with
brief comment on the changes and improvements made in this edition.
The plan of Besterman's book is novel in many details. It is, like
Peignot's _Répertoire_ of 1812, an alphabetical list of many small
headings. Courtney had adopted the same plan in his _Register_
(1905-1912), but few others have seen the great merits of this
arrangement. In giving bibliographical details Besterman goes far
beyond anything that had been previously attempted. He gives more
complete collations than any of his predecessors except Petzholdt
had given, and in several regards surpasses Petzholdt. He describes
carefully such long sets as the _Catalogue of Books in the Library
of the Surgeon Generals Office_ (cols. 1866-1867), the many national
bibliographies made by booksellers or librarians, and the annual
bibliographies of special fields like _The Record of Zoological
Literature_ and its continuation (cols. 3187-3189). He goes beyond
Petzholdt and most other bibliographers by estimating the number of
titles cited in the books that he lists. He ranges farther afield
than any of his predecessors. He includes lists of maps and printed
music, registers of documents and charters, and indexes of laws
and patents. He includes catalogues of manuscripts and specialized
catalogues of books in institutional libraries but not general
catalogues of books owned by the same libraries. He includes a
generous selection of specialized catalogues of private libraries. He
brings more Finnish, Hungarian, and Slavic titles than anyone before
him and regrets his inability to include books in Oriental languages.
In the first edition he intended to cite all bibliographies printed
as books that had appeared before 1936 and succeeded in picking up
a large number of those printed between 1936 and 1939. He says that
he has cited three times as many bibliographies printed before 1860
as Petzholdt had found. This comparison gives an idea of the amazing
extent of Besterman's work.
Besterman sees clearly the difficulties inherent in his choice of an
alphabetical arrangement of many small headings and finds perhaps
the only answer. It is to offer an abundance of cross-references.
Although these headings can be found in special dictionaries that
cite synonyms and related words, it remains to be seen how well they
will stand the test of time. A suggestion of what may happen is
perhaps already to be found in the general unfamiliarity of scholars
with these dictionaries. Librarians know and use them, but scholars
do not. The time may come when only a specialist and indeed only a
specialist acquainted with the history of his discipline will know
the meaning of many headings. The headings used in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries are obsolete. As we have seen, Petzholdt
did not recognize the meaning of philosophy that was accepted in the
early seventeenth century. I have remarked upon the unfamiliarity of
modern students of theology with Peignot's term _théologie positive_.
Can we expect future scholars to perceive readily the difference
between psychiatry and psychoanalysis? Unless they do, they will not
find it easy to use a bibliography of bibliographies arranged as an
alphabetical dictionary of many small headings. There is, as a matter
of fact, no better illustration of these difficulties than the word
"bibliography" itself. This very interesting word needs a historical
and lexicographical investigation that will continue Pierre Frieden's
article, "Bibliographie. Etymologie et histoire du mot," _Revue de
synthèse_, VII (1934), 45-52. During this century "bibliography" has
been used more and more often to refer to either a study of a book as
a physical object or to a list of titles having some common quality.
In such titles as Theodore Besterman, _A World Bibliography of
Bibliographies_, and Norman E. Binns, _An Introduction to Historical
Bibliography_ (London, 1953), the word has two quite different
meanings.
Besterman's enormous compilation does not include all the available
bibliographies. Vilhelm Grundtvig found some four hundred titles that
had escaped Besterman in the first edition and came regretfully to
the conclusion that the hope for a wholly satisfactory international
bibliography of bibliographies was now unlikely to be realized.[199]
His judgment is severe and the second edition has no doubt gone a
long way toward removing these defects. A third edition of the _World
Bibliography_ (1955) is now in process, with the first volume already
off the press. It will contain some 80,000 titles, an increase of
one-third over the second edition.
A few difficulties in Besterman's bibliography concern what have been
called "linked" books. These are works having their own title pages
but issued in conjunction with another book.[200] Unless they have
been catalogued as separate works, they are virtually impossible to
identify. We have already seen what annoyance a title of this sort
can cause in the case of Labbé's bibliography of bibliographies
published in 1653.
I cannot reach a decision altogether satisfactory to myself regarding
Besterman's inclusion of "abridgments of patent specifications"
(I, p. xv). These contain bibliographical information not readily
obtainable from any other source, and my disposition is inclined
toward generosity. By including them Besterman offers a much more
adequate representation of scientific and technological bibliography
than would otherwise have been possible. As he correctly says (I,
p. xvii), an interest in the fields of humane studies has been
predominant in earlier bibliographies of bibliographies. On the
other hand, Besterman seems, in including these abridgments, to
have stretched to the breaking point his rule for the exclusion
of bibliographies contained in non-bibliographical works. If
these abridgments are to be included, then one is tempted to call
attention to the fact that many German doctoral dissertations offer
good bibliographies of small subjects and can be very useful on
occasion.[201]
Any definition of a bibliography is difficult to formulate and even
more difficult to adhere to. I cite only one more illustration of
the problems that arise. Besterman cites (col. 1040) Antti Aarne's
catalogue of printed and manuscript versions of Finnish tales. This
is clearly within his definition of a bibliography. Perhaps a score
of similar catalogues for the tales of countries from Iceland to
Rumania are in existence and might equally well have been cited.
Although it is not made according to Aarne's pattern, the _Typen
türkischer Volksmärchen_ (Wiesbaden, 1953) by Wolfram Eberhard and
P. N. Boratav is a similar catalogue of tales. How far shall one go
in seeking out such extremely technical reference aids as these?
The specialist will know them, and few others can use them with any
comfort. Students of folklore have done a great deal of indexing and
cataloguing and have produced works that can only be separated from
bibliographies with difficulty. What shall one say of John Meier,
_Kunstlieder im Volksmunde_ (Halle, 1906)? This is a catalogue of
German songs that have been heard in oral tradition but can be
traced back to known authors. Meier gives full references to the
sources in both the printed works of the authors and the collections
of folksongs. To return to tales once more, I mention two books of
an apparently wholly bibliographical nature that Besterman does
not mention. A. C. Lee, _The Decameron. Its Sources and Analogues_
(London, 1909) is, as its title indicates, a compilation of tales
related to those in the _Decameron_. The _Anmerkungen zu den Kinder-
und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm_ (5 v.; Leipzig, 1913-1932) by
Johannes Bolte and Georg Polívka is a bibliography of parallels to
the _Household Tales_.
Some details in Besterman's work call for comment or correction,
but their number is negligible in view of the vast number of titles
with which he deals. There are instances in which I should disagree
with him in the classification of titles. For example, the Augsburg
library catalogue of 1600 (col. 626) is not a bibliography of
classical literature but a general catalogue of books and manuscripts
in the Augsburg municipal library. Furthermore, its inclusion
contradicts the principle stated in the Introduction (I, p. xiv)
according to which general catalogues of institutional libraries are
omitted. J. B. Mencken's _Gelehrten-Lexicon_ with the second and
third editions by C. G. Jöcher is cited (col. 331) as a universal
bibliography, but Jöcher's later and much larger revision with its
continuations is cited (col. 343) in a different category as a
select universal bibliography. Errors in names, place names, and
dates appear to be very few. I note that Thomas Cremius (col. 340)
should be Thomas Crenius. Such details scarcely call for comment, and
their lack of importance is itself a characterization of Besterman's
skill. I could wish that the Preface to volume III had explained at
greater length the alphabetization of anonymous titles beginning
with such words as "Catalogue" or "Index." For example, I cannot
find the _International Catalogue of Scientific Literature_ in the
Index, although Section N for Zoology is cited in col. 3188. Nor
is the _International Catalogue_ in the article "Science" (cols.
2725-2749), where a _List of Journals_ connected with it is cited
(col. 2727).
Besterman's bibliography deserves special praise for the fact that
it rests on a personal inspection of virtually all the works cited.
It needs scarcely to be said that he could have executed this task
only at the British Museum or in a few other very great libraries.
We can probably infer that Conrad Gesner handled the bibliographies
that he cited in 1548, but few later workers have been equally
successful in seeing all the books that they name. In this regard
Gabriel Peignot made a long step in advance in the _Répertoire_ of
1812. The character of his comments makes it clear that he had a
firsthand knowledge of the books that he cites. In 1838 his successor
Pie Namur yielded countless times to the temptation to cite books
from secondary sources, which moreover he does not name. In 1866
Julius Petzholdt established the standards of bibliographical
accuracy that ought to be observed and indicated the books that he
had not consulted, but his successors have not in general approached
these standards. It is therefore altogether gratifying to praise
Besterman's attention to such bibliographical details as collations,
the citation of editions, and the identification of pseudonyms. In
addition to these merits the correctness of the Index calls for
particular mention. The bibliographies named in this essay have
not always required an index, but those which do contain one have
usually served their readers poorly. Philippe Labbé was the first but
by no means the last of our bibliographers to offer his reader an
unsatisfactory index. Even Julius Petzholdt left much to be desired
in this regard. The index to Henri Stein's _Manuel_ is conspicuous
for its faults. In comparison with his predecessors Besterman's
success in the making of an index is all the more meritorious.
In a second edition published between 1947 and 1949, Besterman
revised his bibliography to include books printed as late as 1944 and
1945. Since I have referred to this and not to the first edition in
my comments, it is sufficient to quote Besterman's statement of the
differences between the two editions. The improvements and changes
are important to every user of the book but do not affect its nature
in any fundamental way.
Large parts of the field have been surveyed anew, the text has
been minutely revised throughout, and improvements made. The
number of cross-references has been multiplied. Most important,
however, are the new entries, which make this edition over
55 per centum bigger than the first. The number of volumes
recorded and separately collated is now about 65,000. Nearly
all intermediate editions [between the first and last] have
now been deleted; they have only been retained, in fact, for
bibliographies first published before 1800, and for those of
special interest or importance.[202]
And now, five years after the completion of the second edition,
Besterman has begun to print a third edition, which he declares to
be a "final" edition. As he writes in a letter of July 27, 1954,
the new edition will show "the normal increase in size due to the
passage of time." A systematic check of Library of Congress holdings
has enabled him to strengthen considerably the coverage of American
bibliographical publication, north and south. He has also made
renewed efforts to improve the representation of scientific and
Slavic books. The first volume, which is now in proof, will appear
early in 1955 and three more volumes will follow. One lays _A World
Bibliography of Bibliographies_ aside with astonishment that one man
had the courage to conceive the task and the strength to complete
it. In its conception of universality and its success in approaching
completeness Besterman's book is a climax in this history of
bibliographies of bibliographies.
An emphasis on the current usefulness of the works cited is
characteristic of the last four bibliographies of bibliographies
that I shall name. These compilations by Bohatta, Funke, and Hodes;
by Collison; by Malclès; and by Totok and Weitzel are intentionally
selective in nature and will therefore require only brief comment.
Incidentally, they do not owe their origin to Besterman's suggestion:
"it will no doubt eventually become necessary to publish a general
bibliography of _best_ bibliographies" (I, p. xvii), although they
serve this purpose more or less adequately. The practical emphasis in
these four bibliographies betrays the training of their authors in
librarianship.
There is a significant difference between the idea of a bibliography
as a complete record of books on a particular subject or of a
particular kind and that of bibliographies of bibliographies as
they have been ordinarily made. To some extent every bibliography
serves a practical need, but bibliographies of bibliographies have
at first served this need somewhat unconsciously and have served it
more and more deliberately as time has passed. As my comments in
this essay have shown, the bibliography of bibliographies has been
characteristically a tool having immediate practical usefulness.
There are few exceptions to this rule: Namur's careless book of
1838, Besterman's book that we have just examined, and Josephson's
bibliography of bibliographies of bibliographies that we shall
mention at the end of this chapter include works that the compilers
regarded as having historical interest rather than practical value.
Conrad Gesner named in 1548 a considerable number of classical Greek
and Latin works because they seemed to his contemporaries to serve
their needs. This aspect of immediate contemporary usefulness has
remained characteristic of bibliographies of bibliographies down
to the present time. References to classical authorities had still
a certain degree of practical value for Labbé (1664) and Teissier
(1686, 1705). They have disappeared completely or almost completely
from later bibliographies of bibliographies. During the last century
this emphasis on immediate contemporary usefulness has perhaps
expressed itself more clearly in acts than in words. For example,
Peignot in 1812 is already looking in this direction. Although
subsequent bibliographers may include outmoded books, their eyes
turn, as Petzholdt's did in 1866, more and more consciously to modern
writings. The four most recent bibliographies of bibliographies
recognize fully that they intend to be primarily guides to the best
modern sources of information.
In spite of its brave title, _Internationale Bibliographie der
Bibliographien_ (1939-1950), this book by Hanns Bohatta (1864-1950),
Walter Funke, and Franz Hodes belongs on the level of bibliographies
by Durey de Noinville and Michael de San José. It will only rarely
aid either the beginner or the more advanced scholar. It is a
selective bibliography and the choice of titles will satisfy no
one. Obvious books are lacking[203] and worthless compilations are
present.[204] The authors pay little attention to the categories that
they set up.[205] The references are incomplete and inaccurate.[206]
The comments are often misleading or erroneous. For example, the
remark that Giuseppe Fumagalli, _La bibliografia_, is much less
complete than Giuseppe Ottino and Giuseppe Fumagalli, _Biblioteca
bibliografica italiana_, is a fundamental misapprehension of both
works. The first is a handbook of general bibliography; the second
is a bibliography of bibliographies written in Italian or concerned
with Italy. The second book belongs elsewhere and the supplements to
it should be cited at length because they were written, in part, by
other authors. A comparison of the two books is without point. With
all its faults this disorderly _Internationale Bibliographie der
Bibliographien_ yields useful information.[207]
The most ambitious and the best of these four modern selective
bibliographies is L.-N. Malclès, _Les Sources du travail
bibliographique_, I (Geneva, 1950). This deals with general works
and cites almost exclusively bibliographies. A second volume (2
pts., Geneva, 1952), which deals with the humanities, has recently
appeared. A third volume, which will deal with the sciences, is
promised. An abbreviated edition has been published even though
volume 3 has not yet been issued. Both the second and the promised
third volume are subject bibliographies and therefore need no
mention here. The first volume contains some information about books
that are not bibliographies, although they are somewhat similar in
nature to bibliographies. There is, for example, a very interesting
chapter on encyclopedias (pp. 213-224) and another chapter (pp.
225-237) on collective biographies. The wholly practical spirit
of Mlle. Malclès's endeavor appears clearly in her list of German
encyclopedias. She is right in thinking that a modern worker will
rarely look at a German encyclopedia older than Ersch and Gruber
("1818-1889, 97 vol. 4^o [A-Z]"). The reference is, incidentally,
not quite accurate, since large portions of the alphabet were never
written. We hear nothing of the early German encyclopedist J. H.
Alsted, who lived and wrote two generations before Louis Moréri (he
is mentioned as the first French author of an encyclopedia on p.
219), or of Krünitz and Zedler, who wrote vast encyclopedias almost
two centuries ago. Such German works are not appropriate to Mlle.
Malclès's purpose, but their absence means that her book does not
serve a student who wishes to inform himself about the historical
development of encyclopedias. In other words, Mlle. Malclès has
deliberately and successfully satisfied the needs of French scholars.
Mlle. Malclès's admirably organized and very rich list of currently
useful bibliographies is, as Joris Vorstius says in his review,
indispensable to every librarian. Particularly interesting are the
introductory remarks in each chapter. These describe the general
nature of the works listed and offer comparisons and critical comment
on the value and purpose of the different works. This excellent
orientation supplements the brief descriptive remarks attached to
the titles. As I have already implied, _Les Sources du travail
bibliographique_ has been written for French reference librarians.
For this reason Mlle. Malclès is often content to cite secondary
authorities for bibliographies not written in French or concerned
with subjects of minor interest to French students. This admirable
book stands at the peak of selective bibliographies of bibliographies
and is therefore a companion to Besterman's comprehensive work.
Robert L. Collison, _Bibliographies Subject and National. A Guide to
their contents, arrangement and use_ (London, 1951) is a pleasant
little book containing the information promised in its title. It
is a rare example of a bibliography written in a descriptive style
that relieves the tedium of a list. The author has intended to offer
no more than a brief handlist of currently useful works with some
interpretative comments. He has succeeded well in his purpose.[208]
A recently published German counterpart to Malclès and Collison is
Wilhelm Totok and Rolf Weitzel, _Handbuch der bibliographischen
Nachschlagewerke_ (1954). Less comprehensive than the French
book and much richer than the English one, it is a meritorious
compendium of currently useful bibliographies in all fields. The
authors list bibliographies, library catalogues, biographical and
biobibliographical handbooks, general and specialized encyclopedias,
and treatises of various sorts that contain bibliographical
information. Historical and descriptive remarks that are often
very instructive introduce the chapters and sections and critical
comments usually are appended to the titles cited. The choice of
titles will, as the authors no doubt intended, serve best German
readers. For example, no Spanish, Latin American, or Russian
dictionaries of anonyma and pseudonyma are mentioned (pp. 70-73).
I should scarcely agree with the opinion (p. 70) that interest
in dictionaries of this sort subsided after the first decades
of this century. An emphasis on modern writing often leads the
authors to overlook earlier bibliographies that have not lost their
usefulness. For example, Mundt's incomplete list (extending only
to R) of European dissertations published before 1900 (p. 75) is
not "the only means of identifying older university publications
(dissertations)." The _Catalogus dissertationum academicarum quibus
nuper aucta est Bibliotheca Bodleiana MDCCCXXXII_ (Oxford, 1834)
will serve this purpose very well and extends to the end of the
alphabet. Bibliographies of university dissertations were, moreover,
published in the early eighteenth century. I cannot understand why
the authors chose to omit John Meier's enormous bibliography of
German folklore in Hermann Paul, ed., _Grundriss der germanischen
Philologie_, III (2d ed., Strassburg, 1909) or why they preferred
Wilhelm Pessler's handbook of German folklore to the exclusion of the
convenient bibliography in Adolf Spamer, _Die deutsche Volkskunde_
(2d ed. [unchanged], Berlin, 1934-1935). Suggestions of this sort
occur readily enough to any attentive reader and are intended to
characterize the book rather than to point out its deficiencies. In
my opinion, the authors have succeeded well in their intention which
was to write a book occupying a position between a bulky guide to
information and a beginner's handbook ("Vorwort," p. v).
We have come finally to the last bibliography of all. Its date
(1901) entitles it to the first place in this chapter, but it stands
last because it is an even more specialized compilation than a
bibliography of bibliographies. This bibliography of bibliographies
of bibliographies, that is to say, a bibliography in the third
degree, is entitled _Bibliographies of Bibliographies_. The author
is Aksel G. S. Josephson, a former member of the staff of the John
Crerar Library. It is a chronological list of one hundred and
fifty-six bibliographies of bibliographies. The conception is not
new, but this pamphlet is the first separate publication of such a
list. Similar lists are found of course in Peignot's _Répertoire_
of 1812, Petzholdt's _Bibliotheca bibliographica_ of 1866, and a
great variety of other reference works. The pertinent sections in
handbooks of library science, bibliography, and the like are usually
of little interest or value, but Josephson lists them carefully.
Perhaps forty titles that he names are significant. He has chosen
the strange plan of a chronological arrangement of titles and adds
to its inconvenience by providing neither an author nor a subject
index. He has yielded to the temptation to include titles of no
pertinence like treatises on systems of cataloguing (Nos. 41,
43),[209] H. B. Wheatley's _What Is an Index?_ (No. 59), a guide for
making a pastor's library (No. 77), a list of fictitious books (No.
80), and guides to the use of a library (Nos. 67, 69, 104). The many
references to bibliographies in the _Neuer Anzeiger für Bibliographie
und Bibliothekswesen_ are no doubt pertinent but are scarcely as
important as they are numerous. He has probably more references to
bibliographical lists published in journals of library science
than any other source of information.[210] The value of Josephson's
pamphlet lies in an arrangement that makes apparent the historical
development and emphasizes the growth of bibliographical lists in
journals. Mistakes seem to be few.[211]
In making a second edition of the _Bibliography of Bibliographies_
Josephson profited greatly from the long criticism by Vilhelm
Grundtvig that we have already discussed. He replaced the
chronological arrangement by a classified arrangement, within which
he arranged titles chronologically. He added many new titles that he
had found or had excerpted from Grundtvig's criticism. His retirement
from active duty and long delays in publication greatly handicapped
him in producing a satisfactory piece of work.
FOOTNOTES:
[182] Vorstius rightly believed in 1948 that the _Index
bibliographicus_ was entirely out of date; see his _Ergebnisse
und Fortschritte der Bibliographie in Deutschland seit dem ersten
Weltkrieg, Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, Beiheft 74 (Leipzig,
1948), p. 36. Besterman's third edition goes far to meet Vorstius's
objections.
[183] The biographies of Enselin and Engelmann in the _Allgemeine
deutsche Biographie_ are quite inadequate, and Wilhelm Müldener
is not included in it. See several references to the Enslin and
Engelmann firms in the _Katalog der Bibliothek des Börsenvereins der
deutschen Buchhändler_ (2 v.; Leipzig, 1885-1902), I, 221, II, 880.
[184] The United States Government might also be mentioned as a major
supporter of bibliography.
[185] He is referring to lists of books printed on vellum or colored
paper.
[186] He cites no example of such a bibliography.
[187] He is referring to lists of miniature books.
[188] He probably means bibliographies of religious orders but some
of the examples could be put in other classes.
[189] Examples are bibliographies of editions of the Bible, the
_Imitatio Christi_, Ariosto's _Orlando Furioso_, and Tasso's
_Gerusaleme liberata_.
[190] He includes dictionaries of pseudonyma.
[191] He includes bibliographies of obscene books here, but might
perhaps have set up a separate class for them.
[192] This book by Ralph Thomas does not appear in the article
"Pseudonyms."
[193] This does not appear in the list of bibliographical journals at
the end of the article.
[194] I mention here Winslow L. Webber (b. 1898), _Books about Books_
(Boston, 1937), primarily because of its title. This annotated list
of books and articles useful to collectors of incunabula, English and
American first editions and rarities, and Americana does not intend
to be a general bibliography of bibliographies. Webber's comments
are occasionally instructive or entertaining, but his references are
distressingly careless. "Pretsholdt's" (p. 19) for "Petzholdt's"
speaks for itself. The chapter "Magazine References" (pp. 136-162),
which contains a survey of articles published in British and American
journals between 1900 and 1937, is perhaps the most useful part of
the book.
[195] "Bibliographie der Bibliographien--eine internationelle
Angelegenheit," _Archiv für Bibliographie, Buch- und Bibliothekswesen_,
I (1926), 188-200.
[196] _Nordisk tidskrift för bok- und bibliotheksväsen_, XXVII
(1940), 61.
[197] _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, XX (1903), 405-444.
[198] See R. C. Christie's important remarks in "Biographical
Dictionaries" in his _Selected Essays and Papers_ (London, 1902), pp.
1-57.
[199] _Nordisk tidskrift för bok- och biblioteksväsen_, XXVII (1940),
65.
[200] See Joannes Rhodius's list of pseudonyms (col. 130). For the
identification of this see Taylor and Mosher, p. 262.
[201] The example readiest to hand is a dissertation by Hugo Paas
cited in Taylor and Mosher, p. 84, n. 14. This contains a good
bibliography of German studies in the law of pseudonyms.
[202] The quoted passages will be found in the Preface to the Second
Edition (I, p. [vii]) and the Introduction (I, p. xxiii).
[203] I choose examples from the first fascicle. The later fascicles
do not rise above it in quality. Among general works on bibliography
(pp. 3-4) the authors should have mentioned John Ferguson (see above,
pp. 110-111) and David Murray, "Bibliography: its scope and method
with a view of the work of a local bibliographical society," _Records
of the Glasgow Bibliographical Society_, I (1912-1913), 1-105.
[204] Durey de Noinville might have been omitted.
[205] The category of bibliographies of bibliographies (pp. 3-4)
includes bibliographical journals, general bibliographies, special
bibliographies (which should have been put in later sections), and
lists of medieval catalogues of libraries.
[206] For example, "J. B. Childs, Sixteenth-century books. Chicago,
1923" is inaccurate in details and lacks the essential information
that it appeared in the _Papers of the Bibliographical Society of
America_, XVII (1923), 73-152. Olga Pinto, _Repertori bibliografici
nazionali_ is a reprint from a journal and has been replaced by _Le
bibliografie nazionali_ (Milan, 1935), which is now in turn replaced
by a second edition. The books by Alice B. Kroeger and Isadore G.
Mudge are cited separately, but Miss Mudge's _Guide to Reference
Works_ is a revision of the earlier work. The earlier work need not
have been mentioned.
[207] See references to an article on printed catalogues of Scotch
libraries (p. 3), a Russian bibliography of library catalogues (p.
3), and several obscure studies of anonyma and pseudonyma (pp. 19-22).
[208] Bibliographies of bibliographies found in handbooks of library
science and bibliographies of reference works (which may often be
bibliographies) have not been included in this essay. There are good
books of these kinds that might seem to have been overlooked. For
example, Georg Schneider, _Handbuch der Bibliographie_ (4th ed.;
Leipzig, 1930) names only currently useful lists of books and no
bibliographies of subjects. His account of the bibliographies of
incunabula (pp. 85-103) is an excellent introduction to a difficult
subject, but gives no idea of the historical development of these
works and cites the earliest bibliographies (p. 92, n. 1) in such a
way that only an expert can interpret the references. A good American
parallel to Schneider's book is H. B. van Hoesen and F. K. Walter,
_Bibliography, practical, enumerative, historical: an introductory
manual_ (New York, 1928); a new edition is in preparation. John
Minto, _Reference Books_ (2 v.; London, 1929-1931) and Constance M.
Winchell, _Guide to Reference Books_ (7th ed.; Chicago, 1951) are
guides to reference books, not bibliographies of bibliographies,
Frantz Calot and Georges Thomas, _Guide practique de bibliographie_
(Paris, 1936; 2d ed., Paris, 1950) is often a helpful guide to
information, but it is not a bibliography of bibliographies.
[209] The numbers refer to the edition of 1901.
[210] See especially Nos. 153-157. The section "Literatur und
Miscellen" (No. 86) in the _Neuer Anzeiger_ should have been listed
under 1856, when the journal began, rather than under 1886, when it
ceased to appear.
[211] Tosselli (No. 8) is Tonnelli. The description of F. Perennès,
_Dictionnaire de bibliographie catholique_ (No. 33) is incomplete.