BIBLIOGRAPHY.

That branch of knowledge to which the term Bibliography is generally applied would be more correctly designated by the word Bibliology. It was originally employed to denote skill in the perusing and judging of ancient manuscripts; but it is now appropriated to the knowledge of books with reference to their constituent parts, their different editions and degrees of rareness, their subjects, and classes.
[7:4:621]

This species of knowledge has been most successfully cultivated in France, Germany, and Italy; for though it will be seen in the sequel, that Britain has produced some valuable works in this department, it will also appear that our bibliographical labours have been greatly surpassed by the continental nations. It is to France, in particular, that we are indebted for the most popular and useful treatises in bibliography; but whilst we make this acknowledgement, in which all who have had any experience of their utility will concur, we must add, that some of her bibliographers have spoken in very extravagant terms of the nature and rank of this branch of learning. They represent it as a universal science, in whose ample range all other sciences, and all other kinds of knowledge, are comprehended. “La bibliographie étant la plus étendue de toutes les sciences, semble devoir les renfermer toutes,” is the language of one;^[1. Cours Elémentaire de Bibliographie, par Achard. ] “la bibliographie est la plus vaste et la plus universelle de toutes lesconnoissances humaines,” is the language of another.^[2. Dictionnaire de Bibliologie, par Peignot. ] Nothing surely can be more preposterous than to view it in this light, merely because it is conversant about books, and because books are the vehicles of all sorts of knowledge. Yet this is the only foundation that we can discover for these extravagant representations; which tend, as in all other cases of exaggerated pretension, to bring ridicule upon a subject which, were its nature and objects simply and correctly defined, could not fail to appear both useful and important. We have already stated generally what kind of knowledge it is to which the appellation of bibliographical knowledge is applied; but, in order more fully to illustrate its nature, and to point out its limits and utility, we shall endeavour to detail somewhat more particularly the chief objects of inquiry which it embraces.

It is the business of the bibliographer, then, to trace the history of books in regard to their forms and all other constituents, and, consequently, to trace the beginnings and progress of typography. It belongs to him, in a particular manner, to mark the differences of editions, and to point out that edition of every book which is esteemed the most correct and valuable. In the case of books published anonymously, or under feigned names, it is his business to indicate the names of their real authors, in as far as the discoveries of literary history may furnish the means of doing so. All remarkable facts attaching to the history of books, such as the number of their editions, their rareness, their having been condemned to the flames, or suppressed, belong to the province of bibliographical inquiry. Further, every one who engages in any particular line of study must of course wish to know what books have been published in regard to it, or in regard to any particular point that interests his curiosity; and it is the Business of the bibliographer to furnish this most useful species of information; in other words, the compilation of catalogues of those books which have appeared in the various branches of knowledge constitutes another department of bibliography. It is by means of such catalogues that “the student comes to know what has been written on every part of learning; that he avoids the hazards of encountering difficulties which have already been cleared; of discussing questions which have already been decided; and of digging in mines of literature which have already been exhausted.” (Dr Johnson’s Preface to the Catalogus Bibliothecae ĩĩarleianoeC)

Such are the principal objects and pursuits of the bibliographer; and while it must appear abundantly evident that his science has no pretensions to those lofty epithets upon which we have animadverted, it must, we think, be allowed by every one that it comprises many curious as well as interesting subjects of inquiry; and that it is calculated to afford very useful aid⅛ to every other species of intellectual occupation. This view of it will be fully confirmed by the details which we are to offer in the course of this article; in which we propose to point out the progress and best sources of information, in all those departments of knowledge to which we have alluded. In doing so, we shall divide the subject into such heads as shall appear best suited to the purposes intended.

I. Of the Constituent Parts of Boohs, and the Differences of Editions.

The history of the materials employed in the formation of books, of the art of writing and printing upon these materials, and of the forms and sizes in which they have appeared, all belong to this head of inquiry. Almost the whole of these particulars have furnished topics for much elaborate research, and some of them for speculations and disputes not yet brought to any satisfactory conclusion; but as our main object at present is to indicate the inquiries which belong to the different departments of bibliography, together with the best guides to information in each, our notices of the subjects in question must be limited to what is necessary for that purpose. Most of them, indeed, necessarily form the subjects of separate articles in an Encyclopaedia.

Much curious learning has been exercised in describing the various substances used for writings, previously to the important discovery of the art of making paper from linen rags. The precise era of this discovery is not known, nor are authors agreed as to the country in which it was made; but it seems to be ascertained that this kind of paper was in general use in Europe before the end of the fourteenth century. Cotton paper had been in general use more than a century before; and though of greatly inferior quality, its introduction was one of the most fortunate circumstances in the history of the arts; for parchment had become so scarce, that old writings were often erased, in order to apply the parchment to modern purposes; and thus, by a metamorphosis of a singular and fatal kind, a classic was sometimes transformed into a vapid homily or monkish legend. In this way it is supposed that many valuable works of antiquity have perished; and, indeed, there can be little doubt of this, when we consider the number of manuscripts that have been discovered, evidently written upon erased parchments. Parchments of this kind have been called palimpsests, from a Greek word signifying twice rubbed; that is, prepared for writing. (Edinburgh Review, No xcvi. p. 367.) Dr Barret of Trinity College, Dublin, discovered a palimpsest, while examining some books in the library of that college. “When thus employed, he accidentally met with a very ancient Greek manuscript, on certain leaves of which he observed a twofold writing, one ancient, and the other, comparatively recent, transcribed over the former. The original writing had been greatly defaced; but, on close examination, he found that it consisted of the three following fragments :—The Prophet Isaiah, the Evangelist St Matthew, and certain Orations of Gregory Nazianzen. The fragment containing St Matthew’s Gospel Dr Barret carefully transcribed, and it has been accurately engraved in fac-similé, and published by the order and at the expense of the university. The original writing, or Codex Vetus, Dr Barret, with great probability, assigns to the sixth century; the Codex Recens, or later writing, he attributes to the thirteenth.” (Horne’s Introduction to Bib [7:4:622]liography, i. p. 115.) But the most interesting discoveries in this line are those of Angelo Maio, librarian of the Vatican library, to whom we are indebted for a considerable fragment of Cicero de Republica, and fragments of three of his lost orations. The reader will find a curious account of these discoveries, and of the history of palimpsests., in the above-cited article of the Edinburgh Review.

That part of the history of books which regards the various substances upon which they have been written, is compendiously but learnedly treated in the first volume of that very valuable work, the Nouveau Traite de Diplomatique, compiled by two Benedictines of the celebrated society of St Maur. This work was published at Paris in 1750, in six volumes quarto. Μ. Peignot gives a complete list of separate works on this subject in the introduction to his Essai sur l’Histoire du Parchemin et du Vélin, published at Paris in 1812.

The inquiry as to the origin of writing is a purely philosophical speculation; but the knowledge of the different kinds of writing peculiar to different ages is a branch of the history of books which belongs to the province of bibliography, and upon which much information will be found in the above-mentioned work of the Benedictines of St Maur. One of the best books on this subject is Mr Astle’s Origin and Progress of Writing, the first edition of which was published in 1784, and the second, with some additions, in 1803, each in one volume quarto. The chapters on transcribers and illuminators, and the instruments, inks, and other matters which they made use of in their operations, will be found peculiarly interesting to the bibliographer.

We are now so familiar with the wonders and glorious results of printing, that it is only when we look back into the history of the darker ages that we are made fully sensible of all the various advantages which it has conferred upon mankind. The mention of the transcribers, that is, the class employed to copy books before the discovery of printing, naturally gives rise to reflections of this kind. Their ignorance and carelessness occasioned much trouble and mortification to living authors, and irreparable errors in the works of the dead. Petrarch, who flourished in the fourteenth century, has expressed himself in very moving terms in regard to this evil. “How shall we find out a remedy,” says he, “for those mischiefs which the ignorance and inattention of the copyists inflict upon us? It is wholly owing to these causes that many men of genius keep their most valuable pieces unpublished, so that they never see the light. Were Cicero, Livy, or Pliny, to rise from the dead, they would scarcely be able to recognise their own writings. In every page they would have occasion to exclaim against the ignorance and the corruptions of those barbarous transcribers.”^[3. Lambinet, Origine de l’Imprimerie, tome i. p. 38, 39. ] Upon the invention of printing, the class of copyists immediately took alarm, and exerted every means to extinguish an art which, whatever benefits it promised the rest of mankind, held out nothing but prospects of loss to them. They endeavoured, and their example is still steadily followed by other crafts, to set up their own petty interests in opposition to the general good, and called loudly upon the different governments to invest them with exclusive privileges, which all the great interests of society required to be abolished. Thus, when printing was introduced at Paris, the copyists complained of the innovation to the parliament, and that body forthwith caused the books belonging to the printers to be seized and confiscated; but Louis XI. had the good sense to restore their property to these ingenious artists, and to authorize them to proceed in their laudable vocation.

The question as to the origin of printing is of a complexion wholly different from that regarding the origin of writing, as it turns entirely upon matters of fact; but it is not the less true, that it is a subject upon which opinions widely opposite are still entertained; for though this art, we mean the art of printing with movable types, was spread all over Europe within twenty years of the first discovery, it has unfortunately failed to record, in decisive terms, the name of the individual to whom the honour of the invention is due. The place where the discovery was made remains also a subject of doubt and contention. In Mallinkrot’s work, De Òrtu et Progressu Artis Typographicae, published in 1640, he enumerates a hundred and nine testimonies in favour of Mentz as the birthplace of the art, and since that time the number has been greatly augmented; yet one of the latest of those who have engaged in this controversy declares decidedly in favour of Haerlem, which, in Mallinkrot’s day, ranked only thirteen advocates; and further, assigns the wreath which the supporters of Mentz had variously placed on the brow of Guttenberg, of Faust, and of Schoiffer, to Lawrence Coster, as its rightful owner.^[4. See Ottley’s Inquiry into tlx Origin and early History of Engraving, chap. iii. ] All that we can do in this place is to point out some of the works which have been published upon the origin and history of printing, and which it may be necessary for the bibliographer to examine, in order to enable him to judge of early editions; recommending those who wish to see a clear and compendious view of the various opinions which have been advanced upon this subject, to peruse Μ. Daunou’s analysis of these opinions, published in the fourth volume of the Memoirs of the Moral and Political Class of the French Institute.

The Monumenta Typographica of Wolfius, published in two octavo volumes, at Hamburg, in 1740, contains a valuable and curious collection of treatises by various authors, and also of extracts illustrative of the origin and early history of the art. Some of these pieces are in verse. Among several other elaborate tables, it contains one of all the authors who, up to that time, had either directly or indirectly treated of the history or of the mechanical part of printing. Meerman’s Origines Typographicae is one of the most instructive works as to the progress of the art. It is illustrated with various specimens of early printing, and fac-similés of the books called Block-Looks, printed by means of wooden blocks. Meerman, who was a lawyer, and author of many elaborate treatises in the civil and canon law, was born at Leyden in 1722, and died in 1771, six years after the publication of his Origines; in which he supports, with great ardour and learning, the pretensions of Haerlem as the birthplace of the art, and of Lawrence Coster as its inventor. Another work of curious research on the origin and firs) progress of printing is that of Prosper Marchand, originally a bookseller at Paris, but whom the repeal of the edict of Nantz drove to Holland, where he employed himself till his death in 1756, in composing various works m literary history and bibliography. He makes Guttenberg the inventor of the art, and Mentz the place where he completed the invention; the first idea of it, however, having been formed whilst he resided in Strasburg. This work, entitled Histoire de l’ Origine et des premiers Progrès de l’imprimerie, was published in 1740. A valuable supplement, in which some errors of Marchand are corrected, was published by Μ. Mercier, abbé de Saint Leger, in [7:4:623]1773, and republished in 1775. The author of the original work was not at all pleased with this supplement, and he accordingly criticised it with great severity in a long letter addressed to, and published by the editors of the Journal des Savans. The opinion that Guttenberg conceived the first idea of the invention at Strasburg, and afterwards completed it at Mentz, is also supported by Lambinet, in his Becherches historiques, littéraires, et critiques sur ΐ Origine de lPmprimerie, first published at Brussels in 1799, and republished in two volumes octavo at Paris in 1810, with the addition of M. D. Daunou’s treatise already mentioned. Besides the main subject of inquiry, Μ. Lambinet’s work includes various other topics,—such as the history of the substances employed for books, of inks, of engraving in relief, of block-printing, and of stereotype printing. Upon the history of printing, we shall only mention further, Μ. de la Serna Santander’s Essay prefixed to his Dictionnaire Bibliographique, and the Initia Typographica of Professor Lichtenberger, published at Strasburg in 1811; in both of which the claims set up for Coster are treated as fabulous,—Guttenberg being represented as the inventor of the art, and Mentz the place where it was perfected; and in both of which, also, there are ample details as to its progress in other cities and countries.

Besides the information afforded by these general histories as to the diffusion of printing throughout Europe, there are various treatises on its establishment in particular countries and places, which it will often be necessary for the bibliographer to consult. One of the most valuable, particularly to the English bibliographer, is Ames’s Typographical Antiquities, which contains memoirs of our early printers, and a register of their publications, from 1471 to 1600. The first edition, published in 1749, consisted of one volume quarto. Another edition, enlarged by Mr Herbert to three volumes quarto, was completed in 1790; and a third, illustrated with many embellishments, and containing some valuable additions, has been published by the Rev. Dr Dibdin. The French, Germans, and Italians, particularly the latter, are rich in typographical histories of this description; but for accounts of them we must refer our readers to Peignot’s Répertoire Bibliographique Universel, where they are enumerated and described.

A knowledge of the different classes and forms of the letters used in printing is necessary to the accurate description of books, and discrimination of editions. The bibliographer must also be acquainted with the corresponding appellations assigned to the different forms by foreign printers. Thus the form named pica by English printers, is called Cicero by those of France and Germany, because Cicero’s Epistles were printed in that type. The form called paragon is the only one which retains the same name among the printers of all countries. Upon all these points, Stower’s Printers Grammar, and Four-mer s Manuel Typographique, may be consulted with advantage. The latter is rich in specimens very neatly executed.

The books of the ancients were generally in the form of cylinders, made by rolling the joined sheets upon a stick, to the ends of which nobs or balls were affixed, often richly ornamented. In the infancy of printing the sizes were generally folio and quarto; and some have supposed that no books were printed in the smaller forms till after 1480; but Μ. Peignot instances many editions in the smallest forms, of an earlier date; as may be seen in the article Format of the Supplement to his Dictionnaire de Bibliologie. An accurate knowledge of the different forms of books is necessary to the bibliographer, as without it no book can be correctly described; and however easy of acquisition this knowledge may appear, it is yet certain that errors in this respect are sometimes committed even by experienced bibliographers; and that doubts have been entertained as to the existence of editions, owing to their forms having been inaccurately described.^[5. See Boulard, Traité Elémentaire de Bibliographie, p. 38, 39. ] These mistakes generally proceed from this, that there are different sizes of paper comprehended under the same name. But the water-lines in the sheets afford a test; as they are uniformly perpendicular in the folio and octavo, and horizonτ tal in the quarto and duodecimo sizes.

When books have gone through more than one edition, various minute inquiries must often be made, in order to determine the respective merits of those editions. It is a principal object of the bibliographical dictionaries, to be afterwards mentioned, to point out those editions of important works which such inquiries have ascertained to be the best. There are many particulars in which one edition may differ from, or excel another. There may be differences and grounds of preference in size, in paper, and in printing. The text of one edition may be more correct than that either of a preceding or a subsequent one. An author sometimes corrects errors, makes alterations, or introduces new matter when his work comes to be reprinted, thereby giving the edition so altered a decided superiority over its predecessor. One edition may differ from another by having notes, an index, or table of contents, which that other wants; or these accompaniments may themselves furnish grounds of preference by being superior in their kind in particular editions. Plates make great differences in the value of editions, and even in the value of copies of the same edition. In the beautifully engraved edition of Horace by Pine, there is, in the copies first thrown off, a small error, which serves as a test by which bibliographers immediately judge whether any copy has the best impressions of those elegant vignettes which illustrate that edition. The medal of Augustus, on page 108 of the second volume, has, in the copies first thrown off, the incorrect reading Post Est for Potest; this was rectified in the after impressions; but as the plates had previously sustained some injury, the copies which show the incorrect reading are, of course, esteemed the best. Dr Dibdin, in his work on the Bibliomania, points out this as an instance of preference founded on a defect; whereas the ground of preference is the superiority of the impressions, ascertained, without the necessity of any comparison, by the presence of this trifling defect. There are sometimes differences between copies of the same edition of a work,·^[6. Ihe Voyage to Cadiz is sometimes wanting in Hakluyt’s Collection. A reprint is often inserted to supply this want, which maybe n ° wn from the original by this mark, that it has only seven paragraphs in p. 607, vol. i.,whereas the original has eight. The original onds on p . ci , the reprint j m p . 620 . ] and which, therefore, stand to each other in the same relation as if there had been another edition with some variations. Walton’s Polyglot Bible is a celebrated instance. The printing of that great work, for which Cromwell liberally allowed paper to be imported free of duty, was begun in 1653, and completed in 1657; and the preface to it, in some copies, contains a respectful acknowledgement of this piece of patronage on the part of the protector; but in other copies the compliment is expunged, and replaced by some invectives against the republicans; Dr Walton having, on the restoration, printed another preface to the [7:4:624]copies which had not by that time been disposed of.^[7. See vol. i. of Dr Clarke's Bibliographical Dictionary, for some curious details on this point. ] The copies with the original preface are much rarer, and. of course more prized, than those with the loyal one, which latter seems to have helped the author to the bishopric he afterwards obtained.

II. Of Early Printed Boohs·

The productions of the press, in the different countries of Europe, during the century in which printing was invented, have engaged much of the attention of bibliographers, and have been described in various works compiled for that purpose. The first of those productions to which the name of Boohs has been applied, were printed, not with movable types, but with solid wooden blocks; and consisted of a few leaves only, on which were impressed images of saints, and other historical pictures, with appropriate texts or descriptions. These leaves were printed only on one side, and the blank sides were generally, though not always, pasted together, so as to look like single leaves. The ink used was of a brownish hue, and glutinous quality, to prevent it from spreading. These curious specimens of the infant art are called Image Boohs or Bloch Boohs. They have often been largely described, every particular concerning them having been fondly canvassed by bibliographers. Their number is fixed by some at seven, by others carried to ten; but there have been numerous editions of most of them; for they maintained their popularity long after the invention of the art of printing properly so called. One of the most celebrated is the Biblia Pauperum, consisting of forty leaves printed on one side, so as to make twenty when pasted together; upon which, certain historical passages of the Old and New Testament are represented by means of figures, with inscriptions. It was originally intended, as its name imports, for the use of those poor persons who could not afford to purchase complete copies of the Bible. There is a copious account of all the Bloch Boohs, in Baron Heinecken’s learned work, Idee generale dune Collection complette d’Estampes, published in 1771, in one volume octavo. Dr Dibdin’s Bibliotheca Spenceriana contains fac-similés of the figures in several of them, as does Mr Ottley’s History of Engraving.

The first book of any considerable magnitude printed with movable metallic types was the celebrated editio princeps of the Bible, printed at Mentz, between the years 1450. and 1455. It is printed in large but handsome Gothic characters, to resemble manuscript, having two columns in the page, and consisting in whole of 637 leaves, divided into two, three, or four volumes, according to the taste of the binder. The advance from the rude Bloch Boohs, of a few leaves, to this noble monument of early typography, is great indeed; and it is impossible not to regret that there should be still so much uncertainty as to the person whose ingenuity furnished the means of at once raising almost to perfection an art destined ever after to exercise so vast and so beneficial an influence on the affairs of the world. The Psalter, printed at Mentz by Faust and Schoiffer, in 1457, is the first book which bears the printer s name, with the date and place of printing.

In general, in the very early printed books, the name or the printer, the date,^[8. Early printed books are often found with erroneous or falsified dates. (Middleton, vol. iii. p. 236.) Dates are sometimes computed by Olympiads. (Ibid. p. 241.) v t’ , ] and the place of printing, are either wholly omitted, or placed at the end of the book, with some quaint ejaculation or doxology. The pages have no running title, or number, or catch-word, or signature letters,^[9. Signatures are letters of the alphabet placed at the bottom of the page, to show the order of the sheets and leaves. “They were used at Cologne an. 147δ; at Pans 1476; by Caxton, not before 1480.” (Middleton’s Works, voh iii. p. 238.) ] to mark the order of the sheets. The character is uniformly Gothic till 1467, when the Roman type was first introduced. There were no capitals to begin sentences; the only points used were the colon and full stop; and in almost every sentence there were abbreviations or contractions. In regard to these and other peculiarities of early printed books, the reader may consult the following works: The General History f Printing, by Palmer (supposed, however, to have been chiefly written by the celebrated George Psalmanazar); Jungendres, Be Notischaracteristicis Librorum a Typographiae incunabulis ad an. 1500 impressorum; and, Becher ches sur l’ Origine des Signatures, et des Chiffres de Page, par Marolles.

Many of the early printers had peculiar marks or vignettes, which they sometimes placed on the title-page, sometimes at the end of the books printed by them; and most of them also made use of monograms or ciphers, compounded of the initial or other letters of their names. These furnish a clue to the discovery of the printer, where they occur on books without any printer’s name. An acquaintance with them, therefore, is necessary to the bibliographer, because questions occur as to early editions which can only be decided by ascertaining the printer’s name. For explanations of these marks, the following works may be consulted: Orlandi’s Origine e Progressi della Stampa, published at Bologna in one volume 4to, in 1722; and Scholtzius’s Thesaurus Symbolorum ae Emblematum, in one volume folio, published at Nuremberg in 1730. The monograms of the early English printers are explained in Ames’s Typographical Antiquities.

The following works may be mentioned as among the best of those that have been devoted to the description of early printed books: 1. Index Librorum ab inventa Τyρο∙ graphia ad annum 1500, cum notis; 2 vols. 8vo, 1791. This work, by Laire, is one of the most useful of its kind. The descriptions are clear, the notes brief and instructive; and there are four indexes, which furnish the means of ready reference to all the names, titles, places, and bibliographical notices contained in the work. 2. Dictionnaire Bibliographique choisi du quinzième siècle; par Μ. de la Serna Santander; 3 vols. 8vo, 1805. This is a very learned and exact work; and, like the preceding one, embraces only the rarest and most interesting publications of the fifteenth century. 3. Bibliotheca Spenceriana, or a descriptive catalogue of the books published in the fifteenth century, in the library of Earl Spencer; by the Rev. T. F. Dibdin; 4 vols. 8vo, 1814. The abundance and beauty of the facsimiles and other embellishments, as well as the fineness of the paper and printing, render this one of the most splendid bibliographical works ever published in any country. It contains some curious information, enveloped, however, in a much greater proportion of tasteless and irrelevant matter. 4. Annales Typographici ab adi s ιη ^ ventes origine, by Michael Maittaire, published in 4to, as follows: In 1719, volume first, which embraces the period from the origin of printing to 1500; volume second, published in 1722, extends the annals to 1536; and volume third, published in 1726, brings them down, according to the title-page, to 1557; but there is an appendix which affords a partial continuation to 1664. In 1733 the ∏rst volume was republished, with corrections and large additions, and is commonly called the fourth volume. 1 *∙ fifth and last volume, containing indexes, was pubhshe in 1741. As four of the volumes consist each of twe [7:4:625]parts, the work is sometimes bound in five, sometimes in nine volumes. Several supplements to this elaborate work have been published; the most valuable of them, that by Denis, in two volumes 4to, was published at Vienna in 1789, and contains 6311 articles omitted by Maittaire. The latter has enriched his annals with many learned dissertations; and the work is allowed to be the most important that has yet been compiled in England, in any department of bibliography; but though written in this country, the last was the only volume published in it, the others having been given to the world in Holland. 5. Annales Typographici ab artis inventée origine, ad annum 1500, post Mαiτταirii, Denisii, aliorumque doctissimorum virorum curas in ordinem redacti, emendati, et aucti, opera S. W. Panzer; 11 volumes 4to, published at Nuremberg, the first in 1793, the last in 1803. This work, though very defective in point of arrangement, is unquestionably the most complete of its kind that has yet appeared. It comes down to the year 1536, though the title-page of the first volume limits it to the fifteenth century.

The works just described are quite indispensable to every bibliographical collection; but they have a value, we think, independent of the assistance which they afford the bibliographer in his examination of the early productions of the press: they are also calculated to interest the philosopher as curious registers of the extent and objects of intellectual industry, during a period when the human mind began to be acted upon by many new impulses, and to receive the seeds of revolutions destined to change the whole aspect of the intellectual world.

III. Of Rare Books.

Rareness is a circumstance which must, generally speaking, confer some degree of value upon books; and it is therefore one of the objects of bibliography to indicate those books which, in a greater or less degree, come under this category. A passion for collecting books, merely because they are rare, without inquiry as to any literary purpose they may be calculated to serve, is no doubt a very foolish habitude; but it is just as foolish, on the other hand, to ridicule all solicitude about books of this description; for this implies that every valuable book is common,—a notion which no one can entertain who ever has had occasion to follow out any particular line of literary research, to decide upon any fact involved in doubt or controversy, or to speculate upon the progress of knowledge either in the sciences or the arts. With regard to the bibliographical compilations appropriated to the description of books of this class, it may be observed of most, if not. all of them, that they have applied the epithet rare much too vaguely and lavishly. It must, indeed, in a multitude of cases, be exceedingly difficult to speak with precision on this point; so difficult as to render it impossible, we apprehend, to compile a work of this kind which shall not frequently mislead those who consult it.

David Clement, the author of a very learned work of this class, which we shall immediately notice, assigns the following as the different degrees in which books may be said to be rare. A book which it is difficult to find in the country where it is sought, ought to be called, simply, rare; a book which it is difficult to find in any country, 1 ] la y be called very rare; a book of which there are only fifty or sixty copies existing, or which appears as seldom as if there never had been more at any time than that number of copies, ranks as extremely rare; and when the whole number of copies does not exceed ten, this consti tutes excessive rarity, or rarity in the highest degree. This classification of the degrees of rareness is copied from Clement by all subsequent bibliographical writers in this department. It is abundantly obvious, that the justness of the application of these terms to particular books must entirely depend on the accuracy and precision of the knowledge with which they are used.

We cannot in this department, anymore than in others, indicate any but the most prominent and useful books belonging to it. The following, in this view, are particularly worthy of attention :—1. Beyeri Memoriae historicocriticae Librorum rariorum, 1734,8vo. 2. Vogt, Catalogus historicocriticus Librorum rariorum, 1732, 8vo. The last and best edition was published in 1793. In this work the epithet rare is applied with more judgment and knowledge than in most others of the same class. 3. Gerdesii Florilegium historicocriticum Librorum rariorum; first published in 1740, and again in 1763, in 8vo. It was partly intended as a supplement to the above work by Vogt, and therefore notices only those books which are not included in his catalogue. 4. Bibliothèque curieuse, ou Catalogue raisonné des Livres rares, par D. Clement, 1750-60. This work, to which we have just alluded, is compiled upon a more extensive plan than any of the preceding; for, though consisting of nine volumes quarto, it comes down no farther than to the letter H in the alphabetical arrangement of names; terminating here in consequence of the death of the author. Clement is generally blamed, and with justice, for a very profuse and inaccurate application of his own nomenclature; his notes, too, are crammed with citations, and tediously minute; but, on the other hand, it must be allowed that they contain many curious morsels of literary history; and it has, upon the whole, been matter of regret to bibliographers, that the work, voluminous as it must have proved, was not completed. 5. Bibliotheca Librorum rariorum universalis. Auctore Jo. Jac. Bauer, 7 vols. 8vo, 1770-91. This is one of the latest publications of its class. It contains only the titles of books, without any further notices; and it must, therefore, be evident, that seven volumes could not be occupied with the titles only of books justly called rare.

IV. Of the Classics.

It is remarked by Mr Roscoe, “that the coincidence of the discovery of the art of printing with the spirit of the times in which it had birth was highly fortunate. Had it been made known at a much earlier period, it would have been disregarded or forgotten, from the mere want of materials on which to exercise it; and had it been farther postponed, it is probable that many works would have been totally lost which are now justly regarded as the noblest monuments of the human intellect.” (Lorenzo de Medici, chap, i.) The rapid diffusion of the art, and the speedy appearance of the Classics in an imperishable form, afford sufficient proofs of the bent of the age, and the opportuneness of this great discovery. Gabriel Naudĕ observes, that almost all the good as well as bad books then in Europe had passed through the press before the year 1474;^[10. Addition à ľHistoire de Louis Jll. Par G. Naudé. ] that is, within twenty years of the earliest date to which the use of movable types can be carried. Within this period editions had been printed of nearly all the Latin classics. The whole works of some of them, of Cicero, for example, had not yet appeared in one uniform edition; but several of his treatises, the whole of Pliny the elder, of Livy, Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus, Suetonius, Justin, Lucan, Virgil, and Horace, had been published before the end of 1470. Most of the early editions of the classics were [7:4:626]published in Italy. England remained greatly behind her continental neighbours in the naturalization of these precious remains of ancient learning. Of all the classics, only Terence, and Cicero’s Offices, had, in 1540, been published in this country in their original tongue. Caxton and others made use only of French translations in the early versions and abridgements published in England. Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, so well known for his poetical version of Virgil, has, in his preface to that work, commemorated his indignation at the injustice done to “the divine poet” by Caxton’s second-hand translation, in the following curious and emphatic lines:
Thoch Wylliame Caxtoun had no compatioun
Of Virgill in that buk he preyt in prois,
Clepand it Virgill in Eneados,
Quhilk that he sayis of Frensche he did translait,
It has nathing ado therwith, God wate,
Nor na mare like than the Deuil and sanct Austin.
Haue he na thank tharfore, bot lois his pyne;
So schamefully the storie did peruerte,
I reid his work with harmes at my hert,
That sic ane buk, but sentence or ingyne,
Suld be intituiit eftir the poete diuine.
His ornate goldin versis mare than gylt;
I spitte for disspite to se thame spylt
With sic ane wicht, quhilk treuly be myne entent
Knew nevir thre wordis at all quhat Virgill ment.

Almost all the Latin classics had appeared in print before the art was employed upon any Greek author. But the desire to possess printed editions of the latter became general and urgent towards the end of the fifteenth century; and Aldus had the glory of ministering to that desire, by publishing in rapid succession, and with singular beauty and correctness, almost all the principal authors in that tongue. Beginning in 1494 with Musaeus’s Hero and Leander, he printed before 1515, the year of his death, upwards of sixty considerable works in Grecian literature, frequently superadding the learning and cares of the editor to those of the printer. “Yet his glory,” to use the words of Mr Gibbon, “must not tempt us to forget that .the first Greek book, the Grammar of Constantine Lascaris, was printed at Milan in 1476; and that the Florence Homer of 1488 displays all the luxury of the typographical art.” (History, chap. 66.) Besides these works, there had been published before 1494, some Greek Psalters, the Batrachomyomachia of Homer, and the Orations of Isocrates; during that year, the Anthologia Graeca was published at Florence; and the works of Callimachus, of Apollonius Rhodius, and of Lucian, were published at the same place within two years after the first essays of Aldus in Greek printing. Thus, though we have no sort of wish to detract from the just fame of this learned and beautiful printer, we cannot admit the propriety of those eulogies of his biographer Μ. Renouard, in which he is represented as having given an entirely new direction to the art of printing, and indeed to the literary taste of Europe.^[11. Annales de l’Imprimerie des Alde, ou Histoire des trois Maxuce, et de leurs Editions. Par A. G. Renouard. Seconde édition, 3 tom. 8vo, Pans, 1825. ] It is as incorrect in point of fact, as it is unphilosophical, to ascribe to Aldus the production of that taste for Grecian literature which he himself imbibed from the spirit of his age. He saw that there was a great and growing want of Greek books; and his peculiar praise lies in this, that he applied himself to supply it, with much more constancy and skill, and with much more learning, than any other printer of that period. All that we have said on this point is fully corroborated by the account which he has himself given, in his preface to Aristotle’s Organon, published in 1495, or the circumstances which induced him to undertake the publication of the Greek classics. The passage is thus translated by Mr Roscoe (Life of Leo the Tenth, vol. i. p. 110): “The necessity of Greek literature is now universally acknowledged; insomuch that not only our youth endeavour to acquire it, but it is studied even by those advanced in years. We read but of one Cato among the Romans who studied Greek in his old age, but in our times we have many Catos; and the number of our youth who apply themselves to the study of Greek is almost as great as of those who study the Latin tongue; so that Greek books, of which there are but few in existence, are now eagerly sought after. But by the assistance of Jesus Christ I hope ere long to supply this deficiency, although it can only be accomplished by great labour, inconvenience, and loss of time. Those who cultivate letters must be supplied with books necessary for their purpose, and till this supply be obtained I shall not be at rest.”

The Editiones Principes of the classics have always formed capital objects in bibliography, and are sometimes spoken of with a degree of rapture in bibliographical works, which is apt to appear inappropriate and unreasonable to those who value books solely as they are calculated to afford delight or information. The lover of first editions has, however, some plausible reasons to assign in justification of this expensive, and, as some think, factitious passion. These editions are valuable, in the first place, as curious monuments of early typography, and, in the next place, as more faithful representatives of the best ancient manuscripts than any other editions. Earum editionum authoritatem, says Maittaire, αZfi - s omnibus essepraferendarn, quippe quae sola MSS. fide nitatur. This ground of preference, however, has some learned oppugners. Schelhorn, in his Amaenitates Literariae, speaks of those to whom we are indebted for the first editions of the classics, as, in general, very ignorant men; quite incapable to collate manuscripts themselves, and seldom taking assistance from those who were. The first manuscript that could be procured, it has been said by others, and not that which, after a careful collation, appeared entitled to a preference, was hastily committed to the press, in order to take advantage of the recent discovery. Thus Graevius, in the preface to his edition of Cicero De Officiis, states, that the celebrated editio princeps of that work, by Faust, was printed from a very inaccurate manuscript.^[12. See a curious chapter on First Editions in Marchand’s Histoire de l’imprimerie. He mentions, as a piece of extreme folly, tl> al one hundred guineas had been paid for a copy of the first edition of Boccaccio; but if that price deserved such a censure, what epithet snail we bestow on the purchase of a copy at the enormous sum of L.2260? ] On the other hand, there are many who view those editions in the same light with Maittaire. Μ. La Grange assures us, in the preface to his French translation of Seneca’s works, that he never, in any case of difficulty, consulted the edih(> princeps of 1475, without finding there a solution of his doubts; adding generally, que ceux qui stwdient les auteurs anciens, soit pour en donner des éditions correctes, soit pour les traduire dans une autre langue, doivent avoir sans cesse sous les yeux les premiers éditions de ces auteurs· J° the same purpose, Μ. Santander observes, that the editf> princeps of Pliny the elder, printed at Venice by Spira in 1469, is in many places more accurate than the celebrated edition of Father. Hardouin. The truth seems to be, that though many first editions have a real literary value, for such purposes as are specified by Μ. La Grange, there are others which have no value save what their extreme[7:4:627] rareness gives them; that, therefore, they who scoff at, and they who laud indiscriminately, these literary rarities, are equally in the wrong: in a word, that we must apply a different rule of estimation to the first editions of an Aldus, and those of such printers as Sweynheim and Pannartz.^[13. When Dr Dibdin tells us, Introduction io the Classics, v. Aulus Gellius, “that all the first editions printed by Sweynheym and Pannartz are considered as particularly valuable by the curious in bibliography,” he should have added, chiefly on account of ‘ ξ ιr great rarity, not on account of their accuracy. ]

The classics have often been published in sets more or less complete, and more or less estimable for beauty, correctness, commentaries, and so forth. Lists of all these sets, with remarks on their relative extent and merits, will be found in the bibliographical works to be immediately mentioned. As the origin of the Delphin collection forms an interesting piece of literary history, it may not be improper to notice it more particularly. This celebrated body of Latin classics was originally destined for the use of the Dauphin, son of Louis XIV.; and was projected by his governor the Duke of Montansier. This nobleman, who, though a courtier and soldier, was both a philosopher and a scholar, had been in the habit of carrying some of the classics along with him in all his campaigns; and had often experienced impediments to their satisfactory perusal, from the recurrence of difficulties and allusions which could not be removed or explained without books of reference too bulky for transport on such occasions. It was in these circumstances that the idea first occurred to him of the great utility of a uniform edition of the principal classics, in which the text of each should be accompanied with explanatory notes and illustrative comments; and when he became governor to the dauphin, he thought that a fit opportunity to set on foot an undertaking calculated to prove so useful to the studies of the young prince. Huet, bishop of Avranches, then one of the dauphin’s preceptors, was accordingly-commissioned to employ a sufficient number of learned men for this purpose, and to direct and animate the undertaking. Once every fortnight they came to him on a stated day, each with the portion of his work which he had finished in the interval, to undergo his inspection and judgment. The copious verbal indexes, which constitute so valuable a portion of these editions, were added at his suggestion; but not without considerable opposition on the part of his assistants, who were appalled by the prospect of so much irksome labour as would be necessary to do justice to this part of the plan. {Memoirs of Huet’s Life, book v.) The collection, including Danet’s Dictionary of Antiquities, extended to sixty-four volumes quarto, “It is remarkable,” says Dr Aikin, in one of the notes to his excellent translation of Hueis Memoirs, “that Lucan is not among the number. He was^too much the poet of liberty to suit the age of Louis

The following may be noticed as among the most useful bibliographical accounts of the classics: 1. A View of die various Editions of the Greek and Roman Classics, with Remarks, by Dr Harwood. This work, first published in 1775, has gone through several editions; the larger works of the same kind, to which it gave rise, not having superseded it as a convenient manual in this department of bibliography. 2. Dcgli Autori Classici, sacri e profani, Greei e Latini, Biblioteca portatile; 2 vols. 12mo, Venice, L93. This work was compiled by the Abbé Boni and Bartholomew Gamba, and contains a translation of the preceding, with corrections and large additions, besides criticisms on the works of bibliographers, and a view of the origin and history of printing. 3. An Introduction to the Knowledge of Rare and Valuable Editions of the Classics, by T. F. Dibdin, D. D. The first edition was published in 12mo in 1803; but it has since been greatly enlarged in the subsequent editions, the last of which appeared in 2 vols. in 1827. The utility of this work is considerably enhanced by the full account which it contains of Polyglot Bibles, of the Greek and Latin editions of the Septuagint and New Testament, and of lexicos and grammars. 4. A Manual of Classical Bibliography, by J. W. Moss, B. A. in 2 vols. 8vo, published in 1825. This useful work contains a full account of the translations of the classics, published in the different languages of Europe, with notices of critical and illustrative comments on the various classical authors. The prices obtained for the rarer editions at public sales are also specified.

The improved editions, by Harles and Ernesti, of the Bibliotheca Groeca and Bibliotheca Latina of Fabricius, are well known to the learned as immense magazines of information in regard to the classics and classical literature; but as they extend over a much wider field of inquiry than is embraced by bibliography, it does not belong to our present subject to give a more particular account of them.

V. Of Anonymous and Pseudonymous Boohs.

The great number of books published anonymously, as well as under false or feigned names, early directed the attention of the learned to this branch of bibliographical inquiry. In 1669 Frederic Geisler, professor of public law at Leipsic, published a dissertation De Nominum Mutatione, which he reprinted in 1671, with a short catalogue of anonymous and pseudonymous authors. About the same period a similar but more extensive work had been undertaken by Vincent Placcius, professor of morals and eloquence at Hamburg, and which was published in 4to in 1674, with this title, De Scriptis et Scriptoribus, anonymis atque pseujdonymis, Syntagma. Four years thereafter, John Decker, a learned German lawyer, published Conjectura de Scriptis adespotis, pseudepigraphis, et supposi-titiis, which was republished in 1686, with the addition of two letters upon the same subjects, one by Paul Vindingius, a professor at Copenhagen, and the other by the celebrated Peter Bayle. In 1689 John Mayer, a clergyman of Hamburg, published a letter to Placcius under this title, Dissertatio Epistolica ad Placcium, qua anony-morum et pseudonymorum farrago exhibitur. Placcius, meanwhile, had continued his inquiries; and after his death the fruits both of his first researches and additional discoveries were embodied in one work, and published in a folio volume, at Hamburg, in 1708, by Mathew Dreyer, a lawyer of that city. The work was now entitled Theatrum Anonymorum ct Pseudonymorum; and, besides an Introduction by Dreyer, and a Life of Placcius by John Albert Fabricius, it contains, in an appendix, the before-noticed treatises of Geisler and Decker, with the relative Letters of Vindingius and Bayle, as well as Mayer’s Dissertatio Epistolica addressed to Placcius. This very elaborate work contains notices of six thousand books or authors; but it is ill arranged, often inaccurate, and three fourths of it are made up of citations and extracts, equally useless and fatiguing.^[14. See the copious article on Placcius, in Chaufepié’s Nouveau Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, tom. iii. ]

A part of this subject, that relating to books published under false or fanciful names, had been undertaken in France by Adrian Baillet, nearly about the same period [7:4:628]that Placcius commenced his inquiries. In 1690 this author published his Auteurs Oéguises; but this is little more than the introduction to an intended catalogue of such authors, which Baillet never completed; being deterred, as Niceron says, by the apprehension that the exposing of concealed authors might some way or other involve him in trouble. In this piece, which was reprinted in the sixth volume of De la Monnoye’s edition of Baillet’s Jugemens des Savans, there are some curious literary anecdotes, particularly those illustrative of the rage which prevailed after the revival of letters for the assumption of classical names. In Italy these names were so generally introduced into families, that the names of the saints, hitherto the common appellatives, almost disappeared from that country.

The taste for this species of research, which the work of Placcius had diffused in Germany, produced several supplements to it in that country. In one published at Jena in 1711, under the name of Christopher Augustus Neumann, there is, besides the list of authors, a dissertation upon the question, Whether it is lawful for an author either to withhold or disguise his name? which question he decides in the affirmative. This work is entitled De Libris anonymis et pseudonymis Sclιediasma, complectens observationes generales, et Spicilegium ad PLACCIl Theatrum. But the most considerable of these supplements was that published by John Christopher Mylius, at Hamburg, in 1740. It contains a reprint of the Schediasrna of Neumann, with remarks, and a list of three thousand two hundred authors, in addition to those noticed by Placcius. The notices of Mylius, however, are limited to books in the Latin, German, and French languages.

About the middle of the last century the Abbé Bo-nardi, librarian to the Sorbonne, undertook a dictionary of anonymous and pseudonymous works; but he died without publishing it. The manuscript is said to have been carried to Lyons, and, it is supposed, was destroyed there during the disorders that followed the revolution. In the third volume of Caillcau’s Dictionnaire bibliographique, published in 1790, there is a separate alphabet for anonymous books, which occupies about half the volume. It comprises books in all languages, but those only which the compiler thought rare or curious. The last, and by far the best work in this department, is the Dictionnaire des Ouvrages Anonymes et Pseudonymes, by M. Barbier, librarian to the late emperor of France. A second edition, greatly enlarged, was published in four vols. 8vo in 1822-27. It comprises a vast number of articles; but the plan does not extend to any English, German, or Italian works, except those which have been translated into the French language. Works of this class are more particularly useful in regard to the literary productions of periods and countries which have been greatly restricted in the liberty of the press.

VI. Of Condemned and Prohibited Books.

Books supposed hurtful to the interests of government, religion, or morality, have sometimes been condemned to the flames, sometimes censured by particular tribunals, and sometimes suppressed. Such methods of destruction have been followed in various countries, both with respect to their own productions and those of their neighbours. In some countries, lists of the books prohibited within them have from time to time been published; and in these lists are often found the most highly-prized productions of the literature of other nations. This constitutes, indeed, a melancholy portion of the history of books; for though the facts which it collects sometimes amuse by their folly they oftener excite indignation and pity at the oppressions of power, and the sufferings of learning.

The practice of condemning obnoxious books to the flames is of very ancient date. The works of Protagoras of Abdera, a disciple of Democritus, were prohibited at Athens, and all the copies that could be collected were ordered to be burnt by the public crier. Livy mentions, that the writings of Numa, found in his grave, were condemned to the flames, as being contrary to the religion which he had himself established. Augustus caused two thousand books of an astrological cast to be burnt at one time; and he subjected to the same doom some satirical pieces of Labienus. Tacitus mentions a work which the senate, under Tiberius, condemned to the fire for having designated Cassius as the last of the Romans.^[15. -See the chapter on Book Censors in Professor Beckmann’s History of Inventions. ] This practice was early introduced in the Christian world. “After the spreading of the Christian religion,” says Professor Beckmann, “the clergy exercised against books that were either unfavourable or disagreeable to them the same severity which they had censured in the heathens as foolish and prejudicial to their own cause. Thus were the writings of Arius condemned to the flames at the council of Nice; and Constantine threatened with the punishment of death those who should conceal them. The clergy assembled at the council of Ephesus requested Theodosius II. to cause the works of Nestorius to be burnt, and this desire was complied with. The writings of Eutyches shared the like fate at the council of Chalcedon; and it would not be difficult to collect examples of the same kind from each of the following centuries.”

When the Popes prevailed upon the nations of Christendom to acknowledge their infallibility in all matters appertaining to religion, they also took upon themselves the care and the right of pointing out what books should or should not be read; and hence originated those famous Expuxgatory Indexes which furnish such ample materials for the bibliography of prohibited books. There is a copious list of these Indexes in the work of Peignot, to be immediately noticed. The next step in the progress of usurpation was the licensing of books. By the council of Lateran, held at Rome in 1515, it was ordered that all books should, previously to publication, be submitted to the judgment of clerical censors, “To fill up the measure of encroachment,” says Milton, “their last invention was to ordain that no book should be printed, as if St Peter had bequeathed them the keys of the press also as well as of paradise, unless it were approved and licensed under the hands of two or three gluttonous friars. Till then books were ever as freely admitted into the world as any other birth; the issue of the brain was no more stifled than the issue of the womb; no envious Juno sat cross-legged over the nativity of any man’s intellectual offspring.” (Liberty of unlicensed Printing.)

The following works contain accounts of condemned and prohibited books, and of the Indices Expurgatorii<

1. Dissertatio historicoliteraria de Libris Combustis, in the seventh volume of Schelhorn’s Amcenitates Literari(e. ∏ ιe same subject is resumed in the eighth and ninth volumes.

2. Index generalis Librorum prohibitorum a Pontificis auc toritate; in usum Bibliothec.ceBodleianae; by Tho. James, 1627. 3. Francus De Papistarum Indicibus Librorum prohibitorum, published at Leipsic in 1684. 4. Thesaurus Bibliographicus ex Indicibus Librorum prohibitorum conges? tus, published at Dresden in 1743. 5. DictionrMire Cd ι ' tique et Bibliographique des principaux Livres condamnés au feu, supprimés ou censurés, par G. Peignot, 2 vols.
[7:4:629]

8vo, Paris, 1806. This book is amusing, and gives a copious list of Indices Expurgatorii, as well as of authors who have treated of the subject of condemned books in general; but it cannot be allowed that it contains any thing approaching to a complete enumeration of the principal works which conic within the scope of the title-page. There are very few English books noticed, either those condemned in this country or those prohibited in others; though in this latter class the most valuable of our philosophical and literary works -would be found. One of the most preposterous sentences of prohibition incurred by an English author is that mentioned in a letter from Sir John Macpherson,while in Spain, to Mr Gibbon; namely, that Smith’s Wealth of Nations was prohibited there, “on account of the lowness of its style and the looseness of its morals.” (Gibbon’s Posthumous Works, vol. iii.)

We should like to see an accurate account of works which have been condemned to the flames, or suppressed, in Britain. In former times we should find some as abominable instances of oppression in this particular as ever disgraced the worst governments of continental Europe. The proceedings against Prynne, on account of his His-trwnιαstix or Players Scourge, furnish a noted example. We wish we could add, that these proceedings have always been mentioned by our historians in the terms which their singular atrocity is calculated to call forth from every heart that has one chord in unison with the rights of humanity. Prynnc, who was by profession a lawyer, is characterized by Mr Hume as being “a great hero among the puritans.” He was in truth a very fanatical person; but his learning was immense, his courage unconquerable, and his honesty certainly as great as that of any of his opponents or oppressors. His Histriomastix, a quarto of upwards of a thousand closely printed pages, with all its margins studded with authorities, came out in 1633, and was intended to decry all dramatic amusements and all jovial recreations, and to censure the lax discipline and the popish ceremonies of prelacy. In the alphabetical table at the end of the volume there is a reference in these words—“Women actors, notorious whores and as the queen sometimes took a part in the dramas played at court, it was alleged that Prynne pointed at her majesty in this reference, and that the book was in fact intended as a satire upon the government. He was accordingly prosecuted in the star-chamber for a libel. The book (which the judges described as a huge misshapen monster, in the begetting of which the devil must have assisted) was condemned to be burned; and, after the example of foreign countries, this was ordered to be done, for the first time in England, by the hands of the hangman. It was ordered that Mr Prynne should be expelled from Oxford, he being a graduate of that university; and also from the bar. He was further sentenced to pay a fine of L.5000, and to endure perpetual imprisonment: but this was not all; he was condemned to stand in the pillory on two successive days, in Westminster and Cheapside, there, on each day, to have an ear cut off. One of the judges, who represented the queen’s virtues as such that neither oratory nor poetry could do any thing like justice to them, was for making the fine L.10,000; stating that he knew it was much more than Mr Prynne was worth, yet far less than he deserved to pay; and expressed a further wish, that his β ose should be slit, and his forehead burned, in addition to the loss of his ears, because he might buy himself a periwig, and so hide that loss.^[16. See Prynne’s Trial, in the Collection of State Trials. ] The book, which involved its author in such unprecedented calamities, had actually been licensed, according to the regulations which then obtained; but it was stated that the licenser had not read the whole of it. Well might Sir Simonds D’Ewes speak of this as a terrifying trial. “Most men,” says he, “were affrighted to see that neither Mr Prynne’s academical nor barrister’s gown could free him from the infamous loss of his ears; and all good men conceived this would have been remitted; many asserted it was, till the sad execution of it. I went to see him a while after,” continues Sir Simonds, “in the Fleet, to comfort him; and found in him the rare effects of an upright heart, by his serenity of spirit and chearful patience.”^[17. See Extracts from a manuscript Journal of I) , E wes’s Life, published in Nichols’s Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. XV. ] The account which Mr Hume gives of this nefarious trial and sentence, dwelling chiefly on the acrimonious and ridiculous parts of Prynne’s character and book, wholly passing over the sycophancy of his judges, and but gently censuring their appalling and ruthless cruelty, is characteristic enough of his general principles and manners; and well calculated to show that, with all his penetration and philosophic spirit, and charms of style, he was still deficient in some qualities of an historian, without which, history cannot be rendered profitable either to rulers or their subjects.

VII. Of Eibliographical Dictionaries and Catalogues.

The works which fall to be considered under this section, sometimes called Dictionaries, sometimes Catalogues, and sometimes Bibliothecae, constitute the most generally useful and interesting class of bibliographical publications. By showing what has been written in all the various branches of human knowledge in every age and country, they act as useful guides to the inquiries of every class of the learned; while, by pointing out the differences of editions, they constitute manuals of ready information to the professed bibliographer.

Works of this class are called general or particular, according as their object is to indicate books in all, or in one only, of the departments of science and literature. The former only aspire to point out rare or remarkable books; for no attempt has yet been made, or probably ever will be made, to compile a universal Bibliographical Dictionary. On the other hand, it is the object of particular dictionaries to notice all, or the greater part, of those books which have been published on the subjects which they embrace; and hence their superior utility to such as are engaged in the study of any particular science or subject.

The works of the former class which chiefly demand our notice are the following :—1. Bibliographie Instructive, ou Traite de la Connoissance des Livres rares des singuliers, par G. F. de Bure; in seven volumes octavo, published at Paris between 1763 and 1768. The books described in this work are arranged, in appropriate subdivisions, under the five grand classes of Theology, Jurisprudence, Sciences and Arts, Belles Lettres, and History; and the classification which it exemplifies is that generally followed by foreign bibliographers. The names of the authors in all these classes are arranged alphabetically in the last volume; but it has no index to anonymous works, a want, however, which was afterwards supplied by another hand, in a thin octavo volume published in 1782, entitled Bibliographie Instructive, tome dixième. This is called the tenth volume, because De Bure had himself published a supplement of two volumes in 1769. Its title is, Supplement a la Bibliographic Instructive, ou Catalogue des Livres de Louis Jean Gaignat. De Bure was a bookseller at Paris, of great eminence in his profession, but still more distinguished for extensive information in all [7:4:630] matters appertaining to bibliography and literary history; and, accordingly, his work is still the delight of bibliographers, though it has been followed by others which indicate a much greater number of books, and which also in some particulars excel it in accuracy. 2. Dictionnaire Typographique, Historique, et Critique, des Livres rares, estimes et recherchés en tous genres, par J. B. L. Osmont; 2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1768. This work is more ample in notices of Italian books than that of De Bure. 3. Dictionnaire Bibliographique, 3 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1790. This work, generally known under the name of Cailleau’s Dictionary, was compiled, according to M. Barbier and others, by the Abbé du Clos. It was republished in 1800, with a supplementary volume, by M. Brunet. It has been already mentioned that the third volume has a separate alphabet for anonymous books. 4. Manuel du Libraire et de l’Amateur de Livres; contenant, lo, Un nouveaux Dictionnaire Bibliographique; 2o, Une Table en forme de Catalogue Raisonne; par J. C. Brunet. This work was first published in three volumes octavo in 1810. A third edition, much enlarged, appeared in 1820, in 4 vols. 8vo. It contains a much greater proportion, both of English and of German books, than any of the preceding compilations; and its plan is such as to afford all the advantages both of a dictionary and a classed catalogue; three of the volumes being employed to indicate books under their names in alphabetical order, and the fourth to class them, divested of all bibliographical details, according to the system generally followed. The prices of the rarer editions are given from the principal sales that have taken place in France and other countries; so that, upon the whole, this work, though it bas less literary interest than that of De Bure, is probably the best bibliographical dictionary extant for the purposes of the professed bibliographer.

In the class of general bibliographical dictionaries we must also place the following work, though its limitation to books in the learned and eastern languages renders it much less general in its plan than those we have described. It is entitled A Bibliographical Dictionary, containing a Chronological Account, alphabetically arranged, of the most curious and useful Boohs in all departments of Learning, published in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and other eastern Languages. It was published in 1803, by Dr Adam Clarke, in six volumes duodecimo. To the principal works noticed in this dictionary, there are added biographical notices and criticisms; but the author would have judged more wisely had he included books in the modern languages, instead of deviating so largely, and with but small pretensions to novelty, into the provinces of biography and general criticism. The supplement, which he published in two duodecimo volumes in 1806, under the title of The Bibliographical Miscellany, contains, among other matters, an account of English translations of the classics, and theological writers; a list of the cities and towns where printing was established in the fifteenth century; and a list of authors on literary history and bibliography.

Some writers have complained, particularly M. Camus, that these bibliographical dictionaries have been too exclusively devoted to the indication of rare and curious books; and that they notice but few comparatively of those whose value consists only in their utility. “Je voudrois,” says he, “qu’on suppléât à ce défaut; et que, dans une bibliographie formée sur un non nouveau plan, on indiquât quels sont, relativement à chaque genre de connoissance, les livres les plus instructifs.”^[18. Memoires de l’Institut National; Classe, Litt, et Beaux Arts, tom. ii. ] The Manuel of M. Brunet, we may observe, which was published subsequently to the period of this remark, contains the titles of a much greater number of useful books than are to be found noticed in any of the other general bibliographical dictionaries; but it certainly does not, and indeed was not intended, to realize the idea of such a dictionary as was wished for by Μ. Camus.

It has sometimes also been alleged that these dictionaries, by pointing out so many curious books and rare editions, have contributed greatly to the diffusion of the bibliomania. We do not doubt that they may have helped to do so; but the truth is, that this disease has a much deeper root in the vanities of human nature, and is of much more ancient date, than some persons seem to imagine. It gave great offence to Socrates and to Lucian;^[19. Lucian’s piece, called in I rancklin’s translation of his works The Illiterate Book-Hunter, is perhaps the bitterest satire ever printed upon book-collectors who are not book-readers. ] and its prevalence among his countrymen had called forth the animadversions of Bruyère, long before the popular work of De Bure gave such an acknowledged zest and pungency to the taste for amassing literary curiosities.

The number of dictionaries and catalogues applicable to particular departments or provinces of learning, is much too great to permit us to do any thing more than to point out a few of them. Lipenius, a learned German divine and professor, born in 1630, and who died in 1692, worn out, as Niceron says, by labour and chagrin, compiled a Bibliotheca Theologica, a Bibliotheca Juridica, a Bibliotheca Philosophica, and a Bibliotheca Medica, making in all six volumes folio. The Bibliotheca Juridica has been several times reprinted, and two supplements have been added to it; one by Schott, published at Leipsic in 1775, and the other by Senkenberg, also published there in 1789, making in all four volumes folio. An immense number of books are indicated in each of these Bibliotheca of Lipenius; of all of which the plan is to arrange the books alphabetically according to their subjects; each Bibliotheca having also an alphabetical table of the names of the authors whose works are arranged under the alphabet of subjects. The Bibliotheca Juridica, owing to the corrections and additions which it has received, forms by much the most valuable part of this series. In regard to jurisprudence, we may further mention Bridgman’s Legal Bibliography; and the valuable work of M. Camus, entitled Lettres sur la profession d ’ Avocat, et Bibliothèque choisi des Livres de Droit. There are some truly excellent catalogues of works in the sciences and in natural history. Such are Dr Young’s Catalogue of Works relating to Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts, annexed to his Lectures on Natural Philosophy; the Bibliotheca Mathematica of Murhard; the Bibliographie Astronomique of La Lande; and the Catalogus Bibliotheca Historice Naturalis Josephi Banks, by Dr Dryander, which, though the title seems to promise only the catalogue of a private library, is allowed to furnish the most complete and best-arranged view of books in natural history ever published in any country. In the great departmentorhistory there have been published various Bibliotheca, some of them embracing the historical works of all ages and nations; others, those only which relate to particular countries. The Bibliotheca Historica of Meusel, an immense work, is of the former class. It includes voyages and travels; but of books of this class there is an excellent separate catalogue in six volumes octavo, by d∙ Boucher de la Richarderie, published at Paris in 1808. We must observe, however, that this work would have [7:4:631]been better suited to the legitimate ends of such a compilation had the author confined himself to bibliographical notices, and wholly refrained from those long extracts by which his book has been so much enlarged. Of the class of Bibiiothecce applicable to the history of particular countries, the Bibliothèque Historique de la France, originally published in 1719, in one volume folio, but in the last edition, published between 1768 and 1778, extended to five volumes, is by far the most splendid and perfect example. It contains nearly fifty thousand articles, as well manuscript as printed, methodically arranged under the different heads of French history to which they relate, and accompanied with a complete set of indexes to authors and subjects.

We must refer such of our readers as are desirous of seeing a fuller list of catalogues of books in the different branches of knowledge, to the Repertoire Bibliographique Universel of Μ. Peignot, a useful but ill-arranged work.

VIII. Of the Classification of Books.

The classing of books in a catalogue, so as to furnish a systematic view of the contents of an extensive library, is a task of much difficulty and importance. In order to this, it is necessary to refer every book to its proper place in the general system of human knowledge; and to do so with precision, it is necessary to have clear and exact ideas of the scope and objects of all the departments and branches of which that system consists. The utility of catalogues so classed is very great, and consists obviously in this, that the books upon any subject are found at once by referring to the proper head, whereas in alphabetical catalogues the whole must be perused before we can ascertain what books they contain upon the subject which immediately interests us. All who duly consider the matter, therefore, must concur in Dr Middleton’s brief and emphatic description of such an undertaking, as res sane magni momenti, multique sudoris. ^[20. See his very judicious tract, entitled Biblìothecae Cαηtαbrig⅛nsis ordinandae Methodus, in the fourth volume of his works. ]

Whether classed catalogues were in use among the ancients, is a piece of information which has not descended to us. The first who is known to have written upon the subject was a German, named Florian Treffer, who, in 1560, published, at Augsburg, a method of classing books. Cardona in 1587, and Scholt in 1608, published treatises upon this subject; and, in 1627, Gabriel Naudĕ, a writer of no small celebrity in his day, published his Avis pour dresser one Bibliothèque, in which he treats of the principles of classification. The catalogue which he compiled of the library of the Canon de Cordes, afterwards purchased by Mazarin, was published in 1643, and is esteemed a curiosity among bibliographers. In the early part of the eighteenth century, Gabriel Martin, a learned Parisian bookseller, who seems to have been much employed in compiling catalogues, chalked out a system of arrangement, which, in a great degree, superseded all others, and, m its leading divisions, is still generally followed on the Continent. Various other systems have, however, been proposed by the bibliographers of France and Germany; but, before proceeding to any particular notice, either of the system of Martin or of those which differ from it, we must observe, that all who have written upon the subject seem to have confounded two things, as we think, perfectly distinct,—-the arrangement to be followed in the catalogue of a library, and that to be followed in placing its books. They all suppose the same nicety and exactness of classification to be equally necessary and equally practicable in both. Now, we must remark, that where there is a classed catalogue, the grand objects of a systematic arrangement are sufficiently provided for, independently of the location of the books; and if there should not be a classed catalogue, it seems very clear that the bulk of those who frequent a public library could derive little if any benefit from an accurate classification of books on the shelves, even supposing it practicable to effect and maintain it. The chief end of any arrangement to be effected on the shelves ought to be to aid the memories and abridge the labour of the librarians; and all that is useful in this respect may be accomplished by means of a much ruder plan than could be tolerated in any catalogue pretending to classification.

The system generally followed, as we have already mentioned, is that of Martin, which divides books into the five great classes of theology, jurisprudence, sciences and arts, belles lettres, and history. Each of these classes has divisions and subdivisions more or less numerous, according to the number of the branches to be distinguished; and it is in the distribution of these that the chief differences are found in foreign catalogues; though the divisions and subdivisions of De Bure, as exemplified in his Bibliographie Instructive, are those commonly followed. Some bibliographers, however, have proposed to alter the order, others to diminish, and some to increase the number of the primitive classes; whilst a few have proposed systems altogether different, and greatly more refined in their principles of classification. Μ. Ameilhon, in a paper published in the Memoirs of the French Institute, proposes the following leading divisions: grammar, logic, morals, jurisprudence, metaphysics, physics, arts, belles lettres, and history.^[21. Aftwoim de l’ Institut National ,∙ Classe, Litt, et Beaux Arts, tom.,iι. ] In this arrangement theology, to which he has great objections as a separate class, is transferred, with evident impropriety, to the class of metaphysics. Μ. Camus has also investigated the principles according to which books ought to be classed, in another paper in these Memoirs, already quoted; but as he has not reduced his method, which proceeds on views much too fanciful for the purpose, to specific heads, we can only refer our readers to his paper. Equally remote from the proper objects of a classed catalogue are the systems proposed by Μ. Peignot and by Μ. Thiebaut.^[22. See Dictionnaire de Bibliologie, par G. Peignot, art. Système. ] The former takes the well-known speculations of Bacon and D’Alembert, as to the genealogy of knowledge, for the basis of his system, and thus fixes upon three principal heads or classes, under the names of history, philosophy, and imagination, with the addition of bibliography as an introductory class. In the system of the latter, there are, in like manner, only three principal heads, founded upon a division of knowledge, into instrumental, essential, and suitable.

Germany also has produced a variety of bibliographical systems, some of them as absurdly refined as those just mentioned; whilst others, as, for example,that of Leibnitz, are better adapted to practical purposes. The classes proposed by this eminent philosopher are as follows: theology, jurisprudence, medicine, intellectual philosophy, mathematics, natural philosophy, philology, history, and miscellanies.^[23. Idea Leibnitiana Bibliotheca l’ublicae secundum Classes Scientiarum ordlnandae, fusior et contraction. Works, vol. v. ] Another system, not very remote from this, is that of Μ. Denis, formerly keeper of the Imperial Library at Vienna, in which books are divided into the classes of theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, history, and philology. This system is developed in his Introduction to the Knowledge of Books, to be afterwards described.
[7:4:632]

Dr Middleton is the only British author of name who has written any separate tract on the classification of books. The classes proposed by him are these: theology, history, jurisprudence, philosophy, mathematics, natural history, medicine, belles lettres (literoe humaniores), and miscellanies. His object in the tract referred to was to recommend the adoption of this arrangement for a catalogue of the university library of Cambridge; and, whatever may be its defects, it cannot be questioned that a printed catalogue of an extensive collection, so classed, would have proved of eminent utility.

Naudé mentions a writer who proposed to class all sorts of books under the three heads of morals, sciences, and devotion; and who assigned, as the grounds of this arrangement, these words of the psaloust, Disciplinam, Bonitatem, et Scientiam doce me. All such systems as those of Μ. Peignot and Μ. Thiebaut, when applied to the formation of catalogues, appear to us quite as absurd as this system deduced from the psaloust. The remark which Naudé applied to it, that it seemed intended “to crucify and torture the memory by its subtilties,” is just as applicable to the former. That system, he adds, “is the best which is most facile, the least intricate, and the most practised; and which follows the faculties of theology, physic, jurisprudence, mathematics, humanity, and others.”^[24. Evelyn’s Translation of Naudé’s Α vis pour dresser one Bibliothèque. ] Μ. Ameilhon also objects strongly to all over-refined bibliographical systems, and particularly to those which aspire to follow the genesis and remote affinities of the different branches of knowledge. “L’exécutioń,” says he, “en seroit impossible; ou si elle ne ľétoit pas au moins entrai-neroit-elle des difficultés, qui ne pourroient être surmontées que par des hommes profondément réfléchés et exercés aux méditations métaphysiques.”^[25. ; Mémoires de l’Institut; Classe, Littérat. et Beaux Arts, tom. i. p. 483. ] The truth is, that when bibliographers speculate in this field with a view to catalogue-making, they entirely forget their proper province and objects. They have nothing whatever to do with genealogical trees of knowledge, or with any mode of classing books which is founded upon remote and subtile abstractions. The whole use and end of a classed catalogue is to furnish a ready index to books, arranged according to their subjects; and that arrangement is therefore to be preferred which is founded upon the most obviously marked and generally recognised divisions of those subjects. We may add, that to compile a good catalogue of an extensive library, even on this humbler plan, would require more learning and more correctness of knowledge and thinking, than arc likely to be often employed in such an undertaking.

Though we are not altogether satisfied with the division and order of the classes in the system commonly followed, we have no doubt that, by means of an additional class, and a correct arrangement of the subdivisions, a catalogue might be formed perfectly adequate to every useful purpose. We allude to a class, such as is partly indicated in the schemes both of Leibnitz and Middleton, for the reception of works and collections which cannot with propriety be limited to any one division of knowledge. Μ. Camus thinks that works of this kind may be properly enough entered in the class· in which their authors most excelled; those of Cicero, for example, among the Orators:^[26. Ibid. tom. i. ] but, not to mention the evident incongruity of placing a collection so multifarious as Cicero’s works under Oratory, there may sometimes be room for uncertainty as to the division under which, according to this rule, an author’s works ought to be sought. These incongruities and inconveniences, together with those which must arise from placing Encyclopaedias and general collections under any of the common divisions, can only be remedied by a Miscellaneous Class; and, while this class ought to indicate, in one of its divisions, the collective editions of an author’s works, his separate treatises ought to be entered under the subjects to which they belong; as without this, the classed catalogue will not fully answer its purpose,—that of showing what has been written by the authors specified in it, on the different branches of knowledge. Thus, a catalogue compiled upon this plan would not only be rendered more consistent in its arrangement, but much more complete as an index to the materials of study.

IX. Of Bibliography in general. It was our object in this article to institute such a division of the subject as should enable us to point out the best sources of information in regard to all its branches; and in order to complete our view, we have still to notice some of those works which treat generally of all matters appertaining to bibliography. We do not know any book that presents a well-written, judicious, and comprehensive digest of these matters; but there are several which contain much curious and useful information in regard to them. I. The Introduction to the Knowledge of Books {Einleitung in Bucherhunde), by Μ. Denis, whose supplement to Maittaire, and bibliographical system, we have already mentioned, is of this description. The last edition, published at Vienna in 1796, consists of two volumes quarto. It has never been translated from the original German; and it is to be observed, that though it treats of the substances, forms, and classification of books, it cannot be considered as a merely bibliographical work, a large portion of it being devoted to the general history of learning. The author, who was long principal librarian of the Imperial Library at Vienna, died in 1808. 2. Manuel Bibliogra phique, ou Essai sur la connoissance des livres, des formats, des éditions, de la manière de composer one Bibliothèque, etc.; par G. Peignot. Published in 1800. 3. Dictionnaire raisonne de Bibliologie, contenant l’explication des principaux termes relatifs à la Bibliographie; des notices sur les plus célèbres Bibliographes; et l’exposition des differens Systèmes Bibliographiques; 3 vols. 8vo; by the same author. Bibliography is certainly indebted to this industrious compiler; but his vague notions of its objects and rank have too often led him into confusion and extravagance. 4. Cours de Bibliographie, ou la science du Bibliothécaire, par C. F. Achard; 3 vols. 8vo; published at Marseilles in 1807. The chief value of this compilation consists in its details of the different systems which have been proposed for classifying books. We learn from the introduction, that Μ. François de Neufchâteau, when minister of the interior, orders the librarians of all the departments to deliver lectures on bibliography; but that the plan, which indeed savours somewhat of bibliomania, entirely failed, these librarians having been found quite incapable of prelecting upon their vocation. 5. Introduction to the Study of Bibliography; to which is prefixed a Memoir on the public Libraries of the Ancients, by Thomas Hartwell Horne; 2 volumes 8vo, published at London in 1814. This is chiefly translated and compile« from the French bibliographical works, and will be found useful to those who have not access to them. It contains full lists of writers on bibliography and literary history, and the fullest account we have seen of catalogues of libraries[7:4:633] both British and foreign. The specimens of early typography, and of the vignettes and monograms of the early printers, are neatly executed.

Bibliography certainly presents a pretty wide field of inquiry, and in which there is yet room for useful works; but it must appear evident, from the details contained in the present article, that this field has in almost every part been long cultivated; if not always with perfect taste and judgment, yet with great industry, and so as to yield very profitable returns to the commonwealth of learning.