The term Bibliography has passed through different meanings. The /?t/JAxoypa<pos of the Greeks, like the librarius of the Romans, was a mere copyist. When the name bibliographie was adopted by the French, it was used, as late as the middle of the last century, to signify skill in deciphering and judging of ancient manuscripts. Its special application to printed books may be said to date from the Bibliographie Instructive of De Bure in 1763 ; not that he appears to have coined the new meaning of the term, but his work first popularized the study which the growth of libraries and the commerce in literature had created.
Bibliography, thus understood, may be defined as the science of books, having regard to their description and proper classification. Viewing books simply as vehicles of learning, it would undoubtedly be correct to eitend our inquiry to the period when the only books, so called, were manuscripts. And such is, in fact, the view adopted by bibliographers like Peignot, Namur, and Hart well Home. But a survey so extensive is open to practical objections. In the first place, bibliography as a science was unknown until long after printing had laid its first foundations, and indeed made it a necessity, with requirements increasing with the multiplied productions of the press. The materials for comparative study were wanting in an age when books were regarded as isolated treasures, to be bought at prices corresponding with their scarcity. In the second place, the critical study and comparison of ancient manuscripts, their distribution into families deduced from one or more archetypes, and the investigation of ancient systems of writing, embrace a subject so wide in its scope and special in its character, that convenience of treatment, confirmed as it is by the facts of history, would alone suggest the propriety of distinguishing between manuscript and printed bibliography. This distinction it is here proposed to observe, the subject of MSS. being reserved for the article PALEOGRAPHY, the name which in its maturity it received.
Amid much variety of treatment in detail, two main divisions underlie the general study of bibliography, viz., material and literary, according as books are regarded with reference to their form or their substance. The former belongs chiefly to the bookseller and book-collector; the latter to the literary man and the scholar. Material bibliography treats of what Savigny terms the " aussere Biicherwesen," or the external characteristics of books, their forms, prices and rarity, the names of the printers, the date and place of publication, and the history of particular copies or editions. It involves a knowledge of typography, not, indeed, as a mechanical process, but in its results, and, in fact, of all the constituent part of books, as a means of identifying particular productions. Its full development is due to the gradual formation of a technical science of books. Considerations of buying and selling, which were first reduced to a system in Holland, and afterwards advanced to their present complete form in France and England, gave an impetus to this branch of bibliography. The growth of private libraries, especially during the last century in France, promoted a passion among rich amateurs for rare and curious books; and literary antiquarians began to study those extrinsic circumstances, apart from the merit of their con-tents, which went to determine their marketable value, and to reveal the elements of rarity.
Literary, or, as it is sometimes called, intellectual bibliography treats of books by their contents, and of their connection in a literary point of view. It has been subdivided into pure and applied, according as its functions became more complex with the spread of printed books and the increasing requirements of learning. Catalogues expanded into dictionaries, whose object was to acquaint literary men with the most important works in every branch of learning. Books were accordingly classified by their contents, and the compiler had to distinguish between degrees of relative utility, so that students might know what books to select. This duty, which devolved in most cases on men of learning, has led French writers in particular to exaggerate the province of bibliography. " La bibliographie," says Achard, " ótant la plus étendue de toutes les sciences, semble devoir les renfermer toutes ;" and Peignot describes it under his proposed title of Bibliologie, as " la plus vaste et la plus universelle de toutes les connaissances humaines." We know of no excuse for such pretensions beyond this, that books represent, in its transmissible form, the sum total of all kinds of knowledge. The bibliographer has to determine the genuineness, not the authenticity of a book; its identity of authorship or publication, not the correctness of its contents. When he pronounces judgment on its intrinsic merits he usurps the office of the critic. Some works, indeed,—like Baillet's Jugemens des Savans, sur les Principaux Ouvrages des Auteurs, augmentes par M. de la Monnoye, 8 vols., Amst., 1724; Blount's Censura Celebriorum Auctorum, London, 1690; Morhof's Polyhistor Literarxus, Phtlosophieus, et Practicus, the best edition of which is that of Fabricius in 1747; the Onomasticon Literarxum of Saxius, Utrecht, 7 vols., 1759-90; and the Censura Literaria of Sir Egerton Brydges, 10 vols., 1805-9,—are collections of critical bibliography of extreme value to the literary historian; but there is a wide difference in design between compilations even of this kind and works devoted to original criticism. In like manner the proper objects of classification have been neglected by many bibliographers, who have indulged in refinements of method, not as a means of facilitating reference, but for the purpose of illustrating a philosophical system of learning. Pretensions such as these, have, unfortunately, done much to discredit bibliography as a science of practical application, by investing it with a false air of mystery, and exposing it to the charge of empiricism. Its real value, in a literary aspect, depends on the recogni-tion of its purpose as ancillary to the study of literature; not, in short, as an end, but as a means to the attainment of knowledge, by the investigation of its sources.
France must be regarded as the real mother of bibliography. Italy was the field in which book-collections first began on a large scale, and that country can boast of names like Magliabecchi, Apostólo Zeno, Bandini, Audiffredi, Mazzuchelli, and Morelli, besides provincial works like Moreni's Bibliografía della Toscana, and Gamba's Serie di Ttsti. But the labours of French bibliographers, especially after Naudé, converted a study, more or less desultory, into a science and a systematic pursuit. In Germany, poor in public and almost destitute of private libraries, bibliography has been studied almost exclusively in its literary aspect. Belgium has shown much recent activity; but neither Holland, Spain, nor Portugal can show any modern work of importance. In England the paucity of bibliographers is the more to be regretted from the wealth of her resources. Richard de Bury, in his Philobiblion, had descanted on the charms of book-collecting as early as the 14th century ; but Blount's Censura, published in 1690, was the only regular

treatise on bibliography up to that date. Oldys, whose British Librarian first appeared in 1737 but was never completed, was among the first in this country to divert the public taste from an exclusive attention to new books, by making the merit of old ones the subject of critical discussion ; and Maittaire, who was second master of Westminster School, and who died in 1747, first established the study of bibliography in England on a solid basis. The labours of Dibdin we shall have occasion frequently to refer to; they mark a new phase of bibliography in England which followed the opening up of the Continent after the great war with France. The science in America has been cultivated only recently; but the names of Cogswell, Ticknor, and Jewett are already well-known to biblio-graphers.
I The Constituent Parts of Boohs, and Differences of Editions.
The history of the materials used for early manuscripts— a subject fruitful in research—lies outside the limits we have proposed for bibliography as the study of printed literature. Fortunately for the spread of books, in the modern sense of the term, the invention of printing was preceded by the important discovery of the art of making paper from linen rags. The precise date of this discovery is not known, nor are writers 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 14th century. Caxton and the other early English printers appear to have used paper of foreign manufacture. Such questions, among others, as the relative priority of different editions, or the productions of different presses, are frequently to be determined by a comparison of the constituent elements of the books themselves ; but the subject is too technical to be noticed in detail. The question as to the origin of printing belongs strictly to a consideration of that art; but as its history and its progress are illustrated by the productions of different presses, the bibliographer will find much matter of interest in the principal works devoted to the subject. Prominent among these are the Monumenta Typographica of Wolfius, Ham-burg, 1740; Meerman's Origines Typographical; Prosper Marchand's Histoire de l'origine et des premiers progrès de l'Imprimerie, 1740,—a valuable supplement to which was published by M. Mercier, Abbé de Saint Léger, in 1773, and republished in 1775; and Lambinet's Recherches his-toriques, littéraires, et critiques sur l'origine de VImprimerie, first published at Brussels in 1799.
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 such knowledge may appear, it is yet certain that errors in this respect have been 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. 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 horizontal in the quarto and duodecimo sizes. 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 M. 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 Biblwlotjie. The subject of water-marks is treated at length Li Sotheby's Principia Typographica.
The respective merits of different editions can be ascertained often only by minute inquiries. 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 discovered to be the best. There are many particulars in which one edition may differ from or excel another. There may be differences or grounds of preference in size, in paper, and in printing. Later revision by the author may give his work, when it comes to be reprinted, a complexion differing largely from what it had at the first; while the first edition exhibits his orginal thoughts as they came fresh from his pen. One edition may derive its superiority from being furnished with notes, an index, or a table of contents. 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, a small error in the first impressions serves as a test whether any copy contains the best engravings of those elegant vignettes which illustrate that edition. The medal of Augustus, on page 108 of the second volume, has in the first copies the incorrect reading Post Est instead of Potest; this was rectified in the after impressions; but as the plates had meanwhile sustained some injury, the. copies which show the incorrect reading are of course esteemed the best. Dibdin, in his Bibliomania, points out this as an instance of preference founded on a defect; but the real ground of preference is the superiority of the impressions, ascertained by the presence of this trifling defect. There are sometimes differences between copies of the same edition of a work. 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,— Walton having on the Restoration printed another pre-face to the copies which had not by that time been dis-posed of.
IL Early Printed Books.
* The Voyage to Cadiz is sometimes wanting in Hakluyt's Navigations, 1598-1600. A reprint is often inserted to supply this want, which may be known from the original by its having only seven para» graphs in p. 607, vol. i., whereas the original has eight. The ori-ginal ends on p. 619, the reprint on p. 620.
* Mr Holt, who contends that printing preceded engraving, ascribes the date of 1423 on the St. Christopher to a forgery for 1493, and asserts that no copy of the Bibtta Pauperum was known before I486,
The first productions to which the name of Books has been applied, were printed, not with movable types, but from solid wooden blocks. These consisted of a few leaves only, on which were impressed images of saints and other historical pictures, with a text or a few explanatory lines. The ink was of a brownish hue, and glutinous quality, to prevent it from spreading. These are known by the name of Image Books, or Block Books, and are generally supposed to have succeeded the earlier impressions for playing cards, which are dated back to the end of the 14th century. Strictly speaking, they were the immediate precursors, rather than the first specimens of typography; in fact, they mark the transition to that art from engraving. Peignot puts their number at seven or eight, but others have extended it to ten. They belong chiefly to the Low Countries, and were often reprinted, as is generally thought, during the first half of the 15th century, and, indeed, after

the discovery 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, on which passages from Scripture are represented by means of figures, with inscriptions. It appears to have been originally intended for the use of those poor persons who could not afford to buy complete copies of the Bible. Some fugitive sheets still attest the primitive attempts at printing, in the modern sense of the word. The Letters ofIndulgence of Pope Nicholas V., two editions of which, on a small sheet of parchment, were printed in 1454, fix the earliest period of the impression of metal types, with a date subjoined. The earliest known book, however, of any magnitude, and probably the first thus printed, was the undated editio princeps of the Bible, com-monly known as the Mazarin Bible, from a copy having been found by De Bure in the library of the Cardinal. It is undated, but authorities generally concur in ascribing it to a period between 1450 and 1455. The work is usually divided into two volumes, the first containing 324, and the second 317 pages, each page consisting of two columns. The characters, which are Gothic, are large and handsome, and resemble manuscript. No fewer than twenty copies are known to be extant. The first printed book with a date is the Psalter of Fust and Schôffer, printed at Mentz in 1457, as a somewhat pompous colophon announces. It was found, in 1665, in the Castle of Ambras, near Innsbruck, where the Archduke Francis Sigismund had collected a quantity of MSS. and printed books, taken chiefly from the library of Corvinus. A few other copies are in existence, one of which was bought under Louis XVIII. for the Royal Library at Paris for the sum of 12,000 francs. Whether the types employed were wooden or metallic has been disputed between Van Praet and Didot. As a specimen of early printing the work is magnificent ; it contains richly embellished capitals in blue, red, and purple.
Besides these monuments of infant typography, a special interest attaches to the productions of the 15th century. They are usually known as Incunabula, a term applied to them by modern German writers. Brunet, following Santander, estimates their number at 18,000 or 20,000 ; but it is probable that many duplicates are included in this reckoning. They came into demand chiefly at the beginning of the last century, and especially about 1740, at the third centenary of printing. The passion for them at first was indiscriminate, but preference afterwards was given to the presses of Mayence, Bamberg, Cologne, Strasburg, Rome, and Venice.
several of the block-books. See also Falkenstein's Oeschichte der
Schelhorn's Arnom. Lit.; the works of Maittaire, D. Clement, Founder, Meermann, Papillon, and De Bure; and J. P. Berjeau's Catalogue ilhutri des livres xylographiques, 1865. Heinecken was the chief authority until recently, when his views, especially on the chronology of the block-books, have been much contested. Sotheby's Prmeipia Typo-graphica, 3 vols., 1858, is the most important work on this subject in late years. The author has also attempted to elucidate the character of the water-marks of the period.
s Dibdin's Bibl. Spencer., i. xliv.
8 Before the discovery of the Majarin Bible, the Bamberg Bible of Paster generally passed for the first printed book. Schelhom has written a treatise maintaining its priority of age. As to the Mazarin Bible, see an article by Dibdin in Valpy's Classical Journal, No. 8. The kind of types employed upon it has been the subject of much dispute.
As regards these early printed books, a knowledge of typography is necessary to the bibliographer, to enable him to verify their identity. A brief reference to some of their leading peculiarities must suffice here. The printer's name,
s For this class of books see De Rossi's Annales Hebrmo-twographioL
and the date and place of printing were at first omitted, the printer imitating the reticence of the copyist, and the book being a mere fac-simile of the manuscript. In Germany and the Low Countries few dated books are found before 1476 or 1480. Title-pages appear to have come in a few years later; none of Caxton's works, with one doubtful exception, have any. Titles to chapters were first used in the Epistles of Cicero, 1470. According to Palmer, the use of signatures, or letters at the bottom of the page to guide the bookbinder in the arrangement of the sheets, began with Zarot in a Terence printed by him at Milan iD 1470. Marolles ascribes them to John of Cologne, who printed at Venice in 1474, and the Abbe Rive to JohD Koelhof, a printer of Cologne. They were in use in that city in 1475, and at Paris the next year, but were not employed by Caxton until 1480. Catch-words, which, like signatures, preceded the numbering of pages, are found in MSS. of the 11th century, and were first applied to printing by Vindelin de Spira at Venice. Their purpose, to direct the binder, had been previously supplied by Registers, or alphabetical tables of the first word of chapters, which were introduced about 1469. The earliest system of numbering was applied, not to pages, but to leaves, a large Roman figure being placed at the top of the recto in each leaf. The characters were uniformly Gothic—the foundation of our Black-letter—until 1467, when Gothic was supplanted by the Roman type, introduced in that year at Rome, and improved on by Jenson at Venice. It was first used in England by Pynson. Italics were first used by Aldus in his Virgil of 1501 ; they are said to have been suggested to him by Petrarch's writing, and were employed to compress matter into his small octavos without the inconvenience of abbre-viations. Hebrew characters began at Soncino, in the duchy of Milan, in 1482, and at Naples in 1487. The only points first used were the colon and full stop; but Aldus improved punctuation by giving a better shape to the comma and adding the semicolon. With Caxton oblique strokes took the place of commas and periods. The form of the earliest books was chiefly folio and quarto. Almost every page aboundedin abbreviations or contractions. Blank spaces were left for capitals and the first letters of periods, which were afterwards filled up by the illuminator. The Basel press was noted for its ornamental initials; and Calliergus at Rome and the Paris printers excelled in decorative printing of this kind. The taste for embellishment led to ornamental title-pages about 1490, the usual ornament at first being the " author at his desk." The custom of coloured frontispieces appears to have prevailed until the end of last century. Decorated borders appear in the first page of some of Sweynheim and Pan-nartz's productions; few ornaments, however, were introduced into the body of the text before the first Hebrew publications. The Aulus Oellius of 1469 by the same printers is cited as the first book with a preface; and their Apuleius of the same year contains the earliest marginal notes. For further information on the characteristics of early printed books the reader will do well to consult Palmer's General History of Printing (a work ascribed chiefly to George Psalmanazar); Jungendres, De Notis Characteristicis Librorum a Typographic! Incunabulis ad annum 1500 impressorum; and Marolle's Recherches sur VOrigine des Signatures et des Chiffres de Page.

The devices of the early printers are of importance to the bibliographer, since questions occur as to the early editions which can only be ascertained by discovering the printer's name. The invention of marks or vignettes is ascribed by Laire (Index Librorum Sœc. XV., ii. 146) to Aldus; he traces them to a Greek Psalter of 1495. A device, however, consisting of two shields occurs in Fust and Schôffer's Bible of 1462. They were not used by Ulric Zell, the first printer at Cologne, nor by the fathers of the Paris or Venetian presses. Monograms or ciphers were frequently employed, with initial letters of names or other devices curiously interwoven, and these furnish a trustworthy clue to identity. The monograms of the Early English printers are explained in Ames's Typogra-phical Antiquities. Of the devices of different presses the best fao-similes are given in Dibdin's Bibliographical Decameron, voL ii. Orlandi's Origine e Progressi delta Stampa, Bologna, 4to, 1722, is a work of indifferent merit. The Thesaurus Symbolorum ac Emblematum of Scholtz, published at Nuremberg in 1730, and Spoerlius's Intro-duction in Notitiam insignium Typographorum, of the same year, are the best and most interesting authorities on this subject.
The incunabula of the various early presses have been treated separately by different writers. Schwarz in 1740 and Wurdtwein in 1787 reviewed the productions of the Mentz press. Those of Nuremberg were noticed by Rôder in 1742 ; and a catalogue of them, in the library of that town, was compiled by Saubert in 1643. In Italy, the Roman press is represented by Michael Canensio in 1740, and more particularly by Audiffredi in 1783, who after-wards extended his researches to all early Italian produc-tions. The books issued from Milan between 1465 and 1500 have been noticed by Saxius ; the Parmese editions by Affo in 1791; those of the Spiras at Venice by Pelle-grini in 1794; those of Friuli by Bartolini in 1798 ; and those of Ferrara by Antonelli in 1830. The early Paris press has been copiously treated by Chevillier, and that of Lyons by Péricaud, 1840. For Spain there is Caballero in 1793 ; and the works printed in the Low Countries are reviewed at length in Meermann's Uitvindung den Bock-drukkonst, Amsterdam, 1767. Herbert, Ames, and Dibdin well-nigh exhaust the subject of early English bibliography. The different collections of incunabula in public or private libraries have been noticed in more or less detail. Seemiller in 1785 catalogued upwards of 1800 editions of the 15th century at Ingolstadt. Those in the Magliabecchian library at Florence have been described by Fossi (or rather Follini) in 1793-95. The collection of Lomenie de Brienne is known through the labours of the elder De Bure and his continuator, Laire ; and the treasures of Count Boutourlin were catalogued by Audin de Rians. Lambeth library contains many specimens, which have been noticed by Maitland ; and the splendid collection of Earl Spencer at Althorp has met with a worthy exponent in Dibdin.
For more general information on this subject the reader may con-sult the following works -.—-Index Librorum ai inventa Typographies ad annum 1500, cum notis, 2 vols. 1791. This work, by Laire, is one of the most useful of its kind, and it has the advantage of four indexes, which furnish a ready reference to its contente. De Bure, in the seventh volume of his Bibliographie Instructive, has given a list of 15th century books, classed in the order of the dif-ferent towns. M. La Serna Santander's Dictionnaire Biblio-graphique choisi du quinzième siècle, 3 vols., 1805, is a very learned and exact work, and, like Laire's Index above mentioned, em-braces only the rarest and most interesting publications of the 15th eentury. See also the Lettres de l'Abbé de St. L. (Mercier de St.
Leger), au Baron de H. (Heiss), Paris, 1785. Maittaire's Annates Typographici ab artis inventas origvne is a mine of learning and research. The first volume, published in 1719, embraces the period from the origin of printing to 1500, but his researches into printed literature extended in the third volume to 1557 ; and there is an appendix which affords a partial continuation to 1664. A supple-ment to this elaborate work, by Denis, in 2 vols. 4to, appeared at Vienna in 1789, and contains 6311 articles omitted by Maittaire. Panzer's Annates Typographici was founded on the preceding work, and consisted of eleven volumes, which were published at Nuremberg between 1793 and 1803. It was intended to be limited to the 15th century, but, after the appearance of the fifth volume, the period was extended to the year 1636. German publications were reserved for a separate work, which bears the title of Annalen der alteren deutschen Literatur. The Repertorium Bibliographicvm of Lud. Hain, 4 vols. 1826-38, contains an alphabetical list of no less than 16,299 books printed during the 16th century, which are described with rare minuteness and accuracy. The author's labours were terminated by death, when he had advanced as far as fJG. The addition of bibliographical notices, pointing out first editions and books of remarkable rarity and price, would have much enhanced itsinterest and value. The Literatur d. ersten 100 Jahrenach d.Erfin-d/u/ng d. Typographic, by Chr. F. Harless, wasp ublished at Leipsic in 1840. Its object differs from that of the preceding works, in making the notice of early editions subordinate to his purpose of illustrat-ing thereby the transition and progress of contemporary learning.
III. Bare and Curious Books.
This branch of what Ebert terms "restricted" bibliography belongs peculiarly to the book-collector and bookseller, if regard be had especially to the inclinations of purchasers, the actual demand, and the marketable valu* of books. Rarity and price depend very much on each other; rarity makes them dear, and dearness makes them rare. Hallam asserts that the price of books was reduced four-fifths by the inventing of printing. From a letter of Andreas, bishop of Aleria, to the pope, in his preface to the Epistles of Jerome, it would seem that 100 golden crowns was the maximum demanded for a valuable MS., and that the first printed books were sold for about 4 golden crowns a volume. At any rate, one natural effect of printing was to restrict the number of rare books to a separate class. Cailleau, who has been followed by most other writers on this subject, distinguishes between absolute and relative rarity. The former term is applied to those books or editions of which only a small number has been printed. Such for the most part are works printed for private circulation, as those of the Strawberry Hill Press, which are very scarce and enormously dear. This class of English books is treated in the Bibliographical Catalogue of Books, privately printed, by John Martin, 1834, republished, with additions, in 1854, 8vo. Much of the value attached to editions of the 15th century arises from the limited number of impressions. They were seldom more than 300; John of Spira printed only 100 copies of his Pliny and Cicero ; and printers had the example of Sweyn-heim and Pannartz, who were reduced to poverty by their surplus copies, to avoid exceeding the current demand. Suppressed works belong to the same category, in proportion to the success of prohibition. Others owe their scarcity to accidental destruction; as, for instance, the second volume of Hevelius's Machina Cmlestis, 1679, which would have shared the fate of the remainder of his works, on the burning of his house, had the author not previously given some copies to his friends. At the great fire of London in 1666 there were some works of Dugdale, among other writers, as well as the first volume of Prynne's Record* of the Tower, of which only a few copies escaped; but their value has been reduced by subsequent impressions. The same kind of rarity attaches to Editions de luxe, chiefly made for rich amateurs; to large paper copies and tall copies, *.«., copies of a work published on paper of ordinary size and barely cut down by the binder; and to books printed on coloured paper. A list of the last-named is given by Duclos and Cailleau, and reprinted by Home in his

Introduction to Bibliography. It includes an edition of Sterne's Sentimental Journey, three copies only of which were printed at Paris in 1802, on rose-coloured paper, and the complete Works of Voltaire, edited by Beaumarchais (Kehl, 1785), twenty-five copies of which were struck off on blue paper, after some had been requested by Frederick the Great for his own use, on account of the weakness of his eyesight. Vellum copies, again, have been much prized by collectors. They belong to the early days of printing, especially GO the Aldine, Verard, and Giunti presses, and to those of the first English printers. Few were made between the latter half of the 16th and the beginning of the last century; but the art was revived in France by Didot and Bodoni, and the folio Horace of 1799 by the former is a chef d'osuvre of its kind. The Royal Library at Paris has a sumptuous collection of vellum copies, which have been elaborately described by Van Praet.1 At the sale of the M'Carthy library, the Psalter of Fust and Schoffer on vellum was bought by Louis XVIII. for 12,000 francs. The libraries of Earl Spencer and the duke of Devonshire contain the finest specimens in this country. The relative rarity of books is due to a variety of causes, chiefly connected with the peculiar nature of their contents. Among works of this kind, generally speaking, are local histories, lives of learned men, books of antiquities, or of curious arts, those written in languages little known, macaronic treatises, and catalogues of private libraries. Works like the Acta Sanctorum, in 53 volumes, however accessible in public though not in private libraries, are rare in this sense of the term. The class of publications known as Ana, containing the sayings and doings of men great in their day, has become comparatively scarce. The first of these was the Scaligerana of 1666. The public fastened upon them at first with avidity, but the number of such productions created in time a distaste for them (see ANA, VOL i., pp. 784-5). Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, which fascinated Dr Johnson, is an instance of undeserved neglect. For a long time it fell into disuse, and from being a waste-paper book, became extremely rare, until reprinted in recent times. Fugitive pieces, like political broadsides, share the penalties of an ephemeral interest. The King's Pamphlets, so called from having been presented by George III. to the British Museum, are the largest collection of this kind in England. It owes its origin to the industry of the bookseller Thomason.'
1 Catalogue des livres imprimis sur Velin de la Bibliothique du Roi, 1822-28, 6 vols. See his supplemental catalogue of similar books in other libraries, 1824, 4 vols, royal 8vo. Panzer, as he informs us in his Essai sur VHistoire du Parchemin et du Velin, 1812, intended, but did not execute, a comprehensive work on vellum curiosities. See also Scb<-jhorn's Amcen. Litter., vol. i.
In a literary sense, a book, to deserve the title of rare, should be a work of some merit, and not one whose obscurity is due to its worthlessness. Curious books, however, depend very much on the pleasure of the curious; and the follies and caprice of collectors are summed up in the word Bibliomania. Some copies of Tuberville's Book of Hunting, 1611, were bound in deer-skin; Mr Jeffery, the bookseller, enclosed Mr Fox's historical work in fox's-skin; and a story is told of Dr Askew having caused a book to be bound in human skin, for the payment of which he was prosecuted by the binder. German bibliographers reproach us with an undue passion for book curiosities. Bibliomania forms the title of an amusing work by Dr Dibdin, who, though accused of a leaning to this weakness, inew well how to value the intelligent study of books. The practice was satirized as early as the time of Brandt,
(see his Ship of Pools.) It prevailed in England chiefly during last century, and reached its height at the sale of the duke of Roxburghe's library in 1812.' The time, however, has passed away when the passion for collecting rare and curious books, without regard to their usefulness, merit, or beauty, was too often a failing with well-educated persons. The love of uncut and large-paper copies of vellum and first editions, and of illustrated books, has been better regulated since book-madness was attacked by the Abbe Rive, Dibdin, Dr Ferrier, and the Rev. James Beresford; and modern book-clubs like the Rox-burghe (1812), the Bannatyne (1823), the Maitland (1823), and the Surtees (1834) Societies, the Abbotsford Club (1834), and the Early English Text Society, have done important service to bibliography by reprinting scarce old books.
Detached notices of rare and curious books are to be found in the catalogues of private libraries, especially those compiled by French writers during the last century. Beloe's Anecdotes of Literature contains much interesting matter on scarce books and their prices. The following, however, are the chief works on this subject:—Hal-lervord's Bibliotheca curiosa, Frankfort, 1687 ; Beyer's Memorial historico-criticoc librorwm rariorum, Dresden and Leipsic, 1734 ; Vogt's Catalogus historico-criticus librorum rariorum, the best edition of which appeared at Frankfort in 1793. The author applies the epithet rare with more judgment than his predecessors. A supplement to his work was the Florilegium historico-criticum librorum rariorum of Gerdesius, first published in 1740, and again in 1763. The Bibliotheque curieuse, ou Catalogue raisonni del livres rares et difficiles a trouver, by D, Clement, Gbttingen, 1750-60, is compiled on a more extensive plan than any of the preceding. Although consisting of 9 volumes 4to, it only extends to the letter H, terminating there in consequence of the author's death. Clement is generally blamed for a very profuse and inaccurate application of his own nomenclature; his notes, moreover, are crammed with citations, and tediously minute, but they abound with curious morsels of literary history, and it is to be regretted that the work was not completed. S. Engel, Bibliotheca Selectissima, Bern, 8vo, 1743; T. Sinceri, Notitia historico-critica librorum rariorum, Frank-fort, 1753; Bibliographie Instructive, ou Traiti de la connaissanct des livrts rares et singuliers, by W. F. De Bure, Paris, 1768-68, 7 vols. This work did much to popularize bibliography in France. The author criticizes parts of Clement's dictionary, but recognize? the general merit of that work. De Bure published a supplement in 1769, containing a catalogue of rare and curious books in the library of Gaignat. Dictionnaire typographique, historique, it critique, des livres rares, estimes, et rcchcrches en tons genres, par J. B. L. Osmont, 2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1768. This work contains a fuller account of Italian books than the preceding. Dictionnairi bibliographique, historique, et critique, des livres rares, precieua, singuliers, etc., by Andre Charles Cailleau, 3 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1790. This work was compiled, according to M. Barbier and others, by the Abbe Duclos, and was republished in 1800, with a supple-mentary volume, by M. Brunet. Notes are affixed to unpriced books, stating their value. Bibliotheca Librorum rariorum Univer-salis, by Jo. Jae. Bauer, 7 vols. 8vo., 1770-91. Peignot in his Repertoire des Bibliographies speciales, curieuses, et instructives, 8vo, Paris, 1810, has written on the elements of rarity, and the different classes of rare books.
IV. The Classics.
* At this sale the Valdarfer Boccaccio of 1471 fell to the Marquis of Blandford, after a spirited competition with Earl Spencer, for
£2260.
4 Hallam's Lit. of Europe, i. 146 ; Roscoe's Lorenzo de Medici.
Fortunately for the preservation of ancient literature, the discovery of printing coincided very closely with the full development of that zeal for classical learning, which had begun with the 15th century. To Italy belongs thfc chief glory of first embodying, in an imperishable form, those materials which the industry of Poggio and others had rescued from the dust of monastic libraries. In rapid succession the first editions of the classics issued from Italian presses; no less than fifty of these are enumerated by Panzer. Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, Caisar, Lvoy, Luccm, Virgil, and portions of Cicero, were printed by Sweynheim and Pannartz at Rome before 1470; while the rival press of the Spiras at Venice boasted of Plautus, Tacitus,

Priscian, Sallust, Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius. From Brescia came Lucretius, from Vicenza, Claudian ; Ferrara and Naples gave birth to Martial and Seneca. In Ger-many, France, and the Low Countries, on the other hand, the progress at first was slow. Few classics were printed out of Italy before 1480, or, indeed, until the last ten years of that century. The De Officiis of Cicero, it is true, had appeared at Mentz in 1465,—the first portion of any classical work committed to the press, unless precedence is given to the De Or at ore of Sweynheim and Pannartz at Subiaco. But with that exception the first impressions of Terence and Valerius Maximus at Strasburg, and of Sallust, and, perhaps, Florus at Paris, are all that Cis-alpine presses contributed of that kind within the period under review. The first appearance of Velleius Pater-eulus at Basel and of Anacreon and Menander at Paris was not until the next century was well advanced. In Spain the first classical book was a Sallust of 1475. In England, the earliest was a Terence, printed by Pynson in 1497; but, besides that, Virgil, Sallust, and Cicero's Offices, together with two Greek books, were the only classics published down to 1540. A complete edition of Cicero, printed in 1585 at London, was the chief Latin work up to that date. A neat edition of Homer's Iliad appeared in 1591, and the first impression of Herodotus in this country came out in the same year at Cambridge. Our early printers were content with French translations for their versions and abridgments; and Gawin Douglas, in the preface to his translation of Virgil, records his indig-nation at the injustice done to the " divine poet" by the second-hand translation of Caxton.
Most of the Latin classics had appeared in print before the art was employed on any Greek author. This was due rather to the want of adequate editorship than to any indifference to Greek in Italy; for the taste for that language had steadily increased since the arrival of the learned Greeks from Constantinople, and the want of printed editions became general before the close of the 15th century. To Aldus belongs the glory of ministering to that desire, by publishing, in quick succession and with singular beauty and correctness, almost all the principal authors in that tongue. Beginning in 1494 with Musseus's Hero and Leander, he printed before 1516, the year of his death, upwards of sixty considerable works in Greek literature. The list includes the first impressions of Aristophanes, Herodotus, Theocritus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Euripides, Demosthenes, Pindar, and Plato. The editio princeps of Aristotle is the finest of his productions. Himself, in several cases, editor as well as printer, he had the assist-ance of the most learned scholars of the day; and the handy size of his octavos, which he substituted for the more cumbrous quartos after bis removal from Venice, added to the popularity of his editions. Within two years after Aldus commenced his labours, Greek printing began at Florence with the works of Callimachus,1 Apollonius Rhodius, and Lucian; at Rome, however, the earliest work was the Pindar of Calliergus in 1515. At Paris the first Greek press of importance was established in 1507 by Gourmont, but the days of its chief celebrity date from his successors Colines and Stephens. Aldus, though the most prolific, was not the earliest Greek printer. The first entire work in that language was the Grammar of Con-stantino Lascaris, printed by Zarot at Milan in 1476. Homer's Batrachomyornachia was the earliest printed Greek classic; his complete works first appeared in the
Florence Homer of 1488, a volume which, Gibbon observes, "displays all the luxury of the typographical art." Besides these works, the Orations of Isocrates had appeared in 1493. Aldus has been unduly eulogized by his biographer, M. Renouard, who has represented him as having given an entirely new direction to the art of printing, and indeed to the literary taste of Europe. His taste for Greek he had imbibed from the 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. His preface to Aristotle's Organon, published in 1595, amply recognizes the demand for Greek books. " Those," he says, " who cultivate letters must be supplied with books necessary for that purpose; and till this supply is obtained I shall not be at rest."
» Annates de VImprimerie des Aides, Paris, 1825, and third edition in 1834. Renouard afterwards published a similar work on the family
5 The bibliography of first editions of the classics is treated copiously by this writer in his Introduction to the Classics, his Bibl. Spenceriana, and his Catalogue of the Cassano Collection. The prices of many valuable first editions at a sale in London in 1821 are given at the end of the last-mentioned work. See also a curious chapter on " First Editions" in Marchand's Sistovre de VImprimerie.
The absolute rarity of the first editions of the classics it is difficult to determine with precision. They have been much prized by collectors, especially during last century, though their price has fluctuated considerably at different times. The date of some, as for instance, of Juvenal, Q. Gurtius, and Horace, is conjectural; and the last-named is one of four classics,—Lucan, Plutarch, and Florus being the other three,—of which the printer is unknown. The Naples edition of Horace of 1474 is called by Dibdin the " rarest classical volume in the world," and it was chiefly to possess this book that Earl Spencer bought the famous library of the duke of Cassano. Of the first edition of Lucretius only two copies are believed to exist; and not one in its integrity of Azzoguidi's editio princeps of Ovid. On the other hand, there are several classical authors, of whom the second and even later impressions are far the most valuable and scarce. The intrinsic merit of the editiones principes of the classics is too unequal to admit of any general description. Their chief value, in a literary sense, consists in the security afforded by printing against the further progress of transcriptional error; but it would be a great mistake to imagine that the text was then finally established. Maittaire gives precedence to their authority as equivalent to that of the MSS. from which they were taken, but the question obviously turns on the character of those MSS. themselves. Later discoveries and the progress of critical research confirm the testimony of many of the first editors, in their prefaces, regarding the insufficiency and mutilated character of their materials. Thus Grsevius observes of the celebrated editio princeps of Cicero's De Officiis by Fust, that it was printed from a very inaccurate manuscript. Schelhorn, in his Amoenitates Literarice, insists, with good reason, on the want of collation among the first editors. Frequently the first manuscript that offered itself was hastily committed to the press, in order to take advantage of the recent discovery ; and fragments of different manuscripts were patched together to form Opera Omnia editions, without regard to the relative authority of their contents. On the other hand there are first editions which represent a single lost archetype, and whose value, therefore, cannot be exaggerated, while others

represent copies of undoubted merit. La Grange assures us, in the preface to his French translation of Seneca, that he never, in any case of difficulty, consulted the first edition of 1475, without finding a solution of his doubts. The fact is that each editio princeps must be judged by itself. It is to such scholars as Turnebus, Muretus, and Lipsius that we owe a juster estimate of their relative value, than prevailed in the early days of printing. Victorius has been called the " Sospitator Ciceronisi;" and the real restorers of Greek learning are to be found in Scaliger, Casaubon, Budseus, Camerarius, and Stephens. The text of the classics has been slowly and laboriously constructed, and in some cases, as with Aristophanes, Dion Cassius, and Pliny, among others, a manuscript, discovered in modern times, has superseded entirely the authority of early editions. This branch of the subject is fully treated in an article in the Edinburgh Review on " Classical Manuscripts and First Editors " (Jan. 1873).
1 Without disparaging the Elzevirs, it most he remembered that their texts were mere re-impressions, and did not rest, like those of Aldus and the Stephens, on ancient MSS
Sets of the classics, more or less complete, have been published at different times, and for different purposes. Among the earliest and most important are the Delphin editions, prepared, by order of Louis XIV., at the instance of the duke de Montausier, for the use of the Dauphin. The duke had been in the habit of studying the classics on his campaigns, and the want of books of reference appears to have suggested to him the idea of a uniform series of the principal classics, with explanatory notes and illustrative comments. On his becoming governor to the Dauphin, the scheme was carried into execution; and Huet, bishop of Avranches, a preceptor of the prince, was entrusted with the choice of authors and editors, and with the general supervision of the series. A list of the editors is given by Baillet in his Critiques Grammairiens. The collection, which, including Danet's Dictionary of Antiquities, extends to sixty-four volumes quarto, is of very unequal merit; but the copious verbal indices, which were added by the direction of Huet, afford a useful means of reference to particular passages. Only Latin classics, however, are included in the series; and " it is remarkable," as Dr Aikin observes, "that Lucan is not among the number. He was too much the poet of liberty to suit the age of Louis XIV." The entire collection, enlarged with the notes of the Variorum editions, was republished in 1819-1830, by A. J. Valpy, forming in all 185 vols., 8vo. These Variorum classics number upwards of 400 volumes, and were edited in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries. A complete collection is very rare; Peignot mentions one belonging to M. Mel de Saint-Ceran, which was sold for 3000 livres. For the names of the authors and commentators see De Bure's Bibliographie, vol. viL p. 680, and Osmont's Dictionnaire, vol. ii. p. 411. The editions most prized by collectors are the Elzevirs and the Foulises. The Elzevirs, or properly Elseviers, were a family of famous printers and booksellers at Amsterdam, no fewer than fifteen of whom carried on the business in succession from 1580 to 1712. Their Pliny (1635), Virgil (1636), and Cicero (1642), are the masterpieces of their press; the last of the family brought out editions in 12mo and 16mo.x A full list of their publications is given in Brunet's Manuel, vol. v., ad fin. The Annales de I'Jmprimerie Elsevirienne, by Pieter, 1851 and 1858, supersedes the authority of previous works on that subject, and contains much curious research. The project of reprinting the Elzevir editions, which originated in 1743 with the Abbd Lenglet-Dufresnoy, led to the famous Barbou collection, commenced by Cou-stelier and continued by Joseph Gaspard Barbou, one of the family of Paris printers and booksellers of that name, and extending finally to 76 volumes in 12mo. Lemaire's Bibliotheca Classica Latina, 1819-26, which was dedicated to Louis XVIII., is one of the best collections of Latin classics which exists in France, although the list of authors is incomplete, and the notes far too voluminous. The whole series extends to 154 volumes in 8vo. The editions of Robert and Andrew Foulis, printers at Glasgow, were the finest which Britain produced during the 18th cen-tury. Their chef d'muvre was the Horace of 1744, each printed sheet of which, probably after the example of Robert Stephens at Paris, was hung up in the college of Glasgow, and a reward offered for the discovery of any error.
Among the most useful bibliographical accounts of the classics may be mentioned the following:—A View of the Various Editions of the Greek and Roman Classics, with Remarks, by Dr Harwood,—this work, first published in 1776, is still a convenient manual of re-ference ; Degli Autori Classici, sacri e profani, Greed et Latini, Biblioteca portatile, 2 vols., Venice, 1793, a compilation of the Abbe Boni and Bartholomew Gamba, and containing a translation of the preceding ; Dibdin's Introduction to the Knowledge of Rare and Valuable Editions of the Classics, first published in 1802, and greatly enlarged in subsequent editions, containing a full account of Polyglot Bibles, of the Greek and Latin editions of the Septua-gint and New Testament, and of lexicons and grammars; A Manual of Classical Bibliography, by J. "W. Moss, 2 vols., 1825, noticing at length the different translations of the classics, the prices obtained for the rarer editions at public sales being also specified; A View of the English Editions and Translations of Greek and Latin Authors, by Brugemann, London, 1797; Engelmann's Bibliotheca Scriptorum Classicorum, Leipsic, 1847-53, containing an account of German editions between 1700 and 1852, while Greek and Latin classics printed in Germany and France are noticed in the Repertoire de la litteratwre ancienne, by F. Schbll, Paris, 1808; Handbuch der Classischen Literatur, by G. D. Fuhrmann, Halle, 1807-10, 5 vols. 8vo. ; Hebenstreit's Dictionarium, Vienna, 1828 ; and the Handbuch der Classischen Bibliographie, Leipsic, 1830-34, —all of them works of considerable merit. The improved editions, by'Harless and Ernesti, of the Bibliotheca Grozca and Bibliotheca Latina of Fabricius are well known as immense magazines of classical lore, but they extend over a much wider field of inquiry than is embraced by bibliography.





V. Anonymous and Pseudonymous Books.
s Baillet, in his Jugemens des Savons, i. 1690, notices several motives for concealed authorship.
III. - 83
Books of this class originate, generally speaking, either from the necessities or the caprice of authorship.2 Their number, however, has been such as to occupy, at an early time, the attention of bibliographers. In 1669 Frederick 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 time, a similar but more extensive work had been undertaken by Vincent Placcius, professor of morals and eloquence at Hamburg, which was published in 1674 with the title De Scriptis et Scriptoribus anonymis atque pseudonymis Syntagma, in which the writer invited information from learned men in Europe. Four years later, John Decker, a German lawyer, published his Conjecturce de Scriptis adespotis, pseudepi-graphis, et supposititiis, which was republished in 1686, with the addition of two letters on the same subject, one by Paul Vindingius, a professor at Copenhagen, and the other by the celebrated Peter Bayle. In 1689 appeared the Centuria plagiariorum et pseudonymorum of John Albert Fabricius, as well as a letter to Placcius from John Mayer, a clergyman of Hamburg, under the title—Disser-tatio Epistolica ad Placcium, qua anonymorum et pseudony-morum farrago exhibitur. The complete fruits of Placcius's researches were published after his death in a folio volume at Hamburg in 1708, by Matthew Dreyer, a lawyer of that city. The work was now entitled Theatrum Anonymorum et Pseudonymorum ; and, besides an Introduction by Dreyer and a Life of Placcius by Fabricius, it contains, in an

Appendix, the before-noticed treatises of Geisler and Decker with the relative letters of Vindingius and Bayle, and the Dissertation of Mayer. This elaborate work contains notices of six thousand books or authors ; but it is ill-arranged and frequently inaccurate, besides being cumbered with citations and extracts, equally useless and fatiguing
The subject of false and fanciful names attached to books had been undertaken in France by Adrien Baillet, nearly about the same period that Placcius commenced his inquiries. La 1690 this author published his Auteurs Déguisés ; but this is little more than an introduction to an intended catalogue which Baillet never completed, being deterred, as Niceron says, by the fear lest the expo-sure of concealed authors should in 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, especially with reference to the passion which prevailed after the revival of letters for assuming classi-cal 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. A similar rage for assuming the names of celebrated authors was common among French writers in the 18th century.
The taste for this kind of research, which the work of Placcius had diffused in Germany, produced several supplements to it in that country In the De Lihris anonymis et pseudonymis Schediasma, published by Christopher Augustus Neumann in 1711, there is a dissertation on the question, Whether it is lawful for an author either to withhold or disguise his name ? which question he decides in the affirmative But the most considerable of these supplements was that published in 1740 by John Christopher Mylius, librarian at Hamburg. It contains a reprint of the Schediasma of Neumann, with remarks, and a list of 3200 authors, in addition to those noticed by Placcius. The notices of Mylius, however, are limited to books in Latin, French, and German. The younger De Bure occupied himself partially with these researches : his omissions were supplied by M. Née de la Rochelle in his Table destinée à la Recherche des Livres anonymes qui ont été annoncés dans la Bibliographie Instructive, Paris, 1782. The names of several anonymous writers were discovered by Rollin in his Traité des Etudes, by Jordan in his Histoire d'un voyage littéraire fait en 1783; and by Bayle in his Réponse aux Questions d'un provincial. In 1758 the Abbé de la Porte published his France littéraire? which was republished with large additions in 1769 by the Abbé de HebraiL Both editions contain numerous errors, many of which, unfortunately, were reproduced by Ersch, librarian of the university at Jena, in his enlarged publication of 1797-1806, a work in other respects of solid merit and utility. The Dictionnaire des Anonymes of the Abbé Duclos is serviceable but incomplete ; it has been abridged by Founder in his Dictionnaire portatif de Bibliographie, Paris, 1805.
Among later authorities may be mentioned Weller's Maskirte Literatur der dlteren und neueren Sprachen, Leipsic, 1858, and Die falschen und fingirten Druckorte, 1858, and the Dictionnaire des Pseudonymes, by G. Heilly, 1869. Conspicuous in merit is the Dictionnaire des Ouvrages Anonymes et Pseudonymes, by M. Barbier, librarian to Napoleon I., the last edition of which is as recent as 1872. It comprises avast number of articles, but the plan does not extend to foreign productions, except those
1 Quérard's France Littéraire, Paris, 1846, contains a copious list of such works from 1700 to 1845.
which have been translated into French. His labours have been supplemented and improved upon by De Manne, in his Nouveau Dictionnaire of 1868, and by Quérard in bis Supercheries littéraires dévoilées 1847-53. The list of anonymous writers in France includes Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, and Cardinal Richelieu. The authorship of Montesquieu's Esprit des Lois was disguised, on its appearance in 1748, as was the AntiMachiavel, written by Frederick II. of Prussia, and published by Voltaire, who himself wrote several works anonymously. For Italian literature there are Vine. Lancetti's Pseudonima, published at Milan in 1836 ; and Melzi's Dizionario di Opere AnonimeePseudonime di Scrittori Italiani, Milan, 1848-59.s In England the practice of anonymous writing, in spite of the example of journalism, has never largely prevailed; but the Letters of Junius are a conspicuous example of authorship successfully concealed. The Eece Homo is a recent instance among the works of current celebrity. The Handbook of Fictitious Names, by Olphar Hamst, London, 1868, is a useful and amusing guide, especially to English authors of the lighter literature of this century. Works of this class, however, are most applicable to countries in which the liberty of the press has been most restricted.
VI. Condemned and Prohibited Books.
Books supposed hurtful to the interests of government, religion, or morality have been sometimes condemned to the flames, sometimes censured by particular tribunals, and sometimes suppressed. Such methods of destruction have been followed in various countries, with regard both to their own and to foreign productions ; and lists have been published from time to time of the works so interdicted.
Heathen antiquity supplies some instances of the burning of obnoxious books, such as the reported destruction of the works of Protagoras at Athens, and of astrological works, as well as the writings of Labienus, by Augustus at Rome. Some Greek works, alleged to have been found in the tomb of Numa in 181 B.C., and ascribed to him, were burnt by order of the Senate ; the story of their discovery, however, is a mere fabrication. Tacitus mentions a History by Cremutius Cordus, which the Senate, to flatter Tiberius, condemned, because it designated C. Cassius the last of the Romans. Diocletian, according to Eusebius, caused the Scriptures to be burnt, but the early Christian Church was not slow in following the example of intolerance, and the charge of heresy was a ready instrument for putting down works alleged to be injurious to the faith. The first recorded instance is that of Arius, whose writings were condemned to the flames at the Council of Nicasa, Constan-tine himself threatening with death those who should harbour any copies. The same fate befell the works of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, and those of Eutyches at Chalcedon. Pagan works were prohibited at the Council of Carthage in 400. Aristotle was forbidden by the church in the 13th century, but the restriction was relaxed in favour of the universities by Pope Nicholas V. A list of prohibited books is found in a decree of a council at Rome as early as 494. But the chief rigours of persecu-tion began with the Inquisition, and the crusade against literature increased in severity with the multiplication of books through the press. In 1515 the Council of Lateran at Rome appointed clerical censors to examine all works before publication, as if, to use Milton's indignant remon-strance, " St Peter had bequeathed, to them the keys of the

press as well as of Paradise." In 1543 Caraffa issued an order that no book should be printed without leave from the Inquisition, and booksellers were, accordingly, required to send in catalogues. Brunet mentions, however, a list of prohibited authors, prepared by order of Charles V., which was printed at Brussels in 1540, and is the earliest of its kind. An Index generalis scriptorum interdxctorum was published by the Inquisition at Venice in 1543, and similar catalogues followed from the universities of Paris and Louvain. The first Index of the Court of Rome appeared in 1558, and was reprinted in 1559. The subject was discussed at the Council of Trent, who delegated the right of supervision to the Pope, and the result was the Index Tridentinus of Pius IV.,—the first strictly Papal Index,— which was printed by Aldus at Rome in 1564. Thence began a long series of literary proscriptions, which was continued by the Congregation of the Index, and of which one of the immediate effects was to drive printing to Switzerland and Germany. The right of dictating what books should or should not be read was a consequence of the claims of the Papacy over the conscience and morals of mankind; and the vitality of persecution has been preserved within the Romish Church by the consistent exercise of such pretensions. The bibliography of these Expurgatory Indexes has been copiously treated. Among the earlier victims were Galileo and Copernicus; and English literature is represented by such names as Gibbon, Robertson, Bacon, Hallam, Milton, Locke, Whately, and J. Stuart Mill. In Spain the power of the Inquisition, provoked by the invasion of. Lutheranism, was wielded by Fernando de Valdes, whose catalogue of 1559 formed the model of that issued by Pius IV. in the same year. An edict of Philip II. was published at Antwerp in 1570, and a general Index of all books suppressed by royal authority appeared at Madrid in 1790. It is noticeable that Smith's Wealth of Nations has been proscribed in that country, " on account of the lowness of its style and the looseness of its morals." A list of books suppressed in France between 1814 and 1850 has been edited by Pillet. For the more general notices of prohibited literature, we refer our readers to Klotz's De Libris auctoribus suis fatalibus, 1761; to Struvius's Bibliotheca Hist. Litter, vol. iii. c. 9; to the Dissertations in the seventh volume of Schelhorn's Amoenitates Literarice, which contain much curious infor-mation ; to Brunet's Livres Supprimes et Gondamnes ; and to Peignot's Dictionnaire Critique et Bibliographique des principaux Livres condamnes au feu, supprimes, ou censures, 2 vols., Paris, 1806. This last work is agreeably written, and gives a copious list of authorities on the subject; but its enumeration of principal works is far from complete, and comparatively few English books are mentioned.
4 " Suppressed and Censured Books"vol. cxxxiv. July 1871.
A comprehensive account of works condemned or suppressed in England has yet to be written, but an article in the Edinburgh Review* supplies some interesting materials on this subject. Peacock's Precursor, which the author burnt with his own hand, is an early instance, before the invention of printing. The "war against books," however, began under Henry VIII., the sudden-ness of whose breach with Rome is shown by the circum-stance that, whereas in 1526 anti-popery books were con-demned as heretical, in 1535 all books favouring popery were decreed to be seditious. Several of the early trans-lations of the Bible were suppressed,—Tyndal's version among others. As many copies of that work a3 the superior clergy could buy up, were publicly burnt at St Paul's on Shrove Tuesday, 1527, Fisher, bishop of Rochester, preaching a sermon on the occasion. An edition of the Bible was suppressed for a misprint, the printer having omitted the word "not" in the seventh commandment, but a copy survives in the Bodleian. A general burning of unlicensed books was ordered by the king in 1530, the Supplication of Beggars, a well-known invective against Wolsey, being included in the list. Another catalogue was issued in 1546 by proclamation, and the Act 3 and 4 Edward VI. made a raid against missals and books of devotion The regulations of the Star Chamber in 1585 claimed the power of licensing and seizing books, and their scrutiny was as rigorous as that of the Inquisition. Never-theless the reign of Elizabeth was fruitful in " schismatic and libellous tracts." A notable offender was Cardinal Allen's Admonition, containing a furious attack on the queen, of which a copy remains in the British Museum; and the famous Martin-Marprelate tracts raised a storm of opposition. In 1607DrCowell'sZaw> Dictionary was burnt by order of the House of Commons, for its assertions of divine right in favour of James I. ; and the King's Book of Sports incurred the same fate at the hands of the Puritans in 1644. The persecutions of the Star Chamber include the punishment of Prynne for his Histriomastix, and the still more barbarous mutilation of Dr Alexander Leighton for his two works, The Looking Glass of the Holy War, 1624, and Zion's Plea against the Prelacy, 1628. Milton's EucovoKAao-r>7s and the Defensio pro Populo Anglicano were suppressed after the Restoration. Defoe's Shortest Way with the Dissenters was burnt by Parliament in 1703; and sixty years later Wilkes's North Briton incurred the same fate. The last instance of authorized book-burning in Great Britain was in 1779, when the Commercial Restraints of Ireland considered, by the Hon. Hely Hutchinson, was given to the flames.
This branch of bibliography has a peculiar interest to the literary historian. It serves to indicate, for the most part, periods of political excitement or religious intolerance. Fortunately, however, the efficacy of persecution has been frustrated by the disseminating power of the press. Punitis ingeniis, gliscit auctoritas, is the reflection of Tacitus; and experience has abundantly proved that it is easier to destroy an author than his book. Melancholy as are the records of literary martyrdom, there remains this satisfac-tion that, in the main, the policy of oppression has defeated its own ends.
VIL Catalogues and Bibliographical Dictionaries.
curious list of Lutheran works prohibited in England is given in Strype's Eccl. Memorials, i. 165.
The first catalogues, after the invention of printing, were those of the early printers, who, as booksellers, published sale-lists of their works, to attract the attention of the learned. The most ancient of these *qtalogi officinales— the humble predecessors of Bohn's gigantic catalogue—is a simple leaf, entitled Libri Grceci impressi, printed by Aldus in 1498. The list consists of fourteen articles, distributed into five classes, — grammar, poetry, logic,

philosophy, and theology, and may be regarded as one of the first attempts to apply a system of classification to printed books. Its interest is enhanced by its containing the price of the books advertised for sale. The increasing commerce in literature was at once a cause and a consequence of similar catalogues ; and the example of Aldus was followed by the Stephens, and by Colines, Wechell, and Vascosan, and other French printers of the first half of the 16th century, whose lists are given in vols. ii. and iii of Maittaire's Annales Typographici, the divisions of subjects increasing with the spread of printed literature. In England the earliest known sale-list of printed books was published by Andrew Maunsell, a London bookseller, in 1595, and contains the titles of many works now lost or forgotten. In 1554 or 1564 appeared the first printed catalogue of the Frankfort book-fair, published by George Weller, a bookseller at Augsburg; and in 1604 it was followed by the general Easter catalogue, printed by permission of the Government. These catalogues of the different book-fairs were collected together in 1592 by Cless —whose researches included all books printed since 1500 —and by Draudius in his Bibliotheca Classica (1611). The same has been done by Georgi in his Biicher Lexicon (1758), a catalogue of all works printed in Europe up to 1750.
The growth of the book-trade naturally promoted the spread of collections; and towards the end of the 17th, and especially during the 18th century, book-catalogues of every description multiplied rapidly. Their progress is copiously treated of in Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, voL iii. pp. 608-693.2 Most private collections, at first, appear to have been bought and sold en bloc ; and it was through the catalogues, compiled in many instances by learned and well-qualified librarians, that a more critical and discriminat-ing estimate of their contents was formed. P. Gamier in 1678 prepared an excellent catalogue of the library of the Jesuit College de Clermont at Paris, using the materials, like other bibliographers after him, for a classified system of his own. Dr Johnson and Oldys were the joint editors of the Bibliotheca Harleiana, which they prepared for Osborne the bookseller, who bought the library of the earl of Oxford ; and Maittaire drew the scheme of arrangement. The earliest catalogues of public libraries were simple inventories, disposed in alphabetical order, with, at most, a few biographical notices interspersed ; yet they paved the way, in the hands of Conrad Gesner, for the study of "pure" bibliography. The compilation of catalogues raisonnes was deferred till the 18th century, when the labours of French librarians or booksellers, such as Piget, Prosper Marchand, Martin, Barrois, Baillet, and the De Bures, created by that means a public taste for books. The greatest work of this kind was the French Bibliothèque Royale, begun in 1739, and finished in 10 vols, in 1753. Part i., relating to printed books, was superintended by the Abbés Sallier and Boudot. In a perfect catalogue raisonné alphabetical arrangement is dispensed with; every work occupies its proper place in regard to the light it throws on the subject treated, and the ground traversed by the author. " Catalogues of this sort," says Dibdin, " are to bibliographers what reports are to lawyers;" and Maittaire terms them " proces-verbaux littéraires, servant à decider une infinité de questions qui s'élèvent sur la bibliologie." The consolidation of these detached catalogues was a consequence of the increased requirements of learning, and the Bibliothecos, or registers of particular libraries, supplied the first materials for a general dictionary of reference. Biblio-graphy, thus represented, is the codex diplomaticus of literary history, with a field of research co-extensive with the innummerable productions of the press. But a uni-versal dictionary of this kind is but a dream of biblio-graphers; nor would any single compiler be equal to the task. The Bibliotheca Universalis of Gesner in 1545 is the earliest and almost the only effort of this nature. His work professed to include the titles of all known books, existing or lost, but he confined himself to those in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The first volume is classed alphabetically, according to the authors' names; the second contains a distribution of subjects, and is divided into nineteen books. Balthazar Ostem, in 1625, published a Bibliotheque Universelle, or catalogue of printed books from 1500 to 1624. A general survey of printed literature might be made to the end of the 16th century; but the idea is now wholly chimerical, since the number of books surpasses all human calculation. The Bibliotheca Britannica, or General Index of British and Foreign Literature, by Dr Watt of Glasgow, published in 1824, 4 vols., is perhaps the nearest modem exposition of Gesner's idea. All so-called general dictionaries are, in fact, written on a selective principle of some kind, the only means, as Baron de Reiffenberg remarks, of achieving utility and completeness. Ersch, the founder of modem bibliography in Germany, published his Allgemeines Repertorium der Literatur in 1793-1809; but the first really comprehensive work in that country was Ebert's Allgemeines Bibliographisches Lexicon, Leipsic, 1821-1830, an English translation of which was printed at Oxford in 1837, 4 vols. 8vo. Kaiser's Vollständiges Bücherlexicon, and Heinsius's Allgemeines Bücherlexicon, with the continuation by Schultz, are useful works of reference; but their contents, as might be expected, are far from justifying the epithet of universal Osmont, Cailleau, and other French compilers on a large scale, limited their notices to rare and remarkable books; and De Bure in his Bibliographie Instructive only included productions of inferior repute, because his original materials were too scanty to illustrate all the divisions of a complete system and comprise what he termed a " Corps de Bibliographie ciioisie." Brunet's Manuel du Libraire was the first work which embraced in alphabetical order what was most precious in the literature of all times and nations. It was first published in three volumes, 8vo, in 1810, and has since passed through several editions. It is far richer in English and 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. As a practical work of reference, whether to the bibliographer or the student, it is the most complete dictionary yet published on a scale so comprehensive. The Bibliographie Universelle (Manuels-Roret), Paris, 1857 contains a copious list of the leading works on the different subjects of learn-ing, which are arranged in alphabetical order, and a succinct summary of the principal editions of an author's work, including the ancient classics. Among works avowedly devoted to special bibliography, some are limited to the productions of certain epochs. The first century of printing has been an attractive subject of research, as has been noticed above in the chapter on early printed books. The Bibliographie de la France was the first trustworthy com-pilation of annual literature in that country. Of more immediate value for purely literary purposes are those dictionaries or catalogues which are restricted to particular branches of knowledge; and they have the advantage of being able to ensure greater fulness and accuracy, from the limited scope of their contents, than is available in a work professedly general. "Through the want of such," said Oldys, " how many authors have we who are consuming

their time, their quiet, and their wits, in searching for either what is past finding, or already found." A catalogue, in short, might be made of superfluous writings by authors who have dug in mines of literature already exhausted. The tendency, however, of modern bibliography is fortunately to subdivide the field of literature; and the student of any special department of learning need be at no loss for authorities to consult. Bale's Illustrium Majoris Britannia Scriptorum Summarium (1458), John Pits's De Academias et Illustrious Anglice Scriptoribus (1619), Bishop Tanner's Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (1748), and Nicolson's Historical Libraries, 4to, 1776, are the earliest catalogues, on a large scale, of our national literature. A list of Saxon writers, by Wanley, forms the second volume of Hickes's Thesaurus. A Critical Dictionary of English Literature and British and American Authors, by S. A. AUibone, 3 vols., 1859-1872, is an industrious work. The Biblio-grapher's Manual of English Literature, by W. T. Lowndes, is indispensable to the collector ; and for a first attempt of the kind, displays a singular degree of accuracy and research. His British Librarian, or Book Collector's Guide, 1839, purported to give a classed catalogue of books on English literature printed in Great Britain ; he lived, however, to complete only six numbers of the division— Religion and its History. Dr Adam Clarke's Bibliographical Dictionary, 6 vols. 1803, is restricted to works in the learned and Eastern languages ; his Bibliographical Miscellany, published in 1806 as a supplement, contains, among other matter, a full account of the English transla-tions of the classics. To foreign literature belong, among others, Quérard's La France Littéraire, and the Bibliothèque Historique of Le Long ; the Bibliotheca Bélgica of J. F. Foppens, 2 vols., 1739 ; Bibliotheca Hispana, Nova et Vetus, by Nicholas Antonio, 1783-88; Haym's Biblioteca Italiana ; Worm's Danske, Norske, og Islandske Lcerde Lexicon, 1771-84; Nyerup and Kraft's Almindeligt Litteratur Lexicon, 2 vols., 1820; Georgi's Allgemeines Europäisches Bücher-Lexicon, 1742-58 ; and others which space forbids us to enumerate.
The works devoted to special branches of knowledge form a host in themselves, and we can only mention a few of them, by way of illustration. To theology belong such works as Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, 1723, and the Bibliotheca Theologia Selecta, by Walchius, 1757, as well as his Bibliotheca Patrística, new edition, 1834. Judaic literature is represented by Fürst, and Hebrew writers by Wolfius, 1715-33. Lipenius, a learned German divine of the 17th century, devoted separate Bibliothecce to theology, law, philosophy, and medicine, which were collected in his Bibliotheca Realis. His Bibliotheca Jurídica has received several supplements by other writers, and is much the most valuable of his series. Bridgman's Legal Bibliography, and the valuable work of M. Camus, Lettres sur la profession d'Avocat et Bibliothèque choisie des Livres de Droit, deserve especial notice. The Bibliotheca Histórica of Meusel relates to historical works of all ages and nations. An excellent catalogue of books of voyages and travel is given in the Bibliothèque Universelle des Voyages, by M. Boucher de la Richarderie, 6 vols., Paris, 1808. Dr Young's Cata-logue of Works relating to Natural Philosophy, the Cata-logue Bibliothecce Historiée Naturalis Josephi Banks, by Dr Dryander, and Engelmann's Bibliotheca Historico-naturalis, Leipsic, 1846 (supplement, 1861) ; the Biblio-theca Mathematica of Murhard, Lalande's Bibliographie Astronomique, and the Bibliographie Agronomique, are leading works, written on the same principle of selection. British Topography was treated by Gough in 1780, and by Upcott in 1818. Nisard's Histoire des Livres populaires, ou de la Littérature du Colportage, 1854, a curious and amusing work, may also be mentioned. CBttinger's Biblio-graphie Biographique contains a copious catalogue of purely biographical works.
For a comprehensive work of reference on special biographies we cannot do better than refer our readers to the Bibliotheca Bibliographica, by Dr Julius Petzholdt Leipsic, 1866. Part i. relates to works on bibliography ; part ii. to the bibliography of different nations ; and part iii. to works connected with special branches of learning, which are classified into leading divisions. The Répertoire Bibliographique Universel of M. Peignot is a useful but ill-arranged work; it dates back, moreover, to 1812. The progress of knowledge and research, especially with regard to scientific subjects, obviously throws works of this descrip-tion soon out of date to the student, who desires to be acquainted with the most recent as well as the earlier authorities. As landmarks, however, of the state of knowledge at different epochs, they are full of interest to the literary bibliographer.
VIII. On the Classification of Books.
The different methods, adopted from time to time, of classing books according to their subject matter, has occasioned a variety of so-called systems of bibliography, which it is important to notice, but which space forbids us to describe in detail. A distinction must be observed between a scheme of arrangement applied to a particular library, and limited therefore by its contents, and one which embraces in its divisions and subdivisions the entire range of literature. Nothing, on either head, is learnt from the Greeks and Romans ; the classed catalogue of the library of St Emmeran at Ratisbon, compiled in 1347, and con-taining twelve divisions, is cited as the earliest specimen of its kind. (See LIBRARIES.) The most ancient system, in the wider sense of the term, is ascribed to the Chinese, who in the 13th century distributed the field of human knowledge into classes numbering from fourteen to twenty, with sectional subdivisions to each.
Classified systems suggested by or devised for particular libraries after printing had multiplied their contents, originated chiefly with librarians or compilers of catalogues. In 1587 Jean Baptiste Cardona wrote four treatises on the principal libraries of his day. His description of the library of the Escorial was followed in 1635 by Arias Montanus, whose catalogue divided the books there according to languages, separating MSS. from printed works, and distributed the whole into sixty-four classes. Their number was reduced by Casiri in his Bibliothèque Arabico-Espagnole de VEscurial, Madrid, 1760. In 1631 John Rhodius proposed a scheme for the arrangement of the university library at Padua, which has been recently published in the Serapeum by Dr Hoffman, from a manu-script found in the town library at Hamburg, under the title of Ein bibliothekarisches Gutachten abgegeben im Jahre, 1631. His method is very similar to that of Claudius Clement, in his Musei sive Bibliothecce tarn privates quam publiées exstructio, instructio, curœ usus, 1635. A catalogue of the library of the Canon de Cordes, which was purchased by Mazarin, was compiled in 1643 by his librarian, Gabriel Naudé, whose Addition à la vie de Louis XI. contains much curious matter on bibliography, but who is best known, perhaps, from his defence of the massacre of St Bartholomew. His Dissertatio de instruenda Bibliotheca had previously appeared in 1627 in a French version, entitled Avis pour dresser une Bibliothèque, an English translation of which was published by John Evelyn in 1661 ; it was followed by several treatises of the same kind, containing minute instructions to librarians.

F. Rostgaard published in 1697 a Projet d'une nouvelle méthode pour dresser un catalogue, which serves to illustrate the difference between arranging a catalogue and a library. Naudé finds fault with the far-fetched refinements of his predecessors, and his divisions have the merit of being more simple and precise. "It is certain," says Mr Edwards, " that a good catalogue will require a much more minute classification than would be either useful or practicable in the presses of a library." A confusion between these two distinct objects has largely pervaded the "system" of even later writers, who have supposed the same nicety and exactness to be equally necessary and equally practicable in both. Where there is a classed catalogue, the grand objects of a systematic arrangement are sufficiently provided for, independently of the location of the books on which so much fanciful lore has been expended. If there be no classed catalogue, it is tolerably clear that, for purposes of convenient and ready reference, a minute classification of books on the shelves, however accurate, may tend only to bewilder and confuse. Simplicity is the readiest means to aid the memory and abridge the labour of the librarian ; and this object can be attained by a much more elementary division of books than could be tolerated in any classified catalogue extending to details.
that date. A chapter of Morhof's Polyhistor is devoted to the same subject See also Leibnitz, Op. Onm., ed. 1768, vol. v; and Baillet's Jugemens des Savans. Aimi Martin's Plan d'une BMiothique Uni-verselle appeared in 1837.
These remarks apply largely to the ordinary system of modern French bibliographers, the origin of which is variously ascribed to Bouillaud, Gamier, and Martin. Priority of date appears to belong to Bouillaud, for his Bibliotheca Thuana, or sale-catalogue of the famous library of De Thou, had existed in MS. some time before it was edited by Quesnel in 1679. His system embraces five classes, theology, jurisprudence, history, philosophy, and literature,—the last including heterodox and miscellaneous works. The catalogue by P. Garnier of the library of Clermont, entitled Systema Bibliothecœ Gollegii Parisiensis Societatis Jesu, was published two years previously. The headings embrace 461 subdivisions, of which 74 belong to theology, 88 to philosophy (a class clumsily and confusedly arranged), 227 to history, and 72 to jurisprudence. In 1709 appeared Prosper Marchand's system, developed in his Catalogues bibliothecœ Joachimi Faultrier. In his preface he attacks the system of Naudé, and, after treating of the different methods, viz., the order of nature, of nations, of languages, of time, and alphabetical, sums up his divisions into theology, or divine knowledge ; philosophy, or human knowledge, separated into belles lettres and sciences ; and history, or the knowledge of events. Bouillaud's system, as modified by Marchand, was adopted by Gabriel Martin in most of the catalogues, amountingto nearly 150, which he published between 1711 and 1760, and, afterwards, with some enlargement of subdivisions, by De Bure in his Bibliographie Instructive. The result of their successive labours, which is known as " the system of the Paris booksellers," is the one commonly adopted in France, and consists of theology, jurisprudence, sciences and arts, literature, and history. Some changes, it is tme, were afterwards proposed. M. Ameilhon, in a paper published in 1799 in the Memoirs of the French Institute, suggested as primitive classes, —grammar, logic, morals, jurisprudence, metaphysics, physics, arts, belles lettres, and history,—his Revolutionary sympathies induc-ing him to discard theology from the list. But the system, finally elaborated by Martin, survived to govern the classification of the principal libraries in his country. Of the various innovations, the system of Daunou in his Mémoire sur la Classification des Livres d'une grande Bibliothèque, 1800, is frequently cited as the best. Since then the Paris scheme has been modified by bibliographers like Barbier, Achard, and Brunet ; by M. Merlin in his catalogue of the library of Baron Silvestre de Sacy (1842) ; and by M. Albert, in his Récherches sur les principes fonda-mentaux de la classification d'une Bibliothèque, Paris, 1847. Olenin's system (1808), for the Imperial library at St Petersburg, separated sciences from arts, and introduced philology as a distinct class. Dr Conyers Middleton in 1723 submitted a scheme to the senate of Cambridge for the classification of the university library ; the classes pro-posed by him being these—theology, history, jurisprudence, philosophy, mathematics, natural history, medicine, belles lettres ^(literœ humaniores), and miscellaneous. Hartwell Home's Outlines for the Classification of a Library, based on the Paris system, were submitted about the same time to the Trustees of the British Museum. A serviceable " Scheme for Town Libraries " is embodied in the chapter of Mr Edward's book previously quoted.
Of the more general " systems," based on a survey of the field of human knowledge, and not immediately directed to the requirements of a library, a brief notice must suffice. The earliest system, in this sense of the word, is commonly ascribed to Conrad Gesner, the founder, as Dibdin calls him, of pure bibliography. Yet he was, in fact, preceded, however feebly, by Alexo Vanegas, whose work, published at Toledo in 1540, forms the first imperfect type of future efforts of that kind. His divisions are fourfold, viz.: " Original—of the harmony between predestination and free will ; Natural—of the philosophy of the visible world ; Rational—oi the function and use of reason ; Revealed—of the authority of the Scriptures." Gesner's, however, was the first comprehensive attempt at a general encyclopedia of literature, constructed in the form of a catalogue. His system was first published in 1548 as an index of matters to his Bibliotheca Universalis, under the title of Pandectarum sive Partitionum Universalium Libri XXI.2 Florian Trefter, a Bavarian Benedictine, published at Augsburg in 1560 a Méthode de classer les Livres, which Peignot describes as "plus que mediocre." In 1587 appeared the Tableaux accomplis de tous les arts libéraux, by Christofle de Savigny, which Brunet asserts was the model of Bacon's " Encyclopaedical Tree," but which was substan-tially the system of Gesner. The well-known speculations of Bacon as to the genealogy of knowledge were embodied by D'Alembert in his Discours préliminaire à l'Encyclo-pédie Méthodique, Amst., 1767. They were also made the basis of other schemes by Regnault-Warin, Laire, Ferrario, and especially Peignot, whose system was divided into three primitive classes, viz., history, philosophy, and imagination, with the addition of bibliography, as an intro-ductory class. Girard's system was embodied in an Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Arts, et des Métiers, edited in 1751 by Diderot and d'Alembert, the latter of whom undertook the part relating to mathe-matics. Camus in 1798 took man in a state of nature, and then classed his library in the order in which this " man of nature " is supposed to form his impressions of the universe. The divisions of Thiébaut in 1802 comprised—(1), Con-naissances instrumentales ; (2), Connaissances essentielles ; and (3), Connaissances de convenances, and were founded on a somewhat similar principle to that adopted in 1822 by the Marquis.Fortia d'Urban, in his Nouveau Système de Bibliographie alphabétique, who prefaced his classes with
* For a full account, see the article " Gesner " by Cuvier, in the Biographie Universelle. His Bibliotheca was reprinted, and greatly enlarged, by Simler, in 1574. Conrad Lycosthenes afterwards published an abridgment, and a supplement was added by Verdier.

encyclopaedias. Ampère, in 1834, in his Essai sur la Philosophic des Sciences, has disfigured his system with a needlessly technical nomenclature.





Much unnecessary refinement has been expended by German writers on this subject. The system of Leibnitz, however, in 1718, is well suited to practical purposes. His leading classes are these—theology, jurisprudence, medicine, intellectual philosophy, mathematics, natural philosophy, philology, history, and miscellaneous. The scheme of the Jena Repertorium, published in 1793, contains 16 primitive classes, and no less than 1200 subdivisions. The system of Denis, formerly keeper of the imperial library at Vienna, was developed in his Einleitung in die Bucherkunde, 2d edition, 1795 ; he classifies learning into theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, medicine, mathe-matics, history, and philology. Krug's system followed in 1796, and Schleiermacher's in 1852. Wuttig's Universal-Bibliographie, 1862, aimed at embracing in a systematic survey the collected literature of the current time.
In England the classification of learning has been treated as a branch of philosophy rather than of bibliography. Locke's Essay on the Human Understanding contains, in book iv. c. 21, a "Division of the Sciences;" and Bentham has an " Essay on Nomenclature and Classification " in his Chrestomathia, though it does not appear that he intended it to apply to the distribution of books. Coleridge, in his Universal Dictionary of Knowledge, 1817^ aimed at combining the advantages of a philosophical and alphabetical arrangement, and adopted four leading classes, viz.,—pure sciences, mixed sciences, history, and literature, including philology Lord Lindsay's Progression by Antagonism, 1845, contains another method, based on his theory of the divisions of human thought.
For further information on this branch of the subject the reader is referred to Peignot's article on " Systèrne " in his Dictionnaire de Bibliologie, and especially to the chapter on " Bibliographical Systems " in Petzholdt's Bibliotheca Bibliographica, Leipsic, 1866. Many of the above-named schemes, particularly those of high, philosophical pretensions, are fanciful in theory, and quite unsuited to the practical requirements of a catalogue of reference. The seven classes of Denis were based on the words of Solomon, " Wisdom hath builded a house ; she hath hewn out her seven pillars ;" and Naude 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, the words of the Psalmist, Discipli-nam, Bonitatem, et Scientxam doce me. There are obvious objections to all bibliographical systems which aspire to follow the genesis and remote affinities of the different branches of knowledge. The truth is that, when biblio-graphers speculate in this field with a view to catalogue-making, they entirely forget their proper province and objects. The compilation of a good catalogue of an exten-sive library is quite difficult enough, without indulging in refined abstractions on the genealogy of human knowledge.
As regards works and collections which cannot with propriety be limited to any one division of knowledge, it would be advisable to refer them to an additional or miscellaneous class, as has, in fact, been done by some writers. Camus proposes to enter such works in the class in which their authors most excelled ; but this plan would obviously produce much confusion. While, however, a miscellaneous class might properly indicate the collective editions of an author's works, yet his separate treatises should be entered under the subjects to which they belong. A system of cross-reference is in many case3 unavoidable, if completeness of general design is to be combined with the cardinal object of a classed catalogue, namely, that of showing what has been written by the authors specified therein on the different branches of knowledge as they may be best arranged.
IX. Bibliography in General.
It has been 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. Some works still remain to be noticed which treat gene-rally of all matters relating to bibliography, though their scope and purpose differ according to the view of the science adopted by the writer. A comprehensive and judicious digest of bibliographical lore is still wanted, but there are several works which may be consulted with advantage. Cailleau's Essai de Bibliographie, appended to his Dictionnaire of 1790, is an interesting treatise. The Einleitung in die Bucherkunde of M. Denis, 1795-96, is an excellent work divided into two parts, the first of them relating to bibliography, and the second to literary history. The Traité Élémentaire de Bibliographie, by S. Boulard, Paris, 1806, was intended to serve as an intro-duction to all works on that subject written up to the date of its appearance. The labours of Peignot, besides his works on suppressed and rare books already noticed, include—(1), the Manuel Bibliographique, ou Essai sur la connoissance des livres, des formats, des éditions, de la manière de composer une Bibliothèque, etc., 1801 ; and (2), the Dictionnaire raisonné de Bibliologie, 2 vols. 8vo, 1802. The plan of this work, as Brunet admits, is well conceived, and furnishes a convenient mode of reference. Bibliography is certainly indebted to this industrious compiler, but his details have in many respects been rendered obsolete by subsequent research, and his vague notions of the scope and objects of his study have frequently led him into confusion and extravagance. A Manuel du Bibliophile, by the same author, appeared at Dijon in 1823. The Cours Élémentaire de Bibliographie, by C. F. Achard, Marseilles, 3 vols. 8vo, 1807, derives its chief value from its excellent summary of the different systems of classification applied to books. We learn from the introduction, that M. François de Neufchâteau, when Minister of the Interior, ordered the librarians of all the departments to deliver lectures on bibliography, but that the plan, which indeed appears fanciful, entirely failed, the librarians having been found quite incapable of prelecting upon their vocation. The Introduction to the Study of Bibliography, by Thos. Hartwell Home, 2 vols, in 1, 8vo, London, 1814, is perhaps the most useful book of this kind in the English language, though the compiler would have done better to restrict himself to printed books, instead of ranging discursively over the whole field of MS. literature. His book is chiefly translated and compiled from French bibliographi-cal works, and will be found useful to those who have not access to them. Besides some excellent specimens of early typography, it contains full lists of authorities on bibliography and literary history, and a copious account of libraries both British and foreign. The Studio Biblio-graphico, by Vincenzo Mortillaro, Palermo, 1832, is an Italian treatise of considerable merit. P. Namur's Biblio-graphie palœographico-diplomatico-bibliogique, Liège, 1838, embraces many subjects outside the province of bibliography proper. The Librarian's Manual, by Reuben A. Guild, New York, 1858, is a compendious book of reference for the student in search of authorities. Enough has been said to show that the different branches of bibliography have been treated with considerable industry ; but there is room for further effort, if bibliographers will recognize the chief value of their science as the handmaid of literature, (E. F. T.)





Footnotes

The term Iribliognoste originated with the Abbé Rive ; words similarly compounded, and involving fanciful niceties of distinction, are common among French writers on this subject (Peignot).

Beo Boulard, Traité Elémentaire de Bibliographie, pp. 88, 39.
See Notes and Queries, 4th series, ii. 265.
See vol. i. of Dr Clarke's Bibliographical Dictionary for some
curious details on this point.

So called first by Heinecken, Idle générale d'une collection complete dû Estampes, 8vo., 1771. Dibdin, in his Biol. Spenceriana, and Ottley, In his History of Engraving, have given fac-similés of the figures in
Buchdruokerkunst in ihrer Entstehung und Ausbildung, 4to, 1840 ;
Buchdruokerkunst in ihrer Entstehung und Ausbildung, 4to, 1840 ;
The date was sometimes computed by Olympiads, as in the Ausonii Epigrammata, printed at Venice in 1472. Middleton, who has written to prove that the Oxford Expositio S. Jeronimi of 1468 contains a falsified date, quotes, as an example, the Decor Puellarum of Jenson, at Venice, which is dated 1461, instead of 1471, in order, he says, to give priority to the printer over John de Spira, whose first work appeared in 1469 (Works, iii. 236).
1795-99.

Bibliotheca Spenceriana. To this were afterwards added his Jldes Althorpiance, with a supplement, 1822, and the volume on the Caisano Library, with a general index, 1823. The beauty of the facsimiles alone would entitle these works to the front rank of books on bibliography.

See Oldys's Dissertation on Pamphlets, and the Icon Libellorum of Myles Davis, a rfoumi of which is given in Disraeli's Amenities of Literature. Aungervyle de Bury admitted Panjleti exigui into his library.

of the learned printers, Robert and Henry Stephens, Annates de
VImprimerie des Estiennes, Paris, 1837, 2 vols. 8vo.
The preface is translated in Roscoe's Leo X., L 110.
These prefaces have been edited by Botfield, with an introduction of some merit.
These prefaces have been edited by Botfield, with an introduction of some merit.

1 Without disparaging the Elzevirs, it most he remembered that their texts were mere re-impressions, and did not rest, like those of Aldus and the Stephens, on ancient MSS||

s Baillet, in his Jugemens des Savons, i. 1690, notices several motives for concealed authorship.

* See Petzholdt's chapter on "Maskirte Literatur," in his Bibliothecu
Bibliographica.
8 See the chapter on " Book-Censors" in Beekmann s History of Inventions.
Labbe's Cone, ii, col. 988-94.

' Liberty of Unlicensed Printing,
' A complete list of their catalogues is given in Petzholdt's Bvbl. Bibliogr., "Verbotene Literatur."
See the Index Librorum prohibitorum a Pontificis auctoritate, in usum Bibliotheca; Bodleiama, by Tho. James, 1627 ; Francus, De Papistarum Indicibus, Leipsic, 1684; Thesaurus Bibliographicus ex Indicibus Librorum prohibitorum congestus, Dresden, 1743. Carnot, in 1826, published a complete list of all books condemned by the court of Rome from the date of printing to 1825, with the dates and decrees of their condemnation. The best known, though not the latest, edition of the Index was issued by Pius VII. in 1819.
See the final chapter in Disraeli's Amenities of Literature. A
The registers of the Stationers' Company contain entries of books ordered for " immediate conflagration" in 1599. See Notes and Queries, 3d series, xii. 436. Volume ii. of "Wood's Athen. Oxon. was burnt at Oxford in 1693 by the apparitor of the university, for some alleged reflections on the memory of Lord Clarendon.

David Holler's Sylloge aliquot scriptorwm de bene ordinanda et ornanda bibliotheca, 1728, contains a full account of authorities up to

E. Edwards, Memoirs of Libraries, ii. 783. See his chapter on M Classificatory Systems "

* For a full account, see the article " Gesner " by Cuvier, in the Biographie Universelle. His Bibliotheca was reprinted, and greatly enlarged, by Simler, in 1574. Conrad Lycosthenes afterwards published an abridgment, and a supplement was added by Verdier.

Idea Leibnitiana Bibliotheca» Public» secundum classes scientiarum ordinandi (Works, vol. v.)