Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 3, Athens-BOI

BIBLIOGRAPHY
encyclopaedias. Ampere, in 1834, in liis Essai sur la
Philosophie 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.1 The
scheme of the Jena Repertorium, published in 1793,
contains 16 primitive classes, and no less than 1200 sub¬
divisions. The system of Denis, formerly keeper of the
imperial library at Vienna, was developed in his Einleitung
in die Biicherhunde, 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 biblio¬
graphy. 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 Classi¬
fication ” 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 “Systeme” 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 preten¬
sions, 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 Naud6 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 Scientiam 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 cases unavoidable,
1 Idea Leibnitiana Bibliotheca Publicce secuudum classes scientiarum
ordinandse (Works, vol. v.)
663
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 Bibliographic, appended
to his Dictionnaire of 1790, is an interesting treatise. The
Einleitung in die BiicherTcunde 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 Traite Elementaire de Bibliographic, 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 editions, de la
maniere de composer une Bibliotheque, etc., 1801 ; and (2),
the Dictionnaire raisonne 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 con¬
fusion and extravagance. A Manuel du Bibliophile, by the
same author, appeared at Dijon in 1823. The (Jours
Elementaire de Bibliographic, 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. Francois
de Neufchateau, 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 Horne, 2 vols. in 1, 8vo, London, 1814, is per¬
haps 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 dis¬
cursively 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¬
graphic paloeographico-diplomatico-bibliogique, Liege, 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.)