¹ Seymour de Ricci, with the assistance of Wilson, W. J., Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada (New York 1935–1940), 3 vols.Google Scholar

² Seymour de Ricci, ‘A List of Medieval Manuscripts in The New York Public Library,’ Bulletin of The New York Public Library 21 (1930) 297–322; also reprinted separately, 28 pp.Google Scholar

³ Announcement of a Supplement to the De Ricci Census of Manuscripts . 6 pp., prepared in December 1948 for the American Council of Learned Societies by Wilson, W. J. and Faye, C. U. Letter, Bond, William H. to Wilson, W. J., 25 June 1956.Google Scholar

⁵ Stephan Kuttner, ‘Notes on the Roman Meeting, on Planning and Method,’ Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law, Bulletin for 1955 (pub. in Traditio 11 [1955] 429–448) 437. Google Scholar

⁶ Pearl Kibre, ‘The De occultis naturae Attributed to Albertus Magnus,’ Osiris 11 (1954) 23–35.Google Scholar

⁷ Quoted by Thorndike, L., History of Magic and Experimental Science III (1934) 667. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica II (1901) 11, indicates that Nicolaus de Cusa was appointed titular of the Church of St. Peter in Chains on 20 Dec. 1448, and died on 12 Aug. 1464.Google Scholar

⁸ A Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum . new ser., vol. 1, part 1: The Arundel Manuscripts (London 1834) 45, item 164. The work is no. 39 in Skeat, T. C.'s list of ‘The Catalogues of the British Museum: 2. Manuscripts,’ Journal of Documentation 7 (1951) 18–60. ^8a mutue is read for mutuo, to agree with allocutionis rather than tractatu. Google Scholar

⁹ Dorothea Waley Singer, Catalogue of Latin and Vernacular Alchemical Manuscripts in Great Britain and Ireland Dating from before the XVI Century, I (Brussels 1928) no. 182. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Lynn Thorndike and Pearl Kibre, Catalogue of Incipits of Mediaeval Scientific Writings in Latin (Publications of the Mediaeval Academy of Amerlca 29; Cambridge, Massachusetts 1937), col. 328. Google Scholar

¹¹ Kibre (note 6 above) 24 n. 7. Google Scholar

¹² Auguste Pelzer, ‘Répertoires d'incipit pour la littérature latine, philosophique et théologique, du moyen âge,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 43 (1948) 495–512; published in an enlarged ed. (Sussidi eruditi 2; Roma 1951), 33 pp. Another example of the French usage is the title of Làngfors, A. I. E., Les incipit des poèmes français antérieurs au XVI^e siècle (Paris [1917]). On Pelzer's article see also note 91 below.Google Scholar

¹³ For instances of the German usage see the artiele by Josef Heilig, Konrad, ‘Methodisches zu einem Incipitkatalog,’ Zeitschrift für deutsche Geistesgeschichte 2 (1936) 65–77 passim. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Stegmüller, F., Repertorium commentariorum in Sententias Petri Lombardi (Herbipoli <Würzburg> 1947). For example, the explicit ‘laetabitur enim iustus, cum viderit vindictam peccatorum’ (p. 5) is indexed under ‘vindictam’ (p. 705); while the explicit ‘nec sanctos tristant cruciamina visa malorum’ (p. 6) is under ‘cruciamina’ (p. 695).+1947).+For+example,+the+explicit+‘laetabitur+enim+iustus,+cum+viderit+vindictam+peccatorum’+(p.+5)+is+indexed+under+‘vindictam’+(p.+705);+while+the+explicit+‘nec+sanctos+tristant+cruciamina+visa+malorum’+(p.+6)+is+under+‘cruciamina’+(p.+695).>Google Scholar

¹⁵ For examples from 949 A. D. onward see New English Dictionary III (Oxford 1897), s. v. ‘Explicit.’ More details in Appendix 2 below. Google Scholar

¹⁶ Little, Arthur G., Initia operum latinorum quae saeculis XIII. XIV. XV. attribuuntur (Manchester 1904). Another example of the Latin usage is the title of Marco Vatasso, Initia patrum aliorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum (Studi e Testi 16–17; Romae 1906–1908). Also Coelestin Vivell, Initia tractatuum musices (Graecii 1912).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Stegmüller (see note 14 above) 691–705. By ‘voces initiorum’ he means the leading words in the incipits; these he lists alphabetically because the precise wording of an incipit sometimes varies, and with it the alphabetization. The ‘voces finium’ are the leading words of the explicits and are the sole means of alphabetizing. Google Scholar

¹⁸ The Oxford Dictionary in 1897 (see note 15 above) and in 1901 marked its entries for both ‘Explicit’ and ‘Incipit’ with a symbol signifying ‘Not naturalized,’ but it is clear that during the subsequent half-century the situation has changed. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Briefly but authoritatively summarized in the articles on ‘Books’ and ‘Colophon’ by Pollard, A. W. in the revised Encyclopaedia Britannica (1951). The line of derivation suggested above is not the only one possible. Schullian, Dr D. M. points out, in a letter of 31 May 1956, that the titulus on the outside of a rolled manuscript may also be considered as the ancestor of the modern ‘binder's title.’Google Scholar

²⁰ Citations in the New English Dict. II (Oxford 1893) s. v. ‘Colophon.’ The untraced reference to Ames is in Pollard, A. W., An Essay on Colophons (Chicago 1905), in the introduction by Richard Garnett, p. x : ‘A quarter of a century before this it is found as a term needing no explanation in the first edition of the “Typographical Antiquities” of Joseph Ames, published in 1749. How much older it is than this cannot lightly be determined.’ The Dictionary's reference to Warton III, 140 is inexact; it should be : Thomas Warton, History of English Poetry I (1774) 140. The passage is worth quoting because it describes an illuminator's colophon, a type that is not too common. A richly illuminated manuscript at the Bodleian Library is being described. The copyist, who records his name in Latin verse, finished his task in 1338. ‘Afterwards there is the name and date of the illuminator, in the following colophon, written in golden letters: “Che livre fu perfais de la enluminiere an xviii° jour dabryl par Jehan de grise l'an de grace m.ccc.xliiii°.” Hence it may be concluded, that the illuminations and paintings… took up six years.’Google Scholar

²¹ Augustus De Morgan, On the Difficulty of Correct Description of Books (origlnally printed in Companion to the Almanac < London 1853 > 5–19; reissued by the Bibliographical Society of Chicago in 1902) p. 16. +5–19;+reissued+by+the+Bibliographical+Society+of+Chicago+in+1902)+p.+16.>Google Scholar

²² Goodspeed, Edgar J., with the assistance of Martin Sprengling, A Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Libraries of the University of Chicago (Chicago 1912) 25–27.Google Scholar

²³ Leroquais, , Les bréviaires (see note 69 below). Suggestions for the identification of local usage in Horae were made in the introductions to Searle, W. G. The Illuminated Manuscripts tn the Library of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (1876), and James, M. R., Catalogue of the Fitzwilliam Manuscripts (1895); but these were expanded to cover about eighty uses, and were arranged in tabular form for ready reference, by Falconer Madan, ‘Hours of the Virgin Mary (Tests for Localization)’, Bodleian Quarterly Record 3 (1920), 40–44. Theodor Klauser (see note 72 below) takes the methods and tests of Leroquais as the basis of a proposed catalog of liturgical manuscripts in Germany.Google Scholar

²⁴ Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R., A Short-title Catalogue of Books Printed in England , Scotland, and Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640 (London 1926) under ‘Method of Abridgment’ in the Memoranda.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. Alphonse Dain, Les manuscrits (Paris 1949) 145: ‘Le but immédiat de l’étude des manuscrits est l’édition des textes. Rares sont les savants — j'en ai connu pourtant — qui lisent les manuscrits pour le seul plaisir de la lecture…. Le véritable usager des trésors de nos bibliothèques est le philologue, l’éditeur de textes.’ In similar vein Powicke, F. W., ‘The Collection and Criticism of Original Texts,’ History n. s. 17 (1933) 1–8: ‘It would be foolish to suggest that the interest in texts is a new phenomenon. A noble tradition lies behind the greatest enterprises. … Yet today the preoccupation with texts is more widespread, continuous and anxious than it has ever been. It produces our most fruitful work.’Google Scholar

²⁶ American Council of Learned Societies, Bulletin no. 12 (December 1929) 78. Google Scholar

²⁷ On the Thacher Ms. see Ricci, de, Census 205 item 41. Discussions of the value of tracing provenance are not exactly new. Note the well seasoned comment of Greg, W. W., ‘Bibliography — an Apologia,’ The Library 13 (1933) 119: ‘This brings us to the question of ownership. As a general rule this study is a collector's hobby, without bibliographical interest. But it is not always so by any means, especially where the early ownership of manuscripts is concerned. Much labour has been bestowed on the attempted reconstruction, from early catalogues and the examination of manuscripts, of the medieval libraries of some of the great monastic houses. For textual criticism such reconstruction may at times possess great value… And even if we consider only later provenance, it may be of importance to know whether a manuscript can be shown to have been exposed to contamination by other known manuscripts… And if we extend the notion of transmission to include the history of the editing of a text, I think even so-called “association copies” may occasionally be more than mere futility.’ This can scarcely be termed enthusiasm.Google Scholar

²⁸ Announcement (see note 3 above), p. 5,Google Scholar

²⁹ Two systematic lists deserve particular mention. The liturgical manuscripts appearing in the first volume of the Census were made the subject of a seaching review, and were also indexed by types, in an article by Anselm Strittmatter O.S.B., ‘Liturgische Handschriften in amerikanischen Bibliotheken,’ Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 14 (1938) 224–230. A similar list of corrections for liturgical manuscripts mentioned in the second volume of the Census is understood to be in preparation but has not yet appeared. Of the 305 items in the Plimpton collection (Census II 1753–1809), since given to Columbia University, 167 are the subject of corrective notes by Ives, Samuel A. ‘Corrigenda and Addenda to the Descriptions of the Plimpton Manuscripts as Recorded in the De Ricci Census,’ Speculum 17 (1942) 33–49. He has found at least 75 examples of misidentification of author and title, 10 misreadings or omissions of dates given in the manuscripts, ten cases of misdated script, though (he adds) ‘some of these may be open to conjecture, where the difference is not more than a century,’ and 65 cases of miscounted leaves.Google Scholar

³⁰ Association of Research Libraries, A Catalog of Books Represented by Library of Congress Printed Cards (Ann Arbor 1942–1946) 167 vols. The supplement of 1948 added 42 vols. In a brief introduction to the opening volume (pages v-vii) the then Librarian of Congress, Archibald MacLeish, set forth impressively the significance of the Catalog as a stage in the long search of American librarians for a feasible method of cooperative cataloging — a method that would reduce, if it did not entirely eliminate, the wastefulness of having a given book cataloged separately by every library acquiring a copy of it. Google Scholar

³¹ Some seventy years ago the Bibliothèque Nationale, in Paris, rendered a great service to students of manuscripts when it published its list of reference works available in the Reading Room of its Department of Manuscripts. For years this was regarded as the most complete known record of such instruments of research: Catalogue alphabétique des livres imprimés mis à la disposition des lecteurs dans la salle de travail, suivi de la liste des catalogues usuels du Département des Manuscrits (Paris 1895; later editions in 1904, 1924, and 1933). Very serviceable also, though more limited in scope, was Weinberger, W., ‘Wegweiser durch die Sammlungen altphilologischer Handschriften,’ Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien . Philos.-hist. Klasse 109 (1930), no. 4. Broad in scope but seriously inaccurate was Richardson, E. C. A List of Printed Catalogs of Manuscript Books (New York 1935). For catalogs of early Latin manuscripts all previous lists are now superseded by Kristeller, Paul O. ‘Latin Manuscript Books before 1600: a Bibliography of the Printed Catalogues of Extant Collections,’ Traditio 6 (1948) 227–317. The same author published later his ‘Latin Manuscript Books before 1600, Part II: a Tentative List of Unpublished Inventories of Imperfectly Catalogued Extant Collections,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 393–418. This was originally prepared as a guide to contributors to the project of Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, and was issued in mimeographed form under the auspices of the Warburg Institute in 1951. In the meantime the Library of Congress had put out a pamphlet by Born, Lester K. Unpublished Bibliographical Tools in Certain Archives and Libraries of Europe: a Partial List (Washington 1952), which lays much greater emphasis on archives than on libraries. The Vatican Manuscript Depository of the Knights of Columbus Foundation, at Saint Louis University, in its news medium Manuscripta, is publishing lists of the numbers of the codices of the Vatican Library that have been microfilmed and deposited in film form at the Library of the University in St. Louis; and in the second number of Manuscripta (October 1954) the Foundation's librarian, Ermatinger, Charles J., has issued: ‘A Partial List of Catalogues, Inventories and Indices, Both Printed and Handwritten, on File in the Vatican Manuscript Depository of the Knights of Columbus Foundation.’ These also are in film form. The list is confined to the resources of one library, but since it includes not only Latin manuscript collections but also Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Greek, Hebrew, Persian, Syriac, and Turkish, it gives many items not recorded by Kristeller, See also the Greek and the Arablc lists in note 103 below.Google Scholar

³² The microfilming of rare printed and hand-written catalogs and inventories of European manuscripts has been going on under various auspices for about a decade. It is described in a brief notice on the ‘Liaison Committee on Microfilming Manuscript Catalogues,’ Speculum 30 (1955) 139–140. A list is there given of the libraries in Austria and Italy whose catalogs have been copied, the fims being deposited at the Library of Congress. The fact is noted that the films from Italy are under special restriction. The Italian Ministry of Public Instruction, which controls the public libraries, does not permit the films to be recopied and the copies sold. Copies may, however, be sent out from the Library of Congress to other libraries on loan. The films at St. Louis, whether of the manuscripts or of the finding media, may be consulted only in the Depository Library; no provision has been made for recopying or for lending. The Speculum article expresses a hope that a duplicate set of the films of the catalogs and inventories may perhaps be secured for the Library of Congress under less rigorous restrictions as to circulation by interlibrary loan. It also states: ‘The Library of Congress [in 1947] became interested in the project [of copying unprinted catalogues] …and planned to take it up under the direction of Dr Born, Lester K. …Unfortunately financial difficulties made it impossible for the Library of Congress to go ahead with the task. In one way or another, however, a good beginning has been made…. Films are still coming in.’ See Additional Note, below, p. 555.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. Dain, A., Les manuscrits (Paris 1949) 73 : ‘Périodiquement, on voit apparaître à Thorizon de la philologie de vastes desseins de catalogue mondial des manuscrits à dresser par des entreprises internationales.’ He refers to the Bichardson project (see next note) and thinks such a plan at present unfeasible, but finds the idea persisting and adds: ‘Dans une enquête internationale récente, je relève que quatre savants qui ne s’étaient pas concertés, Cantarella, R. Fr. Dolger, Biedl, A. et A. de Ivanka, réclament la réalisation d'un « inventaire général de tous les manuscrlts grecs, ’Google Scholar

³⁴ Richardson, E. C., A Union World Catalog of Manuscript Books : VI. Summary of Method (New York 1937) 9. This series, subtitled ‘Preliminary Studies in Method,’ began in 1933 with The World's Collections of Manuscript Books; a Preliminary Survey, by Richardson, E. C. Third in the series was his List of Printed Catalogs of Manuscript Books (1935), valuable though with many inaccuracies. The other three were in the nature of sample projects to illustrate the general plan, and were prepared by Grubbs, Henry A. (1933 and 1935) and by Faris, N. A. (1934). In his first volume in 1933 there is no indication that Richardson thought of going beyond the printed catalogs to seek out those existing in hand-written form, but by 1937 he was facing also the problem of the completely uncataloged collections.Google Scholar

³⁵ [Edward Bernard], Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae in unum collecti, cum indice alphabetico (Oxoniae 1697), 2 vols. in 1. Google Scholar

³⁶ Bernard de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum nova: ubi, quae innumeris pene manuscriptorum bibliothecis continentur, ad quodvis literaturae genus spectantia et notatu digna, describuntur et indicantur (Parisiis 1739), 2 vols. Google Scholar

³⁷ Haenel, Gustav, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum , qui in bibliothecis Galliae, Helvetiae Belgii, Britanniae M., Hispaniae, Lusitaniae asservantur (Lipsiae 1830).Google Scholar

³⁸ [Mas-Latrie], Dictionnaire des manuscrits . ou Recueil de catalogues de manuscrits existants dans les principales bibliothèques d'Europe, concernant plus particulièrement les matières ecclésiastiques et historiques, par Μ. X… <i. e., L. de Mas-Latrie> publié par M. l'Abbé Migne (Paris 1853), 2 vols. [= Migne, J. P., Nouvelle encyclopédie théologique XL and XLI].+publié+par+M.+l'Abbé+Migne+(Paris+1853),+2+vols.+[=+Migne,+J.+P.,+Nouvelle+encyclopédie+théologique+XL+and+XLI].>Google Scholar

³⁹ Richardson (see note 34 above) part VI (1937) 43, 64–65. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. 12–13, 4–5. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. 72–73. Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 23, 18. Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. 24–26. Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 27. Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. 11, 23. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 78–80. The writer points out: ‘The method is a natural evolution of the Jewett plan for stereotyped titles so efficiently developed by Mr. Andrews, C. W. at the John Crerar Library.’ Cf. Jewett, Charles C., A Plan for Stereotyping Catalogues by Separate Titles . and for Forming a General Stereotyped Catalogue of Public Libraries of the United States (Washington 1851), 14 pages — a paper read in August 1850 before the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vol. 2 in Richardson's series, by Grubbs, Henry A., The Manuscript Book Collections of Spain and Portugal (1933) is an example of slug printing.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The 1930's saw the beginning of what has come to be known as the Shaw Rapid Selector, though the developer of the machine is careful to acknowledge the earlier work of Dr. Goldberg, E. in Dresden and to credit the basic principles of its electronic system to Dr. Vannevar Bush. See Shaw, Ralph R., ‘The Rapid Selector,’ Journal of Documentation 5 (1949) 164–171. The device involves the storage of data on microfilm, the coding of the data for a range of subjects, and an electronically controlled printer that reproduces all that the machine contains respecting a given subject or set of subjects. ‘The pattern of light is coded … so that the current from the photocell cuts off only for a preselected code…This permits a flash lamp to spark for two-millionths of a second, producing, through an auxiliary camera, an enlarged print of the data… selected.’ To apply such a method to a large library catalog it would be necessary to adapt the system in such a way as to print off the total of accumulated data in alphabetical order. To the best of my knowledge this has not yet been done, but in scientific circles it is regarded as possible. What such processing would not do is to edit the entries or supply the principles of alphabetization; but granted proper entries and arrangement, it would apparently vastly reduce the cost of a reproduction of the sort mentioned in note 30 above. Experimentation in this whole field is very active. The New York State Library at Albany has adopted an IBM system of punched cards for its experimental catalog, Checklist of Books and Pamphlets in the Social Sciences (Albany 1956). Harvard University without as yet committing itself to any particular system, has had two graduate students at the Computation Laboratory explore the possibilities of using electronic equipment for printing off its catalog in book form. See Hopkins, James E. and Thomas, Julian, The Widener Catalog, Harvard University Library (mimeographed report, 1956) 59 pages.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Richardson, op. cit. 70. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid. 43. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ I have commented on these in my studies on ‘Manuscripts in Microfilm,’ Library Quarterly 13 (1943) 212–226, 293–309, especially 300.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Degering (see note 98 below) 473 observed: ‘Die katalogmässige Beschreibung der Handschriften wird in neuer Zeit in allen Ländern ziemlich gleichmässig gehandhabt.’ He added that though the rules issued in different countries vary as to the order of details, they all agree as to what is essential. Google Scholar

⁵² Casley, David, A Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the King's Library (London 1734). Some idea of the range of the work and of its importance in the development of paleographical studies may be had from the continuation of the title: ‘An appendix to the catalogue of the Cottonian Library; together with an account of books burnt or damaged by a late fire; one hundred and fifty specimens of the manner of writing in different ages, from the third to the fifteenth century, in copperplate: and some observations upon MSS, in a preface.’ See also a few comments on Casley in Appendix 1 below.Google Scholar

⁵³ Coveney, Dorothy K., ‘The Cataloguing of Literary Manuscripts,’ Journal of Documentation 6 (1950) 125–139. Pages 127–132 contain the best brief summary in English of the various sets of instructions that have been issued from time to time for the cataloging of manuscripts in England, France, Germany, Austria, and Spain. Dr Coveney (in private life Medlicott, Mrs W. N. ) considers the best English instructions to be those in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 1 (1923) 6–25, supplemented on 49–55 by a scheme for indexing paleographical facsimiles. Her comments are penetrating though naturally colored throughout by her desire to place greater emphasis on paleography. This may be the reason for her recommendation that the description of ‘the appearance and physical make-up of the manuscript’ shall precede the description of the ‘Contents’; the third and last place is assigned to ‘Bibliography, &c.’ Note p. 135: ‘The scope of the descriptions will probably long remain a matter of dispute amongst cataloguers, users, and sponsors.’ How true.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Lowe, E. A., Codices latini antiquiores : a Palaeographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts Prior to the Ninth Century, 7 vols. of a projected 10 (Oxford 1934–56).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Coveney, Dorothy K., A Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Library of University College , London (London 1935).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Coveney (see note 53 above) 126. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The paleographical aim does not seem to be stated explicitly in the article but is implied on p. 139: ‘The proposal is that the needs of a catalogue should be reviewed in the light of the present state of our palaeographical researches, and that the manuscript descriptions should, as far as possible, meet those needs.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Lowe (see note 54 above) II (1936) 29, item 221. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Thorndike and Kibre (see note 10 above) v-vi. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ ‘ Additional Incipits,’ Speculum 14 (1939) 93–105; ‘More Incipits,’ ibid. 17 (1942) 342–366.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Letter, Pearl Kibre to Wilson, W. J., 29 February 1956.Google Scholar

⁶² Thorndike and Kibre, op. cit. 785–926. Google Scholar

⁶³ Kuttner (see note 5 above) 429. Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Kuttner, S., ‘Methodological Problems Concerning the History of Canon Law,’ Speculum 30 (1955) 539–549.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Idem, , Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140–1234): Prodromus Corporis glossarum I (Città del Vaticano 1937) 493–516. The author has supplemented this volume by articles in Traditio 1 (1943) 277–340, and 7 (1949–51) 279–358.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Rambaud-Buhot, J., ‘Plan et méthode de travail pour la rédaction d'un catalogue de manuscrits du décret de Gratien,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 48 (1953) 211–223.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Kuttner (see note 5 above) 435. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ On the origin, in so far as it can be traced, of the canonical Office, see Catholic Encyclopedia 2 (New York 1913) 771–774. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Victor Leroquais's four principal catalogs are the following: Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris 1924), 3 vols.; Les livres d'heures manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris 1927), 2 vols.; Les breviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris 1934), 5 vols.; Les pontificaux manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris 1937), 3 vols. and a portfolio of 140 facsimiles. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See my review of Leroquais, Les bréviaires, in Speculum 11 (1936) 139–142, parts of which I have ventured to repeat here.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Leroquais, , Les bréviaires I, pp. xcvii-cxxvii.Google Scholar

⁷² Klauser, T., ‘Repertorium liturgicum und liturgischer Spezialkatalog,’Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 53 (1936) 2–16. The article is admirably summarized in Library Literature 1936–1939 (New York 1940) 973.Google Scholar

⁷³ Gerbert, Martin, Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra potissimum , ex variis Italiae, Galliae et Germaniae codicibus manuscriptis collecti et nunc primum publica luce donati (Saint-Blaise 1784) 3 vols.; reproduced in facsimile editions at Graz in 1905 and at Milan in 1931. The work was continued by Edmund de Coussemaker, Scriptorum de musica medii aevi novam a Gerbertina alteram collegit nuncque edidit… (Parisiis 1864–76) 4 vols.; reproduced in a facsimile edition at Milan in 1931.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Meibom, Marcus, Antiquae musicae auctores septem (Amstelodami 1652) and Karl Jan, Musici scriptores graeci (Lipsiae 1895) with supplement (1899).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Vivell, Coelestin, Initia tractatuum musices ex codicibus editorum collegit et ordine alphabetic disposuit… (Graecii 1912). It should be noted that the Catálogo musical de la Biblioteca National de Madrid, 3 vols. (Barcelona 1946–51) devotes its first volume to manuscripts from the 9th to the 19th century; its ‘Indice de textos’ is an index of incipits arranged first by language and then by types (hymns, antiphons, etc.).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Gaston Raynaud, Recueil de motets français des XII^e et XIII^e siècles, publiés d'après les manuscrits (Paris 1881–83) 2 vols.; and Bibliographie des chansonniers français des XIII^e et XIV^e siècles, comprenant la description de tous les manuscrits, la table des chansons classées par ordre alphabétique de rimes et la liste des trouvères (Paris 1884) 2 vols. Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Långfors (see note 12 above), who adds to his title the words ‘répertoire bibliographique, ’ Google Scholar

⁷⁸ John Mason Neale, Hymni ecclesiae, a breviariis quibusdam et missalibus gallicanis, germanis, hispanis, lusitanis desumpti (Oxonii et Londini 1851); and Hymns of the Eastern Church (London 1862). Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Franz Joseph Mone, Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters aus Handschriften herausgegeben (Freiburg i. B. 1853–55) 3 vols. Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Chevalier, Ulysse, Repertorium hymnologicum : catalogue des chants, hymnes, proses, séquences, tropes en usage dans l'Église Latine depuis l'origine jusqu'à nos jours (Louvain 1892–1912; Bruxelles 1920–21) 6 vols.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Bannister, Henry M., Monumenti vaticani di paleografia musicale latina (Lipsia 1913) with 130 plates.Google Scholar

⁸² Paléographie musicale : les principaux manuscrits de chant grégorien, ambrosien, mozarabe, gallican, publiés en fac-similés phototypiques par les Bénédictins de Solesmes I-VII (Solesmes 1889–1901), VIII-XIII (Tournai 1901–1925), 2nd ser. II (Tournai 1924), and supplementary fascicles numbered 140–155 (Tournai and Paris 1931–1934). For the published versions of the Gregorian chant as established by Solesmes see note 87 below.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ioannes and Sakkelion, Alkabiades I. give manuscripts of church music in a section of their κατάλογος τῶν χειϱογϱάφων τῇς ‘Εθνικῇς βιβλιοθήϰης τῇς ‘Ελλάδος (Athens 1892) 158–75. — Amédée Gastoué, Introduction à la paléographie musicale byzantine. Catalogue des manuscrits de musique byzantine de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris et des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris 1908). — For lists from the Magna Graecia region see references in Wellesz, Egon, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford 1949) 340. Wellesz points out (p. 15, n.1) that ‘Gastoué's transcription into modern staff notation on pp. 46–7 is not satisfactory.’Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Bernard de Montfaucon, Palaeographia graeca (Parisiis 1708) 356–58. Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Wellesz (see note 83 above) 18. He and Tillyard, H. J. W., working separately, came to the same essential interpretation of the purpose of the neumes in Byzantine musical notation and so could trace ‘its ingenious development from scanty indications for the singer, in its first phase, to an elaborate system at its acme.’Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Monumenta musicae byzantinae , in its sub series of Transcripta, has issued 6 vols. (Copenhagen 1935–1952).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ There are many modern transcriptions of music other than Byzantine. The Gregorian chant of the Western Church is now recognized as an historical derivative from that of the Eastern Church, and its transformation into the five-line staff notation now employed in some editions of the Liber usualis of the Roman Catholic Church has been accomplished not at a single stroke but by a succession of stages. The earliest transcriptions were performed by the monks, long before the age of printing, when they changed the system of disconnected neumes into a primitive form of staff notation. For illustrations see Bannister (note 81 above). The Mass and the Office in completely modern notation have been published for general use by the Benedictines of Solesmes in the Paroissien Romain, contenant la Messe et l'Office pour les dimanches et les fêtes: Chant grégorien extrait de l’édition vaticane et transcription musicale des Bénédictins de Solesmes (Paris, Tournai, Rome 1953). To their own question as to whether the Gregorian melodies can be accurately transcribed in modern notation they reply: ‘Sans aucun doute, et rien n'est plus facile qu'une telle transcription’ (p. iii). Their preface (pp. vi-xvii) gives a convenient explanation of the elements of the Gregorian notation (referred to also as ‘la notation carrée traditionnelle’) with modern equivalents. The Gregorian system is sometimes spoken of as ‘the neumatic notation,’ and its square notes and other signs are called ‘neumes,’ but these should not be understood as being neumes in the primitive sense. Solesmes is archaizing, to be sure, but not excessively so. As the editors say on p. iii: ‘Aimer l'archéologie pour elle-même est un excès. N'imitons pas les moines de Gall, S. qui, jusqu'au xv^e siècle, se refusèrent à adopter les progrès de la notation guidonnienne et gardèrent résolument leur notation neumatique sans lignes, incompréhensible à la plupart.’ Solesmes has also published The Liber usualis with Introduction and Rubrics in English (Tournai 1952) using the square notes, points, and other signs on a four-line staff. Although this Gregorian notation is sometimes called ‘neumatic,’ it is very far indeed from the primitive ‘neumes sans lignes,’ as no one knows better than Solesmes itself. — For modern transcriptions of French music of the Renaissance period, some made from manuscripts and others from 16th-century editions, see the series put out by Henry Expert, Monuments de la musique française au temps de la renaissance… sur les manuscrits les plus authentiques et les meilleurs imprimés du XVI^e siècle. Transcriptions en notation moderne (Paris 1924–1929) 10 vols.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Catálogo musical de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid (see note 75 above) I 257–444. It should perhaps be noted that a later and rather different type of material is covered by Albrecht, Otto E., A Census of Autograph Music Manuscripts of European Composers in American Libraries (Philadelphia 1953), listing some two thousand items and providing not only an index of present owners but also one of previous owners.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Harold Barlow and Sam Morgenstern, Dictionary of Musical Themes (New York 1948) and Dictionary of Vocal Themes (New York 1950). Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Described in an article by its originator, Nanie Bridgman, ‘L’établissement d'un catalogue par incipit musicaux,’ Musica Disciplina 4 (1950) 65–68. There is some discussion of previous efforts of the sort, including those of Oswald Koller of Vienna, Ilmari Krohn of Helsingfors, and others, not omitting Barlow and Morgenstern, whose purpose is said to have been popular rather than scientific. To me their method seems simpler than hers.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Pelzer, ‘Répertoires d'incipit’ (see note 12 above). The article is arranged with a logician's skill. An introductory section gives references to modern discussions of the contents of medieval libraries, mentions the principal general catalogs of manuscripts in particular nations, and explains the value of incipits — and to a lesser degree of explicits — in the identification of texts (pp. 495–8). Follows a section on methodology, including alphabetization, the use of classical rather than medieval spelling for index purposes, and the problem of distinguishing the true incipit from the text of a sermon, from a proposition set forth for debate, from the lemma discussed by a commentator, and the like (pp. 498–502). Then comes a survey of cátalogs useful for medieval philosophy and theology, beginning with such comprehensive compilations as Hauréau, Schmeller-Meyer, Little, Vattasso, Harnack, and Amand, and continuing with incipit catalogs of biblical texts (Stegmüller), sermons (for which there is no general list), music (Vivell), miracles of the Virgin (Poncelet), prayers (Wilmart), ecclesiastical ceremonials (Andrieu), liturgical formulas (H. Wilson, A. and Leroquais, V. ), and hymns (especially Chevalier). At the end is a list of seven medieval writers of sermons whose works are provided with sets of incipits, and about thirty medieval philosophers and theologians whose works are similarly provided. — Pelzer wrote before the publication of Chrysostomus Baur's Initia Patrum graecorum (Roma 1955), listing about 30,000 incipits from the Greek patristic literature; also before Bloomfield, Morton W.'s ‘Preliminary List of Incipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices, Mainly of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries,’ Traditio 11 (1955) 259–379, with 1100 entries.Google Scholar

⁹² Kuttner (see above, notes 65–66); in Pelzer, op. cit. 504, n. 1. Google Scholar

⁹³ Pelzer, A., Codices vaticani latini . tomus II, pars prior: Codices 679–1134 (Bibliotheca Vaticana 1931) with an appended index volume (1933). The preface prints the rules followed by the editors of the series in cataloging Latin manuscripts: ‘Leges quas curatores Bibliothecae Vaticanae in codicibus latinis recensendis sibi constituerunt.’ The rules are designed for compilers of special, not general, catalogs. Six other groups of the Codices vaticani latini have been described in printed catalogs: 1–678 (1902), 1461–2059 (1912), 9852–10300 (1914), 10301–10700 (1920), 10701–10875 (1947), and 10876–11000 (1955). The total of full-scale Cataloghi di Manoscritti is now twenty-nine. See Tisserant, E., ‘Bibliothèques pontificales,’ Dictionnaire de sociologie III (Paris 1936) 766–782, in the section on inventories and catalogs, for a highly condensed but comprehensive summary of the detailed special catalogs which the Vatican had up to that time put out for certain parts of its manuscript collections, and also a summary of the preliminary listings, usually called inventories, that prepared the way for the finished catalogs. With respect to the card index mentioned below (see my note 97) Tisserant, col. 778, observes: ‘La rédaction des catalogues imprimés [des manuscrits] est complétée depuis 1928 par la préparation sur fiches d'un index général des manuscrits, pour lequel 7.605 manuscrits ont été analysés jusqu'ici.’ In this sentence the word ‘complétée’ is subject to possible misconstruction. It seems likely that in 1936 the card index may have been expected to supplant the series of printed catalogs and bring the entire task ultimately to completion in the new form. Actually the card index has been discontinued and the issuance of printed catalogs resumed.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Rambaud-Buhot (see note 66 above). Google Scholar

⁹⁵ The Hauréau volumes at the Biblohèque Nationale, numbered 2392–2402 in the manuscript accession list for 1903–04, carry the title: ‘Initia operum scriptorum latinorum medii potissimum aevi ex codicibus manuscriptis et libris impressis alphabetice digessit Haur, B.éau.’ Microfilm copies of this and of the Schmeller-Meyer incipit collection (see Pelzer, ‘Répertoires’ 502) are now on deposit in the Knights of Columbus Vatican Film Library at St. Louis University, where reference service on them is available. The Library of Congress has no copy of either compilation. In 1939 I tried to secure for it a film copy of the Hauréau; Herbert Putnam, then Librarian of Congress, sent a letter of request to the Bibliothèque Nationale, which replied favorably, but before action was taken, the war evacuation occurred. At last reports the film had not yet been received.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Plans for the Forschungsinstitut are said to have been published in the leading article of the first number of the Zeitschrift für deutsche Geistesgeschichte (Salzburg 1935) edited by Dr Virgil Redlich, O.S.B. Apparently no Washington library has this periodical, so that my information is incomplete, but the University of Chicago has been good enough to supply a film copy of the article by Konrad Josef Heilig, ‘Methodisches zu einem Incipitkatalog,’ in vol. 2 (1936) 65–77. The journal seems to have been discontinued about 1939, doubtless a casualty during the period of annexation, invasion, and war.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Norme per Vindice alfabetico dei manoscritti (Città del Vaticano 1938). On this I have previously made some comments in the Library Quarterly 13 (1943) 299–302. At that time I had begun an English translation of the work, but was obliged to lay it aside.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ A quarter century ago the Director of the Manuscript Divlsion of the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, Dr Hermann Degering, in a section entitled ‘Die Handschriften-Abteilung’ in Fritz Milkau's Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft II (1933) 464–486, protested against indiscriminate repetition of the ‘initia’ of well known works, where a reference to a printed edition would be more serviceable. Cf. his p. 475: ‘Die ewige Wiederholungen z. B. der aus Vattasso und Little sattsam bekannten Initien der mittelalterlichen Literatur erscheinen mir in der Tat als eine ganz überflüssige Belastung.’ He would introduce the incipit into a catalog description ‘nur für die Vollanonyma.’ Google Scholar

⁹⁹ For the Vatican's manuscript inventories and catalogs down to 1936 cf. Tisserant (see note 93 above) and also the list of Pubblicazioni della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Città del Vaticano 1937), especially pp. 34 and 39 regarding the card index of manuscripts and the card catalog of printed books. The Norme of 1938 (see note 97 above) had been published in a preliminary edition (not for sale) in 1929. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Vielliard, J. and Boucrel, M.-Th., ‘La recherche des manuscrits latins,’ Memorial des études latines… offert… à… Marouzeau J. (Paris 1943): Vielliard, J., ‘L'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes,’ Revue du moyen âge latin 3 (1947) 183–192, with a sympathetic sketch of Félix Grat, who died in battle at Moselle in May of 1940; and a 27-page pamphlet concerning the I.R.H.T., issued at Paris, 15 Sept. 1955, by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, with an Annexe that lists eight articles describing the organization, and five of its series of Publications, in addition to its Bulletin d'information. — Born, Unpublished Bibliographical Tools (see note 31 above), 13, devotes his nos. 181–193 to the I.R.H.T., which has 210,000 Latin incipits on cards, 53,000 Latin explicits, and 99,000 cards in its bibliographies on medieval Latin authors and Renaissance authors.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Pelzer (see note 12 above) 502. Google Scholar

¹⁰² Vielliard, , op. cit. (1947) 187 n. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ In its series (see note 100 above) Pub. 1 is by Marcel Richard, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues des manuscrits grecs (Paris 1948); Pub. 2 by Georges Vajda, Répertoire des catalogues et inventaires des manuscrits arabes (Paris 1949). In 1953 appeared as Pub. 4 Vajda's Index général des manuscrits arabes musulmans de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Quoted by Pelzer (see note 12 above) 503 n. 1, Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Born, Lester K. ‘Baldassare Bonifacio and his Essay De archivisi American Archivist 4 (1941) 221–237. The citations are from Chap. IX,Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ National Archives and Records Service, A Glossary of Records Terminology ([Washington] Jan. 1956), issued as a draft for comment and discussion. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Stark, Marie C., ‘The Consolidation of Files,’ American Archivist 7 (1944) 33–40,Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Nuermberger, Ruth K., ‘A Ten Year Experiment in Archival Practices,’ American Archivist 4 (1941) 250–261.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Dorothy Martin, ‘The Use of Cataloging Techniques in Work with Records and Manuscripts,’ American Archivist 18 (1955) 317–336,Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Not, to be sure, that the printed-book cataloger is entirely unacquainted with such problems. A collection of essays by several authors, as in a Festschrift, presents a similar question. Is an entry for the whole book sufficient, or shall the contents be ‘analyzed,’ i.e., shall each essay be cataloged separately? Google Scholar

¹¹¹ The Descriptive Cataloging Division of the Library of Congress, as part of its Rules for Descriptive Cataloging in the Library of Congress, has issued a preliminary edition entitled Preprint of Rules for Collections of Manuscripts ([Washington] Sept. 1954). Google Scholar

¹¹² An Historian's World : Selections from the Correspondence of John Franklin Jameson, ed. by Donnan, E. and Stock, Leo F. (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 42; Philadelphia 1956) 361. — For an obituary of Bertram Tambyn Lee see Revista Histórica 12 (1937) 334; to this Lima journal he had contributed articles from 1925 to 1937. Dr Schafer Williams, of South Shaftsbury, Vermont, in an unpublished sketch of the man's extraordinary career as railroad promoter and historical scholar, remarks on his competence in Spanish paleography and on the fact that he was chosen by the Municipal Council of the City of Lima to edit its early Libros de cabildos for the celebration of its fourth centenary. He adds: ‘Without some concrete proof, there is no reason to suppose that any public records were acquired by him by any means not ordinarily open to any collector.’Google Scholar

¹¹³ The Harkness Collection in the Library of Congress : Calendar of Spanish Manuscripts Concerning Peru, 1531–1651 (Washington 1932).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ The Harkness Collection in the Library of Congress : Documents from Early Peru, the Pizarros and the Almagros, 1531–1578 (Washington 1936).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See Appendix 1 below. The report, extant in manuscript at the British Museum, was made on 22 June 1703 to the Trustees of the Cottonian Library by three eminent antiquaries, Hutton, Matthew, Anstis, John. and Wanley, Humphrey; see the 1802 Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Cottonian Library, ed. by Planta, J., p. xii. Part of the report is quoted in the preface to [Samuel Hooper], A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library (London 1777), of which there is a copy in the Folger Shakespeare Library.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ See Appendix 1 below for another instance in which a catalog (the 1777 Hooper just mentioned) seems to divide its effort about equally between the literary type of manuscript and the documentary. Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Thorndike, L., ‘A Study in the Analysis of Complex Scientific Manuscripts,’ Isis 29 (1938) 377–392.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Wilson, W. J., Catalogue of Latin and Vernacular Alchemical Manuscripts in the United States and Canada [Osiris 6 (1939) 1–836]. Note p. 18: ‘Some future investigator will doubtless tabulate alchemical recipes by subject-matter rather than by title and incipit, and so ultimately make it possible for the historian to know just when the various new substances and processes first made their appearance, and how long and widely they persisted thereafter.’Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ On the general uniformity of published rules, see note 51 above, and on arguments for putting the physical description ahead of contents, see note 53 above. Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Pelzer (see note 93 above) and Coveney (note 55). Google Scholar

¹²¹ Census 434, also 268. The system of accession numbers is based on the numbers assigned by the collectors, Mr. and Mrs. Folger, to the cases in which the books and manuscripts were packed. These were 1 to 2058, and decimals were added for the individual items; a few odd pieces were numbered 2068–2106. Accessions since April 1932 begin with 2201.Google Scholar

¹²² As has frequently been explained, Sloane Mss. 1–4100 were regarded as the basic collection, and the Additional Mss. began with 4101. Cf. Skeat (see note 8 above) 3–8, § 3; also Arundell Esdaile, The British Museum Library (London 1946) 260, where it is stated that on 30 November 1941 the Additional Mss. reached the number 54,877. Google Scholar

¹²³ Census 564-598.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Thorndike-Kibre (see note 10 above) 785. It is certainly difficult, perhaps even impossible, to adjust this practice to that of the Library of Congress, which has been accustomed for years to separate an author's genuine works from those considered ‘spurious and doubtful.’ Miss Nill's index to the Census, though based as far as possible on Library of Congress authority, broke away from it at this point and adopted in effect the Thorndike-Kibre method. She uses, for example, such combination headings as ‘Aristoteles (and Pseudo-Aristoteles)’, ‘Seneca (and Pseudo-Seneca),’ etc. Regarding Petrarch she was able to make a sharper distinction, giving first ‘Petrarca, Francesco’ and then separately ‘Petrarca, Pseudo-.’ Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Though it expressly disclaims completeness, one almost inevitably refers to this as the published catalog of the Library of Congress (see note 30 above). Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Census 667.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ This portion of de Ricci's formula had been somewhat criticized during the compilation of the Census, and he once remarked: ‘Some people think we have too many parentheses here.’ To insert the date in curves immediately after specification of the kind of writing material made the date seem like an attribute of the paper or vellum. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ One may say, in view of the fact that the index of the British Public Record Office exceeds 15,000 volumes, that catalogers do well to give the miscellaneous documents any treatment whatsoever, Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Wilson, W. J., ‘Manuscripts in Microfilm,’ Library Quarterly 13 (1943) 212–226. 293–309. See p. 218 n. 14, and 223 n. 18, on the Union List of Microfilms (Philadelphia 1942); its first Supplement (1943) included a checklist of 537 of the manuscripts filmed by what was then known by the rather heavy title of the War Emergency Program for Microcopying Research Materials in Britain. ‘The list is arranged by owning library,… by the name of the collection or class, and by the designating number. No authors and titles are given…. After all, they would add nothing of value for the chief users of the list, namely, the scholars who have already requested these very manuscripts by number.’ I must confess that in later portions of these articles I wavered somewhat on the matter of the sufficiency of a numerical checklist, and gave consideration to the possibliity of adding descriptive entries for these films to either the Union Catalog of American Libraries or to the regular card catalog of the Library of Congress. It was not so clear to me then as it is now that textual critics are not merely the principal users of such a checklist but for all practical purposes its only users. The matter was much clearer when I wrote ‘A Plan for a Comprehensive Medico-historical Library,’ Library Quarterly 21 (1951) 248–266, especially p. 264: ‘Such microfilms are not historical sources in the ordinary sense of the term. They would be used by practically no one but textual scholars in preparing critical editions.’Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Born, Lester K., British Manuscripts Project ; a Checklist of the Microfilms Prepared in England and Wales for the American Council of Learned Societies, 1941–1945 (Washington 1955).Google Scholar

¹³¹ On the Vatican Manuscript Depository in St. Louis see the references in note 31 above. Not quite all of the early manuscripts at the Vatican Library are being copied and sent to Louis, St. A committee has gone over them and eliminated a few that are thought to have no historical interest or significance. The lists appearing in Manuscripta give merely the name of the collection and the number of the codex.Google Scholar

¹³² Wilson, , op. cit . (1951) 265.Google Scholar

¹³³

^{133 a} On the vacillations as to the meaning of ‘autograph’ see p. 534 above, and as to ‘neumes’ see note 87, Google Scholar

¹³⁴ On Casley see also note 52 above. Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See the life of Sir Robert Cotton prefixed to [J. Planta], A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library deposited in the British Museum (London 1802). There is also in the 1696 catalog (see note 137 below) a ‘Vita Roberti, D. Cottoni,’ but it does not mention the seizure of the library.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See note 115 above. Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Smith, Thomas, Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Cottonianae (London 1696) 144.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Planta, , op. cit. 589–594; this entry is copied from the appendix to Casley's catalog of the King's Library (see note 52 above).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ So Skeat (see note 8 above) 14 n. 1. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ A Report from the Committee Appointed to View the Cottonian Library (London 1732) 15. P. 12 gives a statement of the procedures that were followed: (1) Stained paper books were unbound, put into clear cold water till the stains disappeared, then shifted to water in which alum was dissolved to strengthen the paper, hung on lines to dry, and rebound. (2) Vellum manuscripts were separated into those damaged by water and those damaged by fire. (3) Wet vellum manuscripts were taken apart leaf by leaf, smoothed gently with a clean flannel, hung up to dry, and rebound. (4) Vellum manuscripts closed together by fire were separated by an ivory folder, and if very stiff and illegible were softened by cold water ‘in case no other Method more proper shall be found.’ P. 14 describes the special treatment given to the two copies of Magna Charta in the Cottonian Library.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ See p. 527 above for tentative calculations showing that in the de Ricci Census there was a similar equality in the number of entries for the book material and the documentary. Google Scholar

¹⁴² The most comprehensive and valuable study is by Hill, Roscoe R., ‘Archival Terminology,’ American Archivist 6 (1943) 206–211. He even suggests coining the word ‘archivology’ to take the place of such round-about expressions as ‘archives management’ or ‘archival science,’ but this does not seem to have been accepted. Non voluit usus. Google Scholar

¹⁴³ For references to Lamb, (1823), Carlyle, (1865), and others, see New English Dictionary 1 (1888) 435, s.v. ‘Archive.’Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ An interesting example of these hybrids in another field may be seen in the playbills printed up for traveling companies of actors; these announced the plays and players, but left a space in which the place and date could be indicated by hand. Cf. McManaway, James G., ‘English Playbills to 1725,’ read as a paper before the Bibliographical Society in Washington, 4 May 1956 (to be published later).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ National Archives and Records Service, A Glossary of Records Terminology [Washington 1956]. On the other hand, Arnold Toynbee in a recent article goes all the way; cf. his ‘The Limitations of Historical Knowledge,’ The Times Literary Supplement 2810 (London, 6 Jan. 1956) iv, where he discusses the flood of documentary sources that the modern economic and social historian must meet, and mentions first ‘the archives of those Government departments that deal… with the whole population… [such as] the archives of ministries of pensions, insurance, health, education, and housing, not to speak of fine arts and the cults. These bring with them a deluge of statistics. And then come the archives of local government authorities, of private business concerns, and of private individuals.’ But the most advanced and explicit statement on this matter has been made by Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer on pages 12–17 of his Encyclopaedia of Library History (Mousaion 2; Pretoria 1955) where he divides all human records into two classes, (1) books and other literary matter and (2) archives. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Second Peport of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London 1871) iii-iv.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Ibid. v.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Ibid. vii.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Peckham, Jessie E., ‘The British Historical Manuscripts Commission,’ American Archivist 6 (1943) 41–48.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Land, Robert H., ‘The National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections,’ American Archivist 18 (1955) 195–207.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Rozelle Parker Johnson, Compositiones variae, from Codex 490, Biblioteca Capitolare, Lucca, Italy (Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 23.3; Urbana 1939). The table is on pp. 91–94. Some of the earlier efforts in this field are mentioned in Wilson, op. cit (note 118 above) 18, n. 16. Google Scholar

¹⁵² A number of recipes published by Johnson and others are a determinative element in the study of Bulatkin, Eleanor W., ‘The Spanish Word « Matiz »: Its Origin and Semantic Evolution in the Technical Vocabulary of Medieval Painters,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 459–527.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ For the identification of the Latin alchemical treatises the main tool is now the Thorndike-Kibre Catalogue (see note 10 above), and for the Greek the lists of the pertinent papyri, manuscripts, and texts (assigned to some forty authors) in Sherwood, F. Taylor, ‘A Survey of Greek Alchemy,’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 50 (1930) 109–139.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ F. Sherwood Taylor, The Alchemists, Founders of Modern Chemistry (New York 1949) 21, 34–35. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Ibid . 5.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Ibid. 113 where is quoted an English narrative, from the year 1558, of an experiment credited to Raymond Lull; then on p. 114 is an explanation of this in the language of modern chemistry. The ‘translation’ runs on smoothly and uneventfully until one comes to the final stage in the process. Here the original reads: ‘And it shall all be turned into medicine. Of which take againe one part and project upon 500 parts. It shall turn the mercury itself into [symbol for ‘sol,’ the alchemical name for ‘gold’] better and purer than mineral gold.’ This is ‘translated’: ‘A very weak gold amalgam would result, which when added to 500 parts of mercury would have no effect whatever.’Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Ibid . 143.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ F. Lüdy, Jun., Alchemistische und chemische Zeichen [Rome 1928], 57 pp., 127 tables. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ George Sarton, ‘Secret History,’ Scribner's Magazine 67 (1920) 187–192.Google Scholar

Additional Note. While this article was being printed, there appeared L. K. Born 's paper, ‘Universal Guide to Catalogs of Manuscripts and Inventories of Archival Collections: a Proposal for Cooperative Listing,’ College and Research Libraries 17 (1956) 322–329. This survey should be invaluable if the project of copying unprinted catalogs (n. 32 above) is revived. Dr Born estimates a total of some 30,000 catalogs of manuscripts and perhaps 100,000 guides to archives and personal papers. The two lists, printed by photo-offset, should fill about 3,300 pages. This brings the whole problem down to earth for the first time.