Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/424

 404 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

so long that he has little use for the long characterizations of Petzholdt. But if he were compelled to acquire a rational knowledge of bibliography at short notice, and often to bridge over gaps in the field caused by inability to get and become familiar with certain books, I am sure he would appreciate Petzholdt's long and careful discussions. No one would be able to learn from Stein's manual what the London catalogue is, which is liable to be met with in half a dozen different forms in as many different libraries, all of different appearance and covering differ- ent periods. Petzholdt uses a page for it, but he sets the tangle straight.

As to the last point of policy stated in the passage quoted, I cannot believe that the author is consistent. Hoefer gets no word of commendation, and surely he is not "detestable." The same is true of Winsor's Reader's Handbook of the American Revolution, Chan- ning and Hart's Guide to the Study of American History, and any number of bibliographies which appear in the lists without character- ization.

Considering the influence that the policy above discussed might have in limiting the number of bibliographies listed, I do not find many omissions which would be called serious in a library which had nearly all those included, but in case a library has but two or three in a certain field, if one or two of those are omitted it becomes a serious matter. I believe that at least nine out of ten libraries will fall in the latter class.

In the list of national bibliographies I am surprised to find Hinrich's Halbjahrskatalog missing. It is included in Petzholdt's and Lang- lois's lists, and is generally regarded as one of the most useful tools of the trade. How does M. Stein manage to get along without it ? The London catalogue is omitted entirely, leaving no regular list to cover the years 1824-35. True, it is a poor catalogue, but it does cover the ground after a fashion. The American catalogue edited by Leypoldt and his successors should count five volumes all told, and not four; while Kelly is credited with six volumes instead of two, the proper number. The list of national bibliographies is, on the whole, however, very satisfactory and the number of countries covered sur- prisingly large.

In the social sciences I notice various omissions which might certainly as well be included as many that are included. Examples are : Rand's Bibliography of Political Economy; Tolman's Handbook of Sociological Information ; Bowker and lies' Reader's Guide in Economic,

I