Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 3.djvu/681

Rh encyclopaedias. Ampere, 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 1C 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 Biicherkunde, 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- BMiographie, 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 &quot;Division of the Sciences;&quot; and Bentham has an &quot; Essay on Nomenclature and Classi fication &quot; in his Chrestomathia, though it doas 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 lending 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 &quot;Systeme&quot; in his Dictionnaire de Bibliologic, and especially to the chapter on &quot;Bibliographical Systems&quot; 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 uusuited to the practical requirements of a catalogue of reference. The seven classes of Denis were based on the words of Solomon, &quot; Wisdom hath builded a house ; she hath hewn out her seven pillars;&quot; and Naude&quot; 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, Ducipli- 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 objecta 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 bo 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, if completeness of general design is to be combined with tho cardinal object of a classed catalogue, namely, that of showing what has heen 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 tho 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 Buchcrkunde 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 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 editions, de la maniere de composer ime 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 Cours Elementaire 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. Fran9ois 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 Home, 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 graphie palcEographico-diplomatico-bibliogique, Liege, 1838, embraces many subjects outside the province of bibliography proper. The Librarian s Manual, by Reuben A. Guild, N&quot;ew 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. 