is a subject of which a very curious history has been given to the world by Professor Beckmann. In the Encyclopedia mention has been made of some of the most valuable catalogues, their defects pointed out, and rules given for making them more perfect; but nothing has there been said of their origin, or of the uses which might be made of the oldest catalogues.
According to the Professor, George Willer, whom some improperly call Villar, and others Walter, a bookseller at Augsburg, who kept a very large shop, and frequented the Frankfort fairs, first fell upon the plan of causing to be printed, before every fair, a catalogue of all the new books, in which the size and printers names were marked. Le Mire, better known under the name of Mirzus, says, that catalogues were first printed in the year 1554; but Labbe (a), Reimann (b), and Heumann (c), who took their information from Le Mire, make the year erroneously to be 1564. Willer's catalogues were printed till the year 1592 by Nicol. Baffius, printer at Frankfort. Other booksellers, however, must have soon published catalogues of the like kind, though that of Willer continued a long time to be the principal.
In all these catalogues, which are in quarto and not paged, the following order is observed. The Latin books occupy the first place, beginning with the Protestant theological works, perhaps because Willer was a Lutheran; then come the Catholic; and after these, books of jurisprudence, medicine, philosophy, poetry, and music. The second place is assigned to German books, which are arranged in the same manner.
The booksellers of Leipzig soon perceived the advantage of catalogues, and began not only to reprint those of Frankfort, but also to enlarge them with many books which had not been brought to the fairs in that city. Our author had for some time in his custody, Catalogus universitatis pro mundiis Francofurtensibus versatilibus, de anno 1600; or, A catalogue of all the books on sale in Book-street, Frankfort, and also of the books published at Leipzig, which have not been brought to Franckfort, with the permission of his highness the elector of Saxony, to those new works which have appeared at Leipzig. Printed at Leipzig by Abraham Lamberg, and to be had at his shop. On the September catalogue of the same year, it is said that it is printed from the Franckfort copy with additions. He found an Imperial privilege for the first time on the Franckfort September catalogue of 1616: Cum gratia et privilegio speciali s. euf. maj. Profut apud J. Krugerum Augsburgo.
Reimann says, that after Willer's death the catalogue was published by the Leipzig bookeller Henning Große, and by his son and grandson. The council of Franckfort caused several regulations to be issued restricting catalogues; an account of which may be seen in D. Orth's Treatise on the Imperial Fairs at Franckfort. After the business of book-selling was drawn from Franckfort to Leipzig, occasioned principally by the restrictions to which it was subjected at the former by the censors, no more catalogues were printed there; and the shops in Book-street were gradually converted into taverns (d).
"In the 16th century there were few libraries; and those, which did not contain many books, were in monasteries, and consisted principally of theological, philosophical, and historical works, with a few, however, on jurisprudence and medicine; while those which treated of agriculture, manufactures, and trade, were thought unworthy of the notice of the learned, or of being preserved in large collections. The number of these works was, nevertheless, far from being inconsiderable; and at any rate, many of them would have been of great use, as they would have served to illustrate the instructive history of the arts. Catalogues which might have given occasion to inquiries after books, that may be still somewhere preserved, have suffered the fate of tombstones, which, being wasted and crumbling to pieces by the destroying hand of time, become no longer legible. A complete series of them perhaps is nowhere to be found, at least I do not remember (says the Professor) to have ever seen one in any library."
This loss, however, he thinks, might be in some measure supplied by the catalogues of Clefs and Draudius; who, by the desire of some booksellers, collected together all the catalogues which had been published at the different fairs in different years. The work of Clefs has the following title: Unius faculi ejusque virorum literariorum monumentis tum florentissimi, tum fertiliissimi, ab anno 1500 ad 1602 mundanarum autumnum inclusis, clefsius coniunctissimus—defunctus partim ex singularum numinarum catalogis, partim ex bibliothecis. Auctore Joanne Cleffio, Winececuli, Hannoi, philosopho ac medico.—By the editor's preface, it appears that the first edition was published in 1592. The order is almost the same as that observed by Willer in his catalogues.
The work of Draudius, which was printed in several quarto volumes for the first time in 1611, and afterwards in 1625, is far larger, more complete, and more methodical. Our author, however, confesses, that he never
---
(a) Labbe, Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum. Lipsiae, 1682, 12mo, p. 112. (b) Einleitung in die Historiam Literarum, i. p. 203. (c) Conspicatus Recip. Litter. c. vi. § 2. p. 316. (d) Joh. Adolph. Stock, Frankfurter Chronik, p. 77. CAT
CAT
I have never saw a perfect copy of either edition. This catalogue consists of three parts; of which the first has the title of Bibliotheca clasica, sive Catalogus officinalis, in quo singuli singularum facultatem ad proficitionem libri, qui in quibus sine lingua extant—recenterentur; sive ad annum 1614 inclusive. Author: M. Georgio Drudius.—It contains Latin works on theology, jurisprudence, medicine, history, geography, and politics. The copy in the library of the university of Gottingen ends at page 1304, which has, however, a catch-word, that seems to indicate a deficiency.—The second part is entitled, Bibliotheca clasica sive Catalogus officinalis, in quo philosophici artiumque adeo humaniorum, poetici etiam et musici libri sive ad annum 1614 continuerunt. This part, containing Latin books also, begins at page 1298, and ends with page 1614, which is followed by an index of all the authors mentioned.—A smaller volume, of 302 pages, without an index, has for title, Bibliotheca exotica, sive Catalogus officinalis librorum peregrinatis linguis usu, sive scriptorium. And a third part, forming 759 pages, besides an index of the authors, is called, Bibliotheca librorum Germaniorum clasica; that is, A catalogue of all the books printed in the German language till the year 1625.
We have reason to believe that there are other editions of this catalogue than those mentioned by Professor Beckmann; and it might become some prince or great man, for it is not a work for a bookseller, to compare all the editions together, and publish a new one more correct than any that is at present extant. This indeed would be an expensive and not an easy task; for our author observes, that all the oldest catalogues had the same faults as those of later date, and that these faults have been copied by Drudius. Many books are mentioned, which were never printed, and many titles, names, and dates, are given incorrectly; but Drudius nevertheless is well worth the attention of any one who may be inclined to employ his time and ingenuity on the history of literature; and his work certainly was of use to Haller when he composed his Bibliotheca.
Catalogues of the Stars, have usually been disposed, either as collected into certain figures called constellations, or according to their right ascensions, that is, the order of their passing over the meridian.
Of the principal catalogues, according to the first of these forms, an account has been given in the Encyclopaedia. The first catalogue, we believe, that was printed in the new or second form, according to the order of the right ascensions, is that of De la Caille, given in his Ephemerides for the ten years between 1755 and 1765, and printed in 1755. It contains the right ascensions and declinations of 307 stars, adapted to the beginning of the year 1750. In 1757 De la Caille published his Astronomiae Fundamenta; containing a catalogue of the right ascensions and declinations of 308 stars, likewise adapted to the beginning of 1750. And in 1763, the year after his death, was published the Catalogus Astrale Stelliferum of the same author; containing a catalogue of the places of 1942 stars, all situated to the southward of the tropic of Capricorn, and observed by him while he was at the Cape of Good Hope in 1751 and 1752; their places being also adapted to the beginning of 1750. In the same year was published his Ephemerides for the ten years between 1765 and 1775; in the introduction to which are given the places of 515 zodiacal stars, all deduced from the observations of the Catalogus of the same author; the places adapted to the beginning of the year 1765.
In the Nautical Almanac for 1773, is given a catalogue of 387 stars, in right ascension, declination, longitude, and latitude, derived from the observations of the late celebrated Dr Bradley; and adjusted to the beginning of the year 1760. This small catalogue, and the results of about 1200 observations of the moon, are all that the public have yet seen of the multiplied labours of this most accurate and indefatigable observer, although he has now (1798) been dead upwards of 36 years.
In 1775 was published a thin volume, intitled Opera Incitata, containing several papers of the late Tobias Mayer, and among them a catalogue of the right ascensions and declinations of 998 stars, which may be occulted by the moon and planets; the places being adapted to the beginning of the year 1756.
At the end of the first volume of "Astronomical Observations made at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich," published in 1776, Dr Maskelyne, the present astronomer royal, has given a catalogue of the places of 34 principal stars, in right ascension and north polar distance, adapted to the beginning of the year 1770.
These being the result of several years repeated observations, made with the utmost care, and the best instruments, it may be presumed are exceedingly accurate.
In 1782, M. Bode of Berlin published a very extensive catalogue of 5058 of the fixed stars, collected from the observations of Flamsteed, Bradley, Hevelius, Mayer, De la Caille, Messier, Monnier, L'Arquier, and other astronomers; all adapted to the beginning of the year 1780; and accompanied with a celestial atlas or set of maps of the constellations, engraved in a most delicate and beautiful manner.
To these may be added Dr Herschel's catalogue of double stars, printed in the Phil. Trans. for 1782 and 1783; Messier's nebulae and clusters of stars, published in the Connaissance des Temps for 1784; and Herschel's catalogue of the same kind, given in the Phil. Trans. for 1786.
In 1789 Mr Francis Wollaston published "A Specimen of a General Astronomical Catalogue, in Zones of North-polar Distance, and adapted to January 1, 1790." These stars are collected from all the catalogues before mentioned, from that of Hevelius downwards. This work contains five distinct catalogues; viz. Dr Maskelyne's new catalogue of 36 principal stars; a general catalogue of all the stars, in zones of north-polar distance; an index to the general catalogue; a catalogue of all the stars, in the order in which they pass the meridian; and a catalogue of zodiacal stars, in longitude and latitude.
Finally, in 1792, Dr Zach published at Gotha, Tabula Motuum Solis; to which is annexed a new catalogue of the principal fixed stars, from his own observations made in the years 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790. This catalogue contains the right ascensions and declinations of 381 principal stars, adapted to the beginning of the year 1800.—Hutton's Mathematical Dictionary.
Besides these two methods of forming catalogues of the stars, Dr Herschel has conceived a new one, in which the comparative brightness of the stars is accurately... Catalogue lately expressed. It is long since astronomers were first led to arrange the stars in classes of different magnitudes by their various degrees of brilliancy or lustre. Brightnesses and size have at all times been considered as synonymous terms; so that the brightest stars have been referred to the class comprehending those of the first magnitude; and as the subsequent orders of stars have been supposed to decrease in lustre, their magnitude has been determined in the same decreasing progression: but the want of some fixed and satisfactory standard of lustre has been the source of considerable confusion and uncertainty in settling the relative magnitudes of the stars. A star marked 1.2m. is supposed to be between the first and second magnitude; but 2.1m. intimates, that the star is nearly of the second magnitude, and that it partakes somewhat of the lustre of a star of the first order. Such subdivisions may be of some use in ascertaining stars of the first, second, and third classes; but the expressions 5m., 6m., 6.5m., 6m., must be very vague and indefinite. Dr Herschel observes that he has found them so in fact; and he therefore considers this method of pointing out the different lustre of stars as a reference to an imaginary standard. If any dependence could be placed on this method of magnitudes, "it would follow, that no less than eleven stars in the constellation of the Lion, namely, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, had all undergone a change in their lustre since Flamsteed's time: For if the idea of magnitudes had been a clear one, our author, who marked α 1.2m. and γ 2m., ought to be understood to mean that δ is larger than γ; but we now find that actually γ is larger than δ. Every one of the eleven stars (says Dr Herschel) which I have pointed out may be reduced to the same contradiction."
The author has pointed out the insufficiency of this method, and of the uncertain conclusions that are deduced from it, in determining the comparative brightness of stars found not only in Mr Flamsteed's catalogue, but also in the catalogues of other astronomers. It is sufficiently apparent that the present method of expressing the brightness of the stars is very defective. Dr Herschel therefore proposes a different mode, that is more precise and satisfactory.
"I place each star (he says), instead of giving its magnitude, into a short series, constructed upon the order of brightness of the nearest proper stars. For instance, to express the lustre of D, I say CDE. By this short notation, instead of referring the star D to an imaginary uncertain standard, I refer it to a precise and determined existing one. C is a star that has a greater lustre than D, and E is another of less brightness than D. Both C and E are neighbouring stars, chosen in such a manner that I may see them at the same time with D, and therefore may be able to compare them properly. The lustre of C is in the same manner ascertained by BCD; that of B by ABC; and also the brightness of E by DEF; and that of F by EFG.
"That this is the most natural, as well as the most effectual way to express the brightness of a star, and by that means to detect any change that may happen in its lustre, will appear, when we consider what is requisite to ascertain such a change. We can certainly not, with a more decisive evidence, than to be assured, by actual inspection, that a certain star is now no longer more or less bright than such other stars to which it has been formerly compared; provided we are at the same time assured that those other stars remain still in their former catalogue unaltered lustre. But if the star D will no longer stand in its former order CDE, it must have undergone a change; and if that order is now to be expressed by CED, the star has lost some part of its lustre; if, on the contrary, it ought now to be denoted by DCE, its brightness must have had some addition. Then, if we should doubt the stability of C and E, we have recourse to the orders BCD and DEF, which express their lustre; or even to ABC and EFG, which continue the series both ways. Now having before us the series BCDEF, or if necessary even the more extended one ABCDEFG, it will be impossible to mistake a change of brightness in D, when every member of the series is found in its proper order except D."
In the author's journal or catalogue, in which the order of the lustre of the stars is fixed, each star bears its own proper name or number, e.g., "the brightness of the star ξ Leonis may be expressed by ξ η ζ Leonis, or better by 94—68—17 Leonis;" these being the numbers which the three above stars bear in the British catalogue of fixed stars."
This method of arrangement occurred to Dr Herschel so early as the year 1782; but he was diverted from the regular pursuit of it by a variety of other astronomical engagements. After many trials, he proposed, in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London for 1796, the plan which appeared to him the most eligible. It is as follows:—Instead of denoting particular stars by letters, he makes use of numbers; and in his choice of the stars which are to express the lustre of any particular one, he directs his first view to perfect equality. When two stars seem to be similar both in brightness and magnitude, he puts down their numbers together, separated merely by a point, as 30.24 Leonis; but if two stars, which at first seemed alike in their lustre, appeared on a longer inspection to be different, and the preference should be always decidedly in favour of the same star, he separates these stars by a comma, thus, 41.94 Leonis. This order must not be varied; nor can three such stars, as 29, 40, 39 Librae, admit of a different arrangement. If the state of the heavens should be such as to require a different order in these numbers, we may certainly infer that a change has taken place in the lustre of one or more of them. When two stars differ so much in brightness, that one or two other stars might be interposed between them, and still leave sufficient room for distinction, they are distinguished by a line and comma, thus, —, or by two lines, as 32—41 Leonis. A greater difference than this is denoted by a broken line, thus — — 29 Bootis. On the whole, the author observes, the marks and distinctions which he has adopted cannot possibly be mistaken; "a point denoting equality of lustre; a comma indicating the least perceptible difference; a short line to mark a decided but small superiority; a line and comma, or double line, to express a considerable and striking excess of brightness; and a broken line to mark any other superiority which is to be looked upon as of no use in estimations that are intended for the purpose of directing changes." The difficulties that attend this arrangement are not disfigured; but the importance and utility of it more than compensate for the labour which it must necessarily require. By a method of this kind, many discoveries of changeable and periodical stars might probably have been made, which have escaped the most diligent and accurate observers. We might then, as the author suggests, be enabled to resolve a problem in which we are all immediately concerned.
Who, for instance, would not wish to know what degree of permanency we ought to ascribe to the luster of our sun? Not only the stability of our climates, but the very existence of the whole animal and vegetable creation itself, is involved in the question. Where can we hope to receive information upon this subject but from astronomical observations? If it be allowed to admit the similarity of stars with our sun as a point established, how necessary will it be to take notice of the fate of our neighbouring suns, in order to guess at that of our own! That star, which among the multitude we have dignified by the name of sun, to-morrow may slowly begin to undergo a gradual decay of brightness, like β Leonis, α Ceti, δ Draconis, η Ursae majoris, and many other diminishing stars that will be mentioned in my catalogues. It may suddenly increase, like the wonderful star in the back of Cassiopea's chair, and the no less remarkable one in the foot of Serpentarius; or gradually come on like γ Geminorum, α Ceti, ζ Sagittarii, and many other increasing stars, for which I also refer to my catalogues; and, lastly, it may turn into a periodical one of 25 days duration, as Algol is one of three days, δ Cephei of five, ε Lyrae of six, α Antioch of seven days, and as many others as are of various periods."
Having thus explained the general principle on which this catalogue is formed, as we find it in the author's first memoir on the subject, we must refer the reader to the Doctor's own account for its particular arrangement; observing only that the catalogue subjoined comprehends nine constellations, which are arranged in alphabetical order, with the comparative brightness of the stars accurately stated. In a subsequent paper, published in the same volume, he has completely verified the utility of his method by experience, and shown that there is no permanent change of luster in the stars. In the notes to his first catalogue he mentioned α Herculis as a periodical star. By a series of observations on this star, compared with α Ophiuchi, which was most conveniently situated for his purpose, he has been able not only to confirm this opinion, but to ascertain its period. His observations are arranged in a table, by means of which he determines that this star had gone through four successive changes in an interval of 241 days; and therefore the duration of its period must be about 60 days and a quarter. This fact concurs with other circumstances in evincing the rotatory motion of the stars on their axes. "Dark spots, or large portions of the surface, less luminous than the rest, turned alternately in certain directions, either towards or from us, will account for all the phenomena of periodical changes in the luster of the stars, so satisfactorily, that we certainly need not look out for any other cause." If it be alleged that the periods in the change of luster of some stars, such as Algol, ε Lyrae, δ Cephei, and α Antioch, are short, being only 3, 5, 6, and 7 days respectively; while those of α Ceti, and of the changeable star in Hy-