BIBLIOGRAPHY. A leading contribu tion in 'The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America) (Vol. X, No. 4, October 1916), supplies the observation that may very well stand at the beginning of a study of this subject. Mr. Feipel writes that "bibliography, or the compilation of bibliographies, is one of the most important branches of bibliology, ot the science of books. It is the Chief source of information for seekers after book knowl edge, and is as varied in its resources as the q_uestions (brought] to it are multifarious.' That elastic statement makes room, as we shall show, for the most complete, though brief, characterization—which he gives afterward — of the art or science of bibliography as it is understood in our own times.
But, desiring for our present purpose a more explicit introductory statement, we turn to a definition that seems to us admirable— the one put forward by James Duff Brown in 'A Manual of Practical Bibliography) (Lon don and New York 1906, pp. 3, 4). 'For the purpose of this book," Mr. Brown writes, 'the definition of bibliography as the stience which treats of the description, cataloguing and preservation of boolcs is ample. Within these limits are included practically everr thing which relates to the externals and regis tration of books, without trespassing on the province of criticism, historical typography, librarianship, palwography, or any other special department which deals more particularly with the archkology, qualities, and circulation of books. A sharp distinction must be drawn between bibliography and librarianship, which are too often confounded. The former is the science which relates to the history, materials, and description of books in general. The latter is concerned chiefly with the collection, preservation, classification, and making publicly available the books in a particular collection. The one is universal, and considers the per sonal history of all books; the other is re stricted to the elucidation and distribution of the comparatively small collection which forms a library or mere sekction of books.'
The same writer holds that "for bibliographical purposes it does not matter whether a book has commanded a fabulous price in an auction saleroom or whether it is a pamphlet of yesterday dealing with some unimportant local controversy. The business of bibliottraphy,' he asserts, "is to talce heed of all publications, old or new, great or small, cheap or dear, and to describe, and catalogue, and index them in such a clear and sufficient manner that the whole literature oi the world on any given subject, or by any given author, shall be placed at the service of the humblest inquirer. This," he admits, 'may seem an unattainable ideal, but it has the practical advantage of being something definite at which to aim" Ripe scholarship, however, does not in variably or unhesitatingly go quite to that extreme. Mr. Wilberforce Eames, for ex ample,— the distinguished bibliographer of The New York Public Library, who is devot ing a part of his time to the completion of Sabin's 'Dictionary of Books Relating to America)—is not averse to a more promptly utilitarian practice in some portions of the wide bibliographic field; and a discriminating signification may, we also think, quite properly be added to the definition of the word bibliog raphy. To him it seems right that, in some instances at least, lists of books for common use should be lists of carefully selected boolcs. The service that such lists render is to guide the reader to worics of positive value, instead of sending him perhaps on a fool's errand in quest of a volume that may be difficult to procure simply because it never was thoroughly well worth the reading. And this eminent collector and scholar thinks that it is some times helpful to add, after the more strictly bibliographic data, brief literary notes giving a synoptical view of the c.ontents together with a geneml impression of the character of the listed works.