always hope that those figures they have chosen may be taken as exemplary for a
certain kind of person in a certain kind of historical situation. For only then
the experiences of those exemplary figures – or the phenomena connected to them
– may be generalized and may then be analysed in a typological perspective. If
only it were not so hard to establish such claims to exemplariness.
It is thus
always nice to come across sources arguing in the same direction as oneself.
Even though it may of course be questioned whether any particular source is
exemplary and how much trust one may put in its assertions, it feels good to hear
a familiar judgement. Now just a few days ago I found such a source while
coding references to my protagonists from the Nova Acta Eruditorum into my database.
for a certain Lakemacher…
The third tome of supplements to the Nova Acta Eruditorum, printed in 1739, contains a review of the 4th volume of Johann Gottschalk Clausing’s Jus Publicum Romanorum in its sectio duodecima. This review lists many names of authors directly or indirectly connected to the publication – as the Nova Acta Eruditorum reviews in general are not at all afraid of namedropping – among which was, on the one hand, Adriaan Reland, as you see below (my sole reason for looking into this review at all).
On the other hand, there were many people which I had to look up since I encountered them for the first time during the course of the project. You would think that this should stop at some point, but no, these discourses were obviously quite flexible, and meanwhile I am sure that there are still more to come. Among these names now directly following upon Reland’s was that of a certain “Jo. Gothofr. Lakemacher[us]”, which somewhat unsurprisingly turned out to designate Johann Gottfried Lakemacher (1695–1736). Lakemacher, this was easy to find out, had been professor at the university of Helmstedt, where he had held the chairs for Greek and Oriental Languages at the philosophical faculty, as the professorial catalogue of Helmstedt university details.
… finding a
The Catalogus professorum of Helmstedt university gave no further information, so I looked Lakemacher up in the Deutsche Biographie, where there is an entry on him, and correspondingly in the World Biographical Information System, where he also can be found, this time with two short entries (see here and here). One of these now led me to Heinrich Döring’s (1789–1862) early 19th century dictionary of German theologians where Lakemacher is dealt with in more detail in volume 2 (I–M). At the end of this biographical entry Döring explicitly drew the connection to Reland:
Lakemacher died, not yet 41 years old, on 16 March 1736, after he had just two years before published his excellent reference book on the liturgical antiquities of the Greeks, in Latin, and had chosen Reland’s Antiquitates Hebraeorum sacrae as his model in arranging the materials. Regarding the scope of his scholarship and the length of his life Lakemacher was very similar to this aforementioned Dutch philologist, who died in 1718 in his 42nd year.
This short passage from Döring is interesting in two respects. First, and that’s what I started with, it shows that Reland could, at least in Döring’s view, be taken as a model for a certain type of scholar, in this case the linguistically gifted, highly talented, and prematurely dying ones. And second it proves that Döring, who was a very prolific writer of biographies (see his ADB entry), did know about Reland, who has no entry of his own in the “Gelehrte Theologen Deutschlands”. Which seems perfectly understandable now following the above-quoted lines from his entry on Lakemacher: in Döring’s eyes, Reland as a “Dutch philologist” was neither a German nor a theologian, so he fell out of the scope of the book.
This is both an early example of 19th century nationalist classification, which repartitioned (and parochialized!) the landscape of intellectual history, and of 19th century disciplinary boundary-making, which did the same along other lines. Not that these demarcations were stable and went down unquestioned: in the end, Reland also got an entry in the German national biography (see here) the author of which classified him both as a German – at least implicitly, as his being Dutch was just passed over quietly – and a theologian. (More on this entry is to be found in this older post of mine.)
But how about contemporary connections between Lakemacher and Reland, who were temporally, geographically and intellectually quite close to each other, as it seems? Direct connections seem improbable in so far as Reland had died, also at the age of 41, in Utrecht on 5 February 1718, when Lakemacher was only 22 years of age and still studying at the university of Halle. In his Antiquitates Graecorum sacrae of 1734 however Lakemacher explicitly detailed the structural similarity mentioned by Döring:
In arranging the matters I have resorted to the same method which Adriaan Reland followed in his Antiquitates Hebraeorum sacris, for this seemed the most appropriate to me.
Johann Gottfried Lakemacher, Antiquitates Graecorum Sacrae, praefatio, p. 8–9.
This may just testify to the currency of Reland’s Antiquitates sacrae veterum Hebraeorum, which seems to have been widely used as a textbook for undergraduates and saw four editions between 1708 and 1741, besides numerous adaptions. In the preface to Lakemacher’s first publication, the 1718 Elementa linguae arabicae, his teacher, the Helmstedt professor for Oriental languages Hermann von der Hardt (1660–1746), did not compare his pupil to Reland, although he explicitly wrote that such an accomplishment as the book should directly qualify Lakemacher for a professorial post.
the similiarities are indeed structural, and point to a certain type of young
scholar who in the late 17th and early 18th century might
attain academic honours early and then die a sudden death. The difference
between Reland and Lakemacher, from my point of view, lies in Lakemacher
becoming forgotten much sooner, and much more effectively than Reland. The
reasons why this would be so are not yet entirely clear to me, although I
assume that part of the solution might be that Helmstedt was not Utrecht, and
another part in that Lakemacher as the later scholar might have come to be seen
as epigonic. But the other parts I still have to figure out.
Gottschalk Clausing (ed.): Jus
Publicum Romanorum: Id Est Fasciculus […] Arcanorum Status Reipublicæ
Romanæ […] Adornante Jo. Godeschalc. Clausingio, Consil. Lippiaco Et J. U.
D.: Recensens Varios, Tum Paganorum, Judaeorum, Tum Etiam Christianorum
Religionem Describentes, Praeclaos, Et Quidem. Raros Autores. Ut I. Juliani Aurelii, scriptoris rarissimi, libros tres de
cognominibus Deorum Gentilium. II. Livii Historiam, de origine &
turpitudine Bacchanaliorum. III. Neandri Historiam Bacchanaliorum. IV. Poggii
Florentini, descriptionem fortunæ, & ruinæ Urbis Romæ. V. Dreseri, de
Festis diebus Librum. VI. M. Fritschii discursum, de Judæorum post montes
Caspios latente Messia. VII. Dn. de Goebeln. ex Diplomat. de Cancellariis
Imperii, erutam eruditissimam Differtationem. Quorum Omnium, Penitiorem
Notitiam, B. L. Proxima Post Praefationem Pagina Indepturus, Insuper Indice
Rerum, Verborum Et Auctorum Dotatus Ornatusque, Lemgo: Meyer 1737.
 Heinrich Döring: Die gelehrten Theologen Deutschlands im achtzehnten und neunzehnten Jahrhundert: nach ihrem Leben und Wirken dargestellt von Heinrich
Doering, 4 vols., Neustadt a. d. Orla: J. K. G. Wagner, 1831–1835.
Döring: Johann Gottfried Lakemacher, in: —: Die gelehrten Theologen
Deutschlands im achtzehnten und neunzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. 2 (I–M), Neustadt
a. d. Orla: J. K. G. Wagner 1832, pp. 223–225.
Gottfried Lakemacher: Antiquitates Graecorum sacrae, Helmstedt: Weygand 1734:
 Ibid., p. –: “In rebus
disponendis rationem servavi eam, quam in antiquitatibus Hebraeorum sacris
secutus est Hadr. Relandus. nam [sic] ea visa mihi est aptissima.”
von der Hardt: [Preface], in: Johann Gottfried Lakemacher: Elementa linguae
arabicae in quibus omnia ad solidam huius linguae cognitionem necessaria
paradigmata exihibentur accedunt textus aliquot arabici et iustae analyseos
exemplum, Helmstedt: Hamm 1718, pp.  – ; here p. .
Feels good to be in time again. How my latest results make me feel is something I’m not as sure about though. A few weeks ago, I wondered here on this blog about Thomas Gale’s books not selling so well. And on the basis of those sales catalogues which I had at hand I determined that most likely Roger Henry Gale (1710-1768), his grandson, sold parts of his father’s and grandfather’s libraries to the London bookseller Thomas II Osborne (c.1704–1767) around 1758/59. Well, I nearly hit it. I was so close. So very close, but… not close enough, as it turned out.
For in the
meantime I managed to find more sales catalogues, and as always when I find
something like that I wonder why I didn’t search the way I found it by straight
from the beginning. I do not know, and I’m afraid I can’t help it. But that is
what’s research is like: Think of something, find new sources, correct yourself
and think again. So that’s what I’m going to do with the rest of this post.
the catalogues which I found where three Osborne catalogues forming a series running
from 1756 through 1758. Looking at their titles it becomes instantly clear that
these were the sources I was looking for:
So the good
news is, I guessed right, and the books really were sold to Thomas Osborne. Bad
news is, this did not happen in 1758/59 but already in 1755 (it can’t have been
in 1756 as catalogue nr. 1 advertises the begin of the sale for 1 January 1756),
three years earlier. Well, at least I got the general picture right. But what
about the details, now that I have got three thick volumes (more than 400 pages
each) with additional information at hand?
the catalogues are framed in a way which makes it impossible for me to assess
which of these books once belonged to the Gale family library, much less which
of them would likely have belonged to either Thomas Gale or his son Roger Gale,
because Osborne jumbled all the libraries of the people on his title pages up
in one big lot (and probably even more, since each title page says something about
“others”). So the libraries of at least ten persons were taken together to form
a massive collection, advertised to contain more than 200.000 volumes. It was
so large that Osborne and Shipton from the start projected its sale to last at
least two years:
Which will begin to be sold (the lowest Prices printed in the Catalogue, without any Abatement, for Ready Money only) at T. Osborne’s and J. Shipton’s in Gray’s-Inn, This Day, and for the Conveniency of the Nobility and Genrry who live at a Distance (this Collection being so very numerous) will continue daily selling for two Years, viz. to the First of January 1758.
Osborne & Shipton: A Catalogue of the Libraries of the following Eminent and Learned Persons, vol. 1, 1756, title page.
confess that I have no idea why the sale was organized in this way. The most
likely explanation would be that they sold the collection as they themselves
had bought it. But this only relocates the problem as it would mean that they
bought it from someone who had assembled it before; and who would assemble two
hundred thousand books? This is a figure sufficient for stocking a present-day
medium-sized public library, let alone an early 18th century
library. The sheer handling of the physical objects must have presented the
booksellers with quite a challenge, as these were literally several tons of
books to store. How many ox-carts or freight barges would have been necessary
to transport them? Well, apart from
these rather fascinating questions to which I have absolutely no answers (but
really would like to know more), the mass of books also was too much to be
organized the way they normally were, which would have been thematically. This
was only done for the folios, which would generate most of the proceeds; all
the rest was just sorted by size, and all books of each size alphabetically
within each of the catalogues.
before, the only books which I may assign to have been part of the Gale library
with certainty are, as before, those which are listed in the catalogues as
carrying manuscript notes by either Thomas or Roger Gale. These were, by the
way, not as many as I would have expected; here’s the list.
annotated by Thomas and Roger Gale in the library sale
Volume I, 1756
None. Yes, that’s right, not a single one.
Volume II, 1757
Here we go. That’s a bit of a list.
9: [Folio] “16590 Idem [=Beda Historia Ecclesiastica, cui accessere Leges
Anglo-Saxonicae, Saxonice & Latine], cum Additionibus MSS. a Decano Gale,
1l 18s ib. 1643”
12: [Folio] “16702 Balei Scriptorum Britanniae Centuriae ix. cum
Observationib. MSS. a D. Galeo, 1l 1s Basil. 1559”
14: [Folio] “16747 [Burton’s] Commentary on Antoninus’ Itinerary, with
MSS. Additions by Roger Gale, Esq; 10s 6d 1658”
16: [Folio] “16822 [Camdeni] Britannia, cum Additionib. Margine Mss. in
Margine a T. Gale, 1l 1s Lond.”
31: [Folio] “17237 Dictionarium Graeco Latinum, a Budaeo & aliis, 4
tom. interfoliat. cum Addit. MSS. a Th. Galeo, 3l 3s Basil. 1565”
42: [Folio] “17564 Gesneri Bibliotheca universalis, 2 tom. interfoliat.
cum multis Notis MSS. per Th. Gale, 1l 1s Tiguri 1574”
43: [Folio] “17593 Gordon’s (Alexander) Itinerarium Septentrionale: or,
Journey thro’ Scotland, with the Supplement and Cuts, large Paper, with
marginal MSS. Observations by Roger Gale, Esq; neatly bound, 2l 2s 1726”
46: [Folio] “17673 Herodoti Hist. Gr. & Lat. a Sylburgio, cum multis
Observationibus per Th. Gale, 2l 2s Francof. 1608”
p. 47: [Folio] “17723 Idem [=Hesychii
Lexicon, Gr.], cum multis Additionib. MSS. in margine, a Heinsio & T. Gale,
1l 1s Venet. 154”
53: [Folio] “17898 Jamblichus de Mysteriis Liber ex Edit. Tho. Gale, cum
Indice Mss. 5s Oxon. 1678”
58: [Folio] “17994 Idem [=Luciani Opera], Gr. cum Notis MSS. in margine,
5l 5s. Fuit Liber hic Henrici Stephani & hac sunt Notae ejus manus literae.
Teste T. Gale.”
64: [Folio] “18179 Idem [=Matthaei Paris Historia Angliae, a Watts], cum
MSS. Additionib. per T. Gale, 1l 11s 6d Lond. 1684”
77: [Folio] “18555 Idem [=Platonis Opera Omnia], cum variis Observationib.
Mss. in Margine per T. Gale, 2l 2s [Basil.] 1534”
83: [Folio] “18748 Philipot’s Survey of Kent, with MSS. Additions by Roger
Gale, Esq; very fair, 2l 2s 1659”
88: [Folio] “18876 [Scriptores] Rerum Anglicarum post Bedam, cum multis
Additionibus MSS. per Th. Galeum, 1l 11s 6d Francof. 1601”
89: [Folio] “18907 [Stephani (Rob)] Glossaria ad utriusque Linguae, cum
MSS. Observationib. Th. Gale, 3l 3s 1573”
89: [Folio] “18914 Idem [=Suidae Lexicon], Gr. cum Observationibus MSS.
per Th. Gale, 2l 2s Basil. 1544”
91: [Folio] “18983 Septuaginta ex Auctoritate Sixti V, Pont. Max. editum,
cum variis Lectionibus Mss. a Tho. Gale, 5l 5s Romae 1587”
101: [Folio] “19292 Thoresby’s Topography of the ancient Town and Parish
of Leeds in Yorkshire, with cuts, and a great number of MSS. Additions by Roger
Gale, Esq; 1l 5s 1715”
105: [Folio] “19405 Vincent’s Discoverie of Errours in the first Edition
of the Catalogue of Nobility, published by Raph. Brooke, with a great Number of
MSS. Additions by Mr. William Burton, the Leicestershire Antiquary, which
appears by the Testimony of Roger Gale, Esq; 15s 1622”
3-4: [Quarto Litera A] “88 Antonini Iter Britanniarum cum comment. per Th.
Gale & quam plurimis Additionibus MSS. per R. Gale, 1l 1s ibid. [=London]
61: [Quarto Litera G] “1849 [Goadvirini] Idem [=de Praesulibus Angliae
Comment.], cum multis Emendationibus, MS. in margine a Tho. Gale, 7s 6d”
101: [Octavo Letter G] “3781 The same [=Grand Question concerning Bishops
Right to Votes in Parliament in Capital Cases] with Manuscript Observations and
Additions, by Dean Gale, 3s 6d”
147: [Octavo Letter L] “Life of Bp. Kennet, with a MSS. Copy of a letter
to Roger Gale, Esq; from Browne Willis, relating to Mr. Tho. Hearne, 2s 6d
Volume III, 1758
The leftovers, please.
p. 58: [Folio] “2133 Account of what past [sic]
in Parliament concerning Dr. Sacheverel – Tryal of Dr. Sacheverel – Bishops of
Salisbury, Oxford, Lincoln, and Norwich’s Speeches – Report of the Committee of
the House of Commons relating to the Mine Adventure, with other Tracts, the
whole interspers’d with a great Number of MSS. Notes by R. Gale, Esq; 12
p. 197: [Octavo] “8402 Rawlinson’s English
Topographer, interleav’d with a great number of Manuscript Additions by Roger
Gale, Esq; 2 vol. very fair, 1l 1s 1720”
three volumes contain 26 titles with annotations by either Thomas or Roger
Gale, which in total add up to the sum of 42 £ 14 Shilling; quite a bit of money in the 1750s. But, and that was a
surprise, obviously these prices were not too high, or at least not as much too
high as I originally thought. In the 1760 catalogue which I started from in my
last post on this subject, this list dwindles down to 9 volumes, totalling 17 £
p. 12: “338
Herodotus, Gr. & Lat. cum multis addition. MSS. in margin. a T. Gale, 1l
11s 6d Francof. 1608”
p. 27: “735
Camdeni Britannia, cum addition. MSS. in margine a Tho. Gale, 1l
1s Lond. 1607”
p. 27: “736 [Camdeni] Anglica Normannica, &c. cum
multis addition. MSS. a
Roger Gale, 1l 1s Francof. 1602”
p. 27: “732 Matthaei Westmonast. Flores Histor. cum
multis addition. MSS. in
margine a Viri Erud. Gale, 1l 11s 6d Francof. 1601”
p. 42: “1272
Vetus Testamentum juxta Septuaginta, Gr. cum multis additionib. MSS. a
Tho. Gale, 5l 5s Rom. 1587”
p. 51: “1570
Budaei & al. Dictionarium, Gr. & Lat. inferfol. in 4 vol. cum multis
addition. MSS. per Gale, 3l 3s ib. [=Basel] 1565”
p. 51: “1593
Idem [= Gesneri Bibliotheca Universalis], 2 vol. interfol. cum multis addition.
MSS. per Tho. Gale, 1l 1s”
p. 52: “1621
Suidae Lexicon, Gr. cum multis addition. MSS. in margine a Gale, 2l 2s Basil.
apud. Froben. 1544”
p. 186: “6374
Rawlinson’s English Topographer, 2 vol. with MSS. Additions [by] Mr. [Roger,
TW] Gale, interleaved, 1l 1s”
Actually, it comes
even down to seven volumes, as two – set in bold in the above – were not even
on the original list. Without these two, it’s seven volumes left over in 1760,
estimated for 14 £ 18 Shilling and sixpence in total. Which means, that in two
years two thirds of the books had been sold, and also that two thirds of the
originally estimated proceeds had been realized.
Some things change,
This in turn means
that the observation I made in my first post – that those volumes which were
still on the list in 1760 were not selling so well, and only after 1762
disappear from Osborne’s catalogues – still holds, and may even be extended to
1758, which is when they were left over after termination of the ‘original’
sale. What might a bit trickier now is to come to a sound conclusion from this
pattern of sales. On the whole, it’s still safe to say that books annotated by
Roger Gale sold better than those annotated by Thomas Gale; which comes as no
big surprise, as they were newer and leaning more towards general interest than
Thomas Gale’s Greek classics and specialised philological literature. It’s no longer valid to say that they did not
sell so well altogether, as two thirds of them did, and I would assume that to
be a rate quite good. So I no longer that sure that the decisive factor for
this sales pattern is that Thomas Gale was comparatively forgotten by the time
it happened; it be due as much to changing patterns of scholarly interest. Perhaps
there were just not enough philologists frequenting Thomas Osborne’s shop at
the time. Yet even if it may not be the sole decisive factor, I would still
like to maintain that it is one among the decisive factors determining which of
these books sold well – and which rather not.
 Thomas Osborne & J. Shipton: A Catalogue of the Libraries of the following Eminent and Learned Persons, deceased, viz. the Rev. Dr. Thomas Gale, Dean of York, and Editor of the Hist. Angl. Scriptores; Roger Gale, Esq; the great Antiquarian, and Commissioner of the Customs; the Learned Mr. Henry Wotton, Editor of St. Clementis Epistolae; Dr. Francis Dickens, Regius Professor of the Civil Law in the University of Cambridge; Counsellor Stukeley of the Temple; Counsellor Owen of Lincolns-Inn; Mr. Reynell, an Eminent Apothecary; and several Others. Vol. I. Containing near Two Hundred Thousand Volumes of the most scarce and valuable Books in all Languages, Arts and Sciences; great Numbers on large Paper, Morocco Leather, and other rich Bindings. […] Which will begin to be sold (the lowest Prices printed in the Catalogue, without any Abatement, for Ready Money only) at T. Osborne’s and J. Shipton’s in Gray’s-Inn, This Day, and for the Conveniency of the Nobility and Genrry who live at a Distance (this Collection being so very numerous) will continue daily selling for two Years, viz. to the First of January 1758. Catalogues may be had at all the Chief Cities and Noted Towns in Europe, and at the Place of Sale; where may be had Money for any Library or Parcel of Books, Prints or Manuscripts. [N.B.] There are some Manuscript Sermons to be disposed of, recommended by an eminent and dignified Divine. N. B. The Books contained in the Two Volumes of the Catalogue for the last Year, which remain unsold, stand in their Order for the Conveniency of those Gentlemen who have not seen the Catalogue, or sent their Orders. London, 1756, title page. Digitzed via Google Books.
is coming rather delayed, I’m afraid; but I could not help it, for it was not
as easy as I thought to gather the data I’d been looking for. What I wanted to
do for this post was comparing the other side of scholarly text production –
books – with the journals I had looked at for my last post, where I discovered
the peak in Reland references around the 1740s. I was curious to see if this
attention within a medial configuration which revolved rather quickly would
translate into more long-term scholarly endeavours also, that is, if a similar
pattern might be discovered in looking at full-blown books referring to my protagonists,
be it reeditions of their works (the columns marked “R” in the diagram on top
of this post) or publications directly relating to their persons, publications,
or theses (represented by the columns marked “S” for ‘secondary literature’). I
only selected publications coming off the press after my protagonist’s
respective deaths, regardless of what kind of relation there existed between
the publication and one of my protagonists. Thus, the auction catalogues of the
libraries of Johannes Braun, Adriaan Reland, and – I finally found it! – Thomas
Gale are included into the list.
The respective fourth catalogue is missing because Eusèbe Renaudot’s library
was never auctioned off. I also selected
no publications after 2001, so that I have data covering a full three hundred
years, broken down into ten-year-spans for the diagrams.
To do so, I decided to check on the applicable union catalogues which are out there: VD 18, KVK, the catalogue named JISC formerly known as COPAC, SUDOC, ESTC, STCN, WorldCat, and the catalogues of the Dutch, English, French, and German national libraries, to see what is out there. And that is where the tricky part began, because there were remarkable mismatches between what some of these catalogues listed and what really was there. In some cases, there was just a typo in the record of the respective publication, for instance ‘1783’ instead of ‘1733’ – but figuring out that this seeming 1783 reedition never really existed took me some time. Taken altogether it took me three days, to put it precisely. And that’s where the delay comes from… There still are some entries on my list where I am not really sure if they correspond to actual publications or if the records got screwed up in a way I could not figure out yet; I’ll have to wait until the holding libraries respond to my mails to get to know. But I would rather not wait for these replies to post this post, so please take the figures I give here with a grain of salt (as always, of course). For comparison, here are the aggregated figures (re-editions and secondary literature taken together) visualized as lines and not as columns; the peaks come out more prominent this way.
But regardless of some minor corrections which may still have to be made, the data provide some interesting points:
thing which is easy to spot is that there really is a peak in publications
related to Adriaan Reland precisely in the 1740s, and another, a bit smaller
one in the 1760s, just as with the journals. It becomes even more interesting
as the publications reviewed in the journal entries where Reland was mentioned
are not the publications which ended up on my list here, because they are
neither re-editions of Reland’s works nor directly related to them and/or him.
That both spikes in Reland-related publications – in the 1740s and 1760s – so closely
match those of the Nova Acta Eruditorum points to both being representations of
the same underlying phenomenon: more attention paid to Reland during these
periods than before and after.
But it also highlights another interesting pattern, which is a bit challenging for the assumptions I made in my last post. There I wrote that maybe the 1740s peak, which is not there in the patterns of my other protagonists, spells out the specific difference that kept Reland stronger rooted in structural memory than the other three. Looking at books – be it monographies, editions, or collected volumes – this seems obviously not to be the case. There are only four publications related to Reland after 1800, and none after 1845. Interestingly this is again a pattern completely different from those visible in other scholarly media, as for example in bio-bibliographical reference works, for this period of time, as I have shown here. So what this seems to indicate is that although the patterns of remembrance connected with individual scholars in different scholarly media are interconnected, they are not strictly interdependent. Which in turn means that to give a comprehensive analysis of the overall pattern, one cannot only go for some media and deduct other patterns from those found in these media, but one always needs to do them all, and to bring them all together afterwards to finally see the shape of structural forgetting taking form.
fading of Braun and Gale
Having a look at Johannes Braun and Thomas Gale in the charts here is more reassuring, as the patterns visible here conform to the overall tendencies I already detected in remembering them structurally from other points of investigation. Both fell into decline early on, and were only intermittently referred to by book-length publications from the middle of the 18th century onwards at the very latest. If the 1803 reprint of Braun’s De vestitu sacerdotum hebraeorum should prove to be a record error, there is nothing Braun-related to be seen here after the 1750s; and for Gale the same is true since the 1790s, as Parthey’s 1857 edition of Jamblichos of course did take Gale’s edition into account but was not conceived as a re-edition of Gale’s take on the subject but as a thorough reworking of the existing manuscript sources according to the 1850’s state of the art of classical philology. (I have to add as a little caveat that in the late 20th century two of Gale’s publications were copied on microfiche, which counts as a re-edition in my eyes). As I have suggested before, Braun’s and Gale’s ‘remembrance careers’, if I may put it like that, seem to be fairly similar. The question arising from this – why this should be the case – is one to which I have, alas, no answer at the moment, but I’m going to have a closer look at it.
say they never come back! Renaudot’s return
But the most interesting case here is that of
Eusèbe Renaudot, I’d say. Because he made a formidable return, arising again from
structural forgetting in the late 19th and early 20th
century – or was made to have such a return, I should say, as he had no agency
in the process, being dead for over one and a half centuries at the time.
The people who were instrumental in bringing this about were, and this corresponds not only to the patterns visible in the biographical dictionaries just mentioned but also to a general trend towards nationalisation and parochialism in the field of history during the 19th century, all French. Two of them are featuring in the graphs presented here: Antoine Villien (1867–1943), who wrote a first biographical sketch of Renaudot’s life enhanced with edited source materials in 1904, and François-Albert Duffo (1858-c.1935), who in 1915 wrote one of his doctoral theses on Renaudot’s letters to cardinal Francesco Maria de’ Medici (1660-1711) and subsequently published five volumes of Renaudot’s edited letters between 1926 and 1931. Although there is not much biographical information about either Villien or Duffo, there are interesting similarities: Both were clerics from rural parts of France, both became doctors of canon law, and both graduated with theses on Renaudot (Villien’s 1904 publication had been his thesis also). Villien seems to have had the more successful career, rising up to the post of professor of canon law of the Institut catholique in Paris, whereas Duffo remained professor at the seminary of Tarbes. But as in Reland’s case in middle of the 18th century Germany, in Renaudot’s case in early 20th century France the interest in both scholar and scholarly work initially came from a theologically infused perspective, only this time from that of Catholic rather than Lutheran orthodoxy. And as in Reland’s case the interest came from figures on the fringes of the academic milieu rather than from its core.
Interestingly, the most well-known French scholar working (also) on Renaudot, Henri-Auguste Omont (1857-1940) is not on the list here because he did not dedicate a full book to the subject. Omont had in 1890 drawn up an inventory of Renaudot’s manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale, which had been acquired during the French Revolution (see one of my older posts on the subject https://fading18-20.hypotheses.org/386). Omont became conservateur des manuscrits at the Bibliothèque Nationale in 1900 and president of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres in 1911, and also was president of the publication commission of the Société de l’histoire de France. In this latter capacity he enters today’s list from the other side, so to say, because in 1925 Omont declined an application for the covering of printing expenses by Duffo for the Correspondance inédite d’Eusèbe Renaudot avec le cardinal François-Marie de Médicis because, as he said, “the most interesting parts are already perfectly well known from the author’s graduation thesis.”
the science, stupid!
denial of funding obviously did not hinder Duffo from publishing his editions,
although – to prove this a more careful investigation of the materials would be
necessary, so I’d rather be a bit cautious – from a purely scholarly point of
view they might have been redundant. I don’t know if Duffo made any money from
his editorial work, but what it did generate was attention. It made him
visible. Publish or perish is no modern invention, but has a long tradition in
academic biographies. So the main driving force behind the Renaudot spike in
the early 20th century was not that either the man or his materials
were rediscovered because of their historical weight, but because of two men,
Villien and, much the more so, Duffo, wishing to make a career. That historical
importance could be claimed for Renaudot without much debatable effort was some
good reason to pick him as a stepping stone towards these careers, but surely
not the sole decisive factor. As it seems, Reland and Renaudot had, each for a
specific group of persons at a specific time and place, the right set of
factors to offer to be referenced again, while Braun and Gale had not. The
remaining task is now to figure out why not.
 Catalogus bibliothecæ luculentæ,
libris theologicis, Hebræis, : aliisque non vulgaris numeri aut pretii
instructæ, quos magno dilectu & impendio sibi comparavit … Johannes Braunius Palatinus …
Auctio habebitur Groningæ in Academia die lunæ 6. maji 1709, Groningen: Spandaw
Pars Magna Bibliothecae Clarissimi
& Celeberrimi Viri Hadriani Relandi, Professoris, dum viveret, Linguarum
Orientalium, & Antiquitatum Hebraicorum, & Antiquitatum Hebraicarum in
Academ. Ultraj. Continens diversi Generis & Var. Linguarum Libros
Exquisitissimos Theologos, Philologicos, Patres Ecclesiaticos, Philosophicos,
Auctores Graecos & Latinos, Antiquarios, Historicos, Lexicographos,
aliosque Miscellaneos, inter quos excellunt Atlas Blavianus, Item Thesaurus
Rom. & Graecus Graevii & Gronovii, 24 vol. Quorum auctio fiet publica
in aedibus defuncti ad diem 7 Novembri 1718. Patebit Bibliotheca duabus ante
auctionem diebus, nempe 4 & 5 Novemb. Trajecti Ad Rhenum, Apud Guilielmum
Broedelet. 1718. Ubi Catalogi distribuentur, Utrecht: Broedelet 1718.
Thomas Osborne & J. Shipton: A
Catalogue of the Libraries of the following Eminent and Learned Persons,
deceased, viz. the Rev. Dr. Thomas Gale, Dean of York, and Editor of the Hist.
Angl. Scriptores; Roger Gale, Esq; the great Antiquarian, and Commissioner of
the Customs; the Learned Mr. Henry Wotton, Editor of St. Clementis Epistolae;
Dr. Francis Dickens, Regius Professor of the Civil Law in the University of
Cambridge; Counsellor Stukeley of the Temple; Counsellor Owen of Lincolns-Inn;
Mr. Reynell, an Eminent Apothecary; and several Others. Vol. I. Containing near
Two Hundred Thousand Volumes of the most scarce and valuable Books in all
Languages, Arts and Sciences; great Numbers on large Paper, Morocco Leather,
and other rich Bindings. […] Which will begin to be sold (the lowest Prices
printed in the Catalogue, without any Abatement, for Ready Money only) at T.
Osborne’s and J. Shipton’s in Gray’s-Inn, This Day, and for the Conveniency of
the Nobility and Genrry who live at a Distance (this Collection being so very
numerous) will continue daily selling for two Years, viz. to the First of
January 1758. Catalogues may be had at all the Chief Cities and Noted Towns in
Europe, and at the Place of Sale; where may be had Money for any Library or
Parcel of Books, Prints or Manuscripts. [N.B.] There are some Manuscript
Sermons to be disposed of, recommended by an eminent and dignified Divine. N.
B. The Books contained in the Two Volumes of the Catalogue for the last Year,
which remain unsold, stand in their Order for the Conveniency of those
Gentlemen who have not seen the Catalogue, or sent their Orders. London: n.p.
 Gustav Friedrich Konstantin
Parthey: Iamblichi De mysteriis liber ad fidem codicum manu scriptorum recogn.
Gustavus Parthey, Berlin: Nicolai 1857.
 Thomas Gale: Rhetores
selecti [Oxford 1676], microfiche: Early
English books, 1641-1700, 563:9, 1975; Thomas Gale: Opuscula mythologica,
ethica et physica : Græce & Latine [Oxford 1671], microfiche: Early English
books, 1641-1700, 1443:6, 1983.
 Antoine Villien: L’Abbé Eusèbe
Renaudot. Essai sur sa vie et sur son oeuvre liturgique, Paris : Lecoffre
 François-Albert Duffo: Correspondance
inédite d’Eusèbe Renaudot avec le cardinal François-Marie de Médicis (années
1705, 1706 et 1707): thèse complémentaire présentée à la Faculté des lettres de
Toulouse. Par l’abbé Fr.-Albert Duffo, Paris: A. Picard et fils, 1915.
 François-Albert Duffo: Correspondance
inédite d’Eusèbe Renaudot avec le cardinal François-Marie de Médicis (années
1703 et 1704) publiée avec préface et notes par l’abbé Fr.-Albert Duffo, Paris:
Auguste Picard, 1926; — : Correspondance inédite d’Eusèbe Renaudot
avec le Cardinal François Marie de Médicis et son frère Cosme III, Grand Duc de
Toscane: Années 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711-1712: (suivies des Lettres à Salvini). Publiée
avec préface, introduction et notes par Fr.-Albert Duffo, Paris: P.
Lethielleux, 1927; — : Correspondance inédite d’Eusèbe Renaudot
avec le cardinal François-Marie de Médicis et son frère Cosme III, grand-duc de
Toscane. Années 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711-1712 (suivies des lettres à Salvini).
Publiée avec préface, introduction et notes par l’abbé Fr.-Albert Duffo. Tarbes
: Impr. pyrénéenne; Paris: P. Lethiellieux 1928 ; — : Un Abbé
diplomate. I. Voyage à Rome d’E. Renaudot. II. Ses lettres au cardinal de
Noailles. III. Ses lettres au ministre Colbert (1700-1701), Paris : P.
Lethielleux, 1928; — : Lettres inédites
de l’abbé E. Renaudot au ministre J.-B. Colbert (années 1692 à 1706). Lettres
inédites de J.-B. Racine à l’abbé E. Renaudot (années 1699 et 1700), Paris: P.
 Henri Auguste Omont: Inventaire
sommaire des manuscrits de la collection Renaudot, conservée à la Bibliothèque
nationale, in: Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes, Vol. 51, 1890, pp. 270-297.
 Procès-verbal de la séance du conseil
d’administration de la société de l’histoire de France: tenue le 2 Février
1925, in: Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de France, Vol. 62, No.
1 (1925), pp. 63-67 ; here p. 65:
proposition faite par M. l’abbé Duffo de publier la partie encore inédite de la
correspondance de l’abbé Eusèbe Renaudot avec le cardinal de Médicis et son
frère le grand-duc de Toscane Cosme III ne paraît pas pouvoir être acceptée,
s’agissant de compléter une publication dont le début et la fin, – parties les
plus intéressantes, – sont déjà entièrement connus par une des thèses de
doctorat ès lettres de M. l’abbé Duffo.”
an everyday realm which does not always comply with the plans made inside the
ivory tower. In my case, this meant that renovating one room to make it into a
third children’s room went a bit out of control and took far longer than I had
planned – which caused me to skip the post that would have been due last week
already. I’m sorry, but I can promise with a clear conscience that this will
not happen again. I don’t have got any other rooms to renovate. But since I’m
done with that room now, here’s what I’ve found since then.
forests and up into the Mountains
Well, I went back into the paper forest of learned journals, this time tackling the only one left to do for my comparative study, the Nova Acta Eruditorum, appearing in Leipzig in continuation of the Acta Eruditorum from 1732 until 1776 (technically until 1782, but there were no more issues since 1776). And to my surprise, I discovered a significant peak. I’m not sure yet if it really qualifies as a towering mountain, but at least it appears to be one if put into a diagram properly. What becomes visible here is that the Nova Acta Eruditorum took quite a liking to Adriaan Reland, who is referred to on 57 pages in the 25 years between 1732 and 1756 which you see to the right of this paragraph, dwarfing all my other protagonists. This is more than four times the number of references to the next in line, Eusèbe Renaudot, who is referred to 14 times during this period, and more than double the number of the references to all the other three combined, which total 27 for these years: Renaudot’s 14 plus 9 for Thomas Gale and 4 for Johannes Braun.
The high time of references to Reland in the Nova Acta Eruditorum thus are the 1740s, and this is interesting because this is precisely the time when the patterns of references to my protagonists in all the other Journals I have surveyed so far fall into the on-and-off mode of mentioning them now and then every few years which I have labelled ‘intermittent referencing’ and which I take to indicate being structurally forgotten within the frame of the medium in question. And until 1737, when references to Reland begin to multiply again, the same pattern could be observed concerning him in both the Acta Eruditorum up until 1732 and the Nova Acta Eruditorum since then. So this might be the specific difference which I have been searching for, the difference which explains why Reland’s posthumous remembrance career has been so much more successful than those of my other three protagonists.
difference is one thing; declaring it relevant another; and both are neither
equal nor conductive to explaining, which again is a totally different thing
altogether. So having encountered and labelled the phenomenon, how am I to
explain it? Why were the people writing reviews for this Middle German learned
journal so much more fond of Reland than of my other three protagonists – whom they
knew, but were not really interested in – at this particular time?
The specific context the interest in this particular book stems from was a decidedly Protestant one. The writers of the works in the reviews of which the references to Reland were made in the Nova Acta Eruditorum were either Lutheran ministers or Theologians employed as university or high school professors. The scholars in the reviews of whose works Reland was mentioned in 1740 and 1741, for example, were
and, as the only scholar from a non-German speaking and non-Protestant country, Étienne Fourmont (1683-1745), also known as Ismaël Ben-Abraham and 傅爾蒙 (Fu Er Meng), a French orientalist studying Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, and Chinese, and thus working within a shared disciplinary context.
They were interested in Oriental studies because such studies seemed useful to better understand the linguistic, cultural, and geographical setting of the Old Testament, ancient Israel or Palestine, the Holy Land. The Northern and Middle German Protestant universities of the time thus fostered the respective studies – of Hebrew, of Arabic, Persian, and other languages ‘Oriental’, of Biblical geography and history – and to do so, they built upon the results achieved by the scholars of the Dutch universities, among them Reland, with whom they shared much of the preconceptions of what godly scholarship and learning should be like. It surely was no coincidence that the Nuremberg publishing house of Monath in 1740 chose to reprint its 1716 pirated copy of Reland’s Palaestina Illustrata, thus providing fresh copies for the German market.
In the middle of the 1750s this fascination for Reland’s Palaestina Illustrata waned in the Nova Acta Eruditorum, which might be connected with the shift from a theologically based Orientalism to a more secularized discipline within the German universities; but this is something to be explored further. But as it seems, this decade of interest may have been crucial to fix Adriaan Reland within the emerging discipline of German Orientalism, and thus to pull him from structural forgottenness for a while.
Conrad Monath (ed.), Adriaan Reland: Hadriani Relandi Palaestina ex monumentis
veteribus illustrata; in tres libros distributa, tabulis geographicis
necessariis, iisque accuratis exornata, et a multis insuper, quae in primam
editionem irrepserant mendis purgata, Nuremberg: Monath 1740.
PS: There will be no post for Friday the 9th and 16th of August as I will be on vacation. I’ll be back with new stuff on August 23rd. Have a good time!
Over the last week I have been busy finalizing my sample of encyclopaedic works in which I tracked the appearances my four protagonists made over the course of almost two centuries, from 1715 until 1898, when the earliest and latest works from that list got printed. It now consists of 115 titles, 98 of which are bio-bibliographical dictionaries, and 17 are general encyclopaedias (such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance). My aim in compiling this set of dictionaries was to get a grip on the representation of scholars in general and especially my protagonists in biographical dictionaries, which – alongside other kinds of encyclopaedic titles – constituted a hughely popular medium for the communication and circulation of information in the 18th, but even more so in the 19th century. To be able to do so I have included specialized biographical dictionaries focusing on scholars and men of letters as well as general biographical dictionaries promising to include the famous men (and sometimes women) of all ages and nations. I did include re-editions, but no reprints, that is, I left out textually unchanged re-editions, because I am interesting in changes rather than continuities; but I admit that this might be a questionable decision (but you just have to cut it somewhere). There are works in five languages in my sample – Dutch, English, French, German, and Latin – to cover the main areas my inquiries so far have revolved around, although English and French works, quite to my suprise, really seem to have dominated the field. Only six titles are in Latin, five from the 18th century and one from 1819 (but that was a dictionary of Latin-writing poets, so the subject matter dictated the language of the book, I guess). That all the rest are in the vernacular testifies to the genre catering to an at least semi-popular audience from early on, at least from the middle of the 18th century. All the more interesting is that 93 out of these 115 titles I surveyed feature at least one of my protagonists, which amounts to 80.8 % of the sample, and was a lot more than I initially expected.
Some Charts for more Details
The work-in-progress charts I have given in my earlier posts on this subject (see here, here, and here) have not been rendered unusable by those I am now able to draw from the full set, which is a good thing because I don’t have to litter those blog posts with disclaimers now but most of all because this indicates that I really have captured a broader trend now, and that adding more dictionaries would perhaps add some details here or there but would not change the general message of the sample. So in breaking the somewhat unwieldy general graph for all my protagonists over the whole sample combined (as seen above) down into some more selective charts I can now throw these general trends into sharper relief than before. Alright, then, let’s have some colorful diagrams. [One disclaimer ahead: Since there are only six Latin dictionaries in the sample, I did not draw separate charts for them.]
Four National Diagrams
I have been hesitating a bit if this heading would be the right way to put it. But the longer I think of it the more I am convinced that it actually is. For what I did do in putting together the four graphs you will now see below was first of all assembling them into language groups irrespective of national delineations, which meant that French-language dictionaries from today’s Belgium or the Netherlands ended up in the French sample, and British and US dictionaries in the English sample, and – at least theoretically – dictionaries from all over central Europe in the German sample. It turned out that the last just was not the case, and that the others did not present much of a problem, with the only exception of two French-language Dutch dictionaries which took a very firm Dutch nationalist stance. In each of these graphs, therefore, the general trend is one that is points to that sharing a language obviously also meant to share certain points of view in 18th and 19th century biographical dictionary making.
Let’s start with the German dictionaries, as they are chronologically the earliest. What’s interesting here is that there are three clearly separated periods visible in the diagram, each with its own peculiar characteristics. First there is a strong start in the early 18th century, and during this time all my protagonists do get quite an equal share of attention. This changes when, after a slump in the 1760s and 1770s, in the closing decades of the 18th and the opening decades of the 19th century Johannes Braun gets out of focus, and Adriaan Reland and Eusèbe Renaudot attract more attention than Thomas Gale. And finally, there is a rise towards the end of the 19th century, this time centering exclusively on Adriaan Reland, and re-introducing Eusèbe Renaudot who like Johannes Braun had disappeared from this sample since the 1810s (only that Braun did not make it back).
All three periods are most likely attributable to disciplinary rather than nationalist patterns. The first ties in with the German preeminence in the discipline called historia litteraria in the early 18th century, that is, learned biography and history of arts and sciences, as we would call it today. As the main criterion for inclusion into this was learning, not origin, all my protagonists stood a fair chance. The second seems connected to the rise of philology and Oriental studies in German universities, which focused attention on those two of my protagonists who had conducted most of their work in this direction, Reland and Renaudot; and the third is directly attributable (but this is a story for a post of its own) to the rise of Religionswissenschaft, religious studies, and the accompanying dictionaries, from the middle of the 19th century, which lead to an interest in Reland because of his Islamic studies, and to a renewed interest in Renaudot as an editor of sources from the Eastern churches. That German nationalism does not play much of a role in this part of the sample seems caused by the simple fact that none of my protagonists seemed to qualify as German to 19th century observers. In those dictionaries which had a clear focus on the German-ness of those portrayed, none of my protagonists is listed. Which is interesting as Johannes Braun was of German birth, but as he emigrated with his mother at the age of seven in 1635 and permanently settled in the Netherlands, this seems to have disqualified him from being taken into account in biographical works of this kind.
English-language dictionaries are the next to rise, so they come in second. The pattern is visibly distinct from that of the German case, as it shows a steady and steep rise in the first half of the 19th century after a slow take-off in the late 18th century, with only a slight decline in the second half of the 19th century. This is connected to a characteristic of the British dictionary production which becomes pronounced in the 19th century, and that is a predilection for popular works on the one hand – or perhaps I should better say, works accessible to and catering to a broad audience – and a similar predilection for one-volume handbooks even if they frequently ran to 1000+ pages (it seems to have been important that you only needed to buy one volume). Of course there were larger series, too, titles with 10, 20, or 30 volumes, but alongside these there were plenty of their one-volume companions. That they catered to a broader audience meant that they were less oriented to specialists and more to the average educated and at least middle-class Englishman who would and could be interested in buying such a book. This in turn made them put a heavier accent on British nationals, since the average educated middle-class Englishman was supposed to be more interested in those then in reading about foreigners, however famous they might be. This explains the preponderance of Thomas Gale in this sample; and the focus on persons somehow connect with Britain explains why Johannes Braun is almost absent. He had no direct connections to anything British, whereas Adriaan Reland had been in contact with a range of British scholars and had been a member of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and accordingly his works had been picked up by other British scholars in time. And Eusèbe Renaudot was, although this was a bit more indirect (which might serve to explain the lower figures for him), as a member of two French Royal Academies and thus part of the scholarly elite of the n°1 rival to Britain during most of the 19th century of interest to a British public, too. That Johannes Braun did make his way in, though, was due to the sheer size of the English-language market (which included the US after all), where there were niches for many bio-bibliographical dictionaries, including some more comprehensive in scope or more specialist in approach, which would feature him.
Now it’s time for the French dictionaries. The pattern is interestingly similar to the English case, but different enough to tell its own story. After a moderate peak in the late 18th century – the last days of the Ancien Regime – the great rise comes a bit later than for the English-language works and reaches its peak in the 1840s and 1850s before declining more visibly towards the end of the century. As in the English case this seems mainly to be due to the preeminence of a certain form of biographical dictionary on the French market, and that was the completely comprehensive all-encompassing multi-volume series. The prime exponent of these was the Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne of the brothers Michaud, who produced 56 volumes plus another 29 supplementary volumes of this dictionary between 1811 and 1858 in Paris; but there were other rivalling and not much smaller series, too. To me this seems to have been due to the greater marketabiilty in a pan-European context of a French-language against an English-language dictionary. The British and the Americans spoke English, but all of Continental Europe knew French as a second language. This made it lucrative not only to produce handbooks for domestic use but those larger series which would only net interesting returns if enough items sold; but if enough demand was there, they would net these profits over decades. One the one hand the universal scope and the enourmous breadth of these universal biographies made it likely that almost everyone who had ever distinguished himself had a chance of ending up there; but on the other hand the French language and the production in France made a national bias quite likely, and that frequently came to pass.
And this now is what explains the surprising high frequency of Johannes Braun, who largely was absent from the previous two samples. Although Braun had had almost no ties to his native Germany and even less to the British isles, he had lived in French-speaking Lorraine for a while before moving to the Netherlands and had for several years served as the preacher of the French Calvinist church of Nijmegen. He also had published some writings in French. All of this made him appear frequently in French dictionaries, although the question of his nationality was almost always discussed in the respective entries – was he German or Dutch?
That Eusèbe Renaudot figures prominently in the French dictionaries does not come as a surprise; it is rather surprising that he does not figure even more prominently, and that Adriaan Reland outstrips him towards the end of the century. I am not yet sure about the reason for the first, but the seconds seems to be connected to French Orientalism and the colonial conquests of Northern Africa which made anyone writing about Islam and Arabic interesting for political reasons; and although Renaudot had been knowledgeable on both these subjects, he had not written about them and rather edited Coptic liturgies, which were not so much in fashion in 19th century France (what of course cannot be blamed on him in any way).
Last but not least: the Dutch case! Well, to be honest, the number of Dutch language dictionaries is fairly low in the sample compared to English and French; I found only 13 relevant titles (and one of them does not mention any of my protagonists). But these titles are interesting nevertheless as they exemplify every type of dictionary the other cases feature – from one-volume handbooks to large series to general encyclopaedias, from specialist to popular works – and as they, being produced solely for a domestic market, from the beginning had a very strong Dutch focus. This becomes instantly visible from the diagram where Gale and Renaudot are virtually absent and Braun and Reland are the only ones really in circulation. The Dutch had no problem in assimilating Braun. And even the rise in Braun and Reland being discussed in the middle of the 19th century is directly connected with this kind of nationally framed discourse: this period saw the rise of the national biographies of the Netherlands on the one hand and the extended treatment of the religious landscape of Dutch Calvinism as a (at least officially) national creed on the other hand. And in both respects Braun and Reland came to attention.
The conclusion that seems evident to me is two-pronged. First it obviously did matter if a scholar could be fitted into a nationally framed context of reference for him to be included into the dictionaries of a language family, which seem to have been aligned closer and earlier with national leanings than one might be tempted to assume (at least I can say that for me). But second this alone was not enough: To be circulated within such national framings did not suffice to be kept in general circulation, which becomes visible in the case of Johannes Braun who dropt out being referred to in the second half of the 19th century altough he had been kept (somewhat) current by such patterns before. What was necessary to stay around in a broader way was to allow for many different connections and identifications, and that is exemplified by the jack-of-all-trades Adriaan Reland, who had had personal connections to people everywhere and disciplinary and thematical connections to a large scope of subjects and topics and thus could be referred to in many different ways, much more than any of my other protagonists.
 Christian Gottlieb Jöcher:
Compendiöses Gelehrten-Lexicon, Leipzig: Gleditsch 1715.
 Groome, Francis Hindes; Patrick, David (eds.): Chambers’s biographical dictionary; the great of all times and nations, Philadelphia (Mass.): Lipincott 1898.
In 1792, George Sael (c.1761 – c.1799) tried to sell an old book. Well, this was nothing out of the ordinary so far, as selling old books was part of Sael’s job. He was a London printer, bookbinder, bookseller, and sometime author of edifying publications such as his Moral biography; or, the worthies of England displayed: containing the lives of persons eminently distinguished for their virtues and talents and other works for the use in instruction or education. Sael sold old and new books at his book shop in N° 192 Newcastle Street, the Strand, and as was usual, he issued sales catalogues to advertise the collection he had on display, which according to these catalogues amounted to a total of 20.000 volumes in 1792. At the end of the 18th century this was rather on the low end of volumes on the shelf of a commercial second-hand seller, where some of Sael’s competitors issued catalogues announcing “One Hundred Thousand volumes, in various Languages and Classes of Learning”. To market his stock, Sael thus introduced short descriptions of several of the works he had in store into his catalogue, something lacking in most other similar advertisements. Perhaps this was also due to the range of customers that he usually served, which included public schools and middle-class families, and not only a rather well-educated clientele as many of his fellow booksellers. Maybe he took not all of his customers to be familiar with the volumes on his shelves already.
Not just any old book
particular old book which I am concerned with here was one which was given an
explanatory paragraph, something not all of the works in his catalogue were
dignified with. That it ended up on the list at all testified to its standing,
because Sael made it very clear that he had not listed all his stock:
The item in
question was about 60 years old, not very old for the average used book
circulating in 18th century Britain, but the majority of books Sael
offered were of a more recent date (although he also had much older volumes in
store). It was an English translation of a French work, and in case you are
wondering by now how this links up with my research project after all, it was a
copy of the 1733 English version of Eusebe Renaudot’s Anciennes relations des Indes et de la Chine of 1718.
The English translator had remained anonymous when the book was printed, and
had confined himself to translate the French original rather without the
amendments typical for 18th century translations.
The result was quite a success, and from what I have seen up until now I am
inclined to presume that it was the most-read of all of Renaudot’s publications
in 18th century England. One of the copies of this work had now
ended up on Sael’s shelves in 1792, and he took pains to advertise it in a most
Of sales and claims
First of all this of course was a clever move to sell the book. By linking it up with Edward Gibbon’s (1737–1794) enormously popular History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire Sael could hope to sell his copy of the Ancient Accounts of India and China free-riding on the other publications’ success. Yet this strategy does not seem to have worked out the way it should. At least not as far as can be seen from Sael’s catalogues, for he advertised it in almost exactly the same way again in 1794. No catalogues of Sael’s seem to have survived from after 1794, so I don’t know whether he sold it later on. In any case he had estimated it rather high with the 5 shillings he charged for it, as it usually was advertised for around 3 shillings at the time. Given that he described the copy as extraordinarily fair, this must not have been an unreasonable pricing after all, as a good fitment could fetch quite a high premium in a title.
But if I
cannot say anything about Sael’s success in selling this copy, what about the
seriousness of the claim he made about the connection to Gibbon?
Well, this is easier to do as it I can just look it up. And doing so reveals some interesting things. The first volume of Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire appeared in 1770, and it actually featured one quotations from Renaudot. So far, so good, had it not referred to a completely different publication, Eusèbe Renaudot’s Historia Patriarcharum AlexandrinorumJacobitarum of 1713. Gibbon referred to the Ancient Accounts of India and China for the first time in the fourth volume, printed in 1788. Yet it may be doubted, I think, if this particular reference (footnote 70, see green markings) really constitutes the “several particulars” Sael was speaking of.
There is however a second reference to the Ancient Accounts within the same volume, and it would be the last Gibbon was ever to make in the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It was to a rather more ‘curious’ passage, as Gibbon used Renaudot’s accounts to back up an argument which he had found in Montesquieu’s l’Esprit des Loix:
A French philosopher (199) has dared to remark, that whatever is secret must be doubtful, and that our natural horror of vice may be abused as an engine of tyranny. But the favourable persuasion of the same writer, that a legislature may confide in the taste and reason of mankind, in impeached by the unwelcome discovery of the antiquity and extent of the disease (200).
Gibbon, The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4, 1788, p. 409–410.
The accompanying footnote 200, where Renaudot’s edition is listed as providing evidence to support Gibbon’s rather bleak inference from Montesquieu’s claim – something I’m quite sure the abbé Renaudot would certainly not have approved of, neither Gibbon’s argument nor Montesquieu as its source – is interesting insofar as it indicates that Gibbon was aware enough of the complicated history of the Anciennes relations des Indes et de la Chine to know the controversies around it, of which I have already written something in an older post. By acknowledging them, Gibbon effectively undermined Sael’s claim to the usefulness of Renaudot’s account as such.
Finally, of forgetting
So where does this take me? It provides a glance into some ‘curious particulars’ of the end of the 18th century which seem quite interesting to me. First of all, Sael obviously neither trusted the name of Renaudot nor the title of the publication nor the copies’ alleged material qualities enough to sell the book off on their own, but he chose to qualify it by a reference to an author and work which were more recent and more popular, and perhaps still present enough in the back of the mind of his customers to entice them to buy the Ancient Accounts – 1788 was only four years ago in 1792, and in 1790 there even had been a new edition of the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire. And even as Sael did advertise it this way, he either himself had not read his Gibbon very carefully, or he speculated on customers who had not read their Gibbon carefully enough to spot the mismatch between the advertisement and the actual publication.
What got a
bit lost in this discussion were the two Muslim travellers who had left behind
the account which Renaudot had translated in 1718. They really did not make
their way into the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as Gibbon only
referred to Renaudot’s commentaries, and not to the text itself. From a point
of view centring on structural forgetting, it looks like as if Renaudot for a
larger British readership without a special background in Oriental learning, as
it was called back then, was forgotten enough in 1792 to only be attractive
when coupled with a reference to a recent publication, although the allusion
was in fact misleading. For someone like Edward Gibbon, who commanded the
necessary learning, the situation might be quite different, and he would quote
a work like the Historiarum Patriarcharum
Alexandrinorum 17 times where he would quote the Ancient accounts of India and China, by two Mohammedan travellers
only twice. This was quite the reverse of the situation as it was on the used
book market, where I have met with 40 announcements of the Ancient Accounts on sale between 1735 and 1801 in English book
sales catalogues compared to only three of the Historia Patriarcharum (in 1732, 1762, and 1790). If the frequency
with which announcements of a particular work to be sold may serve as an
indicator of it going out of fashion, it would point to Renaudot becoming
structurally forgotten for the larger British audience in the 1780s. There is a
first wave of sales in the 1760s, when the last of the first generation of
owners would presumably die; a second wave around one generation later in the
1780s, when a second generation of owners might die. But the 1780s wave did not
subside but hold on throughout the 1790s, and this might point to the
booksellers not getting rid of the copies they had.
interesting question would now be whether Gibbon had acquired his specialist
knowledge about Renaudot’s Historiarum
Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum as a British historian, or if it was due to his
spell on the continent (in Lausanne, 1753–1758) or his flirtation with Roman
Catholicism in the early 1750s, but that might be a story for some week to come.
 Sael, George. Moral biography; or,
the worthies of England displayed: containing the lives of men eminently
distinguished for their virtues and talents. Designed for the use of private
families and public schools. Embellished with a fine engraving. London: George
Sael 1798; and: Sael, George. Moral biography; or, the worthies of England
displayed: containing the lives of persons eminently distinguished for their
virtues and talents. Designed for the use of private families and public
schools. Second edition, improved. Embellished with a fine engraving. London:
George Sael .
 Sael, George: Sael’s Catalogue for
1792, consisting of Twenty Thousand Volumes; including two Libraries lately
Purchased; and many rare and curious Books, collected from various Parts of the
Kingdom; with a choice Collection of the most esteemed modern Publications: The
whole forming an extensive Variety of the best Authors in every Branch of
Literature; many of which are in elegant Bindings. […] Which are now selling,
for ready Money only, at the exceeding low Prices printed in the Catalogue. by
G. Sael, Bookseller, at the English Library, Newcastle Street, Strand, London,
Who gives the full Value for Libraries and Parcels of Books, or Books
exchanged. Catalogues may be had at the Place of Sale; of Mr. Richardson, at
the Royal Exchange; Messrs. Merrills, Cambridge; Prince and Co. Oxford; Mr.
Poole, Chester; and of the principal Booksellers in every County Town in
England. Those Gentlemen and Ladies who are desirous of G. Sael’s future
Catalogue, in either Town or Country, may depend on receiving it, by favouring
him with their Address before the Publication. Country Dealers, and all Public
Schools, &c. supplied with all Publications whatever, on the lowest Terms,
and with the utmost Dispatch. Orders for Exportation punctually
executed. [London]: George Sael .
 Lackington, James.
Lackington’s Catalogue for 1792. Consisting of One Hundred Thousand volumes, in
various Languages and Classes of Learning; Including many valuable Libraries
Lately purchased. With many Articles but just published; A very large Number in
an uncommon Variety of plain, elegant and superb Bindings. Also many scarce,
old, and valuable Books. […] By J. Lackington, at his shop, No. 46 and 47,
Chiswell-Street, Moorfields, London. Where Libraries or Parcels of Books are
purchased on a new Plan, by which the Seller is sure to have the utmost Value
in ready Money, or in other Books. *** Not an Hour’s Credit will be given to
any Person, nor any Books Exported, or sent into the Country, before they are
paid for. Catalogues may be had at the Shop, and of Mr. C. H. Lackington
(Private House) No. 12, Charles-Street, St. James’s-Square; also of the
following Booksellers; Barker, Russell-Court, Drury-Lane; Marsom, No. 187, High
Holborn; Lunn, Cambridge; Merrick, Oxford; Gander or Hodges, Sherborne; Hazard,
Bath; Rollason, Coventry; Deck, Bury; Haydon, Plymouth; Edwards, Norwich;
Bulgin, Bristol; Fisher, Newcastle; and also at Freeth’s Coffee House,
Birmingham. [N.B.] To prevent Mistakes, those who send for any Books are
desired, besides the Numbers, to send the first Words and the Prices of the
Article they want. *** Book-Binding done in the newest Taste and exceeding
cheap. [London]: n.p. 
 Sael, George: Sael’s Catalogue for 1792, consisting of Twenty
Thousand Volumes […] [London]: George Sael , p. 49.
 Renaudot, Eusèbe (transl., ed.):
Anciennes Relations des Indes et de la Chine de deux voyageurs mahométans, qui
y allèrent dans le neuvième siècle, traduites d’arabe (par l’abbé Eusèbe
Renaudot), avec des remarques sur les principaux endroits de ces relations.
Paris: Jean-Baptiste Coignard 1718.
 Renaudot, Eusèbe (ed.), Anon.
(transl): Ancient accounts of India and China, by two Mohammedan travellers.
Who went to those parts in the 9th century; translated from the Arabic by the
late learned Eusebius Renaudot. With notes, illustrations and inquiries by the
same hand. London: Printed for Samuel Harding 1733.
 Sael, George: Sael’s
Catalogue for 1792, consisting of Twenty Thousand Volumes […] [London]:
George Sael , p. 46.
 Sael, George: A Catalogue of
an extensive Collection of curious Books: with ancient Manuscripts, Missals,
and Authors of uncommon Rarity, collected with much labour from various Parts
of the Kingdom, and some elegant Libraries lately offered for Sale; the whole
forming a great Variety of scarce and valuable Works in every Branch of
Literature. […] And are now selling, for Ready Money only, at the low Prices
printed in the Catalogue, by G. Sael, Bookseller, No. 20, Newcastle Street,
Strand, London, where the full Value is given for Libraries and Parcels of
Books, or Books exchanged. Catalogues may be had at the Place of Sale; of Mr.
Richardson, at the Royal Exchange; Mess. Merrils, Cambridge; Jones, Chichester;
Cooke & Palmer, Oxford; Hodges, Sherborne; Whittingham, Lynn; Bancks,
Manchester; Dyer, Exeter; Poole, Chester; Binns, Leeds; Lowe, Birmingham; Bull
[…] [London]: George Sael , p. 57: “1078 Renaudot’s Ancient
Accounts of India and China, by two Mahommedan Travellers, who went there in
the Ninth Century, neat, 5s 1733 *Gibbon, in his Roman History, makes
honourable mention of this book, from which he has borrowed several particulars
relating to his History.”
Booth & Son: A Catalogue of
Books, containing more than Twenty Thousand Volumes, including the Libraries of
the Rev. John Brooke, D.D. Rector of Colney; the Rev. C. Topping, M.A. Vicar of
Bradenham; and the Rev. J. Arnam, M.A. Rector of Postwick; and several other
Collections; […] Which are now selling, 1789 (for ready Money) at the Prices
in the Catalogue, by Booth and Son, Booksellers, Market-Place, Norwich.
Catalogues to be had of Mr. Law, Ave Maria Lane, and Messrs. Wilkie, St. Paul’s
Church Yard, London; the Booksellers in Lynn, Yarmouth, Bury, Cambridge, York,
&c. and at the Place of Sale. [Norwich] , p. 58: “1892
Renaudot’s Ancient Accounts of India and China, neat, 1s 6d 1733”.
Robson, James. A Catalogue of Books,
comprehending many Libraries, particularly that of Robert Butler, Esq. and a
General Officer, lately Deceased; Also the valuable Articles at the Pinelli
Sale, intended for Abroad. Many capital Books of Prints, Natural History,
Manuscripts, an Missals, finely illuminated. The whole in excellent Condition
[…] Which are now selling (1791) at the Prices affixed, for Ready Money only,
by James Robson, Bookseller, in New Bond-Street. [N.B.] The full Value given
for any Library or Parcel of Books. Catalogues, Price Six-pence, may be had at
the Place of Sale; of Mr. Davis, Holborn; Mr. Law, Ave-Maria Lane; and Mr.
Sewell, Cornhill. [London] , p. 218: “6810 Renaudot’s Ancient
Accounts of India and China, 3s 1733”
Simco, John: A catalogue of books,
prints, and books of prints, For 1792. Consisting of a great variety of curious
articles, Selected from the valuable Libraries which have been sold during the
last Winter; consisting of antient Mss. and missals, illuminated on vellum and
paper; capital books of prints, histories of counties, black-letter books,
&c. […] The books are now selling, for ready money only, the price of
every book printed in the catalogue, By John Simco, book and print seller, No.
11, Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London. Catalogues (price
Sixpence) may be had of the following Booksellers, S. Hayes, No. 332, Oxford
Street; Egerton, Whitehall; Sewell, Cornhill; Cook, Oxford; Merrills and Lunn,
Cambridge; and Archer, Dublin. The full Value given for any Library or Parcel
of Books, also Books exchanged. [London] , p. 92: “2344 Renaudot’s
(Eusebius) Ancient Accounts of India, and China, 3s 6d 1738”.
White, Benjamin & White, John: A
Catalogue of an extensive and curious Collection of Books in every Language,
and Class of Literature; containing two entire Valuable Libraries, and many
costly Articles of Natural History; with a good Collection of Law Books. […]
The sale will begin on Monday, the 13th of February, 1792, by Benjamin White
and Sons, Booksellers, at Horace’s Head, in Fleet-Street, London. N.B. The
Lowest Prices are marked in the Catalogue, and in the first Leaf of every Book.
Catalogues may be had at the Place of Sale; also of Mr. Richard White,
Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer, No. 76, Oxford-Street, opposite the Pantheon,
and at Mr. Harris, Printseller, Sweeting’s Alley, Cornhill. [London] , p.
343: “10916 Renaudot’s ancient Accounts of India and China, 4s 6d
Edwards, James: A Catalogue of
Books, in all Languages, and in every Branch of Literature, collected from
various Parts of Europe. […] Now on Sale at J. Edwards’s, No. 77, Pall Mall,
London. The Prices are printed in the Catalogue, and marked in the first Leaf
of each Book. MDCCXVI. [London] 1796, p. 312: “7665 Renaudot’s Ancient
Accounts of Persia [sic] and China, 3s 1733”.
Todd, John: J. Todd’s catalogue for
1794. A catalogue of a most valuable and curious collection of prints,
drawings, books of prints, &c. amongst which are the entire collection of
Marmaduke Tunstall of Wycliffe, Esq. lately deceased to which are added a
select collection of books, in all languages, and in every class of literature,
including the principal Part of the library of The late Right Hon. Lord
Viscount Fairfax, Of Gilling Castle, in this Country, And several other
Libraries and Parcels of Books lately purchased. The Whole will begin to be
sold extremely Cheap, at the Prices printed in the Catalogue, on Monday, March
17, 1794, for Ready Money only, and continue on Sale till Christmas next, By J.
Todd, Bookseller, Stationer, and Printseller, in Stonegate, York. – The full
Value for Libraries, Parcels of Books, and Prints, in Ready Money. Catalogue,
Price 1s. may be had of Mr. Johnson, Bookseller, St. Paul’s Church Yard, London,
and at the Place of Sale. [York] : p. : “5263 Renaudot’s
Ancient Accounts of India and China, neat, 2s 1733”.
 Gibbon, Edward. The history
of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. By Edward Gibbon, Esq; Volume the
first. London: printed for Strahan & Cadell 1776, p. 508–509: “Three
bishops were consecrated by the hands of Demetrius,  and the number was
increased to twenty by his successor Heraclas (162).” For note 162 see p.
lxxiv: “[Notes on the fifteenth Chapter] (162) For the succession of the
Alexandrian bishops, consult Renaudot’s History, p. 24, &c.”
 Gibbon, Edward. The history
of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. By Edward Gibbon, Esq; Volume the
first. London: printed for Strahan & Cadell 1776, p.
 Renaudot, Eusèbe: Historia
Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum Jacobitarum A D. Marco Usque Ad Finem Saeculi XIII:
Cum Catalogo Sequentium Patriarcharum & collectaneis Historicis ad ultima
tempora spectantibus; Inseruntur Multa Ad Res Ecclesiasticas Jacobitarum
Patriarchatûs Antiocheni, Aethiopiae, Nubiae & Armeniae pertinentia, Paris:
 Gibbon, Edward: The history
of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. By Edward Gibbon, Esq; Volume the
Fourth, London: printed for Strahan and Cadell 1788.
 Gibbon, Edward: The history
of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. By Edward Gibbon, Esq. A New
Edition. London: printed for Strahan and Cadell, 12 vols.,
“The plan of this Number was suggested by a valuable collection of Letters that passed between Mr. R. Gale and some of the most eminent Antiquaries of his time, which had been presented by his grandson to Mr. George Allan of Darlington. This gentleman, with the indefatigable diligence which distinguishes all his pursuits, transcribed them all into three quarto volumes, and communicated them to Mr. Gough, with a wish that in some mode or other they might be made public.”
John Nichols, in: Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. 2, part 1, General preface (1781).
When in 1781 the learned printer and editor John Nichols printed the first of three parts of Reliquiae Galeanae as the second volume of his Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, this marked a point which is seldom observed and communicated as detailed as in this case: the point where references to a certain body of information, in this case the learned members of the Gale family, are no longer a private phenomenon but are taken up by an institution.
The quote given above does in itself not convey any sense of an institution at work here: All people referred to are mentioned as individual persons without any affiliations clearly visible. By having a closer look at the matter however it becomes clear that the Society of Antiquaries served as the common denominator uniting them all.
Roger Gale (1672–1744) had been, together with his brother Samuel Gale (1682–1754) among those who re-founded the Society in 1717/18 and had been acting as its first vice-president, while Samuel had been its first treasurer (for 21 years, until 1739/40) – and it was their letters that formed the “valuable collection” reprinted by Nichols. George Allan (1736 – 1800) , who had acquired these letters, had for long carried out his antiquarian interests privately in his native county of Durham when he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1774, so that he at the time No. 2, part 1 of the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica went off the press had been a member of that illustrious body for seven years already. Richard Gough (1735–1809), to whom he had communicated the papers, had been elected into the SAS already in 1767 and since 1771 served as its director.
Now Gough also had been a follower of the work of William Stukeley (1687–1765) since his studies at Cambridge, who had been a close friend of both Roger and Samuel Gale, had also been one of the re-founders of the Society of Antiquaries, and in 1739 had married their sister Elizabeth Gale as his second wife. Moreover, Gough was a close friend of John Nichols (1745–1826), the printer, to whose major journal, the Gentleman’s Magazine, and Historical Chronicle, he contributed frequently, as well as developing editorial projects with him (such as, for instance, the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica). This was nothing accidental also, as Nichols’s printing house had served the Society of Antiquaries as its official printer since 1736. Nichols himself was only admitted as a fellow into the Society in 1810, but throughout his career avidly pursued antiquarian interests and printed corresponding publications.
The only one falling out of this raster is Roger Gale’s grandson, Henry Gale (1744–1821), who, like his father Roger Henry Gale (1710–1768), does not seem to have shared the antiquarian interests of his ancestors. When – as I detailed here recently – Roger Henry Gale sold at least some of the books his grandfather and father left him in 1759, he obviously still kept the manuscript letters of his father and uncle, which his son Henry Gale could then, at some point after his father’s death, present to George Allan. In the fourth generation counted from Thomas Gale, the first and major learned member of the family, virtually all the materials needed for references to him and his sons had left the narrow circles of family ownership and had become dispersed among institutions, collectors, and other private owners. With the family displaying no interest in frequently referring to its learned predecessors, this would now likely be the point in time at which structural forgetting would set in. From the perspective of Thomas Gale, one of my protagonists, this unfortunate event took place a good sixty years after his own death in 1702.
into institutional channels
point, the letters came – via George Allen and Richard Gough – into one of the
publications printed by John Nichols, changing the medium the information
incorporated in this body of correspondence circulated in and, at least
potentially, offering them to a wider public. The Society of Antiquaries itself
cannot be credited with having initiated this development though, as Nichols’
publication was a commercial enterprise devised by Gough and him, and not
commissioned by the corporate body as such. But it provided the necessary
platform to connect the relevant actors responsible for putting Roger and
Samuel Gale’s correspondence out in print, and it supplied them with a motive
to do so. As Nichols in 1790 put it in the General Preface to the complete
version of all three parts the 1781 issue had been the first of:
“Among the various Labours of Literary Men, there have always been certain Fragments whose Size could not secure them a general Exemption from the Wreck of Time, which their intrinsic Merit entitled them to survive; but having been gathered up by the Curious, or thrown into Miscellaneous Collections by Booksellers, they have been recalled into Existence, and by uniting together have defended themselves from Oblivion, Original Pieces have been called in to their Aid, and formed a Phalanx that might withstand every Attack from the Critic to the Cheesemonger, and contributed to the Ornament as well as Value of Libraries.”
ohn Nichols, Antiquities in Lincolnshire, General Preface (1790).
This was exactly what Roger and Samuel Gale had aimed at in re-founding the Society of Antiquaries: fighting oblivion, and rescuing as many vestiges of bygone times as possible; in 1726 Roger Gale had written to John Clerk that in the meantime they had succeeded in that “a great many old seals, ruins, and other monuments of antiquity have been preserved from oblivion, and the danger of being intirely [sic] lost in a little time”, and Samuel Gale had in 1712 addressed Thomas Hearne (1678-1735) in a letter as that “[t]he Learned World is indebted to you for your sedulous Preservation of so many antient [sic] Monuments which otherwise in a little Time must have utterly perished.” The remaining question is whether they achieved these goals, and if they did, for which period of time.
I would doubt that the institutional framework within which these references were now made and within which information about the Gale family circulated contributed little to rescuing them from becoming structurally forgotten. The communication circuit Nichols’ publication created via the audience it targeted was larger than the family or even the Society of Antiquaries as a whole, but it still remained a limited number of persons who took an interest in such matters. The predominant media products for the circulation of reference to the Gales – Thomas Gale first and foremost – since the middle of the 18th century were dictionaries, as I already hinted at; and even within their circuits there was no escape from becoming structurally forgotten. Even if scholars would were so lucky as to have an institution to care about their memory after their death, to really preserve that memory it needed a special kind of institution, which the Society of Antiquaries unfortunately was not.
 Nichols, John (ed.):
Bibliotheca topographica Britannica. No II. Part I. Containing Reliquiae Galeanae;
or miscellaneous pieces by the late brothers Roger and Samuel Gale. In which
will be included their Correspondence with their learned Contemporaries,
Memoirs of their Family, and an Account of the Literary Society at Spalding.
Printed by and for J. Nichols, Printer to the Society of Antiquaries: and Sold
by All the Booksellers in Great-Britain and Ireland, London 1781, General
Preface, p. [i].
 Nichols, John (ed.):
Antiquities in Lincolnshire; being the third volume of the Bibliotheca
Topographica Britannica. London: Printed by and for J. Nichols, 1790, General
Preface, p. [i].
 Roger Gale to John Clerk, 26
April 1726, Bodleian Library MS Top Gen D 74, pp. 178–186; here p. 185.
 Samuel Gale to Thomas Hearne,
London 15 November 1712, Bodleian Library MS Rawl Letter 15/16 (Letters to
Thomas Hearne Vol. 15–16, Letters G–T), p. 11.
Some of the information in this post has become outdated by later research. Please also visit this post here.
Friday n° 39, July 11th, 2019
sired Roger Gale, and unto him passed on his books as he deceased, and Roger put
them to good use, and all was well. Roger Gale sired Roger Henry Gale, and unto
him passed on his books as he deceased, and Roger Henry put them on the market,
and all was not so well anymore.
And that’s where today’s story begins. As I have already indicated in another post, Roger Gale (1672–1744) relied rather heavily on the library and notes he inherited from his father Thomas Gale, except from those volumes which Thomas Gale himself donated to Oxford and Cambridge. Roger Gale could use them very well, as they suited his own interests in Antiquarianism, which he pursued besides his political career as MP and Commissioner of the Excise and his duties as an estate proprietor in Scruton, Yorkshire. I did not know until now what became of these books when Roger Gale himself died in 1744 and passed his estate on to his son Roger Henry Gale (1710–1768), who did not share in the learned interests of his father.
Books on Sale
But ploughing diligently through heaps of auction catalogues I think I may now have assembled enough clues to bring a bit of light into the matter. For in his catalogue for the first half of 1760 the London bookseller Thomas II Osborne (c.1704–1767) advertised quite some books which were explicitly described as being heavily annotated by the hands of Thomas and/or Roger Gale:
12: “338 Herodotus, Gr. & Lat. cum multis addition. MSS. in margin. a
T. Gale, 1l 11s 6d Francof. 1608”
27: “735 Camdeni Britannia, cum addition. MSS. in margine a Tho. Gale, 1l
1s Lond. 1607”
27: “736 [Camdeni] Anglica Normannica, &c. cum multis addition. MSS. a
Roger Gale, 1l 1s Francof. 1602”
27: “732 Matthaei Westmonast. Flores Histor. cum multis addition. MSS. in
margine a Viri Erud. Gale, 1l 11s 6d Francof. 1601”
42: “1272 Vetus Testamentum juxta Septuaginta, Gr. cum multis additionib.
MSS. a Tho. Gale, 5l 5s Rom. 1587”
51: “1570 Budaei & al. Dictionarium, Gr. & Lat. inferfol. in 4
vol. cum multis addition. MSS. per Gale, 3l 3s ib. [=Basel] 1565”
51: “1593 Idem [= Gesneri Bibliotheca Universalis Tiguri 1545], 2 vol.
interfol. cum multis addition. MSS. per Tho. Gale, 1l 1s”
52: “1621 Suidae Lexicon, Gr. cum multis addition. MSS. in margine a Gale,
2l 2s Basil. apud. Froben. 1544”
186: “6374 Rawlinson’s English Topographer,
2 vol. with MSS. Additions [by] Mr. [Roger, TW] Gale, interleaved, 1l 1s”
had not been part of Osborne’s catalogues before,
the sale must have taken place sometime around the second half of 1759, before
the first catalogue for 1760 went to the press, but after the second catalogue
for 1759 saw print.
Now Osborne was notorious for on the one hand running the largest second-hand
book store in London, with a regular stock of some 14.000 titles, but also for
not being able to judge any of the volumes on his shelves for their content. He
nevertheless has been described as having a good intuition when it came to
valuing his stock.
This lead him to label the nine volumes quoted above, all of which I take to be
coming from the library of the late Roger Gale, 17 £ 11 shilling in total, quite a heavy sum in 1760.
Books still on Sale…
Perhaps too heavy a
sum for his customers, for in 1761 he still had six of these volumes on his
S. 23: “586 Herodotus,
Gr. & Lat. cum multis addition. Mss. in margine, a T. Gale, 1l 11s 6d ib. [=Frankfurt] 1608”
S. 28: “741 Budaei &
ak. Dictionarium, Gr. & Lat. interfol. in 4 vol. cum multis addition. MSS.
per Gale, 3l 3s ib. [=Basel] 1565”
S. 28: “765 Idem [=Gesneri
Bibliotheca Universalis], 2 vol. interfol. cum multis addition. MSS. per Tho. Gale, 1l 1s
S. 29: “794 Suidae Lexicon, Gr. cum multis addition. MSS. in margine a
Gale, 2l 2s Basil. apud Froben. 1544”
S. 31: “888 Camdeni Britannia, cum addition. MSS. in margine a Tho
Gale, 1l 1s Lond. 1607
S. 58: “1797 Vetus
Testamentum juxta Septuaginta, Gr. cum multis additionib. MSS. a Tho. Gale, 5l
5s Rom. 1587”
surprisingly, Osborne now listed yet another title with manuscript annotations
S. 26: “675 Idem
[=Platonis Opera omnia], Graece, cum var. Observat. Mss. in margine T. Gale, 2l
2s ib. [=Basel] 1534”
Moreover, the three titles which had been sold from the original list were
those featuring annotations by Roger Gale, which may indicate that Thomas
Gale’s notes did not spark so much interest amongst contemporary scholars as
had been expected:
27: “736 [Camdeni] Anglica Normannica, &c. cum multis addition. MSS. a
Roger Gale, 1l 1s Francof. 1602”
27: “732 Matthaei Westmonast. Flores Histor. cum multis addition. MSS. in
margine a Viri Erud. Gale, 1l 11s 6d Francof. 1601”
186: “6374 Rawlinson’s English Topographer, 2 vol. with MSS. Additions [by]
Mr. [Roger, TW] Gale, interleaved, 1l 1s”
these three volumes accounted for 3 £ 13 shilling, while the addition of
the annotated Plato was valued at 2 £ 2 shilling, so that Osborne still
had Gale-annotated tiles totalling exactly 16 £ in his books. Things eventually got better, though. In 1762 the
catalogue noted only three leftovers from the original list (which still
amounts to over 40% of it):
S. 8: “239 Budaei & al. Dictionarium, Gr. & Lat. interfol. in
4 vol. cum multis addition. MSS. per Gale, 2l 12s 6d ib. [=Basel] 1565”
S. 19: “646 Camdeni Britannia, cum addition. MSS. in Margine a Tho.
Gale, 1l 1s Lond. 1607”
S. 44: “1380 Vetus Testamentum juxta Septuaginta, Gr. cum multis
additionib. MSS. a Tho. Gale, 4l 4s Rom. 1587
Value for Money?
Those titles together totalled only 7 £ 17 shilling now, slightly below 50% of the original list’s value, but that was due to a change in mind concerning the most heavily priced item on the list, the 1587 Septuagint with Gale’s additions. Having for two years not sold it for the originally estimated 5 £ 5 shillings, Osborne cut down the price by 20% and offered it for 4 £ 4 shilling now.
How much of a premium was accorded Gale’s annotations by Osborne can for the first time be seen directly in the 1762 catalogue, too, as it listed after n° 239, Guillaume Budé’s (1480–1540) Greek-Latin dictionary, a comparable item: “240 Idem, absque addition. MSS. 10s 6d Basil. 1563”, which was thought to fetch only about one fifth of that which once belonged to, and was written in by, the dean of York. Gale’s notes thus seem to have served, at least for this particular item, to quintuple its value – a bit over the top, I’d say (but obviously not worth changing, this price stayed the same). An unknown scholar’s annotations for the third copy on the list only served to raise the price by 4 shilling sixpence. A similar, but not as drastic, case is Conrad Gesner’s (1516–1565) Bibliotheca Universalis, which in the 1759 catalogue was 1l 1 shilling with Gale’s additions and 10 shilling sixpence without, or half the price.
Perhaps the price cut for the Septuagint also influenced the estimate put to yet another Gale title to appear on the list in 1762, this time annotated by Roger Gale, bringing the total up to four items totalling 8 £ 2 shilling:
S. 199: “7109 Knowledge of Medals, with MSS. Observations and
Additions by Roger Gale, 5s 1715”
Patterns of Sale vs. Patterns of Reference
What becomes visible here is an interesting pattern of Osborne’s in putting his annotated Gale volumes on the market, although these conclusions need to be taken as preliminary, as the evidence is a bit shaky; not all of Osborne’s catalogues have survived. But from what I have seen and related above, it looks like as if Osborne had not first of all not put ‘Roger Gale, Esq, lately deceased’ or something the like on the title page of his next catalogue when he purchased the books, but had rather been content with having them encompassed by “And of several other Eminent Genlemen, lately deceased”. As Thomas Gale in 1760, when the sale would begin, was dead for 58 years, and his son Roger also for 16 years already, this seems quite sensible. Their deaths would not have been fresh in the memory of the contemporaries anymore, and thus their names would probably only have drawn a very limited circle of customers. This might also have been caused by the dimensions of the sale, which I don’t know. Only the annotated volumes are easily singled out, as other volumes which might have belonged to father or son Gale are not marked in the catalogue and thus not identifiable.
But even the nine annotated volumes Osborne put on sale between 1760 and 1762 will in all likelihood not have been all that Thomas Gale had annotated and left to his son, or that Roger Gale had annotated with his own hands. Which tempts me to think that only a part of the library had been sold, perhaps to make room, and not everything, for instance no manuscript volumes. And from the adding of new items each time others had been sold, it seems that Osborne had put some of them in store, and only offered them one after the other, although I’m not really sure what the reason for this would have been. From the rather long drawn-out sales processes it does not look like as if he would have spoiled the market in releasing too many at once. For in 1762 the story was not yet at its end.
When Osborne announced that
from now on his catalogues would employ a new system to make better accessible
to his customers in 1766, two old acquaintances showed up again:
12: “434 [Budaei] Idem [=Constantini & al. Lexicon, Gr. Lat. 2 vol.], interfol. cum
addition. MSS. Gale, 4 vol. 2l 2s ib. [=Basel] 1565”
S. 15: “548 [Camdeni Britanniae] cum tab. geo. & addit. MSS. in
margine a J. [sic, =T.?] Gale, 1l 1s ib. [=London] 1607”
That is, if the second one, the edition of William Camden’s (1551–1623) Britannia, is the same as noted in Osborne’s catalogues for the first time in 1759 as “735 Camdeni Britannia, cum addition. MSS. in margine a Tho. Gale, 1l 1s Lond. 1607”. I must confess that I would rather take the “J.” in the 1766 catalogue as a misprint for “T.” than believe that the Baptist preacher and theologian John Gale (1680–1721) who never displayed any interest in historical geography had annotated a copy of the same edition of Camden’s work as his not-related namesake, the dean of York. Osborne’s catalogues were shoddy work more often than not, aiming at quick profit rather than at scholarly exactitude, and both Drs Gale were mistaken for each other sometimes, the more often the longer both were dead. Unless proven wrong by other sources, I will settle for this item to be that which I already know. Which leaves me with two of the nine Gale-annotated volumes put on sale by Thomas Osborne still being unsold six years later, one of them being the Budé dictionary which I already suspected to have been slightly overrated in accessing its price. Well, at least Osborne had managed to get rid of the Septuagint, although I don’t know how much it fetched in the end.
Thomas Osborne did not think either Gale sr. nor jr. suitable as headline
figures to promote the sales catalogue for the upcoming year, although he had
just bought at least a part of their library. He did nevertheless account their
manuscript additions to some of the books he had acquired as increasing their
worth considerably, but realising this added value proved to be a quite long
drawn-out process in the course of which Osborne at least once had to correct
overly optimistic calculations. Taking these book market conjunctures as
indicative of the larger conjunctures in the scholarly community, at least for
the London of the 1760s I can say that Thomas Gale’s star had sunken, though
not yet disappeared. His son’s name obviously guaranteed a faster turnaround of
books annotated from his, Roger Gale’s, hand, although at lower overall prices
– what may be directly related to the lesser relative distance in time of
Roger, who was but 14 years dead in 1760, compared to Thomas, whose death had
befallen 58 years ago, to the catalogue’s readers. If this was the case,
though, obviously Thomas Gale’s scholarly achievements did not compensate for
the chronological distance, or only to a group of people too small to make much
of a difference. Which in turn might be taken to say something interesting
concerning the balance of different factors in social memories active in
processes of getting structurally forgotten, but this is something I’ll still
have to think about.
 Osborne, Thomas: A catalogue of the
libraries of that learned antiquarian Edmund Sawyer, Esq; (Late one of the
Masters of the High Court of Chancery;) And of several other Eminent Genlemen,
lately deceased; Containing many Thousand Volumes of the most approved Authors
in all Languages, Arts and Science. […] Which will begin to be sold on the
first day of January 1760, and continue selling for one year, (the lowest
Prices printed in the Catalogue, without any Abatement, and for Ready Money
only) at T. Osborne’s in Gray’s-Inn. Where may be had Money for any Library or
Parcel of Books, Prints, or Manuscripts. Catalogues may be had of the
Booksellers in all the chief Cities and noted Towns in Europe, and at the Place
of Sale. N.B. To be disposed of, some curious Manuscript Sermons of an eminent
Divine, lately deceased, which will be warranted Originals, [London],
[1759/60]. Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Gale Document Number:
Most likely this title: Richard Rawlinson: The english topographer: or, an historical account, (as far as can be Collected from Printed Books and Manuscripts) of all the pieces that have been written relating to the antiquities, natural history, or topographical description of any part of England. Alphabetically digested, and illustrated with the Draughts of several very Curious old seals, exactly Engraven from their respective Originals. By an impartial hand, London: printed for T. Jauncy at the Angel without Temple-Bar, 1720. The manuscript additions thus would have to be of Roger Gale’s hand, as Thomas Gale was 18 years dead when the book appeared in print.
 Cf. the 1758 catalogue: T.
Osborne, J. Shipton. The third part of a catalogue of the large and valuable
stock of bound books of T. Osborne and J. Shipton, (the Partnership being
amicably Dissolved) Which will be sold by auction, In the Great Room up One
Pair of Stairs, at the East End of Exeter-Change, on Monday the 6th of March,
and be continued every Evening, exactly at Six O’Clock, till Saturday, March
the 25th. The books may be viewed on Wednesday the 1st of March, and every Day
after, from Ten to Two O’Clock, till the Day of Sale. Catalogues may be had of
the Booksellers of Oxford, Cambridge, and Eton, at T. Osborne’s in Gray’s-Inn,
W. Shropshire’s Bookseller in New Bond-Street, and at the Auction-Room. Price
Six-Pence. The Fourth Part of this Catalogue, containing a curious Collection
of Books, Prints, Drawings, &c. by the most eminent Masters, will
positively begin selling on Monday, April 3d, and the following Evenings.
[London]: n.p., . Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Gale Document
This is however a bit difficult to determine exactly, as only one catalogue each from 1758 and 1759 has been accessible to me so far.
 Osborne, Thomas. A catalogue
for the year 1761, of the libraries of the Hon. Augustus George Egerland, The
Learned and Eminent Physician Dr. George Hepburn, of King’s Lynn in Norfolk;
Dr. Edward Hody, Physician to St. George’s Hospital; and many other Gentlemen,
lately deceased; containing many Thousand Volumes of the most Scarce and
Valuable Books, in all Languages. Great Numbers on Large Paper, bound in
Morocco and Russia Leather, and other rich Bindings. […] Which will begin to be
sold this day (the lowest Prices printed in the Catalogue, for Ready Money
only) and will continue daily selling ’till the First of January 1762. At T.
Osborne’s in Gray’s-Inn. Catalogues may be had at all the Chief Cities and
noted Towns in Europe, and at the Place of Sale. Where may be had Money for any
Library or Parcel of Books, Prints or Manuscripts, [London] [1761. Eighteenth
Century Collections Online, Gale Document Number: CW3325362744.
 Osborne, Thomas. The first volume of a catalogue of the libraries of the Rev. Mr. Dongworth, of Durham, Dr. Green, of Spalding, Henry Anderson, Esq; of the Temple, And many other Gentlemen, lately deceascd; Consisting of Near One Hundred Thousand Volumes, Of the most Scarce and Valuable Books,) Prints, Books of Prints, and Manuscripts, In all Languages, Arts and Sciences: Great Numbers on large Paper, most elegantly bound in the richest Bindings. Which will begin to be sold this Day (the lowest Prices printed in the Catalogue, for Ready Money only) and, for the Conveniency of Gentlemen abroad, will continue daily selling ’till the First of January 1763. At T. Osborne’s, in Gray’s Inn. Catalogues may be had at all the Chief Cities and noted Towns in Europe, and at the Place of Sale. Where may be had Money for any Library or parcel of Books, Prints or Manuscripts. The most valuable Manuscript Sermons of the late Reverend Mr. Dongworth are to be disposed of. [London]: n.p., . Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Document Number: CW3316649518
 Guillaume Budé et al.: Lexikon
Hellēnorōmaikon, Hoc est, Dictionarivm Graecolatinum : supra omnes editiones
postremo Nvnc Hoc Anno Ex Variis Et multis praestantioribus linguae Græcæ
authoribus, commentarijs, thesauris & accesionibus, non duntaxat
allegationum, sed etiam plurimarum uocum simplicium auctario locupletatum,
illustratum & emendatum, Basel: Henricpetri 1565.
 Conrad Gesner: Bibliotheca
vniversalis, siue catalogus omnium scriptorum locupletissimus, in tribus
linguis, Latina, Graeca et Hebraica: extantium et non extantium, ueterum et
recentiorum in hunc usque diem, doctorum et indoctorum, publicatorum et in
bibliothecis latentium, Zürich: Froschauer 1545.
 Osborne, Thomas. A catalogue
of a farther part of the stock of T. Osborne, Bookseller, in Gray’s-Inn. Vol.
IIId, for the year 1766. (The lowest Prices printed in the Catalogue, for ready
Money only.) Which will be selling every day (Sundays excepted) to the First of
January 1767. Containing the largest most curious and valuable Collection of
Books, in all Languages, Manuscripts, Prints, Books of Prints and Drawings,
that have been exposed to Sale for many years […] Many of the Books are on
the larger Paper, being the Libraries of the following Gentlemen, and many
others deceased, Viz. Dr. James Sherrard, and his brother the Consul at Smyrna.
The Hon. Adm. Lestock […]. Wm. Eyre, Esq; Serjeant at Law. The Hon. Gen.
Murray. Mr. Alderman Dickenson, Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means.
The Rev. Mr. Bryan, Editor of Plutarch, at the Recommendation of Dr. Hare,
Bishop of Chichester. Dr. Monk of Walthamstow. Samuel Berkley, Esq; one of the
Benchers of the Hon. Society of Gray’s-Inn. As likewise, the Rev. Mr. Noble,
Afternoon Preacher to the said Society. […] The Catalogue is made in a New
Method, so that any Person, at any Time, may find out any Book, &c., they
may want. […] Vol. 3. [London], . Eighteenth Century Collections
Online, Gale Document Number: CW3306652960.
 William Camden: Britannia Sive
Florentissimorum Regnorum Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae, Et Insularum adiacentium
ex intima antiquitate Chorographica descriptio, London: Bishop & Norton
The London booksellers Benjamin White (c.1725–1794) and John Whiston (1711-1780), who kept a flourishing trade in used books, in their catalogue for the first half of 1758 not only gave a detailed description of their stock in second-hand literature but on the closing pages also advertised some “Books printed for J. Whiston and B. White”, among them the second edition of the English theologian of questionable orthodoxy and classical scholar William Whiston’s (1667-1752) 1737 translation of the works of Flavius Josephus.
The subtitle of this second edition now really went as in this advertisement: “with notes of the learned Reland, Cellarius, Dean Aldrich, and Dr. Bernard, none of which are in any other translation.”
A claim which had not been in the title page of the first edition, and a bold one to make. Now, as we all know, advertising is one thing, delivering another. So had William Whiston really delivered on his claim to these exclusive notes?
Printed amongst many others
Now what makes Whiston’s claim a bit difficult to examine is that editing and translating Flavius Josephus had become a bit of a sport amongst early 18th century philologists. There were many other competing Latin, German, French, Dutch, and English translations of Josephus around against which Whiston’s edition had to compete on the book market. The decade before Whiston’s first Josephus edition of 1737 alone had seen at least seven similar publications in ten editions. Of these, none claimed to have had access to Reland’s materials but one, that of Siwart Haverkamp (1684–1742), professor of Greek at Leiden university since 1720, which had been printed in 1726.
Haverkamp claimed in his subtitle to have used the notes of “Edward Bernard [1638-1697], Jacob Gronovius [1645-1716], François Combefis [1605-1679], Joan Sibranda [1668-1696], Henry Aldrich [1648-1710], and, as [of yet] unedited in all of Flavius Josephus’s works, Johannes Coccejus [1603-1669], Ezechiel Spanheim [1629-1710], Adriaan Reland [1676-1718] & selected others”. But unlike Whiston, who did not care to discuss his sources neither in his text nor in a preface, and who also in his memoirs only would say about his edition that “[i]n the same year, 1737, I published, The genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian, in English. Translated from the original Greek, according to Havercamp’s accurate edition,” Haverkamp was quite explicit as to where he got his manuscript notes from. In the case of Reland, he said that
“Reland’s [copies of the] works of Josephus really contain no small merit; for they are inserted with blank leaves wherever he had collected many and laborious notes and observations piling up, when oh! too early he succumbed to the fate of all men. There are many among these [notes] which I am eager to confirm though, shedding very much light on the Greatest of Authors, or explaining the meaning or doctrine of the writers wonderfully. We are indebted to the praiseworthy benevolence of his heirs.”
Haverkamp (ed.), Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt opera omnia (1742), p. 7.
So assuming this passage to be correct for want of evidence to the contrary, it seems that Haverkamp had sometime between Reland’s death and 1726, when his own edition went to print, approached Reland’s widow and acquired the annotated edition(s) of Josephus from amongst his papers – which explains why such an item is neither found in the auction catalogue of Reland’s library nor in that of his son. Most likely this would have taken place after 1720, when Havercamp was called to the post of professor of Greek at Leiden, and a few years after, because he inserted Reland’s notes into his edition on a quite frequent basis. The first volume alone contains more than 65 of them.
Printed never before [in this context]
What Whiston’s claim
thus boils down to if compared with his own acknowledged sources is that his
work contained “notes
of the learned Reland, Cellarius, Dean Aldrich, and Dr. Bernard, none of which
are in any other [English]
The notes of Reland, Aldrich, and Bernard had already been included in Havercamp’s
edition of Josephus, and from a first preliminary cross-check it seems to me
that Whiston just translated them from Havercamp’s text, so that he would
likely not have had access to manuscript material. This has however to be
verified more closely, because Whiston only started advertising it for his
second edition, which was published posthumously in 1755 (Whiston died in
1752). As Havercamp had already died in 1742, Whiston might still have acquired
Reland’s copy of Josephus from Havercamp’s library. As to Christoph Cellarius (1638-1707),
Whiston did nothing than Havercamp had already done, who had quoted extensively
from Cellarius’s Geographia antiqua iuxta
et nova, which had seen print for the first time in 1686 already.
Printed never again?
Now the question of
course is: What’s the point? How is this related to my protagonists (in this
case Reland) being structurally remembered or forgotten? Well, there are two
interesting observations connected to William Whiston’s edition of Flavius
Josephus. First, it soon became the standard English version of Josephus for
almost two centuries, reprinted, re-issued and re-edited over and over again.
And second, from quite early on the reference to Reland was dropped from the
title page. The 1770 Birmingham edition already did not mention it anymore and
said only “with notes critical and explanatory”.
So while Reland’s notes still travelled on in disguise in the body of the text,
the fact itself was rarely mentioned, and despite the enormous popularity of Whiston’s
edition not circulated anymore. And that’s what structural forgetting is like.
 Cf. John Whiston and Benjamin
White: Bibliotheca elegans & utilis. A catalogue of the libraries of a
noble peer, deceased, William Rutty, M. D. F. R. S. &c. With some Books
imported from Abroad, … In Various Languages, and in all Arts, Sciences and
Polite Literature. Many in elegant Condition, on Royal Paper, and in Morocco
Bindings. […] Also a choice Collection
of Reports and other Law Books, which will be sold very cheap (the Price
printed in the Catalogue) on Thursday, January 26, 1758, and continue on Sale
till July next. By John Whiston and Benjamin White, Booksellers in
Fleet-Street. Catalogues may be had (price 6d) of Messrs. Dodsley, Pall-Mall;
Mr. Chapelle, Grosvenor Street; Mr. Millar, in the Strand; Child’s
Coffee-House, St. Paul’s Church-Yard; Mr. Henderson, Royal-Exchange; of the
Booksellers, at Cambridge, Oxford, and the principal Towns in England. And at
the Place of Sale. [London]: n.p. 
 William Whiston (ed.,
transl.): The genuine works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian.
Translated from the original Greek, according to Havercamp’s accurate edition;
Containing twenty books of the Jewish antiquities, with the appendix, or Life
of Josephus, written by himself: seven books of the Jewish war; and two books
against Apion […] To this book are prefixed eight dissertations […] With an
account of Jewish coins, weights, and measures, London: Whiston 1737.
 William Whiston (ed., transl.): The
genuine works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian: translated from the
original Greek, according to Havercamp’s accurate edition: with notes of the
learned Reland, Cellarius, Dean Aldrich, and Dr. Bernard, none of which are in
any other translation: illustrated with new plans and descriptions of the
Tabernacle of Moses, the Temples of Solomon, Herod, and Ezekiel, and with
correct maps of Judea and Jerusalem : together with large notes and
observations, contents, parallel texts of Scripture, and compleat indexes :
also the true chronology of the several histories, adjusted in the margin, and
an exact account of the Jewish coins, weights, and measure, London: Whiston et
 An overview in chronological order,
without any claim to completeness:
Jackson, H. (ed.): A compleat
collection of the genuine works of Flavius Josephus faithfully translated from
the original Greek, and compared with the translation of Sir Roger L’Estrange,
Knight. Containing, I. The Life of Josephus, written by himself. II. The
Antiquities of the Jews. In Twenty Books. III. Josephus’s Book against Apion,
in Defence of the Antiquities of the Jews. In Two Parts. IV. The Wars of the
Jews with the Romans. In Seven Books. V. The Martyrdom of the Maccabees; And,
VI. Philo’s Embassy from the Jews of Alexandria, to Caius Caligula. With
Explanatory Notes, and Marginal References. To which are prefix’d, several remarks
and observations upon the writings of Josephus. By H. Jackson. Gent. The Whole
illustrated with Maps and Cuts, curiously engraven on Copper-Plates, with an
Addition of a new Plate of the Elevation of the Tower of Babel, taken from
Calmet, London: Henry 1732, 2nd ed. Brindley et al. 1736
Willem Sewel (ed.): Alle de werken
van Flavius Josephus, behelzende twintig boeken van de Joodsche oudheden, het
verhaal van zyn eygen leeven, de histori van den oorlóg der Jooden tegen de
Romeynen, de twee boeken tegen Apion, en de beschryvinge van den marteldoodt
der Machabeen. Waarby komt het gezantschap van Philo aan den keyzer Kaligula,
Amsterdam: Schagen 1732
Court, John (ed.): The works of
Flavius Josephus which are extant. Containing, I. The history of the antiquities
of the Jews. In twenty books. II. The life of the author, Flavius Josephus.
Written by himself. III. The wars of the Jews. In seven books. IV. The defence
of the Jewish antiquities against Apion. Two books. V. Of the Maccabees. One
book. Translated from the original Greek, according to Dr. Hudson’s edition. By
John Court; Gent. To which are added, a dissertation on the writings and credit
of Josephus, and Christopher Noldius’s history of the life and actions of Herod
the Great, never before rendered into English. With explanatory notes, tables,
maps, and a large and accurate index, London: Penny, Janeway 1733
Roger (ed., transl.): The works of Flavius Josephus: translated into English by
Sir Roger L’Estrange knight. Viz. I. The antiquities of the Jews: in twenty
books. II. Their wars with the Romans: in seven books. III. The life of
Josephus: written by himself. IV. His book against Apion, in defence of the
antiquities of the Jews . In two parts. V. The martyrdom of the Maccabees. VI.
Philo’s embassy from the Jews of Alexandria to Caius Caligula. All carefully
revised, and compared with the original Greek. To which are added, two
discourses, and several remarks and observations upon Josephus. Together with
maps, sculptures, and accurate indexes. The fifth edition. With the
Addition of a New Map of Palestine, the Temple of Jerusalem, and the Genealogy
of Herod the Great, taken from Villalpandus, Reland, &c., London: Knapton,
Osborne, Longman et. al. 1733
Johann Baptist Ott (ed., transl.): Des vortrefflichen
Jüdischen Geschicht-Schreibers Flavii Josephi Sämtliche Wercke; Nemlich:
Zwantzig Bücher von den Jüdischen Altersthümern, zwey von dem alten Herkommen
der Juden wider Apion, Eins von dem Martyrthum der machabeer, samt seiner von
ihm selbst verfaßten Lebens-Beschreibung, Wie auch Desselben Sieben Bücher von
dem Krieg der Juden mit den Römern, und beygefügte Beschreibung Egesippi von
der zerstöhrung Jerusalems; Alles mit dem Griechischen Grund-Text sorgfältig
verglichen und neu übersetzet, auch überdis mit einer weitläufigen Vorrede
[…] versehen und ausggezieret, 2 vols., Zürich: Geßner 1734, 2nd
Arnauld d’Andilly (ed.): Histoire des
Juifs écrite par Flavius Joseph sous le titre de “Antiquités
judaïques”, traduite sur l’original grec revu sur divers manuscrits, par
M. Arnauld d’Andilly. Tome I [-III]. – Histoire de la guerre des Juifs contre
les Romains par Flavius Joseph et sa vie écrite par lui-même, traduite du
grec par M. Arnauld d’Andilly. Tome IV. – Histoire de la guerre des Juifs
contre les Romains ; Réponse à Appion ; Martyre des Machabées, par
Flavius Joseph et sa Vie écrite par luy mesme, avec ce que Philon, juif, a
escrit de son ambassade vers l’empereur Caïus Caligula, traduite du grec par
M. Arnauld d’Andilly. Tome
V, Paris: Caillau, 1735-1736.
 Haverkamp, Siwart (ed.): Flavii
Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt opera omnia Graece et Latine, cum notis &
nova versione Joannis Hudsoni … : accedunt nunc primum notae integrae, ad
Graeca Josephi et varios ejusdem libros D. Eduardi Bernardi, Jacobi Gronovii,
Francisci Combefisii, Jo. Sibrandae, Hendr. Aldrichii ut & ineditae in
universa Flavii Josephi opera, Joannis Coccei, Ezechielis Spanhemii, Hadriani
Relandi, & selectae aliorum ; adjiciuntur in fine Caroli Daubuz Libri duo
pro testimonio Flavii Josephi de Jesu Christo ; et ejusdem argumenti Epistolae
XXX. virorum doctorum, ut Reinesii, Snellii, Jo. Fr. Gronovii aliorumque
philologicae & historicae ; ut & Petri Brinch Examen chronologiae et
historiae Josephicae ; Jo. Baptist. Ottii Animadversiones ad Josephum &
Specimen lexici Flaviani ; Christ. Noldii Historia Idumaea seu de vita et
gestis Herodum, &c. &c., quorum syllabus exstat ante initium libri
primi antiquitatum, Amsterdam: R. & G. Wetstein; Leiden: Sam. Luchtmans;
Utrecht: Jacob Broedelet, 1726.
 John Whiston (ed.), William
Whiston: Memoirs of the life and writings of Mr. William Whiston. Containing,
memoirs of several of his friends also. Written by himself, 2nd. ed., London:
Whiston & White, 1753, p. 303.
 Haverkamp, Flavii Josephi opera
omnia 1726, vol. 1, 1726, praefatio p. 7: “Relandi vero meritum haud
exiguum quoque erga Josephum exstitit; inserta enim charta pura, ubique Notas
suas & Animadversiones seminaverat, in numerum molemque majorem excreturas,
si per acerba, heu! tanti viri fata licuisset. Sunt tamen illae tales, ut
adfirmare ausim, plurimam Auctori Maximo lucem affundere, atque ingenium
scribentis doctrinamque mirifice commendare. Debemus illas haeredum
 William Whiston (ed., transl.): The
genuine works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian: translated from the
original Greek, according to Havercamp’s accurate edition: with notes of the
learned Reland, Cellarius, Dean Aldrich, and Dr. Bernard, none of which are in
any other translation: illustrated with new plans and descriptions of the Tabernacle
of Moses, the Temples of Solomon, Herod, and Ezekiel, and with correct maps of
Judea and Jerusalem : together with large notes and observations, contents,
parallel texts of Scripture, and compleat indexes : also the true chronology of
the several histories, adjusted in the margin, and an exact account of the
Jewish coins, weights, and measure, London: Whiston et al., 1755.
 Christoph Cellarius: Christophori
Cellarii Smalcaldiensis Geographia Antiqva iuxta & Nova : Recognita &
ad veterum nouorumque scriptorum fidem, historicorum maxime, idemtidem
castigata, & plurimis locis aucta ac immutata. Geographia antiqua, Ad veterum Historiarum,
siue à principio rerum ad Constantini Magni tempora deductarum, faciliorem
explicatonem adparata : Paemissa est in omnium temporum Geographiam brevis
Introductio, Zeitz: Bielke 1686.
 [William Whiston (ed.)]: The
genuine works of Flavius Josephus: faithfully translated from the original
Greek. Containing I. The Life of Josephus, written by himself. II. The
Antiquities of the Jews, in twenty Books. III. The Wars of the Jews with the
Romans. IV. Defence of the Antiquities of the Jews against Appion. and V. The
Martyrdom of the Maccabees. With notes critical and explanatory. The whole
illustrated with a beautiful set of copper-plates, 58 installments, Birmingham:
Christopher Earl , title page.
weeks have been packed with work, so that my last two blog posts had to be
cancelled because I had to write chapters, presentations, papers, and other
things (all about or issuing from the project, so that has all been working
time) and was not able to communicate the state of work here for the time
being. As promised, I am now returning to my schedule as the flood begins to
sink and I’m no longer fearing to drown any moment, and will from now on again
deliver my weekly research stats.
And to begin this week’s state of research, let me take the opportunity to advertise the ‘other thing’ I have been working at for the past weeks, which actually is a data set. Thanks to and in collaboration with the ERC Skillnet project I have been able to publish some of the letters I’ve been working as ‘The correspondence of Adriaan Reland’ on Early Modern Letters Online. 212 letters have either survived or can be inferred from those letters which I close-read with certainty, and, sadly, that’s all that is left. The metadata of these letters to and from Reland are now accessible via this collection, so I’d like to invite you all over to have a look at these. The added value of embedding them in a larger context as provided by EMLO of course lays in the possibility to explore the wider interconnections of this parcel of letters within the res publica litterarum of Reland’s time, so I thought, let’s give that a try for today.
A 2 degree Ego
Reland letters have been sent to 36 correspondents, not so many in terms of
scholarly correspondences, so it seemed a good idea to construct a second
degree ego network from this in EMLO terms: I checked all of Reland’s direct
correspondents via EMLO for their contacts among each other, to see how densely
they were interconnected apart from their shared correspondence with Reland. So
what you see in this visualization of the whole network is Adriaan Reland at
the centre, highlighted in red, as befits a good ego network, and gathered
around him his direct correspondents as green nodes, with the communication to Reland
as green arrows also. The thickness of the edges depends on the amount of
letters exchanged, whereas the size of the nodes is due to the total number of
references to the scholar the node represents in terms of the whole network. Connections
between Reland’s direct correspondents drawn from EMLO are visualized by black
arrows, the thickness again keyed to the number of letters.
of all there is a lot of blue and grey stuff in this diagram which I have not
yet said anything about, and second I promised you a 2.5 degree network in the
opening headline. So what about that?
you suspect already, both things are directly related. To start with the
missing 0.5 degrees, this was due to the way in which I collected data on these
letters. As my project is all about references to other scholars to track the
circulation of information, I went through a part of these letters very
closely, trying to identify each person and publication mentioned therein. Now
EMLO does not support inclosing information on publications in their metadata
on the letters, but they do support inclosing mentions of persons, so this is
all in there. And that means these data were there to work with them in drawing
up the ego network. So what I wanted to have a look at was if the people
mentioned to Reland’s direct correspondents would line up with the rest of the
network – that is, the contemporary people mentioned. That would give an
indication as to whether this is something like an 18th century communication
bubble and thus might provide a way to reconstruct missing epistolary evidence.
All of these mentions I took to constitute a triad between a) the person who
mentions a name, b) the person who is mentioned, and c) the person this name is
mentioned to, and all of these relations are visualized in grey within this
diagram, as they quite literally are somewhat shady in terms of ‘real’ network
What I then
did was checking in EMLO if those people who were only mentioned in Reland’s
direct correspondences had direct contacts with his correspondents or amongst
each other. This would be something in between a real third-degree connection
and a second-degree connection, so I decided to label it 2.5 degrees of
separation. For those people and connections who had such connections, nodes
and edges are coloured in blue to clearly distinguish them from the green nodes
of the inner circle of direct correspondents and the green and black relations
of these with Reland and amongst each other.
… and what
really of interest now is of course: What did I gain from doing this? Is there
anything new for my project in there? And yes, it was. There are 116 people
mentioned in the letters between Reland and his correspondents, 97 out of which
still lived in 1680, the year which I took as the point of demarcation between
roughly ‘contemporary’ scholars and those whose correspondences I did not take
to be relevant to Reland’s connectedness within the republic of letters in any
way (this starting point is of course debatable, but one has to start somewhere).
This testifies to Reland’s letters discussing more recent issues then debating past
works and results; quite a large share of these 97 scholars mentioned whom I
designated as ‘contemporary’ actually survived him, sometimes for several
Of the 97
contemporaries mentioned, 26 had contacts either amongst each other –
represented by blue arrows – or with members of the green inner circle of
correspondents, represented by black arrows. Together with the interconnections
of Reland’s direct correspondents between themselves, the second degree of the
Ego network, the second-and-a-half-degree connections make clear that he
actually was situated in an environment where most people directly or
indirectly knew each other, and much of what he relates to in his letters has
to be seen in this context. Although these people were spread out across the
Netherlands, France, Britain, the Holy Roman Empire, Italy, and Denmark, it
seems that they formed a remarkably tight-knit community. If this was a
strength or a weakness of the network in question would have to be evaluated
against contextual information which EMLO does not provide, but it gives hints
where to look next.
All I’ve written in this post so far has to be taken with a grain of salt, of course, because EMLO is – as great and wonderful a resource as it is – far from being complete (although I would think it is comprehensive). This means that most probably there are interconnections which I missed out on because they are not (yet) in there. And this becomes even more pronounced as I did not close-read all of Reland’s remaining letters but only about a third of them, so I have missed out on a lot of mentions which would have given me new leads to track in EMLO as well. From the point of a study of remembrance and forgetting such as mine this is of course something to emphasize: What is in there is what is still – at least in some way – in circulation, in this case triggered by current research into these phenomena; and the gaps are caused by processes of discarding and source loss, which are parts of structural forgetting. So by mapping out the gaps, I do get a better grip on what I am really at also. And it’s never bad to gain added benefits from something.
the results nevertheless!
But the point was precisely this: To see what I could do with this resource even as it stands now and regardless of the patchiness of my own research so far. And that proved quite a success, because in all likelihood I would only have ended up with more connections in the end, not less, which strengthens my initial hypothesis that the 2.5 degrees are a useful way of coming to terms with gaps in the physical evidence. In Reland’s case, this worked out well and points to him as really being closely connected within a certain epistemic community (as I once termed this) of his day.
remains to be done is to see if this also works out for my other three
protagonists, since this would provide a way to cope with the dearth of direct
epistolary evidence. I’ll see to it that I can present some preliminary results
from going in this direction during the coming weeks.
PS: Actually, it’s a funny coincidence that today is not only the 37th Friday of my project but also my 37th birthday. Makes it feel even better to be back on track again. And now I’m off for some cake. See you next Friday!
After having paused for a short vacation, I returned just to rediscover among my notes something I had already found three years ago but not noted for its significance. And because of that I obviously completely forgot about it, only to pick it up again now as I was busy updating my list of 18th century English auction catalogues (as I already have discussed here). It is, surprise, surprise, an auction catalogue also. And a rather small one at that, listing only 445 books to be auctioned off in three night’s sales, from Monday, 11th of February 1754, until Wednesday the 13th.
kind of catalogue
But it’s not just any old catalogue because the provenance of the library in question is known, and it belong to no one else than Samuel Gale (1682-1754), second son of Thomas Gale, one of my protagonists. And it is special in that the copy from the Bodleian library (available in digitized form both via Eighteenth Century Collections Online and via GoogleBooks – I’ve checked both, they are taken from the same original) does also list the sales prices for many of these items on additional leaves, so it is possible to determine which books sold, and for which prices. Unfortunately, the author of these notes did not calculate the total of the sale’s worth, but as he listed each item by pound, shillings, and pence this is quite easy to do. Of the 445 books listed in the printed catalogue, 397 are accorded prices, which add up to a total of 168 pounds and 13 shillings (approximately 1120 reichstaler, or 1870 Dutch gilders), showing the collection to be small but quite valuable.
confess I don’t know exactly why the 48 volumes without prices don’t have them.
They come in four blocks: volumes 147-158 of the second night’s sale, and volumes
1-7, 61-80, and 134-142 of the third night’s sale. Maybe they were dealt with
separately on another account, were set aside for special customers, or were
dropped from the auction for some reasons. In themselves the titles listed in
these blocks do not differ significantly from the rest of the catalogue in
their composition, so the question remains open – which is a pity, because it
affects to a small part what interests me most about this document: what it can
say about the circulation of the works of my protagonists, and thus about one
aspect of them being remembered structurally – or forgotten.
protagonists in this library
clues to this does this library give? Here’s the list of titles related to my
protagonists it contained in the order they are listed in the catalogue:
8: “45 Johannis de Fordun Scotichronicon, 5 vol. 1722 [T. Hearne]”
9: “83 Relandi Antiq. Sacrae Veterum Hebraeorum – Rerum Anglicarum,
Lib. 5. Auct. G. Neubrigensis Antv. 1567 – Rau Ara Ubiorum – Traj. ad. Rhen.
“95 Antonini Iter Britannicarum Comment. T. Gale 1709”
p. 11: “148 Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores
Veteres T. Gale, 3 vol. Oxon.
11: “7 Leland de Scriptoribus, 2 vol. in 1. – Florus Anglicus – Reland de
Nummis Samaritan – De Cultu ac Usu Luminum Antiquorum”
12: “27 Relandus de Religione Mohammedica Traj. ad. Rh. – de Spoliis
Templi – ib. 1716”
12: “59 Opuscula Mythologica, Physica & Ethica, Gr. & Lat. Amst.
owned at least some works written by my protagonists; yet not of all four of
them. He did own a number of works by his father Thomas Gale, even if not as
many as might have been expected: four in total. Yet only two of these had been
published in his lifetime, while the other two had been published posthumously
– one, the commentary on the itinerary of Antoninus, by his Samuel Gale’s elder
brother Robert Gale, and the other, the Scotichronicon of John of Fordun, by
the prolific Antiquarian scholar Thomas Hearne on the instigation and with the
continuous support of Robert Gale.
Samuel Gale owned no works by either Johannes Braun or Eusèbe Renaudot, he did
however own three books containing titles by Adriaan Reland. The interesting
thing about these three books is now that all of these consisted of several
titles bound together. Twice Reland appears bound together with titles of other
authors, although there is no evident connection between the titles making up
the respective books, and once two Reland titles have been bound together: the
first edition of De religione mahomedica (Utrecht 1705) and the treatise on the
spoils looted from the temple of Jerusalem as displayed on the triumphal arch
of Titus in Rome (Utrecht 1716). Apart from them stemming from the same author,
there is not much of a connection between these two titles also.
I am not
sure what the nature of these Reland titles being bundled up together with
other materials means in the context of this special library, but I am tempted
to suppose that it perhaps meant that these were materials actually used by
Samuel Gale. This does however not manifest in the prices they fetched, which
were rather a bit on the low side compared to the rest of the catalogue:
p. 9: “83 Relandi Antiq. Sacrae Veterum
Hebraeorum – Rerum Anglicarum, Lib. 5. Auct. G. Neubrigensis Antv. 1567 – Rau
Ara Ubiorum – Traj. ad. Rhen. 1738“: sold for three shillings, six pence.
11: “7 Leland de Scriptoribus, 2 vol. in 1. – Florus Anglicus – Reland de
Nummis Samaritan – De Cultu ac Usu Luminum Antiquorum”: no price noted,
one of the 48 titles the sale condition of is unclear.
12: “27 Relandus de Religione Mohammedica Traj. ad. Rh. – de Spoliis
Templi – ib. 1716”: sold for four shillings.
the items connected to Thomas Gale, this however seems not to be something
special to Reland’s works, as they sold in exactly the same price range.
8: “45 Johannis de Fordun Scotichronicon, 5 vol. 1722 [T. Hearne]”:
sold for four shillings.
“95 Antonini Iter Britannicarum Comment. T. Gale 1709”: sold for three shillings.
p. 11: “148 Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores
Veteres T. Gale, 3 vol. Oxon.
1684”: no price noted, one of the 48 titles the sale condition of is unclear.
12: “59 Opuscula Mythologica, Physica & Ethica, Gr. & Lat. Amst.
1688”: sold for three shillings.
does this tell me about the circulation of my protagonists, and thus about them
being structurally remembered or forgotten? At first, it points to them being
in circulation: At least five of the seven volumes were sold and found new
owners. They also were obviously not very rare, as the prices they sold for
were quite moderate. While this is not very astounding looking at the works of
Thomas Gale in a British context, it is a bit more surprising when looking at
Adriaan Reland, testifying to the impact of his works on the book market. Interestingly
Samuel Gale owned none of the books of Johannes Braun which dealt with the same
topics as those of Reland’s works he had – Jewish antiquity – which perhaps may
be a case in point to conclude that Braun’s circulation was much more limited. Even
more interesting is the complete absence of Renaudot’s works as they would have
fitted in quite well with Gale’s overall interests as displayed by the
catalogue. This fits in with Renaudot obviously being not much current on the
British market in the first half of the 18th century, but why that
would be so I have no clear idea at the moment. So I’ll need more catalogues still:
to be continued…
 Langford, Abraham: A catalogue of
the genuine and curious library of that learned antiquary Samuel Gale, Esq; …
consisting chiefly of books of antiquities and English history. … which will
be sold by auction, by Mr. Langford, … on Monday the 11th of this instant
February 1754, … [London]: n.p., .
modern learned book was, for most of its lifetime, a second-hand book. There
are a number of reasons for this: Editions, especially first editions (and many
of these books never made it into a second edition) were usually done in small
print runs, so that there not so many exemplars per title around from the
start. The public or institutional library landscape was underdeveloped, and
even if an institutional library existed in reach of a given scholar, this did
not mean that access was without problems. Often libraries would not loan, and
something like today’s interlibrary loan systems was not even invented. And
with the concept of scientific progress not as radically conceptualized as
today, scholarly results kept their validity for a longer time, and with them
the books which they were laid down in. So if a given title achieved a certain
notoriety, and the generic 18th century scholar wanted to use it,
the best option was to buy. And as there likely were no new copies around
anymore, especially if some years had already passed since it had been printed,
the best option to buy was to buy second-hand. This is important in discussing
processes of fading from the memory of the scientific community because one
might easily argue that as long as that community bought your books, it didn’t
forget you. So to constantly be in the trade, that is, appearing on the lists
of the auction catalogues, would equal being in circulation and constant
demand, and thus rather not structurally forgotten.
The Used Book Market
There was a
lively trade in used scholarly books which facilitated this kind of book
circulation, which in turn was stabilized by the economic circumstances in
which 18th century scholarship existed. Given the fact that social
welfare systems and pension funds were underdeveloped, too, a well-stocked
library represented a considerable stock of capital which could be liquidated
if need be. In cases of death, poverty, exile, or persecution by authorities,
scholarly libraries were sold off, voluntarily or involuntarily, in irregular
usually happened in form of large-scale book auctions, which, depending on the
size of the library involved, could take weeks and months until completed. For
the purpose of these auctions catalogues of the items on sale were printed and
distributed far and wide to attract potential customers which – as the overall
density of scholars was low for most places in Europe – might also be scattered
widely. Boring as they are to the reader, consisting of nothing than lists of
titles, dates, sometimes prizes and small descriptions in case a volume sported
some extras such as illustrations or manuscript annotations, these catalogues
contain valuable information about which kind of information was available at a
given time at a given place in early modern Europe.
Library auction catalogues have survived in great quantities but are only slowly beginning to be made available for research purposes, so the question always is how to build a instructive sample for a given research question. One possibility which I am making use of is to go via Eighteenth Century Collections Online (link) because these digitized materials are full-text searchable.
Used Books, Forgetting…
Now what do
British auction catalogues reveal about the reference patterns connected to my
four protagonists? There are a number of hypotheses which may be tested by such
First, the British market for used scholarly books vastly expanded coupled with the economic and politic rise of the country during the 18th century, and that meant that to meet demand literature had to be imported on a large scale from the continent. Already in 1702 sales catalogues advertised books “lately brought from France and Holland” stemming from prestigious former owners such as Johan de Wit (1662-1701) and Constantijn Huygens (1628-1697). This might lead to a large proportion of continentally printed books in these catalogues, which would favour my three non-British protagonists Braun, Reland, and Renaudot.
But, second, of course there were British
scholars also whose works were printed in Oxford, Cambridge, and London; so
this might lead to a greater number of locally produced works, favouring the
non-continental scholar amongst the four, Thomas Gale.
seems likely that there was an incubation phase between a book being bought as
it came from press and binder and between this book being re-sold at the
auction of the library, namely the time in which the library’s owner used his
books himself. Then my protagonist’s books would only hit the second-hand
market with a delay of several years, favouring those works printed earlier. On
the other hand, sudden death was an ever-present risk at the time, so that it
might well be the case that owners died soon after buying a particular book,
setting it free again.
geographical proximity between the Netherlands and Britain might facilitate the
import of Dutch books, which might result in giving Reland and Braun a
comparative advantage on the British market compared to Eusèbe Renaudot from
… and: testing!
these assumptions to the test I am currently bolstering up those data I already
gathered three years ago on Reland’s and Braun’s books in auction catalogues in
ECCO with those for Gale and Renaudot also. This is a time-consuming process
even with the advantage of conducting full-text searches, but I can give at
least some preliminary sketches for the situation in the first decades of the
18th century. What you see here is the statistical breakdown of 21
auction catalogues listing works by my protagonists, from the first one I have
found so far (appearing in 1720) until the year 1740. That the number of
catalogues matches the years is coincidental, as I for some years I did not yet
find any matching results, and two or three for others. While this is in no way
a statistically representative sample it nevertheless shows some interesting trends.
H I: Rather not…
import of books from the continent obviously really favoured one of my
continental protagonists, and this was Adriaan Reland, whose books got the
second most listings of all four: 39 in total.
H II: …also not really.
second, local origin seems to have beaten it, because Thomas Gale scored first
place with 54 listings of his works in total in these 21 catalogues. Or the
reason for this might, at least partly, be that Gale’s books were on average
older than Reland’s, as Gale had started publishing in the mid-1670s when
Reland was just born.
H III: Not very likely…
time seems not to have been the all-important factor, otherwise Gale and Braun
as the elder scholars who began publishing earlier would be scoring higher than
Reland and Renaudot who both published much later. And although Renaudot is,
with only seven listings of works by him in these 21 catalogues, the scholar
least referred in terms of this sample, the publication date of his works is
likely not the issue here, because six of these seven listings go to the same
work, his 1718 Anciennes Relations des
Indes et de la Chine de deux voyageurs mahométans,
or even its 1733 English translation.
H IV: …and not decisive, too.
geographical proximity also seems not to be the decisive factor. Although
Renaudot’s works are listed only a couple of times, the catalogues do
frequently list other French and Latin titles printed in France. In fact, two
of Thomas Gale’s works which circulated on the British second hand market had
been printed abroad, in Paris
And between the two scholars whose works originated from Dutch presses, Braun
and Reland, the difference is virtually as large as that between Reland and
Renaudot – where Renaudot scored seven listings, Braun scored eight.
To be continued! (In two weeks, though)
So if none
of the four hypotheses I wanted to test by this first small sample has real
explanatory power, what has? And does this mean that Renaudot and Braun were
comparatively much more forgotten than Gale and Reland, at least within the
reference frame of the British used book trade? Well, this will become clearer
in two weeks’ time, I hope – I do have some days off next week, so there will
be no Research weekly on May 31st. Gives me more time to complete
the sample, so let’s see what this will show, then.
 Catalogue of books, in Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French. Collected chiefly from the libraries of John de Wit, Constantin Huygens, and Frederick Spanheim. With divers curious editions of ancient and modern authors, and most of the classics printed by Aldus, Rob. Stephans, Christ. Plantin, Old Elzevir, and Gryphius. Lately brought from France and Holland. With a curious parcel of prints. To be sold by auction, in Exeter-Exchange, at the west-end, up stairs. On Wednesday the 25th of February, 1701/2. Catalogues are sold for 6d. apiece by Mr. Hensman in Westminster-Hall, Edw. Castle next Scotland-Yard-Gate near Whitehal, P. Varenn at Seneca’s-Head near Somerset-house, Mr. Wotton at the 3 Daggers near the Temple-Gate, J. Knapton at the Crown in Pauls-Church-Yard, Rich. Parker under the Piazza’s of the Royal-Exchange, H. Clemens in Oxford, and Edm. Jefferies in Cambridge. The books may be view’d five days before the sale begins. [London ], .
 Eusèbe Renaudot (ed.): Anciennes
Relations des Indes et de la Chine de deux voyageurs mahométans, qui y allèrent
dans le neuvième siècle [Texte imprimé], traduites d’arabe (par l’abbé Eusèbe
Renaudot), avec des remarques sur les principaux endroits de ces relations,
Paris : Coignard 1718.
 Thomas Gale: Historiæ Poeticæ
Scriptores Antiqui : Apollodorus Atheniensis. Ptolemæus Hephæst. F. Conon
Grammaticus. Parthenius Nicaensis. Antoninus Liberalis ; Græcè & Latinè ;
Acceßêre breves Notæ & Indices necessarij, Paris: Muguet 1675.
 Thomas Gale: Opuscula
mythologica, physica et ethica graece et
latine ; Seriem eorum sistit pagina praefationem proxime sequens,
Amsterdam : Wetstein 1688.
In last week’s post I addressed the inaugural lectures delivered by three generations of the Schultens family, Albert Schultens (1686-1750), Jan Jacob Schultens (1716-1778), and Henrik Schultens Albert (1749-1793). As interesting as their family practices in delivering academic speeches, if not more, is another part of their paper legacy although it makes for even more tedious reading, and that is their auction catalogues.
As was common practice, after the death of a scholar the library of the deceased usually went on sale at least partly. Those books the heirs could not put to their own uses were sold, the sale’s proceedings most often being used to support the widows. If the family had a scholarly tradition, the books could also be partly or in full passed on to the next generation(s) who might have an interest in or use for them. In the Schulten’s case, there are auction catalogues available for the libraries of all three family members mentioned above which presents a rare case of completeness in an 18th century context. Moreover there is a fourth additional catalogue, as the library of Albert Hendrik Schultens was bought en bloc by Johann Henrik van der Palm (1763-1840) at the original auction and resold after Palm’s death, making the four catalogues cover almost one century, from 1750 to 1841. So let’s have a look at how they compare to each other and how they fit in with my overall interest in how scholars got forgotten. Only Palm’s catalogue will be left out today, as Palm was not a Schulten’s family member (but this does of course not mean it will not be considered later on!).
Book sales in figures
cautionary note beforehand: The books listed in an auction catalogue under a
scholar’s name may not be taken to have belonged to or have constituted the
full library of the deceased at face value. For on the one hand the auctioneer
might slip leftovers from his other auctions into the catalogue unmentioned,
hoping to finally sell them off, especially if the scholar’s name was likely to
attract many customers to an auction, so that there might be more in it than
the original library contents. On the other hand, the heirs or the deceased
might already have given away books to persons or institutions before the
auction, or selected them for their own keeping, which would prevent them from
appear in the catalogue, so that there might be less in it than the original
library contents. While it is not possible to trace ownership of a particular
book to a particular scholar this way directly and definitely, it gives a good
indication of the likely overall composition of his library and offers some
reason to claim or postulate that he had a copy of a listed title, which then
should – if possible – be backed up by other evidence or reasoning.
But now to
the catalogues. First of all, let’s have a sober and boring comparison of their
main characteristics – how many titles do they feature, and how are these distributed
Jan Jacob Schultens
Hendrik Albert Schultens
1.130 [M: 8]
3.859 [M: 37]
7.022 [M: 72]
Octavo & smaller
these are quite comparable figures. That the auction catalogue of Albert
Schultens contains the smallest number of titles is easily explained by only a
part of Schultens’s library being auctioned off. His son, Jan Jacob Schultens,
would have inherited the rest, which also partly explains why the total figures
in his catalogue are so high compared to the others. Closer scrutiny of Jan
Jacob Schultens’s library’s auction catalogue would help to estimate a rough
figure of the overall size of Albert Schultens’s library, but this I have not
done yet. Henrik Albert Schultens does seem to have owned fewer books as his
father and grandfather, but still had a well-stocked library at his disposal. His
auction catalogue also does reveal that there had been a substantial carryover
between his father’s books and those in his library, so that the 12.000 items
of Jan Jacob Schultens’s library still underestimate the total size of his
collection. And while I’m talking of underestimating, please don’t equate the number
of catalogue items with the actual number of books on the shelves, which was
much higher. A title might come in several volumes which would all be offered
as one item to buyers, especially if it was a journal, in which case a single
title might stand in for dozens of annual volumes. Those people owned many
books, and they had to. Public and institutional library systems were quite
underdeveloped compared to today, and interlibrary loans and online available
digitized copies where not there yet.
explains why the passing on of books between generations was important for
scholars. When your private library constituted the main resource of literature
you would be able to put to use in your research, the passing on of books
constituted a direct transfer of scholarly capabilities, especially in cases of
original research notes, manuscripts, and annotated volumes. There is one thing
to be kept in mind, though, when thinking of such transfers, and that is their
timing. It would be wrong to assume that these transfers would only take place
in form of bequests, because this would have been a solution quite impractical
for the purposes of furthering family member’s careers. A son could hardly only
start his own career at his father’s death because of waiting to inherit the
paternal library. As soon as a scholar’s children would start out scholarly
careers, they would need their own libraries, and would ideally built them up
and collect books over the whole course of their lives. Especially when family
members worked in the same scientific fields – as all three Schultens’s did,
being Philologists concerned with ‘Oriental languages’ and theology – this
would lead to parallel developments in the individual collections, which would end
up in a lot of doublings and functional redundancies after an actual
inheritance if the decedent just passed on everything. So it made good sense to
sell off what was not needed anymore and only keep what would really enhance
your scientific resource base once death bereaved you of a relative. And that
is precisely what the Schultens’s did over three generations upon closer
inspections of the auction catalogues they left behind.
So what did the Schultens’s pass on, and what not? And how does this relate to my four protagonists and the processes in which they got structurally forgotten? Interestingly, both questions can be preliminarily answered by the same approach, and that is, having a look at works by my protagonists in those catalogues. Beginning with Albert Schultens’s library, it is readily apparent that no manuscripts went on sale, neither by him nor by others. Moreover, quite a few works by Adriaan Reland ended up in the sales pile. This might now either indicate that they were of no use for his son Jan Jacob Schultens and thus discarded from the family libraries, or that he owned them already and they were sold as duplicates. Usually this is as far as interpretation of auction catalogues can be taken because nothing much is known about the inheritor, but in this case it is, and as I will explain shortly, this leads me to conclude that here Reland’s works were indeed sold off to avoid duplications. But first of all let’s finish with Albert Schultens. What about works by my other three protagonists? Thomas Gale can be easily dealt with as there are no books by him in Schultens’s auction catalogue; what this means I’ll speculate on later on. There were, however, one book by Eusèbe Renaudot and two books by Johannes Braun. These were the staples, so to say, Renaudot represented by his “Liturgiarum Orientalium collection” and Braun by his “Doctrina foederum” and his “Selecta Sacra”. But as Schultens had been a pupil of Braun at Groningen before moving on to Reland’s direction at Utrecht, one might think that there should be more of Braun’s works on the list. At first appearance, this seems to confirm what I already presumed in an earlier post about Schultens’s closer scholarly relation to Reland than to Braun. But before leaping to conclusions let’s first have a look at the other two Schultens’s libraries.
of Jan Jacob Schultens was, at least if judged by the catalogue’s title page,
sold in its entirety – with over 12.000 items on the list this seems quite
likely. A comparison to the auction catalogue of his father’s books now reveals
some interesting details. While a substantial amount of manuscripts was sold,
none were by his or his father’s hand. And judging by the number of Reland titles
listed I now feel entitled to assume that those five titles sold in the auction
of his father’s books were just double – now there were no less than 19 items by
Reland himself plus two to which he significantly contributed on the list.
This is not only an impressive list in itself but it moreover again points to
Jan Jacob Schultens taking over literature most likely acquired originally by
his father. Listed as Octavo items n° 1287 and 1288 are two very early
treatises published by Reland in 1696, “de Symbolo Mohammedico Non est Deus
nisi unus, pro S. S. Trinitate” and “de consensu Mohammedanismi & Judaismi”.
As these were student’s theses – Reland had been only twenty years old at the
time and had not yet finished his studies – which would have only been printed
in very small runs and only have had experienced limited circulation, they
would likely have been hard to get by in Jan Jacob’s time. The best explanation
for these treatises ending up between his books thus is that he got them from
his father, who himself might have directly got them from the author.
to my other protagonists the emerging picture is quite similar. There are five
works by Johannes Braun listed plus one directly referring to him,
and from these five it becomes clear that those which were sold in the auction
of Albert Schultens’s library – “Doctrina foederum” and “Selecta Sacra” – had
duplicates in Jan Jacob Schultens’s library already. It still points to the
family being much more concerned with Reland than with Braun. Although, to be
fair, I have to point out that Braun had published considerably less than
Reland had, so that a larger share of his total oeuvre was found in Jan Jacob
Schultens’s library nevertheless.
Gale, Jan Jacob’s auction catalogue marks the only point in which he appears in
the Schultens’s bibliographical records considered here. Four of his works are
to be found dispersed over four categories,
but offer no indication whether they had been procured by Albert Schultens or
by his son. And Eusèbe Renaudot comes in last of the four, with two works on
revealing the “Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio” copy of Albert Schultens to
have been a duplicate also.
Manuscripts and family
Now turning to the last of the three professors Schultens, Henrik Albert Schultens, and the auction catalogue of his library from the year 1794, in which it does not become entirely clear if it really encompassed all of his books. It does not give any other indication, so I’ll assume it to be the case until corrected by better evidence. The catalogue is digitized in two versions, one heavily annotated (digitally available by the KB The Hague) and one without any manual entries (by Harvard University via Hathi Trust). Both however share the same printed text. This text now testifies to a number of interesting things, given the fact that at least 12.000 volumes of Schultens’s books had been sold only fourteen years earlier.
of this is the still quite high number of Reland volumes, including – among others
– the two early treatises, which by this time were almost a century old.
In total, his library still contained 15 titles by Adriaan Reland, and five of
these are especially interesting because they in turn contained manuscript
annotations by his father or grandfather, in some cases even of both.
Moreover Henrik Albert Schultens’s
collection contained seven manuscript volumes on Reland’s text by different
It contained not a volume by Gale or Renaudot, though, and only one by Braun.
this say about family, scholarship, and forgetting?
The Schultens’s family of scholars obviously followed a strategy of keeping a certain strand of books in the possession of the family members for three generations and half a century, regardless of which other books they sold on the way. These were those volumes which were deemed necessary for their own research, which mainly centred on Arabic philology, and this obviously was the case with Reland’s works, and most of all with those into which former generations of the family had inserted notes. Yet Reland was not the only scholar treated this way; the works of Thomas Erpenius (1584-1624) were treated quite the same, perhaps even more heavily annotated. While the professors Schultens owned volumes by Renaudot, Gale, and Braun, they discarded them on their way through the academic system(s) of their time(s), something which they did not do with those of Reland, although their founding father Albert Schultens had been a pupil of both Reland and Braun. In this family, three of my four protagonists were structurally forgotten as the 18th century ended, but one was still cherished and remembered. Now the next task is figuring out why.
 1) Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae
Schultensianae, Continens libros nitidissime compactos in quibus excellunt
biblia, patres graeci et latini, commentatores, theologi, philologi, hebraei,
orientales, auctores gr. et lat. antiquarii, numismatici, historici,
litteratores, aliique miscellanei, livres francois [sic], en nederduitsche
boeken. Quos collegit vir clarissimus Albertus Schultens […]. Accedunt
Appendices duae […] quos A. v. D. emit ex bibliotheca Thomsiana non solvit,
& secundum conditionem venduntur. Quorum Auctio fiet in Officina Luchtmanniana. Ad diem Lunae 19. Octobris
& seqq. diebus 1750, Leiden: Luchtmans 1750.
Bibliotheca Schultensiana, sive catalogus librorum quos collegit vir
clarissimus Johannes Jacobus Schultensius, Th. Doct., Theologie et linguarum
orientalium professor in academia Batava, collegii theologici regens primarius,
et interpres manuscriptorum legati Warneriani. Qui publica auctione vendentur
per Henricum Mostert, Die Lunae 18. Septembris & seqq. 1780, Leiden:
Bibliothecae, quam relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, A. M. Ling. O.O. et
Antt. Jud., in Academia Batava, professor ordinarius; et legati Warneriani
interpres. Cujus publica fiet distractio in aedibus Defuncti, ad diem 27.
Mensis Octobris & seqq. Anni 1794, Leiden: Honkoop 1794.
 Catalogus librorum ac
manuscriptorum bibliothecae Schultensianae, qua, dum in vivis erat, usus est
Joh. Henr. van der Palm, Lit. orient., Antiqq. Hebr. et Oratiae sacrae in Acad
Lugd. Bat. prof. ordin. etc. Accedit ejusdem viri clarissimi appendix librorum
ac manuscriptorum similis argumenti. Quorum omnium publica fiet auctio, Lugduni
Batavorum, in aedibus defuncti. Die 20, sqq. m. Aprilis A. MDCCCXLI. Per S. et
J. Luchtmans, Academiae Typographos, et D. du Mortier et filium. Libri, in
aedibus Defuncti, diebus 16 et 17 Aprilis, ab hora 10 matutinâ ad 3
pomeridianum, cuivis inspiciendi patebunt, Leiden: Luchtmans/du Mortier 1841.
 Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae Schultensianae,
Leiden 1750, p. 22: « 223 H. Relandi Palaestina ex monumentibus veteribus
illustrata, Ultr. 1714. 2 tom. 1 vol. », filed under « Philologi,
Hebraei aliique Orientales in Quarto » ; p. 47: « 113 H. Reland de Spoliis Templi
Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano, Ultr. 1716. 114 — Antiquitates Judaicae
edente J. E. Ravio, Herb. 1741. 115 — Dissertationes Miscellaneae, Ultr. 1706.
2 tom. 1 v. 116 —
Dissertationes Miscellaneae, ibid 1708. pars 3. », all filed under
« Philologi Hebraei aliique Orientales in Octavo”;
 Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae
Schultensianae, Leiden 1750, p. 26: “336 E. Renaudotii Collectio Liturgiarum
Orientalium, Paris. 1716. 2 vol. more gallico”, filed under “Philologi, Hebraei
aliique Orientales in Quarto”.
 Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae Schultensianae,
Leiden 1750, p. 19: « 131 J. Braunii Doctrina Foederum, Amst. 1688. 132 —
Selecta sacra, ibid 1700“, filed under “Biblia, Patres, Comment. aliiq. Theol.
 Anon: Bibliotheca
Schultensiana, Leiden 1780: S. 50 [.] “98 H.R. (H.Relandi) Elenchus
philologicus, quo praecipus, quae circa textum & versiones S. S. disputari
solent, breviter indicantur, L. B. 1755”, filed under “Isagogici, Hermeneutici,
Critici, in Octavo”; p. 81: “782 H. Relandi Dissertationes miscellaneae, 3 tom.
2 vol., Traj. 1706”, and p. 82: “790
Parerga Sacra seu Interpretatio quorundam textuum N. T. (cum praef. Hadr.
Relandi), Traj. 1708”, both filed under “Diss. & Obs. Variae ad Phil. &
Exeg. Sac., in Octavo”; p. 132: « 1287 Adr. Reland
de Symbolo Mohammedico Non est Deus nisi unus, pro S. S. Trinitate, Traj. 1696.
1288 — de consensu
Mohammedanismi & Judaismi, ibid 1696“, filed under „Theol. Gent. Mohamm. & Jud. in Quarto » ; p. 205 : “1876 Ad. Relandus de Religione Mohammedica, Ultr.
1735 l.g. 1877 La Religion des Mahometans tire du Latin de M. Reland, a la Haye
1721. 1878 Adr. Reland van den Godsdienst der Mahometaanen/ Utr. 1718 »,
filed under « Theologiae Mohammedicae fontes, Vindices, Oppugnatores”; p.
269 : « 1788 H. Relandi Palaestina ex Monumentis veteribus illustrata,
Ultr. 1714 2 vol. », p. 273 : « 1862 Hadr. Relandi Antiquitates Sacrae, Traj.
1741 », and p. 275: “1901 Joh. Conr. Hottingerus de Decimis Judaeorum cum
Hadr. Relandi Epistola ad Auctorem, L. Bat. 1713”, all three filed under
“Historia & Antiquitates Judaicae, in Quarto”; p. 281: “3214 Hadr. Relandi
Antiquitates Sacrae Veterum Hebraeorum, Traj. ad Rh. 1708”, p. 283: “3252 Hadr.
Relandus de Spoliis Templi
Hierosolymitani cura Hrn. Aug. Schulze, Traj ad Rh. 1775 c.f.”, p. 284: “3279 Adr. Relandus de Nummis
Veterum Hebraeorum, Traj. ad Rh. 1709. – Idem de Spoliis Templi
Hierosolymitani, ibid. 1716. 3280
— Lettre au Comte de Kniphuisen », all five filed under « Historia
& Antiquitates Judaicae, in Octavo”; p. 312: „3361 Had. Relandi
Oratio de Galli cantu Hierosolymis audito, Roter. 1709“, filed under „Vita Christi &
Apostolorum, & Hist. Eccles. Recentior » ; p. 396: “4368 P. &
Hadr. Relandi Fasti Consulares, Traj. Batav. 1715, l.g.”, filed under:
“Antiquarii & Numismatici, in Octavo”; p. 449: “4977 Hadr. Relandi Galatea,
Traj. ad. Rh. 1710 – Paraphrases Horatianae elegiaco carmine, Amst. 1715. -Odae
quaefam Horatianae in aliud carminis genus conversae, ibid. 1714. – Sam. Munckeri
Artis Poëticae Periculum, Goud. 1688. – Rymproeve in allerhaande styl en stoffe/
gedaan door Sam. Muncherus/
ibid. 1688. I. ii.” bound together in one volume, filed under “Poëtae
Recentiores”; p. 470: “5342 Borhaneddini Enchiridion Studiosi Ar. & Lat.
ed. ab H. Relando, Ultr. 1709. », filed under « Paroemiogr.,
Mythogr., Embl. Satyr. &c., in Octavo » ; p. 487 : « 3143 Epicteti Manuale
& Sententiae ut & Cebetis Tabula Gr. & Lat. cura Hadr. Relandi, Traj. Bat. 1711 l. b. », filed
under « Philosophi Veteres & Recentiores, in Quarto » ; p.
531 : « 3549 Adr. Relandi Oratio pro Lingua Persica, & Cognatis
Literis Orientalibus, Traj. 1701. l. b. », filed under « Gramm. &
Lexicogr. Ling. Orient., in Quarto » ; p. 553 : « 6265
Hadr. Relandi Analecta Rabbinica, Ultr. 1723. l. b. », filed under
« Gramm. & Lexicogr.
Ling. Orient., in
 Anon: Bibliotheca Schultensiana,
Leiden 1780: p. 43: “540 J. Braunius in Ep. ad Hebraeos, Amst. 1750”, filed
under “Commentatores in Quarto”; p. 46: “605 J. Braunii selecta sacra, Amst.
1700”, filed under “Diss. & Variae Observ. ad Phil. & Exeg. Sac., in
Quarto”; p. 64: “413 Dan. Flud a Giffen Epistola as Jo. Braunium de Loco Ezech.
VIII. 14., Amst. 1686”, filed under “Commentatores in Octavo”; p. 114: “949 Jo.
Braunii Doctrina Foederum, Amst. 1688”, filed under “Integra Systemata Doctrina
Theologicae, in Quarto”; p. 374: “1888 Jo. Braunius de Vestitu Sacerdotum
Hebraeorum, Amst. 1680 l. b. cum fig.“, filed under „Historia &
Antiquitates Judaicae, in Quarto”; p. 586: “3750 Jo. Braunii Doctrina Foederum,
Amst. 1691 (cum charta pura & notis MSS.)”, filed under “Libri Omissi, in
 Anon: Bibliotheca
Schultensiana, Leiden 1780: p. 354: “2278 Antonini Iter Britanniarum, curante
Thom. Gale, Lond. 1709. l. b.”, filed under “Chronologi, Geographi, &
Historiae Universae Scriptores Recentiores”; p. 407: “4486 Rhetores Graeci
Selecti Gr. & Lat. cura Th. Gale, Oxon. 1676, l. b.”, filed under “Oratores
Veteres Gr. & Lat., in Octavo”; p. 441: “4811 Historiae Poëticae Scriptores Antiqui Graeci gr. & lat. cura Thom. Gale, Paris.
1575 [sic,=1675] l. b.”, filed under “Poëtae Vet. Graeci, Latini & Orientales, in Octavo”; p.
484: “935 Jamblichus de Mysteriis Gr. & Lat. cura Thom. Gale, Oxon. 1678. l. b.”, filed under “Philosophi
Veteres & Recentiores, in Folio”.
 Anon: Bibliotheca
Schultensiana, Leiden 1780: p. 308 : « 2228 Eus. Renaudotii
Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, Paris, 1716. l. g.“, and p. 309: “2238
Euseb. Renaudotii Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum Jacobitarum, Paris.
1713. l. a.”, both filed under “Historia Ecclesiae Orientalis ».
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 54: « 300 A. Reland
de Consensu Mohammedanismi & Judaismi, Ultr. 1696. 301 — de Symbolo
Mohammedico: Non est Deus nisi Unus, ibid. 1696. », both filed under « Theol.
Moh. Jud. rec. fontes, &c. in Quarto ».
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 20: « 153 H. R.
(Relandi) Elenchus Philologicus, quo praecipua, quae circa textum &
versiones SS. disputari solent, breviter indicantur, L. B. 1755 (cum notis MSS
J.J.S) 154 Idem libellus. Accedunt S. R. (Ravii) Positiones Philologicae
controversae, in usum Disputationis privatae, Ultr. 1753 » both filed
unter « Isagogici, Critici, Hermeneutici in Octavo »; p. 36: 275 H.
Relandi Oratio de galli cantu Hierosolymis audito, Roter. 1709, filed under « Commentatores,
in Octavo »; p. 41: « 318 H. Relandi Dissertationes Miscellaneae,
Ultr. 1706 3 voll. », filed under « Variae Obs. ad. Phil. & Exeg. Sacr., in Octavo »
; p. 54, « 300 A. Reland de Consensu Mohammedanismi & Judaismi, Ultr.
1696. 301 — de Symbolo Mohammedico: Non est Deus nisi Unus, ibid. 1696 »
(see note 10); p. 56: « 454 H. Relandus de Mohammedica, Ultr. 1717. (Nonnulla adscripsit J. J. S.) »,
filed under « Theol. Moh.
Jud. rec. fontes, &c. in Quarto” ; p. 70: “579 Borhaneddini
Enchiridion studiosi, Arab. & Lat., cura H. Relandi, Traj. 1709 (cum notis
Mss A. S.) 580 Idem liber, (cum emendationibus Mss. H. A. S.) Accedis Relandi liber de Spoliis
templi Hierosolymitani, ibid. 1716. cum fig. », both filed under « Philosophi
veteres & recentiores, in Octavo”; p. 86 : « 529 Adr. Relandi Oratio pro Lingua
Persica, & Cognatis Literis Orientalibus, Traj. 1701. l. b. », filed
under « Gramm. & Lexicogr. Ling. Orient., in Quarto»; p. 92: « 758
Hadr. Relandi Analecta Rabbinica, Ultr. 1723. l. b. », field under “Gramm.
& Lexicogr. Ling.
Orient., in Quarto »;
p. 159: “836 Hadr. Relandi Antiquitates
Sacrae Veterum Hebraeorum, Ultr. 1741. (cum notis Mss. J. J. S.)”, p. 162: “1487
H. Relandi Antiquitates Sacrae, cum notis J. E. Ravii, Herborn. 1743”, , filed
under “Antiquarii, in Quarto”; p. 168: “1557 Adr. Relandi Dissertatio de
Marmoribus Arabicis Puteolanis, & Nummo Arab. Constantini Pogonati, Amst. 1704. Lettre de M.
Reland a M. le Comte de Kniphuisen, sur une piece d’or trouvée dans ses terres,
Utr. 1713. avec fig. 1558 — de Inscriptione Nummorum quorundam Samaritanorum,
Amst. 1702, 2 tomi 1 vol. », both filed under « Numism.,
Inscript., Marm., &c. in Octavo. »
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 190: « 52 A. Schultens
Dictata ad Relandi antiquitates Hebraicas. 53 — Praelectiones ad Selecta
quaedam Philologiae S. capita. 54 — Commentarius ad Relandi Antiquitates
Hebraeas. 2 voll. (Autographum Auctoris)“, filed under „Apographa Cod. M. S. S.
Orient ab Eur. Facta » ; p. 191: « 55 C. Ikenii
Commentarius ad Relandi Antiquitates Hebraeorum, descriptus manu D. Hackmanni.
2 voll. 4°. 56 W. Koolhaas Dictata in C. Ikenii Antiquitates Hebraicas. 4°. 57 D. Millii Dictata in Ikenii
Antiquitates Hebraicas. 4°. 58 J. J. Schultensii Dictata ad Relandi Antiquitates
Hebraicas. Pars II. 4°“, all filed under „Praelection. Academ., aliique
nostrat. libri Mss.“
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 37: “216 Jo. Braunii Selecta Sacra, Amst. 1700“,
filed under „Variae Obs. ad. Phil. & Exeg. Sacr., in Quarto”.
ladies and gentleman, I will be speaking about speaking about scholarly
predecessors in public speeches. Well, at least semi-public speeches, as I will
be dealing with the inaugural lectures of three 18th century
professors. Although they all were delivered originally to a limited academic
audience only, they were published in print afterwards and thus at least in
principle publicly available. (And of course I’m also writing and not speaking,
but although it sounds it like fun, I shall not spend any more time reflecting
on the inadequacies of metaphors for scientific discourse here).
Three orators, three inaugural lectures
Let me introduce today’s three orators now: Please welcome Albert Schultens (1686–1750) with On the springs from which all knowledge of the Hebrew language flows and their shortcomings and defects, Jan Jacob Schultens (1716–1778) with Of the fruits of returning to theology from a deeper understanding of the Oriental languages, and last but not least Henrik Albert Schultens (1749-1793) with On the labour of the Dutch in fostering the Arabic studies. As you either know already or may have guessed by now, the similarity in names really points to a close relationship between these three scholars. They represent three generations of the same family, father, son, and grandson. They also represent three generations of scholars working within broadly the same discipline, which their contemporaries termed “Oriental Languages”, which was almost always blended with theology – as the title of Jan Jacob Schulten’s inaugural lecture directly captured.
How does that relate to forgetting?
So what is
the connection of these three lectures/speeches to my project? Well, first of
all they constitute a source type which I have not dealt with in my project
yet. Of course I have drawn on funeral orations, but these are hardly the same
kind of public speech act (and printed publication later on). So the first
question is how this medium may be related to what I am generally interested in,
the patterns of posthumous references to scholars and their fading. And the
second question obviously is which relation existed between the Schultens
family and my four protagonists whose patterns of fading I am especially interested
To do it the easier way I’ll start with the second question: Albert Schultens, the first of the family to attain a professorial post, had been a pupil of Johannes Braun in Groningen, in 1706 defending a graduation thesis under Braun On the utility of Arabic in the interpretation of Holy Scripture,as I already had pointed out in an earlier post. From Groningen he first moved to Leiden, then on to Utrecht where he became a pupil of Adriaan Reland, earning a doctorate in theology in 1709 with a thesis on a passage from the gospel according to Mark. In 1713 he was appointed to the post of professor of theology at Franeker University. Albert Schultens thus was quite directly connected to two of my protagonists.
The lectures: 1714 – 1779
there any trace of that in his inaugural lecture? If so, only a very small
trace. Schultens recurred once to Reland, when he listed “Hottinger (=Johann
Heinrich Hottinger, 1620–1667), Golius (=Jacob Golius, 1569–1667), Pocockius (=Edward
Pococke, 1604–1691), Relandus and other principal Arabists.”
He much more prominently referred to Samuel Bochart (1599–1667). What is
remarkable in the passage on Reland, though, is that he was the only living
person referred to. Which was quite uncommon; usually only dead people were
explicitly mentioned in public academic orations. So while one could
tentatively assume that Reland was done a special honour here, it is quite
telling that Johannes Braun, who had presided over the graduation thesis in
which Schultens had already defended the argument that Arabic could be used to
illuminate Scripture, is not mentioned even once. Although he had been dead for
six years already.
Schultens proposed the use of other Semitic languages to get a better grip on
Hebrew in 1714 this still was a new approach. When his son, Jan Jacob
Schultens, defended essentially the same argument – that “Oriental Languages”
where a profitable tool for the study of theology – in his inaugurational lecture
for the post of professor of theology in Leiden in 1749, it was no longer
revolutionary anymore, which might perhaps explain why Jan Jacob could make it
short; his oration was only a bit more than half as long as that of his father.
But it had the additional value of being solidly established by his father by
now, who had not only presided over his son’s doctoral thesis in 1742
but who also seems to have attained the inaugural lecture of Jan Jacob. At
least his son addressed him in direct speech at the end in a paragraph
especially designed to underscore their familial and scientific relationship.
And while Jan Jacob Schultens did not refer to any of the scholars his father
had mentioned as his predecessors, he also continued his line of not referring
to Johannes Braun. The punchline of this is that he did refer to Johannes
whose direct pupil Braun had been.
In 1779, when Henrik Albert Schultens, the son of Jan Jacob, held his inaugural lecture for the post of professor of Oriental Languages and Ancient Hebrew, he no longer had the problem of having to deal with any living predecessors. Not only where the scholars his grandfather had referred to dead for almost one century, both his father and grandfather were dead for quite a while, too. He capitalized on this for taking another turn on the topic of his father’s and grandfather’s lectures, in turning their approach to a discipline and referring the history of this discipline in Dutch universities. This was a clever move in two respects, as it possible for him to refer to his family history as the history of an academic field, and to use the memory of his ancestors to his advantage. He first of all referred to a set of 16th and 17th century scholars which included those mentioned in his grandfather’s lecture, adding some more international figures to compare the achievements of Dutch scholars against (and thus to capitalize on the growing discursive entanglements of national ideas and science). In doing so, he referred to Reland and, on the French side, also to Renaudot. Building on that, he then turned to describing his grandfather as the founder of the new kind of Oriental languages studies he himself professed. To protect himself from being reproached as exploiting his family history to his own advantage, to the end he used a curious rhetorical strategy and began to describe – quite elaborately – how much of a burden the legacy of Albert and Jan Jacob Schultens placed on him, and that he would do his utmost to match their achievements.
Family’s the thing!
from the example of Henrik Albert Schultens it seems that relying solely on
family tradition as a qualification for scholarship had become problematic in
the later 18th century, it still was preferable to ‘pure’
discipleship, the more so if both could be mixed, as in Jan Jacob Schulten’s
case, who could style himself not as only the genealogical but also the
intellectual heir of his father. This meant that scholars who were mentioned by
the founding father of the line in question had good chances to be carried
along and be referred to, as Reland was, more than half a century after their
death; but for those who were excluded at the start, such as Johannes Braun, this
meant that they were most likely to stay excluded. Structural forgetting in
this case presents itself a process only challengeable with difficulty, if at
p. 40: „Unum tamen, Praestantissimi Commilitones, qui in Arabicis literis, sive
ad juvanda studia vestra Theologia, seu ad majorem ingenii culturam, operam
collocatis; unum igitur non possum quin vobis de Alberto Schultensio
commemorem, & maxime  ad imitandum proponam.“
for the web of correspondences in which my protagonists where situated I am
constantly challenged by the intricacies imposed on such a reconstruction
through source loss. Which is nothing very surprising, though. Once people are
dead for 300 years, it is rather more likely to find nothing than to find
anything at all, so every surviving piece of evidence is good first of all. And
from what is there normally a lot more may be reconstructed with greater or
lesser probability – which of course brings along other problems.
If I may elaborate on last week’s example of Adriaan Reland’s correspondence network, this provides a case in point. Most of Reland’s surviving letters are part of the correspondences of Gijsbert Cuper (1644–1716), the learned mayor of Deventer, who not only was a prolific letter-writer and networker but who also kept his letters; they have come down to us pretty complete. Apart from that, there are only some scattered letters in several European libraries, plus some in printed correspondences of other persons or as part of contemporary publications.
A – The directly
known network, or 15 edges
with the easy part: These are Reland’s direct correspondents as I know them
from shortly below 200 letters. Those connections are directly established as
people who exchanged at least one surviving letter with him. The list
encompasses one correspondent in France (Jean-Paul Bignon), one in the Holy
Roman Empire (Mathurin Veyssière de la Croze in Berlin), one in Switzerland
(Johann Baptist Ott), three in England (John Wasse, John Hudson, and Richard
Bentley), and ten – the rest – in the Netherlands. It also contains different
social fields: While eleven of these were scholars, two were printers (Halma
and Leers), and one a former student applying for a post as preacher (Johannes
Plevier). But fifteen contacts are almost nothing for a busy member of the
Republic of Letters – as 177 letters are also almost nothing.
B – The indirectly
known network, or 18 ghost edges
letters sometimes reference other letters as received, written, or forwarded to
someone else which I have not yet found in archival evidence but which are clearly
indicated as having existed, so that I may take the sources as containing
indirect proof of the connections established by these letters. This provides
me with a ghost network of another 18 correspondents, which is interesting in
so far as it contains almost the same differentiations on a regional level as
the directly known network but is socially much more homogenous. One ghost
correspondent is from France (Pierre Daniel Huet), two are from within the Holy
Roman Empire (Johann Hermann Schmincke from Hesse, Johann Burchard Mencke from Saxony,)
one was abroad outside Europe (Johannes Heymann in Damascus, Syria), five in
England (Heinrich Siecke al. Henry Sike, Gilbert Burnet, John Chamberlayne, Joshua
Barnes, and Cornelius Crownfield), one in Italy (Giusto Fontanini), and the
remaining nine in the Netherlands. But this time only one correspondent, namely
the publishing house Fritsch & Böhm in Rotterdam, was not a scholar. Some persons
were ‘only’ part-time scholars as the preachers Godefroy de Clermont and Paul
Collignon or Gilbert Burnet, the British politician and bishop of Salisbury, or
Reland’s younger brother Pieter who was a lawyer, but from the context it
becomes clear that they all are referred to in their respective capacities as
scholars. Before I dig deeper into the problems connected to this, first let me
introduce you to the even more shadowy parts of this network.
C – The conjecturally
known network, or, 16 ghosts of ghost edges
letters, publications, and other sources also third set of connections can be
postulated. These connections are not as clearly indicated by the sources as
the ghost edges just presented but may be inferred on the basis of
well-grounded speculation. As these connections are therefore by their very
nature elusive, let me tell you a bit of the reasons for me supposing them
interspersed in the same breakdown as I have given for the other two sets of
connections. Regionally divided, this third circle of connections contains 16
correspondents in France: Antoine Galland, Bernard de Montfaucon, and Ludolph
Küster. Galland is mentioned by name and with forwarded letters in some of
Reland’s letters, as Montfaucon, but both are not explicitly mentioned as in
direct contact, and the same goes for Ludolph Küster, Royal Librarian in Paris.
correspondents in Denmark, Otto Sperling and Matthias Anchersen. Anchersen was
professor of Arabic at Copenhagen university and a former pupil of Reland. In a
letter to Gijsbert Cuper from 1 November 1709 Reland quoted a longer poem dedicated
to Cuper and him by Anchersen, which may indicate a familiarity likely to be
kept up by communication.
Sperling is mentioned several times in letters between Reland and Cuper and
seems to have been a correspondent of Cuper also; if this constitutes a
parallel case to that of de la Croze, Sperling might also have been in contact
with Reland directly.
correspondents in the Holy Roman Empire: Christop Cellarius, August Pfeiffer, Otto
Mencke, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Reland had asked Cuper at one point to
bring him into contact with Schmincke and Leibniz,
and with Schmincke at least this seems to have worked (see B). For Cellarius
and Pfeiffer the situation is similar: Reland had once asked Theodor Jansson
van Almeloveen for bringing him into contact with Cellarius and mentioned at
the same time that he was editing some of Pfeiffer’s work.
Both might indicate direct epistolary contact but only on a conjectural basis. With
Otto Mencke it is a bit more difficult; as I have indirect proof of Mencke’s
son Johann Burchard Mencke being a correspondent of Reland, and as it seems to
be the case that Mencke junior inherited most of his contacts, especially the
Dutch ones, from his father, this would make it seem likely that Reland also
was in contact with him already.
another seven Dutch correspondents, for which I will now not go into detail for
each one. But, interestingly, this subset contains the only non-scholar contact
I suppose to have taken place at this stage. This is the contact to Johan
Adriaan Thierens, a former pupil of Reland’s whom he tried – successfully – to install
as preacher in Deventer by using his contacts to Gijsbert Cuper, the mayor of
Deventer. There are three letters extant in which Reland proposes Thierens for
the post, Cuper answers that he will be appointed, and Reland thanks Cuper for
But, having assembled these increasingly
shadowy layers of correspondents, what does this tell me?
First of all, out of 49 contacts only 15 are
directly established; 34 are indirectly or only conjecturally postulated.
Around 200 letters have survived from the 15 direct contacts, so that it may
safely be assumed that the full network might also have contained about thrice
that number at least. As the direct letters also are quite few to have survived
for a communicative member of the Republic of Letters for the number of
contacts, the final figure is likely to have been even higher. And as the 15
letters from directs contacts yielded 18 indirect proofs of connection, it may
be assumed that these 18 correspondences would have contained an equal amount
of such references. This would ideally serve to establish the remaining 16
contacts on a secure basis but might also point even further, for there are
many more people with whom Reland might have been in contact. This can be
inferred from connections such as those to Johannes Plevier and Johan Adriaan
Thierens, both of which were pupils of Reland on whose behalf he intervened
with authorities to provide them with posts. These are only two of his many
students, so it may well be the case that following this lead I would indeed
discover many more possible contacts. And that there is only one person related
to Reland in the whole sample, his brother Pieter, is making me suspicious
also; it seems that this part of the correspondence is likely to be missing on
a much larger scale than the scholarly part.
This is something which would hardly be surprising but which nevertheless needs to be pointed out here. Source loss is no random process. It rather favours certain kinds of materials and is prone to discard others much more readily. In Reland’s case, it is known from the auction catalogue that his library was auctioned off after his death on November 4th – 5th, 1718; his manuscripts, which had been passed to his son, were auctioned off after the son’s death in May 1756. That meant that those letters which Reland had kept as parts of his papers were on the market then at the latest, and those containing only family matters would likely have been discarded as of no worth to colleagues or collectors – and so could not end up in archives in the 19th century to be preserved until today. The same holds, by and large, for almost all of his other correspondents, rare exceptions such as Cuper nonwithstanding; and the letters to and from his publishers would suffer the same fate. Thus only a fraction of a part of the correspondence survived, that with fellow scholars, and that only selectively, too. Now the question is: Is this causing him to become structurally forgotten, or is it an effect of an early structural forgotten-ness? But this has to wait until next week. And before I forget: Here’s the complete circles all in one, just for sake of completness.
to Cuper, Utrecht, 1 November 1709: KB Den Haag 72 H 11 CL 105 (1704-1709).
 Reland to Cuper, Utrecht 13 January
1710: KB Den Haag 72 H 11 CL 105 (1710-1716).
 Reland to Almeloveen, Amsterdam 19
August 1703: UB Utrecht RJ 008 (1703).
 Reland to Cuper, Utrecht 20 October
1714; Cuper to Reland, Deventer 12 January 1715; Reland to Cuper, Utrecht 15
January 1715: KB Den Haag 72 H 11 CL 105 (1710-1716).
 Anon.: Pars Magna
Bibliothecae Clarissimi & Celeberrimi Viri Hadriani Relandi, Professoris,
dum viveret, Linguarum Orientalium, & Antiquitatum Hebraicorum, &
Antiquitatum Hebraicarum in Academ. Ultraj. Continens diversi
Generis & Var. Linguarum Libros Exquisitissimos Theologos, Philologicos,
Ecclesiaticos, Philosophicos, Auctores Graecos &
Latinos, Antiquarios, Historicos, Lexicographos, aliosque Miscellaneos, inter
quos excellunt Atlas Blavianus, Item Thesaurus Rom. & Graecus Graevii & Gronovii, 24 vol.
Quorum auctio fĳiet publica in aedibus defuncti ad diem 7 Novembri 1718. Patebit
Bibliotheca duabus ante auctionem diebus, nempe 4 & 5 Novemb. Trajecti Ad Rhenum, Apud Guilielmum
Broedelet. 1718. Ubi
Catalogi distribuentur, Utrecht: Broedelet 1718.
Catalogus bibliothecæ Joannis Relandi, ofte Register van eene uytmuntende
verzameling […] boeken, prent- en kaartwerken […]. Als mede een
munt-cabinet […]. Nagelaten door den heer mr. Jan Reeland […]. ‘t Welk
verkocht zal worden te Haerlem […] op den 3 mey 1756 en volgende dagen,
Haarlem: Enschede 1756.