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. .
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.”
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
Seven years ago now Caroline Winterer asked “Where is America in the Republic of Letters?” , and the question is still too good not to be asked again. So where is America in my Republic of Letters? Until very recently it seemed to be quite absent. Only from the middle of the 19th century onwards American publications referring to my protagonists began appearing in my data, all in the context of scholarly research. But any contemporary entanglement seemed to be missing. Perhaps this does not come as a surprise so much as the question in how far the Republic of Letters covered America, which parts of it, and when. I am not going to tackle this question here, but I can present you now with some American instances of references to my protagonists before 1800. And the nature of these references may perhaps point to why it is complicated to uncover them today.
New Haven, Connecticut, 1760/1770
The first instance I came across was a reworked extract from Peter von Mastricht’s (1630-1706) Theologia theoretico-practica of 1682 which was printed in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1769/1770. The anonymous translator and compiler was obviously concerned about theological discussion points current New Haven at the time, or at least he announced his treatise this way. While he had to elaborate upon “who this Doct. Van Mastricht is, and what the particular reasons are, for publishing the following treatise at this time”, he added a substantial appendix to the work to buttress von Mastricht’s arguments with other Dutch and Scottish reformed theologians, with both of which he seems to have been very familiar.
His readers most probably were not as may be seen from his explanation of the denominational attributions in his text: “It should have been observed to the reader, that by the REFORMED, or the reformed church, foreign writers mean all denominations of Protestants, except the Lutherans (with respect to whom they are called reformed) and some heretical sects that have sprung up among them, as the Socinians, Arminians, &c” In this section he took, amongst others, recourse to Johannes Braun in respect to the relation of the human will and divine grace, and devoted more than one entire page to quotes from Braun’s Doctrina Foederum of 1688. At the end of the treatise there is one passage which might be taken as an indication that the translator/compiler had not acquired his theological knowledge locally in Connecticut: “This publication would have been rendered more compleat by quotations from Turretine and the doings of the famous Synod of Dort, had not the publisher been disappointed about procuring these books.” He seems not to have had such problems with his Braunius, unless he was quoting from his collected excerpts.
Two tentative conclusions might be suggested as hypotheses for further enquiry by this piece of evidence: First, that such theological knowledge was still imported from abroad into North America in the late 1760s/early 1770s, and second, that some of the publications contributing to it may have been available there nevertheless. Drawing any conclusions as to the supposed origin of the translator/compiler is not possible though, as the second piece of evidence will show.
Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1789
In 1789 Charles Inglis (1734-1816), appointed Anglican bishop of Nova Scotia in 1787, concluded his visitation of his new diocese with a treatise printed as “A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Nova Scotia.” Inglis aimed at something quite similar as the translator/compiler of von Mastricht: Giving a group of people – in Inglis’ case the clergy of his diocesis – the proper arguments to solve theological and ecclesiastical problems right at hand. To do so, both utilized a quite similar stock of literature, and that is why – at present – no inference of the anonymous translator/compiler’s place of origin can be drawn from his treatise.
The Anglican bishop used a mixture of the same Calvinist authors garnished with some Presbyterians and other dissenters alongside more orthodox Anglican writers as the stock of his admonitions. A large part of his “charge” consisted of directions for a solid churchman’s library, as “[s]everal of the younger Clergy, having, at different times, expressed a desire to have a list of such Books as would be proper for a Clergyman’s Library; I have set down the following Catalogue, and hope it may be of service.” And in this directions the bishop, too, included Johannes Braun, although not with one of his staple theological works but with his treatise on the vestments of the ancient Jewish temple priests. And he also included Adrien Reland in his list, once directly, and once indirectly.
That Inglis included Reland in his list is remarkable for two reasons: First, because it supports the notion that Reland’s 1714 work “Palaestina Illustrata” was the longer the 18th century lasted the more firmly labelled as a theological tract (which it not directly was), and second because of what Inglis himself had written down as his criteria for selecting the works on his list: “Perhaps it is needless to observe that I could have easily enlarged the number of Books under each head; those only are selected which appear to be most useful, and are easily procured; and I confine myself to such as treat of Theology, or that have an immediate connection with it.”
Conclusions & hypotheses…
Not only was Reland’s work bundled up with Theology, it was also labelled as “easily procured” even in the context of Nova Scotia, as was Braun’s Vestitus Sacerdotum Hebraeorum. Inglis did not precisely state how these works would have been procured by his clergymen, and it would be tempting to try to check if they really did, if there are inventories of late 18th/early 19th century Nova Scotia Anglican clergymen available somewhere to do so. In any case the firm theological fixation of the works in question coupled them with the respective discourses, and when the issues in context of which they had been discussed faded from the debates of New England, I suppose that references to the works and via these to their authors will have followed suit. Which opens up a new theatre of investigations nevertheless.
 Caroline Winterer: Where is
America in the Republic of Letters?, in: Modern Intellectual History 9, 2012,
pp. 597–623; doi:10.1017/S1479244312000212.
 Peter von Mastricht: Theoretico-Practica theologia: Qua, per Capita
Theologica, pars dogmatica, elenchtica et practica, perpetua symbibasei
conjugantur. Praecedunt in usum operis paraleipomena, seu Sceleton de optima
concionandi method, Amsterdam: Boom & widow 1682.
 Anon: A treatise on
regeneration : By Peter Van Mastricht, D.D. Professor of Divinity in the
Universities of Francfort, Duisburgh, and Utrecht. Extracted from his system of
divinity, called Theologia theoretico-practica; and faithfully translated into
English; with an appendix, containing extracts from many celebrated divines of
the Reformed Church, upon the same subject, New Haven: Thomas & Samuel
 Charles Inglis: A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Nova Scotia
at the primary visitation holden in the town
of Halifax, in the month of June 1788. By the Right Reverend Charles, Bishop of
Nova Scotia, Halifax: Anthony Henry 1789.
p. 76; Johannes Braun: Bigdê kohanîm id est, Vestitus sacerdotum Hebræorum,
sive Commentarius amplissimus in Exodi cap. XXVIII, ac XXIX. & Levit. cap.
XVI. (2 vols.), Leiden: Doude/Elzevier 1680.
 Inglis: A charge delivered to the clergy
1789, p. 62; Thomas Lewis: Origines Hebrææ: the antiquities of the Hebrew
republick : In four books. I. The origin of the Hebrews; their civil
government; the constitution of the sanbedrim; forms of trial in courts of
justice, &c. II. The ecclesiastical government; the consecration of the
high-priests, priests, and levites. The revenue of the priesthood the sects
among the Hebrews, pharisees, sadducees, essenes, &c. III. Places of worship.
The use of high-places; a survey of the tabernacle, and the proseucha’s of the
Hebrews. A description of the first temple from the scriptures, and of the
second from the rabbinical writings. The sacred utensils. The institution of
synagogues, &c. IV. The religion of the hebrews. Their sacrifices; and
their libations. The burning of the red heifer, and ceremonies of purification.
Their sacraments, publick fasts and festivals, &c. Design’d as an
explanation of every branch of the levitical law, and of all the ceremonies and
usages of the Hebrews, both civil and sacred. By Tho. Lewis, M.A (3 vols.),
London: Samuel Illidge/John Hooke 1724-1725; Adrien Reland: Palaestina
ex monumentis veteribus illustrata (2 vols.), Utrecht: Willem Broedelet 1714.
 Inglis: A charge delivered to
the clergy 1789, p. 59.
Saturday, December 21st, for Friday No. 11, December 20th, 2018
This is the
last one! No, not the end, it’s just the last one for this year, as I’m off for
vacation from – what was it – ah, now. But only until January 2nd,
so come next year, come new research posts.
be a good time to reflect upon the state of the project so far. And to take
some time to see what might still be changed for the better. So what I want to
present you today is no fully-fledged piece of research but rather some
thoughts on the limits of the project as it stands now.
What it’s all about
To sum it
all up in a few lines again, my aim was (and is!) to work out the patterns that
emerge as remembrance fades and structural forgetting sets in. More precisely, I
wanted to show these patterns for the societal subset of what I call the
academic metier, and for humanities’ scholars whose memory faded. To do so, I
follow four specific scholars – Thomas Gale of Cambridge, Johannes Braun of
Groningen, Adrien Reland of Utrecht, and Eusèbe Renaudot of Paris – and track
the frequency of references to them across the centuries after their deaths.
For when such references dwindle and their pattern changes from one of being
frequently referenced to one of only intermittently being referenced,
structural forgetting can be actually made visible.
This was my basic assumption at least, and I still think that it is sound in principle. I am using a relational database and network visualization program, NodeGoat, to gather my data and visualize them diachronically, and by now patterns really do start to emerge. The question now is: Which patterns are these?
References and framing categories
hinted at the problem of measuring the frequency of references to a dead
scholar. Of course citations and quotations can be counted – but within which
kind of frame? For early modern scholarly communication, there are basically
three categories of materials still available for me: letters; publications
(both manuscript and print); and journals. Everything else is either no longer
extant or not available in accessible format. Perhaps auction catalogues
provide something like a three-point-fifth category – they survive as printed
books, so basically they are publications – but that is about it.
Now each of these categories is tricky. Letters only survive in some cases, and in those cases then most often too many survive to make it possible to scan them all for metadata such as “mentions person X”. There are projects like Early Modern Letters Online, ePistolarium, Mapping the Republic of Letters, Electronic Enlightenment and such, but they either do not fit my timeframe or do not provide the information I am looking for. So while it is crucial to keep an eye on letters wherever possible, I cannot do so in a systematic way. Which means that I will only with great care be able to extract intermittent reference patterns from this part of my data set.
do survive in massive numbers, and in massive numbers are electronically
available and searchable by now. Countless digitization projects have made
available masses of material. Yet the masses produced are always larger still.
There is still so much out there which is not digitized, and which I therefore
would have to search in a library and go through manually, that I will not be able
to establish a suitable framework for my reference patterns this way, too. Even
if I reduced my research to a certain discipline, area, or language, it would
still be an insurmountable task. And most of it would be very frustrating, too,
because the majority of these books – by far! – would not contain any
references to my four protagonists (and presumably the more so as I advance in
time towards today). So while I will use all means of automatically extracting
information from publications that there are to find references to my
protagonists where I don’t expect them, I cannot claim to establish something
like a representative sample this way.
leaves me with journals, as it seems. And journals certainly do have many
advantages compared to my other two sources types. First of all, they do
survive in sufficiently complete form as to make general inferences possible.
We know with great certainty which journals there were, and most of them
survive. Second, they have been subject of lots of research by now, so that
their relative importance and their outreach can be determined at least fairly
well, and their workings and peculiarities are known to a large extent. Third,
they are – at least the larger and more important ones – available in good
editions, either in print or digitally, and thus searchable (via index or
query). So I can draw up a sample of important journals for the fields, times,
and places I am looking at, go through these journals, and have a data set
which allows me to really infer reference frequencies for the first time. Or,
given the only very partially comparable character of these early modern and 19th
century learned journals, several data sets most probably. Reference spikes in
the journals then would point me to the relevant developments in the reception
of my protagonists.
work. I found John Swinton this way (Philosophical
Transactions are already done up to 1800, which was easier as thought
because they only contain very few references of interest to me, fewer even
than I thought they might). And, to give a less obvious example, I found the
dead predikanten of the 1730s this
way who by their obituaries gave occasion to reference Johannes Braun.
alright, then? I frankly don’t know. It somehow doesn’t feel alright. I can
only do a certain number of important journals, and I am not completely
comfortable in just going where they point me. It feels a bit like being told
what to do. And I am not sure if I want my enquiries directed by anonymous
journalists three centuries gone. Well, time to think about it.