College and Research Libraries


elaborate cataloging, and a manual for refer-
ence for catalogers confronted occasionally 

with difficult cases.-Isabella K. Rhodes, 
Columbia University. 

Bibhogra phi cal Papers 

Papers of the Bibliographical Society, Uni-
versity of Virginia. Vol. I, I948-I949· 
Edited by Fredson Bowers. Charlottesville, 
Va., I948, ii, 204, [3]p. $3.50. 
Wherever students and scholars in the 

fields of descriptive and analytical bibliogra-
phy gather for off-the-record discussions, the 
need for additional resources for publishing 
the results of their research is a favorite 
topic. The rumblings have grown plainer 
of late, as investigators have picked up the 
strands of projects that were deferred per-
force during the war years. For obvious rea-
sons (other than the usual one of inertia) not 
a great deal has been done even yet to relieve 
the situation, what with printing costs at their 
present levels. Students of bibliography and 
of textual criticism will therefore be glad 
to hear of the decision of the Bibliographical 
Society of the University of Virginia to pub-
lish a series of its "papers." The first volume 
has just appeared under the editorship of 
Fredson Bowers, associate professor of 
English at the University of Virginia, him-
self an able tiller of bibliographical fields, 
being at present engaged in writing a descrip-
tive bibliography of the post-Restoration 
English drama, I66o-I700. The new publica-
tion is to appear annually. 

Although the first issue has a strong local 
representation, with the results of work by 
members of the faculty and graduate student 
body of the University of Virginia predom-
inating, important contributions have been 
drawn from scholars working at a distance, 
and even more general participation is invited 
for future issues, without reference to mem-
bership in the sponsoring organization. This 
fact sets the venture apart from the majority 
of such journals, which tend to devote them-
selves to the publication of studies performed 
at, or by the members of, a given institution. 
It is to be hoped that this policy will be con-
tinued and further emphasized, so that the 
scholar who is not working under the aegis of 
a specific institution, or whose institution 
does not have a medium suited to the publica-

OCTOBER~ 1949 

tion of his investigations, will have one 
more source of help. 

In the present issue appear II major 
articles and six notes. Of the articles, several 
concern themselves with various phases of the 
history of printing and publishing, others re-
late to technicalities of printing procedure 
which have been applied to particular biblio-
graphical problems (often with wider implica-
tions), and one deals entirely with a specific 
problem in textual genealogy. In the first cate-
gory are articles by Joseph M. Carriere, of 
the university faculty: "The Manuscript of 
Jefferson's Unpublished Errata List for Abbe 
Morellet's Translation of the Notes on Vir-
ginian/ by Jessie R. Lucke, a graduate 
student: "Some Correspondence with Thomas 
Jefferson Concerning the Public Printers"; 
by C. William Miller, of the faculty of 
Temple University: uln the Savoy: A Study 
in Post-Restoration I mPrintsn ,· by James G. 
McManaway of the Folger Library: "The 
First Five Bookes of Ovids Metamorphosis, 
I62I" (an account of a hitherto unrecorded 
edition); and by Rudolf Hirsch of the Library 
of the University of Pennsylvania: "The Art 
of Selling Books: Notes on Three Aldus 
Catalogues, I586-I592." An article by Giles 
E. Dawson of the Folger Library: "Three 
Shakespearian Piracies, I 723- I 729," should 
also perhaps be included in this category, as it 
identifies the true nature of the pamphlets 
under discussion and makes a fair case against 
William Feales as the probable pirate. 

New lines of approach to bibliographical 
problems are supplied in articles by Philip 
Williams, graduate student: "The Compos-
itor of the Pied-Bull Lear"; by Curt F. 
Buhler of the Morgan Library: "The Head-
lines in William de Machlinia's Year-Book, 
37 H en<ry V In; by Gerald E. Eberle of Loyola 
University of the South: aN osce T eipsum 
(1599) by Sir John Davies: a Bibliographical 
Puzzle"; and by Allan H. Stevenson of the 
Illinois Institute of Technology: "New Uses 
of Watermarks as Bibliographical Evidence." 
A paper by George B. Pace of the university 

479 



faculty, "The Text of Chaucer's Purse/J 
traces the genealogy of the I 1 known manu-
script versions of that well-known poem. 

Among the briefer bibliographical notes is 
one by Fillmore Norfleet, head of the French 
Department at Woodberry Forest, correcting 
the ascription of the subject of one of St. 
Memin's engravings, and otherwise supple-
menting published data regarding that artist. 
Another, by Guy A. Battle, graduate student 
at Duke University, deals with the study of 
progressive changes in box lines as a means of 
determining the order of printing of the 
various forms in certain early books. A third 
note, by James A. Steck, graduate student 
at the University of Virginia, makes use of the 
center rules between text columns for the 
same sort of analysis. George W. Williams, 
also a graduate student at Virginia, draws 
attention to the cruciform structure of 
Crashaw's "Upon the Bleeding Crucifix," as 
revealed in progressive changes by the author. 
A bibliographical ghost is laid by Mary 
Virginia Bowman, graduate student, in her 
note on "The Hallam-Tennyson Poems 
(1830)." Finally, the editor, Fredson 
Bowers, making use of variations to be found 

m the running titles of late seventeenth 
century English books, suggests "a form of 
truly bibliographical evidence which can be 
utilized with confidence under certain con-
ditions to determine whether two half-sheets 
were printed together or separately." 

The publication of the present volume was 
"aided by two generous grants from the Re·· 
search Council of the Richmond Area Uni-
versity Center, and from an anonymous 
donor." Perhaps that may account for the 
somewh.at selfconscious typographical format 
selected for this number. CertaiPly (in one 
man's opinion) the volume would be the 
gainer in general appearance if the use of 
rather cumbersome half titles for the indi-
vidual articles were discontinued-although 
in all fairness it must be admitted that these 
doubtless lend dignity and attractiveness to 
authors' offprints. In any case its scope, 
standards and usefulness having been demon-
strated in its first incarnation, the Papers of 
the Bibliographical Society of the University 
of Virginia will be welcomed in all future 
issues by bibliographers and librarians.-
Roland Baughman, Columbia University Li-
braries. 

Books for Catholic Colleges 
Books fO'r Catholic Colleges: a Supplement 

to ShawJs "List of Books for College Li-
raries.n Compiled under the auspices of the 
Catholic Library Association by Sister 
Melania Grace, S.C., and Gilbert C. Peter-
son, S.J. Chicago, American Library As-
sociation, 1948, x, I34P· $3.75. 
It is axiomatic that the implementation of 

the instructional and research programs of a 
college requires that its library's collections 
support the curriculum. While it is true 
that the subject matter covered in the general 
college curriculum is essentially the same in 
most American colleges, each of them differs 
in its emphasis. This difference, subtle in most 
cases, is the expression of an individual philos-
ophy of education. In Catholic colleges the 
emphasis is clear-cut. Here is presented the 
Catholic point of view, as it is applicable and 
pertinent to subject matter, character train-
ing and the like. This follows from the fact 
that the Catholic point of view is basic to 
Catholic education. It is obvious therefore 

that a segment of the collections of Catholic 
college libraries must reflect this emphasis. It 
appears logical that that segment should play 
a valid role in the accrediting process. As a 
core collection of works for the Catholic point 
of view, it would not supplant but should sup-
plement the Shaw list which has come to be 
the basis of the accrediting associations' quali-
tative evaluation of library materials. Per-
haps it was just the absence of an authorita-
tive Catholic list comparable to Shaw's which 
prevented the accrediting agencies from at-
tempting any evaluation of materials other 
than in Shaw which present the Catholic view-
point. The list under review is meant to 
fill this need. 

The exigencies of war and changing person-
al responsibilities forced postponement of 
compilation of the list in 1942, and brought 
in a new set of compilers in 1946. The 
methods and procedures which were set up 
with the approval of Charles Shaw and the 
Department of Library Science of Michigan 

480 COLf:EGE AND RESEARCI-l LIBRARIES