No bibliographer should write about books which he has not seen  

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Related e

Wikipedia Wiktionary Shop Featured: Rhombicuboctahedron by Leonardo da Vinci

"As I have always insisted that no bibliographer should write about books which he has not seen, the above suggestion may appear inconsistent and to require a word of explanation. It is not within human possibility for one man to see all the books that have been printed, nor even for any one association of men, in as much as the books could not be brought together in one place. The primary work then, the noting books de visu, must be done piecemeal Let us for a moment suppose this labour to have been accomplished by trustworthy bibliographers, such as Viollet le Duc, poetry ; James Atkinson, medicine ; De Morgan, arithmetic ; H. Stevens, geography ; Du Roure, literary curiosities ; G. Peignot, books destroyed ; John Martin, privately printed books; Charles Asselineau, modern romance; Paul Lacroix, the works of one man ; &c. The various separate catalogues or bibliographies would have to be assembled, arranged in chronological order, and numbered. The titles of books noticed would then be transcribed in the most condensed form possible, beginning with the earliest bibliography, and the number denoting that bibliography or authority attached. Where a later bibliographer simply repeats a title already given, no notice need be taken of such repetition, or second number added ; but where an early bibliographer is found to be corrected by a later writer, the former should be entirely omitted, and the latter alone recorded. In this way a reliable, universal hand-book to printed literature is 'possible, although the undertaking would be immense, and involve labour and an outlay almost beyond the resources of a private individual or firm." --Ashbee