tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">[7]

Although he acknowledged all three men in his Preface and mentions them each about thirty times in the Account, it was Kirkman who was most admired by Langbaine and of most use to him. Kirkman's Catalogue of 1671, "the first ... printed of any worth," was the principal source of Momus, and it, in turn, was based on a catalogue which Kirkman made and published ten years previously.[8] The format of Kirkman's 1671 catalogue followed the general format of his earlier catalogue and of several earlier play lists[9] by arranging the plays alphabetically by title and with some haphazard attempt at chronological order as well, but, as Langbaine described it, "promiscuously as to those of Authors" except for "Shakespeare, Fletcher, Johnson, and some others of the most voluminous Authors," whose works were inserted in first place ([A3r]). The catalogue listed eight hundred and eight plays, and its principal orientation was most likely not scholarly but commercial, to list the books which Kirkman had for sale.[10] Nevertheless, Kirkman argued for the completeness of the second catalogue:

Langbaine's first catalogue, An Exact Account, was published anonymously and his authorship of this work has been questioned.[12] But he refers to it as his own at least three times (on pages 13, 395 and 409[13]) in the Account. Basically, in An Exact Account Langbaine "Reprinted Kirkman's [catalogue] with emendations, but in the same Form" ([A3r]), with an added alphabetical list giving authors publishing from 1675 to 1680. As James Osborn has shown, Langbaine perpetuated most of Kirkman's errors, even where Dryden was concerned, still mistakenly attributing to him Love in a Wood and to his brother-in-law, Sir Robert Howard, The Maiden Queen and Sir Martin Mar-All.[14]

An Exact Catalogue, in turn, formed the basis for Momus.[15] It has been suggested that Langbaine worked for Kirkman and came into possession of his collection, but the small evidence in Momus is to the contrary: Langbaine lists Kirkman's own play Presbyterian Lash as anonymous, and in the play index he enters The Wits (1672), a collection of drolls Kirkman claimed to have compiled, as "By Sir W. D." and then omits it from the main lists. In the Account, Wits is assigned anonymously.

At the time of An Exact Catalogue it can only be assumed that Langbaine's attitude toward Dryden was similar to Kirkman's:

For Momus Langbaine did adopt many opinions and much information from the earlier catalogues. In the seven years between his first and second catalogues, however, he began to deal more carefully with bibliographical matters, especially in his attributions to Dryden, and he found a new format which would allow him to present his later catalogues in a more accurate, useful and stimulating manner.

Momus Triumphans was published in November, 1687 (although its titlepage is dated 1688), under two different imprints: the one reproduced here and another "Printed for N. C. and to be Sold by Sam. Holford, at the Crown in the Pall-Mall. 1688." In both issues there is a major press variant on page 7 under Dryden in which "[148] Maximin—T. 4^o" is deleted and the note correctly rekeyed to "Tyrannick Love, or Royal Martyr" in the right-hand column. Where this variant occurs both title and note for "[149]Mistaken Husband—C. 4^o" are moved from the top of the right-hand column to the bottom of the left-hand column.

In addition to its Preface, Momus is divided into four sections: (1) Authors arranged alphabetically according to surnames, together with their plays, including the genre and format of each (pp. 1-26); (2) "Supposed AUTHOURS" listed by initials with their plays, genre and format (pp. 27-28); (3) "Unknown AUTHOURS" with plays divided alphabetically into groups by first initial of their titles (pp. 29-32); and (4) an Index of plays arranged alphabetically [pp. public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@45793@45793-h@45793-h-9.htm.html#Page_33" class="pginternal"