when he cites David Frölich, Viatorium.[75] And he does not blush to make venomous remarks in his usual fashion about some excellent men, especially those who differ from him in religious matters.

Meibom speaks harshly, and more harshly than Labbé has deserved, but he does grudgingly acknowledge that the Bibliotheca bibliothecarum is useful. Daniel Georg Morhof, whose Polyhistor, a general treatise on university studies, demanded some mention of indexes, bibliographies, and reference works, expresses much the same judgment on Labbé and leaves one in doubt whether he has actually seen the book. In a chapter entitled "De catalogorum scriptoribus," Morhof begins with general remarks about the kinds of bibliographies that a scholar then had within his reach, but fails to identify clearly the bibliography of bibliographies as a special variety. He does, however, go on to say, "Like Hodegeta and Janus Patulcis, Philip Labbé is vigilant at the very entrance to learning."[76] This means that he recognized Labbé's book to be one of the first books to be consulted in undertaking an investigation. He should have said more. Perhaps Vogler, Meibom, and Morhof, whose acquaintance with the Bibliotheca bibliothecarum seems superficial, knew it only from book reviews, especially Denis de Sallo's review in Le Journal des sçavans. Adrien Baillet, who quotes this review, mentions also a brief notice by Henning Witte, who seems to have an equally superficial knowledge of the book.[77]

A few scholars did understand what Labbé had done. Probably Vincent Placcius (1642-1699), who spent his life in the study of anonyma and pseudonyma, would have continued the Bibliotheca bibliothecarum in Labbé's spirit.[78] Theophilus [or Gottlieb] Spitzel (1639-1691), a very intelligent bibliographer and theological writer of Augsburg, gave more attention to the Bibliotheca bibliothecarum than anyone else of his generation. He obtained it after considerable delay and with some difficulty. After reading the preface, in which Labbé explains his plan, he characterized Labbé's flamboyance as "really gorgeous indeed (satis profecto splendidam Praefationem)."[79] In order to justify his criticism of the book, he reprinted the eighth index—a list of men who had compiled bibliographies (bibliothecae) and similar general works—and added a supplement to show how many titles Labbé had overlooked. Spitzel's additions amount to nearly one hundred titles, which are grouped in sixty categories. They show that Spitzel understood the true nature of a bibliography of bibliographies, but they do not show the Bibliotheca bibliothecarum to be seriously incomplete or unsatisfactory. Some additions—for example, the Oriental bibliographies by Paul Colomies—were published after Labbé had given the last touches to his book or indeed after he had died. Others are bibliographies hidden in non-bibliographical works. For example, one can suspect his pleasure in adding "Joh. Nadasi, in libro cui Tit. Annus dierum memorab. S. l. [sine loco] ed. Antw. 1665"[80] to the bibliographies of the Jesuits. Labbé was a Jesuit and seems to have been caught napping, although he had cited Rivadaneira's bibliography of the Jesuits and had published his own bibliography of French Jesuits. Spitzel did not point out that the first edition of Labbé's book was printed in 1664, a year before the book cited by Spitzel appeared, and that Labbé died in 1667, five years before the second edition was published. Labbé could not have included this title. Such victories are easy. Furthermore, Spitzel did not learn to use Labbé's indexes. His failure brings some comfort to a modern reader who does not find them very convenient. In his additions, for example, Spitzel cites some bibliographies of medicine. Labbé had found them, too, and had cited them in the first index, where they properly belonged according to his plan. Spitzel should have seen that Labbé cited Michele Poccianti's list of Florentine authors and Cornelius Loos's list of German authors in the right places.