[210] See especially Nos. 153-157. The section "Literatur und Miscellen" (No. 86) in the _Neuer Anzeiger_ should have been listed under 1856, when the journal began, rather than under 1886, when it ceased to appear. [211] Tosselli (No. 8) is Tonnelli. The description of F. Perennès, _Dictionnaire de bibliographie catholique_ (No. 33) is incomplete. Chapter VI Conclusion Four centuries have elapsed since Conrad Gesner published the first modern bibliography of bibliographies in the _Pandectae_ of 1548. Although it was only a section in a general subject index, it shows Gesner's clear understanding of the task and a competent choice and arrangement of materials. Few later efforts have been equally successful. His definition of a bibliography is both narrower and broader than the one that has since found general acceptance. He does not include, for example, biobibliographical accounts of religious orders and nations. He was familiar with them but probably looked upon them as historical rather than bibliographical compilations. Like most later bibliographers, he does not include publishers' catalogues and catalogues of books owned by institutions and individuals. In 1598 Israel Spach employed what is virtually the modern definition of a bibliography. Like Gesner, he includes bibliographers who wrote in classical times. In 1628 Francis Sweerts almost takes the decisive step of making an independent list composed of bibliographies of bibliographies. The three folio pages in his _Athenae Belgicae_ on which this list appears have no organic connection with that biobibliographical dictionary. Sweerts includes, furthermore, no ancient bibliographers. His work has a modern look. In 1643 the bibliography of bibliographies comes of age with the announcement of Jodocus a Dudinck, _Bibliothecariographia_. The book is lost or more probably was never published, but its subtitle shows a clear comprehension of the nature of a bibliography of bibliographies. Philip Labbé published a bibliography of bibliographies in 1653 and a new edition of it in 1664. His loyalty to Catholicism and his exclusively French associations hindered its wide acceptance and use. Few of his contemporaries understood what he had done, and few learned how to use his book. Even Antoine Teissier, who revised and enlarged it, showed an imperfect understanding of its nature. The age was not ready for a bibliography of bibliographies. Cornelius a Beughem, a man of many bibliographies, may have perceived the situation, for he never published the compilation that he had announced in 1680. With the publication of a supplement to Teissier's revision of Labbé, efforts to make a bibliography of bibliographies came to a dead stop in 1705. They had resulted in a formulation of the task.