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. A generation after Spitzel, J. F. Reimann (1668-1743), a theologian and the author of several very curious surveys of the history of learning, showed his full appreciation of Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_. His praise is significant because he was not accustomed to stint himself in condemning books that he did not like. In the _Versuch einer Einleitung in die Historiam Litterariam, so wohl insgemein, als auch in die Historiam Litterariam derer Teutschen_ (Halle, 1708-1713), he writes: "Let this book of Labbé's be commended to you for diligent study above all others, for (disregarding the obscenities, which are scattered about in it like mouse dirt in pepper) it is one of the very best works in the field [of general bibliography]." He concludes his remarks on this field by recommending it a second time, when he mentions along with it the anonymous _Bibliographia Historico-politico-philologica curiosa_ as a meritorious work.[81] After this, Labbé's book ceases to be mentioned because it was replaced by a new edition, to which we now turn.