After some general remarks on libraries and bibliographies and a definition of the task, Unger cites seven general works: Labbé's _Bibliotheca bibliothecarum_ (he mentions here Teissier's _Catalogus_ and _Auctuarium_, but he has not seen them); G. M. König, _Bibliotheca vetus et nova_; Latinus Latinius, _Bibliotheca sacra et profana_; Jean Leclerc, _Bibliothèque universelle et historique_ (this is the _Bibliothèque universelle_ and its continuation, the _Bibliothèque historique_); Conrad Gesner, _Bibliotheca universalis_; Johannes Groeningius, _Bibliotheca s[ive] codex operum variorum_; and Louis Ellies DuPin, _Bibliothèque universelle des historiens_. "And these are the books entitled Universal Library or: Bibliography." His comments contain some information but do not on the whole show much familiarity with the books. For example, the remarks on König's late seventeenth-century biobibliographical dictionary are lifted from D. G. Morhof, _Polyhistor_. He points out that the subtitle of Latinius's _Bibliotheca_ gives a good idea of its contents: "Observationes, correctiones et variae lectiones in sacros et profanos scriptores, ex marginalibus notis codicum ejusdem [Latini Latinii] a Dominco Marco editae." In other words, the book is a miscellany of emendations and critical comments rather than a bibliography. He describes Leclerc's journals by a long quotation from the preface to the first volume. They are, he thinks, a better example of this genre of books than Latinius's collectanea. He dismisses Gesner's _Bibliotheca universalis_ with the remark that it "also deserves mention (praeterea notatu digna est)" and a reference to Morhof, _Polyhistor_. He does not describe the book by Johannes Groeningius.[118]