COSTO DE VENTA

Ralph Waldo Emerson once quipped that consistency was the hobgoblin of small minds. Users of this bibliography should probably keep that in mind—along with George Sarton’s equally sardonic statement that bibliography was “a sin . . . a real perversity.” By this he meant that some researchers elevate bibliography to the point where it appears to take precedence over everything else, including the subject matter. However, Sarton was very much aware of the need and crucial contribution that good bibliographies make to professionals and amateurs alike, for Sarton was a consummate if idiosyncratic bibliographer. But he disdained, above all, mere lists of titles, however long, as ends in themselves. Such lists he termed “bewildering”

(Sarton, item 48, p. 26). Bibliographies tookon greater value when annotated, constructed in such a way that expert understanding might guide newcomers to a particular subject.

Each section of this bibliography reflects a considered judgment as to what works are absolutely essential on any given topic or period, accompanied with critical descriptions of those works. Emphasis has been given to the most useful and authoritative secondary sources and, when appropriate, to texts, manuscripts, correspondence, and other varieties of primary sources. Reviews of major items have also been included, especially when they warn readers of special quirks, problems, or prejudices in a given item, or provide substantive additional information relevant to a given subject. Older standard works that have established themselves as a continuing part of the history of mathematics are also, of course, included. The major European languages, especially French and German, are essential tools for the historian of mathematics, and no attempt has been made to minimize the frequency of their appearance in this bibliography. References in other languages, however, are included only when thought essential, but titles in Italian, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese have been listed whenever appropriate. Where English translations or their equivalents exist, these have been noted. Finally, truly obscure studies, unless thought crucial, have been minimized in favor of more easily available sources, but not always.

Although most entries are annotated, some are not, if in the opinion of the reviewer the title accurately reflects the content of the reference. In other cases, where an item has appeared elsewhere in the bibliography with sufficient annota-tion, only a cross-reference has been given. However, if a workis important for differing reasons to more than one section, it has been repeated (again with cross-references), but with a separate annotation tailored specifically to the relevance of the workfor the section in which it appears.

Ultimately, in editing this volume I have adopted as pragmatic a position as possible; the final consideration has always been to make this as useful a reference workas possible. Because of the large number of individual contributors, however, it has not always been possible to attain complete consistency in the format and amount of information supplied for each title. Although format guidelines were is-sued to all contributors, not everyone chose to follow them exactly or consistently.

Where practicable, the editor has brought as much uniformity of format to refer-ences as possible, but there were limits to which additional information could be retrieved. In most cases what discrepancies remain are of little consequence; the one exception is in the case of different editions of a given work. Some contribu-tors have tried to be as inclusive as possible, indicating the significance between editions, or at least noting the number of different editions of a given workand their dates. Some have preferred to supply the first, others only the most recent edition. Readers should therefore be aware that it is always wise to make their own bibliographic searches to discover which editions or versions of a workmay be available to them, as well as the number and differences among various reprintings and editions of a given work. (Usually this can be done most easily by referring to the National Union Catalog of the Library of Congress.)

A major orthographic dilemma facing any bibliographer dealing with material in multiple languages is, of course, the different possible spellings and transliter-ations of a title or author’s name. This is most acute for cittransliter-ations in Russian, Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic. One notable example in this bibliography is that of A. P. Youschkevitch, whose name variously appears in some references as Juschke-witsch, Juˇskeviˇc, Juschkevic, Youskevich, or Youschkevitch. The practice that has been followed in all cases here is to present a given name as it is spelled on the title page of the work in question. Thus, one will find item 2242 listing “Youschkevitch,”

with item 1503 as “Juschkewitsch,” one reflecting a French, the other a German translation. In the indexes at the end of the book, however, all are cross-referenced to the canonical spelling that has been otherwise adopted in this bibliography, namely, “Youschkevitch.” Other but less complicated cases of variant translitera-tions include “Bashmakova,” “Kowalevskaya,” and “Lobachevsky.”

Similar variations occur in the case of Greeknames. Here the practice has been followed of giving names in terms of transliterations of Greekspellings, e.g., Diophantos. However, in all citations, names are always given as they appear on title pages, which often follow earlier convention and use the Latinized version of Greeknames, e.g., Diophantus.

2.5. Conclusion. Why would anyone wish to undertake a project such as this one? My own reasons have been both professional and personal, but before saying more, I would like to dismiss one motive for undertaking bibliographic research

very psychological terms. What interested De Mey was that Sarton’s interest in bibliography seems to have antedated his interest in the history of science. Based upon a letter that Sarton sent to the Chief Librarian of the University of Ghent, dated November 4, 1902, De Mey conjectures as follows:

If, as in classical embryology, the order of formation is taken as an indication of primacy (here intellectual), it is obvious that Sarton’s interest in bibliographies is more basic than his interest in science to which he, only several years later, applied this attitude in so masterly a fashion. Confronted with such a vigorous need, one feels compelled to take certain psychoanalytic claims seriously and search for the sources of this attitude in early childhood. It seems almost a textbookcase. The lonely child George Sarton, losing his mother at a very early age, starves, in May Sarton’s words, for the tenderness that vanished with her. Deep insecurity could derive from lesser causes. The collector’s attitude is considered a classi-cal response to such insecurity: if life, on the whole, is uncertain, establishing and controlling a well-organized and complete collec-tion of items belonging to a specific domain provides solidity and certainty for one subrealm at least. That attitude is later enthusi-astically extended to science as the most solid domain. This is one plausible suggestion, but there might be others. In any case, if one were to engage in a study of Sarton along the lines that ErikErik-son applied to Martin Luther, Sarton’s bibliographical bias should play a pivotal role, since in its fervor it comes close to the “obses-sive compensation” characteristic of many great achievements.²¹

I doubt that any of the contributors to this annotated bibliography would wish to see it in terms of “obsessive compensation”! In fact, this should remind us of Sarton’s own phraseology, as well as his caveat, that bibliography was “a sin. . . a real perversity.” Surely this puts the lie to De Mey’s interesting if arcane speculation, because Sarton, in the best sense of this bibliography, saw such guides as practical sources of information.

Despite the valiant efforts of the copy editor, it has not always been possible to fill certain gaps. Sometimes publishers’ names could not be found, or issue numbers of periodicals within a given volume could not be identified. From time to time the National Union Catalog of the Library of Congress was inaccurate, or its information incomplete. Although I have attempted to bring an overall uniformity to the format of the citations, and to checkthem all for completeness, I have also tried to resist letting this become a bibliographic obsession. On the other hand, what has been an uncompromised goal is to make certain that each citation provides the essential information necessary to retrieve it from libraries or booksellers with relative ease.

My own reasons, as just indicated, for undertaking this project have been to some degree personal, and to a larger extent professional. Kenneth May was both a friend and a moving force in my own interest in the history of mathematics.

This bibliography, for me, honors the efforts he made, especially through Historia Mathematica, to promote the subject in the most professional and international way

possible. But it was primarily because I felt a strong need for such a bibliography that I was ultimately persuaded to undertake this project.

Actually, when Robert Multhauf and Ellen Wells first approached me about editing a volume on the history of mathematics for their Bibliographies on the History of Science and Technology series, I was doubtful whether any single indi-vidual was capable of surveying the entire history of mathematics from antiquity to the present in any sort of authoritative way. I agreed, however, with their basic premise: authoritative, annotated bibliographies in the history of science would be of great utility to the scholarly community. With this in mind, it seemed reason-able to suggest that a collaborative effort might be the perfect solution, involving a dozen or so experts who might reasonably be expected to cull the best forty or fifty titles in a given area, and provide annotations within a few months. As the editor of Historia Mathematica I was in close contact with leading authorities on virtually every aspect of the history of mathematics. Given assurances that this would be fine, I wrote to several dozen colleagues and modestly proposed (with what in hindsight was too much optimism) that if all were willing to draw up basic lists of essential works in their special fields, a preliminary draft of the bibliography might be possible within six months, with a completed annotated version in print within a year.

My initial letter was answered with a variety of responses. The majority of those to whom I wrote, I am happy to say, responded positively, even enthusiastically.

Most recognized a definite need for such a critical bibliography to serve the interests of the history of mathematics and, furthermore, they were willing to take on the job without remuneration, for the sake of the subject and its future. Most agreed that they could comply with my request for preliminary lists within six months.

This would allow time to checkall of the proposed bibliographies for duplication, cross-reference them as needed, and thereby prevent unnecessary duplication.

The present volume is the result of an extraordinary amount of effort. It could never have been accomplished by a single person, but required the combined efforts of all those contributors who worked together in the best cooperative spirit of scholarly collaboration. This would have pleased Kenneth May greatly, and it is both fitting—and a reflection of the magnanimity of the many scholars who have contributed to this bibliography—that all royalties accruing from its publication will be used to establish a fund in his memory. This fund, in the names of all contributors to this volume, is to be administered by the International Commission for the History of Mathematics, and will be designated specifically to help promote the history of mathematics internationally.

I especially want to acknowledge the continuing help and moral support of three individuals in particular: Robert Multhauf for his persistent encouragement along the way; David Rowe for his diligence in helping to complete and proofread the final version of the bibliography; and Rita Quintas for her care in seeing this volume through the last editorial stages of its production. Moreover, I am happy to express my indebtedness and gratitude to all of the contributors to this volume, not only for their care in producing each of the individual sections, but for their patience owing to the time it has taken to cement the myriad pieces into a coherent and useful whole.

The ultimate goal of this bibliography has been to make the secreta secretorum of the history of mathematics much less a secret history than it may seem to many at present. I am grateful to all who have given so generously of their time and energy in order to make this reference work possible.

JWD