The authors and reviewers of the Acta Eruditorum 1682 – 1735 by A.H. Laeven and L.J.M. Laeven-Aretz Electronic Publication Molenhoek, The Netherlands, 2014 Contents Introduction 2 1. The Collectores Actorum Eruditorum: the choice of collectivity. 4 2. The finding of five annotated copies of the Acta. 5 3. Discovering the authors of the individual contributions. 8 4. List of reviews and reviewers 1682-1735. 11 5. List of articles and their submitters 1682-1735. 124 6. List of articles taken from contemporary journals 1682-1735. 135 7. Index of contributions to the Acta Eruditorum 1682-1735. 141 1 Introduction In 1990 one of the authors of the present work published The Acta Eruditorum under the editorship of Otto Mencke. The history of an international learned journal between 1682 and 1707. (Amsterdam & Maarssen, APA-Holland University Press). It was the translation of a Dutch dissertation, which had appeared in 1986. That dissertation was the result of the first detailed survey into the external history of the highlight of the early scholarly periodical press in the German Countries, so far. Together with its successor, The Nova Acta Eruditorum, the periodical lasted for a whole century, from 1682 till 1782. So it became one of the most important vehicles of learned communication of the Enlightenment, not only within the German Countries, but across the entire Republic of Letters. The journal was presented to the world as a product of collective authorship by the Collectores Actorum Eruditorum. But in reality the management of the publication rested in the hands of the editor-in-chief, from the start till 1707 Otto Mencke, and thereafter his son, Johann Burkhard, who in turn was succeeded by his son Friedrich Otto. During the last two decades of the existence of the journal (from 1756 onwards), Johanna Catherina Mencke, the widow of Friedrich Otto, entrusted the management to Karl Andreas Bel, professor Poëseos and librarian at Leipzig university. Part of the task of the editor-in-chief was to guard an unquestionable objectivity, above all of the reviews of newly-published works. Otherwise the journal could incur the stigma of being the mouthpiece of a particular scholarly or religious faction. So the Acta not only strove for the greatest possible impartiality, the editorship also wanted to ensure that its journal would not become a battleground for contentious parties, since anything of this kind would soon harm the journal’s reputation as an independent review organ. If a review unintentionally provoked a heated response, the opponent’s attack was answered in a separate publication. Only an apologia of this kind could in turn be reviewed in the Acta. In consequence, we find no long-drawn-out polemics in the Leipzig journal. Another important concern of the Collectores Actorum, and particularly of the editorship, was the propaganda of courtesy and mutual respect, virtues which were highly esteemed in the Republic of Letters. Reviews of books which contained coarseness, mockery and severe criticism were often rejected as not appropriate. With a similar eagerness they tried to avoid such tendencies in articles submitted for publication in the Acta. Nevertheless one can say that contributors of articles was given a slightly freer rein. They at least were offered the opportunity of airing conflicting opinions, provided that this was done objectively and with respect for other ideas. Since most of the articles were restricted to mathematics and natural sciences, the risk of irreconcilable differences was much smaller than it would have been with theological and philosophical subjects. Against this background the Collectores Actorum published their reviews consequently anonimously. As far as the articles are concerned, we see a mixed approach. A lot of it mention the name of the author (in full or initials only). But a very substantial part of these were published nameless, as well. The find of a few copies of the Acta Eruditorum with marginal notes, mentioning the names of the contributors, made it possible to reconstruct, to a very large extent, the vast and steadily renewing team of contributors who gave hand to the publication of the journal. In the above mentioned publication the present author already revealed the names of the authors and reviewers for the years 1682-1706. Now a complete listing of all authors and reviewers of the Acta Eruditorum for the years 1682-1731, the full period of its existence under the original title, is presented. In addition to this are included the names of the authors and reviewers of the Nova Acta Eruditorum for 1732-1735, the only years of the continuation of the Acta with annotations of the names of the contributors of the journal. However, as far as completeness is concerned some restrictions have to be made: the copies with marginal notes do not contain the names for each and every contribution to the Acta. Besides that, it was not always possible to identify the person mentioned with a 100% 2 certainty, and a few times different copies mention different names. But all-in all, the result does not stay more than a tiny percentage away from a complete overview of the Collectores Actorum. Hopefully these listings will be a useful addition to the history of the Acta Eruditorum, as published before, as well as to that of learned journalism, more in general. Furthermore it might contribute in some respects to the intellectual history of the Republic of Letters, and to that of Leipzig university and Saxony in particular, from where this international project was directed for a full century. And last, but not least, it may add valuable information to the biographies and bibliographies of the scholars involved in the work of the Acta Eruditorum. 3 1. The Collectores Actorum Eruditorum: the choice of collectivity. Even the earliest speculations about the publication of a learned journal for the German countries, such as those expressed in 1668 by Leibniz with a view to the compilation of a Nucleus librarius semestralis1 , envisaged a format in which the editorial work would be done by a group of associates. Since Leibniz, after all, wanted to achieve the selection and review of a hundred outstanding books from the offerings at the half-yearly Messe, as well as the printing of an “abstract journal”, all within the space of six weeks2, it seems highly unlikely that the philosopher contemplated bringing off such a tour de force unaided. Leibniz’s plans never came to fruition, but the idea of collectivity manifested itself again in the organization of the oldest scholarly journal in the German territory, the Miscellanea curiosa Medico-physica..., published by the Academia Leopoldina in 1670. From the outset, the Acta Eruditorum followed the same line: responsibility for the publication was, it is true, vested in one person, who acted both as senior editor and publisher, but was borne by a group of associates who carried out the difficult reviewing work anonymously and without payment. The journal was therefore presented as the product of the collaboration and shared responsibility of the Collectores Actorum, while the publisher and senior editor never appeared in the foreground in the publication itself. The reasons for this approach were apparantly: the broad spectrum of disciplines, languages and countries to be covered was too much for one person to manage; the enterprise had its roots in the activities of a number of learned societies in Leipzig; and right from the start the initiators seem consciously to have sought to give the Acta the standing of the official journal of a sort of Saxon academy, since they undoubtedly expected this to produce numerous advantages in terms of acquiring a privilege, subsidies, acceptance and sales. Besides that, and perhaps above that, came the more idealistic considerations of objectivity and moderation, as discussed in the Introduction above. 1 G.W. Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Hrsg. von der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, Leipzig, Darmstadt 1923-. Here Reihe I, Bd. 1, N. 1 and N. 2. 2 Cf. A.H. Laeven, The Acta Eruditorum under the editorship of Otto Mencke. The history of an international learned journal between 1682 and 1707, Amsterdam & Maarssen 1990, chapter I.2.c. 4 2. The finding of five annotated copies of the Acta. In many cases, regrettably, it is difficult to determine precisely who submitted regular contributions, in the shape of book reviews, book news and other announcements, to the editors of the journals of the Ancien Régime. Often, only the prime movers are known, while the great host of collaborators remains largely untraceable. Initially, it appeared that this would also be the case with the Acta Eruditorum: nowhere in the journal itself are the names of the Collectores Actorum mentioned. A happy coincidence, however, made it possible to reconstruct almost in its entirety the group of associates who contributed regularly and incidentally to the Acta. Among the copies of the Acta which have been preserved are a few in which the names of the contributors have been noted in the margin. Although none of the annotated copies which have been traced can be said to be complete in this respect, they supplement one another to a significant degree. These annotated sets are to be found in the Universitatsbibliothek in Leipzig3 , the Sächsiche Landes- und Universitätsbibliothek in Dresden4, the Niedersachsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek in Göttingen5 and the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg.6 Finally, the Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek Schwerin (Landesbibliothek Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) has a single volume, and this the first, 1682 volume7, with a few annotations, while the Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emanuele III” in Naples also has a series with marginal notes.8 In order to compile the list of reviewers and correspondents of all volumes of the Acta Eruditorum 1682-1731 and of the Nova Acta Eruditorum 1732-1735, we consulted and studied the copies in Dresden, Göttingen, Heidelberg and Leipzig. Comparison of the marginal notes leads to the supposition that the senior editor or one of his colleagues noted the names of the authors of the various contributions on a “master copy” and that this then served as an example for copying the marginalia into a limited number of copies intended for a small circle of confidants. This surmise is based on the striking similarities between the annotations in the various copies: if a name is missing in one copy, it is usually missing from the others; in all sets, the annotations in the 1702 volume are particularly patchy. If a name is qualified with certain adjectives or epithets in one copy, they are usually repeated in the others, while the variant spellings of the names used are remarkably consistent in all the copies. Only incidentally the names in the copies differ. In no single case was it possible to trace these copies right back tot heir origin. There are no provenance details at all for the single volume in Schwerin. The earliest provenance information for the set in Naples dates from the nineteenth century. Until 1812, this series was owned by Marchese 3 Shelf mark: Deutsche Zeitschr. 12. Volumes 1682-1685, 1694-1717 and supplements I-VI are annotated. The issues of the supplements appeared on an unregular basis next to the monthly issues of the regular yearly volumes. The six supplement volumes, which are annotated, were completed in 1692 (Suppl. I), 1696 (Suppl. II), 1702 (Suppl. III), 1711 (Suppl. IV), 1713 (Suppl. V) and 1717 (Suppl. VI). In total 10 supplementary volumes were published in addition to the yearly volumes of the Acta Eruditorum (between 1692 and 1734) and 8 to the Nova Acta Eruditorum (between 1737 and 1757). 4 Shelf marks: Ephem. Lit. 125 and Ephem. Lit. 126. Volumes 1682-1698, 1703-1714, 1716-1727, 1729-1731 and supplements II and IV are annotated. All missing volumes are registered as casualties of war. Of the Nova Acta, volumes 1732-1735 and Supplement I (1735) are annotated. The shelf mark of the Nova Acta Eruditorum is Ephem. Lit. 127, and Ephem. Lit. 128 for the Supplements.. 5 Shelf marks: 80 Ephem. Lit. 136/17 and 80 Ephem. Lit. 136/13 (supplements). The 1682-1701 and 1704-1731 volumes are annotated. 6 Shelf mark: H 330. Volumes 1682-1717 and supplements I-V are annotated; supplement II, however, contains only two handwritten notes. 7 Shelf mark: Af I b 10. 8 Shelf mark: Periodici Tedeschi 119. All volumes of the Acta and the first two volumes of the Nova Acta (1682 to the end of 1733) are annotated. The data on this copy are very sketchy. They are based on information from Dott.a Paolo Curzo of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples. 5 Francesco Taccone9 of Naples (1763-1818), after which it formed part of the Biblioteca Borbonica until about 1860, when it went to what was at that time the royal library of Naples. The Leipzig copy, too, betrays nothing of its origin. It is bound in plain parchment covers and bears no trace of previous owners. It is generally assumed that this is “Mencke’s author’s copy”, but this should not be taken too litterally. Undoubtedly the notes were made by various hands, including that of Otto Mencke. Christoph Pfautz also appears to have played a part in recording the names of the contributors. It may perhaps be a copy which was deposited in the library by one of Mencke’s closest associates some considerable time after his death. It is, however, equally conceivable that the editor-in-chief and his successors faithfully supplied a copy of every issue or volume to the library of their university. There are several possible reasons for their breaching the anonymity of the contributions in this “archive copy”. It may have been compulsory because of the censorship exercised by the university; perhaps they also wanted in this way to preserve the names of the contributors for posterity. It remains unclear, however, why the volumes for 1686 to 1693 and those after 1717 in the Leipzig university library copy are not annotated. The records in the former library’s loose-leaf, handwritten catalogue, as consulted back in the nineteen eighties, and the inscriptions on the spines of the volumes lead to the supposition that the unannotated volumes were added to the set at a later date because it was incomplete. It is likewise impossible to provide a definitive explanation of the origin of the Dresden copy. All the annotated volumes were at one time part of Heinrich Graf von Brühl’s immense collection of books10, which was acquired for the electoral library after his death in 1768: the leather bindings are all embossed with the Graf von Brühl’s coat of arms. The annotations in the early volumes of the journal appear to have been written in part by Otto Mencke himself, in part by Christoph Pfautz and in part by Friedrich Benedikt Carpzov. The count must therefore have succeeded in buying a series of volumes of the journal from the inner circle of the editors. The last annotated volume in the Dresden set is that for 1735, while the last volume bearing the Von Brühl arms dates from 1753. The count probably purchased the entire series which had appeared up to that date shortly after 1753, without thereafter troubling to collect any further issues of the journal, which was still being published. This “bibliophile’s” library in fact served only to gratify his vanity and did not really testify to any true intellectual interest. In view of the fact that Friedrich Otto Mencke has died in 1754 and his entire holding of books was split up and sold in lots shortly afterwards11, the Dresden copy may perhaps have belonged to the third editor-in-chief of the Acta. It is also possible, however, that the count, who was many years chancellor to Augustus III, Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, took into his private collection a copy which Mencke had given to the court.12 According to the ex-libris, the copy in the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek in Göttingen came from the library of the Hanoverian Joachim Freiherr von Bülow (1650-1742).13 Having served for a number of years as privy councillor to Queen Sophia Amalia of Denmark, he went on to hold several important posts at the court of Duke Georg Wilhelm of Lüneburg-Celle, after which he was appointed “grand warden” and “privy minister of state” by Georg I, King of Great Britain and Ireland and Elector of Hanover. Von Bülow was a bibliophile who managed to amass an 9 Cf. L. Alquò-Lenzi, Gli scrittori Calabresi, Messina 1913, p. 410; for further biographical references see L. Ferrari, Onomasticon. Repertorio bibliografico degli scrittori Italiani dal 1501 al 1850, Milano 1947. 10 W. Schultze, “Bibliotheca Brühliana” in: Zeitschrift für Bücherfreunde 39 (1935), pp. 151-154; Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden 1556-1956, Leipzig 1956, pp. 30, 39, 54, 141, 147, 249. 11 Cf. Catalogus bibliothecae Menkenianae, Partes I-III, Lipsiae, ex officina Loeperia, 1755-1757. The Acta, it is true, do not appear in these catalogues. However, since it is inconceivable that the editor-in-chief should not have had a copy of his own journal in his library, we must consider the possibility that it was perhaps sold outside the auction. 12 W. Fläschendräger, “Rezensenten und Autoren der Acta Eruditorum 1682-1731”, in: Universitates Studiorum saec. XVIII et XIX. Etudes présentées par la Commission Internationale pour l’Histoire des Universités en 1977, Warszawa 1982, pp. 66-67. 13 A. von Bülow, Bülowsches Familienbuch, Bd. I, Tl. II, Schwerin i. M. 1911, pp. 257 and 261. 6 exquisite collection of some 9,000 volumes.14 He devoted immense care to the maintenance, binding, organization and cataloguing of his library, compiling the earliest catalogues in his own hand. Although not a scholar himself, he bought primarily scholarly books and rarities, showing particular interest in theological, historical, political, mathematical, architectonic and genealogical works. His collection also included a number of manuscripts, more than two thousand maps and tables, and a collection of astronomic, mathematical and optical instruments. As time passed, Von Bülow increasingly left the care of his library to assistants, the most important of whom was the candidatus iuris Philipp August Schlüter, who continued to look after the collection after Von Bülow’s death, until it was taken to Göttingen in 1735. For some time after Von Bülow’s death in 1724 there was uncertainty about where the library should go, since the baron had changed the relevant provisions in his will several times. In any event, he had left a fund of 600 Thaler to maintain the collection. Possible destinations mentioned were his house in Hanover, the defunct college of arms in Lüneburg – at least if it were to be reopened – and the university of Helmstedt. An appraisal of the various testamentary dispositions in 1734 revealed, however, that the heirs were not bound in any way and were entitled to dispose of the legacy of books as they wished. At this time, the curators of the new university of Göttingen were working assiduously on the organization of the university library and the rapid acquisition of a sound scholarly collection. In searching for possibilities, their attention turned to the Von Bülow collection and, with the assistance of the Hanoverian court, they were able to persuade the heirs, three nephews of the childless Joachim Heinrich, to donate the library to the new university. How Von Bülow obtained an annotated copy of the Acta remains, however, unclear. A remarkable feature is that the marginal notes are also found in the volumes which appeared after his death (up to 1731). Did Von Bülow perhaps had special contacts during his lifetime, for example through Leibniz, with the Leipzig editors, and were these continued by Schlüter after the baron’s death? Is it possible that he acquired Leibniz’s set upon the philosopher’s death in 1716, together with the “privilege” of receiving an annotated subscription? While the provenance of this copy can thus indeed be traced to the (probable) first owner, by whom and for what purpose the marginal notes were made remains, regrettably, unknown. This is also true in the case of the copy of the Acta which have been preserved at Heidelberg. According to the ex-libris, which has had a new endpaper pasted over it in most of the volumes, this set belonged to Christoph Heinrich Graf von Watzdorf (1670-1729). Von Watzdorf made a great career for himself at the Dresden court. Zedler15 had this, among other things, to say about him: “Nachdem er eine Zeitlang Königlicher Cammerherr gewesen, ward er an des Grafen Adolph Magnus von Hoym Stelle Ober-Steuer-Präsident und General-Accis-Director, und einige jahre darauf würckl. Geheimer Rath und geheimer Cabinets-Minister. Im Jahre 1719 im Junius Monate ward er von dem Kayser aus Selbsteigener Bewegnis in des Heiligen R.R. Grafen- Stand erhoben, und von dem Könige in Polen mit dem Orden des weissen Adlers beehret. Im Jahre 1722 erhielt er die Dom Probstey zu Budissin. Auch ist er des hohen Stifts Meissen Dom-Herr, Cammer-Herr und Hauptmann des Leipziger Kreises gewesen”. Here too, however, it is not possible to see any clear connection with the editors of the Acta Eruditorum in Leipzig. All-in all, the annotated copies provide an unexspected opportunity to reconstruct the group of reviewers on whose assistance the Leipzig editors could rely in order to achieve their objective – to review books in all areas of scholarship. Moreover, the marginal notes are a wonderful supplement to the correspondence of the Menckes, only a small part of which has survived. Many of those who contributed to the Acta would have remained unknown to us, had we been forced to draw solely on the letters from and to the senior editors which are known to exist today and on other “external” sources. 14 K.J. Hartmann & H. Füchsel, Geschichte der Göttinger Universitäts-Bibliothek, Göttingen 1937, pp. 15-19. 15 H. Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, Halle 1732-1754, Bd. LIII, cols. 837-839. 7 3. Discovering the authors of the individual contributions. In an attempt to compile as full a list as possible of all the reviewers and authors who contributed to the Acta, the copies of the journal in Dresden, Göttingen, Heidelberg and Leipzig were analyzed and compared. Since there are gaps in the source material here and there, and the information it provides is sometimes ambiguous, the reconstruction of the circle of associates cannot claim to be complete. For example, not all the contributions to the journal mention the names of the people who submitted them. Often, too, the initials of the forenames are missing from all the copies we consulted. In several instances, variations in spelling added to the ambiguity, since in the case of certain names, the marginal notes in all the annotated sets of the Acta give different spellings from issue to issue for one and the same name. Partly for these reasons, it proved impossible in some cases to arrive at a satisfactory identification of the associates. Furthermore, in a few cases all attempts to find biographical data about the contributors proved fruitless. Even as far as the inner circle of the Collectores Actorum is concerned the lists of these Collectores in Christoph Ernst Sicul’s Neo-Annales Lipsienses oder…Leipziger Jahr-Buch…1719-172216, seem to be not complete. In his lists of the members of the Leipzig Societäten, which were updated periodically, Christoph Ernst Sicul gives a summary of the Collectores Actorum Lipsiensium who one after another, between 1682 and 1716, joined the illustrious company, which according to this author occupied the undisputed first place among the Leipzig learned societies: “Diese [Collectores] machen in Ansehung ihres Endzweckes, nemlich die Gelehrsamkeit durch wohlgefasste Bücher-Extracte zu befördern, eine gar ansehnl. Societät aus und verdienen allhier vor andern den ersten Platz, nachdem sie ihre Bemühungen und Excerpta so gleich dem Publico, und zwar unausgesetzt in unverrückter Monats-Ordnung, mittheilen, da hingegen die andern Societäten oder Collegia ihre Sammlungen nur unter sich gemein haben. Zu geschweigen, dass unter denen Herren Collectoribus Actorum, caeteris paribus, ungleich mehr ansehnl. und ausnehmliche Membra, als wohl in denen andern Collegiis sich befinden….”17 Sicul’s lists are, unfortunately, of little use: in the first place, his inventory appears to be rather selective, omitting the names of some people who are known for certain to have collaborated on the Acta. Furthermore, he never mentions which reviews or other contributions the collector in question was responsible for. Therefore we have compiled as complete a list as possible of the contributors from two standpoints – the authorship of the individual contributions and the frequency with which the various reviewers or authors contributed work to the Acta. To this end, we first drew up lists in which we recorded the contributor of each contribution in all the volumes for the period 1682-1735. 16 a. Neo-Annalium Lipsiensium Prodromus oder Des mit dem 1715tenJahre Neuangehenden Leipziger Jahr-Buchs Erste Probe, Leizig 1719, pp. 149-150. b. Neo-Annalium Lipsiensium Continuatio I oder des….Leipziger Jahr-Buchs Andere Probe…, Leipzig 1719, pp. 423-424. c. Neo-Annalium Lipsiensium Continuatio III oder des…Leipziger Jahr-Buchs Vierte Probe…., Leipzig 1719, pp. 725-726. d. Neo-Annalium Lipsiensium Continuatio IV oder des….Leipziger Jahr-Buchs Fünffte Probe…, Leipzig 1719, pp. 879-880. e. Christoph Ernst Siculs Leipziger Jahr-Geschichte 1719. Oder des bisherigen Leipziger Jahr-Buchs zu dessen andern Bande Erste Fortsetzung, Leipzig 1720, pp. 47-48. f. …Leiziger Jahr-Geschichte 1720. Oder des….Leipziger Jahr-Buchs….Andere Fortsetzung, Leipzig 1721, pp. 135- 137. g. …Leipziger Jahr-Geschichte 1721. Oder des…Leipziger Jahr-Buchs.…Dritte Fortsetzung, Leipzig 1722, pp. 247- 249. 17 E.C. Sicul, Neo-Annalium Lipsiensium Prodromus oder des….Leipziger Jahr-Buchs Erste Probe, Leipzig 1719, p. 149. 8 From these lists, we then compiled an index of the authors and submitters of the reviews and articles. In drawing up the lists, we felt it useful to divide the contributions into three categories: reviews, articles, and contributions taken from other contemporary journals. As far as the reviews are concerned, we must point out that the review of a single work is often split up into a number of partly reviews in various issues of the journal; it is likewise not unusual to find that various books are discussed in one review; sometimes an “excerpt” appears to be the result of collaboration between two reviewers; and, in view of the “excerpt” character of many of the reviews, it comes as no surprise that a considerable number of book reviews were submitted by the authors of the works themselves. The original contributions are predominantly scientific and mathematical articles and formulations of problems, letters and excerpts from letters, reports of natural phenomena and physical experiments. The articles taken in full or condensed form from contemporary journals are always translated into Latin. Sometimes, a contribution consists of a selection from the offerings in a whole volume or a number of issues of a contemporary journal. In these cases, it was evidently the intention simply to pass on the scholarly news contained in such journals to the readers of the Acta. There are also instances in which the first issue or volume of a new periodical was really reviewed, so that the readers could form an impression of the nature of the new journal. For this reason, the former contributions have been classified in the list as articles taken from contemporary journals, while the latter have been listed under the reviews. A few times the names of the reviewers differ in the copies consulted. Of course, we have registered both names mentioned. As far as the nova literaria is concerned we did not mention explicitly the name of the author, but in one case. Normally this work was done by the editor-in-chief, a few times with the assistance of a colleague from the inner circle of the collectores. Only once it was explicitly mentioned that the nova literaria came from Spain, relied to books published in Spain and that this contribution was made by a scholar from Valencia. We have recorded this contribution under the articles. In the following listings the name of the author or editor is given for each work reviewed, and the name of the author is given for each article. Where these data were not known, we have confined ourselves to the first words of the title. We did not attempt to identify anonymous or pseudonymous authors. As far as possible, we worked with the data provided by the Acta themselves. In view of our purpose, there seemed little point in verifying bibliographically and completing all the titles of the works reviewed, as given in the Acta Eruditorum, nor in the normalization of the author’s names, which are usually given in the Latin version in the Acta. As far as possible, the many errors in the pagination of the Acta Eruditorum were corrected without reference to the incorrect numbering. We indicate an error only where the same page number occurred twice, by adding *. After the author’s name or, if this is unknown, the abbreviated title of the contribution or the work reviewed, we indicate the systematic category in which the work or article in question is classified in the indices of the Acta Eruditorum. The headings used are: I. Theologica et ad Historiam Ecclesiasticam spectantia, II. Juridica, III. Medica et Physica, IV. Mathematica, V. Historica et Geographica, VI. Philosophica et Philologica Miscellanea. In some cases, a publication was entered under more than one heading at a time. In the last column, we list the reviewer of the work in question. In the case of original articles, the submitter (who acted as a middle-man between the author and the editor) is entered here. In many instances, however, the names of the people who submitted these original contributions are not given in the copies of the Acta we analyzed. Frequently, if not always, these articles will have been submitted by the authors themselves. In the case of contributions taken from other journals, the name of the person who revised the contribution, when known, is given in this column. Finally, the index contains, first, the names of the reviewers. These have been normalized and, if possible, identified, mainly with the aid of biographical refence works. In a number of cases, the identification of reviewers required interpretation of the data, for example because of spelling variations, and the omission of forenames in the annotations. In a few instances, a choice had to be 9