Ludolph Küster
German scholar (1670-1716)
Ludolf Küster (German: Ludolph Küster) (1670–1716) was a Westphalian scholar, philologist, textual critic, palaeographer, and editor of Greek ancient texts.
Küster was born in Blomberg, Westphalia. He was friends with, and a correspondent of, Richard Bentley, master of Trinity College, Cambridge, who assisted him in the production of a hasty edition of the works of Aristophanes. Thomas de Quincey was later to say that Bentley's contributions—including epistles on The Clouds and Plutus—were "mangled" by Küster and incompetent printers. Some of these letters still survive. Bentley also assisted Küster, among other editors, with an edition of the Suda (1705).
In Utrecht, from 1697 to 1699, Küster published the journal Bibliotheca Librorum novorum under the pseudonym "Neocorus" (neokoros is aa Greek word that translates as roughly equivalent to the German word "Küster", that is, "sexton" or "sacristan"). Several times, Küster came into professional conflict with Dutch classical scholar Jakob Gronovius.
In 1710, he made a reprint, or rather revision, of John Mill's Novum Testamentum Graecum (1707), with prolegomena and with collations of 12 more manuscripts. It was published in Amsterdam and Rotterdam.
The public source identifies “Ludolph Küster” as german scholar (1670-1716). This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Ludolph, Küster and German.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Ludolph Küster”, the useful work is to connect “german scholar (1670-1716)” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 5, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q3266090. VIAF identifies the subject as 7400965. The Library of Congress control number is nr93016936. 3 of 3 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 1 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1670, 1716, 1705 and 1697.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Ludolph Küster”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Ludolph Küster primary sources, Ludolph Küster archive and Ludolph research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Ludolph Küster”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Ludolph Küster” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.