University of Virginia Library

I

For publications of the years 1949 to 1972 bibliographers had the Selective Check List of Bibliographical Scholarship published annually in SB. For most of those years it was the only international index which took bibliography as its sole concern, though it was limited to indexing comprehensively the major periodicals (chiefly Anglo-American), supplemented by a leavening of entries that had come to the compilers' attention. The degree of selectivity involved may be gauged by a comparison with ABHB: with a similar scope (see next section) ABHB has always indexed at least three times the number of items each year, even before United States publications were included.

In terms of subject access the utility of the SB lists was reduced by the method of arrangement: by scholar under five broad headings. The closest that SB ever came to providing subject access to the items indexed was in the 'Index to Bibliographical Scholarship' produced for the collections of reprints, covering the years 1949-55 and 1956-62. But even then a 'somewhat despotic method of entry was decided on since reading all of the articles to determine their true or complete subjects was beyond the power of the index compilers', so that the subject entries in the index are those 'revealed in the title.' (1949-55, p. iii).

The decision to abandon the SB lists was taken in order to avoid 'the duplication that would result with the proposals in the Annual Bibliography of the History of the Printed Book and Libraries to expand its coverage with the fourth volume, of 1973' (SB, 28 [1975], 332) to include publications of the United States. The decision was justified on the grounds both of scope,[2] and of performance. A comparison of the indexing of BC and Library for 1972 (the last year covered by SB) reveals different emphases in items selected for indexing—SB towards English and American literature, ABHB towards book production—but the overlap is considerable. The only qualification about accepting ABHB might have been its tendency to eschew anything with a taint of manuscript (see further below).

It is pertinent to ask how well ABHB has performed since it has had the field to itself; one answer can be got by comparing its performance for the period 1970-1972 with that for the period 1973-1975.

Over the six years the scope of ABHB has not changed. But as the

number of countries covered has increased the number of periodicals indexed (or at least considered for indexing) has risen: 802(1970), 972 (1971), 1132(1972), 1390(1973—United States publications now included), 1531(1974), 1527(1975). The last two figures are arrived at by counting the list of periodicals; in both years the Introduction claims a figure of 4000, which would imply a productivity of about one entry per title every two years.

In the same period the numbers of entries (taking the final entry number and disregarding additions and deletions within the sequence) have been: 2489(1970), 2541(1971), 2858(1972), 3407(1973), 2733(1974), 2486(1975). The first three might be compared with the corresponding SB figures: 480(1970), 503(1971), 613(1972).

The figures for entries are misleading in that in 1970 and 1971 multiple entries were liberally provided when items might lend themselves to indexing under various heads, whereas from 1972 they are fewer, alternative points of access being provided—woefully inadequate though it is—by a second index, Geographical and Personal Names. I estimate the number of discrete items indexed each year to be, therefore: 1500-(1970), 1500-(1971), 2500(1972), 3000+(1973), 2500+(1974), 2200+(1975). In terms of the average number of discrete items indexed for each periodical title, productivity has fluctuated: 1.8(1970), 1.6(1971), 2.2(1972), 2.1(1973), 1.7(1974), 1.5(1975). (These figures are slightly inflated since no account has been taken of the fact that by no means all entries in ABHB are for periodical articles.)

Summary of ABHB figures

         

	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975
Number of periodicals in ABHB list	802	972	1132	1390	1531	1527
Average productivity of periodicals indexed in ABHB	1.8	1.6	2.2	2.1	1.7	1.5
Number of entries in ABHB	2489	2541	2858	3407	2733	2486
Estimate of number of discrete items indexed in ABHB	1500-	1500-	2500	3000+	2500+	2200+

The change in the relationship between entries and discrete items can be gauged from the following figures for Library:

       

	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975
estimate of articles eligible for inclusion in ABHB	28	20	32	27	29	24
entries in ABHB	56	29	25	14	21	0
eligible articles omitted	0	2	7	15	8	24

In explanation of the figures for 1975 it should be added that there are no entries for BC either, so that there may be a mechanical reason for the two periodicals not being indexed. It may be that the 1975 issues will be indexed in ABHB for 1976, though experience should not make us sanguine. Part 4 of Library of 1974 was published late,[3] and was not indexed in ABHB for 1974; there are no entries for it in ABHB for 1975 either. The same issue of Library was missed by MLA for 1974, and only three of the four notes (and none of the three articles) were indexed in the volume for 1975. MHRA for 1974 includes only one note, and that entry comes latest in MHRA, suggesting that it was the only one able to be incorporated at a late stage—perhaps the volume for 1975 will catch the remaining items. It might be appropriate to observe here that retrospective entries are commonplace, not just in ABHB, which has a stated policy of including missed items in future issues: for example in SB for 1972 there are 29 entries for PBSA of 1968 and 21 for PBSA of 1970.

Even with corrected figures for the periodicals lists it is clear that ABHB includes a large number of titles of low productivity. Nonetheless, it is of some comfort to know that unlikely periodicals (even Anglo-American) have been considered, since relevant articles therein would not generally have been caught by SB, e.g. from such periodicals as Scottish Labour History Society Journal, School Librarian, Ulster Folk-life, Transactions of the Anglesey Antiquarian Society and Field Club, and so on.

Despite the consistency of the policy statement the practice of ABHB has in fact changed. To take the indexing of Library as an illustration: it is clear that from exhaustive indexing of articles within scope in its first two years ABHB has become more selective, and indeed erratic, as can be seen from the table above. The position for 1975 and part 4 of 1974 may still be retrieved in the volume for 1976, but for 1973 these are among the omissions:

In recent years there appears to have been an unstated decision to exclude textual studies, despite the statement in the introduction: 'Bibliography of the . . . analytical variety, i.e. . . . the use of inference based on book-production practice to throw light on textual history, falls naturally

within the scope of this bibliography'. (6 [for 1975], p. viii) And it is obvious that the rule on manuscript studies is being applied mercilessly, so that relevant articles which happen to include questions of manuscript transmission or emendation are generally excluded.

For coverage of material in PBSA and SB the abdication of SB in favour of ABHB has been calamitous. SB always did index itself exhaustively even when the occasional article was outside scope, and the articles and notes in PBSA were, with a few obvious exceptions, also indexed exhaustively. The change is exemplified by the bald figures for items indexed in ABHB for 1974: PBSA, 4 of 14 articles, 8 of 41 notes; SB 3 of 6 articles, 4 of 11 notes. (The comparable figures for BC are 22 of 28 and 6 of 13; for Library 18 of 24 and 3 of 7, all from parts 1-3.)

Perhaps the figures are indicative of the literary bias of PBSA and SB, and a consequence of the rigid application of selection criteria rather than of the waywardness of the selection process. On the other hand perhaps the apparent difference in comprehensiveness of indexing between the British and American periodicals reflects rather the application of the criteria by the respective national committees—note, though, that the United States is represented by two former SB compilers.

It must be allowed that ABHB still does contain a substantial number of entries (particularly for non-English-language materials); that it does scan an impressive range of titles; and that it does have a classification scheme (supplemented by indexes) which makes specific searches possible. On the other hand it is noticeably prone to error, and above all it simply does not index a large enough proportion of the contents of periodicals of central importance.

I would venture to suggest that ABHB has declined in recent years to the point that it might reasonably be claimed that there is no longer a satisfactory index which takes bibliography as its sole concern.