University of Virginia Library

Indexing the Periodical Literature of Anglo-American Bibliography
by
B. J. McMullin

In his article 'The Periodical Literature of English and American Bibliography',[1] G. Thomas Tanselle provided a valuable service to bibliographers in identifying the major English-language periodicals 'containing material of bibliographical interest', both defunct and current, and in tabulating the years during which these periodicals have been 'covered' in nine indexing services. It was not Tanselle's purpose to describe the nature of the coverage, but it has seemed to me worth while to take his study that step further. What follows is a series of linked observations on the indexing of bibliographical periodicals designed to show how much is being indexed and how appropriately the indexing is being done.

Because at the time of writing the latest volume of MHRA available covers the publications of 1974, in specifics the observations are in the main concerned with periodicals bearing a 1974 cover date. And they are confined to the four major bibliographical periodicals: The Book Collector, The Library, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, and Studies in Bibliography, referred to as BC, Library, PBSA, and SB. I have confined myself to these four since, because they are the most widely indexed, they allow the greatest number of comparisons to be made; and because they are the major bibliographical periodicals they might be expected to show the indexing services at their best.

Other abbreviations used are:

• ABHB ABHB. Annual Bibliography of the History of the Printed Book and Libraries
• BI Bibliographic Index
• BHI British Humanities Index
• EGLI Essay and General Literature Index
• HI Humanities Index
• IBZ Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriften-literatur aus allen Gebieten des Wissens
• LL Library Literature

---

2




• MHRA MHRA Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature
• MLA MLA International Bibliography

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.

II

As Tanselle notes, indexes devoted to bibliography are not the only sources:

It is true that bibliographical articles will be found under author headings in indexes of literature such as MLA and MHRA, along with articles devoted to biography, criticism, etc. And one might wonder

whether this is not as it should be: whether most articles have an author focus, and whether most users of indexes have an author interest.

But both indexes have sections devoted to bibliographical topics which have no author focus:

• MLA: General Literature and Related Topics: V. Bibliographical
• MHRA: Bibliography (including sub-divisions Binding; Book Design and Illustration; Book Production, Printing, and Textual Studies; Collecting and the Library).

MHRA in fact goes one better in providing a second entry in the Bibliography section for articles also entered in the author sequence; e.g. 'A Problem of textual transmission in the typescripts of Women in Love' appears both under Twentieth Century—Authors—D. H. Lawrence and under Bibliography—Book Production, Printing, and Textual Studies. This facility—being able to search an index from an author point of view and a bibliographical point of view—constitutes a marked advantage over other indexes.

Among the five comprehensive indexing services (see Summary Table at the end of this article) MLA and MHRA differ very little in their coverage of Library, PBSA and SB. MHRA indexes slightly fewer articles because of its careful application—perhaps too careful—of the 'English' criterion: the one item excluded from SB is 'English editions of French Contes de fées attributed to Mme D'Aulnoy'.

Where the two indexes differ is in their coverage of BC: whereas MHRA applies the same criteria as it applies to the other three, MLA indexes only the most obvious of the articles and omits manifestly eligible notes, like 'Swinburne's Notes on Poems and Reviews (1866)'. MLA also indexes nothing from Part 4, though it was not published particularly late (BHI was able to index it in issue 4 of 1974); and MLA for 1975 repairs none of the omissions.

Tanselle underestimates MHRA when he writes 'A selection of English and American items can be located in the "Bibliography" section' (p. 169): even at the time of his writing it provided something more than a 'selection', and today it constitutes the best coverage for Anglo-American bibliography. MHRA has the advantage over MLA in its greater coverage and its dual entries. It has the incidental advantage, too, in being much more pleasant to use, being better laid out, in larger type, on more substantial paper and better printed. But one great advantage that MLA has is that in recent years it has appeared as much as two years ahead of MHRA. (It is reported that additional resources are to be devoted to the compilation of MHRA, so that delays for future volumes may be reduced.) In the long run MLA will also presumably

have the edge in that its file is machine-readable and therefore capable of cumulation and manipulation for individual purposes.

Nonetheless, the fact is that taken individually either MLA or MHRA is superior to any of the other three indexes which cover all four of the major Anglo-American bibliographical periodicals. (Whether the continued existence of both is justified is a question outside my brief.)

III

Tanselle's comment on MLA and MHRA is followed by an observation about the desirability of indexing by bibliographical technique:

Bibliographers would no doubt agree. But is there an index which provides access by bibliographical technique? The headings employed by MHRA and MLA have been noted above; the other comprehensive indexes offer little or no advance on them:

In fact, the only index I am aware of which indexes by technique is the annual index to Library, and obviously its utility is confined to that title. (Note that the annual indexes to BC and PBSA are confined to proper names.)

The nature of the different indexes may be judged by the entries assigned one article, for convenience taken from Library 30 (1975), part 1, 'Punctuation and the compositors of Shakespeare's Sonnets, 1609':

• Library: Bibliographic method: compositors' stints distinguished by punctuation and spacing habits, 1-24

---

8




• Bodleian Library, Oxford, Shakespeare quartos watermarks, 11
• Composition: Shakespeare Sonnets (1609), 1-24
• English studies: W. Shakespeare, 1-24
• Jackson, MacD. P. 'Punctuation and the compositors of Shakespeare's Sonnets, 1609', 1-24
• Poetry: W. Shakespeare, 1-24
• Punctuation: MacD. P. Jackson, 'Punctuation and the compositors of Shakespeare's Sonnets, 1609', 1-24
• Shakespeare, William, Sonnets (1609), compositors' stints distinguished by punctuation and spacing, 1-24
• Skeletons (in press work): W. Shakespeare Sonnets (1609), 2-3
• Spelling: evidence for compositors' stints concurs with punctuation habits, 1-24
• Watermarks: Shakespeare Sonnets (1609), 11n. (+ references to 26 authors referred to or quoted from)
• LL: Criticism, Textual
• Printing. History
• MLA: English Literature VI. Renaissance and Elizabethan. Shakespeare. Sonnets
• IBZ: Shakespeare, William
• [MHRA]: Bibliography. Book Production, Printing, and Textual Studies
• Sixteenth Century. William Shakespeare. Separate Works. The Sonnets

If bibliography as a field of knowledge and indexing by technique were to be combined the resulting index would need to be akin to the annual indexes to Library. Whether it would be practicable to apply that level of indexing to a number of discrete items even as small as a thousand or so is perhaps a moot point. National ventures would be an appealing avenue, though the much-delayed Bibliography in Britain does not offer an encouraging example. An alternative avenue would be the indexing of a fixed list: perhaps the yet-to-be-published Bodleian Index to Certain Bibliographical Journals [of 1933-1965] could provide the basis for an on-going index.

In the meantime MHRA must be regarded as the most satisfactory index to Anglo-American bibliography, supplemented—for the most recent two years—by MLA.

IV

The profession of librarianship is fortunate in having its specialised indexing service, Library Literature (Tanselle, pp. 181-184), but its utility for bibliographers is severely limited. In the first place the list of periodicals indexed contains many which in fact are indexed only selectively. There is no published policy statement, and I am indebted to Mr. George F. Heise, Associate Director of Indexing Services, the H. W. Wilson Company, for supplying information about policy as it affects BC, Library, PBSA and SB. Policy is 'to index completely the periodicals listed', but there are so many exceptions that a user of LL simply

has no means of knowing whether a particular issue of a particular title has been fully indexed, selectively indexed, or indexed not at all.

The following notes are based on the information supplied by Mr. Heise:

• BC: All articles indexed; 'English bookbindings' given a blanket entry once a year; 'News and Comment' indexed selectively; Notes and Queries omitted.
• Library: All articles indexed; bibliographical notes indexed selectively; correspondence concerning articles or bibliographical notes which were indexed previously also indexed.
• PBSA: All articles indexed; notes indexed selectively: 'News, Notes, and Queries' indexed selectively.
• SB: Indexed selectively.

Some indication of the degree of selectivity can be gauged from the Summary Table. The explanation for the disparity in treatment between the British publications on the one hand (fairly fully indexed) and the American on the other (sparsely indexed) may lie in the fact that other H. W. Wilson indexes cover the American ones comprehensively: HI indexes PBSA, and EGLI indexes SB.

It would be easy to dismiss LL as contributing nothing to the indexing done by MLA and MHRA, but six items are indexed by LL and not by the other two:

• BC: 'Contemporary Collectors XLVII: Bibliotheca Franciscana'
• 'The Golden Compasses' (editorial)
• 'The Art of Writing' (editorial)
• Library: 'Some notes on the legibility of texts for the partially sighted'
• PBSA: 'The White House Transcripts'
• a letter from Fredson Bowers

The selection for PBSA is probably to be explained by what appears to be a disposition towards big names, both as authors (here W. B. Todd and Fredson Bowers) and as subjects (Shakespeare and Milton are admitted from PBSA).

And LL is the only index to have caught up with the belated part 4 of Library—in August 1975: all three articles and two of the four notes are indexed, but not the letter.

Where, in principle, LL stands to supplement the other indexes is in the inclusion of bibliographical articles from librarianship periodicals, for it is a feature of LL that it indexes comprehensively a number of 'mainstream' librarianship periodicals, even when occasionally the articles are outside scope.

The major concerns of LL are librarianship, information science and publishing, and within these areas detailed subject headings are

provided. For peripheral subjects—of which bibliography is one—only broad subject headings are provided. Consequently many of the articles of bibliographical interest included in LL are to be found under Criticism, Textual (often quite wrongly included there) and Printing. History. Since LL appears six times a year there may be virtue in such broad headings in that they can be used for current awareness purposes, but there would seem to be no other virtue. Indeed, one might ask why LL worries about BC, Library, PBSA and SB at all, or indeed about the whole area of bibliography.

V

Tanselle uses BC, 'the principal book-collecting journal in English at present', to illustrate the point that the journals associated with book-collecting and with bibliographical societies constitute the central core of general journals in the field of bibliography, 'for its editorials, bibliographical descriptions, notes and queries, and reviews maintain a high scholarly standard.' (p. 176) He goes on to say that 'because it began in 1952—that is, after the start of the SB checklists—there is no problem about its indexing.'

To say that Tanselle overstates the case that 'there is no problem about its indexing' is not, however, to underestimate the difficulties that BC presents for indexers:

In addition to the formal difficulties just outlined there are difficulties

caused by the coverage of BC: its interest in manuscript studies places some articles outside the scope of ABHB, while the bibliophilic nature of others causes problems for MLA. But despite the difficulties it poses BC is covered by more indexes than the more centrally bibliographic Library. The over-all results are tabulated in the Summary Table, but some comments on particular indexes are offered here:

There would be little argument with Tanselle's view of BC, that its 'editorials, bibliographical descriptions, notes and queries . . . maintain a high scholarly standard', but the 'problem about its indexing' remains. Except for the articles little of the material is indexed.

VI

Latterly the coverage of IBZ has declined from about 13,000 periodicals (Tanselle, p. 171) to 8105 (pars 2 of 1977), a few of which are in fact Festschriften or other works of composite authorship, such as Studies in the book trade in honour of Graham Pollard and Essays in the history of publishing in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the house of Longman, 1724-1974. There are some qualifications to be made to Tanselle's list,[4] but the important thing to observe is that despite the general reduction even more bibliographical periodicals have been added in the past few years, including Bibliotheck, American Book Collector and Scholarly Publishing. Most importantly for the purposes of comparison, since pars 2 of 1974 PBSA has also been indexed.

It is difficult to understand the objectives of IBZ, largely because it contains no policy statement. Though all fields of knowledge are supposed to be within its scope, in fact most medical periodicals were recently dropped, since the indexing of medical literature was already covered by specialized indexes.[5] Nor is there any statement about the basis for selecting items for indexing: the subtitle of IBZ ('covering all fields of knowledge') suggests that there is no basis in subject matter, and an innocent user might infer from the 'List of periodicals indexed' that those periodicals are fully indexed. But if bibliography is typical, in fact the indexing is highly selective: as the Summary Table shows, only a third of the articles from BC, Library, PBSA and SB of 1974 were indexed, and practically nothing from the notes etc. The selection of items simply defies explanation, at least as far as the outsider is concerned.

The unpredictability of IBZ can be observed from a few comparisons:

IBZ differs from ABHB, MLA and MHRA in that it does not index the publications of a particular time-span: each pars, which appears half-yearly, apparently includes whatever entries have been received from the copyists scattered throughout Germany. Broadwin's description of the indexing process is instructive: not only is the transcribing of entries done outside the editorial office, but the assignment of subject headings is done from the titles alone, and 'should a title prove to be totally nondescriptive or insufficient information be found in the reference works to determine exactly the subject matter of an article, it is temporarily laid aside.'

The decentralisation of effort and what appears to be a casualness of attitude help to explain the characteristics of IBZ. First, there can be no guarantee that the indexed items from any one issue of a periodical will appear in the same pars, or that issues of a periodical will be indexed in the order that they were published:

Then there is the nature of the subject headings, which are very general unless a proper name is appropriate.

Lack of subject limitation, combined with unpredictability in selection, means that several items from BC and Library not indexed by ABHB, MLA or MHRA are in fact indexed by IBZ:

(The item from BC is also indexed by BHI; the article and note from the belated part 4 of Library are also indexed by LL.)

IBZ may index articles of bibliographical interest published in unlikely host periodicals, but its erratic treatment of known material puts it completely out of contention as a competitor with ABHB, MLA and MHRA.

VII

Several other indexes exist which are relevant to bibliographers, including three which—within certain limitations—index a fixed list of periodicals.

In 1974 the Social Sciences and Humanities Index was replaced by

Social Sciences Index and Humanities Index. The latter indexes one bibliographical periodical, PBSA, and for 1974 indexed all articles and notes (as did MLA).[6] PBSA is also indexed by another H. W. Wilson index, LL, but selectively (it is particularly light on notes). The two differ also in the nature of their subject headings: whereas LL uses general headings for bibliographical topics HI is more specific, allowing proper names as subjects. The difference in indexing can be gauged from the treatment of 'David Hall and the Townshend Acts'; both have an author entry, and thereafter they index under these headings: (All LL's headings are accepted HI headings; indeed, in the same issues HI indexes 'The Editions of Malory in the early nineteenth century' under Publishers and publishing. Great Britain. History, and Bibliography. Editions, LL under Editions, Printing. History, and Printing. Great Britain. Additionally, the two indexes differ in their sub-arrangement: LL by author, HI by title.)

SB also is indexed by a second Wilson index, EGLI, whose subtitle reads 'An Index to 4,010 essays and articles in 292 volumes of collections of essays and miscellaneous works'.[7] SB falls into neither category, but is included in EGLI, along with a number of other annuals like Shakespeare Survey, by the silly application of the definition of a periodical as a serial appearing more frequently than annually. HI is restricted to indexing periodical articles; SB is not a periodical; ergo SB is not eligible for indexing in HI, where it obviously belongs. EGLI bears the same relationship to LL in indexing SB as HI bears to LL in indexing PBSA: EGLI indexes SB exhaustively, and employs more specific headings, including proper names, but not the same headings as HI.

BC is also indexed by BHI, which indexes the articles exhaustively but excludes everything else (see above). As a system BHI has many virtues.

In the first place it indexes its periodicals more quickly than any of the other current indexes, and not only because it deals with the publications of a single country (the Wilson indexes do not consistently index American publications as quickly). And BHI is a subject index: unlike the Wilson indexes it does not waste space by providing author entries, but relegates authors to an index in the annual cumulation. (Are the Wilson indexes influenced by the arrangement of the dictionary-style library card-catalogue?) The logic of the indexing is much clearer, and the liberal provision of references to related headings allows specific searches to be undertaken, along with more general ones— e.g. 'English bookbindings XCI: binding perhaps by William Nott, c. 1680' is entered under Bookbindings, English and under Nott, William, and there is a reference to Nott from the heading Bookbinders. The only index comparable with BHI in specificity in this instance is ABHB, which enters under Bookbinding. Great Britain. XVIIth century, and provides a reference from Nott in the Geographical and Personal Names Index.

ABHB, MLA and MHRA are all annuals, and all appear at least a year after the event, so that there is an argument for a current index to provide interim access to the literature of bibliography. The only current index which already indexes BC, Library, PBSA and SB is LL, but, as has been suggested above, it does not perform the task at all well; the basic problem is that LL is not really hospitable to bibliography. BHI is limited to British publications; but with the addition of Library it would provide good coverage of British bibliographical periodicals, even if embedded in an index which, despite its title, is more oriented to the social sciences. HI is not confined to American publications, and would be more hospitable to bibliography than LL: when it comes to convenience in indexing I assume that bibliography has greater affinities with literary research than with librarianship. At the very least SB ought to be transferred to HI from EGLI and LL.

Of BI, which is published three times a year, little need be said: it is concerned with enumerative bibliography, and to be recorded a bibliography must contain fifty or more citations. Thus none of the frequent addenda to author bibliographies contained in PBSA for 1974 are included, nor, from BC part 4, such things as the check-lists of Harry Buxton Forman's Shelley reprints and of editions of Arthur Hugh Clough and Mrs. Cowley's The Belle's Stratagem. The only entries for 1974 from the four major bibliographical periodicals, both under the heading Bibliography, are for the SB Check List and the Library 'Recent books and periodicals'.

VIII

The discontinuation of the SB check lists has left ABHB as the only annual index which takes bibliography as its sole concern. Though SB was limited, in coverage and organization, it was at least predictable; ABHB is quite unpredictable, and is declining in performance. The best annual indexes are in fact MLA and MHRA, with the latter superior in all but speed of production.

Of the current indexes IBZ can be dismissed completely. LL is unsatisfactory because of its limited coverage, its selectivity and its indexing under broad headings. BHI is limited by its British coverage, but offers the best indexing of any service. HI has deficiences, but would offer the greatest hospitality to bibliography.

The only indexing at the level of bibliographical technique is done by Library in its annual index. The commonest indexing is either by broad subject or by author (i.e. of the literary etc. work). The more 'difficult' parts of the bibliographical periodicals are being indexed very rarely.

The fixed-list indexes demonstrate the efficacy of such schemes in providing both complete coverage (within certain limits) and superior indexing. If indexing at the level of technique is desirable, a new fixed-list index of Anglo-American bibliographical periodicals will be called for, embracing the extant titles from at least Tanselle's categories 1 (Bibliographical Society Journals) and 2 (Book-Collecting Journals), supplemented by titles selected from 3 (Printing and Typographical Journals), 4 (Book-Trade and Paper-Trade Journals) and 5 (Library Journals).

Summary Table

                                             

The Book Collector		ABHB	MLA	MHRA	LL	IBZ	BI	BHI	HI	EGLI
Editorials	4	3	0	2	3	0	0	0
Articles	28	22	5	25	23	11	0	28
Notes	13	6	0	8	0	0	0	0
Queries	9	4	0	0	0	0	0	0
Notes and Comment	?	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
	54+37		5	35	26	11	0	28
The Library
Editorials	1	1	0	1	0	0	0
Articles	24	18	20	18	24	6	0
Notes	7	3	6	4	3	2	0
Letters	5	0	0	0	0	1	0
	37	22	26	23	27	9	1
Papers of the Bib. Soc. of America
Articles	14	4	14	13	10	7	0		14
Notes	41	8	41	36	6	1	0		41
Letters	3	0	0	0	1	0	0		0
	58	12	55	49	17	8	0		55
Studies in Bibliography
Articles	6	3	6	6	2	2	0			6
Notes	11	4	11	10	1	3	0			11
Check List	1	0	1	1	1	0	1			1
	18	7	18	17	4	5	1			18

Notes to Table

The Book Collector. 'Queries' comprises all notes prefixed 'Q' whether they be queries or answers to previously-published queries. The number of indexable items included in 'News and Comment' is difficult to estimate; disregarding the sections devoted to recent auctions, catalogues and exhibitions I would suggest a figure of between 20 and 30.

The Library. The sections 'Recent Books', 'Recent Periodicals' and 'Projects and Information' have been disregarded. The BI figure includes the blanket entry for 'Recent books and periodicals'.

Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. The section 'News, Notes, and Queries' has been disregarded: there are indexable items, but none of the indexing services covers it.

Studies in Bibliography. The distinction between articles and notes has been made on the basis of the change in type size which divides each volume into two distinct parts.

Notes