Abstract

The Grolier Club of New York has been mounting exhibitions of books and prints since 1884, and many of them are recognized as landmark treatments of their subjects. Most of them have also been accompanied by published catalogs or related books. A recent instance was the exhibition, in the early months of 2021, drawn from Steven Lomazow's vast collection of American magazines, consisting of over eighty-three thousand separate issues from 1731 to the present. The substantial and profusely illustrated book that has resulted is a welcome new survey of the subject, for it contains not only a record of the comprehensive exhibition but also fifteen essays written by Lomazow and seven other contributors (five chronological chapters, ten topical ones).The appearance of this book is an occasion for thinking about the status of magazines as research material. Although there is a considerable literature devoted to the history of magazines, they still do not always receive the attention they deserve. For example, author bibliographies generally give detailed physical descriptions of an author's books but simply list the magazine contributions. The illogic of this approach should be obvious, for magazines are printed matter, just as books are, and are thus subject to all the same complications. Two examples will illustrate how copies of supposedly identical issues can vary. In the nineteenth century, individual issues were often reprinted when the supply ran low, so that the publisher would be able to make up complete volumes for sale in a publisher's binding at the end of the year; these second printings were not labeled as such, but they could of course contain textual differences, both intentional and accidental. In the twentieth century, some American magazines had regional “editions” in which the text was shifted around in order to accommodate different advertising, keyed to local markets (the New Yorker is an example); as a result, page citations for a given contribution might not be the same in different copies (and cutting of text could also occur).The illogic of neglecting magazines has implications for biographical, as well as bibliographical and textual, study. There are many instances in which periodical publication was crucial for an author's career. It often provided an author's first public exposure and at any point in a career might have reached a larger audience than the books. Collectors, on whom preservation of the evidence initially depends, have been as guilty as bibliographers of slighting magazines. For instance, they have traditionally paid attention to anthologies that contain first book appearances of particular works (because they are “books”), without recognizing that issues of magazines are also anthologies (and frequently of more significance for promoting an author's reputation). Preservation relies also on institutional libraries to do their part; but (although “little magazines” now seem to be safe from further destruction) mainstream and mass-circulation magazines (both present and past) are continually being discarded by libraries in favor of digital reproductions. And reproductions are no more adequate as substitutes for the originals of magazines than they are for books, since they do not provide a basis for studying the unreproducible physical details that affect the reading experience and are essential for bibliographical research. Furthermore, since copies of a magazine issue can vary (just as copies of a book can), the number of copies that are preserved is a serious concern.These are among the considerations that make one glad to see Lomazow's book, for here is a collector who has focused on magazines for their own sake. Even though his book does not go into the matters I have raised, it can still serve to publicize the cause. One hopes that it, along with the wide attention his exhibition received, will stimulate appreciation of the importance of magazines in cultural history and the consequent need to collect and preserve them.