of every piece of literary Lesbiana published in the last forty centuries, from the Odes of Sappho to Fletcher Flora's STRANGE SISTERS. To the collector of Lesbian literature the work is invaluable, listing as it does every major work and many minor ones. She has given summaries of the less well-known novels this in itself would make the book useful to a bibliophile and in almost every case has made an effort to evaluate the book in three points; the validity of the "Lesbian" material included (i.e., does the writer treat the subject from knowledge or from mere sensational surmise), the attitude of society reflected in the book under discussion, and the intrinsic literary merit of the work itself.

In such an enormous field of survey, some omissions are inevitable. At a guess, At a guess, Miss Foster discusses some 300 works as containing some Lesbian portraiture, but even this reader's fairly desultory inquiries turned up one or two glaring omissi ons Dmitri Merezowskii's BIRTH OF THE GODS, for example, was not even indexed. These omissions are not culpable, however, considering the literary climate of our day, where such volumes usually hide behind the RESTRICTED shelves and in private collections.

A more serious defect of the book is this; Miss Foster often stretches a point to include debatable material, and turns aside to pure personal conjecture. I confess myself somewhat exasperated by the chapter devoted to biographical conjecture about Emily Bronte. Granting that Miss Bronte may well have been a Lesbian the lady has been dead for enough years that this posthumous identification is apt to soothe the vanity of man y Lesbians and cast no aspersions on her family her work certainly contains no reflection of this aspect of her character, and Miss Foster's "proofs", frankly, do not convince me at all. Even more eyebrow-lifting is the chapter which includes the Biblical BOOK OF RUTH in Lesbiana she musters a few unconvincing indications, but they seem to me shaky; I am fairly sure that a scholar of Biblical history, or one of Jewish mores, however open-minded, would reject the theory, not as offensive but as absurd. Although she nowhere states this fact, I would bet a Dior hat that her single proof rests on the fact that some of the more self-dramatizing Lesbians use Ruth I; 16-17 (the well-known "Whither thou