Abstract The article focuses on antecedents of double-entry in bookkeeping. It is proposed in this paper to follow the genealogy of bookkeeping back beyond those parental ancestors whose respectability was so ably proved at the time. The purpose here will be to trace out those blood-lines of preparental inheritance which finally converged at a certain time and place, there to confer certain characteristics upon the offspring. In trying to perceive the forces which produced double-entry, two questions, must be answered in the process. First, what were the antecedent elements out of which double-entry finally evolved. An answer is needed to this question, so that one may better appreciate how closely accounting has been, and still is, related to several collateral fields. Second, what surrounding conditions were necessary to give vitality to these antecedent elements? The antecedents of double-entry, those factors which in time became so interwoven as to render double-entry inevitable, are all familiar quantities; some of them are very old and some are very obvious, but all of them are, in the writer's opinion, indispensable. The art of writing is an indispensable antecedent, since bookkeeping is before all else a record; arithmetic is essential also, since bookkeeping is a sequence of simple computations, even though they are cast into certain forms; private property, since bookkeeping is concerned only with recording the facts about property and property rights.

T HE methods followed in the original construction of our index of business conditions were fully set forth in this REVIEW for April I919; and such changes as have been found necessary since I919 have been explained, as occasion offered, in subsequent numbers. Our methods of interpreting the index have never been presented so exhaustively', because in part they have developed out of our experience in handling current data and have been presented only in our Weekly Letters as occasion required. It has therefore happened that our interpretation of the index has not always been fully understood; and misunderstanding is easy unless any particular passage is interpreted not only with reference to its immediate context but also with reference to what has gone before. present article is devoted partly to various matters concerning which we sometimes receive inquiries, and partly to certain criticisms which have been offered recently, particularly those of Mr. Karl G. Karsten in his paper on The Harvard Business Indexes -A New Interpretation in the Journal of the American Statistical Association for December I926.