Wheatley Henry Benjamin
How to Make an Index
5. General knowledge, with the power of overcoming difficulties.
The ignorant man cannot make a good index. The indexer will find that his miscellaneous knowledge is sure to come in useful, and that which he might doubt would ever be used by him will be found to be helpful when least expected. It may seem absurd to make out that the good indexer should be a sort of Admirable Crichton. There can be no doubt, however, that he requires a certain amount of knowledge; and the good cataloguer and indexer, without knowing everything, will be found to possess a keen sense of knowledge.
As I owe all my interest in bibliography and indexing to him, I may perhaps be allowed to introduce the name of my elder brother, the late Mr. B. R. Wheatley, a Vice-President of the Library Association, as that of a good indexer. He devoted his best efforts to the advancement of bibliography. When fresh from school he commenced his career by making the catalogue of one of the parts of the great Heber Catalogue. He planned and made one of the earliest of indexes to a library catalogue—that of the Athenæum Club. He made one of the best of indexes to the transactions of a society in that of the Statistical Society, which he followed by indexes of the Transactions of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, Clinical, and other societies. He also made an admirable index to Tooke's History of Prices—a work of great labour, which met with the high approval of the authors, Thomas Tooke and William Newmarch.
CHAPTER V.
Different Classes of Indexes
"Of all your talents you are a most amazing man at Indexes. What a flag too, do you hang out at the stern! You must certainly persuade people that the book overflows with matter, which (to speak the truth) is but thinly spread. But I know all this is fair in trade, and you have a right to expect that the publick should purchase freely when you reduce the whole book into an epitome for their benefit; I shall read the index with pleasure."—William Clarke to William Bowyer, Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, vol. 3, p. 46.
IN dealing with the art of the indexer it is most important to consider the different classes of indexes. There are simple indexes, such as those of names and places, which only require care and proper alphabetical arrangement. The makers of these often plume themselves upon their work; but they must remember that the making of these indexes can only be ranked as belonging to the lowest rung of the index ladder.
The easiest books to index are those coming within the classes of History, Travel, Topography, and generally those that deal almost entirely with facts. The indexing of these is largely a mechanical operation, and only requires care and judgment. Verbal indexes and concordances are fairly easy when the plan is settled; but they are often works of great labour, and the compilers deserve great credit for their perseverance. John Marbeck stands at the head of this body of indefatigable workers who have placed the world under the greatest obligations. He was the first to publish a concordance of the Bible,17 to be followed nearly two centuries later by the work of Alexander Cruden, whose name has almost become a synonym for a concordance. After the Bible come the works of Shakespeare, indexed by Samuel Ayscough (1790), Francis Twiss (1805), Mrs. Cowden Clarke (1845), and Mr. John Bartlett, who published in 1894 a still fuller concordance than that of Mrs. Clarke. It is a vast quarto volume of 1,910 pages in double columns, and represents an enormous amount of self-denying labour. Dr. Alexander Schmidt's Shakespeare Lexicon (1874) is something more than a concordance, for it is a dictionary as well.
A dictionary is an index of words. We do not mention dictionaries in this connection to insist on the fact that they are indexes of words, but rather to point out that a dictionary such as those of Liddell and Scott, Littré, Murray, and Bradley, reaches the high watermark of index work, and so the ordinary indexer is able to claim that he belongs to the same class as the producers of such masterpieces as these.
Scientific books are the most difficult to index; but here there is a difference between the science of fact and the science of thought, the latter being the most difficult to deal with. The indexing of books of logic and ethics will call forth all the powers of the indexer and show his capabilities; but what we call the science of fact contains opinions as well as facts, and some branches of political economy are subjects by no means easy to index.
Some authors indicate their line of reasoning by the compilation of headings. This is a great help to the indexer; but if the author does not present such headings, the indexer has to make them himself, and he therefore needs the abilities of the précis-writer.
There are indexes of Books, of Transactions, Periodicals, etc., and indexes of Catalogues. Each of these classes demands a different method. A book must be thoroughly indexed; but the index of Journals and Transactions may be confined to the titles of the papers and articles. It is, however, better to index the contents of the essays as well as their titles.
Before the indexer commences his work he must consider whether his index is to be full or short. Sometimes it is not necessary to adopt the full index—frequently it is too expensive a luxury for publisher or author; but the short index can be done well if necessary.
Whatever plan is followed, the indexer must use his judgment. This ought to be the marked characteristic of the good indexer. The bad indexer is entirely without this great gift.
While trying to be complete, the indexer must reject the trivial; and this is not always easy. He must not follow in the steps of the lady who confessed that she only indexed those points which specially interested her. We have fair warning of incompleteness in The Register of Corpus Christi Guild, York, published by the Surtees Society in 1872, where we read, on page 321:
"This Index contains the names of all persons mentioned in the appendix and foot-notes, but a selection only is given of those who were admitted into the Guild or enrolled in the Obituary."
The plan here adopted is not to be commended, for it is clear that so important a name-list as this is should be thoroughly indexed. However learned and judicious an editor may be, we do not choose to submit to his judgment in the offhand decision of what is and what is not important.
There is a considerable difference in the choice of headings for a general or special index—say, for instance, in indexing electrical subjects the headings would differ greatly in the indexes of the Institution of Civil Engineers or of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. In the former, dynamos, transformers, secondary or storage batteries, alternate and continuous currents would probably be grouped under the general heading of Electricity, while in the latter we shall find Dynamos under D, Transformers under T, Batteries under B, Alternate under A, and Continuous under C.
The indexes to catalogues of libraries, etc., are among the most difficult of indexes to compile. It was not usual to attach an index of subjects to a catalogue of authors until late years, and that to the Catalogue of the Athenæum Club Library (1851) is an early specimen. The New York State Library Catalogue (1856) has an index, as have those of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society (1860) and the London Library (1865 and 1875). That appended to the Catalogue of the Manchester Free Library (1864) is more a short list of titles than an index.
There are special difficulties attendant on the indexing of catalogues. Books are written in many languages, and there is considerable trouble in bringing together the books on a given subject produced in many countries. The titles of books are not drawn up on the same system or with any wish to help the indexer. Titles are seldom straightforward, for they are largely concocted to attract the readers, without any honest wish to express correctly the nature of the contents of the book. They are usually either too short or too enigmatical. The titles of pamphlets, again, are often too long; and it may be taken as an axiom that the longer the title the less important the book.
The indexer, however, has a great advantage over the cataloguer, because the latter is bound by bibliographical etiquette not to alter the title of a book, while the indexer is at liberty to alter the title as he likes, so as to bring together books on the same subject, however different the titles may be. Herein consists the great objection to the index composed of short titles, as in Dr. Crestadoro's Index to the Manchester Free Library Catalogue. Books almost entirely alike in subject are separated by reason of the different wording of the titles. It is much more convenient to gather together under one entry books identical in subject, and there is no utility in separating an "elementary treatise" on electricity from "the elements" of electricity. One important point connected with indexes to catalogues is to add the date of the book after the name of the author, so that the seeker may know whether the book is old or new.
An index ought not to supersede the table of contents, as this is often useful for those who cannot find what they want in the index, from having forgotten the point of the heading under which it would most likely appear in the alphabet.
In the year 1900 there was a controversy in The Times on a proposed subject index to the catalogue of the library of the British Museum. It was commenced on October 15th by a letter signed "A Scholar," and closed on November 19th by the same writer, who summed up the whole controversy. "A Scholar" expressed himself strongly against the proposal, and as he himself confesses he used very arrogant language. In consequence of which, most readers must have desired to find him proved to be in the wrong. This desire was satisfied when Mr. Fortescue, the keeper of the printed books at the British Museum, delivered his address as President of the Library Association on August 27th last.
The two points made by the "Scholar" were: (1) That the making of a general subject index to the catalogue proposed by the authorities of the British Museum would be a waste of money; (2) That it was a great evil for the five-yearly indexes originated by Mr. Fortescue to be discontinued.
Now let us see what is to be said with authority on these points.
Mr. Fortescue said:
"Last Autumn … I read with respectful astonishment a letter to 'The Times' from a writer who preferred to veil his identity under the modest signature of 'a Scholar.' There I read that 'the studious public of this country and Europe in general have been surprised by the news that the authorities of the British Museum seriously contemplate the compilation of a subject index to the vast collection of printed books in that library.' I can assure you that the surprise of the studious public and of Europe in general cannot have surpassed my own when I thus learned of what the authorities were seriously contemplating. Nevertheless, it left me able, I thought, to discern that their vast conceptions had not been so fortunate as to gain the approval of 'a Scholar' and to marvel whence The Times and other great journals had drawn their truly surprising information. Some of the arguments put forth in sundry criticisms of the 'scheme' showed how much thought had been bestowed upon matters which then first dazzled my bewildered imagination. It may come some day (who shall say what will not?), this General Index, or it may never come. But up to the present moment I am aware of no authority who is seriously contemplating so large a venture unless perhaps it be 'a Scholar' himself."
Then as to the five-yearly indexes Mr. Fortescue said:
"Experience has taught us that there is no form of subject-index which the public values so highly as one which gives the most recent literature on every possible subject. And to meet this manifest want we shall certainly continue to issue, with all the latest improvements I hope, the modest Indexes which we have hitherto published in five-yearly (I am afraid as President of The Library Association I should say 'in quinquennial') volumes. The Museum sweeps its net so wide and in such remote seas that a more or less complete collection of books on almost every subject or historical event is gathered within it for future students. To take only two incidents from the last year or two, the next index will contain not less than a hundred and forty books and pamphlets, in almost every European tongue, on the Dreyfus case, and from four to five hundred books on the present war in South Africa. Such bibliographical tests have more than an ephemeral or immediate value. They will remain as records of events or phases of thought long after their causes shall have faded from all but the page of history."
Of late years the dictionary catalogue has come very largely into use in public libraries. This consists of a union of catalogue of authors and index of subjects which is found to be very useful and illuminating to the readers in free libraries, most of whom are probably not versed in the niceties of bibliographical arrangement, but are more likely to want a book on a particular subject than to require a special book which they know. Mr. Cutter has written the history of the dictionary catalogue in the United States Special Report (pp. 533-539), and he traces it back in America to about the year 1815.
Excellent specimens of these dictionary catalogues have been produced. They are of great value to the ordinary reader at a small public library, but I venture to think that to construct one for a large library is a waste of power, because if several large libraries of a similar character do the same thing, there is constant repetition and considerable loss by the unnecessary outlay. If a fairly complete standard index were made, it could be used by all the libraries, and in return the libraries might unite to pay its cost. I am pleased to know that Mr. Fortescue prefers to keep index and catalogue distinct. He said in his address:
"I have formed, so far as I know, but one dogmatic conviction, and it is this: that the best catalogue which the art of man can invent is a catalogue in two inter-dependent yet independent parts; the first and greater part an alphabetical catalogue of authors, the second and lesser part a subject-index. I know well that I shall be told that I am out of date, that such an opinion is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—that the dictionary catalogue has won its battle—but even so, perhaps the more so, do I feel it the part of a serious and immovable conviction to declare my belief that—for student and librarian alike—this twofold catalogue, author and subject each in its own division, is the best catalogue a library can have, and that the dictionary catalogue is the very worst. But whatever may be our individual opinion on this head, it is only necessary to enter into a very simple calculation to see that if the dictionary system could have governed the rules of the British Museum Catalogue it would by now have consisted of not less than twelve million entries; and assuredly it would have been neither completed nor printed to-day."
CHAPTER VI.
General Rules for Alphabetical Indexes
"In order to guard against blunders Bayle proposed that certain directions should be drawn up for the guidance of the compilers of indexes."
THESE rules, originally drawn up by a committee of the Index Society, were primarily intended for the use of indexers making indexes of indexless books to be published by the society, which, being produced separately from the books themselves, needed some introductory note. In all cases, however, some explanation of the mode of compilation should be attached to the index. The compiler comes fresh from his difficulties and the expedients he has devised to overcome them, and it is therefore well for him to explain to the user of the index what those special difficulties are.
The object of the Index Society was to set up a standard of uniformity in the compilation of the indexes published by them. Although rigid uniformity is not needed in all indexes, it is well that these should be made in accordance with the best experience of past workers rather than on a system which varies with the mood of the compiler. It is hoped that the following rules may be of some practical use to future indexers.
In the eighth chapter of How to Catalogue a Library there are a series of rules for making a catalogue of a small library in which are codified the different points which had been discussed in the previous chapters. In the present chapter the Index Society rules are printed in italic, and to them are now added some illustrative remarks. There is necessarily a certain likeness between rules for indexing and rules for cataloguing, but the differences are perhaps more marked. At all events, the rules for one class of work will not always be suitable for the other class.
1. Every work should have one index to the whole set, and not an index to each volume.
An index to each volume of a set is convenient if a general amalgamated index to the whole set is given as well; but a work with several indexes and no general one is most inconvenient and irritating, while to have both seems extravagant. If, however, the author or publisher is willing to present both, it is not for the user of the book to complain.
2. Indexes to be arranged in alphabetical order, proper names and subjects being united in one alphabet. An introduction containing some indication of the classification of the contents of the book indexed to be prefixed.
In an alphabetical index the alphabet must be all in all. When the alphabet is used, it must be used throughout. There is no advantage in dividing proper names from subjects, as is so often done, particularly in foreign indexes. Another objectionable practice frequently adopted in the indexes of periodical publications is to keep together the entries under the separate headings used in the journal itself, and thus to have a number of distinct alphabets under different headings. This union of alphabetical and classified indexing has been condemned on a former page, and need not here be referred to further.
In the case of large headings the items should be arranged in alphabetical order under them. There is occasionally a difficulty in carrying this out completely, but it should be attempted. We want as little classification as possible in an alphabetical index. Mr. W. F. Poole wisely said in reference to the proposal of one of his helpers on the Index of Periodical Literature to place Wealth, Finance, and Population under the heading of Political Economy: "The fatal defect of every classified arrangement is that nobody understands it except the person who made it and he is often in doubt."
3. The entries to be arranged according to the order of the English alphabet. I and J and U and V to be kept distinct.
There are few things more irritating than to find the alphabet confused by the union of the vowel i with the consonant j, or the vowel u with the consonant v. No doubt they were not distinguished some centuries ago, but this is no reason why they should again be confused now that they are usually distinct. There may be special reasons why they should be mixed together in the British Museum Catalogue, but it is not evident that these are sufficient.
The only safe rule is to use the English alphabet as it is to-day in an English index. One of the rules of the American Library Association is: "The German ae, oe, ue always to be written ä, ö, ü, and arranged as a, o, u." By this Goethe would have to be written Göthe, which is now an unusual form, and I think it would be better to insist that where both forms are used, one or other should be chosen and all instances spelt alike. It is a very common practice to arrange ä, ö, ü, as if they were written ae, oe, ue; but this leads to the greatest confusion, and no notice should be taken of letters that are merely to be understood.
4. Headings consisting of two or more distinct words are not to be treated as integral portions of one word; thus the arrangement should be:
The perfect alphabetical arrangement is often ignored, and it is not always easy to decide as to what is the best order; but the above rule seems to put the matter pretty clearly. If no system is adhered to, it becomes very difficult to steer a course through the confusion. When such entries are printed, a very incongruous appearance often results from the use of a line to indicate repetition when a word similar in spelling, but not really the same word, occurs; thus, in the above, Grave surname, Grave substantive, and Grave adjective must all be repeated. It is inattention to this obvious fact that has caused such ludicrous blunders as the following:
"Mill on Liberty
–– on the Floss."18
"Cotton, Sir Willoughby,
–—, price of."
"Old age
–– Artillery Yard
–– Bailey."
These are all genuine entries taken from books, and similar blunders are not uncommon even in fairly good indexes; thus, in the Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1714-1719, issued by the Public Record Office, under Ireland are the following entries:
"Ireland, Mrs. Jane, Sempstress and Starcher to King William; cxcvii. 32.
… Attorney General of, See Attorney General, Ireland."
Then follow nearly two columns on Ireland with the marks of repetition (…) throughout.
The names of streets in the Post Office Directory are now arranged in a strict alphabetical order on the lines laid down in this rule; thus we have:
"White Street
White's Row
White Heart
Whitechapel."
Again:
"Abbott Road
Abbott Street
Abbott's Road."
Again:
"King Square
King Street
King and Queen Street
King David Street
King Edward Road
King William Street
King's Arms Court
King's Road
Kinglake Street
Kingsbury Road
Kingsgate Street."
Sometimes there is a slip, as might be expected in so complicated a list of names. Thus in the foregoing sequence Kinghorn Street comes between King William Street and King's Arms Court, while I think it ought to come immediately before Kinglake Street; but, after all, this is a matter of opinion. Strattondale Street comes before Stratton Street; but this is merely a case of missorting.
There is one piece of alphabetisation which the editor of the Post Office Directory has always adopted, and that is to place Upper and Lower under those adjectives, and Old Bond Street under Old, and New Bond Street under New. These two names belong to what is practically one street (although each division is separately numbered), which is always spoken of as Bond Street, and therefore for which the majority of persons will look under Bond. South Molton Street is correctly placed under South because there is no North Molton Street, and the street is named after South Molton; while South Eaton Place is merely a continuation of Eaton Place. Some persons, however, think that names should be treated as they stand, and that we should not go behind them to find out what they mean.
5. Proper Names of foreigners to be arranged alphabetically under the prefixes—
but not under the prefixes—
It is an acknowledged principle that when the prefix is a preposition it is to be rejected; but when an article, it is to be retained. When, however, as in the case of the French Du, Des, the two are joined, it is necessary to retain the preposition. This also applies to the case of the Italian Della, which is often rejected by cataloguers. English names are, however, to be arranged under the prefixes:
because these prefixes are meaningless in English, and form an integral part of the name.
Whatever rule is adopted, some difficulty will be found in carrying it out: for instance, if we consider Van Dyck as a foreigner, his name will appear as Dyck (Van); but if as an Englishman, his name will be treated as Vandyck.
A prefix which is translated into the relative term in a foreign language cannot be considered as a fixed portion of the name. Thus Alexander von Humboldt, when away from his native Germany, translated his name into Alexandre de Humboldt. The reason why prefixes are retained in English names is because they have no meaning in themselves, and cannot be translated. There is a difficulty here in respect to certain names with De before them; for instance, the Rothschilds call themselves De Rothschild, but when the head of the family in England was made a peer of the United Kingdom he became Lord Rothschild without the De. In fact, we have to come to the conclusion that when men think of making changes in their names they pay very little attention to the difficulties they are forging for the cataloguer and the indexer.
In this rule no mention is made of such out-of-the-way forms as Im Thurn and Ten Brink. It is very difficult to decide upon the alphabetical position of these names. If the indexer had to deal with a number of these curious prefixes, it would probably be well to ignore them; but when in the case of an English index they rarely occur, it will probably be better to put Im Thurn under I and Ten Brink under T.
With respect to the translation of foreign titles, the historian Freeman made a curious statement which is quoted in one of the American Q.P. indexes. Freeman wrote:
"No man was ever so clear [as Macaulay] from the vice of thrusting in foreign words into an English sentence. One sees this in such small matters as the accurate way in which he uses foreign titles. He speaks, for instance, of the 'Duke of Maine,' the 'Count of Avaux,' while in other writers one sees the vulgarism of the Court Circular, 'Duke de Maine,' 'Duc de Maine,'—perhaps 'Duc of Maine.'"
Duke de Maine and Duc of Maine may be vulgar, they are certainly incorrect; but I fail to see how it can be vulgar to call a man by his right name—"Duc de Maine." I do not venture to censure Macaulay, but for lesser men it is certainly a great mistake to translate the names of foreigners, in spite of Freeman's expression of his strong opinion.
6. Proper names with the prefix St., as St. Albans, St. John, to be arranged in the alphabet as if written in full—Saint. When the word Saint represents a ceremonial title, as in the case of St. Alban, St. Giles, and St. Augustine, these names are to be arranged under the letters A and G respectively; but the places St. Albans, St. Giles's, and St. Augustine's will be found under the prefix Saint. The prefixes M' and Mc to be arranged as if written in full—Mac.
This rule is very frequently neglected, more particularly in respect to the neglect of the difference between Saint Alban the man and St. Albans the place.
7. Peers to be arranged under their titles, by which alone in most cases they are known, and not under their family names, except in such a case as Horace Walpole, who is almost unknown by his title of Earl of Orford, which came to him late in life. Bishops, deans, etc., to be always under their family names.
About this rule there is great difference of opinion. The British Museum practice is to catalogue peers under their surnames, and the same plan has been adopted in the Dictionary of National Biography. It is rather difficult to understand how this practice has come into being. There are difficulties on both sides; but the great majority of peers are, I believe, known solely by their titles, and when these noblemen are entered under their family names cross references are required because very few persons know the family names of peers. The Library Association and Bodleian rules adopt the common-sense plan of entering noblemen under their titles, and Mr. Cutter gives some excellent reasons for doing this, although he cannot make up his mind to run counter to a supposed well-established rule. Mr. Cutter writes:
"Stanhope Philip Dormer, 4th Earl of Chesterfield.... This is the British Museum rule and Mr. Jewett's. Mr. Perkins prefers entry under titles for British noblemen also, in which I should agree with him if the opposite practice were not so well established. The reasons for entry under the title are that British noblemen are always spoken of, always sign by their titles only, and seldom put the family name upon the title-pages of their books, so that ninety-nine in a hundred readers must look under the title first. The reasons against it are that the founders of noble families are often as well known—sometimes even better—by their family name as by their titles (as Charles Jenkinson, afterwards Lord Liverpool; Sir Robert Walpole, afterwards Earl of Orford); that the same man bears different titles in different parts of his life (thus P. Stanhope published his History of England from the Peace of Utrecht as Lord Mahon, and his Reign of Queen Anne as Earl Stanhope); that it separates members of the same family (Lord Chancellor Eldon would be under Eldon, and his father and all his brothers and sisters under the family name, Scott), [Mr. Cutter forgot that Lord Eldon's elder brother William was also a peer—Lord Stowell] and brings together members of different families (thus the earldom of Bath has been held by members of the families of Chandé, Bourchier, Granville and Pulteney, and the family name of the present Marquis of Bath is Thynne), which last argument would be more to the point in planning a family history."
The advocates of the practice of arranging peers under their family names make much of the difficulties attendant on such changes of name as Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Alban's, Benjamin Disraeli (afterwards Earl of Beaconsfield), Sir John Lubbock (now Lord Avebury), and Richard Monckton Milnes (afterwards Lord Houghton). These, doubtless, are difficulties, but I believe that they amount in all to very few as compared with the cases on the other side.
This is a matter that might be settled by calculation, and it would be well worth while to settle it. Mr. Cutter says that ninety-nine in a hundred must look under the title first, but I doubt if the percentage be quite as high as this. If it were, it ought to be conclusive against any other arrangement than that under titles.
