the death of Mr. Gallager may easily be found, but the date of Mr.
Hesketh’s death cannot be found at all. The change of family name
is a source of confusion to those unacquainted with the niceties of
genealogy. Mr. Solly draws my attention to a case of this kind in
which the Heskeths changed their name in 1806 to Bamford by Act of
Parliament, and then subsequently obtained another Act to change it
back to Hesketh. Now the name is Lloyd-Hesketh-Bamford-Hesketh, which
is almost as complicated a series as Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer
Lytton, Lord Lytton.[46] This leads us to the rule by which peers are
to be arranged under their titles instead of their family names.[47]
The most usual and certainly most natural practice is so to arrange
them, but the British Museum rule is the reverse, and Mr. Cutter
followed the Museum rule in his full rules, although he did not approve
of it. In the short rules drawn up by Mr. Cutter and a Committee of
the American Library Association[48] this is judiciously altered and
some sound reasons are given for the later decision. The definition of
a name as “that by which a person or thing is known” would naturally
lead to the choice of Chesterfield as the name of the author of
Chesterfield’s Letters, because Stanhope is the name by which he is not
known. It is further added--
“In regard to one objection urged against entry under the
title, that it brings together members of different families
who at various times have had the same title, and that it
separates members of the same family who have held different
titles, the Committee cannot see what this has to do with
the question. The works of the various Smiths are put side
by side in the Catalogue, not because their authors belong
to the same family, which may or may not be the case, but
because their names are spelled alike and must be put
together if they are ever to be found in a Catalogue which is
arranged alphabetically. If the son of James Smith chooses
to uniformly spell his name Smythe he will be put not with
the ancestral Smiths, but among the Smy’s, because he will
be looked for there; and if he is Duke of Abercorn he should
be put under Abercorn for the same reason. A Catalogue is
not a biographical dictionary or a genealogical table, and
its efficiency is in danger of being lessened if its makers
confound the two purposes.”[49]
In some instances, such as Horace Walpole, the name by which the great
letter writer is always known, the rule must be broken, but double
references should be adopted in all doubtful cases; thus Bulwer’s
novels cannot be ignored, although their author’s name must be treated
as Lytton. Apropos of the sound rule that all theories as to the
separation of different members of the same family must be disregarded,
we may mention the case of a great composer. It would be impossible to
arrange the name of Meyerbeer under any other letter than _M_, although
by doing so we place him under his Christian name, and separate him
from his scientific brother Beer. There can hardly be a greater
absurdity than to ferret out a man’s earliest name, and place him under
that. In the British Museum Catalogue the works of Sir Francis Palgrave
are entered under _Cohen_, a name which 999 persons out of every
thousand never heard of in connexion with him.
Bishops, deans and others, holding official titles, must always be
arranged under their family names. It has been objected that reasons
which apply to peers apply also to them; but this is not really the
case, for a bishop is frequently referred to by his surname during his
lifetime, and always so after his death. He has but a life interest in
the name of his see. To illustrate this I would mention two eminent
contemporaries--John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, and Gilbert
Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury. We know the one as Duke of Marlborough and
the other as Bishop Burnet, and we should naturally turn to M. and B.
respectively for their names.
There are a few minor matters worthy of mention in this department of
name headings. The initials which stand for Christian names often give
much trouble, particularly among foreigners. Most Frenchmen consider
themselves too important and well known to need the use of Christian
names, and therefore _M._ usually stands for _Monsieur_; this cannot,
however, be taken for granted without inquiry, for it sometimes means
_Michel_ or other Christian name commencing with _M_. I have noticed
in a German periodical[50] some extreme cases of the careless use of
initials; and the three following will afford good specimens of this:
1. H. D. Gerling; 2. H. W. Brandes; 3. D. W. Olbers. Here all three
cases look alike, but in the first H. D. represent two titles--Herr
Doctor; in the second H. W. represent two Christian names--Heinrich
Wilhelm; and in the third, one title and one Christian name are
intended--Dr. W. Olbers. To some these points will appear trivial,
but they are not so to those who have undergone endless trouble in
unravelling the enigmas. The indexer should insert the names of
persons in all simplicity, and ruthlessly omit the Mr. so frequently
used by his author.[51] It was the neglect of this rule which angered
Dr. Johnson. Boswell records how, “happening to mention Mr. Flaxman,
a dissenting minister, with some compliment to his exact memory in
chronological matters, the Dr. replied, ‘Let me hear no more of him,
Sir. That is the fellow who made the Index to my Ramblers, and set down
the name of Milton thus: Milton, _Mr._ John.’”
It is amusing to find that in spite of this ebullition no means were
taken to remedy the evil. Johnson died in 1784, and yet in the twelfth
edition of the _Rambler_, dated 1791, which is now before me, I find
the same dishonouring title still retained. Besides _Mr._ Milton,
notices of _Mr._ Richard Baxter, _Mr._ Abraham Cowley, _Mr._ John
Dryden, _Mr._ Alexander Pope, and _Mr._ Edmund Spenser will be found in
the Index.
Oddities in names give trouble, and are frequently the cause of
blunders; for instance, there are living at the same time grandfather,
father and grandson, who all bear the same names. To distinguish
himself, the grandson adds the word _Tertius_ to his name, and his card
is printed as _John Smith Ter._ Now ‘Ter’ is so unusual an affix that a
hurried cataloguer or indexer might almost be excused for treating it
as Mr. Smith’s surname.
The signatures of Peers and Bishops are a source of trouble to many,
thus a certain eminent bookseller is said to have once received a
letter signed ‘George Winton,’ proposing the publication of a life of
Pitt, but, as he did not know the name, he paid no attention to the
letter, and was much astonished when he afterwards learnt that his
correspondent was no less a person than Pitt’s friend and former tutor,
George Pretyman Tomline Bishop of Winchester. This is akin to the
mistake of the Scotch doctor attending on the Princess Charlotte during
her illness, who said that ‘ane Jean Saroom’ had been continually
making inquiries, but not knowing the fellow he had taken no notice
of him. Thus the Bishop of Salisbury was treated with contempt by one
totally ignorant of his dignity. There is a reverse case of a catalogue
made by a worthy bookseller of the name of _William London_, which was
long supposed to be the work of Dr. William Juxon, the Bishop of London
at the time of publication.
A very amusing blunder of this class is said to have occurred lately.
A certain person received a document signed “Richmond & Gordon,” and
being imperfectly acquainted with the refinements of the peerage, he
directed his answer for the Duke to “Messrs. Richmond and Gordon.”
It has been suggested that all lists of errata in books should be
indexed, and there is no doubt that the chief items in these lists
should be referred to, as they are otherwise likely to be overlooked.
It is worse than useless to refer to a mis-statement in the text
without reference to the place where it is set right. This hint is the
more important, in that these mistakes are frequently repeated without
any notice being taken of the overlooked _errata_. The errata pointed
out in Sir Thomas Browne’s _Religio Medici_ (1643) were not corrected
in subsequent editions, and many other books have remained in similar
case. The first book with a printed errata is the Venice Juvenal of
1478, previously the mistakes had been corrected by the pen. One of the
longest lists of errata on record is in the edition of the works of
Picus of Mirandula, printed by Knoblauch of Strasburg in 1507, which
occupies fifteen folio pages. An English printer, however, has managed
to distance the foreigner in the race of carelessness, for a little
book of only 172 pages, entitled the “Anatomy of the Mass,” 1561,
has also a list of errata of fifteen pages. Dr. Johnson, referring
in his _Life of Lord Lyttelton_ to his subject’s _History of Henry
II._ (1773), speaks of the 19 pages of errata as something which “the
world had hardly seen before.” Disraeli gives, in his _Curiosities of
Literature_, some amusing instances of misreadings purposely inserted
in the text, with the sole object of being corrected in the errata.
Wherever the Inquisition had any power, particularly at Rome, the
use of the word fatum or fata in any book was strictly prohibited.
An author desirous of using the latter word, adroitly invented this
scheme: he had printed in his book _facta_, and in the errata he
put, for _facta_ read _fata_. Scarron did the same thing on another
occasion. He had composed some verses, at the head of which he placed
this dedication: _A Guillemette, chienne de ma Sœur_; but, having a
quarrel with his sister, he maliciously put in the _errata_, instead of
_Chienne de ma Sœur_ read _ma chienne de Sœur_.
III.
Some Indexers suppose that their work is complete when they have made
their Index, but they need to prepare their copy for the press, and
also to see that their instructions are carried out by the printer.
Much of the value of an Index depends upon the mode in which it
is printed, and every endeavour should be made to set it out with
clearness. It was not the practice in old Indexes to bring the Indexed
word to the front, but to leave it in its place in the sentence, so
that the alphabetical order was not made perceptible to the eye. This
is now changed, but the evil still exists in the newspaper lists of
Births, Deaths and Marriages, more especially in those of the _Times_.
When the penny papers were started they introduced the improvement
of setting the name at the beginning of the entry as a heading. The
_Times_ took the hint from its less august contemporaries, but would
not condescend to copy them completely, so that the extent of the
change was the printing of the names in small capitals. It is to be
hoped that at some future day this pride may be overcome and the
public be allowed to enjoy the convenience of reading the name first.
The inconvenience of the present system is greatest in the marriage
advertisements, where the officiating clergy, about whom the reader
cares nothing, take precedence, and crowd out of sight the hero and
heroine. _Punch_ had a good skit on this nuisance once, and said that
when a poor man was thus hidden under a pile of parsons it became
impossible to know what really had happened to him; whether he was in
fact born, married, dead, or bankrupt!
Where the reduction of space is not an object, the titles of each
article should be made to occupy a separate line, by which means the
headings are brought more prominently before the eye. There are few
points in which the printer is more likely to go wrong (if not watched)
than in the use of marks of repetition, and many otherwise good Indexes
are full of the most perplexing instances of their misapplication. The
dash is a far better mark of repetition than mere indentation, but
it must be kept for entries exactly similar.[52] The neglect of this
rule leads to the perpetration of the greatest absurdities, thus the
oft-quoted instance--
“Mill on Liberty
---- on the Floss.”
is not an invention, but actually occurred in a catalogue. The
following are good examples of what to avoid.
From the Index of the _Companion to the Almanac_ (Lond. 1843)
New Albion
---- Annuities
---- Bread
---- Brentford
Bartholomew Massacre
---- Lane
Brimstone, duty on
---- butterfly
Cotton, Sir Willoughby
----, price of,
Old Stratford Bridge
---- Style
---- Swinford
From the Index of _Pepys’s Diary_ (various editions)
Child, Mr.
---- of Hales, the, a giant
Court ladies, masculine attire of the
---- of Arches
Fish, method of preserving
----, Mrs.
Ireland, state of affairs in, &c.
----, a cooper
Katherine Hall, Cambridge
---- Pear
---- of Valois
---- the Man of War
---- Yacht
Kentish Knock, the, a Shoal
---- Town
Lamb’s Conduit
---- Wool
Old age
---- Artillery Yard
---- Bailey
Orange Moll
----, old Prince of
Scotland, state of
---- Yard
The opposite evil of repeating the heading, even when identical, is
rarer, but almost as confusing.
It is so easy to confuse two men of the same name together that every
help towards keeping them distinct which the printer can give should be
adopted. We have already drawn attention to this point, but it is so
important a matter that the reader will perhaps excuse the insertion
here of two more anecdotes to close the subject with. An Englishman on
a visit to the United States carried with him a letter of introduction
to Dr. Channing, but through inadvertence he called upon the great
man’s brother, who was a physician. The doctor soon found out that the
visit was not intended for him, so he said to the Englishman: “You have
made a mistake, it is the Dr. Channing who preaches that you want, I am
the Dr. Channing who practises.”
Very sore feelings are apt to be engendered between men who are
constantly being confused together, and in the following case one of
the parties did not adopt the means best suited to heal differences,
but laid himself open to a well-merited rebuke. Two men bearing the
same names lived in the same country town. One was a clergyman of
the Church of England, and the other was a Dissenting minister. On
a certain occasion the clergyman received a letter intended for the
minister, which he forwarded with a note to this effect--“Had you
not taken a title (Rev.) to which you have no claim, this mistake
would not have occurred.” Shortly afterwards a parcel containing some
lithographed sermons intended for the clergyman were delivered by
mistake to the minister, who sent them on with this note--“Had you not
undertaken an office for which you appear to be unfitted, this mistake
would not have occurred.”
In the previous pages a few of the chief difficulties of the
Index-maker have been commented upon: stumbling-blocks with which he is
too well acquainted, but which are very generally ignored by others.
He must endeavour to attain perfection, but he will always have the
unpleasant feeling that something may have been missed, and so strong
was this feeling with a contributor to the _Notes and Queries_ that he
sent the following acrostic as a motto for an Index:--[53]
I I
N never
D did
E ensure
X exactness
The Index-maker of modern days must needs depend upon himself, for he
has not the help that the young man mentioned by Giraldus had when
he could discern the false passages in a book by the crowd of devils
which they attracted. Such _devils_ as these would be invaluable in a
printing office!
If, however, the Indexer, in common with the Bibliographer, has
his troubles, he has his reward, for we have already seen that the
claims of a big book to notice have been grounded upon its possession
of a good index, and De Morgan, when entering his own Elements of
Arithmetic in the account of _Arithmetical Books_, writes:--“Books of
Bibliography last longer than elementary works, so that I have a chance
of standing in a list to be made two centuries hence, which the book
itself would certainly not procure me.”
There is, therefore, hope for us that when our other works are
forgotten, we may still live as the compilers of an index.
* * * * *
[Since the previous pages have been printed off, I have been told by
Dr. Greenhill of Hastings that our late learned friend Thomas Watts of
the British Museum spoke to him about the formation of an Index Society
as early as the year 1842.
I am also able, through the kindness of Mr. Macray, to illustrate the
printer’s blunder on page 53 from a work by one of the most careful and
trustworthy of editors, viz., “Historie of ... Edward IV. 1471,” edited
by John Bruce 1838 (Camden Society). At p. 7 we read: “Wherefore the
Kynge may say as Julius Cæsar sayde, he that is nat agaynst me is with
me.”]
* * * * *
The following rules have been drawn up by the Committee, in order to
obtain uniformity in the compilation of their Indexes. They are not
considered as final, and can be added to as occasion may require.
In some few points the respective rules for Cataloguing and for
Indexing are identical, but in the majority of instances the rules made
for the former will not apply to the latter.
Those who require rules for Cataloguing should obtain the British
Museum Rules, Mr. Cutter’s full Rules, forming the second part of the
Special Report on American Libraries, and the short Rules drawn up by
a Committee of the American Library Association, and printed in the
Library Journal.
RULES FOR OBTAINING UNIFORMITY IN THE INDEXES OF BOOKS.
1.--Every work should have one Index for the whole set and not an Index
to each volume.
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.
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.
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:--
_Grave_, John, } {Grave at Kherson.
_Grave_ at Kherson} {Grave, John.
_Grave_ of Hope } not {Gravelot.
_Grave_ Thoughts } {Grave of Hope.
_Gravelot_ } {Gravesend.
_Gravesend_ } {Grave Thoughts.
5.--Proper Names of foreigners to be alphabetically arranged under the
prefixes:--
_Dal_ } {_Dal Sie_.
_Del_ } {_Del Rio_.
_Della_} as {_Della Casa_.
_Des_ } {_Des Cloiseaux_.
_Du_ } {_Du Bois_.
_La_ } {_La Condamine_.
_Le_ } {_Le Sage_.
but _not_ under the prefixes:--
_D’_ as _Abbadie_ not _D’Abbadie_.
_Da_ ” _Silva_ ” _Da Silva_.
_De_ ” _La Place_ ” _De La Place_.
_Von_ ” _Humboldt_ ” _Von Humboldt_.
_Van_ ” _Beneden_ ” _Van Beneden_.
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
_De_ } {_De Quincey_.
_Dela_} as {_Delabeche_.
_Van_ } {_Van Mildert_.
because these prefixes are meaningless in English and form an integral
part of the name.
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 to be arranged under the
letters A and G respectively; but the places St. Albans, St. Giles’s,
and St. Augustines will be found under the prefix _Saint_. The prefixes
M‘ and Mc to be arranged as if written in full _Mac_.
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.
8.--Foreign compound names to be arranged under the first name, as
_Lacaze Duthiers_, English compound names under the last, except in
such cases as _Royston-Pigott_, where the first name is a true surname.
The first name in a foreign compound is, as a rule, the surname, but
the first name in an English compound is usually a mere Christian name.
9.--An Adjective frequently to be preferred to a substantive as a
catchword, for instance, when it contains the point of the compounds,
as _Alimentary_ Canal, _English_ History. Also when the compound forms
a distinctive name, as _Soane_ Museum.
10.--The entries to be as short as is consistent with intelligibility,
but the insertion of names without _specification of the cause of
reference_ to be avoided, except in particular cases. The extent of the
references, when more than one page, to be marked by giving the first
and last pages.
11.--Short entries to be repeated under such headings as are likely to
be required, in place of a too frequent use of cross references. These
references, however, to be made from cognate headings, as _Cerebral_ to
_Brain_ and _vice versa_, where the subject matter is different.
12.--In the case of Journals and Transactions brief abstracts of the
contents of the several articles or papers to be drawn up and arranged
in the alphabetical index under the heading of the article.
13.--Authorities quoted or referred to in a book to be indexed under
each author’s name, the titles of his works being separately set out,
and the word ‘quoted’ added in italics.
14.--When the indexed page is large, or contains long lists of names,
it is to be divided into four sections, referred to respectively as
_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_; thus if a page contains 64 lines, 1-16 will be _a_,
17-32 _b_, 33-48 _c_, 49-64 _d_. If in double columns, the page is
still to be divided into four: _a_ and _b_ forming the upper and lower
halves of the first column, and _c_ and _d_ the upper and lower halves
of the second column.
15.--When a work is in more than one volume, the number of the volume
is to be specified by small Roman numerals. In the case of long sets,
such as the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, a special Arabic numeral for
indicating the volume distinct from the page numeral may be employed
with advantage.
16.--Entries which refer to complete chapters or distinct papers, to be
printed in small capitals.
17.--Headings to be printed in a marked type. A dash, instead of
indentation, to be used as a mark of repetition. The dash to be
kept for entries exactly similar, and the word to be repeated when
the second differs in any way from the first. The proper name to be
repeated when that of a different person. In the case of joint authors,
the Christian names or initials of the first, whose surname is arranged
in the alphabet, to be in parentheses, but the Christian names of the
second to be in the natural order, as _Smith_ (John) and Alexander
_Brown_, not _Smith_ (John) and _Brown_ (Alexander).
* * * * *
The above rules do not apply to Subject Indexes, and in certain cases
may need modification in accordance with the special character of the
work to be indexed. In all cases specimens of the index must be seen by
the Committee before it is finally put in hand.
PRELIMINARY LIST OF ENGLISH INDEXES.
Immediately on the formation of the Index Society, Mr. Peacock
suggested the publication of a List of such Indexes as have been
published in separate volumes, and his suggestion was accepted as
one that ought to be carried out. The difficulty then arose as to
what constituted an Index; for instance, many actual Indexes are
not so called, and such books as the _Index Expurgatorius_ are not
really Indexes at all. It was also found that the list would be very
extensive and would take up considerable time in compilation. Under
these circumstances I proposed to add to my account of Index work a
preliminary list of such Indexes as came in my way, and indulgence
is asked for the following catalogue, as it is a mere skeleton of
one division of the subject. I shall be greatly obliged if readers
will send me notice of Foreign Indexes as well as of English ones not
mentioned here, so that materials for a full catalogue to be prepared
hereafter may be gathered together.