All persons who, whatever might be their motive, have followed any
subject of literary research, must be aware of the extent to which their
labours are facilitated or retarded by the mechanical arrangements of
books, such as the goodness of paper, the legibility of type, the size
of volumes, the presence or absence of table of contents, indexes, and
other means of reference. It is in the possession of these conveniences
that the capabilities of typography, and its superiority over
manuscript, mainly consist. I propose now to set down a few remarks on
this subject, in the hope that any means, however trifling they may
seem, by which literary knowledge is rendered more commodious and
accessible, will not be deemed unworthy of attention by your readers.
With regard to the form of printed letters, it is difficult to conceive
any improvement in modern typography, as practised in Italy, France, and
England. This is equally true of Roman and Greek characters. The Greek
types introduced by Porson leave nothing to be desired. The Germans
still to a great extent retain the old black-letter type for native
works, which was universal over all the north of Europe in the early
period of printing, and is not a _national_ type, as some persons seem
to imagine. These letters being imitated from the manuscript characters
of the fifteenth century, are essentially more indistinct than the Roman
type, and have for that reason been disused by the rest of Europe,
Holland and Denmark not excepted. In England this antiquated mode of
printing was long retained for law-books, and, till a comparatively
recent date, for the statutes. The Anglo-Saxon letters are in like
manner nothing but a barbarous imitation of old manuscript characters,
and have no real connexion with the Anglo-Saxon language. Their use
ought to be wholly abandoned (with the exception of those which are
wanting in modern English). Roman numerals, likewise, as being less
clear and concise than Arabic numerals, especially for large numbers,
ought to be discarded, except in cases where it is convenient to
distinguish the volume from the page, and the book from the chapter.
English lawyers, indeed, who in general have only occasion to cite the
volume and page, invariably make their quotations with Arabic figures,
by prefixing the number of the volume, and subjoining the number of the
page. Thus, if it were wished to refer to the 100th page of the second
volume of _Barnewall and Alderson's Reports_, they would write _2 B. &
C. 100_. Roman numerals are still retained for the sections of the
statutes.
Akin to the retention of antiquated forms of letters is the retention of
antiquated orthography. Editors of works of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries sometimes retain the spelling of the period, of
which Evelyn's _Diary_ is an example; but this practise is unpleasant to
the modern reader, and sometimes, particularly in proper names,
perplexes and misleads him. The modern editions of the classical writers
of that period, such as Shakspeare, Bacon, Milton, Clarendon, &c., are
very properly reduced to the modern standard of orthography, as is done
by Italian editors with the works of Dante, Boccaccio, &c. The attempt
to introduce the native orthography of foreign proper names naturalised
in English, is likewise unsuccessful, and merely offends the eye of the
reader, without giving any real information. Mr. Lane and other
Orientalists will never succeed in banishing such forms as _vizier_,
_caliph_, _cadi_, &c., nor will even Mr. Grote's authority alter the
spelling of the well-known Greek names. Names of ancient persons and
places which are enshrined in the verses of Milton and other great
poets, cannot be altered.
The old unmeaning practice of printing every noun substantive with a
capital letter (still retained in German) has been abandoned by every
English printer, except the printer of parliamentary papers for the
House of Lords. Proper names used to be printed in italics; and
generally, the use of italics was much greater than at present. In
modern reprints, these ancient flowers of typography ought to be
removed. The convenient edition of Hobbes' _Works_, for which we are
indebted to Sir W. Molesworth, would be more agreeable to read if the
italics were less abundant.
The use of the folio and quarto size is now generally restricted to such
books as could scarcely be printed in octavo, as dictionaries and
similar books of reference. The parliamentary blue book, which long
resisted the progress of octave civilization, is now beginning to shrink
into a more manageable size. With regard to separate volumes, the most
convenient practice is to consider them as a mere printer's division,
which may vary in different editions; and to number them consecutively,
without reference to their contents. The Germans have a very
inconvenient practice of dividing a volume into parts, each of which is
a volume in the ordinary meaning of the word; so that a work consisting
of nine volumes, for example, may be divided into four volumes, one of
which consists of three parts, and the other three of two parts each.
The result is, that every reference must specify both the volume and the
part: thus, Band II. Abtheilung III. S. 108. Frequently, too, this mode
of numbering misleads the bookbinder, who (unless properly cautioned)
numbers the volumes in the ordinary manner.
Volumes, as I have remarked, are merely a printer's division. Every
literary composition ought, however, to have an organic division of its
own. The early Greeks seem indeed to have composed both their poems and
prose works as one continuous discourse. The rhapsodies of Homer and the
muses of Herodotus were subsequent divisions introduced by editors and
grammarians. But literary experience pointed out the commodiousness of
such breaks in a long work; and the books of the _Æneid_ and of the
_History of Livy_ were the divisions of the authors themselves. Since
the invention of printing, the books of the prose works of the classical
writers have been subdivided into chapters; while for the books of
poems, as well as for the dramas, the verses have been numbered. The
books of the Old and New Testament have likewise been portioned into
chapters, and into a late typographical division of verses.
In making a division of his work, an author ought to number its parts
consecutively, without reference to volumes. The novels of Walter Scott
are divided into chapters, the numbering of which is dependent on the
volume; so that it is impossible to quote them without referring to the
edition, or to find a reference to them in any other edition than that
cited. For the same reason, an author ought not to quote his own book in
the text by a reference to volumes.
The division most convenient for purposes of reference is that which
renders a quotation simple to note, and easy to verify. Divisions which
run through an entire work (such as the chapters of Gibbon's _History_)
are easy to quote, and the quotation can be easily verified when the
chapter is not long. The numbering of paragraphs in one series through
an entire work, as in the French codes, in Cobbett's writings, and in
the state papers of the Indian government, is the simplest and most
effectual division for purposes of reference. The Digest can now be
referred to by book, title, and paragraph; nevertheless the Germans
(who, notwithstanding their vast experience in the work of quoting, seem
to have a predilection for cumbrous and antiquated methods) still adhere
to the old circuitous mode of quotation, against which Gibbon long ago
raised his voice (_Decl. and Fall_, c. 44. n. 1.).
Some works have been divided by their authors into chapters, but the
chapters have been left unnumbered. Niebuhr's _Roman History_ is in this
state.
The internal division of a work by its author is not, however, merely
for purposes of reference. It may likewise be a _logical_ division; it
may follow the distribution of the subject, and assist the reader by
visibly separating its several parts. This process, however, may be
carried so far as to defeat its purpose (viz. perspicuity of
arrangement) by the intricacy of its divisions. Here again we must
recur for an example to the Germans, who sometimes make the compartments
of their writings as numerous as a series of Chinese boxes all fitted
into each other. First, there is the part, then the book, then the
chapter, then the section, then the article, and then the paragraph,
which is itself subdivided into paragraphs with Roman numerals and
Arabic numerals; and these again are further subdivided into paragraphs
with Roman letters, and Greek letters, and sometimes Hebrew letters. To
refer to a work divided in this manner by any other means than the
volume and page, is a labour of as hopeless intricacy as it is to follow
the logical cascade down its successive platforms.
It is a considerable convenience where the book or chapter is marked at
the head or margin of the page; and in histories, or historical memoirs,
chronological notation is very convenient.
In general no book (not being a book arranged in alphabetical order, as
a dictionary, encyclopedia, &c.) ought to be printed without a _table of
contents_. The trouble to the author of making a table of contents is
very small, and the expense to the publisher in printing it is in
general imperceptible. Modern English books rarely sin in this respect;
foreign books, however, both French and German, are frequently wanting
in a table of contents. The invaluable collection of the fragments of
Greek historians lately published in Didot's Series--a work
indispensable to every critical student of ancient history--has no table
of contents, referring to the pages, prefixed to each volume. The _Poetæ
Scenici Græci_ of Dindorf is without a table of contents; and a similar
want is a serious drawback to the use of the cheap and portable edition
of the Greek and Latin classics published by Tauchnitz at Leipsic.
Lastly, an _index_ adds materially to the value of every work which
contains numerous and miscellaneous facts. The preparation of a good
index is a laborious and sometimes costly task; the printing of it,
moreover, adds to the price of the book. Many of the indexes to the
English law-books are models of this species of labour; the indexes in
the Parliamentary Reports are likewise prepared with great care and
intelligence. Even a meagre index, however, is better than no index at
all; and where the publisher's means, and the demand for the book, do
not admit of the preparation of a copious index of subjects, an
alphabetical list of names of persons and places would often be an
acceptable present to the reader of an historical or scientific work.