How to Make an Index

CHAPTER III.

The Bad Indexer

"At the laundress's at the Hole in the Wall in Cursitor's Alley up three pair of stairs, the author of my Church history—you may also speak to the gentleman who lies by him in the flock bed, my index maker."—Swift's Account of the Condition of Edmund Curll (Instructions to a porter how to find Mr. Curll's authors).

BAD indexers are everywhere, and what is most singular is that each one makes the same sort of blunders—blunders which it would seem impossible that any one could make, until we find these same blunders over and over again in black and white. One of the commonest is to place the references under unimportant words, for which no one would think of looking, such as A and The. The worst indexes of this class are often added to journals and newspapers. A good instance of confusion will be found in the index to a volume of The Freemason which is before me; but this is by no means singular, and certainly not the worst of its class. Under A we find the following entries:

"Afternoon Outing of the Skelmersdale Lodge."

"An Oration delivered," etc.

"Annual Outing of the Queen Victoria Lodge."

"Another Masonic MS."

Under B:

"Bro. Bain's Masonic Library."

Under F:

"First Ball of the Fellowship Lodge.

"First Ladies' Night."

Under I:

"Interesting Extract from an 'Old Masonian's' Letter."

Under L:

"Ladies' Banquet."

"Ladies' Night."

"Ladies' Summer Outing."

"Late Bro. Sir B. W. Richardson."

Under N:

"New Grand Officers."

"New Home for Keighley Freemasons."

"New Masonic Hall."

Under O:

"Our Portrait Gallery."

Under R:

"Recent Festival."

Under S:

"Send-off dinner."

"Summer Festival."

"Summer Outing."

Under T:

"Third Ladies' Night."

Under Y:

"Ye olde Masonians."

There are many other absurd headings, but these are the worst instances. They show the confusion of not only placing references where they would never be looked for, but of giving similar entries all over the index under whatever heading came first to the mind of the indexer. For instance, there is one Afternoon Outing, one Annual Outing, one Ladies' Outing, one Summer Outing, and three other Outings under O. None of these have any references the one from the other.

There are a large number of indexes in which not only the best heading is not chosen, but the very worst is. Thus, choosing at random, we find such an order as the following in an old volume of the Canadian Journal:

"A Monograph of the British Spongiadæ."

"On the Iodide of Barium."

"Sir Charles Barry, a Biography."

"The late Professor Boole."

"The Mohawk Language."

The same misarrangement will sometimes be found even in standard English journals.

The edition of Jewel's Apology, published by Isaacson in 1825, contains an index which is worthy of special remark. It is divided into four alphabets, referring respectively to (1) Life; (2) Apology; (3) Notes to Life; (4) Notes to Apology; and this complicated machinery is attached to a book of only 286 pages. I think it is scarcely too much to say that there is hardly an entry in the index which would be of any use to the consulter. A few examples will show that this is not an unfair judgment:

"Belief of a Resurrection."

"Caution, Reformers proceeded with Caution."

"If Protestants are Heretics let the Papists prove them so from Scripture."

"In withdrawing themselves from the Church of Rome, Protestants have not erred from Christ and his Apostles."

"King John."

"The Pope assumes Regal power and habit."

"Ditto employs spies."

That this idiotic kind of index (which can be of no possible use to any one) is not yet extinct may be seen in one of those daintily printed books of essays which are now so common. In mercy I will not mention the title, but merely say that it was published in 1901. A few extracts will show the character of the work:

"A Book," etc.

"Is public taste," etc.

"On reading old books."

"The advantage," etc.

"The blessedness," etc.

"The Book-stall Reader."

"The Girl," etc.

"The Long Life," etc.

"The Preservative," etc.

"The Prosperity," etc.

"Two Classes of Literature."

There are many instances of such bad indexes, but it would be tedious to quote more of them. The amazing thing is that many persons unconnected with one another should be found to do the same ridiculous work, and suppose that by any possibility it could be of use to a single human being. But what is even more astounding is to find intelligent editors passing such useless rubbish and wasting good type and paper upon it.

Another prominent blunder in indexing periodicals is to follow in the index the divisions of the paper. In an alphabetical index there should be no classification, but the alphabet should be followed throughout. Nothing is so maddening to consult as an index in which the different divisions of the periodical are kept distinct, with a separate alphabet under each. It is hopeless to consult these, and it is often easier to turn over the pages and look through the volume than to refer to the index. The main object of an index is to bring together all the items on a similar subject which are separated in the book itself.

The indexes of some periodicals are good, but those of the many are bad. Mr. Poole and his helpers, who had an extensive experience of periodical literature, made the following rule to be observed in the new edition of Poole's Index to Periodical Literature:

"All references must be made from an inspection, and if necessary the perusal of each article. Hence, no use will be made of the index which is usually printed with the volume, or of any other index. Those indexes were made by unskilful persons, and are full of all sorts of errors. It will be less work to discard them entirely than to supply their omissions and correct their errors."

This rule is sufficiently severe, but it cannot be said that it is unjust.

Miss Hetherington, who has had a singularly large experience of indexes to periodicals, has no higher idea of these than Mr. Poole. In an article on "The Indexing of Periodicals" in the Index to the Periodical Literature of the World for 1892, she gives a remarkable series of instances of absurd entries. Some of these are due to the vicious habit of trying to save trouble by cutting up the lists of contents, and repeating the entries under different headings. Miss Hetherington's examples are well worth repeating; but as bad indexing is the rule, it is scarcely worth while to gibbet any one magazine, as most of them are equally bad. It is only amazing how any one in authority can allow such absurdities as the following to be printed. These six groups are from one magazine:

"Academy in Africa, A Monkey's."

"Africa, A Monkey's Academy in."

"Monkey's Academy in Africa, A."

"Aspects, The Renaissance in its Broader."

"Renaissance in its Broader Aspects, The."

"Campaign, His Last, and After."

"His Last Campaign, and After."

"Entertainment, The Triumph of the Variety."

"Triumph of the Variety Entertainment, The."

"Variety Entertainment, The Triumph of the."

"Evicted Tenants, The Irish, Are they Knaves?"

"Irish Evicted Tenants, The, Are they Knaves?"

"French Revolution, Scenes from the."

"Revolution, Scenes from the French."

"Scenes from the French Revolution."

Miss Hetherington adds, respecting this particular magazine: "But the whole index might be quoted. The indexer seems to have had three lists of contents for his purpose, but he has not always dared to use more than two, and so "The Irish Evicted Tenants" do not figure under the class "Knaves." The contributors are on another page, with figures only against their names, the cause of reference not being specified."

Equally absurd, and contrived on a similar system, are the following entries from another magazine:

"Eastern Desert on Foot, Through an."

"Foot, Through an Eastern Desert on."

"Through an Eastern Desert on Foot."

"Finds, The Rev. J. Sturgis's."

"Sturgis's Finds, The Rev. J."

"Complexion! What a Pretty."

"Pretty Complexion! What a."

"What a Pretty Complexion!"

These two groups are from a very prominent magazine:

"Creek in Demerara, Up a."

"Demerara, Up a Creek in."

"Up a Creek in Demerara."

"Home, The Russians at."

"Russians at Home, The."

"The Russians at Home."

In the foregoing, by giving three entries, one, by chance, may be correct; but in the following case there are two useless references:

"Baron de Marbot, The Memoirs of the."

"Memoirs of the Baron de Marbot, The."

But nothing under Marbot.

Some indexers have a fancy for placing authors under their Christian names, as these three from one index.

"Philip Bourke Marston."

"Rudyard Kipling."

"Walt Whitman."

These entries are amusing:

"Foot in it, On Putting One's."

"On Putting One's Foot in it."

Surely it is strange that such absurdities as these should continue to be published! Mr. Poole drew attention to the evil, and Miss Hetherington has done the same; yet it continues, and publishers are not ashamed to print such rubbish as that just instanced. We may add a quite recent instance—viz. Longman's Magazine for October, 1901, which contains an index to the thirty-eighth volume. It occupies two pages in double columns, and there are no duplicate entries. In that small space I find these useless entries:

"According to the Code" (not under Code).

"Disappearance of Plants" (not under Plants).

"Eighteenth Century London through French Eye-glasses" (not under London).

"Gilbert White" (not under White).

"Mission of Mr. Rider Haggard" (not under Haggard).

"Some Eighteenth Century Children's Books" (not under Children's Books).

"Some Notes on an Examination" (not under Examination).

The two chief causes of the badness of indexes are found—

1. In the original composition.

2. In the bad arrangement.

Of the first cause little need be said. The chief fault is due to the incompetence of the indexer, shown by his use of trivial references, his neglect of what should be indexed, his introduction of what might well be left out, his bad analysis, and his bad headings.

The second cause is still more important, because a competent indexer may prepare his materials well, and keep clear of all the faults noticed above, and yet spoil his work by neglect of a proper system of arrangement.

The chief faults under this second division consist of—

1. Want of complete alphabetisation.

2. Classification within the alphabet.

3. Variety of alphabets.

4. Want of cross references.

These are all considerable faults, and will therefore bear being enlarged upon.

1. The want of complete alphabetisation is a great evil, but it was very general at one time. In some old indexes references are arranged under the first letter only. In the index to a large and valuable map of England, published at the beginning of this century, the names of places are not arranged further than the third letter, and this naturally gives great trouble to the consulter. In order to save himself, the compiler has given others a considerably greater amount of trouble. In arranging entries in alphabetical order it is necessary to sort them to the most minute difference of spelling. The alphabetical arrangement, however, has its difficulties, which must be overcome; for instance, it looks awkward when the plural comes before the singular, and the adjective before the substantive from which it is formed, as "naval" and "navies" before "navy." In such cases it will be necessary to make a heading such as "Navy," which will include the plural and the adjective.

The vowel I should be kept distinct from the consonant J, and the vowel U from the consonant V.

More blunders have probably been made by the confusing of u and n in old books than from any other cause. These letters are identical in early manuscripts, and consequently the modern copyist has to decide which letter to choose, and sometimes he blunders.

In Capgrave's Chronicles of England is a reference to the "londe of Iude," but this is misspelt "Inde" in the edition published in the Master of the Rolls' Series in 1858. Here is a simple misprint caused by the misreading of I for J and n for u; but this can easily be set right. The indexer, however, has enlarged it into a wonderful blunder. Under the letter I is the following curious piece of information:

"India … conquered by Judas Maccabeus and his brethren, 56"!!

Many more instances of this confusion of the letters u and n might be given, some of them causing permanent confusion of names; but two (which are the complement of each other) will suffice.

George London was a very eminent horticulturist in his day, who at the Revolution was appointed Superintendent of the Royal Gardens; but he can seldom get his name properly spelt because a later horticulturist has made the name of Loudon more familiar. In fact, I was once called to account by a reviewer who supposed I had made a mistake in referring to London instead of Loudon. The reverse mistake was once made by the great Duke of Wellington. C. J. Loudon (who wrote a very bad hand) requested the Duke to let him see the Waterloo beeches at Stratfieldsaye. The letter puzzled Wellington, who knew nothing of the horticulturist, and read C. J. Loudon as C. J. London, and beeches as breeches; so he wrote off to the then Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield) to say that his Waterloo breeches disappeared long ago.

2. Classification within the alphabet.—Examples have already been given where the arrangement of the book is followed rather than the alphabetical order; but these were instances of bad indexing, and sometimes a good indexer fails in the same way, thus showing how important is good arrangement. An index of great complexity, one full of scientific difficulties, was once made by a very able man. The précis was admirable, and the various subjects were gathered together under their headings with great skill—in fact, it could not well have been more perfect; but it had one flaw which spoiled it. The nature of the index necessitated a large number of subdivisions under the various chief headings; these were arranged on a system clear to the compiler, and probably a logical one to him. But the user of the index had not the clue to this arrangement, and he could not find his way through the complicated maze; it was an unfortunate instance of extreme cleverness. When the index was finished, but before it was published, a simple remedy for the confusion was suggested and carried out. The whole of the subdivisions under each main heading were rearranged in perfect alphabetical order. This was a heroic proceeding, but it was highly successful, and the rearranged index gave satisfaction, and the same system was followed in other indexes that succeeded it.

3. Variety of alphabets.—An index should be one and indivisible, and should not be broken up into several alphabets. Foreigners are greater sinners against this fundamental rule than Englishmen, and they almost invariably separate the author or persons from subjects. Sometimes, however, the division is not very carefully made, for in the Autoren Register to Carus' and Engelmann's Bibliography of Zoology may be found the following entries: Schreiben, Schriften, Zu Humboldt's Cosmos, Zur Fauna. Some English books are much divided. Thus the new edition of Hutchins's Dorset (1874) has at the end eight separate indexes: (1) Places, (2) Pedigrees, (3) Persons, (4) Arms, (5) Blazons, (6) Glossarial, (7) Domesday, (8) Inquisitions.

The index to the original quarto edition of Warton's History of English Poetry (1774) has six alphabets, but a general index compiled by Thomas Fillingham, was published in 1804, uniform with the work in quarto. The general index to the Annual Register has as many as fourteen alphabets. The general index to the Reports of the British Association is split up into six alphabets, following the divisions of each volume.

4. Want of cross references.—Although an alphabetical index should not be classified, yet it is necessary to gather together the synonyms, and place all the references under the best of these headings, with cross references from the others. For instance, Wealth should be under W, Finance under F, and Population under P; and they should not all be grouped under Political Economy, because each of these subjects is distinct and more conveniently found under the separate heading than under a grouped heading. On the other hand, entries relating to Tuberculosis must not be scattered over the index under such headings as Consumption, Decline, and Phthisis, but be gathered together under the heading chosen, with cross references from the others. In bad indexes this rule is invariably broken, and it must be allowed that the proper carrying out of this rule is very difficult, so that where it is invariably adopted, we have one of the best signs of a really good index. Bad indexers are usually much too haphazard in their work to insert cross references.

The careful use of cross references is next in importance to the selection of appropriate headings. Great judgment, however, is required, as the consulters are naturally irritated by being referred backwards and forwards, particularly in a large index. At the same time, if judiciously inserted, such references are a great help. Mr. Poole says, in an article on his own index in the Library Journal: "If every subject shall have cross references to its allies, the work will be mainly a book of cross references rather than an index of subjects." He then adds: "One correspondent gives fifty-eight cross references under Mental Philosophy, and fifty-eight more might be added just as appropriate."

The indexer should be careful that his cross references are real, but he has not always attended to this. In Eadie's Dictionary of the Bible (1850) there is a reference, "Dorcas see Tabitha," but there is no entry under Tabitha at all.

In Cobbett's Woodlands there is a good specimen of backwards and forwards cross referencing. The author writes:

"Many years ago I wished to know whether I could raise birch trees from the seed.... I then looked into the great book of knowledge, the Encyclopædia Britannica; there I found in the general dictionary:

"'Birch tree—See Betula (Botany Index).'

"I hastened to Betula with great eagerness, and there I found:

"'Betula—See Beech tree.'

"That was all, and this was pretty encouragement."

William Morris used to make merry over the futility of some cross references. He was using a print of an old English manuscript which was full of notes in explanation of self-evident passages, but one difficult expression—viz. "The bung of a thrub chandler"—was left unexplained. In the index under Bung there was a reference to Thrub chandler, and under Thrub chandler another back to Bung. Still the lexicographers are unable to tell us what kind of a barrel a "thrub chandler" really was. I give this story on the authority of my friend, Mr. S. C. Cockerell.

No reference to the contents of a general heading which is without subdivision should be allowed unless of course the page is given.

There are too many vague cross references in the Penny Cyclopædia where you are referred from the known to the unknown. If a general heading be divided into sections, and each of these be clearly defined, they should be cross referenced, but not otherwise. At present you may look for Pesth and be referred to Hungary, where probably there is much about Pesth, but you do not know where to look for it in the long article without some clue. Sometimes cross references are mere expedients, particularly in the case of a cyclopædia published in volumes or parts. Thus a writer agrees to contribute an article early in the alphabet, but it is not ready in time for the publication of the part, so a cross reference is inserted which sends the reader to a synonym later on in the alphabet. In certain cases this has been done two or three times. An instance occurs in the life of the distinguished bibliographer, the late Henry Bradshaw (than whom no one was more capable of producing a masterly article), who undertook to write on "Printing" in the Encyclopædia Britannica. When the time for publication arrived (1885), Bradshaw was not ready, and in place of the article appeared the cross reference, "Printing, Typographic—See Typography." Bradshaw died on February 10, 1886, and the article on "Typography" which was published in Vol. 23 in 1888, was written by Mr. Hessels.

Cross referencing has its curiosities as well as other branches of our subject. Perhaps the most odd collection of cross references is to be found in Serjeant William Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown (1716; 5th ed., 1771; 7th ed., 4 vols., 1795), of which it was said in the Monthly Magazine for June, 1801 (p. 419): "A plain, unlettered man is led to suspect that the writer of the volume and the writer of the index are playing at cross purposes."

The following are some of the most amusing entries:

"Cards see Dice."

"Cattle see Clergy."

"Chastity see Homicide."

"Cheese see Butter."

"Coin see High Treason."

"Convicts see Clergy."

"Death see Appeal."

"Election see Bribery."

"Farthings see Halfpenny."

"Fear see Robbery."

"Footway see Nuisance."

"Honour see Constable."

"Incapacity see Officers."

"King see Treason."