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."

hese 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 _ae_, _oe_, _ue_, and arranged as _a_, _o_, _u_." By this Goethe would have to be written Goethe, 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 _ae_, _oe_, _ue_, 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_:

_Grave_, John } { _Grave_ at Kherson
_Grave_ at Kherson } { _Grave_, John
_Grave_ of Hope } { _Gravelot_
_Grave_ Thoughts } not { _Grave_ of Hope
_Gravelot_ } { _Gravesend_
_Gravesend_ } { _Grave_ Thoughts.

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]

[18] Miss Hetherington gives an additional instance of this
class of blunder, but her only authority is "said to be
from the index of a young lady's scrap book":

"Patti, Adelina,
---- oyster."

The example in the text is absolutely genuine, although
it has been doubted.

"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_--

_Dal_ } { _Dal Sie_
_Del_ } { _Del Rio_
_Della_ } { _Della Casa_
_Des_ } as { _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._

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
Chande, 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.

Moreover, these instances do not really meet the case, for they belong to another class, which has to be dealt with in cataloguing--that is, those who change their names. When a man succeeds to a peerage he changes his name just as a Commoner may change his name in order to succeed to a certain property.

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._

This rule is open to some special difficulties. It can be followed with safety in respect to foreign names, but special knowledge is required in respect to English names. Of late years a large number of persons have taken a fancy to bring into prominence their last Christian name when it is obtained from a surname. They then hyphen their Christian name with their surname, because they wish to be called by both. The Smiths and the Joneses commenced the practice, but others have followed their lead. The indexer has no means of telling whether in a hyphened name the first name is a real surname or not, and he needs to know much personal and family history before he can decide correctly.

Hyphens are used most recklessly nowadays, and the user has no thought of the trouble he gives to the indexer. If the Christian name is hyphened to the surname, and all the family agree to use the two together as their surname, the indexer must treat the compound name as a true surname. Often a hyphen is used merely to show that the person bearing the names wishes to be known by both, but with no intention of making the Christian name into a surname. Thus a father may not give all his children the same Christian name, but change it for each individual, as one son may be James Somerset-Jones and another George Balfour-Jones. In such a case as this the hyphen is quite out of place, and Jones must still be treated as the only surname. No one has a right to expect his Christian name to be treated as a surname merely by reason of his joining the Christian name to the surname by a hyphen. He must publicly announce his intention of treating his Christian name as a surname, or change it by Act of Parliament. Even when the name is legally changed, there is often room for confusion. The late Mr. Edward Solly, F.R.S., who was very interested in these inquiries, drew my attention to the fact that the family of Hesketh changed their name in 1806 to Bamford by Act of Parliament, and subsequently obtained another Act to change it back to Hesketh. The present form of the family names is Lloyd-Hesketh-Bamford-Hesketh.

With respect to Spanish and Portuguese names it is well to bear in mind that there are several surnames made from Christian names, as, for instance, Fernando is a Christian name and Fernandez is a surname, just as with us Richard is a Christian name and Richards a surname.

9. _An adjective is frequently to be preferred to a
substantive as a catchword; for instance, when it contains the
point of the compound, as Alimentary Canal, English History;
also when the compound forms a distinctive name, as Soane
Museum._

The object of this rule is often overlooked, and many indexers purposely reject the use of adjectives as headings. One of the most marked instances of an opposite rule may be seen in the index to Hare's _Walks in London_ (1878), where all the alleys, bridges, buildings, churches, courts, houses, streets, etc., are arranged under these headings, and not under the proper name of each. There may be a certain advantage in some of these headings, but few would look for Lisson Grove under Grove, and the climax of absurdity is reached when Chalk Farm is placed under Farm.

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 indicating the first and last pages._

This rule requires to be carried out with judgment. Few things are more annoying than a long string of references without any indication of the cause of reference, but on the other hand it is objectionable to come across a frivolous entry. The consulter is annoyed to find no additional information in the book to what is already given in the index. It will therefore be found best to set out the various entries in which some fact or opinion is mentioned, and then to gather together the remaining references under the heading of _Alluded to_.

The most extreme instances of annoying block lists of references under a name are to be found in Ayscough's elaborate index to the _Gentleman's Magazine_, where all the references under one surname are placed together without even the distinction of the Christian name. The late Mr. Edward Solly made a curious calculation as to the time that would be employed in looking up these references. For instance, under the name Smith there are 2,411 entries _en masse_, and with no initial letters. If there were these divisions, one would find Zachary Smith in a few minutes, but now one must look to each reference to find what is wanted. With taking down the volumes and hunting through long lists of names, Mr. Solly found that two minutes were occupied in looking up each reference; hence it might take the consulter eight days (working steadily ten hours a day) to find out if there be any note about Zachary Smith in the magazine, a task which no one would care to undertake.

A like instance of bad indexing will be found in Scott's edition of Swift's _Works_. Here there are 638 references to Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, without any indication of the reason why his name is entered in the index. This case also affords a good instance of careless indexing in another particular, for these references are separated under different headings instead of being gathered under one, as follows:

Harley (Robert) 277 references.
Oxford (Lord) 111 "
Treasurer, Lord Oxford 300 "

The late Mr. B. R. Wheatley read a paper before the Conference of Librarians (1877) on this subject of indexes, without details of the reason or cause of reference, entitled, "An 'Evitandum' in Index-making, principally met with in French and German Periodical Scientific Literature" (_Transactions_, p. 88). He pointed out that often in German Indexes the entries in the _Sach Register_ would be full and correct, while those in the _Namen Register_ would usually be meagre, and consist merely of the surnames of the authors and the initials of their Christian names. He then referred to many instances of the uselessness of these indexes. He further referred to the forty so-called indexes of subjects added to Allibone's valuable _Critical Dictionary of English Literature_, which are practically useless. He concluded his paper with these words:

"You are referred to the 'Morals and Manners' index for such
varied subjects as Apparitions, Divorce, Marriage, Duelling,
Freemasonry, Mormonism, Mythology, Spiritualism and Witchcraft.
There are 1,365 names in this index, and how are you to discover
which belong to any of the above subjects without wading through
the whole? It is, in fact, an entire system of indexing
backwards from particulars to generals, instead of from generals
to particulars. It is something like writing on a sign-post on
the road to Bath, 'To Somersetshire,' and if in one phrase I
were to add a characteristic entry to these sub-indexes, or to
give one form of reference which should be typical of this style
of index, I should say--Needle, _see_ Bottle of Hay. You find
the bottle of hay--but where is the needle?"

The form in which the various entries in an index are to be drawn up is worthy of much attention, and particular care should be taken to expunge all redundant words. For example, it would be better to write:

"Smith (John), his character; his execution,"

than

"Smith (John), character of; execution of";

or

"Brown (Robert) saves money,"

than

"Brown (Robert), saving of money by."

A good instance of the frivolous entry is the hackneyed quotation,

"Best (Mr. Justice), his great mind,"

which is supposed to be a reference to a passage in this form: "Mr. Justice Best said that he had a great mind to commit the man for trial." This particular reference is almost too good to be true, and I have not been able to trace it to its source. That has been said to be in the index to one of Chitty's law-books, and it is added that possibly Chitty had a grudge against Sir William Draper Best, one of the Puisne Judges of the King's Bench from 1819 to 1824, and Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 1824 to 1829, in which latter year he was created Lord Wynford. Another explanation is that it was a joke of Leigh Hunt's, who first published it in the _Examiner_.

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._

Cross references are very useful, but they are not usually popular with those who are unaccustomed to them. They ought to be used where the number of references under a certain heading is large, but it is always better to duplicate the references than to refer too often to insignificant entries.

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._

The advantage of this plan is that a _precis_ can be made of the articles or papers which will be useful to the reader as containing an abstract of the contents, much of which might not be of sufficient importance to be sorted out in the alphabet; in the case where the entries are important they can be duplicated in the alphabet. A good specimen of this plan of indexing may be found in the indexes to the Journal of the Statistical Society.

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._

This rule is quite clear, and there is nothing to be added to it. It is evident that all books quoted should be indexed.

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._

This division of the page will often be found very useful, and save much time to the consulter.

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._

The frequent use of high numbers in Roman capitals is very inconvenient.

16. _Entries which refer to complete chapters or distinct
papers, to be printed in small capitals or italics._

This is useful as indicating that the italic entry is of more importance than those in Roman type.

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 name 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)._

Dashes should be of a uniform length, and that length should not be too great. It is a mistake to suppose that the dash is to be the length of the line which is not repeated. If it be necessary to make the repetition of a portion of the title as well as the author, this should be indicated by another dash, and not by the elongation of the former one.

The reason for the last direction in this rule is that the Christian name is only brought back in order to make the alphabetical position of the surname clear; and as this is not necessary in respect to the second person, the names should remain in their natural order.

The initials which stand for Christian names often give much trouble, particularly among foreigners. Most Frenchmen use the letter M. to stand for monsieur, giving no Christian name; but sometimes M. stands for Michel or other Christian name commencing with M. The Germans are often very careless in the use of initials, and I have found in one index of a scientific periodical the following specimens of this confusion: (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--Dr. W. Olbers.

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. On the whole, it may be said that an alphabetical index is the best; but under special circumstances it may be well to have a classified index. Generally it may be said that there are special objections to classification, and therefore if a classified index is decided upon, it must needs be exceptional, and rules must be made for it by the maker of the index.

In the foregoing rules no mention is made of the difficulties attendant on the use of Oriental names. Under "Rules for a Small Library" in _How to Catalogue a Library_, I wrote:

"7. Oriental names to be registered in accordance with the
system adopted by a recognised authority on the subject."

This, however, is only shifting the responsibility. In an ordinary English index this point is not likely to give much trouble, and the rule may be safely adopted of registration under the first name. But where there are many names to be dealt with, difficulties are sure to arise. In India the last name is usually adopted, and the forenames are frequently contracted into initials, so that it is obligatory to use this name. We must never forget the practical conclusion that a man's real name is that by which he is known. But the indexer's difficulty in a large number of cases is that he does not know what that name is. Sir George Birdwood has kindly drawn up for me the following memorandum on the subject, which is of great value, from the interesting historical account of the growth of surnames in India under British rule which he gives.

ON THE INDEXING OF THE NAMES OF
EASTERN PEOPLE.

Confining myself to the people--Parsees, Hindoos, and Mussulmans
(_muslimin_)--of India, I find it very difficult to state an
unexceptionable rule for the indexing of their names; and I
index them in the order in which they are signed by the people
themselves. The first or forename of a Parsee or a Hindoo, but
not of a Mussulman if he be a Pathan, is his own personal or, as
we say, "Christian"--that is, baptismal or "water"--name; and
their second their father's personal name, and not his family
or, as we say, "blood" name, or true surname. The naming of
individuals in the successive generations of a Parsee or Hindoo,
and certain Mussulmanee families, runs thus: A. G., N. A., U.
N., and so on, the grandfather's name disappearing in the third
generation.

The Parsees only in comparatively recent times adopted family or
true surnames derived from the personal or paternal names, or
both, of the first distinguished member of the family, or from
his occupation or place of residence, or from some notable
friend or patron of his, or from some title conferred on him by
the ruler whose subject he was. Thus the Patels of Bombay are
descended from Rustom (the son of) Dorabjee, who, for the
assistance he gave the English in 1692 against the Seedee of
Junjeera, was created, by _sanad_ (_i.e._ patent), _patel_
(_i.e._ mayor) of the Coolees of Bombay.

The Parsee Ashburners derive their patronymic from an ancestor
in the early part of the late century, the friend and associate
of a well-known English gentleman then resident in Western
India. The Bhownaggrees take their name from an ancestor, a
wealthy _jaghirdar_, who in 1744 built a tank of solid stone for
public use at Bhavnagar in Kattyawar, and also from their later
official connection with this well-known "model Native State."
The Jamsetjee Jejeebhoys and Comasjee Jehanghiers derive their
double-barreled surnames from the first baronet and knight,
respectively, of these two eminent Parsee families. Other
well-known Parsee surnames are Albless, Bahadurjee, Banajee,
Bengalee, Bhandoopwala, Bharda, Cama (or Kama), Dadysett,
Damanwala, Gamadia, Gazdar, Ghandi, Kapadia, Karaka, Khabrajee,
Kharagat, Kohiyar, Marzban, Modee, Petit (Sir Dinshaw Manockjee
Petit, first baronet of this name), Panday, Parak, Sanjana,
Sayar, Seth, Sethna, Shroff, Talyarkan, Wadia. Some of their
surnames are very eccentric, such as Doctor, Ready-money,
Solicitor, etc., and should be abolished. There is actually a
Dr. Solicitor.

The interesting point about the Parsee surnames is that when
first introduced, through the influence of their close contact
with the English, they were not absolutely hereditary, but were
changed after a generation or two. Thus the present Bhownaggrees
used, at one time, the surname of Compadore, from the office so
designated held by one of their ancestors under the Portuguese.

The Hindoos have always had surnames, and jealously guard their
authenticity and continuity in the traditions of their families,
although they do not, even yet in Western India, universally use
them in public. Their personal and paternal names are derived,
among the higher castes, from the names of the gods, the
thousand and one names of Vishnoo and Seeva, of Ganesha, etc.,
and from the names of well-known mythological heroes, historical
saints, etc., the name selected being one the initial of which
indicates the lunar asterism (_nakshatra_) under which the
child (_i.e._ a son) is born; but their surnames have a tribal,
or, as in the case of the Parsees, a local, or official, or some
other merely accidental, origin.

If, then, we had only to deal with the Hindoos and Parsees, they
might be readily indexed under their surnames. But when we come
to the Indian Mussulmans the problem is at once seen to be beset
with perplexities which seem to me impossible to unravel. The
Indian Mussulmans--indeed all _muslimin_--are classified as
Sayeds, Sheikhs, Mo(n)gols, and Pathans. The Sayeds (literally,
"nobles," "lords") are the descendants of the Prophet Mahomet,
through his son-in-law Allee; those descended through Fatima
being distinguished as Sayed Hussanee and Sayed Hooseinee, and
those from his other wives as Sayed Allee. The first name given
to a Mussulman of this class is the _quasi_-surname Sayed or
Meer (also, literally, "nobleman," "lord"), followed by the
personal name and the paternal name; but these _quasi_-surnames
often fall into disuse after manhood has been reached.

The Sheikhs (literally, "chiefs"),--and all _muslimin_ descended
from Mahomet and Aboo Bukeer and Oomur are Sheikhs,--have one or
other of the following surnames placed before or after their
personal and paternal names: Abd, Allee, Bukhs, Goolam, Khoaja,
Sheikh. But as Sayeds are also all Sheikhs, they sometimes, on
attaining manhood, assume the surname of Sheikh, dropping that
of Sayed, or Meer, given to them at birth.

The Mo(n)gols, whether of the Persian (Eranee) sect of Sheeahs,
or the Turkish (Tooranee) sect of Soonnees, have placed before,
or after, their personal and paternal names, one or other of the
following surnames: Aga ("lord"), Beg ("lord"), Meerza, and
Mo(n)gol. But in Persia both Sayeds and Sheikhs assume, instead
of their proper patronymics, the surname of Aga, or Beg, or
Mo(n)gol; while Mo(n)gols whose mothers are Sayeds are given the
pre, or post, surname of Meerza.

The Pathans have the surname Khan ("lord") placed invariably
after their personal and paternal names. But Sayeds and Sheikhs
often have the word Khan placed after their class, personal, and
paternal names--not, however, as a surname, but as a
complimentary or substantial title, pure and simple.

Again, all classes of _muslimin_, and the Hindoos also, and even
the Parsees, are in the habit of adding all sorts of
complimentary and substantial titles both before and after their
names. How, then, is it possible to apply any one rightly
reasoned rule to the indexing of such names, or any but the
arbitrary rule of thumb:--to index them in the order in which
the bearer of them places them in his signature to letters,
cheques, and other documents? This gets over all the
embarrassing difficulties created by the paraphernalia of a
man's official designations, complimentary--or substantial,
titles, etc. Take, for example, this transcript of a
hypothetical Hindoo official's visiting-card:

"Dewan Sahib" (official and courtesy titles).

"Rajashri" (special social title).

"A." (personal name).

"B." (paternal name).

"Z." (family or true surname).

No Englishman unfamiliar with the etiquettes of Indian personal
nomenclature could possibly index such a card as this with
intelligent correctness. But this Hindoo gentleman would simply
sign himself in a private letter, "A. B. Z." (_i.e._ A., the son
of B., of the clan of Z.), and so he should be indexed.

The personal names of _muslimin_ also have for the most part an
astronomical association, being generally selected from those
beginning with the initial or finial letter of the name of the
planet ruling the day on which the child (_i.e._ a son) is born.

I presume that what I have here said of the methods of naming
the Indian Mussulmans also applies to the _muslimin_ of Persia
and Central Asia and Turkey and Arabia; but beyond these
countries I have no information as to the methods of naming
people in the other Oriental Indies, such as Ceylon, Burmah,
China, and Japan.

As to the transliteration of Oriental personal names, I always
accept that followed by the person bearing them.

I have put the matter as briefly as possible, and almost too
briefly for absolute accuracy of expression; and it will be
noted I say nothing of local exceptions to the general rule
regulating Hindoo names of persons; and, again, nothing of
female names, Hindoo, Mussulmanee, or Parsee.

GEORGE BIRDWOOD.
_January 9, 1902._