Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

Next in importance to the selection of appropriate headings in an Index is the careful use of cross references. Great judgment is here 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. When the entries are short and few, it is better to repeat them than to refer from one to the other. In the case of long entries cross references are very advantageous, and it is always well to refer to cognate headings.[36] This, however, must not be carried too far; for, as Mr. Poole says in an article on his own index,[37] “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 adds, “One correspondent gives fifty-eight cross references under Mental Philosophy, and fifty-eight more might be added just as appropriate.”

At all events let the cross references be real. In Eadie’s Dictionary of the Bible (1850), there is a reference “Dorcas _see_ Tabitha,” but there is no entry under Tabitha at all.

No reference to the contents of a general heading which is without subdivision should be allowed.[38] There are too many of these 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 clue. Sometimes cross references are mere expedients, particularly in the case of a cyclopædia published in volumes or numbers. Thus a writer agrees to contribute an article early in the alphabet, but 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. 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 _Birch_ Tree.

That was all, and this was pretty encouragement.”

Cross referencing has its curiosities as well as other branches of our subject. Perhaps the most odd collection of cross references are to be found in Hawkins’s _Pleas of the Crown_, 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, but there are many more as good:

Assault, _see_ Son.
Cards, _see_ Dice.
Cattle, _see_ Clergy.
Chastity, _see_ Homicide.
Coin, _see_ High Treason.
Convicts, _see_ Clergy.
Death, _see_ Appeal.
Election, _see_ Bribery.
Farthing, _see_ Halfpenny.
Fear, _see_ Robbery.
Footway, _see_ Nuisance.
Honour, _see_ Constable.
King, _see_ Treason.
London, _see_ Outlawry.
Shop, _see_ Burglary.
Sickness, _see_ Bail.

The Index to Ford’s Handbook of Spain contains an amusing reference--

Wellington, _see_ Duke.

But perhaps the strangest place to find a cross reference is on a tombstone. In Barnes churchyard the following inscription was put up to a once famous actor:--

Mr. J. Moody
A native of the Parish of Saint Clement Danes
and an old Member of Drury Lane Theatre.
For his Memoirs see the European Magazine; for his professional
abilities see Churchill’s Rosciad.
Obiit Dec. 26 1812,
Anno Ætatis 85.

II.

Intimately connected with compilation is arrangement, for however well the contents of a book may be analysed, the result will not form a good Index unless it is well arranged.

An Index should be one and indivisible, and not broken up into several alphabets, thus every work ought to have its complete Index whether it is one volume or many.[39] This important rule has frequently been neglected in English books, and is almost universally rejected in Foreign ones, to the great inconvenience of readers. An Index may be arranged either chronologically, alphabetically, or according to classes, but great confusion will be caused by uniting the three. The alphabetical arrangement is so simple, so convenient, and so easily understood by all, that it has naturally superseded the other forms, but some still cling to the rags of classification, in the belief that that is a more scientific arrangement. The evil of this is that the consulter is never sure whether the reference he requires may not be lurking in some place that he has missed, but in the case of a single alphabet an answer to the question “Does the Index contain what I require?” is obtained at once. Classification is the reverse of this, for, as Mr. Poole says in his observations on the proposal of one of his helpers to place Wealth, Finance, and Population under the head 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.” The general principle here enunciated will perhaps be better understood by reference to a few examples. Brayley’s _Surrey_, in five volumes, has a separate Index to each volume, and it is a pretty general experience that whatever is wanted is sure to be found in the last volume consulted. 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. How much thought is here required which would not be needed were all united into one alphabet. The general Index to the Reports of the British Association is a most inconvenient one to use, as it is split up into six alphabets; but the evil of these subdivisions is most marked in Indexes to the various volumes of the _Athenæum_, which are so subdivided that they are practically useless. Who would rack his brain to find under which of the many headings the subject he requires is likely to be hidden? These divided Indexes are the exception in English books, but abroad almost every Index is in two parts: 1. Persons; 2. Things. The Index to Arago’s complete works has the threefold division: 1. Auteurs; 2. Cosmique; 3. Matières. If this division be made, it ought surely to be carried out correctly, and yet in the _Autoren Register_ to Carus’ and Engelmann’s Bibliography of Zoology may be found the following entries: _Schreiben_; _Schriften_; _Zu_ Humboldts Cosmos; _Zur_ Fauna.

The inconveniences of classification in an index are so palpable that it is needless to add more, but a list of titles of books that have given trouble to bibliographers, and at sundry times have been misarranged, will perhaps be amusing. Edgeworth’s Essay on Irish Bulls and a Treatise on the Great Seal have been placed under the heading of _Zoology_; Napier’s Bones under _Anatomy_; Swinburne’s Under the Microscope under _Optical Instruments_; a volume of Poems, entitled the Viol and Lute, under _Musical Instruments_; Ruskin’s Notes on the Construction of Sheepfolds under _Agriculture_; McEwen on the Types under _Printing_; and most famous of all, Link, de Stellis Marinis, under _Astronomy_. Disraeli reports an amusing anecdote of “an honest friar who compiled a church history and placed in the class of ecclesiastical writers Guarini, the Italian poet; this arose from a most risible blunder: on the faith of the title of his celebrated amorous pastoral _Il Pastor Fido_, ‘The Faithful Shepherd,’ our good father imagined that the character of a curate, vicar, or bishop, was represented in this work.”

Such incongruities as these had a charm for the author of the _Curiosities of Literature_, and he therefore devotes a chapter to the “Titles of Books.” The foregoing are tempting subjects for the jumpers to conclusions, but some titles are impenetrable--what, for instance, can be made of _Labia Dormientum_? It turns out to be a Catalogue of rabbinical writers, and was so called in reference to a passage in _Solomon’s Song_, “Like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing _the lips of those that are asleep to speak_” (vii. 19).

In order to help the makers of Indexes in judging of the relative extent of the various letters of the Alphabet certain calculations have been made,[40] but the statistics must vary greatly according to the character of the Index. Thus _B_ is the largest in an Index of English names, but loses its preeminence in an Index of subjects, and _S_ takes high rank in both classes.

Mr. Curtis advocates in his paper the arrangement under each initial letter according to the next following vowel, a plan often adopted in Locke’s and other Common Place Books, but which is highly inconvenient, especially when words without a second vowel as _Ash_ and _Epps_ are placed at the head of each letter, as _Ash_ before _Adam_ and _Abel_; and _Epps_ before _Ebenezer_.

In arranging entries in alphabetical order it is necessary to sort them up to the most minute difference of spelling. In order to save themselves trouble some workers think they may leave off sorting at the third letter, and their idleness gives others much annoyance. I have often been troubled in this way when consulting the Index to a large map of England in which the names of places are not arranged further than the third letter.

The Alphabetical arrangement 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_.

Another difficulty arises when names and words from a foreign language are introduced into an English Index. The only safe rule in these cases is to use the English alphabet.[41] One of the Rules of the American Library Association is, “The German _ae_, _oe_, _ue_ are always to be written ä, ö, ü, and arranged as a, o, u”; by this Goethe would have to be written Göthe, which is now an unusual form, and I think it would be better to insist that where both forms are used, one or other should be chosen and all instances spelt alike. It is a very common practice to arrange ä, ö, ü, as if they were written ae, oe, ue, but this leads to the greatest confusion, and no notice should be taken of letters that are merely to be understood. Those who have stumbled over the arrangement that treats the vowel I and consonant J, and the vowel U and consonant V, as identical, will be glad to have a rule that keeps them distinct.

Although it has been previously said that words and names must be arranged in alphabet up to their last letters, it is necessary to bear in mind that each word is to stand by itself; for instance, first will come the various persons bearing the surname _Grave_, arranged according to the order of their Christian names,

Grave, George,

Grave, John,

then the substantive and adjective _grave_, arranged according to the alphabet of the words that follow,

Grave at Kherson,

Grave of Hope,

Grave Thoughts,

and last,

Gravelot,

Gravesend.[42]

We now come to the consideration of a matter of some perplexity. It is more of a difficulty for the Cataloguer than for the Indexer, still it is one with which the latter must grapple. There cannot be two opinions about the simple rule that a man should be set down under his surname, but our trouble commences when we ask the question--What is a surname? The answer to it must necessarily be complicated on account of the varieties of form which proper names take in different languages. The greatest difficulty arises from the prefixes, some of which can easily be dispensed with, while others are integral portions of the name.[43] If the prefix be a preposition, it must be rejected, and the name arranged in alphabet under the following letter; thus, _D’_, _De_, in French, _Da_ in Italian,[44] _Von_ in German, and _Van_ in Dutch, are no real portion of foreign names, which can stand very well without them. If, however, the prefix be an article, such as the French _La_, it must be retained; for instance, the full name of the great astronomer La Place is De La Place, but it is under _L_ that it could alone be placed with propriety. If no other reason could be given, a very sufficient one might be found in the fact that were not _De_ and _Von_ rejected, a large proportion of French and German names would appear respectively under those prefixes. Although this rule is generally accepted as the only true one, it is seldom carried out consistently; thus in the South Kensington Universal Catalogue of Books on Art, we find D’Ayzac under _Ayzac_, D’Azara under _D_, D’Azeglio under _A_, De La Blanchère under _D_, De La Borde under _L_, De La Fons under both _D_ and _L_, with a cross reference from Fons. A logical difficulty arises when the preposition is joined to the article, as in _Du_ and _Des_, and here, in order to retain the article, we are forced to retain the preposition as well. These rules only apply to Foreign names, and such English names as De Quincey, Delabeche, Van Mildert, must be arranged under _D_ and _V_ respectively, because the prefixes are here meaningless.

The rule for the arrangement of compound names differs accordingly as these names are either English or Foreign.[45] The frequent practice in England of using surnames as baptismal names gives the united names the appearance of compound names, which they really are not. The first name in a foreign compound is almost invariably the true name, and frequently the second name is that of the owner’s wife or mother. The French cannot understand our sur-christian-names, and with few exceptions treat them as true surnames. There is a most amusing blunder consequent on this misapprehension in the well-known _Biographie Moderne_, edited by the late Dr. Hoefer, and published by Firmin Didot. In this valuable Biographical Dictionary there is a long account of Brigham Young, extending over many columns, but, instead of appearing under _Y_, it has a place found for it in letter _B_, and the heading runs as follows: “Brigham le jeune ou Brigham Young”! Although such an instance as this could not well be paralleled in any English book of the same high character, we are not as a nation incapable of making blunders of a like kind. De Morgan remarks, in his Arithmetical Books, “I have had in one or two instances to throw away German _Authors_ for a very obvious reason. The reader will not find the works of _Anleitung_ or _Grundriss_ or _Rechenbuch_ in my list, which is more than can be said of every one that has preceded it.” _Derselbe_ might have been added, as it sometimes has a very surname-like look. Blunders are of no particular nationality, and it is needful to use special vigilance in transferring proper names from the books of one language to those of another. The most trustful, however, would be on his guard when dealing with a writer who introduced the Duke of Newcastle to his readers as “Gul. de Cavendy dux de Xeucathle.”

Sometimes we have to deal with the latinised names of celebrated men, and it is a very frequent practice to turn these back into the vernacular, but it may be questioned whether it is right to do so. De Morgan writes, “I have not attempted to translate the names of those who wrote in Latin at a time when that language was the universal medium of communication.... It is well to know that Copernicus, Dasypodius, Xylander, Regiomontanus, and Clavius were Zepernik, Rauchfuss, Holtzmann, Müller and Schlüssel. But as the butcher’s bills of these eminent men are lost, and their writings only remain, it is best to designate them by the name which they bear on the latter rather than on the former.”

The question however has pertinently been asked, how are we to act if the butchers’ bills were by chance to be forthcoming and required registration in a Catalogue of Manuscripts. Probably in this case also it would be well to arrange the names under their best known forms. The Hungarians, and sometimes the Italians, place the surname before the Christian name, which is very confusing to those unacquainted with the practice. Sometimes the same difficulty occurs in English from the manner in which the names are printed; thus we learn from the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ that

Owen Gallager } died in 1769.
Fleetwood Hesketh }

The Index-maker indexed these as _Gallager_ and _Fleetwood_! so that 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.

I have been greatly assisted in the compilation of this list by Messrs. Gomme, Peacock, and Solly. Since the first publication I have received much highly appreciated aid from Messrs. Ashbee, Brightwell, and Clements, and from Drs. Crompton, J. B. Hamilton, and Francis H. Brown of Boston, U.S., and from several other kind friends, who sent me titles of Indexes that had escaped my notice. Prof. Justin Winsor was good enough to send me a delightful little volume of 134 pages, entitled, A Handbook for Readers (for the Boston Public Library), which contains a list of Indexes. I have taken out a few of the titles of those which I have been unable to see, and have prefixed a star (*) to them.

SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT.

Concordances, etc. 75

Indexes of Particular Books 78

---- of Atlases 82

---- of Publications of Societies 83

---- of Periodicals 89

---- of the Statutes 96

---- of Journals of the Houses of Lords and Commons 98

---- of Parliamentary Papers 99

---- to the Proceedings of Public Bodies 101

Miscellaneous Indexes 102

Indexes to Catalogues 107

CONCORDANCES, &c.

_Bible._--A Concordance, that is to saie, a worke wherein by the
ordre of the letters of the A B C ye maie redely finde
any words conteigned in the whole Bible, so often as it
is there expressed or mencioned ... anno 1550. [at end]
Richardus Grafton, typographus Regius excudebat, Mense
Iulii. A. M.D.L. folio.

Dedicated to Edward VI. by the author, John
Marbeck. Title, 4 preliminary leaves, ff. 1-35,
after which the leaves are not numbered. (Sign. a.
1 to vvv. 6 in sixes. Woodcut of Henry VIII. in
council, 1 leaf.)

---- A briefe and Compendiouse table, in a maner of a
Concordaunce openyng the waye to the principall
histories of the whole Bible, and the most com̃on
articles grounded and comprehended in the newe
Testament and olde, in maner as amply as doeth the
great Concordaūce of the Bible. Gathered and set furth
by Henry Bullynger, Leo Jude, Conrade Pellicane, and
by the other Ministers of the Churche of Tygurie. And
nowe first imprinted in Englyshe. D M L ... London for
Gwalter Lynne 1550. Sm. 8vo. A to T 2 in eights.

R. F. Hervey published a Concordance in 1579, which went through several editions; C. Cotton published one in 1622 also frequently reprinted; J. Downame one in 1632 of which there are later editions; and Robert Wickens one at Oxford in 1655. The “Cambridge” Concordance of Samuel Newman (1650), of which a third improved edition was issued in 1682, long held its own, but it and all others were superseded on the publication of Cruden’s Concordance.

---- A complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments. By Alexander Cruden, M.A.
London, 1737. 4to.

Second edition 1761, third edition 1769; this is
the last corrected by the author.

Most of the Concordances published since are
founded upon Cruden.

---- A Concordance to the Psalms of David according to the
version in the Book of Common Prayer. By the Rev.
Charles Girdlestone. London (Rivingtons), 1834. 12mo.
title, preface 1 leaf, pp. 179.

Proper names are in a separate alphabet.

---- A Concordance to the Psalter contained in the Book of
Common Prayer. From the Concordance to the Canonical
Books of the Old and New Testament. London, Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge. Royal 8vo. title, pp. 75.

---- A Metrical Index to the Bible, or Alphabetical Tables
of the Holy Scriptures in Metre. By Josiah Chorley.
Norwich, 1711. 8vo. pp. 55.

---- Index to The Bible, in which the various subjects which
occur in the Scriptures are alphabetically arranged;
with accurate references to all the books of the Old
and New Testaments. Stereotype edition. London, 1812.
Roy. 4to. pp. 33.

---- An Index to subjects not noticed, or imperfectly
referred to in the Index to the principal matters
contained in the Notes to the Family Bible lately
published under the direction of the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge.... By the Rev. H. B.
Wilson, D.D. London, 1818. 4to. pp. 8, sign. B to 2 E 3
in fours.

---- A Concordance of Parallels collected from Bibles and
Commentaries, which have been published in Hebrew,
Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, English and other
languages, with the authorities of each. By the Rev. C.
Cruttwell. Printed for the Author. 1790. 4to. title,
pp. 397, 135.

_Homer._--A Complete Concordance to the Iliad of Homer. By Guy
Lushington Prendergast. London, 1875. 4to. pp. 416, in
double cols.

_Keble._--A Concordance to “The Christian Year.” Oxford and London,
1871. 12mo. pp. 524.

_Liturgy._--A Concordance to the Liturgy or Book of Common Prayer,
etc., according to the use of the United Church of
England and Ireland. By the Rev. J. Green, D.D., Vicar
of St. Neot’s, Hunts. London, 1851. 12mo. pp. x, 431.

_Milton._--A Verbal Index to Milton’s Paradise Lost, adapted to
every edition but the first, which was published in ten
books only. London, 1741. 12mo.

---- A Complete Concordance to the Poetical Works of Milton.
By Guy Lushington Prendergast, Madras Civil Service.
Madras (Pharaoh & Co.), 1857. 4to. title, 1 preliminary
leaf, pp. 416.

Originally published in 12 parts.

---- A Complete Concordance to the Poetical Works of John
Milton. By Charles Dexter Cleveland, LL.D. London
(Sampson Low, Son & Marston), 1867. Sm. 8vo. pp. viii,
308.

The Rev. H. J. Todd compiled a verbal Index to the whole of Milton’s Poetry which was appended to the second edition of his life of the Poet (1809).

_Pope._--A Concordance to the Works of Alexander Pope. By Edwin
Abbott, with an Introduction by Edwin A. Abbott, D.D.
London (Chapman & Hall), 1875. Royal 8vo. pp. xviii,
366.

_Shakespeare._--An Index to the remarkable passages and words made
use of by Shakespeare, calculated to point out the
different meanings to which the words are applied. By
Samuel Ayscough. London, 1790. Royal 8vo.

Reprinted Dublin 1791 and London 1827 in demy 8vo.

---- A Complete Verbal Index to the Plays of Shakspeare,
adapted to all the editions, comprehending every
substantive, adjective, verb, participle, and adverb
used by Shakespeare; with a distinct reference to
every individual passage in which each word occurs. By
Francis Twiss. London, 1805. 2 vols. 8vo.

---- The Complete Concordance to Shakspere: being a verbal
Index to all the passages in the dramatic works of the
Poet. By Mrs. Cowden Clarke. London (C. Knight & Co.),
1845. Royal 8vo. pp. viii, 860.

---- Shakespeare-Lexicon: a Complete Dictionary of all the
English words, phrases and constructions in the works
of the poet. By Dr. Alexander Schmidt. (Berlin and
London), 1874. 2 vols. royal 8vo.

---- A Concordance to Shakespeare’s Poems: an Index to every
word therein contained. By Mrs. Horace Howard Furness.

“To your audit comes
Their distract parcels in combined sums.”

Philadelphia (J. B. Lippincott & Co.), 1874. Pp. iv,
422.

---- A Hand-Book Index to the Works of Shakespeare,
including references to the phrases, manners, customs,
proverbs, songs, particles, etc., which are used or
alluded to by the great Dramatist. By J. O. Halliwell,
Esq., F.R.S. London (J. E. Adlard), 1866. 8vo. pp. vi;
contents 1 leaf, pp. 551. Only fifty copies printed.

_Tennyson._--A Concordance of the entire works of Alfred Tennyson,
P.L., D.C.L., F.R.S. By D. Barron Brightwell. London
(Moxon), 1869. 8vo. p. xiv, 477.

---- Concordance to the works of Alfred Tennyson, Poet
Laureate. London (Strahan & Co.), 1870. Pp. 542.

“The Holy Grail,” etc., is indexed separately.

---- An Index to “In Memoriam.” London (E. Moxon & Co.),
1862. 12mo. pp. iv, 40.

_Watts._--A Complete Index to Dr. Watts’ Psalms. By D. Guy, of Rye
in Sussex. 1774. 12mo.

Sigs. B to Y 4.

INDEXES OF PARTICULAR BOOKS.

_Alison’s Europe._--History of Europe from 1815 to 1852, by Sir
Archibald Alison, Bart. Index. Edinburgh (Blackwood),
1859. 8vo. title, pp. 319. In one alphabet.

_Blomefield’s Norfolk._--Index Nominum; being an Index of Christian
and Surnames (with arms), mentioned in Blomefield’s
History of Norfolk, arranged in alphabetical order. By
John Nurse Chadwick. King’s Lynn (published for the
author), 1862. Royal 8vo. pp. 348.

This Index refers to the octavo edition.

_Buffon’s Natural History_--Index to Buffon’s Planches
enluminées. By Thomas Pennant. 1786. 4to.

_Burke’s Landed Gentry._--Index of family names in Burke’s
Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed
Gentry--fourth edition 1863, in Bridger’s _Index to
Pedigrees 1867_, pp. 178-258.

_Burton’s Scotland._--The History of Scotland from
Agricola’s Invasion to the Extinction of the
last Jacobite Insurrection. By John Hill Burton,
Historiographer-Royal for Scotland. Second edition.
Index volume. London and Edinburgh (William Blackwood &
Sons), 1873. 8vo. pp. 100, in double columns.

_Carlyle._--A General Index to the People’s edition of Thomas
Carlyle’s Works. London (Chapman & Hall), 1874. 12mo.
pp. 201.

Mr. Carlyle’s vehement denunciation of books
without indexes is well known, and his sincerity is
proved by this careful compilation.

_Dugdale’s York._--Index to the Visitation of the County of Yorke
begun A.D. 1665 and finished A.D. 1666 by William
Dugdale, Esq. Norroy King of Armes. Compiled by George
J. Armytage. Printed by private subscription. London,
1872. 8vo. title, preface 1 leaf, pp. 40.

In one alphabet, with a list of pedigrees in order
of pages appended. Dugdale’s Visitation was printed
by the Surtees Society in 1859 (vol. 36, their
publications).

_Encyclopædias._--The Encyclopædia Britannica, or Dictionary of
Arts, Sciences and General Literature. Eighth edition.
Index. [By James Duncan.] Edinburgh, 1860. Pp. vii,
232. In one alphabet.

---- Encyclopædia Metropolitana, or Universal Dictionary of
Knowledge ... Index. London, 1845. 4to. pp. iv, 370. In
one alphabet.

---- The English Cyclopædia. Synoptical Index to the four
divisions of Geography, Biography, Natural History,
Arts and Sciences. London, 1862. 4to. pp. iv, 166.

Arranged in four columns.

---- General and Analytical Index to the American
Encyclopædia. By T. J. Conant, D.D., assisted by his
daughter Blandina. New York (Appleton & Co.), 1878. Pp.
viii, 810. 4to. Highly praised in _Library Journal_,
vol. iii. No. 8, p. 303.

*---- Index to Appleton’s Annual Cyclopædia, vol. 1-10.

Criticised adversely in _Library Journal_, vol. ii.
p. 296.

_Essayists._--A General Index to the Spectators, Tatlers and
Guardians. 1757. Second edition. London (W. Owen),
1760. 12mo. unpaged. In one alphabet.

---- The British Essayists; with prefaces, historical and
biographical, by A. Chalmers, F.S.A. Vol. 38. General
Index. London, 1823. 12mo. title, pp. 277. In one
alphabet.

_Gmelin’s Chemistry._--Index to Gmelin’s Handbook of Chemistry.
By Henry Watts. London, 1872. 8vo. title, pp. 331.

In one alphabet.

_Holme’s Armory._--Index of the Names of Persons contained in
the Academy of Armory and Blazon, by Randle Holme;
printed at Chester in one volume folio, 1688. London
(R. Triphook), 1821. Folio, title, pp. 46.

Only 50 copies printed. In one alphabet, and
contains names of places as well as of persons.

_Howell’s State Trials._--General Index to the Collection of
State Trials, compiled by T. B. Howell and T. J.
Howell. By David Jardine. London, 1828. 8vo. title,
advertisement 1 leaf, pp. 345.