How to Make an Index

In 1757 A General Index to the Spectators, Tatlers, and Guardians was published, and in 1760 the same work was re-issued with a new title-page. Certain supposed blots in the original indexes were here corrected and the following explanation made in the preface: "Notwithstanding the learning and care of the compilers of the first Indexes to these volumes, some slight inaccuracies have passed, and where observed they are altered. Few readers who desire to know Mr. Bickerstaff's Opinion of the Comedy called the Country Wife, or the character of Mrs. Bickerstaff as an actress, would consult the Index under the word Acts." This seems to refer to an entry in the index to the first volume of the Tatler:

"Acts the Country-Wife: (Mrs. Bignel)."

The index to the original edition of the Spectator is equally good with that of the Tatler, but the entries are longer and more elaborate than those in the latter. The references are not made to the pages, as is the case with the Tatler, but to the numbers of the papers. The following entries are worthy of quotation:

Vol. 2—

"Gentry of England generally speaking in debt."

"Great men not truly known till some years after their deaths."

"Women, the English excel all other nations in beauty.

—— Signs of their improvement under the Spectator's hands.

—— Their pains in all ages to adorn the outside of their heads."

A precursor of the Tatler and Spectator was the curious Athenian Oracle, of the eccentric John Dunton, each volume of which contained "An Alphabetical Table for the speedy finding of any questions, by a member of the Athenian Society," from which the following amusing entries are taken:

"Ark, what became of it after the Flood?"

"Bees, a swarm lit upon the Crown and Scepter in Cheapside, what do they portend?"

"Hawthorn-tree at Glassenbury, what think you of it?"

"Noah's flood, whither went the waters?"

"Pied Piper, was he a man or dæmon?"

"Triumphant Arch erected in Cheapside 1691, described."

A selection from this curious seventeenth-century miscellany was made by Mr. J. Underhill, and published by Walter Scott a few years ago.

Shenstone's Schoolmistress is one of the works of genius which is little known in the present day, but well repays perusal. A humorous table of contents was prepared by the author, which he styled an index. He wrote: "I have added a ludicrous index purely to show (fools) that I am in jest." This was afterwards omitted, but D'Israeli reprinted it in his Curiosities of Literature. It contains an amusing précis of the chief points of the poem; the whole is short, and a few extracts will give an idea of its plan:

"A circumstance in the situation of the mansion of early Discipline, discovering the surprising influence of the connexion of ideas."

"Some peculiarities indicative of a country school, with a short sketch of the sovereign presiding over it."

"Some account of her night-cap, apron and a tremendous description of her birchen sceptre."

"Her titles and punctilious nicety in the ceremonious assertion of them."

"A view of this rural potentate as seated in her chair of state, conferring honours distributing bounties and dispensing proclamations."

Gay composed a full and humorous index for his interesting picture of eighteenth-century London—Trivia. The poet added a few entries to the index in the quarto edition of his Poems (1720). The following selected references will show the character of the index:

Of modern examples of the amusing index, by far the best is that added to the inimitable Biglow Papers by the accomplished author, James Russell Lowell. Here are some extracts from the index to the First Series:

"Adam, eldest son of, respected."

"Babel, probably the first congress."

"Birch, virtue of, in instilling certain of the dead languages."

"Cæsar, a tribute to. His Veni, Vidi, Vici censured for undue prolixity."

"Castles, Spanish, comfortable accommodation in."

"Eating Words, habit of, convenient in time of famine."

"Longinus recommends swearing (Fuseli did the same thing)."

"No, a monosyllable. Hard to utter."

"Noah enclosed letter in bottle, probably."

"Ulysses, husband of Penelope. Borrows money. (For full particulars see Homer and Dante.)"

"Wrong, abstract, safe to oppose."

The following are from the Second Series:

"Antony of Padua, Saint, happy in his hearers."

"Applause, popular, the summum bonum."

"'Atlantic,' editors of, See Neptune. [There is no entry under Neptune.]"

"Belmont. See Woods."

"Bible, not composed for use of coloured persons."

"Charles I, accident to his neck."

"Ezekiel would make a poor figure at a Caucus."

"Facts, their unamiability. Compared to an old fashioned stage-coach."

"Family trees, a primitive forest of."

"Jeremiah hardly the best guide in modern politics."

"Missionaries, useful to alligators. Culinary liabilities of."

"Rum and water combine kindly."

"Shoddy, poor covering for outer or inner man."

"'They'll say,' a notable bully."

"Woods, the, See Belmont."

"World, this, its unhappy temper."

"Writing, dangerous to reputation."

The witty Dr. William King, student of Christ Church, Oxford, and afterwards Judge of the Irish Court of Admiralty, presented an example of the skilled controversialist spoken of by Hill Burton as letting fly "a few Parthian arrows from the Index." He was dubbed by Isaac D'Israeli the inventor of satirical indexes, and he certainly succeeded in producing several ill-natured ones.

When the wits of Christ Church produced under the name of the Hon. Charles Boyle the clever volume with which they thought to annihilate the great Dr. Bentley, Dr. King was the one who assisted by producing a bitter index.

The first edition of Dr. Bentley's Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris and the Fables of Esop examin'd (1698) has no index; but Dr. King's work was added to the second edition published in the same year. It was styled, A short account of Dr. Bentley by way of Index. Then follows:

This is certainly more vindictive than witty.

All the wits rushed madly into the fray, and Swift, in his "Battel fought last Friday between the Antient and Modern Books in St. James's Library," committed himself irretrievably to the wrong side in this way: "A captain whose name was B-ntl-y, in person the most deformed of all the moderns; tall but without shape or comeliness, large but without strength or proportion. His armour was patched up of a thousand incoherent pieces...."

Then look at the leader of the opposing host: "Boyl clad in a suit of armor which had been given him by all the gods immediately advanced against the trembling foe, who now fled before him."

It is amazing that such a perverted judgment should have been given by some of our greatest writers, but all is to be traced to Bentley's defects of temper, so that Dr. King was not altogether wrong in his index.

Sir George Trevelyan in his Life of Macaulay refers to Bentley's famous maxim (which in print and talk alike he dearly loved to quote), that no man was ever written down except by himself, and quotes what the historian wrote after perhaps his tenth perusal of Bishop Monk's life of the great critic: "Bentley seems to me an eminent instance of the extent to which intellectual powers of a most rare and admirable kind may be impaired by moral defects."

Charles Boyle's book went through four editions, and still there was silence; but at last appeared the "immortal" Dissertation, as Porson calls it, which not only defeated his enemies, but routed them completely. Bentley's Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, with an answer to the objections of the Hon. C. Boyle, Esq., first appeared in 1699. De Quincey described it as one of the three most triumphant dissertations existing upon the class of historico-critical problems, "All three are loaded with a superfetation of evidence, and conclusive beyond what the mind altogether wishes." [7]

In another place De Quincey points out the line of argument followed by Bentley: "It was by anachronisms of this character that Bentley detected the spuriousness of the letters ascribed to Phalaris. Sicilian towns, &c., were in those letters called by names that did not arise until that prince had been dead for centuries. Manufactures were mentioned that were of much later invention. As handles for this exposure of a systematic forgery, which oftentimes had a moral significance, these indications were valuable, and gave excessive brilliancy to that immortal dissertation of Bentley's." [8]

The fate which the wits thought to bring upon Bentley fell upon them, and they quarrelled among themselves. It was believed that Charles Boyle, when credit was to be obtained, looked upon himself as author of the book; but afterwards, when it was discredited, he only awaited the public trial of the conspirators to wash his hands of the whole affair. Atterbury, who had much to do with the production of the volume, was particularly annoyed by Boyle's conduct. He wrote to Boyle: "In laying the design of the book, in writing above half of it, in reviewing [revising] a great part of the rest, in transcribing the whole and attending the press, half a year of my life went away. What I promised myself from hence was that some service would be done to your reputation, and that you would think so. In the first of these I was not mistaken—in the latter I am. When you were abroad, sir, the highest you could prevail with yourself to go in your opinion of the book was, that you hoped it would do you no harm. When you returned I supposed you would have seen that it had been far from hurting you. However, you have not thought fit to let me know your mind on this matter; for since you came to England, no one expression, that I know of, has dropped from you that could give me reason to believe you had any opinion of what I had done, or even took it kindly from me." [9]

In the same year (1698) King turned his attention to a less formidable antagonist than the great Bentley. His Journey to London is a very ingenious parody of Dr. Martin Lister's Journey to Paris, and, the pages of the original being referred to, it forms an index to that book.

The Royal Society in its early years had to pass through a long period of ridicule and misrepresentation. The author of Hudibras commenced the crusade, but the gibes of Butler were easier to bear than those of Dr. William King, who was particularly savage against Sir Hans Sloane. The Transactioneer (1700) and Useful Transactions in Philosophy (1708-1709) were very galling to the distinguished naturalist, and annoyed the Royal Society, whose Philosophical Transactions were unmercifully laughed at. To both the tracts referred to were prefixed satirical tables of contents, and what made them the more annoying was that the author's own words were very ingeniously used and turned against him. King writes: "The bulls and blunders which Sloane and his friends so naturally pour forth cannot be misrepresented, so careful I am in producing them."

Here is a specimen of the contents of The Transactioneer:

The following appear in the contents of the "Voyage to Cajamai" in Useful Transactions:

The most important of King's indexes was that added to Bromley's Travels, because it had the effect of balking a distinguished political character of his ambition of filling the office of Speaker of the House of Commons.

William Bromley (1664-1732), after leaving Christ Church, Oxford, spent several years in travelling on the Continent. He was elected a Member of Parliament in 1689, and soon occupied a prominent position among the non-jurors. In 1692 he published "Remarks in the Grande Tour of France and Italy, lately performed by a Person of quality. London. Printed by E. H. for Tho. Basset at the George in Fleet Street, 1692." A second edition appeared in the following year: "Remarks made in Travels through France and Italy, with many Publick Inscriptions. Lately taken by a Person of Quality. London (Thomas Basset) 1693."

In March, 1701-1702, Bromley was elected Member of Parliament for the University of Oxford, which he continued to represent during the remainder of his life. In 1702 he published another volume of travels: "Several Years' Travels through Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark and the United Provinces performed by a Gentleman."

In 1705 Bromley was supposed to have pre-eminent claims to the Speakership, which office was then vacant; but what was supposed to be a certainty was turned into failure by the action of his opponents. They took the opportunity of reprinting his Remarks, with the addition of a satirical index, as an electioneering squib. This reprint appeared as "Remarks in the Grand Tour ... performed by a Person of Quality in the year 1691. The second edition to which is added a table of the principal matters. London. Printed for John Nutt near Stationers' Hall, 1705." This was really the third edition, but probably the reprinters overlooked the edition of 1693. It was reprinted with the original licence of "Rob. Midgley, Feb. 20th, 1691-2."

In the Bodleian copy of this book there is a manuscript note by Dr. Rawlinson to the effect that this index was drawn up by Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford; but this was probably only a party rumour. Dr. Parr possessed Bromley's own copy of the reprint with the following manuscript note by the author:

"This edition of these travels is a specimen of the good nature and good manners of the Whigs, and I have reason to believe of one of the ministry (very conversant in this sort of calumny) for the sake of publishing 'the Table of the principal matters &c' to expose me whom the gentlemen of the Church of England designed to be Speaker of the House of Commons, in the Parliament, that met Oct. 25 1705. When notwithstanding the Whigs and Court joining to keep me out of the chair, and the greatest violence towards the Members, turning out some, and threatening others, to influence their votes, I had the honour (and I shall ever esteem it a greater honour than my competitor's success) to have the suffrages of 205 disinterested gentlemen for me: such a number as never lost such a question before; and such as, with the addition of those that by force, and contrary to their inclination, with the greatest reluctance voted against me, must have prevailed for me.

"This was a very malicious proceeding; my words and meaning plainly perverted in several places; which if they had been improper, and any observations trifling or impertinent, an allowance was due for my being very young, when they were made. But the performances of others, not entitled to such allowance may be in this manner exposed, as appears by the like Tables published for the Travels of Bp. Burnet and Mr. Addison. Wm. Bromley."

Dr. Parr took this all very seriously, and set great value upon the book. He added a note to that written by Bromley, in which he said:

"Mr. Bromley was very much galled with the republication, and the ridiculous, but not untrue, representation of the contents. Such a work would unavoidably expose the author to derision: instead therefore of suffering it to be sold after my death, and to become a subject of contemptuous gossip, or an instrument of party annoyance, I think it a proper act of respect and kindness for the Bromley family, for me to put it in possession of the Rev. Mr. Davenport Bromley, upon the express condition that he never sells it nor gives it away, that, after reading it, he seals it up carefully and places it where no busy eye, nor thievish hand can reach it.

"S. P."

This note was written in 1823, and the precautions taken by Parr seem rather belated. Even the family were little likely to mind the public seeing a political skit more than a century old, which did no dishonour to their ancestor's character.

It is very probable that Harley was at the expense of reprinting the book, as it is reported that every one who came to his house was asked if he had seen Mr. Bromley's Travels; and when the answer was in the negative, Harley at once fetched a copy, which he presented to his visitor. There is no doubt, however, that the index was drawn up by Dr. King.

The index is neither particularly amusing nor clever, but it is very ill-natured. Dr. Parr infers that the book is not misrepresented, but there can be little doubt that the index is in most instances very unfair. Thus the first entry in the table is:

"Chatham, where and how situated, viz. on the other side of Rochester bridge, though commonly reported to be on this side, p. 1."

The passage indexed is quite clear, and contains the natural statement of a fact.

"Lodged at Rochester, an episcopal seat in the same county [Kent]. The cathedral church is plain and decent, and the city appears well peopled. When I left it and passed the Bridge I was at Chatham, the famous Dock, where so many of our great ships are built."

The following are some further entries from the index:

"Dover and Calais neither of them places of Strength tho' frontier towns, p. 2."

"Boulogne the first city on the French shore, lies on the coast, p. 2." [These are the same words as in the book.]

"Crosses and Crucifixes on the Roads in France prove it not England, p. 3."

The passage here indexed is as follows:

"Crosses and Crucifixes are so plentiful every where on this road, that from them alone an Englishman will be satisfied he is out of his own country; besides the Roads are much better than ours."

"Eight pictures take up less room than sixteen of the same size, p. 14."

This is founded on the following:

"They contain the Histories of the Old and New Testaments, and are placed in two rows one above the other; those that represent the Old Testament are in the uppermost reaching round the room and are sixteen. Those of the new are under them, but being only eight reach not so far as the former, and where no pictures are be the doors to the presses where the sacred vestments are kept."

"Travelling by night not proper to take a view of the adjacent countries, p. 223."

This is a version of the following:

"The heat of the weather made travelling in the night most desirable and we chose it between Sienna and Florence.... By this means I could see little of the country."

"The Duchess dowager of Savoy who was grandmother to the present Duke was mother to his father, p. 243."

This is a perversion of the following perfectly natural observation:

"This was designed by the Dutchess Christina grandmother of this Duke in the minority of her son (his father) in 1660."

The entry, "Jews at Legorn not obliged to wear red hats, p. 223," contains nothing absurd, but rather is an interesting piece of information, because the Jews were obliged to wear these hats in other parts of Italy, and it was the knowledge of this fact that induced Macklin to wear a red hat when acting Shylock, a personation which induced an admirer to exclaim:

Such perversions as these could have done Bromley, one would think, little harm; but the real harm done consisted in bringing to light and insisting upon the author's political attitude when he referred to King William and Queen Mary as "the Prince and Princess of Orange." The passage is as follows:

"A gallery, where among the pictures of Christian Princes are those of King Charles the Second and his Queen, King James the Second and his Queen and the Prince and Princess of Orange."

It would indeed seem strange that one who had thus referred to his King and Queen should occupy so important a public office as Speaker of the House of Commons. Another ground of offence was that when in Rome he kissed the Pope's slipper.

Although Bromley was disappointed in 1705, his time came; and after the Tory reaction consequent on the trial of Sacheverell he was in 1710 chosen Speaker without opposition. There is a portrait of Bromley in the University Picture Gallery in the Bodleian at Oxford.

CHAPTER III.

AD 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."

"Knaves see Words."

"Letters see Libel."

"London see Outlawry."

"Shop see Burglary."

"Sickness see Bail."

"Threats see Words."

"Westminster Hall see Contempt and Lie."

"Writing see Treason."

This arrangement of some of the cross references is perhaps scarcely fair. They are spread over several elaborate indexes in the original, and in their proper places do not strike one in the same way as when they are set out by themselves. One of the instances given by the critic in the Monthly Magazine is unfairly cited. It is there given as "Assault see Son." The cross reference really is, "Assault see Son Assault."

Hawkins's work is divided into two parts, and the folio editions have two indexes, one to each part; the octavo edition has four indexes, one to each volume.

The index to Ford's Handbook of Spain contains an amusing reference:

"Wellington, see Duke."

Besides these four divisions of the chief faults in indexing, there are many other pitfalls gaping wide to receive the careless indexer.

Names are a great difficulty, but it is not necessary to refer to these more generally here, as they are fully dealt with in the rules (see Chapter VI.)

It is not often that an English indexer has to index a French book, but should he do so he would often need to be careful. The Frenchman does not care to leave that which he does not understand unexplained. The translation of Love's Last Shift as La Dernière Chemise de l'Amour, attributed by Horace Walpole to the Dowager Duchess of Bolton in George I.'s reign, is probably an invention, but some translations quite as amusing are genuine. G. Brunet of Bordeaux, having occasion in his La France Littéraire au XV^e siècle to mention "White Knights," at one time the seat of the Duke of Marlborough, translates it into Le Chevalier Blanc. When Dr. Buckland, the geologist, died, a certain French paper published a biography of him in which it was explained that the deceased had been a very versatile writer, for besides his work on geology he had produced one Sur les Ponts et Chaussées. This was a puzzling statement, but it turned out to be a translation of Bridgewater Treatises, in which series his Geology and Mineralogy was published in 1837.

Sometimes contractions give trouble to the indexer, and he must be careful not to fill them out unless he is sure of what they mean. Many blunders have been made in this way. In the Historie of Edward IV. (1471), edited by that careful and trustworthy antiquary John Bruce for the Camden Society in 1838, there is the following remarkable statement: "Wherefore the Kynge may say, as Julius Cæsar sayde, he that is not agaynst me is with me."

This chapter might be made a very long one by instancing a series of badly indexed books, but this would be a tedious recital devoid of any utility, for the blunders and carelessness of the bad indexer are singularly alike in their futility. It is nevertheless worth while to mention the index to Peter Cunningham's complete edition of Walpole's Letters, because that work deserves a good index. We may hope that when Mrs. Toynbee publishes her new and complete edition of the Letters, she will add a really satisfactory index. The present index is very bad and most irritating to the person who uses it. Examples of most of the careless and foolish blunders in indexing are to be found here; for instance, there are long lists of references without indication of the reason for any of them. The same person is entered in two places if he is spoken of under slightly different names. The same nobleman is referred to as Lord —— and as the Earl of ——, while sometimes a heading devoted to Lord —— contains references to two distinct men. Van Eyck has one reference under Van and another under Eyck. Mrs. Godfrey is entered under both Godfrey and La Godfrey. Many other absurdities are to be found in the index, but the extract of one heading will be sufficient to show how ill the arrangement is: