  The Bad Indexer.
B 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
Under B:
Under F:
Under I:
Under L:
Under N:
Under O:
Under R:
Under S:
Under T:
Under Y:
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
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:
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:
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 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:
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
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:
These two groups are from a very prominent magazine:
In the foregoing, by giving three entries, one, by chance, may be correct; but in the following case there are two useless references:
Some indexers have a fancy for placing authors under their Christian names, as these three from one index.
These entries are amusing:
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:
The two chief causes of the badness of indexes are found—
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—
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 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:
Many more instances of this confusion of the letters u and n might be given, 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 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. 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 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 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:
William Morris used to make merry over the futility of some cross references. 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 Cross referencing has its curiosities as well as other branches of our subject. The following are some of the most amusing entries:
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:
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 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 There is no authority at all for a Duke of Gower, and if we look up the reference (iv. 39) we find that it refers to "the late Lord G——," possibly the Earl Gower. The confusion by which two persons are made into one has sometimes an evil consequence worse than putting the consulter of an index on the wrong scent, for the character of an innocent person may be taken away by this means. (Constance) Lady Russell of Swallowfield points out in Notes and Queries, that in the index to Familiar Letters of Sir The index to Lord Braybrooke's edition of Pepys's Diary has many faults, mostly due to bad arrangement; but it must be allowed that there is a great difficulty in indexing a private diary such as this. The diarist knew to whom he was referring when he mentioned Mr. or Mrs.——; but where there are two or more persons of the same name, it is hard to distinguish between them correctly. This has been a stumbling-block in the compilation of the index to the new edition, in which a better system was attempted.
These are the words written by Lord Campbell in the preface to the first volume of his Lives of the Chief Justices (1857): "I have only further to express my satisfaction in thinking that a heavy weight is now to be removed from my conscience. So essential did I consider an index to be to every book, that I proposed to bring a Bill into Parliament to deprive an author who publishes a book without an Index of the privilege of copyright; and moreover to subject him for his offence to a pecuniary penalty. Yet from difficulties started by my printers, my own books have hitherto been without an Index. But I am happy to announce that a learned friend at the Bar, on whose accuracy I can place entire reliance, has kindly prepared a copious index, which will be appended to this work, and another for a new Mr. John Morley, in an article in the Fortnightly Review on Mr. Russell's edition of Matthew Arnold's Letters, lifts up his voice against an indexless book. He says: "One damning sin of omission Mr. Russell has indeed perpetrated: the two volumes have no index, nor even a table of contents." |
|
