Different Classes of Indexes.

"Of all your talents you are a most amazing man at Indexes. What a flag too, do you hang out at the stern! You must certainly persuade people that the book overflows with matter, which (to speak the truth) is but thinly spread. But I know all this is fair in trade, and you have a right to expect that the publick should purchase freely when you reduce the whole book into an epitome for their benefit; I shall read the index with pleasure."—William Clarke to William Bowyer, Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, vol. 3, p. 46.

N dealing with the art of the indexer it is most important to consider the different classes of indexes. There are simple indexes, such as those of names and places, which only require care and proper alphabetical arrangement. The makers of these often plume themselves upon their work; but they must remember that the making of these indexes can only be ranked as belonging to the lowest rung of the index ladder.

The easiest books to index are those coming within the classes of History, Travel, Topography, and generally those that deal almost entirely with facts. The indexing of these is largely a mechanical operation, and only requires care and judgment. Verbal indexes and concordances are fairly easy when the plan is settled; but they are often works of great labour, and the compilers deserve great credit for their perseverance. John Marbeck stands at the head of this body of indefatigable workers who have placed the world under the greatest obligations. He was the first to publish a concordance of the Bible, [17] to be followed nearly two centuries later by the work of Alexander Cruden, whose name has almost become a synonym for a concordance. After the Bible come the works of Shakespeare, indexed by Samuel Ayscough (1790), Francis Twiss (1805), Mrs. Cowden Clarke (1845), and Mr. John Bartlett, who published in 1894 a still fuller concordance than that of Mrs. Clarke. It is a vast quarto volume of 1,910 pages in double columns, and represents an enormous amount of self-denying labour. Dr. Alexander Schmidt's Shakespeare Lexicon (1874) is something more than a concordance, for it is a dictionary as well.

A dictionary is an index of words. We do not mention dictionaries in this connection to insist on the fact that they are indexes of words, but rather to point out that a dictionary such as those of Liddell and Scott, LittrÉ, Murray, and Bradley, reaches the high watermark of index work, and so the ordinary indexer is able to claim that he belongs to the same class as the producers of such masterpieces as these.

Scientific books are the most difficult to index; but here there is a difference between the science of fact and the science of thought, the latter being the most difficult to deal with. The indexing of books of logic and ethics will call forth all the powers of the indexer and show his capabilities; but what we call the science of fact contains opinions as well as facts, and some branches of political economy are subjects by no means easy to index.

Some authors indicate their line of reasoning by the compilation of headings. This is a great help to the indexer; but if the author does not present such headings, the indexer has to make them himself, and he therefore needs the abilities of the prÉcis-writer.

There are indexes of Books, of Transactions, Periodicals, etc., and indexes of Catalogues. Each of these classes demands a different method. A book must be thoroughly indexed; but the index of Journals and Transactions may be confined to the titles of the papers and articles. It is, however, better to index the contents of the essays as well as their titles.

Before the indexer commences his work he must consider whether his index is to be full or short. Sometimes it is not necessary to adopt the full index—frequently it is too expensive a luxury for publisher or author; but the short index can be done well if necessary.

Whatever plan is followed, the indexer must use his judgment. This ought to be the marked characteristic of the good indexer. The bad indexer is entirely without this great gift.

While trying to be complete, the indexer must reject the trivial; and this is not always easy. He must not follow in the steps of the lady who confessed that she only indexed those points which specially interested her. We have fair warning of incompleteness in The Register of Corpus Christi Guild, York, published by the Surtees Society in 1872, where we read, on page 321:

"This Index contains the names of all persons mentioned in the appendix and foot-notes, but a selection only is given of those who were admitted into the Guild or enrolled in the Obituary."

The plan here adopted is not to be commended, for it is clear that so important a name-list as this is should be thoroughly indexed. However learned and judicious an editor may be, we do not choose to submit to his judgment in the offhand decision of what is and what is not important.

There is a considerable difference in the choice of headings for a general or special index—say, for instance, in indexing electrical subjects the headings would differ greatly in the indexes of the Institution of Civil Engineers or of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. In the former, dynamos, transformers, secondary or storage batteries, alternate and continuous currents would probably be grouped under the general heading of Electricity, while in the latter we shall find Dynamos under D, Transformers under T, Batteries under B, Alternate under A, and Continuous under C.

The indexes to catalogues of libraries, etc., are among the most difficult of indexes to compile. It was not usual to attach an index of subjects to a catalogue of authors until late years, and that to the Catalogue of the AthenÆum Club Library (1851) is an early specimen. The New York State Library Catalogue (1856) has an index, as have those of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society (1860) and the London Library (1865 and 1875). That appended to the Catalogue of the Manchester Free Library (1864) is more a short list of titles than an index.

There are special difficulties attendant on the indexing of catalogues. Books are written in many languages, and there is considerable trouble in bringing together the books on a given subject produced in many countries. The titles of books are not drawn up on the same system or with any wish to help the indexer. Titles are seldom straightforward, for they are largely concocted to attract the readers, without any honest wish to express correctly the nature of the contents of the book. They are usually either too short or too enigmatical. The titles of pamphlets, again, are often too long; and it may be taken as an axiom that the longer the title the less important the book.

The indexer, however, has a great advantage over the cataloguer, because the latter is bound by bibliographical etiquette not to alter the title of a book, while the indexer is at liberty to alter the title as he likes, so as to bring together books on the same subject, however different the titles may be. Herein consists the great objection to the index composed of short titles, as in Dr. Crestadoro's Index to the Manchester Free Library Catalogue. Books almost entirely alike in subject are separated by reason of the different wording of the titles. It is much more convenient to gather together under one entry books identical in subject, and there is no utility in separating an "elementary treatise" on electricity from "the elements" of electricity. One important point connected with indexes to catalogues is to add the date of the book after the name of the author, so that the seeker may know whether the book is old or new.

An index ought not to supersede the table of contents, as this is often useful for those who cannot find what they want in the index, from having forgotten the point of the heading under which it would most likely appear in the alphabet.

In the year 1900 there was a controversy in The Times on a proposed subject index to the catalogue of the library of the British Museum. It was commenced on October 15th by a letter signed "A Scholar," and closed on November 19th by the same writer, who summed up the whole controversy. "A Scholar" expressed himself strongly against the proposal, and as he himself confesses he used very arrogant language. In consequence of which, most readers must have desired to find him proved to be in the wrong. This desire was satisfied when Mr. Fortescue, the keeper of the printed books at the British Museum, delivered his address as President of the Library Association on August 27th last.

The two points made by the "Scholar" were: (1) That the making of a general subject index to the catalogue proposed by the authorities of the British Museum would be a waste of money; (2) That it was a great evil for the five-yearly indexes originated by Mr. Fortescue to be discontinued.

Now let us see what is to be said with authority on these points.

Mr. Fortescue said:

"Last Autumn ... I read with respectful astonishment a letter to 'The Times' from a writer who preferred to veil his identity under the modest signature of 'a Scholar.' There I read that 'the studious public of this country and Europe in general have been surprised by the news that the authorities of the British Museum seriously contemplate the compilation of a subject index to the vast collection of printed books in that library.' I can assure you that the surprise of the studious public and of Europe in general cannot have surpassed my own when I thus learned of what the authorities were seriously contemplating. Nevertheless, it left me able, I thought, to discern that their vast conceptions had not been so fortunate as to gain the approval of 'a Scholar' and to marvel whence The Times and other great journals had drawn their truly surprising information. Some of the arguments put forth in sundry criticisms of the 'scheme' showed how much thought had been bestowed upon matters which then first dazzled my bewildered imagination. It may come some day (who shall say what will not?), this General Index, or it may never come. But up to the present moment I am aware of no authority who is seriously contemplating so large a venture unless perhaps it be 'a Scholar' himself."

Then as to the five-yearly indexes Mr. Fortescue said:

"Experience has taught us that there is no form of subject-index which the public values so highly as one which gives the most recent literature on every possible subject. And to meet this manifest want we shall certainly continue to issue, with all the latest improvements I hope, the modest Indexes which we have hitherto published in five-yearly (I am afraid as President of The Library Association I should say 'in quinquennial') volumes. The Museum sweeps its net so wide and in such remote seas that a more or less complete collection of books on almost every subject or historical event is gathered within it for future students. To take only two incidents from the last year or two, the next index will contain not less than a hundred and forty books and pamphlets, in almost every European tongue, on the Dreyfus case, and from four to five hundred books on the present war in South Africa. Such bibliographical tests have more than an ephemeral or immediate value. They will remain as records of events or phases of thought long after their causes shall have faded from all but the page of history."

Of late years the dictionary catalogue has come very largely into use in public libraries. This consists of a union of catalogue of authors and index of subjects which is found to be very useful and illuminating to the readers in free libraries, most of whom are probably not versed in the niceties of bibliographical arrangement, but are more likely to want a book on a particular subject than to require a special book which they know. Mr. Cutter has written the history of the dictionary catalogue in the United States Special Report (pp. 533-539), and he traces it back in America to about the year 1815.

Excellent specimens of these dictionary catalogues have been produced. They are of great value to the ordinary reader at a small public library, but I venture to think that to construct one for a large library is a waste of power, because if several large libraries of a similar character do the same thing, there is constant repetition and considerable loss by the unnecessary outlay. If a fairly complete standard index were made, it could be used by all the libraries, and in return the libraries might unite to pay its cost. I am pleased to know that Mr. Fortescue prefers to keep index and catalogue distinct. He said in his address:

"I have formed, so far as I know, but one dogmatic conviction, and it is this: that the best catalogue which the art of man can invent is a catalogue in two inter-dependent yet independent parts; the first and greater part an alphabetical catalogue of authors, the second and lesser part a subject-index. I know well that I shall be told that I am out of date, that such an opinion is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—that the dictionary catalogue has won its battle—but even so, perhaps the more so, do I feel it the part of a serious and immovable conviction to declare my belief that—for student and librarian alike—this twofold catalogue, author and subject each in its own division, is the best catalogue a library can have, and that the dictionary catalogue is the very worst. But whatever may be our individual opinion on this head, it is only necessary to enter into a very simple calculation to see that if the dictionary system could have governed the rules of the British Museum Catalogue it would by now have consisted of not less than twelve million entries; and assuredly it would have been neither completed nor printed to-day."