Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

« Luxor unlocked || Back to Blog | Tim Bray on the Bodleian »

August 11, 2005

History of alphabetization

For my book, I've been looking into the history of alphabetization. The major work in the field seems to be Lloyd W. Daly's Contributions to a History of Alphabetization in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, written in 1967. It's a short work of intense scholarship bring a huge breadth of knowledge to bear on a tiny sliver of a topic...like using the Hubble telescope to help you pull out a splinter. Lots of fun.

Some stray facts:

Daly mentions that a 13th century book, Registrum librorum Angliae, is

a list of authors, not in alphabetic order, and of their works with a numeral key to indicate where in a list of 183 monasteries each work might be found. This early union catalogue was apparently compiled as an aid to wandering Franciscan preachers who might be looking for material for sermons anywhere between St. Andrews' and Sarum. (p. 77)

The first catalog of a distributed library system. Cool!

For my purposes, I'm struck by scattered examples Daly gives of early alphabetical lists that leave blanks for later entries. The earliest alphabetized list he found dates to the 3rd century BCE on the Greek isle of Cos where 150 names are inscribed in stone. The names are broken into three lists, and each is alphabetized. One of them leaves blanks, presumably for names to be filled in later. (p. 44-6). He also refers to papyrus rolls from the 1st Century BCE in Egypt that kept track of the various tax payments individuals made. Since the entries were updated throughout the year, the ledgers had to leave blank space for each person. At the end of the year, some of the more active individuals' spaces would be crowded with entries, and other individuals would have lots of white space. (p. 44-6). That's the limitation that space and time impose when you are stuck organizing your information in the physical world.

The great French encyclopedia of the 17th Century hit exactly the same limit. Enlightening the World, by Philipp Blom, points out that the editors had to decide ahead of time what all the entries and cross-references would be since they were creating the Encyclopedia as a series of volumes, published over time, in alphabetical order. Imagine if Jimmy Wales had had to specify all topics and links in order to get Wikipedia built? Hah!

Damn that space and time! [Tags: EverythingIsMiscellaneous wikipedia]

Posted by D. Weinberger at August 11, 2005 04:04 PM


Comments

I'mm looking for ideas

Posted by: roger | August 11, 2005 07:22 PM


first letters of the alphabet in Arabic:

alef, ba, ta, [tha,... etc.]

but in Arabic, "alphabet" = abjad

go figure

Posted by: w | August 11, 2005 11:51 PM


For more up-to-date research on the medieval phase, see Mary Rouse & Richard Rouse, Preachers, florilegia and sermons: studies on the Manipulus florum of Thomas of Ireland, PIMS Texts and Studies 47, Toronto, 1979, and some of their other works. Their edition of the Registrum Anglie has recently been published. Remember, when you find yourself getting excited about alphabetical order, you've been doing this stuff too long.

Posted by: Peter Binkley | August 12, 2005 05:14 PM


A great deal of the scholarship on this question surrounds the question of the origin of alphabetical order. In the early days of the web, when I was interested in this particular problem, I had to consult (gasp!) libraries and live experts.

Now it is easy for anyone to proclaim expertise so an even more interesting question than what is the origin of alphabetic order is: how much of what you read on the web on this question is actually correct, or at least corresponds to the current scholarly thinking. It's a pretty problem for addressing this issue because, at least on the surface it is a small, self-contained, easy to state question.

In the early 1990's, the scholarly opinion was that the first interesting tablet relevant was that found at Ugarit around 1400 BCE and this is still cited by many webishes on this subject. Whether scholars still hold that idea or not I am clueless. The question of what the Ugaritic tablet might mean or what \motivated/ the choice of order was highly speculative at that time and may still be. The most extensive primary literature was from the 1930s, but I think there is more since I last looked at it. Most likely, it is interesting to find out what is the status of claims from the late 90s of the Yale eygptologist John Darnell to the effect that there is 200 year older evidence for alphabetic scripts and ordering than the Ugarit tablet.

Posted by: Bob Morris | August 13, 2005 01:46 PM


To: W

That's because the order of the Arabic alphabet was changed by some caliph or other in order to group the letters graphically (see http://tinyurl.com/a64o6).

Posted by: Lazlo | August 15, 2005 12:42 PM


Post a comment

Guidelines for Commenting

Basically, you can say what you want. (Click here for the fine print.)

If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may be put into a queue for me to approve. Sorry for the delay. Blame the damn spammers.