Reinventing Knowledge: The Medieval Controversy of Alphabetical Order
(This was first published July 5, 2009 on IsisInBlog. It is the last post in this series for Reinventing Knowledge. We’ll start a new title in August and return to Reinventing Knowledge in September.)
In their Reinventing Knowledge chapter on monasteries and convents, Ian McNeely and Lisa Wolverton mention findability techniques developed following the invention of the page, including alphabetical order (p. 91). David Weinberger, in Everything Is Miscellaneous, also discusses the development of alphabetical order in the Middle Ages. He points out that it took a long time to catch on because, in his opinion, it was “conceptually confusing.” To prove his point about confusion, he quotes alphabetizing instructions from 1286, which apart from the funny spelling, are actually quite clear (pp. 26-27). Weinberger is correct, however, that alphabetical order took centuries to be accepted, but he is wrong about the reason. It was not too confusing, it was too easy.
According to Mary and Richard Rouse in their article “Statim invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page,”* the alphabet is an artificial method of ordering as opposed to a rational method. This distinction can be seen in glosses, reference works that explained details of the Bible without biblical interpretation. These glosses eventually evolved into glossaries. Information in early glosses appeared in the same order that it appeared in the Bible or other religious books. This is called a rational order. Even indexes were arranged in the same order as the book being indexed. To find something, you had to already know what page it was on. Rouse & Rouse indicate these early finding devices were meant to reflect the concept that the “universe is a harmonious whole” (p. 202). So the primary concern of arrangement was to promote philosophy not to find information.
That changed when authors of religious books needed streamlined access to information. As preachers, they started alphabetizing material called distinction collections to help them prepare weekly, or in 1200 perhaps daily, sermons. Alphabetical order is an artificial method because it has no purpose other than to arrange information. It does not reflect how the book is organized. It does not reflect a philosophical theory. It just puts material into a simple, easy to understand structure. The preachers apologized for using alphabetical order, but they went ahead and developed the method because they needed to find information fast.
The controversy over alphabetical order continues today. An information architecture discussion list recently had a lively exchange about popularity ranking vs. the alphabet. One person preferred popularity because it was felt that alphabetical order is essentially random. The respondent here was confusing an artificial arrangement with a complete lack of order. More interesting, however, is the assumption that a rational order with unknown values, such as popularity, is preferable to an artificial order with known values, such as the alphabet. We pretty much all know the alphabet, but if you look at a list of items arranged by popularity, you can only guess at individual placement.
Function determines the form of an arrangement. Popularity and the alphabet serve different functions. There are many situations where popularity is the most valuable organizing choice. But if you just want to display information for fast location, those preachers in the Middle Ages developed a very easy method.
* The Rouse and Rouse article is available as a chapter in their book Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (1991) and in the conference proceedings Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century
Posted by
Katherine Bertolucci
Isis Information Services
Phoenix, AZ
It’s interesting that in web and computer based information systems alphabetical organization is quickly losing relevance again. Amazon and Google return results based almost completely on popularity rather than a more arbitrary alphabetical system. The need for alphabetical organization quickly decreases when the primary method of finding things is keyword searching rather than subject searching. Of course, as long as we still have physical objects on our shelves some sort of mostly arbitrary organizational system is necessary. When almost everything is born digital, is it is already happening, these organizational systems will become less and less relevant.
Thanks for your comment, Alex. In the online world, there are many uses for multiple organizational structures, including alphabetical order. Amazon, in its Arts and Photography section, places an alphabetized list of subjects in prime real estate – top of the page, left side. One of the subjects is “Artists A – Z.” Effective organizational structures must vary with the material being organized and with the use. Sometimes an arbitrary alphabetical system is simply the most efficient.
That’s very odd. Particularly since I don’t see an easy way to drill down a level below the first few dozen most popular authors. So if you’re looking for Goya or Giger and didn’t remember hot to spell their names, that might be helpful but if your artist is slightly more obscure you’re back to keyword searching by name and hoping your spelling is correct or at least close enough.
It’s not an either/or situation. When receiving search results, it could be that a researcher would prefer the results presented in alphabetical order, or chronological order, or length of the document. There are many ways to present information. It’s a matter of selecting the best structure for the task at hand. In a drop down list of American states should we use alphabetical order or should we use popularity (i.e. population)? With alphabetical order, everyone always knows where to find their state. If we use popularity, users must know their state’s population in relation to other states, a statistic that varies with population changes.
You’re right that it doesn’t have to be either/or and particularly in a drop down list of states an alphabetic list is probably the way to go (although lists of countries often break out the United States and put it at the top when a website knows most of its users come from the US).
Very glad you mentioned the position of the United States in a drop-down list of countries. This exemplifies arrangement decisions. We must assume a site with an international drop-down list has international users. If the majority of the users are from the U.S., placing the U.S. at the top, in an otherwise alphabetized list, saves time for those users, but also sends the message that the U.S. is the most important country in the world. Placing the U.S. with the U countries says the United States is just one among many countries, but it does make all of us in the U.S. have to scroll way down to the bottom of the list. Which is better? Personally, for social and political reasons, I prefer the U.S. in the U’s, but when I don’t have to scroll all the way down to the U’s, I don’t object too loudly.