-------
What still remains to be taken notice of are the
_errata’s_,... Sometimes they are put by themselves on
the even side of a leaf, so as to face the title. But
though this is very seldom done, it is a pity that it
should ever have come into the thoughts of anyone to
do it at all; for it is a maxim to bring errata’s into
as narrow a compass as we conveniently can, and to put
them in a place where they can make no great show:
since it is not to the credit of a book, to find a
catalogue of its faults annexed. It is therefore wrong
policy in those who make errata’s appear numerous and
parading, in hopes of being thought very careful and
accurate; when they only serve to witness an author’s
inattention at a time when he should have been of the
opposite inclination. But the subterfuges that are
used by writers upon this occasion, are commonly
levelled at the printer, to make him the author of all
that is amiss; whereas they ought to ascribe it to
themselves: ... whoever has any ideas of printing,
must consequently know that it is impossible to
practice that art without committing errors; and that
it is the province of an author to rectify them. For
these several reasons it will appear how material
it is not to make an erratum of every trifling
fault....—John Smith’s Printer’s grammar, 1755, quoted
in Timperley’s Printer’s Manual, 1838, p. 19.
Le nouvel _Errata_, je le répète, est long, d’une
longueur inaccoutumée. Les auteurs semblent avoir
honte d’avouer les fautes qu’ils ont commises, ou
qu’on commet pour eux; je n’ai pas cette pudeur
menteuse; je confesse les fautes de mon livre.—A. JAL:
préface de la seconde édition du Dict. Crit. de
Biographie et d’histoire, 1872.
It is next to impossible to avoid errors, more especially in
bibliographical works, with numbers of names and figures. All that can
be done to avoid them, of course, should be; but with the most minute
and constant supervision errors will creep in and oversights occur.
This, however, is no reason for adopting eccentricities. For example,
Professor De Morgan in his “Arithmetical Books,” adopted the singular
plan of giving the dates twice, in figures and in words, the latter
being abbreviated, and after all, as he himself shows, he was still
liable to commit the very errors he desired to provide against.
His plan never has been, and I hope, never will be adopted by any one
else. It is original, but highly inconvenient and unbibliographical in
the extreme. It is to be hoped that if a new edition is ever published
we shall have proper title page information in a proper manner, and be
spared such eccentricities as beginning the title-page from the bottom
instead of the top.
I may here remark that the learned Professor went upon the right
principle, he excluded no book on the ground of unimportance, or
worthlessness. He described no book unless he had seen it, which was
also J. R. McCulloch’s plan in his “Literature of Political Economy”
(1845), but he unfortunately described only select works, without even
giving a brief list of what he considered rubbish, simply saying, “We
have proceeded on a principle of selection; and neglecting the others,
have, with exceptions, noticed those works only which appear to have
contributed to develop sound principles, or to facilitate their
adoption.” The consequence is if we find a book unmentioned by him, it
at once becomes a question whether he excluded it because it was
worthless, or because he had not seen it.
There is a large class of errors arising from the habit of one writer
copying another, instead of each going to original sources.
The errors prevalent in biography and bibliography were pointed out by
Mr. Bolton Corney years ago. I think it is unnecessary for me to give
here any further criticisms on the method which should be pursued. The
student who wishes to go deeper into the subject can refer to Bolton
Corney’s pamphlet: “On the New General Biographical Dictionary,” already
noticed.
The work I have quoted above by M. Jal is a large volume consisting
almost entirely of articles in correction of those existing in other
works.
No statement of any former writer should be taken for granted, if there
is any more original source. Compilers of Dictionaries sin greatly in
this respect. The reason is probably that to be correct requires so much
time and research that it does not pay to be accurate if much time is
consumed.
The safest way to avoid errors would be to compare the proof of every
title page with the book itself, but the labour would be enormous, and I
doubt if it is practicable in most cases. Nevertheless, it is the surest
way. At the same time I would not discourage anybody from attempting a
catalogue or bibliotheca, although nobody can expect to do anything of
much value without accuracy, the greater the accuracy the greater the
value.
Nothing is satisfactory but actual inspection of the books themselves.
We have quite enough of descriptions of books at second, third, or
fourth hand, in nearly all existing works, and it is time now to go upon
“a new and improved principle.” Mr. W. Carew Hazlitt in the preface to
his “Collections and Notes,” 1876, has some interesting remarks on this
subject to which the student can refer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON THE MEANS OF IDENTIFYING THE AUTHORS OF ANONYMOUS AND PSEUDONYMOUS
PUBLICATIONS.
-------
It constantly happens that “a lady,” in one of her later publications
will mention a former one. In this case it is necessary to look at the
publication so referred to, when it will be ascertained if it is
anonymous. Works are also advertised at the end of others, either as
published, or forthcoming, and these works themselves must all be looked
at.
A most extensive library is requisite for references such as these.
Indeed, it frequently happens that the works required cannot be found
even in the enormous library of the British Museum.
To take the following as an example, in Mrs. H. Mozley’s: Louisa, or the
bride, by the author of the fairy bower [motto]. London, James Burns,
Portman street, and Henry Mozley & sons, Derby, 1842, 12o, pp. 302.
It is pseudonymous. We find advertised at the end by the same author:
Bessie Gray, or the dull child. Hymns for children on the Lord’s Prayer,
our duty to God and scripture history. Robert Marshall, or the cleverest
boy in the school. The Stanley Ghost. The old Bridge. Some published,
others in the press, none of them, however, have I (1872), been able to
find in the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum[30]. They may
be there nevertheless.
Footnote 30: