PENS AND TYPES
OR
HINTS AND HELPS
FOR
THOSE WHO WRITE, PRINT, READ, TEACH,
OR LEARN
A NEW AND IMPROVED EDITION
BY
BENJAMIN DREW
“A portion to Seven, and also to Eight”
BOSTON 1889
LEE AND SHEPARD PUBLISHERS
10 MILK STREET NEXT “OLD SOUTH MEETING HOUSE”
NEW YORK CHARLES T. DILLINGHAM
718 AND 720 BROADWAY
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1889,
BY BENJAMIN DREW,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
C. J. PETERS & SON,
TYPOGRAPHERS AND ELECTROTYPERS,
145 HIGH STREET, BOSTON.
To the Memory
OF
GEORGE WASHINGTON HOSMER, D.D.,
MY EARLY FRIEND AND INSTRUCTOR,
THIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED
BY
THE AUTHOR.
PUBLISHERS’ ADVERTISEMENT.
Our first edition of “Pens and Types: or Hints and Helps for those who
Write, Print, or Read,” was especially prepared for the benefit of
persons connected with the press. It had, however, a wide circulation
among persons of all professions, and became a reference book in some
notable institutions of learning.
A distinguished lady teacher in a neighboring city writes us, “I found
the book [“Pens and Types”] of the greatest benefit, both in my work of
teaching, and in the writing I occasionally did for the press. It was
an invaluable aid to those who were trying to train the young in habits
of correctness and accuracy in the use of their mother tongue. Such a
work should never be out of print, and I am glad there is to be another
edition.” We might refer to many who have expressed similar opinions.
This second edition contains all that was valuable in the first,
besides several new chapters and additions, as set forth in the
author’s preface: and on account of its past reputation and the
merits of the added matter, we bespeak anew the favor of printers
and teachers,—of both which professions Mr. Drew may fairly be {p6}
considered a representative; and although he has, in his book, kept
his personality out of sight, even using the editorial “we,” his
fitness for a work of this kind will, we think, be made apparent by a
brief sketch of his career.
After a school life in which he paid much attention to Latin and Greek
classics, he learned the trade of printer. Soon after attaining his
majority, he was employed as teacher of a public school in his native
town, Plymouth, Mass., whence he was summoned to Boston, to take three
months’ charge of the Bowdoin School, during the illness and consequent
absence of Mr. James Robinson. Subsequently he became master in the
Otis School, which position he occupied during the whole period of its
continuance.
While residing in Boston, Mr. Drew was a correspondent of the “Post,”
under the signature of SHANDY; and he also contributed the articles
of DR. DIGG and ENSIGN STEBBINGS to Shillaber’s “Carpet Bag.” His
contributions were of a humorous character, and are well remembered by
many gray-bearded gentlemen of Boston and its environs. From this city,
Mr. Drew removed to Minnesota, where he was Principal of the Public
Schools of St. Paul.
After twenty years of teaching, Mr. Drew returned to the purlieus
of the printing-office, as proof-reader at the University Press,
Cambridge, and afterward with John Wilson & Son, and Alfred Mudge & Son.
Next he became proof-reader in the Government {p7} printing-office,
at Washington, where for more than nine years he remained, reading
press-proofs of the various Government publications, including many
volumes issued by the Smithsonian Institution, and giving valuable
assistance to the Civil Service Commissioners, in the technical
examination of proof-readers for the Government Departments. At the age
of seventy-six he retired from public employment, and prepared this
second edition for the press. May he live long, and enjoy the reward of
an industrious and useful life—and a huge remuneration from an enormous
sale of his Second Edition.
THE PUBLISHERS.
{p9}
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
As “man measures man the world over,” so it may be presumed that the
experience of a laborer in any one department of literature will,
in the general, tally with that of all others occupying a similar
position. This volume gives the results of a proof-reader’s experience,
and such suggestions derived therefrom as may, he hopes, be useful to
all who prepare reading-matter for the press, to all who assist in
printing and publishing it, and, finally, to the reading public.
But as a vein of imperfection runs through all human achievement;
and as the most carefully issued volume must contain errors,—so this
work, if critically examined, may perhaps be found to violate, in some
instances, its own rules; nay, the rules themselves may appear to be,
in some points, erroneous. Still, the inexperienced, we feel assured,
will find herein many things of immediate benefit; and those who need
no instruction may have their opinions and their wisdom re-enforced by
the examples used in illustration. So, believing that on the whole it
will {p10} be serviceable; that it contains “a portion” for “seven, and
also” for “eight,” we send this treatise to press. And if its perusal
shall incite some more competent person to produce a more valuable work
on the topics presented, we shall gladly withdraw, and leave him, so
far as we are concerned, the undisputed possession of the field.
{p11}
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The extensive circulation of the first edition of “Pens and Types,”
attested by the worn condition of the stereotype plates, induces the
author to present to his friends and the public a new and improved
edition, embodying the results of a wider experience.
The most important portions of the first edition have been retained.
The chapter on Orthography has been enlarged by the addition of ONE
_correct and authorized spelling_ of the many hundreds of doubtful
words—words to which writer and printer _can give but one form_, while
lexicographers give two or more. For offices which adopt Webster as
the standard, Webster’s first column has been closely followed; and
for those which follow Worcester’s style, a list is added, adhering
to Worcester’s first column. Some words of the lexicographers’ second
columns are also placed in the lists (e. g. _draught_ as well as
_draft_), giving to each word its proper and distinct significations.
Moreover we have in the same chapter placed a list of all the
words ending in _able_ and _ible_ which {p12} are to be found in
ordinary English dictionaries,—whether words in common use or rare or
obsolete,—a feature which compositors and many others will know how to
appreciate.
A chapter on the Right Use of Capitals, with rules and examples; and
another on Old Style and its ligatures, with fac-similes from ancient
specimens of typography, give additional value to this edition.
The index at the end of the volume will enable the reader to find at
once any particular rule or direction contained in the body of the work.
Although originally intended for authors and printers, this volume
will, we are confident, be in many respects a valuable reference-book
for teachers and pupils in the public schools, and in seminaries of
learning generally.
{p13}
CONTENTS.
I. Writing for the Press • 15
II. Proof-reading • 33
III. Style • 59
IV. General Remarks on Subject-matter of Foregoing
Three Chapters • 66
V. Punctuation • 71
VI. Orthography • 125
VII. Capitalization • 171
VIII. Old Style • 195
IX. Technical Terms used in this Work • 202
X. Various Sizes of Letter • 205
INDEX • 207
PENS AND TYPES.
CHAPTER I.
WRITING FOR THE PRESS.
In an action recently brought against the proprietors of Lloyd’s paper,
in London, for damages for not inserting a newspaper advertisement
correctly, the verdict was for the defendant, by reason of the
illegibility of the writing.
“The illegibility of the writing” is the cause of the larger portion of
what are conveniently termed “errors of the press.” One can scarcely
take up a periodical publication without finding, from editor or
correspondent, an apology for some error in a previous issue, couched
somewhat in this style: “The types made us say, in our last, something
about the ‘Dogs of the Seine’, we certainly wrote ‘Days of the
League.’” We have no doubt that, in a large majority of cases of this
sort, if the question between “the types” and “the pen” were left to a
jury, they would, as in the case of Lloyd’s paper, decide in favor of
the types.
By dint of hard study, by comparison of letters in {p16} various
words, and by the sense of the context, the compositor generally
goes through his task creditably, in spite of the “illegibility of
the writing.” But sometimes, in despair, he puts into type that word
which most nearly resembles an unreadable word in the manuscript,
making nonsense of the passage because he can make nothing else of
it. We remember a great many instances of this sort, in our own
experience as a proof-reader,—instances which, according to custom,
might be attributed to “the types,” but which were really due to the
writers’ carelessness alone. Thus, in a medical work, it was stated
that “This case had been greatly aggravated by the _ossification_
of warm poultices to the face”; the author having intended to write
“application.”
Ames’s “Typographical Antiquities” has been made to figure as
“Typographical Ambiguities,”—owing to chirographical ambiguity.
“The reports in the ‘Times’ and other journals, never give the name
of the Lord Chandler.” “Chancellor” was, of course, intended by the
writer, but this was an “error of the press.”
In an investigation touching the field of a compound microscope,
a witness was made to say, “It would vary with the power of the
_lye-juice_ employed.” The reporter meant to write “eye-piece,” but he
succeeded in writing what the compositor set up.
The title of a book,—“A Treatise on the Steam-engine; with
_Theological_ Investigations on the Motive Power of Heat.” The latter
clause might seem appropriate to “Fox’s Book of Martyrs”; but the
{p17} transcriber of the title imagined he had written “Theoretical.”
A toast,—“The President of the —— County Agricultural Society,—May he
enjoy a _grim_ old age”: the word was corrected to “green,” before the
whole edition of the paper was worked off.
We have seen an advertisement of “_Mattlebran’s_ Universal
Geography,”—no doubt a very entertaining work.
In a treatise on botany, we have been told, “we first find those
that form the bud, then the _calx_, the _corrola_, the stamina and
_pistol_.” The writer should have spelled correctly, and dotted his
_i’s_.
A catalogue of hardware to be sold by auction had an item, “3 bbls.
English pocket-knives.” This was set from “commercial” writing, in
which “bbls.,” or something like it, was used as a contraction for
“bladed.”
“Nature intended man for a social being. Alone and isolated, man would
become _impatient_ and _peevish_.” No doubt this is true, but “the
types” were to blame again,—the author fancied that he had written
“impotent, and perish.”
The constitution of a certain corporation appeared with the following
article in the proof-sheet: “The Directors shall have power to
purchase, build, equip or charter all such steamboats, propellers,
or other vessels, as the engineers of the Corporation shall in their
judgment require.” Why the Directors should be placed at the mercy of
the _engineers_ seemed unaccountable. But a critical examination of
the {p18} manuscript revealed that the “engineers” were “exigencies.”
A “Bill of exceptions, having been examined, and found _unfavorable_ to
the truth, is allowed.” The Justice who signed the above, understood
the word which we have italicized to be “conformable.”
“They could not admit those parts of the testimony until they had
examined the plaintiff in regard to the _poets_,”—“facts” should have
been written instead of “poets”; but the “pen” made an error which the
compositor did not feel at liberty to correct.
We have read in a newspaper a description of a battle-field:—“It was
fearful to see: the men fell in ranks, and marched in _pantaloons_ to
their final account.” This was explained by an erasure and a blot on
the word “platoons.”
It is very easy to say that errors of the kind we have recited, are
owing to the ignorance or carelessness of the printers; but, on the
other hand, when printed copy is reset, such errors almost never
occur,—and the absence of errors is in direct ratio to the legibility
of the copy.
Men who write much, generally imagine that they write well; but their
imagination is often a vain one. The writer of the worst manuscript
we recollect to have met with, expressed surprise when told that
printers and proof-readers could not read his writing, and remarked
that he had often been complimented on the plainness and neatness
of his chirography. His memory was, no doubt, excellent,—the {p19}
compliments must have been bestowed in his juvenile days, when he was
imitating engraved copies.
While one is imitating a copy, he may, indeed, write legibly, nay, even
elegantly; for he has nothing to attend to, save the formation of the
letters. But when one is writing a report or a sermon or a poem, his
mind is busy with something besides chirography.
The fact is, that men seldom succeed well in doing more than one thing
at a time. The itinerant musician who imitates the various instruments
of a full band, may be detected in an occasional discord. Paley remarks
that we cannot easily swallow while we gape; and, if any one will try
the experiment, he will presently be satisfied that in this statement,
at least, Paley was physiologically and philosophically correct.
Thus, in the haste of composition, ideas crowding upon us faster than
the pen can give them permanence, we can bestow little thought on mere
chirography, writing becomes mechanical, or even automatic; and we pay
scarcely more attention to the forms that follow the pen, than we do to
the contractions and dilatations of the vocal organs when engaged in
conversation with an entertaining friend.
Let school training and practice be the same, yet such are the
differences of physical conformation that handwritings are as various
as the individuals that produce them; running through all degrees of
the scale, from an elegance transcending the engraver’s skill, down to
misshapen difficulties and puzzling deformity. {p20}
But however widely our handwriting may vary from Wrifford, Spencer, or
Dunton, it is generally legible to ourselves, and soon becomes familiar
to our friends and acquaintances. Hence comes the danger that we
shall cease to bestow any care upon it when others than ourselves and
acquaintances are concerned, and hence it is, that, with scarcely any
consciousness of our shortcomings, we are liable to impose on an utter
stranger the task of deciphering a piece of manuscript in which not
only the letters have no proper characterization, but which is smutched
with erasures, deformed by interlineations, and obscured by frequent
and needless abbreviations.
The loss of time spent in endeavoring to read such a document,
is reckoned among the “small things” of which “the law takes no
cognizance”; were it otherwise, many of us who fancy that our
manuscript is above reproach, would be astonished at the number of
bills collectible outstanding against us.
The opinion of the “statists,” spoken of in Hamlet, that it is “a
baseness to write fair,” seems prevalent even in our day. Most men, on
leaving school, instead of endeavoring to improve their chirography,
allow it to deteriorate, and seem to take pride in its deteriority, and
many learned men write as if afraid that legibility would be considered
a proof of intellectual weakness.
In all other cases of encroaching on the time and patience of
another,—as, for instance, our failure to fulfill an appointment, or
calling at an unseasonable hour, or seeking advice in an affair wholly
our {p21} own,—we feel bound to make due apology, nay, sometimes even
acknowledge a sense of shame; but who ever felt regret on hearing that
he had put some one to the trouble of studying, and guessing at, a
puzzling intricacy of cramped writing; his victim being obliged to seek
aid from dictionaries, gazetteers, directories, and even experts? We
never heard of a man’s suffering compunction on this score.
We say this, referring to ordinary business transactions between man
and man, where bad writing, except in rare and extreme cases, does not
involve pecuniary loss. But when we are writing for the press, our duty
to write legibly becomes imperative; indeed, a failure in this respect
trenches so closely upon a violation of the eighth commandment, that it
can seldom happen but from a want of thought as to the relation between
those who write and those who print.
Compositors usually work by the piece, and are paid a fixed rate per
thousand ems. If a line of type be divided by vertical lines into
equal squares, these squares show the number of ems in the line.
Suppose there are twenty such squares; then fifty lines would contain
one thousand ems. To set, correct, and distribute six thousand ems,
is considered a fair day’s work. With plain, legible copy, this can
ordinarily be done; and, at the close of the week, the compositor
receives full wages; all parties are satisfied, and no one is entitled
to complain.
But if, at the end of the week, notwithstanding the closest
application, the compositor has averaged {p22} but four thousand ems
per day, whereby he receives but two-thirds of the sum he is capable of
earning under favorable conditions, who is morally responsible to him
for the lacking third? We need not go far to ascertain: a glance at his
“copy” answers the question. He has been laboring upon bad manuscript.
To show the difficulties which have been in his way, we will put a
supposititious case,—closely paralleled, however, in the experience of
almost every compositor who has worked in a book-office.
He has been setting up a sermon of the Rev. Mr. Z. The society of
the reverend gentleman were so well pleased with the discourse, that
they requested a copy for the press. Mr. Z. should, of course, have
copied the whole manuscript fairly; for, the haste of composition
being past, he could have re-written it carefully, paying especial
attention to chirography, spelling out his abbreviations, reducing
dislocations, bringing interlineations into line,—in short, he should
have done to the compositor what he would that the compositor should
do unto him. But, instead of this, what did you do, Mr. Z.? Pen in
hand, you re-read the sermon, making erasures, striking out some
words and interlining others. You crowded new sentences, of two or
three lines each, between lines already closely written; and you
interlined these interlineations. You then wrote sundry additions on
loose pieces of paper, denoting them as “A,” “B,” “C,” etc., and then
placed the same capitals in the body of the work, without sufficiently
explaining that new matter was to be inserted; {p23} neither did you
make it appear whether the addenda were to constitute new paragraphs.
And in this amorphous condition you allowed the sermon to go to the
printing-office. It has, too, passed through several hands. Some of the
pieces belonging to “A” have got into “B,” and some of the “B” have
straggled into “C,”—and the printers cannot say where they do belong.
One compositor finds in his “take”[1] the abbreviation “Xn,” and,
after many inquiries, learns that _X_ is the Greek _Chi_, and so “Xn”
signifies “Christian.” Another hesitates at a phrase which, to his
eye, seems to read “a _parboiled_ skeptic”; but as modern methods
with heretics do not include heated applications, he asks those about
him what the word is; perhaps goes to the proof-reader with it,—such
things are done sometimes,—for the compositor expects ultimately to
conform to the proof-reader’s decision,—and thus he loses five or
ten minutes in learning that the word is _purblind_. Now, reverend
sir, the compositor’s time is his money, and if you rob him of his
time—the inference is obvious. Your better course, henceforth, will be
to copy your manuscript, or employ some one to copy it, in a careful,
painstaking manner, after all your emendations of the text have been
made.
[1] For this and all other technical terms used in this work, see
Chapter IX.
There is a proverb to the effect that lawyers are bad penmen, but
we think the proverb unjust. So far as our experience goes, the
handwriting of {p24} lawyers compares favorably with that of any other
class of persons, of whatever profession. It is certainly as legible
as the mercantile style; since the latter, although generally pretty
to look at, is often very difficult to read,—abounding in flourish
and ornament, which are too often but another name for obscurity.
Sometimes, too, one meets with clerkly invoices or catalogues,
containing remarkably fanciful capitals; we have seen good readers
scarcely able to decide whether a given initial were a W, an H, or
an N. We are pleased to learn, however, that one leading “Commercial
College” has introduced a marked improvement in this respect, and
now teaches its pupils a plain, legible hand, instead of a mass of
overloaded ornamentation made not so much to be read, as simply to be
admired.
But members of the bar, like most other persons, dislike the mechanical
labor of copying what they have once committed to paper. Their
arguments, and especially their briefs, are sometimes sent to the
printer in a confused, chaotic mass; in a shape, or, rather, with a
want of shape, which, if not resulting from inconsiderateness, would
be—we were on the point of saying—disgraceful. A manuscript of this
sort, covering but six or eight pages of letter-paper, sometimes
requires several hours’ labor in reading, correcting, and revising,
before a presentable proof can be obtained.
Legal documents are often interlarded with technical terms in law
Latin and old French. Of course such terms ought to be made as
plain as print. {p25} Usually the principal divisions of a brief are
indicated by large roman numerals in the middle of the line; the points
under these greater divisions, by roman numerals at the commencement
of paragraphs; smaller divisions, by arabic numerals; and if still
smaller divisions are required, these are denoted by letters in
parenthesis, as (a), (b), (c), etc. In the haste of writing, however,
it is sometimes found difficult, perhaps vexatious, to keep the run of
so nice distinctions, and arabic numerals are used throughout, while
no proper care is taken to distinguish the various divisions of the
subject-matter by varying indentions.[2] The faults of the manuscript
reappear in the proof. This leads to much loss of time “at the stone”;
and as such work is frequently hurried during the sessions of the
courts, the delay is exceedingly vexatious to all parties concerned. If
one-eighth of the time now spent in correcting, overrunning the matter,
and revising, were bestowed upon perfecting the copy, there would
seldom be any delay in a well-appointed printing-office.
[2] We do not mean “indentation” nor yet “inden’tion,” but
“indention,” as written in the text. The word is in the mouth of
every printer, proof-reader, author, and publisher: why should it not
be inserted in the dictionaries?
When transcripts of records of court are to be printed, care should
be taken that only the very documents that are intended for the press
be sent to the printing-office. For want of proper attention in this
matter, it not unfrequently happens that certificates of notaries,
extraneous documents, and duplicates are put in type, to be presently
canceled. {p26}
We have said something above, touching mercantile handwriting. Constant
practice with the pen gives facility and boldness of execution,—and
where these are combined with good taste, chirography approaches the
dignity of a fine art, and produces beautiful effects, and is seen to
be near of kin to drawing and painting. In signatures, especially,
flourish and ornamentation have a double use; they please the eye, and
they baffle the forger. But when lines stand as near each other as in
ordinary ruling, the flourish in one line interferes with the letters
of the next; and the elegance of a well-cut capital will scarcely
excuse its obtrusiveness, when it obliterates its more obscure but
equally useful neighbors.
Further, business men, deeply impressed with the value of time, learn
to delight in abbreviations. Types have been cast to meet some of
these, as the “commercial _a_” [@] and the “per cent” [%]; but the
compositor is sometimes put to his trumps to cut, from German and job
letter, imitations of abbreviations which never ought to be sent to
a printing-office as copy. We are not astonished that a merchant of
Boston once received from a Prussian correspondent a request, that if
he, the Bostonian, were to write again, it might be either in German or
in good, plain English. We adopt the spirit of this advice; and would
say to the banker, the broker, the merchant, and to their respective
clerks, that when they write for the press, they should drop ornament,
drop pedantic abbreviations, drop German, and write in _plain_
English. {p27}
We do not know that there is anything specially characteristic in copy
furnished by the medical faculty, unless it be that their relations of
“cases,” both in medicine and surgery, abound, no doubt necessarily, in
“words of learned length”; which, being unfamiliar to the laity, should
be written with conscionable care; every letter performing its proper
function, and duly articulated to its neighbors. But the scientific
terms of their art, as written by most physicians, are, to the average
printer, as illegible as the Greek from which a portion of such terms
is derived. Recipes are seldom got typographically correct, until they
have passed through three or four revisions. Even apothecaries, it is
said, sometimes put up morphine instead of magnesia; in which case,
unless the revising is done in a hurry with the stomach-pump, a jury
may have something to say about the “illegibility of the writing.” When
troublesome consequences arise from misapprehension of a Latin word,
or of its meaning, we hear much said in favor of writing recipes in
English.
But, whatever may be said to the contrary, there are weighty, and, we
think, irrefutable arguments for continuing the use of Latin and Greek
terms in medical writings,—even in recipes. Since it should be so, and
certainly _is_ so, we insist here, as elsewhere, that all technical
terms, proper names, or any words on which the context can throw but
little, if any, light, should be written not with ordinary, but with
_cardinary_ care,—which new word we hazard, that our meaning may make
a deeper impression. {p28}
In passing, we may remark that the mode of indicating names of remedies
comes under the head of “Style” (see Chapter III.), and varies in
different offices. Names of medicines are often abbreviated, and set
in italics; and when a generic word is used, it should be capitalized;
as, “Dr. I. administered _Rhus tox_.” In homeopathic works, the number
expressing a dilution or trituration is placed in superiors at the
right; as, “Ordered _Cuprum metallicum_^{100}.”
A few suggestions to those who write any kind of copy for the press,
will close this part of our subject.
Write on only one side of the paper.
If you wish to make an addition to a page, do not write it on the back
of the sheet; cut the leaf, and paste the new matter in, just where
it belongs, being careful not to cover up so much as a single letter
in doing so: we have known lines to be omitted by the compositor, in
consequence of careless pasting. The leaf having thus been lengthened,
you may, for the sake of convenience, fold the lower edge forward upon
the writing. This minute direction may seem idle; but when a portion of
the leaf has been folded backward, out of sight, the folded part may
very likely escape notice, and, to insert it, many pages of matter may
afterward require to be overrun: we have known such cases.
Abbreviate those words only, which you wish the printer to abbreviate.
Never erase with a lead pencil; for an erasure with lead leaves it
questionable whether or not the marked {p29} word is to go in. Use
ink, drawing the pen horizontally through the words or lines to be
omitted; and be careful that the marking leave off on exactly the right
word. If you afterward regret the cancellation, you may write “stet”
in the margin, and place dots under the canceled words; but as “stet”
may not be noticed, in the presence of obvious erasures, the better way
will be to re-write the passage, and paste it in the place you wish it
to occupy.
Take time to write plainly and legibly. In writing for the press, the
old adage holds good,—“The more haste, the worse speed”; and for every
hour you save by writing hurriedly, you will be called upon to pay for
several hours’ labor in making corrections. Write joinhand: mistakes
often arise from a long word being broken up, as it were, into two or
three words.
I and J are often mistaken for each other. Either imitate the printed
letters, or uniformly carry the loop of the J below the line.
It is often impossible to distinguish Jan. from June, in manuscript,
unless the context furnishes a clew.
Whatever may be the divisions of your work (as books, chapters,
sections, cantos, and the like), let your entire manuscript be paged
in the order of the natural series of numbers from 1 upward. If you
commence each division with 1,—as is sometimes done,—and two or three
divisions are given out as “takes” to compositors, it is obvious that
portions of one division may exchange places with those of another;
and, further, if leaves happen to become transposed, they can readily
be restored to their right {p30} places if no duplicate numbers have
been used in indicating the pages.
Make sure that the books, chapters, etc., are numbered consecutively.
The best proof-reader must confess to some unguarded moments; and it
would be very awkward, after having had two hundred and forty chapters
stereotyped, to find that two chapter V.’s have been cast, that every
subsequent chapter is numbered one less than it should have been, and
that compositor and proof-reader have exactly followed copy.
Examine your manuscript carefully with reference to the points. Avoid
the dash when any other point will answer your purpose. A manuscript
that is over-punctuated occasions more perplexity than one that is
scarcely pointed at all.
Before sending it to press, get your manuscript into a shape you can
abide by. Alterations made on the proof-sheet must be paid for; and,
further, matter that has undergone alterations seldom makes a handsome
page: some lines will appear crowded, others too widely spaced.
In writing a footnote¹ let it immediately follow
¹ In many works the footnotes, by a slight change of arrangement,
might advantageously become a portion of the text.
the line of text which contains the asterisk, or other reference-mark;
just as you see in the above example, and do not write it at the
bottom of the manuscript page. The person who makes up the matter will
transfer such note to its proper place.
If you feel obliged to strike out a word from the {p31} proof, endeavor
to insert another, in the same sentence, and in the same line if
possible, to fill the space. So, if you insert a word or words, see
whether you can strike out, nearly at the same place, as much as you
insert.
When writing for the press, never use a lead pencil. Let your copy be
made with black ink on good white paper. We have been pained to see
the checkered pages of a report to an extensive religious association,
which report had been in the first place wholly written with a lead
pencil: then words canceled, words interlined, various changes
made,—and all these alterations done with pen and ink. Of course,
sleeve and hand rubbing over the plumbago gave the whole a dingy and
blurred appearance. The effect of the ink sprinkled among the faded
pencilings was so much like that of mending an old garment with new
cloth, that the manuscript had an unchristian, nay, even heathenish
aspect. However, from this copy the report was printed,—let us
charitably hope that it did much good in the world.
If proof-sheets present peculiarities of spelling and language, such
for instance as appear in ancient works, and which are affected or
indulged in by some moderns, every word whose correctness he doubts and
is unable to verify, should be referred by the proof-reader to author
or editor. The latter, familiar with the terms used, may consider
some queries frivolous or puerile; but an author should appreciate
conscientiousness in the reader, and be glad to have {p32} all doubts
settled before his work reaches the eyes of reviewers.
That Dr. Johnson was guilty of harshness toward a proof-reader is
not to be wondered at; but it is a matter of wonder that his conduct
appears to have been approved by other editors. In J. T. Buckingham’s
edition of Shakspeare (1814) is, at page 915, a remarkable note,
apologizing for a few “trifling errors,” and adopting as an excuse a
quotation from an advertisement “from the first edition of Reed, 1793”:
He, whose business it is to offer this unusual apology, very well
remembers to have been sitting with Dr. Johnson, when an agent from
a neighboring press brought in a proof sheet of a republication,
requesting to know whether a particular word in it was not corrupted.
“So far from it, sir,” (replied the Doctor with some harshness,) “that
the word you suspect, and would displace, is conspicuously beautiful
where it stands, and is the only one that could do the duty expected
from it by Mr. Pope.”
Dr. Johnson’s assumption that the agent _would displace_ the
word, seems to have been wholly gratuitous. The employees of the
neighboring press did precisely what they should have done,—what every
conscientious proof-reader often feels obliged to do. If suspected
words were passed without questioning, there would be many errors of
the press which would justify some show of “harshness” toward the
neglectful “agent.”
{p33}
CHAPTER II.
PROOF-READING.
So long as authors the most accomplished are liable to err, so long
as compositors the most careful make occasional mistakes, so long as
dictionaries authorize various spellings, just so long must there be
individuals trained and training to detect errors, to rectify mistakes,
and to decide upon and settle all points which lexicographers leave in
doubt. Such individuals are known as Proof-readers.
Movable types, after having been used in printing newspaper or book,
etc., are distributed to their several compartments (boxes) for future
use. In distributing, the compositor, holding several lines in his left
hand, takes from the top line, between the thumb and forefinger of his
right hand, as many words or letters as he can conveniently manipulate,
and moving his hand over the case drops each letter into its proper
box. Suppose, for instance, he takes up the word “feasible”; he carries
his hand to the “f” box, and drops off the first letter; of course he
knows, without looking at the word again, that he is next to drop off
the “e”—and so, very quickly, his hand glides from box to box, each
receiving its proper letter. This process is repeated until the {p34}
types which composed the form are all, apparently, returned to the
compartments whence they were taken.
Suppose, however, that when ready to distribute “feasible,” his
attention is drawn momentarily to a neighbor who desires his opinion
as to a blotted word in his take, and that, on returning to his work
of distributing, he imagines, or seems to remember, that the word in
hand is “fencible,”—the “a” goes into the “n” box, and the “s” finds
itself at “c.” By and by, in setting type from this same case, the
compositor picks up the letters for “emancipate.” If he happens to take
up the two _wrong_ letters consecutively from the _right_ boxes, his
proof-sheet—unless he reads and corrects the matter in his stick—will
present the word “ema_a_sipate”—which the proof-reader will mark, for
the compositor to correct.
Or it may happen in distributing, that the “f” and “e” cohere, and are
both dropped into the “f” box. If the compositor’s mind is not intent
on the matter in hand, the error may not be noticed at once; in which
case the “a” gets into the “e” box, and some or all the other letters
of the word go wrong. The error must be discovered when the last letter
is reached; but to search for each misplaced type until it is found,
would probably take more time than would be required to correct the
errors which must otherwise appear in the proof.
But it is not in distributing only, that blunders occur. There are
many other sources of error, and will be so long as present methods
continue in vogue. {p35} The only wonder is, that so few errors escape
detection before the printer’s work is handed over to the reading
public. We have by us an octavo Shakspeare, each page of type from
which it was printed, having contained, as can be demonstrated, over
six thousand pieces of metal, the misplacing of any one of which would
have caused a blunder.
But the detection and marking of wrong letters forms a comparatively
small part of a proof-reader’s duty. He must be able to tell at sight
whether a lead is too thick or too thin, and to discriminate between a
three-em space and a four-em space. Many other important matters fall
within his province,—and these we shall endeavor to point out before
closing the present chapter.
Other things being equal, printers make the best proof-readers. We have
known two or three remarkably skillful readers, whose work could not
be surpassed, who never imposed a form, nor set a line of type. These,
however, were rare exceptions.
A practical printer who never heard of the digamma, and who has
never read anything but newspapers, will generally make a better
proof-reader than an educated man who is not practically acquainted
with the typographic art; for the printer has, year in and year out,
had a daily drill which makes him skillful in orthography, and he has
been compelled to give close attention to the grammatical points.
Further, his dealing with individual types enables him to see, without
searching, errors which men far more learned than he, do not readily
{p36} perceive; and his pen pounces on a wrong letter as instinctively
and unerringly as the bird darts on its insect prey.
Sterne has uttered a sneer at the husk and shell of learning; but the
best bread is made from the whole meal, and includes the “shorts” and
the “middlings” as well as the fine flour. If every lawyer, physician,
and clergyman were to spend six months at the “case” before entering
upon his profession, he would find, even in that short term of labor, a
useful fitting and preparation for such literary tasks as may afterward
devolve upon him.
Nearly all manuscript copy is indebted to the compositor and
proof-reader for the proper punctuation; and many errors in spelling,
made by men who probably know better, but write hastily, are silently
corrected in the printing-office. Contradictions, errors of fact,
anachronisms, imperfect sentences, solecisms, barbarisms, are
modestly pointed out to the author by the proof-reader’s “quære,” or
by a carefully worded suggestion; and, most usually, the proof is
returned without comment,—and none is needed,—corrected according to
the proof-reader’s intimations. Dickens, and a few other writers of
eminence, have acknowledged their indebtedness in such cases; but we
know one proof-reader—whose experience embraces an infinite variety of
subjects from bill-heads to Bibles—who can remember but three cases in
which his assistance, whether valuable or otherwise, was alluded to in
a kindly manner. On the other hand, the correction in the proof is
sometimes {p37} accompanied by some testy remark: as, “Does this suit
you?” or, “Will it do _now_?” The proof-reader is, however, or should
be, perfectly callous to all captious criticisms and foolish comments;
he need care nothing for “harshness” or other nonsense, provided his
work is well and thoroughly done. Let no nervous or touchy man meddle
with proof-reading.
For the especial benefit of our non-professional readers, we will
here point out the usual routine in regard to proofs. The editor or
publisher of a book or periodical sends to the printer such portions of
reading-matter or manuscript as he can, from time to time, conveniently
supply. This copy is passed to a head-workman, who divides it into a
number of parts, called “takes,” each part being a suitable quantity
for a compositor to _take_ at one time; and the name of each compositor
is penciled at the top of his take. The type when set up is called
“matter.”
When there is enough matter to fill a “galley” (a metallic or wooden
casing about two feet in length), an impression, or “proof,” is taken
on a strip of paper wide enough to receive in the margin the correction
of such errors as may be found. This proof, with the corresponding
copy, is carried to the proof-reader’s desk for examination and
correction.
The reader will have at hand a copy of such directions as may have
been furnished by author, editor, or publisher, to which he appends,
from time to time, memoranda of all eccentricities of orthography and
capitalization,—in short, all peculiarities of style, as they arise.
This he consults frequently while {p38} reading the proof-sheet, and,
for obvious reasons, with especial attention after any unusual delay
in the progress of the work. Directions and notes as to captions,
sizes of type, form of tables, etc., are of utility, especially when
several readers are employed on the same publication; but directions
can scarcely be framed so as to ensure[3] uniformity, except in
few particulars. We subjoin two or three samples of directions and
memoranda: our remarks in brackets.
[3] _Vide_ page 170, on the orthography of this word.
MEMORANDA FOR PROOF-READERS.
The form is regular octavo.
Text is long primer, single leaded.
Tables and lists, having rules and boxheads, nonpareil solid.
Headings of tables and lists, brevier italic, lower case.
There are no numbered chapters. The heading of each section, which
takes the place of chapter heading, is pica light-face celtic caps,
spaced.
Geological ages and epochs are capitalized; for example, “Devonian,”
“Trias,” “sub-Carboniferous” v. [page 176.]
Quoted extracts in regular text type (long primer), between quotation
marks.
Capitalize “the West,” “the South,” etc., but not “western New York,”
“central Pennsylvania,” etc.
Do not use “&c.” for “etc.”
“Prof.,” “Gen.,” etc., preceding initials or Christian name;
“Professor,” “General,” etc., when last name alone is used; for
example, “Prof. J. Smith,” “General Grant,” etc.
Full point after roman numerals.
“Saint Louis,” etc.; spell out “Saint.”
Names of periodicals, in italics.
Names of books, roman, in quotation marks.
“Panther creek”; but “Panther Creek district.” That is, capitalize
titles.
{p39}
The following sample relates to an octavo on Fishes:
Make “cod fishery” two words.
“Offshore,” “Inshore” [no hyphen].
“Sheepshead” [name of fish. Webster inserts an apostrophe and a
hyphen,—“Sheep’s-head”].
“Herring fisheries” [no hyphen].
“Herring-nets” [insert hyphen].
From a quarto on Fishes:
“Cod-fisherman” [hyphen].
“Cod fishery” [two words].
Engineer work:
Make footnotes of the “Remarks” column.
For “D. D.” in copy, spell “dry-dock.”
Use figures in all cases, for weights, distances, etc.
The following was for a Digest—Decisions:
Spell “travelling,” “employee,” and divide “ser-vice.” [“Travelling”
and “ser-vice” are Worcester style. Webster divides “serv-ice.”—In
regard to “employee,” neither Webster nor Worcester gives it place;
but, instead, the French “employé.” Webster has this note following
the French word: “The English form of this word, viz., _employee_,
though perfectly conformable to analogy, and therefore perfectly
legitimate, is not sanctioned by the usage of good writers.” Since
Webster’s note was written, some good writers, as in the book of
Decisions above mentioned, have used the English word, as many
printing-office employees can testify,—and “_employé_” may as well be
sent home, according to the immigration laws, as unable to sustain
itself in this country.[4]]
[4] Since the above remark was written, we have found “employee”
admitted as a correct English word, in Worcester’s “Supplement.”
Weather Reports:
The “upper Missouri valley” [small _v_].
The “Mississippi river” [small _r_].
{p40}
Geological Survey:
The “Missouri Valley” [cap. _V_].
The “Missouri River” [cap. _R_].
The proof-reader knows, that (as we have already remarked) every
printing-office has a style of its own; that, if left to itself, its
style would be practically uniform and always respectable,—and he soon
learns that some writers for the press have very firm opinions about
matters of little or no consequence, and are very tenacious, if not
pugnacious, in preferring _tweedledee_ to _tweedledum_; not because it
is written with more _e’s_, but because it is more correct—in their
opinion. However great may be a reader’s capacity for memorizing
trifling details, it is next to impossible to keep minute verbal
differences on different mental shelves. After the big book is bound,
one will be likely to find a mingling of styles; the big River of
one page becomes a little river on the next; “Pittsburg” here, reads
“Pittsburgh” there; and the dignified “National Park” of the first
chapter will dwindle to a mere “national park” in chapter the twelfth.
If not hurried by a press of work, as may sometimes be the case,
the reader will first glance at the proof as a whole. A variation
in the thickness of the leads, or a wrong indention, will, in this
_tout-ensemble_ survey, very quickly catch his eye. Then, still
supposing he has time, he will read the galley through silently,
correcting errors in spelling; marking turned or inverted letters;
improving the {p41} spacing, the punctuation; noting whether the heads
and subheads are in the required type; whether the capitalization is
uniform; whether—if the “slip” beneath his eye happen to be near the
end of a large volume—the word “ourang-outang” which he now meets
with, was not printed somewhere in the earlier part of the work as
“orang-outang,” or, in fact, whether, after some questioning, it
finally went to press as “orang-utan,”—which word he must now, to
preserve uniformity, hunt for and find among his old proofs, if,
peradventure, author or publisher, or other person, have not borrowed
them “for a few minutes,”—alas! never to be returned.
Having settled this, and all similar cases and other doubtful matters,
he hands the copy to an assistant, called a “copy-holder,” whose duty
it is to read the copy aloud, while he himself keeps his eye on the
print (but in newspaper offices, for the sake of greater celerity,
the proof-reader often reads aloud, while the copy-holder follows him
silently, intent on the copy: interrupting, however, whenever any
discrepancy is observed). If the reader desire the copy-holder to pause
while he makes a correction, he repeats the word where he wishes the
reading to stop; when ready to proceed he again pronounces the same
word, and the copy-holder reads on from that place.
The manner of marking, in the text, all errors noticed, is shown,
_infra_, in the “Specimen of First Proof.” The corrections to be made
are indicated, in the margin, by appropriate words or characters
from “Marks used in correcting Proofs”—also {p42} inserted below.
Writers for the press who themselves examine proof-sheets of their
works, should familiarize themselves with proof-reading technics. An
author who received for the first time some proof-sheets returned
them “clean”—apparently having detected no errors. He was afterward
disgusted on finding it necessary to print a leaf of “errata,” and
complained that his corrections had been entirely disregarded. On
re-examining the proofs he had returned, it was found that he _had_
corrected—with knife as well as pen. Where a comma was wanting, he had
used the pen, carefully and skillfully imitating the printed character;
and to convert semicolons into commas he had brought the knife into
play,—nicely scratching out the superfluous part of the point.
Sometimes a line, or it may be several lines, of type are by some
mishap out of perpendicular—slanting; so that only one side of each
letter-face shows a full impression on the proof. It is usual in
such case to draw several slanting marks across the faulty line or
lines, and make similar marks in the margin. It is quite common, also,
for readers to insert in the margin the words “off its feet,”—that
being the printing-office designation for sloping matter. One reader
abandoned writing these words, for two reasons: the first, that a
compositor, when correcting, inserted them in the text, making an
astonishing sentence; the second, that the marked passage,—a piece of
close, logical reasoning,—after being carefully scanned by the author,
was brought to the reader, with a very earnest request that he would
{p43} point out what justice there was in that bluff remark. It is
enough to draw what beginners in writing call “straight marks” across
the matter, and also in the margin. We append other—
MARKS USED IN CORRECTING PROOFS.
[Symbol] Insert an em-quadrat.
[Symbol] Dele, take out; expunge.
[Symbol] Insert space.
[Symbol] Less space.
[Symbol] Close up entirely.
[Symbol] [Symbol] Dele some type, and insert a space in lieu of what is
removed.
[Symbol] [Symbol] Dele some type, and close up.
[Symbol] Broken or battered type.
[Symbol] Plane down a letter. Push down a space or quadrat.
. . . . Placed under erased words, restores them.
Stet. Written in the margin, restores a canceled word or passage,
or such portions of erased text as have dots under them.
¶ Begin paragraph.
[Symbol] or [Symbol] Remove to left.
[Symbol] or [Symbol] Remove to right.
[Symbol] Carry higher up on page.
[Symbol] Carry down.
[Symbol] Four lines subscript, denote italic capitals.
[Symbol] Three lines subscript, denote capitals.
[Symbol] Two lines subscript, denote small capitals.
[Symbol] One line subscript, denotes italics.
w. f. Wrong font.
tr. Transpose. [Symbol] Period. [Symbol] Colon.
[Symbol] Apostrophe. =/ Hyphen. -/ En-dash. |—| Em-dash.
If there is an omission (an “out”) make a caret at the place of the
out, and if the out is short, write the omitted word or words in
margin; if long, write in margin “out—see copy,” and pin to the proof
the sheet of copy containing the omitted portion.
l. c. Lower-case. s. c. Small capitals.
Qu or Qy or ? calls attention to some doubtful word
or sentence.
Several other marks are used, which need no explanation.
{p44}
In order to show our readers the practical application of the above
marks, we will suppose the following paragraph from Guizot to be put in
type abounding in errors, and will then exhibit the corrections as made
by the proof-reader:
SPECIMEN OF FIRST PROOF.
[Illustration]
The above is very bad, even for a first proof,—but we have seen worse,
and have, perhaps, ourself been responsible for some not much better.
While the copy-holder is reading aloud the copy from which {p45} the
above was set up, the reader is busy marking errors, and making such
characters in the margin as will inform the compositors what is to be
done to make their work correct. At the conclusion of the reading, the
proof will present an appearance somewhat like this corrected—
SPECIMEN OF FIRST PROOF.
[Illustration]
If the proof in hand be a reprint, and the new edition is to conform to
the old, the copy-holder, while reading, pronounces aloud the points,
capitals, etc., {p46} as they occur in the copy—saving labor and time
by using well-understood abbreviations. Take, for instance, the second
stanza of Tennyson’s “Voyage”:
“Warm broke the breeze against the brow,
Dry sang the tackle, sang the sail:
The Lady’s-head upon the prow
Caught the shrill salt, and sheer’d the gale.
The broad seas swell’d to meet the keel,
And swept behind: so quick the run,
We felt the good ship shake and reel,
We seem’d to sail into the Sun!”
This stanza the copy-holder reads thus:
_Quote_ “Warm broke the breeze against the brow, (_com._)
Dry sang the tackle, (_com._) sang the sail: (_colon._)
The Lady’s-(_cap. pos. s_, _hyphen._)head upon the prow
Caught the shrill salt, (_com._) and sheer’(_pos._)d the gale.
(_full point._)
The broad seas swell’(_pos._)d to meet the keel, (_com._)
And swept behind: (_colon._) so quick the run, (_com._)
We felt the good ship shake and reel, (_com._)
We seem’(_pos._)d to sail into the Sun!” (_cap. exclam. close of
quote._)
If the work extend beyond a single galley, the slips of proof are
marked in regular sequence, A, B, C, etc., or 1, 2, 3, etc. Each slip
is marked at top “First Proof”: the names of the compositors, which
have been inscribed on their “takes,” are duly transferred to the
printed proof, which, with the errors plainly noted thereon, is then
given for correction to the same persons who set up the matter. Their
duty having been attended to, a “second proof” is taken: {p47} this
the reader compares carefully with the first, to ascertain whether the
requisite changes of type have been properly made; whether “doublets”
have been taken out, and “outs” put in. If any mark has escaped the
notice of the compositors, it is transferred to the second proof.
Close attention should be given to this process of “revising”; it is
not enough to see that a wrong letter has been taken out, and a right
one put in; in the line where a change has been made, all the words
should be compared, and also the line above and the line below a
correction,—since in correcting an error among movable types, some of
the types may move when they ought not, and get misplaced.
As what escapes the notice of one observer may be perceived by another,
this second proof is again “read by copy” by another proof-reader and
assistant, and a second time corrected and revised. The “third proof”
is now sent to the author, editor, or publisher, with so much copy as
may cover it, the copy-holder being careful, however, to retain the
“mark-off”; _i. e._, the sheet on which is marked off the place where
the next “first proof” is to begin. But when the work is of such sort
as not to require extraordinary care, the second proof is sent out, a
single reading by copy being deemed sufficient. If the work is read
twice by copy, only one reader should attend to the punctuation.
If, now, the copy have been hastily or carelessly prepared, or if the
author have gained new light since he prepared it, the outside party
having charge {p48} of the work (whom, for convenience, we will
designate as the “author”) will return his proofs, full of erasures,
additions, alterations, interlineations, and transpositions. With these
the original compositors have no concern; the changes required are made
by “the office,” and the time is charged to the person who contracted
for the printing of the work.
A second, third, or even more consecutive revises of the same slip are
sometimes sent to the author, to the intent that he may see for himself
that his corrections have been duly made, and to allow him further
opportunity to introduce such alterations as to him may seem desirable.
Usually, however, the work, after the correction of the author’s first
proof, is made up into pages; and when there are enough of these for
a “signature” or form of octavo, duodecimo, or whatever the number of
pages on the sheet may be, the proof-reader revises these pages by the
author’s latest returned proof, cuts off the slip at the line where the
last page ends, and sends the folded leaves, labeled “Second,” “Third,”
or “Fourth” proof, as the case may be, together with the corresponding
slips of the next previous proof, to the author, as before. The portion
of slip proof remaining—termed the “make-up”—should be inscribed with
the proper page, and the letter or figure which is to be the signature
of the next sheet, and given, for his guidance, to the person who makes
up the work; to be returned again to the proof-reader, with the other
slip proofs of the next sheet of made-up pages, when that is ready for
revision. {p49}
The author may be desirous of seeing a fifth, sixth, or, as the
algebraists say, any number, _n_, of proofs. When he expresses himself
as satisfied with his share of the correcting, the last author’s
proof is corrected, a “revise” taken, and the proof-reader gives this
last revise a final reading for the press. As any errors which escape
detection now, will show themselves in the book, this last reading
should be careful, deliberate, and painstaking. See to it, my young
beginner, that the “signature” is the letter or number next in sequence
to that on your previous press-proof. See to it, that the first page
of the sheet in hand connects in reading with the last page of the
previous one, and that the figures denoting the page form the next
cardinal number to that which you last sent to press. Having done this,
examine the “folios” (the “pagination,” as some say) throughout; read
the running titles; if there be a new chapter commenced, look back in
your previous proofs to make sure that said new chapter is “XIX.,” and
not “XVIII.”; see that the head-lines of the chapter are of the right
size, and in the right font of type; for, if the “minion” case happened
to be covered up, the compositor may have forgotten himself, and set
them up in “brevier”; if there is rule-work, see that the rules come
together properly, and are right side up; if there is Federal money,
see that the “$” is put at the beginning of the number following a
rule,[5] and of the number in the top line of every page; if points
are {p50} used as “leaders,” see that there are no commas or hyphens
among them. If the style require a comma before leaders, see that none
have been left out; if the style reject a comma, see that none have
been left in; in short, see to everything,—and then, on the corner of
the sheet, write the word “Press” as boldly as you can, but with the
moral certainty that some skulking blunder of author, compositor, or
corrector has eluded all your watchfulness.
[5] In the Government Printing Office the style omits the “$” in this
case,—the sign at top of table or page being considered sufficient.
The errors made by ourselves are those which occasion us the most pain.
Therefore be chary of changing anything in the author’s last proof.
If a sentence seem obscure, see whether the insertion of a comma will
make it clear. If you find “patonce,” do not change it to “potence,”
unless, from your knowledge of heraldry, you are aware of a good
reason for such an alteration. If you find _pro. ami_, look in the
dictionary before striking out the point after _pro._; peradventure
it is a contraction. If, finally, after puzzling over some intricate
sentence, you can make nothing of it, let it console you that the
following paragraph appears in Hävernick: “Accordingly it is only
from this passage that a conclusion can be drawn as to the historical
condition of the people, which is confirmed also by notices elsewhere”;
and let it content you to say, in the words of Colenso, “I am at a loss
to understand the meaning of the above paragraph.” So let the obscure
passage remain.
Still, however, should you find some gross error of dates, some obvious
solecism, or some wrong footing {p51} in a column of figures, and find
yourself unable to change the reading with absolute certainty of being
right, this proof, which you had hoped would be a final one, must be
returned to the author with the proper quære. When it comes back to
your sanctum, you may perhaps be pleased at finding on the margin a few
words complimentary of your carefulness; or perhaps a question couched
in this encomiastic style: “Why did not your stupid proof-reader find
this out before?”
Whether reading first or final proofs of Records of Court, you should
not change the spelling of words, nor supply omissions, nor strike
out a repeated word or words; for the printed record is assumed to
be an exact transcript of what is written, and there should be no
alterations,—neither uniformity nor correctness is to be sought at
the expense of departing from copy. Inserting the necessary points
where these have been neglected, is not considered a change of the
record,—as, for instance, an interrogation point after a direct
question to a witness; for, as “the punctuation is no part of the law,”
_a fortiori_ it is no part of the record. If the caption be “Deposition
of John Prat,” and the signature be “John Pratt,” and if in another
place you find the same individual designated as “John Pradt,” there
is no help for it. You have no authority to alter the record, and
must print it as it stands. So, too, in regard to dates. If you read
“1st Feb. 1889” on one page, “Feb. 1, 1889” on another, so let them
stand—the change of style is a trifle; and, if it be a fault, it is the
fault of the record, and not yours. {p52}
And here let us say a word about this matter of uniformity: very
important in some works, in others it is of no consequence whatever,
however much some readers may stickle for it. If, for example, a mass
of letters, from all parts of the country, recommending a patent
inkstand, or stating the prospects of the potato crop, are sent in to
be printed, the dates and addresses will vary in style, according to
the taste and knowledge of the several writers; and there is not the
slightest need of changing them to make them alike, as if all these
widely scattered writers had graduated from the same school. Let
such writings be printed as diversely as they come to hand. If one
writes _plough_, and another _plow_, what matters it, so far as your
proof-reading is concerned? If one writes “15th June,” and another
“June 15” or “June 15th,” so let it stand on the printed page. It
is idle to waste time in making things alike, that could not by any
possibility have been written alike. But you can make each letter
consistent with itself, which is all that uniformity requires. You need
not stretch one man out, and cut off the feet of another, to justify
all authors in your composing-stick. So much for exceptional cases.
As a general rule, study to preserve uniformity in every work. If “A.
M.” and “P. M.” are in capitals on one page, it will look very like
carelessness to have them appear “A.M.” and “P.M.” in small capitals,
on the next. With the exceptions above pointed out, your only safety
is to have but one style, and to adhere to it with the stiffness of a
martinet, {p53} in all contingencies, unless overruled by those who
have a right to dictate in the premises.
READING GREEK.
Greek words sometimes appear in copy, and are somewhat vexatious to
printers who never had the good fortune to study Greek at school—or
elsewhere. In a proof-sheet, we once met a word whose etymology was
given thus in the copy: “From Ἕλιος the sun, and φιλος a lover” (the
_epsilon_ was the author’s mistake). The compositor, not aware of a
Greek alphabet, set up the passage in those English letters which most
nearly resemble the Hellenic characters, and it appeared in this guise:
“From Ediog the sun, and pidog a lover.” We advise proof-readers,
and compositors and copy-holders as well, to acquire—if they do not
already possess—so much knowledge of Greek letters and characters
as will enable them to acquit themselves without discredit, though
“Ediog” and “pidog” condog (_v._ Wb.) to annoy them. A few hours’
attention to the alphabet and characters given below, and to the
annexed practical directions, will suffice to fix in the memory as much
knowledge of Greek as will serve for the mechanical following of the
copy,—mechanical following,—for, if you are setting up or reading a
reprint of the 450th page of Webster’s Dictionary, and meet with the
word ἐννενήκοντα you must put in the eleven letters as they stand: and
if copying Worcester’s 486th page, you find ἐννεήκοντα, put in {p54}
the ten letters. If you have any doubts, submit your query.
The Greek alphabet consists of twenty-four letters.
Alpha Α α a
Beta Β β b
Gamma Γ γ g
Delta Δ δ d
Epsilon Ε ε ĕ
Zeta Ζ ζ z
Eta Η η ē
Theta Θ ϑ θ th
Iota Ι ι i
Kappa Κ κ k
Lambda Λ λ l
Mu Μ μ m
Nu Ν ν n
Xi Ξ ξ x
Omicron Ο ο ŏ
Pi Π π p
Rho Ρ ϱ ρ r
Sigma Σ σ, final ς s
Tau Τ τ t
Upsilon Υ υ u
Phi Φ φ ph
Chi Χ χ ch
Psi Ψ ψ ps
Omega Ω ω ō
In reading Greek, mention each letter by its English equivalent.
Ε is read, “cap. short e”; ε, “short e”; Η is read, “cap. long e”; η,
“long e.”
Ο is read, “cap. short o”; ο, “short o”; Ω is read, “cap. long o”; ω,
“long o.” {p55}
There are three accents,—the acute (΄), the grave (`), and the
circumflex (῀).
ύ is read, “acute u”; ὶ is read, “grave i”; ᾶ is read, “circumflex a.”
Over every vowel or diphthong beginning a word is placed one of two
characters, called breathings, which, for the purpose of reading, we
may designate as the smooth (᾿) and the rough (῾).
ἀ is read, “smooth a”; ἱ is read, “rough i.”
When two marks appear over a letter, both should be mentioned by the
copy-holder.
ὔ is read, “smooth, acute u”; ὅ is read, “rough, acute, short o”; ὃ,
“rough, grave, short o”; ὦ, “circumflex, smooth, long o.”
The compositor and proof-reader should be careful that accented letters
are used according to the copy, as in many cases the difference of
accentuation serves also to mark the difference of signification. Thus,
νέος signifies _new_; νεὸς, _a field_: ἴον, _a violet_; ἰὸν, _going_.
ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ, are diphthongs; their second vowel (ι), being silent, is
placed underneath, or subscribed. These should be read thus: ᾳ, “a,
subscript”; ῃ, “long e, subscript”; ῳ, “long o, subscript.”
In Greek, only four points or stops are used: the comma (,); the note
of interrogation (;); the colon, or point at top (·); and the full stop
(.). These should be mentioned as they occur. {p56}
EXAMPLE FOR READING.
EPIGRAM ON THEMISTOCLES.
Αντὶ τάφου λιτοῖο θὲς Ἑλλάδα, θὲς δ’ ὲπι ταύταν
Δούρατα, βαρβαρικᾶς σύμβολα ναυφθορίας,
Καὶ τύμβῳ κρηπῖδα περίγραφε Περσικὸν Ἄρη
Καὶ Ξέρξην· τούτοις θάπτε Θεμιστοκλέα.
Στάλα δ’ ἁ Σαλαμὶς ἐπικείσεται, ἔργα λέγουσα
Τἀμά· τί με σμὶκροῖς τὸν μέγαν ἐντίτθετε;
The method of reading will, we think, be sufficiently exemplified if
we give but one line. We select the third, which should be read by the
copy-holder, as follows:
Cap. K, a, grave i; t, acute u, m, b, long o subscript; k, r, long e,
p, circumflex i, d, a; p, short e, r, acute i, g, r, a, ph, short e;
cap. P, short e, r, s, i, k, grave short o, n; cap. smooth acute A, r,
long e.
Words from dead and foreign languages, introduced into English text,
are printed in italics, until, being frequently met, they cease to be
strangers; then printers and proof-readers anglicify them as much as
possible, by printing them in roman; but some of these retain certain
accents which indicate their alien origin. The Spanish _cañon_ is
completely anglicized into “canyon” (_o_ as in _no_); our miners write
“arrastra” in roman, although the term has not yet found its way into
our most popular dictionaries; our dreadful accident-makers have set
afloat so many “canards,” that that word has become better English than
French; “papier-mache” usually appears in roman without the accent on
the final _e_; _employé_ {p57} has become a good “employee” in our
workshops; and at an early day, every “protégé” and “protégée,” already
roman, will throw off the foreign accents, and remain none the less
acute “protegees”; “éclat,” “régime,” and “résumé” still cling to their
acute _e’s_. Many words and phrases are hesitating whether to remain
foreigners, or to become naturalized. They have “taken out their first
papers,” as it were, having at times appeared in English garb.
It would be vastly convenient for every compositor and proof-reader
(every author, of course, reads proof) to have at hand two lists
of such Latin and foreign words as most frequently occur in books,
magazines, and newspapers,—the one containing the words to be set up in
italics, the other, words to “go in roman,” as the phrase is. We append
two such lists, as samples rather than as fixities to be followed,
although they represent very nearly, if not exactly, the present status
of the class of words we are considering. The roman list is destined to
be continually lengthening, while the italic, save as it receives new
accretions from foreign sources, must be correspondingly diminishing.
WORDS TO GO IN ITALICS.
_ante_
_ad captandum_
_ad libitum_
_ad quod damnum_
_aliunde_
_alma mater_
_amende honorable_
_amicus curiæ_
_artiste_
_avant coureur_
_beau monde_
_coram non judice_
_corpus delicti_
_coup d’état_
_coup de grâce_
_coup de main_
_de bonis non_
_de facto_
_de jure_
_del credere_
_de novo_
_dilettante_
_dilettanti_
_dramatis personæ_ {p58}
_duces tecum_
_en route_
_entrée_
_et al._
_ex officio_
_ex parte_
_ex post facto_
_ex rel._
_falsi crimen_
_feme covert_
_feme sole_
_femme couverte_
_femme sole_
_fleur de lis_
_functus officio_
_garçon_
_ignes fatui_
_ignis fatuus_
_in extenso_
_infra_
_in statu quo_
_inter alia_
_in toto_
_in transitu_
_juste milieu_
_malum in se_
_malum prohibitum_
_matériel_
_nem. con._
_n’importe_
_non constat_
_non obstante_
_nous verrons_
_passim_
_peculium_
_personnel_
_postea_
_postliminium_
_post mortem_
_prima facie_
_procès-verbal_
_pro forma_
_projet_
_pro tempore_
_rationale_
_res adjudicata_
_sans-culotte_
_sine die_
_soi disant_
_sotto voce_
_sub judice_
_supra_
_tabula rasa_
_terra incognita_
_tout ensemble_
_ultima ratio_
_ultima Thule_
_vide_
_vice versa_
_viva voce_
_vraisemblance_
WORDS TO GO IN ROMAN.
addenda
addendum
ad interim
ad valorem
alias
alibi
alumnus
alumnæ
alumni
animus
assumpsit
bagatelle
belles-lettres
bijou
billet-doux
bivouac
bizarre
bona fide
canaille
canard
capias
chargé d’ affaires
coterie
crevasse
data
datum
débris
dedimus
détour
devoir
diluvion
diluvium
éclat
emeute
ennui
entrepot
exequatur
exuviæ
fasces
faubourg
feuilleton
fiacre
fieri facias
habeas corpus
hacienda
hauteur
in banc
in situ
literati
literatim
Magna Charta
mandamus
menu
mittimus
nisi prius
nolle prosequi
oyer and terminer
papier-mache
per capita
per diem
posse comitatus
pro rata
protégé
quasi
régime
résumé
rôle
savant
seriatim
sobriquet
status
supersedeas
via
venire
venire facias
verbatim
{p59}