Showing 3 results

Clarendon Press, Oxford.—Has referred McKerrow’s inquiries about modern and historical methods of proof-correction to Johnson.

—————

Transcript

The Clarendon Press, Oxford
18th June, 1928.

Dear Mr. McKerrow,

I feel I am not expert enough in past or present practice to give you an answer about proof correcting which you could rely on. So I am asking Johnson to find out what he can both of the present practice and the traditional practice. I suspect there are a variety of practices. Until recently we did a great many books by hand, but the hand compositors have in the last year or two been largely transferred to the monotype side. The new monotype arrangements upset all the ancient practices, not always with the best results, as I am inclined to think that proof correction and proof reading is much more costly and less satisfactory on the monotype system that it was when the setting was done by hand—at least that is my experience.

Anyhow we shall find out for you as well as we can how things were done. I am inclined to think that printers always varied the amount of reading with their knowledge of the author—doing very little for an author known to be reliable, and taking great care when the author was known to be unsafe.

Yours sincerely,
Kenneth Sisam

R. B. McKerrow Esq.,
Enderley,
Little Kingshill,
Great Missenden,
Bucks.

—————

Typed, except the signature. At the head are the reference ‘L.B. 5889/K.S.’ and, elsewhere, the letter ‘C.’

Clarendon Press, Oxford.—Responds to his inquiry about dictation in proof-correction. Asks how the new impression should be described.

—————

Transcript

The Clarendon Press, Oxford
25th June, 1928.

Dear Mr. McKerrow,

Thank you for your letter of 21st June. I expect {1} Johnson will be able to collect for you some historical information about the use of reading aloud in proof correction. But in any event, I should expect spoken forms to appear occasionally, because many copyists and readers are unable to do their work without speaking the words silently, and some, though not all, confusions might be accounted for in this way, even where no reading aloud by a second person could be postulated. But my recollection is that reading aloud was the rule until quite recently anyhow.

To come to the question of “Second impression revised”. I don’t think it implies a complete revision—that would be rather a new edition; and “second impression” simply would suggest an unaltered impression, apart from e.g. the correction of misprints. Do you think “Corrected impression” would be better than “Second impression revised”? It is not a matter of great importance, but in a book on bibliography we ought to consider carefully such small matters of form. I don’t think the sales will be affected at all, but it is of some importance to a buyer to know that the copy he has in its matter is the latest form available.

Yours sincerely,
Kenneth Sisam

R. B. McKerrow Esq.,
Enderley,
Little Kingshill,
Great Missenden,
Bucks.

—————

Typed, except the signature. At the head are the reference ‘L.B. 5889/K.S.’ and, elsewhere, the letter ‘C.’

{1} Mistyped ‘Iexpect’.

University Press, Oxford.—The accompanying sheets confirm Chapman’s conclusion about ‘12mo in half-sheets imposed for cutting’.

(Typed except the initials. Forwarded to McKerrow with a handwritten note by Chapman.)