Stuk 39 - Letter from Kenneth Sisam to R. B. McKerrow

1 single sheet

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’.