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}