Sentiments in print look marvellously different from the same ideas in manuscript; and we are not surprised that writers should wish to polish a little; nor do we object to their natural desire of amending or beautifying their mental products. But let them not forget that pay-time will come,—when the item for alterations will loom out with a startling distinctness in the bill. They found it easy in the proof to erase a word or two here and insert a word or two there; without dreaming, perhaps, that in consequence of these little erasures and insertions the compositor would be compelled to alter and reconstruct much of his work. We know of a volume on which the alterations alone have consumed time equal to one man’s work for nearly two and a half years. How unreasonable—nay, how transparently unjust—the expectation that the printer should give gratuitously the time and trouble requisite for the radical changes in the type which an author’s whim or taste may demand!
Stower says, “It may not be improper, in this place, just to take notice of the great danger to the correctness of a work which arises from the practice, too common with some authors, of keeping their proof-sheets too long in their hands before they are returned to the printer. As the pages in the metal get dry, the adhesion of the types to each other is weakened, and the swell or extension of the quoins and furniture, which the moisture had occasioned, is removed; so that there is great danger of letters falling out when a form is long kept from the press. Nor is the danger which is hereby occasioned to correctness the only inconvenience: the impatience of authors to see their works in a fit state for publication is almost proverbial. The pleasure arising from beholding, as it were, the ‘form and texture’ of one’s thoughts, is a sensation much easier felt than described. That authors, therefore, may partake of this pleasure in a speedy and regular succession, they should make a point of forwarding their proof-sheets to the printer as quick as possible, not only that they may the sooner be got ready for the press, but that the work may proceed in a regular manner, without being interrupted by the forwarding of other works in lieu of that the proof-sheets of which are detained beyond the proper time in the hands of the author.
“Authors are very apt to make alterations, and to correct and amend the style or arguments of their works, when they first see them in print. This is certainly the worst time for this labour, as it is necessarily attended with an expense which, in large works, will imperceptibly swell to a serious sum; when, however, this method of alteration is adopted by an author, the reader must always be careful to read the whole sheet over once more with very great attention before it is finally put to press.
“A proof-sheet, having duly undergone this routine of purgation, may be supposed to be as free from errata as the nature of the thing will admit, and the word ‘Press’ may be written at the top of the first page of it. This is an important word to every reader: if he have suffered his attention to be drawn aside from the nature of his proper business, and errors should be discovered when it is too late to have them corrected, this word ‘Press’ is as the signature of the death-warrant of his reputation. A reader, therefore, should be a man of one business,—always upon the alert,—all eye,—all attention. Possessing a becoming reliance on his own powers, he should never be too confident of success. Imperfection clings to him on every side. Errors and mistakes assail him from every quarter. His business is of a nature that may render him obnoxious to blame, but can hardly be said to bring him in any very large stock of praise. If errors escape him, he is justly to be censured; for perfection is his duty. If his labours are wholly free from mistake,—which is, alas! a very rare case,—he has done no more than he ought, and, consequently, can merit only a comparative degree of commendation, in that he had the good fortune to be more successful in his labours after perfection than some of his brethren in the same employment.”
The form being finally laid on the press, and a revise pulled by the pressman, he sends it to the overseer, who carefully examines whether all the marks have been attended to, and looks along the sides and heads of the respective pages, to observe whether any letter has fallen out, or there is any crookedness in the locking up of the form, any battered letters, or any bite from the frisket. Should the revise prove faultless, he returns it to the pressman, with the word “Revise” written on the margin; if otherwise, to the compositor to whom the form belongs, for immediate correction.
CORRECTING IN THE METAL.
Correcting is the most disagreeable part of a compositor’s business, diminishing as it does his earnings, and causing great fatigue, and, by leaning over the stone, endangering his health. A foul proof, however, is a fault without extenuation, and seems to deserve some punishment. The noise and confusion which prevail in badly governed printing-offices, from light and frivolous conversation, not only retard business, but distract the attention of the compositor from the subject he has in hand, and cause him to make many mistakes. Some men, no doubt, can support a conversation and at the same time compose correctly; but their noise confuses those who are unable to preserve accuracy except by close attention to their copy in silence.
The first proof should contain merely the errors of the compositor; but it frequently happens that the corrector heightens them by his peculiarities. When this is unnecessarily done, it is an act of injustice to the compositor: it is sufficient for him to rectify such mistakes as arise either from inattention to his copy or want of judgment. The compositor ought not to suffer from the humour of a reader in capriciously altering commas and semicolons in the first proof, which he not unfrequently re-alters in the second, from a doubt as to the propriety of the points to be adopted.
When a proof is handed to the compositor, he should immediately correct it; and the reader, correlatively, should be equally prompt in his department. Can it reasonably be expected that the compositor will feel inclined to forward his proof, when he knows that the reader will delay it for hours?