Literary Blunders Part 5

''Postscript concerning the Erratas and the Geographical part of this Globe,''

prefixed to _The English Globe_ . . . by the Earl of Castlemaine:--

''The Erratas of the Press being many, I shall not set them down in a distinct Catalogue as usually, least the sight of them should more displease, than the particulars advantage, especially since they are not so material or intricate, but that any man may (I hope) easily mend them in the reading.

I confess I have bin in a manner the occasion of them, by taking from the n.o.ble author a very foul copy, when he desir'd me to stay till a fair one were written over, so that truly 'tis no wonder, if workmen should in these cases not only sometimes leave out, but adde also, by taking one line for another, or not observing with exactness what words have bin wholly obliterated or dasht out.''

John Playford, the music publisher and author, makes some remarks on the

subject of misprints in the preface to his _Vade Mec.u.m, or the Necessary Companion_ (1679), which are worth quotation here:--

''My profession obliging me to be conversant with mathematical Books (the printing whereof and musick, has been my chiefest employment), I have observ'd two things many times the cause why Books of this nature appear abroad not so correct as they should be; either 1 Because they are too much hastened from the Press, and not time enough allowed for the strict and deliberate examination of them; which in all books ought to be done, especially in these, for as much as one false figure in a Mathematical book, may prove a greater fault than a whole word mistake in books of another kind.

Or, 2 Because Persons take Tables upon trust without trying them, and with them transcribe their errors, if not increase them. Both these I have carefully avoided, so that I have reason to believe (and think I may say it without vanity) there never was Tables more exactly printed than in this Book, especially those for money and

annuities, for not trusting to my first calculation of them, I new calculated every Table when it was in print, by the first printed sheet, and when I had so done I strictly compared it with my first calculation.''

De Morgan registers the nineteenth edition of this book, dated 1756, in his _Arithmetical Books_, and he did not apparently know that it was originally published so early as 1679.

In Morton's _Natural History of Northamptons.h.i.+re_ (1712), is a list headed ''Some Errata of the press to be corrected''; and at the end of the list is the following amusing note: ''There is no cut of the Hen of the lesser Py'd Brambling in Tab.

13 tho' 'tis referred to in p. 423 which omission was owing to an accident and is really not very material, the hen of that bird differing but little from the c.o.c.k which is represented in that Table under fig. 3.''

There is a very prevalent notion that authors did not correct the proofs of their books in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but there is sufficient evidence

that this is altogether a mistake. Professor De Morgan, with his usual sagacity, alludes to this point in his _Arithmetical Books_ (1847): ''A great many circ.u.mstances induce me to think that the general fas.h.i.+on of correcting the press by the author came in with the seventeenth century or thereabouts.'' And he instances this note on the t.i.tle-page of Richard Witt's _Arithmetical Questions_ (1613): ''Examined also and corrected at the Presse by the author himselfe.''

The late Dr. Brinsley Nicholson raised this question in _Notes and Queries_ in 1889, and by his research it is possible to antedate the practice by nearly forty years.

For several of the following quotations I am indebted to that invaluable periodical.

In Scot's _Hop-Garden_ (1574) we find the following excuse:--

''Forasmuch as M. Scot could not be present at the printing of this his booke, whereby I might have used his advice in the correction of the same, and especiallie of the Figures and Portratures conteyned therein, whereof he delivered unto me such notes as I

being unskilfull in the matter could not so thoroughly conceyve, nor so perfectly expresse as . . . the authour or you.''

In _The Droomme of Doomes Day_. By George Gascoigne (1576) is:--

''An Aduertis.e.m.e.nt of the Prynter to the Reader.

''Understand (gentle Reader) that whiles this worke was in the presse it pleased G.o.d to visit the translatour thereof with sicknesse. So that being unable himselfe to attend the dayly proofes, he apoynted a seruaunt of his to ouersee the same.

Who being not so well acquainted with the matter as his maister was, there haue pa.s.sed some faultes much contrary unto both our meanings and desires. The which I have therefore collected into this Table.

Desiring every Reader that wyll vouchsafe to peruse this booke, that he will firste correct those faultes and then judge accordingly.''

A particularly interesting note on this point precedes the list of errata in Stanyhurst's Translation of Virgil's _

which was printed at Leyden. Mr. F. C.

Birkbeck Terry, who pointed this out in _Notes and Queries_, quoted from Arber's reprint, p. 157:--

''John Pates Printer to thee Corteous Reader, I am too craue thy pacience and paynes (good reader) in bearing wyth such faultes as haue escapte in printing: and in correcting as wel such as are layd downe heere too thy view, as all oother whereat thou shalt hap too stumble in perusing this treatise. Thee nooueltye of imprinting English in theese partes and thee absence of the author from perusing soome proofes could not choose but breede errours.''

Certainly Scot, Gascoigne, and Stanyhurst did not correct the proofs, but it would not have been necessary to make an excuse if the practice was not a pretty general one among authors.

Bishop Babington's _Exposition of the Lord's Prayer_ (1588) contains an excuse for the author's inability to correct the press:--

''If thou findest any other faultes either in words or distinctions troubling a perfect sence (Gentle Reader) helpe them by thine

owne judgement and excuse the presse by the Authors absence, who best was acquainted to reade his owne hande.''

In the Bobleian Library is preserved the printer's copy of Book V. of Hooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_ (1597), with Whitgift's signature and corrections in Hooker's handwriting. On one of the pages is the following note by the printer:--

''Good Mr. Hooker, I pray you be so good as to send us the next leaf that followeth this, for I know not by what mischance this of ours is lost, which standeth uppon the finis.h.i.+ng of the book.''[7]

[7] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Series, viii. 73.

Another proof of the general practice will be found in N. Breton's _The Wit of Wit_ (1599):--

''What faultes are escaped in the printing, finde by discretion, and excuse the Author by other worke that let him from attendance to the Presse; non h

At the end of Nash's dedication ''To his Readers,'' _Lenten Stuffe_ (1599), is this

interesting statement: ''Apply it for me for I am called away to correct the faults of the press, that escaped in my absence from the printing house.''

Richard Brathwaite, when publis.h.i.+ng his _Strappado for the Divell_ (1615), made an excuse for not having seen all the proofs. The whole note is well worthy of reproduction:--

''Upon the Errata.

''Gentlemen (_humanum est errare_), to confirme which position, this my booke (as many other are) hath his share of errors; so as I run _ad pr

satisfie your affectionate care with a more serious surueigh in my next impression. . . . For other errors as the misplacing of commaes, colons, and periods (which as they are in euerie page obvious, so many times they invert the sence), I referre to your discretion (judicious gentle-men) whose lenity may sooner supply them, then all my industry can portray them.''

In _The Mastive, or Young Whelpe of the Olde Dogge, Epigrams and Satyres _(1615), an anonymous work of Henry Peacham, we read:--

''The faultes escaped in the Printing (or any other omission) are to be excused by reason of the authors absence from the Presse, who thereto should have given more due instructions.''

Dr. Brinsley Nicholson brought forward two very interesting pa.s.sages on the correcting of proofs from old plays. The first, which looks very like an allusion to the custom, is from the 1601 edition of Ben Jonson's _Every Man in his Humour_ (act. ii., sc. 3), where Lorenzo, junior, says, ''My father had the proving of your

copy, some houre before I saw it.'' The second is from Fletcher's _The Nice Valour_ (1624 or 1625), act. iv., sc. 1. Lapet says to his servant (the clown Golos.h.i.+o), ''So bring me the last proof, this is corrected''; and Golos.h.i.+o having gone and returned, the following ensues:--

_Lap_. What says my Printer now?

_Clown_. Here's your last Proof, Sir.

You shall have perfect Books now in a twinkling.[8]

[8]2 _Notes and Queries_, 7th Series, viii. 253.

The following address, which contains a curious excuse of Dr. Daniel Featley for not having corrected the proofs of his book _The Romish Fisher Caught in his own Net_ (1624), is very much to the point:--

''I entreat the courteous reader to understand that the greater part of the book was printed in the time of the great frost; when by reason that the Thames was shut up, I could not conveniently procure the proofs to be brought unto mee, before they were wrought off; whereupon it fell out that many very grosse escapes pa.s.sed the press, and (which was

the worst fault of all) the third part is left unpaged.''

As a later example we may cite from Sir Peter Leycester's _Historical Antiquities_ (1673), where we find this note: ''Reader, By reason of the author's absence, several faults have escaped the press: those which are the most material thou art desir'd to amend, and to pardon them all.''

Printed mistakes are usually considered by the sufferers matters of somewhat serious importance; and we picture to ourselves an author stalking up and down his room and tearing his hair when he first discovers them; but Benserade, the French poet, was able to make a joke of the subject. This is the _rondeau_ which he placed at the end of his version of _Les Metamorphoses d'Ovide_:--

''Pour moi, parmi des fautes innombrables, Je n'en connais que deux considrables, Et dont je fais ma dclaration, C'est l'entreprise et l'excution; A mon avis fautes irrparables Dans ce volume.''

According to the _Scaligerana_, Cardan's treatise _De Subtilitate_, printed by Vascosan

in 1557, does not contain a single misprint; but, on the whole, it may be very seriously doubted whether an immaculate edition of any work ever issued from the press. The story is well known of the serious attempt made by the celebrated Glasgow printers Foulis to free their edition of _Horace_ from any chance of error. They caused the proof-sheets after revision to be hung up at the gate of the University, with the offer of a reward to any one who discovered a misprint. In spite of all this care there are, according to Dibdin, six uncorrected errors in this edition.

According to Isaac Disraeli, the goal of freedom from blunders was nearly reached by Dom Joze Souza, with the a.s.sistance of Didot in 1817, when he published his magnificent edition of _As Lusiadas_ of Camoens. However, an uncorrected error was discovered in some copies, occasioned by the misplacing of one of the letters in the word _Lusitano_.

A like case occurred a few years ago at an eminent London printer's. A certain book was about to be printed, and instructions were issued that special care was to be

taken with the printing. It was read over by the chief reader, and all seemed to have gone well, when a mistake was discovered upon the t.i.tle-page.

It may be mentioned here, with respect to tables of errata, that they are frequently neglected in subsequent books. There are many books in which the same blunders have been repeated in various editions, although they had been pointed out in an early issue.