OF ERRORS.
What still remains to be taken notice of are the errata’s,… Sometimes they are put by themselves on the even side of a leaf, so as to face the title. But though this is very seldom done, it is a pity that it should ever have come into the thoughts of anyone to do it at all; for it is a maxim to bring errata’s into as narrow a compass as we conveniently can, and to put them in a place where they can make no great show: since it is not to the credit of a book, to find a catalogue of its faults annexed. It is therefore wrong policy in those who make errata’s appear numerous and parading, in hopes of being thought very careful and accurate; when they only serve to witness an author’s inattention at a time when he should have been of the opposite inclination. But the subterfuges that are used by writers upon this occasion, are commonly levelled at the printer, to make him the author of all that is amiss; whereas they ought to ascribe it to themselves: … whoever has any ideas of printing, must consequently know that it is impossible to practice that art without committing errors; and that it is the province of an author to rectify them. For these several reasons it will appear how material it is not to make an erratum of every trifling fault.…—John Smith’s Printer’s grammar, 1755, quoted in Timperley’s Printer’s Manual, 1838, p. 19.
Le nouvel Errata, je le répète, est long, d’une longueur inaccoutumée. Les auteurs semblent avoir honte d’avouer les fautes qu’ils ont commises, ou qu’on commet pour eux; je n’ai pas cette pudeur menteuse; je confesse les fautes de mon livre.—A. Jal: préface de la seconde édition du Dict. Crit. de Biographie et d’histoire, 1872.
It is next to impossible to avoid errors, more especially in bibliographical works, with numbers of names and figures. All that can be done to avoid them, of course, should be; but with the most minute and constant supervision errors will creep in and oversights occur.
This, however, is no reason for adopting eccentricities. For example, Professor De Morgan in his “Arithmetical Books,” adopted the singular plan of giving the dates twice, in figures and in words, the latter being abbreviated, and after all, as he himself shows, he was still liable to commit the very errors he desired to provide against.
His plan never has been, and I hope, never will be adopted by any one else. It is original, but highly inconvenient and unbibliographical in the extreme. It is to be hoped that if a new edition is ever published we shall have proper title page information in a proper manner, and be spared such eccentricities as beginning the title-page from the bottom instead of the top.
I may here remark that the learned Professor went upon the right principle, he excluded no book on the ground of unimportance, or worthlessness. He described no book unless he had seen it, which was also J. R. McCulloch’s plan in his “Literature of Political Economy” (1845), but he unfortunately described only select works, without even giving a brief list of what he considered rubbish, simply saying, “We have proceeded on a principle of selection; and neglecting the others, have, with exceptions, noticed those works only which appear to have contributed to develop sound principles, or to facilitate their adoption.” The consequence is if we find a book unmentioned by him, it at once becomes a question whether he excluded it because it was worthless, or because he had not seen it.
There is a large class of errors arising from the habit of one writer copying another, instead of each going to original sources.
The errors prevalent in biography and bibliography were pointed out by Mr. Bolton Corney years ago. I think it is unnecessary for me to give here any further criticisms on the method which should be pursued. The student who wishes to go deeper into the subject can refer to Bolton Corney’s pamphlet: “On the New General Biographical Dictionary,” already noticed.
The work I have quoted above by M. Jal is a large volume consisting almost entirely of articles in correction of those existing in other works.
No statement of any former writer should be taken for granted, if there is any more original source. Compilers of Dictionaries sin greatly in this respect. The reason is probably that to be correct requires so much time and research that it does not pay to be accurate if much time is consumed.
The safest way to avoid errors would be to compare the proof of every title page with the book itself, but the labour would be enormous, and I doubt if it is practicable in most cases. Nevertheless, it is the surest way. At the same time I would not discourage anybody from attempting a catalogue or bibliotheca, although nobody can expect to do anything of much value without accuracy, the greater the accuracy the greater the value.
Nothing is satisfactory but actual inspection of the books themselves. We have quite enough of descriptions of books at second, third, or fourth hand, in nearly all existing works, and it is time now to go upon “a new and improved principle.” Mr. W. Carew Hazlitt in the preface to his “Collections and Notes,” 1876, has some interesting remarks on this subject to which the student can refer.