First edition March 1905
Second impression April 1905
Published by Henry Frowde, Printed by Horace Hart

Blue-cloth binding, 19 × 13 cm (7 ˝ × 5 inches), no head- or tailbands; gold blocking on spine, black blocking on front of dustjacket (click to see pop-up image, 52k).

• Full-title page i (click to see pop-up image, 28k)
• Preface (F. Howard Collins) iii–xi (text below)
• Readers of the Proofs of this Work xii–xiii (click to see pop-up image, 74k)
• Authorities Consulted xvi–xv (click to see pop-up image, 71k)
• Text 1–408; interleaved at the the end of each letter is a blank page (usually recto and verso) labelled e.g. B NOTES, for the reader’s emendations to that letter; this practice was continued, though by the seventh edition the pages were limited to one side of a page only, and were discontinued in ODWE.

 

PREFACE

Some three years ago I made a suggestion to the Committee of the Society of Authors that it should compile a standard guide for spelling, capitalization, punctuation, the use of italic type, etc., as the best guide known to me—Mr. Horace Hart’s “Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford”—was not altogether in accordance with the practice of many of our best printers, and, being intended for compositors and readers only, was not sufficiently complete for authors.

At the request of the Committee, I sketched the outlines of the work I had suggested, and they were published in “The Author”, but the Committee subsequently decided not to undertake the compilation.

The publication of the outlines had, however, brought me so many letters from authors, printers, and others, as to the value of such a work, that I decided to undertake it myself. After daily labour—so far as health permitted—for two years and a half, the work is finished.

One of the chief inducements which led me to undertake and to continue this work, was the encouragement of my late dear friend Herbert Spencer, who most willingly helped me while his health lasted.

A sketch of the way in which this work was compiled may be of interest. Every work in the following list of “Authorities Consulted” was read through, and all suitable words, phrases, etc., copied on to separate slips. These were then arranged alphabetically, duplicates eliminated, and the manuscript copy made. With this my duties as Author ceased, and those of Editor commenced, for from that time I merely co-ordinated the opinions of others upon my work. The manuscript was first sent to the Oxford printer for revision. When I had settled the resulting queries, the copy was set up, and a first proof pulled and submitted to those three of my kind critical helpers to whose names, in the list which follows this Preface, the figure I is appended. On the return of these proofs I co-ordinated the criticisms upon them, and then had fifty proofs struck off, one being sent to each of those whose names are followed by the figure 2. Their queries were adjusted, and then a third proof was pulled, which was again criticized by twenty-two whose names are followed by the figure 3. From this stage the many remaining revisions were undertaken at the Oxford University Press and by myself.

In the selection of words, my object has been to insert only those, spelt in more than one way, which are likely to be met with in general reading: to deal, in fact, with what are briefly called “duplicate spellings.” I was compelled to omit many special, unusual, or technical, words and phrases, so that the book might be handy in size, for which reason it is purposely printed on thin paper.

That manuscript additions may be readily made, I have included after each letter one or two blank pages headed ‘notes.’ To facilitate future reference all such additions should have some reference mark—such as, at least, an arrow or caret mark—in the text where they would have been placed had they been printed with the work.

Where a choice has been made between two or more forms of any word, it should not be concluded that I consider the other forms wrong, but merely that the weight of evidence has led me to select the one given. Some critics may say: “Then why not retain both forms, as neither is wrong?” The reason is simple, but experience shows me that it needs pointing out. If both forms are retained, half a book that is being composed may be read by a proof reader who uses one spelling of the word, and, then—owing perhaps to illness—the second half passes through the hands of a reader who prefers the other spelling of the word. Consequently, when the book is finished, the same word will be spelt in two ways: one way in the first half, the other in the second. Hence the necessity in such a guide as this of giving one form only. Again, it may be thought that in the case of “duplicate spellings” both the word adopted and the word rejected should be spelt in full. I have, however, as a rule given only that part of the word which differs, as I have found that the meaning is more quickly grasped than when the whole word has to be read through.

Many foreign words and phrases are included on account of the frequent mistakes that are made with the accents. The translations given are usually free ones; literal renderings being generally omitted as often obvious, and as less practically useful. In a few cases an endeavour has been made to correct popular misapprehensions: thus “cui bono?” does not, except in modern incorrect usage, mean “What is the good of it?” I have also added the pronunciation of some words which are frequently mispronounced. A cursory glance through the book will reveal other special features on which it is unnecessary to dwell: such as the sizes of type, books, and paper; the explanation of printing terms; punctuation; and the spelling of place-names.

That more than twenty thousand separate entries, containing more than one hundred thousand words, and many of these not easily spelt, should have survived without any error, is more than can be hoped for. Notices of error will be gratefully received if addressed to me, at the office of the publisher. Should the spelling of any catchword in clarendon type differ from a spelling of it in the text, the former should be considered correct.

With regard to any principles stated in these pages, I may say that there has been almost invariably a considerable majority in favour of those selected. One of the most disputed points has been whether there should be an e, or not, before the –ment, in such words as abridgment, judgment, lodgment, and so forth. My reason for deciding to omit this e is that it is unnecessary for the purposes of pronunciation, and is not needful, as some assert, to give the g its sound of j, for this comes from the preceding d. It may be of interest here to point out that in the writings of Locke, Addison, Milton, Pope, Sir Leslie Stephen, and one may almost say all the standard writers, the e is omitted.

Another disputed point, and one on which feelings were very strongly expressed, was whether such abbreviations of counties as Herts and Salop, etc., should, or should not, be followed by the full stop. I had to decide in accordance with the majority and say, Use no point, although I myself have always used and prefer it.

Professor Skeat has very kindly sent me an interesting note which may be appropriately inserted here: “But is ‘connection’ right? It is connexion in French, and in the ‘Oxford English Dictionary,’ and connexio in Latin. It depends on the two following rules of Latin orthography: (1) If the Latin root ends with a single consonant, as c or g, then the derived noun has ct. Example, fac-: faction, affection, defection, etc. (2) But if the root ends in a double consonant, as ct, then the derived noun has x. Example, nect-: connexion; flect-: reflexion, flexion, flexus. Noun fluct-us, from flu- (with –ct added) – fluxion . But –flig-: affliction, as in (1).”

It has been a great advantage to have had the proofs read by natives of other countries than England, for they have not only checked the words in their own language, but have also shown where, while the meaning was clear to an Englishman, it was not necessarily so to a foreigner.

The question as to the use of capital or small initial letters for many words was a constant source of trouble during the preparation of the book, for no English authority—not even the “Oxford English Dictionary”—seems specially to have dealt with this point. All the large American dictionaries, and one which will soon be published, deal adequately with this matter; but, unfortunately, American custom in this respect differs considerably from English. As I am referring to dictionaries, it may not be out of place to mention a curiosity of copyright law. I have only been able to make the use I have made of the “Oxford English Dictionary,” which at present unfortunately is only about half completed, by entering into an agreement, having several conditions, with the Delegates of the University Press, and by payment of a more or less nominal fee; and this although my work has been for the benefit rather of literary workers than of myself. In an American work exactly the same use of the Oxford dictionary has been made without any agreement or payment.

Many criticisms may be passed on the different treatment of nearly allied words in the following pages: why one should be hyphened and the other not; or why one should be in italic type and other in roman. May I, however, point out that the present is not an attempt to rationalize the English language, but merely an endeavour to represent the language as it is now used by the people most capable of writing it?

Taking next the vexed question of the use of italic type, the longer I have been engaged upon this book the more I have felt that italic could be abolished, without leading to error, except for the purpose of emphasis, and for distinguishing such English and foreign words as are spelt alike but have different meanings, as the English cachet, an envelope for drugs, and the French cachet, a seal. It is quite open to question whether any foreign words or phrases, except these homonyms, are understood or grasped in any way more quickly when they are printed in italic than when they appear in the usual roman type. Does it matter to anyone, so far as regards mere apprehension, whether, for example, “au revoir” or “savant” is printed in italic or roman? The omission of italic type from the books and newspapers set up by the linotype machine (which usually has no italic fount) shows that the benefit of italic is largely imaginary. Its use has been retained in the following pages as, in the “attempt to codify the best typographical practices of the present day,” it seemed needful to do so, although it may not be really necessary.

A few observations are called for with reference to the general adoption throughout the book of the suffix –ize in place of –ise; though the latter is much used. The main reason is, that –ize is the form adopted by the Editors of the “Oxford English Dictionary”—the best authority in England upon such a matter. The admirable letter which Mr. Spencer wrote to me about this question will interest many, and its introduction here needs no apology:—

“Dear Collins,—By all means stand up for the Rules [of Mr. Hart] in respect of the use of z in place of s wherever the sound dictates it. You may, if you like, quote me as saying that our language is irrationally unphonetic still, and this is done wherever s is used in place of z in such words as ‘authorize’ and ‘apologize’. To spell these as though they were pronounced ‘authorice’ and ‘apologice’ when we have actually the letter which conveys the right sound is simply a retrograde movement; and the Clarendon Press ‘Rules’ are to be approved for adhering to the z, and should indeed extend its use. I always make my own printer substitute the z for the s wherever it is possible. Truly yours, Herbert Spencer.”

To this letter may be appropriately added a quotation from Professor Skeat—“The suffix –ize is both Greek and phonetic, and much to be preferred if we are to have uniformity. The suffix –ise is French.”

The general rule for the division of words—“Never separate a group of letters representing a single sound; and so divide a word that each part retains its present sound”—is the result of a large correspondence on this one point alone. Contrary to what might be supposed, the greater the knowledge of etymology possessed by the writer, the more he would seem to favour this division by sound. As this matter has at first to be dealt with by the compositor alone—for the author cannot tell when writing the copy what word will need division—it is singularly fortunate that so easy a rule, requiring no etymological knowledge, can be framed. The case for the phonetic division of words has been so ably put by Professor Skeat that it is here added:—“The rule for the division of words is not ‘the rule of the root’ by any means, but the rule of the sound or pronunciation. It is much best to ignore the root and go by the sound. Thus it is usual to make such divisions as are seen in impu-dence, solilo-quize, peru-sal, counte-nance, plea-sure, princi-pal; in perfect contempt of the root-forms, which are respectively pud-, loqu-, us-, ten-, plac-, cap-. We simply regard the utterance, writing pe-ruse at one moment and pe-ru-sal at another. Nothing is gained by pretending to keep the root intact, when the spoken utterance does nothing of the kind.”

Just a few words on the preparation of manuscript for printing. A very distinguished etymologist concludes a long letter to me with a paragraph which he has allowed me to quote; it is as follows:—

“There is one rule to be observed, which you do not notice, though it is of supreme importance: and that is, that the author shall present his copy in such a state as to be easily legible. There is a tradition among some authors that a crabbed writing is given to a clever compositor, and therefore one ought to write badly. The gross selfishness of this is simply shameful, and deserves entire reprobation. A man who is a gentleman will make his copy legible for the express purpose of enabling the compositor to earn more wages (and to save his eyesight). On this account I have carefully cultivated a rather coarse kind of writing, which I use especially for press-copy. It may not look aesthetic, but I defy any one to misread it. Of course, in letters one is not quite so careful: but here also it is highly desirable.” Even for his own sake an author should write legibly, for bad copy invariably results in increased cost and in delay, besides greatly multiplying the chances of error.

A great deal of delay, trouble, and expense, to all concerned in the making of a book, may be saved if the author will have his manuscript revised by the proof-reader before it is given to the compositors to be set up in type. This plan is not of course customary, but I know of at least one firm of printers who, having given this plan a trial, found the result so successful, that now every manuscript sent to them is revised by their proof-readers before it is composed.

I cannot close without referring to the voluntary assistance which has been given me during the compilation of this book. I am really at a loss to describe my sense of indebtedness to those collaborators whose names appear on subsequent pages as having helped me, and especially to those who read my first, second, and third proofs. Whatever merits this book may eventually be found to possess, I can truthfully say that they are mostly due to the help I have received from others. This help I here most gratefully acknowledge.

My thanks are also due to the Master Printers’ and Allied Traders’ Association of London, the Edinburgh Master Printers’ Association, the Belfast Printing Trades Employers’ Association, and the Executive Committee of the London Association of Correctors of the Press, for allowing me to print upon the title page their “approval” of this work.

The Committee of the Society of Authors, “while fully appreciating the merits of Mr. Collin’s work, and the disinterestedness of his labours in producing it, decided that a departure from the practice of declining to give the imprimatur of the Society to works issued by its members was likely to lead to difficulties in the future, and was therefore in-expedient.”

While probably no one will agree with everything contained in this book, I hope it may be found that the number of marginal notes needed to bring it into accordance with the views of those who use it will be as few as could be expected, considering the difficulty of the subject-matter, and that fact that it is, I believe, the first time it has been thoroughly and systematically investigated in any country.

May this work help to further the more amicable business relations of Authors, Editors, and Typists, Printers, Compositors, and Proof-readers!

F. HOWARD COLLINS

TORQUAY, March, 1905.