Collins - fifth edition (1921)

NOTE
TO THE SIXTH IMPRESSION

The fourth edition was revised under the direction of the late Mr. Horace Hart, Controller of the University Press, Oxford; Mr. F. Howard Collins having died on Nov. 16, 1910.

In going through the pages it was noticed that a number of other persons had died since the first edition was issued; and where dates could be ascertained they were inserted.

In the fifth edition the work of correction and improvement has gone further, thanks very largely to the kindness and zeal of many correspondents and to no one more than to Mr. Edward Latham, who has kindly read the proofs of this edition. The publisher much regrets that the expense of altering the plates has made it impossible for him to adopt anything like all the suggestions he has received, for which nevertheless he is very grateful. His thanks are due also to the Editor of the Athenæum, who has kindly given permission for the use, as a preface to this edition, of an article contributed to that paper by Mr. R. W. Chapman, Secretary to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. In cases where the plan of work differs (as in the matter of single and double quotations) from the practice of the Oxford Press, Mr. Collins’s plan has been left unaltered. The reasons which he had for undertaking the work originally, and the methods on which he proceeded, having been fully set out in earlier editions, are not repeated here.

EXTRACTS FROM THE PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION

A sketch of the way in which this work was compiled may be of interest. Every work in the following list of “Authorities Consulted”¹ was read through, and all suitable words, phrases, etc., were 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 3.² 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.”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.”

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.

¹ Printed in the first edition. [Text of original footnote; to return to your place in text, click here.]

² These names are printed in full in the first editions: they are not reprinted here. [Text of original footnote; to return to your place in text, click here.]

AUTHOR AND PRINTER

The effect of the rise of manufacturing and other costs upon the book trade is a matter of very general speculation and concern. Those especially who are interested in the production of learned books, technical books, and all books which command a limited market, are asking how such books are to be published, and how the impoverished professional man is to buy them. If it were assumed that the purchasing powers of this class were stationary, which is a sanguine view, and that the cost of production were, or might be, no more than twice what it was, it should still seem that production would be halved and the price (of so many hundred pages) doubled. For there are only two ways in which the cost of a book can be substantially reduced: by increase in the number of copies printed and sold, or by reduction of bulk. It is probably, indeed, that the English-reading public will accustom itself to flimsy, perhaps even to paper bindings; and the public will certainly have to put up with smaller and closer type, narrower margins, fewer pictures. But such economies, though not unimportant, will not make any vital difference. You cannot make books cheap by making them nasty. The necessity for limiting prices can only be met by greater popularity for by fewer words. Novels, accordingly, may be expected to be shorter, less numerous, and more widely advertised. It is enormously more profitable to all concerned to sell one article in tens of thousands than many articles in hundreds; and even before the war it is known that some retailers offered the public nothing but the best-sellers of the season.

But there were very many books, addressed to a public limited and incapable of rapid or artificial expansion, which it was yet possible to publish without subvention and without risk of serious loss. These are books of which the future is doubtful: books on the sciences; books for doctors, chemists, and lawyers; biographies; historical treatises; critical editions of the classics, English and foreign; school-books which must take their chance in free competition with numerous rivals. The prices of such books cannot be advanced beyond a point without ultimate injury to their sale or reduction of their number.

If the effect of economic pressure is to make authors study compression, and readers, attention, the gain will be great. The prolixity of modern writing, fostered by cheap paper and print, by the habit of making books out of articles and lectures, by the use of typewriters and stenographers, is a positive evil; and it has so reacted upon most readers that they have become incapable of assimilating close thought or a terse style.

These are the grave ills and heroic remedies. The purpose of the present article is to call attention to some minor palliatives, the application of which may be assisted by information in some degree technical. When an author has made a book, he may study economy in his preparation of the printer’s copy and in his treatment of the printer’s proof; and these things he often performs indifferently from lack of knowledge which might be made more accessible. Knowledge, however, is not all; some change of heart is required. We have grown accustomed to write so fast, and to supply copy at so short notice, that we are not disposed to treat as a grave responsibility the committal of manuscript to be set up. As such, however, it must be considered. The operation of setting type has always been very much more laborious and costly than that of copying and recopying manuscript or typescript; and it is now more than ever imperative that the writers of learned and scientific books should in their own and their colleagues’ interest aim at finality in the copy they furnish to the printer. Books exist which give useful hints on points of typography, such as the use of italic and capitals and the conventional signs used by printers. But with most of these experienced authors are familiar; what is wanted is the resolution to make copy which can be easily set and which will not reveal incongruities and obscurities when exposed to the stronger light which beats upon the printed page. Authors sometimes plead in extenuation that their writings ‘look different’ when they are printed; but it requires no great mental agility to perceive that a printer must be shown where a paragraph is to begin or a footnote be placed, and that though he may safely enough be left in charge of spelling and punctuation, he must not be expected to make references or abbreviations uniform. A book is not set by a single compositor.

Typewriting is to be recommended not so much because it facilitates the compositor’s task as because it approximates more nearly than manuscript to the regularity and uniformity of print; and so enables most writers to view what they have written with a more synoptic eye and to grasp more readily the relation of chapters and paragraphs. Sentences will bear printing if they will bear reading aloud; transpositions and interlineations can be made clear if the writing is not cramped; and it is as easy to italicize references in manuscript as in typescript or in proof. A golden rule is never to spare paper. In a book of any complexity the important thing is that the arrangement should be clear; and nothing is so destructive of clearness as economy in paper. If only one side is used, and ample space left for revision between the lines and in the margin, there is room for alteration, and even for transposition and interlineation, without serious loss of clarity. A manuscript so prepared can, if necessary, be easily read and marked by a second eye, and the compositor’s path made smooth. If copy is crabbed, so that it cannot be read without an effort, there is always a temptation to fling it at the printer and see what happens.

Footnotes, it may be mentioned, are in small type, and therefore set by a different compositor. They should be written on the same page as the text (otherwise mistakes in placing them are likely to be made), but at the foot of the page, and clearly marked.

Authors are often unnecessarily costly in their proof correction because they do not understand what kinds of alteration are more or less expensive. In general, correction, if necessary at all, should be regarded as a necessary evil. An author who is tempted by the specious mutability of a printed proof should ask himself, when verbal changes occur, whether the gain in point or elegance is worth the human labour it will occasion.

If a correction is irresistible, it should be considered what will be its result. Even an apparently trifling addition often produces in closely set type a dislocation which ends only with the paragraph, and therefore means shifting hundreds of minute pieces of metal. If the paragraph ends with a full line, the addition may mean a whole new line, and so involve shifting one line from each page to the next until the end of a chapter brings relief. (Meanwhile the page-references in the index are perhaps going wrong; or a footnote may be on the wrong page.) Such dislocation could often be restricted if an author would be careful to make compensatory changes where necessary: it is not difficult, by counting letters and spaces, to guess how much should be removed to make room for an insertion. There are other possibilities: a line may be saved by ‘running on’ footnotes, by stealing space between quotations, paragraph-headings, or the like. Authors very seldom do this, because they hardly know how; the printer does not complain, because correction is in the day’s work and is paid for like the rest; the publisher indeed has an interest in removing costly misunderstandings, and often does intervene; but problems of this kind are unimportant taken singly, and are not readily solved by correspondence.

More serious dislocation is caused by more extensive addition, deletion, or transposition. Suppose that a chapter extends from page 1 to page 20, the next chapter beginning a fresh page, and that a new paragraph is added on page 2. If the new paragraph occupies no more space than the blank on page 20, the correction will affect one chapter only; but it will affect every page of that chapter, in the same way as the intrusive line imagined above, but in a greater degree. This is called overrunning.

If, again, the new paragraph is so long that the chapter bursts its banks and overflows on to page 21, then the next chapter will have to begin on page 22 instead of on page 21; and page 23 (the old 22) will, e.g., be found to have the right-hand headline when it should have the left-hand; and every page to the end of the book will have to be moved on. This is a process less simple than shuffling sheets of paper; to understand it, it is necessary to reflect how a book is printed. If the reader will take a piece of paper, fold it three times as an octavo sheet is folded, number the pages from 1 to 16, and then flatten it out again, he will have on each side a map, as it were, of the forme of type, containing eight pages locked together with ‘furniture’, from which one side of the sheet is printed. In the example supposed, pages 21–32 have to be converted into 22–33 (limiting the problem to the first sheet exploded). Now of these pages, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 32 belong to one forme, pages 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, and 31 to the other. To reconstitute the sheet both formes will have to be broken up, the type pages transferred and rearranged; and since each page is made up of thousands of pieces of lead in unstable equilibrium, the chances of disturbance or loss are such that when the shock is over a reader must go through the whole and make good any damage. This is reimposition. All these processes mean the passage from one to another department of the printing house not only of the proof, but of the type; 16 pages of small octavo weigh half a hundredweight.

The practice of giving the author slip or galley proof is designed to mitigate such disturbances. If the author makes his additions and subtractions before the book is paged (and confines his alterations to that stage), the result is certainly much more expensive than if he had finished his book before he sent it to press; two bites have been made of his cherry, and all the elaboration of records and correspondence doubled; the new ‘matter’ has to be set up and put in its place, read by the readers and by the author, and two if not three stages of revision by all concerned are substituted for one. At least, however, the disintegrating consequences are avoided of the addition of fresh paragraphs to paged or ‘made-up’ proof. Many authors unfortunately, having grasped that slips can be added to or shuffled, infer that any kind of correction is venial on slips. But it should be obvious that if the area affected is the paragraph, slips are in no way different from pages. The cost of verbal corrections is the same.

Authors would doubtless treat a proof with more respect if they realized that type-setting is not a purely mechanical act. Words do not arrange themselves; about a quarter of the compositor’s time is spent in spacing his letters, after he has picked them up and placed them in order; and a well-set page, in which the spacing strikes the eye as uniform, is a work of art. To disturb it for a trifle is injurious as well as costly.

In a perfect world, perhaps the author would pay for his own corrections—those, that is, that are due to his own taste and not to the error of the printer. (It may be mentioned that printers are entitled to charge, and do charge, for pardonable misreading of an author’s illegible copy; and that the term ‘printer’s error’ is far too often applied by authors and the public to such misreadings, not detected in revision, and even to palpable mistakes which could not possibly be due to the compositor.) But it is impossible to determine when a compositor is justified in misreading copy; and for other reasons it is impracticable to make the author pay. Publishers therefore expect to pay something beyond the bare cost of composition; and to protect themselves against incompetence or wantonness they are accustomed to stipulate that a certain limit shall not be exceeded. Unfortunately this precaution, like that of slips, is often interpreted as an indulgence, and an author thinks that if he does not exceed his limit he is free to correct as he pleases. It is very desirable that his conscience should be educated. It should be a point of honour not to inflict upon printer and publisher the burden of irritating afterthoughts and infirm vacillations.

R. W. CHAPMAN

1920

Click on Collins.html to return to the Collins Editions page, or use your brower’s ‘Back’ button.
Click on Collins - fourth edition (1912) to go to the previous edition.
Click on Collins - sixth edition (1928) to go to the next edition.