The Savannah morning news., 1902-04-29


tons once more upright and hearty"
1 Where is the proofreader2 The SEN
tence is absolute nonsense. What is
having men from Father Gerard s
book" Probably the unlucky critic
wrote having risen from Father &C.
rard's book" That makes sense, at
all events, though men" is. not very
like risen 1t is rather like it in
my hand, but then | dare say the critic
does not write hand like mine. For
we have his adversary's reply with
our uprooted notions once more up
right and hearty j venture TO con-
lecture that we ought to read 1--WE
leave his adyersary's reply and so on.
Now, a proofreaer ought to have sa-
gacfty enough TO make these conjec-
tural emendations. on the principle
that people do not usually write pure
nonsense, but mean something.
Sttu pursuing my researches, find
a quotation from Lady X She says
lin magazine article), WAS it in
Thackerays Book OF Snobs where
(sic) Jones, having married Lady Dull
Gina 1omnoddy, is greeted by Smith,
after the marriage with the hearty
inquiry Wei, Jones' and hows your
Wife, returns the cold response, DO
you refer to Lady Oulcima2' The
proofreader knows very we'll that this
pe'o'et5 sc AONS nut .OCtul' III i ndthGiGN ,
Book or Snobs,' or in any other work
| by Thackeray, and the proofreader
knows what to think of Lady KS
grammar BY taking a little pains the
proofreader would have corrected the
grammar, and ne would have present
ed Lady X. with the correct version
of the passage which she has distort-
ed and robbed of its point, But. where
is the proofreader? Has he been treat
ed as the sandwich man who carried
the letter Il were handled by MIR.
/ Punch's. sandwich board contractors
The public don't want you, and
don't want you, so hoff you go?'
Lady X. goes on: ut saVors of the cot
| tage, COndescensions' and the Lady
| Bountiful when you insist upon the re-
| lationship of and to the person you are
| adressing."' The relationship of what
| or of whom? The proofreader would
/ have remarked the amazingly
/ ellptical character of Lady
| X. phrase, and would have
! drawn the attention of the
/ author to the more than merely meta
| physical obscurity Of her style. Let
/ me, to be fair, give the whole SEN
tence: -"If a person has got name,
! it is just as well to use it when in
| quiring after him, and it saVors of
| the cottage, condescensfOn, and the
Lady Bountiful when yoU-insist upon
| the relationship of and TO the person
you are addressing. One thus sees,
after studying the phrase, mot with
| out some fever of the brow" that the
meaning probably is when you insist
upon the relationship of the person
about whom you are inquiring (ot and)
| to the person you are addressing.
Here "of and appears to me reduhd-
| ant, l must confess. The proofreader
would probably agree with me, for even
if this of and" has a sense (and per
| haps it has) that sense is eVastVe, and
to discover it needs an ingenuity OF
| which / cannot boast. Is this the
meaning when you insist upon the
relationship (of the person after whom
you are inquiring) to the person To
whom you are addressing (the ques-
! tom 80 Perhaps that is correct The
sentence, thus unfolded, is inelegant,
but it has a meaning. Next in this
literary paper l find that another au-
thor who contributes to the magazine
adorned by Lady X. is cited as writ
ing about Scott and Hazlet.' But
here the proofreader of the literary
paper Gf such a man, existsl is to
blame. The contributor to the maya
zine writes "Hazlitt" like other NOR
tails; the magazine is not to blame
this time; The literary paper is at
fault.
Perhaps proofreaders have become
! scarce owing to the progress OF So
| Giety The proofreader must be a man
| who can read, write and spell. He
must know a thing or Two. must reT
member stock quotations from Brown
ing and familiar things in Thackeray,
must be aware that. Hazlitt did not
spell his name with an '.e' More oyer,
he must have a genius for conjectural
cmendat!on when an author writes a
difficult hand. He may carry emenda~
ton too far. as in the case of the
French author who wrote that, il any
one would know Love, il fault sortir de
sol. The proofreader. seeing no sense
in this, altered it TO eff any one would
know Love, il faut sortir lie soir," che
must go out in the evening"" which S
very true, but not what the philOsophc
author meant TO say. Perhaps a proof
reader corrected in geographical
work. "a plain covered with erratic
blocks" into "a plain covered with err
rotic blacks.' Blocks are not Giraffe,
he doubtless argued, but negroes are
amorOus. This was brilliant emenda-
ton, better than the German EDITORS
emendation of "he smote the sledded
Polaclc on the ice" into He smote his
loaded poleaxe on the ice" But bril-
lance is not everything, and l trust
that I have given example of sane and
conservative conjectural emendation in
reading risen" for men,. and leave
for have" in the obscure passage
cited from a literary contemporary,
But a proofreader With all those ac-
complishments 'proofreader who can
hazard a plausible theory of what the
phrases of Lady X. really mean, is
man who may soar to being a writer
off his own bat, or who can teach Eng
lish literature in University Extension
lectures. Such a man, knowing HIS
own value, deserts. l presume. the
thankless drudgcry of correcting
proofs for more lucrative and agree
able employments. But we miss him
sorely from his accustomed place.