Benjamin Drew

So long as authors the most accomplished are liable to err, so long as compositors the most careful make occasional mistakes, so long as dictionaries authorize various spellings, just so long must there be individuals trained and training to detect errors, to rectify mistakes, and to decide upon and settle all points which lex­i­cog­raphers leave in doubt. Such individuals are known as Proof-readers.

Movable types, after having been used in printing newspaper or book, etc., are distributed to their several compartments (boxes) for future use. In distributing, the compositor, holding several lines in his left hand, takes from the top line, between the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, as many words or letters as he can conveniently manipulate, and moving his hand over the case drops each letter into its proper box. Suppose, for instance, he takes up the word “feasible”; he carries his hand to the “f” box, and drops off the first letter; of course he knows, without looking at the word again, that he is next to drop off the “e”—and so, very quickly, his hand glides from box to box, each receiving its proper letter. This process is repeated until the {p34} types which composed the form are all, apparently, returned to the compartments whence they were taken.

Suppose, however, that when ready to distribute “feasible,” his attention is drawn momentarily to a neighbor who desires his opinion as to a blotted word in his take, and that, on returning to his work of distributing, he imagines, or seems to remember, that the word in hand is “fencible,”—the “a” goes into the “n” box, and the “s” finds itself at “c.” By and by, in setting type from this same case, the compositor picks up the letters for “emancipate.” If he happens to take up the two wrong letters consecutively from the right boxes, his proof-sheet—unless he reads and corrects the matter in his stick—will present the word “emaasipate”—which the proof-reader will mark, for the compositor to correct.

Or it may happen in distributing, that the “f” and “e” cohere, and are both dropped into the “f” box. If the compositor’s mind is not intent on the matter in hand, the error may not be noticed at once; in which case the “a” gets into the “e” box, and some or all the other letters of the word go wrong. The error must be discovered when the last letter is reached; but to search for each misplaced type until it is found, would probably take more time than would be required to correct the errors which must otherwise appear in the proof.

But it is not in distributing only, that blunders occur. There are many other sources of error, and will be so long as present methods continue in vogue. {p35} The only wonder is, that so few errors escape detection before the printer’s work is handed over to the reading public. We have by us an octavo Shakspeare, each page of type from which it was printed, having contained, as can be demonstrated, over six thousand pieces of metal, the misplacing of any one of which would have caused a blunder.

But the detection and marking of wrong letters forms a comparatively small part of a proof-reader’s duty. He must be able to tell at sight whether a lead is too thick or too thin, and to discriminate between a three-em space and a four-em space. Many other important matters fall within his province,—and these we shall endeavor to point out before closing the present chapter.

Other things being equal, printers make the best proof-readers. We have known two or three remarkably skillful readers, whose work could not be surpassed, who never imposed a form, nor set a line of type. These, however, were rare exceptions.

A practical printer who never heard of the digamma, and who has never read anything but newspapers, will generally make a better proof-reader than an educated man who is not practically acquainted with the typographic art; for the printer has, year in and year out, had a daily drill which makes him skillful in orthography, and he has been compelled to give close attention to the grammatical points. Further, his dealing with individual types enables him to see, without searching, errors which men far more learned than he, do not readily {p36} perceive; and his pen pounces on a wrong letter as instinctively and unerringly as the bird darts on its insect prey.

Sterne has uttered a sneer at the husk and shell of learning; but the best bread is made from the whole meal, and includes the “shorts” and the “middlings” as well as the fine flour. If every lawyer, physician, and clergyman were to spend six months at the “case” before entering upon his profession, he would find, even in that short term of labor, a useful fitting and preparation for such literary tasks as may afterward devolve upon him.

Nearly all manuscript copy is indebted to the compositor and proof-reader for the proper punctuation; and many errors in spelling, made by men who probably know better, but write hastily, are silently corrected in the printing-office. Contradictions, errors of fact, anachronisms, imperfect sentences, solecisms, barbarisms, are modestly pointed out to the author by the proof-reader’s “quÆre,” or by a carefully worded suggestion; and, most usually, the proof is returned without comment,—and none is needed,—corrected according to the proof-reader’s intimations. Dickens, and a few other writers of eminence, have acknowledged their indebtedness in such cases; but we know one proof-reader—whose experience embraces an infinite variety of subjects from bill-heads to Bibles—who can remember but three cases in which his assistance, whether valuable or otherwise, was alluded to in a kindly manner. On the other hand, the correction in the proof is sometimes {p37} accompanied by some testy remark: as, “Does this suit you?” or, “Will it do now?” The proof-reader is, however, or should be, perfectly callous to all captious criticisms and foolish comments; he need care nothing for “harshness” or other nonsense, provided his work is well and thoroughly done. Let no nervous or touchy man meddle with proof-reading.

For the especial benefit of our non-professional readers, we will here point out the usual routine in regard to proofs. The editor or publisher of a book or periodical sends to the printer such portions of reading-matter or manuscript as he can, from time to time, conveniently supply. This copy is passed to a head-workman, who divides it into a number of parts, called “takes,” each part being a suitable quantity for a compositor to take at one time; and the name of each compositor is penciled at the top of his take. The type when set up is called “matter.”

When there is enough matter to fill a “galley” (a metallic or wooden casing about two feet in length), an impression, or “proof,” is taken on a strip of paper wide enough to receive in the margin the correction of such errors as may be found. This proof, with the corresponding copy, is carried to the proof-reader’s desk for examination and correction.

The reader will have at hand a copy of such directions as may have been furnished by author, editor, or publisher, to which he appends, from time to time, memoranda of all eccentricities of orthography and cap­i­tal­i­za­tion,—in short, all peculiarities of style, as they arise. This he consults frequently while {p38} reading the proof-sheet, and, for obvious reasons, with especial attention after any unusual delay in the progress of the work. Directions and notes as to captions, sizes of type, form of tables, etc., are of utility, especially when several readers are employed on the same publication; but directions can scarcely be framed so as to ensure?[3] uniformity, except in few particulars. We subjoin two or three samples of directions and memoranda: our remarks in brackets.

3 Vide page 170, on the orthography of this word.

MEMORANDA FOR PROOF-READERS.

The form is regular octavo.

Text is long primer, single leaded.

Tables and lists, having rules and boxheads, nonpareil solid.

Headings of tables and lists, brevier italic, lower case.

There are no numbered chapters. The heading of each section, which takes the place of chapter heading, is pica light-face celtic caps, spaced.

Geological ages and epochs are capitalized; for example, “Devonian,” “Trias,” “sub-Carboniferous” v. [page 176.]

Quoted extracts in regular text type (long primer), between quotation marks.

Capitalize “the West,” “the South,” etc., but not “western New York,” “central Pennsylvania,” etc.

Do not use “&c.” for “etc.”

“Prof.,” “Gen.,” etc., preceding initials or Christian name; “Professor,” “General,” etc., when last name alone is used; for example, “Prof. J. Smith,” “General Grant,” etc.

Full point after roman numerals.

“Saint Louis,” etc.; spell out “Saint.”

Names of periodicals, in italics.

Names of books, roman, in quotation marks.

“Panther creek”; but “Panther Creek district.” That is, capitalize titles. {p39}

The following sample relates to an octavo on Fishes:

Make “cod fishery” two words.

“Offshore,” “Inshore” [no hyphen].

“Sheepshead” [name of fish. Webster inserts an apostrophe and a hyphen,—“Sheep’s-head”].

“Herring fisheries” [no hyphen].

“Herring-nets” [insert hyphen].

From a quarto on Fishes:

“Cod-fisherman” [hyphen].

“Cod fishery” [two words].

Engineer work:

Make footnotes of the “Remarks” column.

For “D. D.” in copy, spell “dry-dock.”

Use figures in all cases, for weights, distances, etc.

The following was for a Digest—Decisions:

Spell “travelling,” “employee,” and divide “ser-vice.” [“Travelling” and “ser-vice” are Worcester style. Webster divides “serv-ice.”—In regard to “employee,” neither Webster nor Worcester gives it place; but, instead, the French “employÉ.” Webster has this note following the French word: “The English form of this word, viz., employee, though perfectly conformable to analogy, and therefore perfectly legitimate, is not sanctioned by the usage of good writers.” Since Webster’s note was written, some good writers, as in the book of Decisions above mentioned, have used the English word, as many printing-office employees can testify,—and “employÉ” may as well be sent home, according to the immigration laws, as unable to sustain itself in this country.?[4]]

4 Since the above remark was written, we have found “employee” admitted as a correct English word, in Worcester’s “Supplement.”

Weather Reports:

The “upper Missouri valley” [small v].

The “Mississippi river” [small r].

Geological Survey:

The “Missouri Valley” [cap. V].

The “Missouri River” [cap. R].

---

The proof-reader knows, that (as we have already remarked) every printing-office has a style of its own; that, if left to itself, its style would be practically uniform and always respectable,—and he soon learns that some writers for the press have very firm opinions about matters of little or no consequence, and are very tenacious, if not pugnacious, in preferring tweedledee to tweedledum; not because it is written with more e’s, but because it is more correct—in their opinion. However great may be a reader’s capacity for memorizing trifling details, it is next to impossible to keep minute verbal differences on different mental shelves. After the big book is bound, one will be likely to find a mingling of styles; the big River of one page becomes a little river on the next; “Pittsburg” here, reads “Pittsburgh” there; and the dignified “National Park” of the first chapter will dwindle to a mere “national park” in chapter the twelfth.

If not hurried by a press of work, as may sometimes be the case, the reader will first glance at the proof as a whole. A variation in the thickness of the leads, or a wrong indention, will, in this tout-ensemble survey, very quickly catch his eye. Then, still supposing he has time, he will read the galley through silently, correcting errors in spelling; marking turned or inverted letters; improving the {p41} spacing, the punctuation; noting whether the heads and subheads are in the required type; whether the cap­i­tal­i­za­tion is uniform; whether—if the “slip” beneath his eye happen to be near the end of a large volume—the word “ourang-outang” which he now meets with, was not printed somewhere in the earlier part of the work as “orang-outang,” or, in fact, whether, after some questioning, it finally went to press as “orang-utan,”—which word he must now, to preserve uniformity, hunt for and find among his old proofs, if, peradventure, author or publisher, or other person, have not borrowed them “for a few minutes,”—alas! never to be returned.

Having settled this, and all similar cases and other doubtful matters, he hands the copy to an assistant, called a “copy-holder,” whose duty it is to read the copy aloud, while he himself keeps his eye on the print (but in newspaper offices, for the sake of greater celerity, the proof-reader often reads aloud, while the copy-holder follows him silently, intent on the copy: interrupting, however, whenever any discrepancy is observed). If the reader desire the copy-holder to pause while he makes a correction, he repeats the word where he wishes the reading to stop; when ready to proceed he again pronounces the same word, and the copy-holder reads on from that place.

The manner of marking, in the text, all errors noticed, is shown, infra, in the “Specimen of First Proof.” The corrections to be made are indicated, in the margin, by appropriate words or characters from “Marks used in correcting Proofs”—also {p42} inserted below. Writers for the press who themselves examine proof-sheets of their works, should familiarize themselves with proof-reading technics. An author who received for the first time some proof-sheets returned them “clean”—apparently having detected no errors. He was afterward disgusted on finding it necessary to print a leaf of “errata,” and complained that his corrections had been entirely disregarded. On re-examining the proofs he had returned, it was found that he had corrected—with knife as well as pen. Where a comma was wanting, he had used the pen, carefully and skillfully imitating the printed character; and to convert semicolons into commas he had brought the knife into play,—nicely scratching out the superfluous part of the point.

Sometimes a line, or it may be several lines, of type are by some mishap out of perpendicular—slanting; so that only one side of each letter-face shows a full impression on the proof. It is usual in such case to draw several slanting marks across the faulty line or lines, and make similar marks in the margin. It is quite common, also, for readers to insert in the margin the words “off its feet,”—that being the printing-office designation for sloping matter. One reader abandoned writing these words, for two reasons: the first, that a compositor, when correcting, inserted them in the text, making an astonishing sentence; the second, that the marked passage,—a piece of close, logical reasoning,—after being carefully scanned by the author, was brought to the reader, with a very earnest request that he would {p43} point out what justice there was in that bluff remark. It is enough to draw what beginners in writing call “straight marks” across the matter, and also in the margin. We append other—

Several other marks are used, which need no explanation.

In order to show our readers the practical application of the above marks, we will suppose the following paragraph from Guizot to be put in type abounding in errors, and will then exhibit the corrections as made by the proof-reader:

The above is very bad, even for a first proof,—but we have seen worse, and have, perhaps, ourself been responsible for some not much better. While the copy-holder is reading aloud the copy from which {p45} the above was set up, the reader is busy marking errors, and making such characters in the margin as will inform the compositors what is to be done to make their work correct. At the conclusion of the reading, the proof will present an appearance somewhat like this corrected—

If the proof in hand be a reprint, and the new edition is to conform to the old, the copy-holder, while reading, pronounces aloud the points, capitals, etc., {p46} as they occur in the copy—saving labor and time by using well-understood ab­bre­vi­a­tions. Take, for instance, the second stanza of Tennyson’s “Voyage”:

This stanza the copy-holder reads thus:

If the work extend beyond a single galley, the slips of proof are marked in regular sequence, A, B, C, etc., or 1, 2, 3, etc. Each slip is marked at top “First Proof”: the names of the compositors, which have been inscribed on their “takes,” are duly transferred to the printed proof, which, with the errors plainly noted thereon, is then given for correction to the same persons who set up the matter. Their duty having been attended to, a “second proof” is taken: {p47} this the reader compares carefully with the first, to ascertain whether the requisite changes of type have been properly made; whether “doublets” have been taken out, and “outs” put in. If any mark has escaped the notice of the compositors, it is transferred to the second proof. Close attention should be given to this process of “revising”; it is not enough to see that a wrong letter has been taken out, and a right one put in; in the line where a change has been made, all the words should be compared, and also the line above and the line below a correction,—since in correcting an error among movable types, some of the types may move when they ought not, and get misplaced.

As what escapes the notice of one observer may be perceived by another, this second proof is again “read by copy” by another proof-reader and assistant, and a second time corrected and revised. The “third proof” is now sent to the author, editor, or publisher, with so much copy as may cover it, the copy-holder being careful, however, to retain the “mark-off”; i. e., the sheet on which is marked off the place where the next “first proof” is to begin. But when the work is of such sort as not to require extraordinary care, the second proof is sent out, a single reading by copy being deemed sufficient. If the work is read twice by copy, only one reader should attend to the punctuation.

If, now, the copy have been hastily or carelessly prepared, or if the author have gained new light since he prepared it, the outside party having charge {p48} of the work (whom, for convenience, we will designate as the “author”) will return his proofs, full of erasures, additions, alterations, interlineations, and transpositions. With these the original compositors have no concern; the changes required are made by “the office,” and the time is charged to the person who contracted for the printing of the work.

A second, third, or even more consecutive revises of the same slip are sometimes sent to the author, to the intent that he may see for himself that his corrections have been duly made, and to allow him further opportunity to introduce such alterations as to him may seem desirable. Usually, however, the work, after the correction of the author’s first proof, is made up into pages; and when there are enough of these for a “signature” or form of octavo, duodecimo, or whatever the number of pages on the sheet may be, the proof-reader revises these pages by the author’s latest returned proof, cuts off the slip at the line where the last page ends, and sends the folded leaves, labeled “Second,” “Third,” or “Fourth” proof, as the case may be, together with the corresponding slips of the next previous proof, to the author, as before. The portion of slip proof remaining—termed the “make-up”—should be inscribed with the proper page, and the letter or figure which is to be the signature of the next sheet, and given, for his guidance, to the person who makes up the work; to be returned again to the proof-reader, with the other slip proofs of the next sheet of made-up pages, when that is ready for revision. {p49}

The author may be desirous of seeing a fifth, sixth, or, as the algebraists say, any number, n, of proofs. When he expresses himself as satisfied with his share of the correcting, the last author’s proof is corrected, a “revise” taken, and the proof-reader gives this last revise a final reading for the press. As any errors which escape detection now, will show themselves in the book, this last reading should be careful, deliberate, and painstaking. See to it, my young beginner, that the “signature” is the letter or number next in sequence to that on your previous press-proof. See to it, that the first page of the sheet in hand connects in reading with the last page of the previous one, and that the figures denoting the page form the next cardinal number to that which you last sent to press. Having done this, examine the “folios” (the “pagination,” as some say) throughout; read the running titles; if there be a new chapter commenced, look back in your previous proofs to make sure that said new chapter is “XIX.,” and not “XVIII.”; see that the head-lines of the chapter are of the right size, and in the right font of type; for, if the “minion” case happened to be covered up, the compositor may have forgotten himself, and set them up in “brevier”; if there is rule-work, see that the rules come together properly, and are right side up; if there is Federal money, see that the “$” is put at the beginning of the number following a rule,?[5] and of the number in the top line of every page; if points are {p50} used as “leaders,” see that there are no commas or hyphens among them. If the style require a comma before leaders, see that none have been left out; if the style reject a comma, see that none have been left in; in short, see to everything,—and then, on the corner of the sheet, write the word “Press” as boldly as you can, but with the moral certainty that some skulking blunder of author, compositor, or corrector has eluded all your watchfulness.

The errors made by ourselves are those which occasion us the most pain. Therefore be chary of changing anything in the author’s last proof. If a sentence seem obscure, see whether the insertion of a comma will make it clear. If you find “patonce,” do not change it to “potence,” unless, from your knowledge of heraldry, you are aware of a good reason for such an alteration. If you find pro. ami, look in the dictionary before striking out the point after pro.; peradventure it is a contraction. If, finally, after puzzling over some intricate sentence, you can make nothing of it, let it console you that the following paragraph appears in HÄvernick: “Accordingly it is only from this passage that a conclusion can be drawn as to the historical condition of the people, which is confirmed also by notices elsewhere”; and let it content you to say, in the words of Colenso, “I am at a loss to understand the meaning of the above paragraph.” So let the obscure passage remain.

Still, however, should you find some gross error of dates, some obvious solecism, or some wrong footing {p51} in a column of figures, and find yourself unable to change the reading with absolute certainty of being right, this proof, which you had hoped would be a final one, must be returned to the author with the proper quÆre. When it comes back to your sanctum, you may perhaps be pleased at finding on the margin a few words complimentary of your carefulness; or perhaps a question couched in this encomiastic style: “Why did not your stupid proof-reader find this out before?”

Whether reading first or final proofs of Records of Court, you should not change the spelling of words, nor supply omissions, nor strike out a repeated word or words; for the printed record is assumed to be an exact transcript of what is written, and there should be no alterations,—neither uniformity nor correctness is to be sought at the expense of departing from copy. Inserting the necessary points where these have been neglected, is not considered a change of the record,—as, for instance, an in­ter­ro­ga­tion point after a direct question to a witness; for, as “the punctuation is no part of the law,” a fortiori it is no part of the record. If the caption be “Deposition of John Prat,” and the signature be “John Pratt,” and if in another place you find the same individual designated as “John Pradt,” there is no help for it. You have no authority to alter the record, and must print it as it stands. So, too, in regard to dates. If you read “1st Feb. 1889” on one page, “Feb. 1, 1889” on another, so let them stand—the change of style is a trifle; and, if it be a fault, it is the fault of the record, and not yours. {p52}

And here let us say a word about this matter of uniformity: very important in some works, in others it is of no consequence whatever, however much some readers may stickle for it. If, for example, a mass of letters, from all parts of the country, recommending a patent inkstand, or stating the prospects of the potato crop, are sent in to be printed, the dates and addresses will vary in style, according to the taste and knowledge of the several writers; and there is not the slightest need of changing them to make them alike, as if all these widely scattered writers had graduated from the same school. Let such writings be printed as diversely as they come to hand. If one writes plough, and another plow, what matters it, so far as your proof-reading is concerned? If one writes “15th June,” and another “June 15” or “June 15th,” so let it stand on the printed page. It is idle to waste time in making things alike, that could not by any possibility have been written alike. But you can make each letter consistent with itself, which is all that uniformity requires. You need not stretch one man out, and cut off the feet of another, to justify all authors in your composing-stick. So much for exceptional cases.

As a general rule, study to preserve uniformity in every work. If “A. M.” and “P. M.” are in capitals on one page, it will look very like carelessness to have them appear “A.M.” and “P.M.” in small capitals, on the next. With the exceptions above pointed out, your only safety is to have but one style, and to adhere to it with the stiffness of a martinet, {p53} in all contingencies, unless overruled by those who have a right to dictate in the premises.

Greek words sometimes appear in copy, and are somewhat vexatious to printers who never had the good fortune to study Greek at school—or elsewhere. In a proof-sheet, we once met a word whose etymology was given thus in the copy: “From ????? the sun, and f???? a lover” (the epsilon was the author’s mistake). The compositor, not aware of a Greek alphabet, set up the passage in those English letters which most nearly resemble the Hellenic characters, and it appeared in this guise: “From Ediog the sun, and pidog a lover.” We advise proof-readers, and compositors and copy-holders as well, to acquire—if they do not already possess—so much knowledge of Greek letters and characters as will enable them to acquit themselves without discredit, though “Ediog” and “pidog” condog (v. Wb.) to annoy them. A few hours’ attention to the alphabet and characters given below, and to the annexed practical directions, will suffice to fix in the memory as much knowledge of Greek as will serve for the mechanical following of the copy,—mechanical following,—for, if you are setting up or reading a reprint of the 450th page of Webster’s Dictionary, and meet with the word ???e?????ta you must put in the eleven letters as they stand: and if copying Worcester’s 486th page, you find ???e????ta, put in {p54} the ten letters. If you have any doubts, submit your query.

The Greek alphabet consists of twenty-four letters.

In reading Greek, mention each letter by its English equivalent.

? is read, “cap. short e”; e, “short e”; ? is read, “cap. long e”; ?, “long e.”

? is read, “cap. short o”; ?, “short o”; O is read, “cap. long o”; ?, “long o.” {p55}

There are three accents,—the acute ( ? ), the grave ( ? ), and the circumflex ( ? ).

? is read, “acute u”; ? is read, “grave i”; ? is read, “circumflex a.”

Over every vowel or diphthong beginning a word is placed one of two characters, called breathings, which, for the purpose of reading, we may designate as the smooth ( ? ) and the rough ( ? ).

? is read, “smooth a”; ? is read, “rough i.”

When two marks appear over a letter, both should be mentioned by the copy-holder.

? is read, “smooth, acute u”; ? is read, “rough, acute, short o”; ?, “rough, grave, short o”; ?, “circumflex, smooth, long o.”

The compositor and proof-reader should be careful that accented letters are used according to the copy, as in many cases the difference of accentuation serves also to mark the difference of signification. Thus, ???? signifies new; ?e??, a field: ???, a violet; ???, going.

?, ?, ?, are diphthongs; their second vowel (?), being silent, is placed underneath, or subscribed. These should be read thus: ?, “a, subscript”; ?, “long e, subscript”; ?, “long o, subscript.”

In Greek, only four points or stops are used: the comma (,); the note of in­ter­ro­ga­tion (;); the colon, or point at top (?); and the full stop (.). These should be mentioned as they occur. {p56}

EXAMPLE FOR READING.

The method of reading will, we think, be sufficiently exemplified if we give but one line. We select the third, which should be read by the copy-holder, as follows:

Cap. K, a, grave i; t, acute u, m, b, long o subscript; k, r, long e, p, circumflex i, d, a; p, short e, r, acute i, g, r, a, ph, short e; cap. P, short e, r, s, i, k, grave short o, n; cap. smooth acute A, r, long e.

Words from dead and foreign languages, introduced into English text, are printed in italics, until, being frequently met, they cease to be strangers; then printers and proof-readers anglicify them as much as possible, by printing them in roman; but some of these retain certain accents which indicate their alien origin. The Spanish caÑon is completely anglicized into “canyon” (o as in no); our miners write “arrastra” in roman, although the term has not yet found its way into our most popular dictionaries; our dreadful accident-makers have set afloat so many “canards,” that that word has become better English than French; “papier-mache” usually appears in roman without the accent on the final e; employÉ {p57} has become a good “employee” in our workshops; and at an early day, every “protÉgÉ” and “protÉgÉe,” already roman, will throw off the foreign accents, and remain none the less acute “protegees”; “Éclat,” “rÉgime,” and “rÉsumÉ” still cling to their acute e’s. Many words and phrases are hesitating whether to remain foreigners, or to become naturalized. They have “taken out their first papers,” as it were, having at times appeared in English garb.

It would be vastly convenient for every compositor and proof-reader (every author, of course, reads proof) to have at hand two lists of such Latin and foreign words as most frequently occur in books, magazines, and newspapers,—the one containing the words to be set up in italics, the other, words to “go in roman,” as the phrase is. We append two such lists, as samples rather than as fixities to be followed, although they represent very nearly, if not exactly, the present status of the class of words we are considering. The roman list is destined to be continually lengthening, while the italic, save as it receives new accretions from foreign sources, must be correspondingly diminishing.

• WORDS TO GO IN ITALICS.

  • ante
  • ad captandum
  • ad libitum
  • ad quod damnum
  • aliunde
  • alma mater
  • amende honorable
  • amicus curiÆ
  • artiste
  • avant coureur
  • beau monde
  • coram non judice
  • corpus delicti
  • coup d’État
  • coup de grÂce
  • coup de main
  • de bonis non
  • de facto
  • de jure
  • del credere
  • de novo
  • dilettante
  • dilettanti
  • dramatis personÆ {p58}
  • duces tecum
  • en route
  • entrÉe
  • et al.
  • ex officio
  • ex parte
  • ex post facto
  • ex rel.
  • falsi crimen
  • feme covert
  • feme sole
  • femme couverte
  • femme sole
  • fleur de lis
  • functus officio
  • garÇon
  • ignes fatui
  • ignis fatuus
  • in extenso
  • infra
  • in statu quo
  • inter alia
  • in toto
  • in transitu
  • juste milieu
  • malum in se
  • malum prohibitum
  • matÉriel
  • nem. con.
  • n’importe
  • non constat
  • non obstante
  • nous verrons
  • passim
  • peculium
  • personnel
  • postea
  • postliminium
  • post mortem
  • prima facie
  • procÈs-verbal
  • pro forma
  • projet
  • pro tempore
  • rationale
  • res adjudicata
  • sans-culotte
  • sine die
  • soi disant
  • sotto voce
  • sub judice
  • supra
  • tabula rasa
  • terra incognita
  • tout ensemble
  • ultima ratio
  • ultima Thule
  • vide
  • vice versa
  • viva voce
  • vraisemblance

• WORDS TO GO IN ROMAN.

  • addenda
  • addendum
  • ad interim
  • ad valorem
  • alias
  • alibi
  • alumnus
  • alumnÆ
  • alumni
  • animus
  • assumpsit
  • bagatelle
  • belles-lettres
  • bijou
  • billet-doux
  • bivouac
  • bizarre
  • bona fide
  • canaille
  • canard
  • capias
  • chargÉ d’ affaires
  • coterie
  • crevasse
  • data
  • datum
  • dÉbris
  • dedimus
  • dÉtour
  • devoir
  • diluvion
  • diluvium
  • Éclat
  • emeute
  • ennui
  • entrepot
  • exequatur
  • exuviÆ
  • fasces
  • faubourg
  • feuilleton
  • fiacre
  • fieri facias
  • habeas corpus
  • hacienda
  • hauteur
  • in banc
  • in situ
  • literati
  • literatim
  • Magna Charta
  • mandamus
  • menu
  • mittimus
  • nisi prius
  • nolle prosequi
  • oyer and terminer
  • papier-mache
  • per capita
  • per diem
  • posse comitatus
  • pro rata
  • protÉgÉ
  • quasi
  • rÉgime
  • rÉsumÉ
  • rÔle
  • savant
  • seriatim
  • sobriquet
  • status
  • supersedeas
  • via
  • venire
  • venire facias
  • verbatim