Rose Wild writes a fascinating blog about the treasures found within the archives of the Times (U.K.). She recently went hunting for corrections (or errata*, as they used to be known) and turned up some examples from the 18th and 19th centuries.
“The cryptic way they’re worded doesn’t seem to have changed much in 200-odd years and it’s sometimes tempting to go back to the original article to see what on earth they’re about,” Wild writes. “On reflection though, I think they’re mainly more enjoyable in their own right, with their mysteries intact.”
Wild is right that corrections from 100 or 200 years ago don’t seem all that different from the more recent variety. Modernize the language a bit and they could have been published yesterday. Antique corrections drive home the point that journalists have been making the same errors for a very long time:
October 21, 1840: Erratum. In our leading article of yesterday on on the Eastern question, paragraph 8, line 1, for “If on being beaten out of Eygpt,” read, “If on being beaten out of Syria.” The error, however, was one which must have been at once detected by the reader.
Another one from Wild’s collection:
December 28, 1836: Erratum. A rather awkward mistake occurred in our journal of yesterday in what is technically called “the making up” of the paper. The last 14 lines of the first leading article were transferred to an article from a correspondent, headed “the Church Commission,” and the last 14 lines of that correspondent’s article on the Church Commission were made to take the place of the last 14 lines of the first leading article.
The New York Times’ digital archive is also home to some good finds. Here’s one I used in my book. From June 12, 1852:
WE ARE ASSURED BY THE FRIENDS of Mr. William O’Conner, that the account of his insanity, given by our reporter yesterday, was entirely unfounded. He is of sound mind, and has not been missing, as was reported. We cheerfully make the correction.
*Correction Dec. 14: This sentence origially used the word “errratum” instead of “errata.” As reader Paul noted: “Not only did you add an extra ‘r’ in your copy, you used the wrong Latin tense. Erratum is singular; the plural (for ‘corrections’) is errata. Luckily the nuns who drilled this into me have appeared on the obits page and will not come down to punish you.” Indeed. Thank you, Paul.
