Prof. R. Ingarden c c c Krakow, 3/12/1956
Krakow, Biskupia 14
c To the Editorial Committee of the Library of the Classics of Philosophy
c c c c in WARSAW
Please find attached the second galley proof revision of the translation of “Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason”, galley proofs 1- 150.
I think that after introducing the marked corrections you can proceed with setting, but first you need to: a / on galley proofs 135-136 – change the marked place from edition A to petit in the note,
c b / on galley proof 11, first line from the bottom – remove from the note that edition A in the text “is for distinction printed without line spacing”, as it is printed with spacing.
c c / on galley proof 13, add a footnote with an explanation of the meaning of those “rhombuses” or “squares” that distinguish the inserts or omission of edition B in relation to edition A. It is also necessary to decide whether to include – as I did – footnotes explaining each time whether those mean an addition to edition B or an omission in it, or whether to forego any more notes except the one on galley proof 13 – as the editorial office seem to want, since they deleted a number of my notes, though not all of them. I would prefer there to be a note in each such place, because the rhombuses signal two different cases; either the words next to them have been added to edition B, or some words from edition A that were omitted n that spot in edition B. This must be decided. And it has to be before setting /because certain notes might have to be added or removed/. This is a technical matter and I do not want to make any decisions on it.
c d / on galley proof 44 /or subsequent/ “Content” from issue A must be inserted /additionally, the entire content will be supplied at the end/. My typescript included a separate page with this “Content”, but this part was not printed in the second correction. This must be done before setting, so it does not get messy.
c e / galley proof 58, in the title – is the font of number V the correct one?
c f / decide how to print the word “organon” whether consistently in Antiqua, or – as I suggested – in italics in the 1st case, and in Antiqua in others; this is also a technical matter. The editorial office can decide whether to standardize the font or keep the dual method.
c g / The word “Critique” capitalized by me with in a number of places, which made the the editorial office change the Antiqua to italics, should be consistently printed in lowercase Antiqua.
c All other matters have been clearly marked by me in the revision. There are generally few errors. I removed some things from one other note. I did not make any new changes. Corrections by the Printing House were usually made very carefully, but not economically. A number of lines have been reprinted many times over only to insert a few letters.
Please send me the next part of the revision
c c c c c My deepest respect