Translations:CP 05635/8/en
Unfortunately, we are still dealing with missing sentences and words, etc. Based on the tiredness in my eyes, I can’t convey to you how much additional work is required not having complete faith in the proof. I do, however, despite all the errors. But here is something that is quite odd and that I am telling you in full confidence. I had thought up until now that the transcribers responsible for this work were rather clueless and regularly made errors for that reason (I could give you 100 examples). It was to my great surprise to see that the word ‘gluant’ [sticky] had been replaced by the word ‘visqueux’ [gooey] in the latest proofs. I find it astounding while shameless and uncultured at the same time. When rereading a rather well flowing sentence, in order to avoid referring back to your typist’s manuscript, it just so happened that I was taken aback by the word ‘visqueux,' which I didn’t think I put there. Given it isn’t a recent proof, as they are galley proofs (so from a manuscript that I hadn’t reread for a while), I compared the printed galley proof with the manuscript pieced together by your typist, which didn’t have ‘visqueux’ but ‘gluant’[1]. Do these trivialities give you an idea of the troubles I’ve been having with this volume? Alas, it’s shameful to talk about oneself, books and printing while so many suffer. Despite your youthful appearance, you have a grown-up son; I would be grateful to know if you have any good news from him, or whether he is out of danger[2]. We tremble for all our own and I am thinking about you both with all my heart.