Sometimes we blundered

Inspired by the admirable Regret the Error, I've been having a browse through some old corrections. 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.

On reflection though, I think they're mainly more enjoyable in their own right, with their mysteries intact. The mind boggles at how this original theatre review must have read:

April 1, 1788: Errratum in our "Theatre" of yesterday: in noticing Mrs Siddons, for positions, read passions

And what about this bishop, getting worked up about women in chains:

May 9, 1842: The accidental omission of two or three words in the report of what fell from the Bishop of Norwich on Friday night gave to the passage a meaning whch the right rev prelate did not intend to convey. Describing the chaining of young females in some coal-mines, the right rev prelate is represented to have said, "The chain was passed round the waist of the young female," &c. It should have been "The chain was passed throuqh a belt round the waist," &c

Here's an early forerunner of the "hurly-burly of nightly newspaper production" excuse:

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.

Another cleric, this time even more excitable:

May 16, 1850: Erratum. In our report of the Protectionist meeting which took place on Tuesday at Billericay, a speech of the Rev Mr Day is ascribed to Mr G. F. Young. Mr Young entirely disclaimed any such violent expressions as were subsequently made use of, and stated his anxiety to be moderate in the expressions he used

Some shocking geography, and a thoroughly diabolical attempt at a get-out:

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.

And a nice couple of examples of the old omitted "not":

March 31, 1841: Erratum. In the Philharmonic notice yesterday, 27 lines from the end of the article, for "A grand symphony, which completely spoils the sense, read "Not a grand symphony."

March 19, 1832: Erratum. In the letter of "A Metropolitan," which appeared in our paper of Saturday, the omission of a word gives a directly opposite meaning to that intended. The sentence "Oh, the fools, they will perpetually get into scrapes, since they will follow my advice," should read, "since they will not follow my advice."