Needless to say, this deadline slipped, ostensibly because Berlin was ill. Stallworthy secured permission to typeset the four essays before the arrival of the Introduction.' Before sending the typescript to the printer, he consulted Berlin about two possible forms of typesetting - hot metal and Monophoto - and explained that, if there were to be changes, it was vital to opt for hot metal. Berlin undertook to make no changes, and Stallworthy, rashly believing him, opted for Monophoto.2 The Introduction was re- promised for the end of August, again on the understanding that the book would appear without it if it were not ready in time.
A further reversal occurred when Berlin wrote in the following terms to Stallworthy four days short of the new deadline, in a letter signed on his behalf in his absence by his secretary, Baillie Knapheis:
[. . .] I should like to hasten, in the first place, to thank you for your extremely considerate and patient treatment of me - beyond my deserts. I know that the Oxford Press in New York must regard me as a highly unsatisfactory client - because of all these delays - but one of the secret causes of this is my suspicion that the works which they kindly wish to reprint as a paperback are in some cases scarcely worth it; I have looked through 'Historical Inevitability' again, and I find that there are all kinds of things wrong with it, and I should certainly be ashamed if it appeared in an unaltered form. I have gone through the disagreeable task of reading through the nastier criticisms of it - such as I have kept - the more violent and ephemeral I mislaid or lost almost at once - and it appears to me that what some of the critics said is true, and that, in the interests of the readers and general integrity, the text cannot be left wholly intact. Consequently I have introduced corrections - though far less radical ones than were perhaps required - and hope to make up for this in the Introduction, which I propose to prepare next week. In the meanwhile I do hope that the corrections will not reduce the Press to despair: I realise that there is something for the printers to do/ and if this is regarded as financially awkward, I am so anxious for this labour to be done - that is, for the corrections to be introduced (I should be ashamed - and indeed could not conceive the prospect - of letting the texts go out unaltered), that I should be prepared to consider reimbursing the Press for these
| This is why roman numerals are used to paginate the Introduction in Four Essays.
It seems he had not studied the file for 'Two Concepts of Liberty', where, with impressive self-restraint, Colin Roberts writes to Berlin on 6 November 1958: 'You have certainly had a field day with the proofs.' The lecture had to be completely reset.
One of the great understatements of our time: in the end the whole book had to be reset.
unexpected expenses. In fact the only prospect I could not contemplate was for the corrections not to be incorporated.
I hope you will forgive me for being such a nuisance. I know all authors are, and am perhaps not the worst among them; nevertheless, unlike some authors, I do possess a genuine conscience with regard to publishers and do not regard them as mere philistine adversaries to be sparred with, but as genuine intellectual collaborators, particularly the Press. Consequently I do hope that you will once again be patient with me, again beyond my proper deserts - for I am quite clear that if the only condition for publication is that the texts should go out unaltered, I would rather nothing were published at all, and that these essays continued to dwell in their present decent obscurity [.. .]
Mercy, rather than justice, is, I suppose, what I am asking for: but I truly cannot see how you could deny it to me. You must have had authors far more tiresome than even myself. Perhaps what I am asking for is not so terribly unreasonable. At any rate, I am very grateful.
Page proofs of the four essays arrived at the end of November, but there was still no Introduction. This finally arrived in May 1967, but was immediately put on hold because Berlin wanted comments from Stuart Hampshire and Herbert Hart. In the meantime he continued to correct the essays themselves heavily, despite his promise not to do so. This elicited the following comment from between Stallworthy's gritted teeth:
I think I should mention [a tactful substitution for 'remind you'] that the book has been set up by a Monophoto machine that produces a page not of lead but of film negative. Every correction involves a delicate operation not unlike that for the removal of a cataract from a human eye; the skin of the negative has to be cut and a new line or letter grafted on. Such corrections are very expensive.
Berlin finally returned the corrected proofs of the four essays in August. A month later he sent OUP a revised text of his Introduction, writing in his covering note: 'Owing to the devastating criticisms it has received, I have altered it, not nearly as much as the critics wish, but still, perhaps sufficiently to avoid howling errors (or perhaps not).' At this point an internal OUP note from Stallworthy reads: 'Despite all my explanations about the cost of correcting a filmset text, my suggestions, pleas, further explanations, further suggestions, and further pleas, Berlin has made extensive corrections.' If only the book had been published in the days of word processors and modern typesetting technology.
Ш --.-ХГ С Г" ' Ъ Ч
rm R J;. hsns <
were established as an accepted . truth,,our world-would be ■ *f\\ns*
formcd^^more radically rhjn iyns the ideological world of the
dassical and middle ages by tin- triumphs of mechanistic prin- tiplcs. or those of natural - selection. Our words our modes of s|*.ech and thought — would be transformed in literally unimaginable ways; the no9<>ns.of . choice, . - . a^^^^if resprnsibihty,. freedom, Ire. ««'deeply emledded ..in. our outlook, thai our in* rift as , te^i nils in .1 world genuinely lading in these concepts, can, l slutij)u maintain, be conceived by us . only with the greatest d'riu'ij' \VHin there is, as yet, no need to alarm ourselves undul». We arc . speaking.only .of pscUid«^.icntihc ideals; the reality is . nut in sight:. The evidence for a thoroughgoing determinism is not to hand; and if there is a persistent tendency" to believe in it in some theoretical fashion, Ш.i! is «m-l^duf lai more to the lure of a 'scientistic' or mttaphy чшагымп or i'«at, on . the part ofth01>e who dc-sire to change society to believe tile stars in their courses are fighting for theni/<>r.it'jx." .\i*() fy'zrx to a longing to bay down moral burdens, or minimize milt, uHul ^ • responsibility and transfer it to impersonal ibi ces which can be ■aj^fi accused of causing all o«r discontenis^ilian to any iiKTeasI^f our powers nt i n'tjwl Tfftmiw nr;TTi"i*impriivrnirtn in our 5 Btific techniques. Belief in historical delemimism of this гК pe is, of Course, very widespread, particularly in what 1 should У} 1 (j, i > i tike to call its 'ЬшогппорМЫ' form, by which 1 roeati roeta- r*j ^ physico~theological theories of hisiorv, which attract many who £•4. V have lost their faith in older religious on ho<hi\!cs Yet perhaps I I ? this attitude, so prevalent recently, is ebbing; and a contrary J ? i trend is discernible today. Our best historians use empirical tests ц • J? in sifting facts, ni,tkc microscopic e.saminatioiis of the evidence, ^ deduce no patterns, ami sh"w n<> false fear in attribtiting respotwi- rf bffitv to individuals Their specific attributions apd Mi^ksft ntav "p he tttMtfay hut both they and their readers would