III. Correct Names and Titles

When editing academic research work that is in any way related to history, there is no stopping me... We edit best what we know best, and I'm a trained historian. Although the circumstances did not permit me to pursue (and attain, for that matter) my doctoral degree, my postgraduate studies in Islamic history and European history, in addition to me being a voracious reader, have given me a solid grounding in this field. Hence, when I come across such a history text to proofread, I cannot help noticing anything that "doesn't sit right" and before I know it I'm off down the rabbit hole fact-checking and digging into the fine matter... 

This is a good thing, especially for those who are new in the field and are about to publish their first academic article. It can save the aspiring author much embarrassment if any factual errors are pointed out in due time and can be corrected at this stage. Having someone fact-check your material is especially advisable for those who simply do not have the time to do this themselves. 

[Original copy]

Jones seems almost successful in realizing the entire agenda he had planned. His correspondence with his friends, especially Lord Altohop, gives us an idea of ​​his hard work while in India. For example, his letter to Lord Altohop increasingly convinced his authority in the field of orientalism; "My only wish is to be the most respected European person who knows India better than anyone. For me, just one day not getting any new information about Indian people or their plants is a big loss." The same sentence was also conveyed by Jones in his letter written to Earl Spencer dated February 20, 1791 "in one day I work harder than two people.

The first thing that didn't sit right with me was the name, "Lord Altohop." That did not sound right to the trained ear. Of course, if it was a Korean or Thai name, I wouldn't have a clue, and any misspelling would just fly past me unnoticed. My first reaction was to highlight this matter and ask the author to check and confirm or amend this name. Before I knew it, however, I was researching it myself. I found "Althorp" and knew that I was on the right track. "Althorp" sounded much more English, and an Englishman I was looking for... However, his name wasn't "Lord Althorp" but "Lord Spencer" and "Viscount Althorp." And was he Lord Spencer I, II, or III? How many were they? The final key to his proper identification was the date, 1791, and that he had known Sir Jones in India. 

 

[Edited copy]

Jones succeeded in realizing most of the points on this agenda. His correspondence with his friends, especially Earl Spencer (1758–1834), shows us how seriously he was invested in his academic work. For example, in his letter to Earl Spencer, he stated his ambition to become an acknowledged authority in orientalist studies: "My only wish is to be the most respected European person who knows India better than anyone. For me, just one day not getting any new information about Indian people or their plants is a big loss." In another letter to Earl Spencer dated 20 February 1791 he wrote: "In one day I work harder than two people."

It is necessary to check and confirm the spelling of every name and title. Viscount Althorp was George John Spencer, 2^nd Earl Spencer under King George III. The date is necessary to identify him (there were three Earl Spencers: the grandfather, father, and son). It would reflect badly on the author if he/she takes certain information from other secondary sources without having done some background research. This is time-consuming but necessary. Any relayed information has to be properly fact-checked, and persons need to be properly identified. This is a tedious but necessary part of historical research. A failure to do so means that sketchy, vague, and obscure information is passed on indiscriminately, and the author appears to be rather careless about it. Further, the reader does not benefit from such information at all.