YrExpanded:Your telegram rec'dExpanded:received & I thank you for the confidence it expresses -Nevertheless, I do not think things wdExpanded:would go on harmoniously, E.g. 2 pkgesExpanded:packages of proof have just come from Mr. Wilson. One is part of the pkgeExpanded:package I sent you last Monday, & specially asked you to return to me. Instead of so doing, you sent it to Mr. Wilson, leaving me in ignor [?] Unclear or illegible ance of the changes you wished, and of its whereabouts.

Mr. Nixon wished various changes made in pp.Expanded:pages 1-27, & took them to you for that purpose, promising to let me see them, so that I cdExpanded:could know what changes you desired; but I have not seen these, pages since. As I before wrote you - a fortnight or so ago — I cannot keep tr [?] Unclear or illegible ack of work done in this disjointed, way. If I cannot see all the proofs regularly, I prefer to see none, & then the blame of incongruities will not be at my door.

Moreover, I can agree with most of yrExpanded:your capitalization, as set down in yrExpanded:your note of directions, & evident in the proofs now rec'dExpanded:received from Wilson, pp.Expanded:pages 60–107–71. Let me Indeed these rules are generally the very ones I have followed. E.g. you speak of adjectives. Very well, I have not capped them in this edition, except in certain Very rare cases, as Christian Sci.Expanded:Christian Science - or Divine Sci., refering Corrected: referring to your system. In fact, in these Very pp. now, before me, part of those sent you last Monday Tuesday, pp.Expanded:pages 60-10771, I had lower cased initials for adjectives certain adjectives. You marked them up (Caps) in proofs. I again marked them down! calling your attention to my reasons for so doing.

With other markings found in these pp.Expanded:pages, 60-10771, I cannot agree.

Rubicon is a proper name. So is Paradise, Why should you l.c.Expanded:lowercase it? See Webster. So too about yrExpanded:your directions, concerning Sat. Satan & Devil[*]Archival Note: The following text is circled..[*]Archival Note: End of circled text. They are proper names, & shdExpanded:should be capped. The fact that you & I do not believe in Satan &c.Expanded:et cetera does not affect the question. [?] Unclear or illegible We do not believe in Jupiter or Apollo. All the same I Cap them, as proper names; & so I cap.Expanded:capitalize personified words, according to the common rule of Grammar, - as "Come gentle [*]Archival Note: The following text has capitalization marks inserted below.S[*]Archival Note: End of capitalization marks.pring,"— Spring being personified, yet not a person, not a proper name.

So with Science, when it refers to yrExpanded:your theories, to distinguish it from Science (or science) when it refers to ordinary [?] Unclear or illegible . For the same reason I capExpanded:capitalize Scientific, where it is used with reference to yrExpanded:your Science; otherwise the average reader wdExpanded:would not se [?] Unclear or illegible e the distinction. between the 2. Many things said about cures &cExpanded:et cetera — with scientific attached, are about when ordinary science is understood, but are reasonable [?] Unclear or illegible comprehensible when Scientific, or Christianity Scientific; areis added & capped (to agree with [*]Archival Note: The following text has capitalization marks inserted below.C[*]Archival Note: End of capitalization marks.hristian [*]Archival Note: The following text has capitalization marks inserted below.S[*]Archival Note: End of capitalization marks.cience.)

I can see no reason for lower lower ca [?] Unclear or illegible  sing Truth in Truth of Being, where it has divine significance, if anywhere. i.e. unless Truth is everywhere made truth; nor in putting down Kingdom of Heaven anymore than I shdExpanded:should put down King of Heaven (king of Heaven.) = God.

If Love, Mind, Universality &c.Expanded:et cetera &c.Expanded:et cetera are capped when they refe [?] Unclear or illegible r to God, I can see no reason why Intelligence shdExpanded:should not be equally honored when it is used for divinity. You say, [?] Unclear or illegible  Do not cap intelligent. I did not know I ever had; Good I never intentionally Cap, except when it refer to Deity, & often have changed it to goodness, when humanly used, to save confusion.

Ditto Being; & to save a [?] Unclear or illegible mbiguity I have sometimes changed it being to existence, when referring to mortal man.

In the phrase Science of Being, you say, cCap [*]Archival Note: The following text has capitalization marks inserted below.B[*]Archival Note: End of capitalization marks.. but not [*]Archival Note: The following text has capitalization marks inserted below.S[*]Archival Note: End of capitalization marks.. I Can see why neither shd be capped, but not the why one shdExpanded:should be capped & not the other. In your edition of 1886 I Capped according to my best understanding then. In this ed., grown wiser, I saw that some changes wd be best — e.g. [*]Archival Note: The following text has capitalization marks inserted below.B[*]Archival Note: End of capitalization marks.eing (up) & adjectives (down). As for evil, of which you ask, — it is not a p [?] Unclear or illegible roper name, a [?] Unclear or illegible ny more than goodness or music, & (unless specially personified/shdExpanded:should not be capped.

In conclusion, let me say frankly that I am unwilling my name shdExpanded:should be made in any way responsible for such peculiar & (as to me they seem) senseless changes & caps &c.Expanded:et cetera &c.Expanded:et cetera Presently somebody will wdExpanded:would say "Mr. Wiggin read these proofs". You wdExpanded:would probably say so yourself.

The matter lies in a nutshell. After thinking the whole subject carefully over, & reading yrExpanded:your copy, I settled upon a uniform system, which I tried to carry throughout the book, — of course with some oversight, being mortal & fallible.

Now you, or somebody for you, settle upon a different system. Very well, let yourself, or yrExpanded:your a [?] Unclear or illegible  dvisor, attend to the proofs, & do them in your way, if he it can understand it. be understood[*]Archival Note: The following text is circled..[*]Archival Note: End of circled text.

My 1st thought was to write you, & hold these proofs till I rec'd your reply; but as this will only make delay, I decide to send you this letter with the proof.

I am perfectly willing Mr. Nixon — or anybody else — shdExpanded:should do the work; but if I do it, it will clearly displease you, for I will not be responsible for their irregularities — as they are in my eyes, — nor have the credit of them. Moreover, I thought the matter of proofs & supposed (as sent to me) to be fully understood; yet here it is disregar [?] Unclear or illegible ded before 100 pp.Expanded:pages are reached. Self-respect will not allow me to do work in such a hodgepodge fashion.

You have a perfect right to do yrExpanded:your book in your own way, & spoil every one of my [?] Unclear or illegible  side heads in it, by alterations or omission, — if you choose; but judging by this batch — pp.Expanded:pages 60-107 —71 — my marks wd only increase yrExpanded:your bill for changes, for I cannot pretend to agree with what I see done. I am more & more convinced that what you need is not a new ed. but a new book — Christian S. Restated.

Furthermore — take the changes in caps. of Scripture quotations. Mr. Nixon is wofully Corrected: woefully wrong in this point. When a passage is quoted wchExpanded:which makes full sense & sentence, of Course it shdExpanded:should begin with a cap., even though you do not quote the whole passage. E.g. Suppose I write [*]Archival Note: The following text is circled.Watts says to childrenEditorial Note: The quotations here are from the second stanza of a poem titled “Against Quarreling and Fighting” by Isaac Watts (1674-1748)., "[*]Archival Note: The following text has capitalization marks inserted below.N[*]Archival Note: End of capitalization marks.ever let your angry passions rise!"[*]Archival Note: End of circled text. Yet the whole passage is: "But little children never let" [?] Unclear or illegible 

If the passage thus read: [*]Archival Note: The following text is circled.You never remember that Watts says of children, that they should "never let let their angry passions rise"[*]Archival Note: End of circled text.

Then I shdExpanded:should not use a cap for never, because Per the quotation is woven in as part of the sentence.

On one of your pages, whose marks I am now allowed to see for the 1st – time, though it has been sent to Wilson & changed, yousomebody marks down a w (When) improperly, at beginning of one passage quoted; & on same page yousomebody leaves Take Capped, when the situations conditions are exprecisely alike.

Now to all this sort of haphazard style of correction & capping, I cannot be a party. Moreover, in other & legitimate changes, whoever made them did not pay any attention to context, or needed commas &c.Expanded:et cetera

The n [?] Unclear or illegible ew matter in the pkgeExpanded:package — p.Expanded:page108 + I have not examined. The other pp.Expanded:page60-71 I have glanced– at, making no changes, however much they may be nee [?] Unclear or illegible  ded, but penciling sundry queries, which you can [?] Unclear or illegible  easily erase. They are simply to show you how I look at the matter. Please look at them.