Quote:
Originally Posted by FrustratedReader
Expect howling readers with pitchforks and torches if you "improve" or "correct" the author.
|
I've been doing it for 10 years now, and so far no reader has come after me with a pitchfork, even though I confess to what I'm doing in an "About this Edition" introduction to each book. To me, there seems little purpose in either copying or emulating what Gutenberg has already done, well enough by their own standards, so I'm doing my best to offer something different.
It's happened throughout the history of publishing, of course.
Kent.
I thought the King had more affected the Duke of
Albany then
Cornwell.
Glou. It did allwaies seeme so to vs, but now in the diuision of the kingdomes, it appeares not which of the Dukes he values most, for equalities are so weighed, that curiositie in neither, can make choise of eithers moytie.
KENT
I thought the king had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall.
GLOUCESTER
It did always seem so to us: but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the dukes he values most; for equalities are so weighed, that curiosity in neither can make choice of either's moiety.
(I'm not a Shakespeare expert at all, but I've never found two editions of any author's text, when they are a few decades apart, to be identical - changes deliberately made for good or bad reasons, errors fixed, new errors introduced - in music, of course, the issue is much more obvious, and is intensely and often passionately debated, but in literature, too, there is no "original" that you can easily be true to - but, really, this is an enitirely different topic, I just wanted to know about Boots' or Boots's...)