|
For the record, I support you, Robert.
Keep the author's intent, indeed. But what is/was the author's intent? Do not assume that any printed edition is a fair rendering of the author's intent. Some publishers simply ignore the author, some authors couldn't care less about the spelling/typesetting. Especially as we go back in time, typesetters were the masters and they would change the author's words (and apostrophes) as they saw fit. That's on one side.
Then, if all we have is an electronic version that may or may not have been based on a particular printed edition, and may or may not have been further corrected/adapted, taking it as the "author's intent" is even more doubtful.
Besides, some authors were "wrong", even by the standards of their time, even by their own standards (i.e. inconsistent). In some cases this is maybe intentional and worth keeping, in other cases it is just sloppiness and makes for an unpleasant reading. Should we correct these? Maybe.
Finally, we are not reproducing a particular printed edition, or even the original manuscript. We are creating a new edition, with whatever standards we set, and it will be better or worse than other editions. The fact that it's different from the first edition does not make it worse.
|