But are those inconsistencies and spelling errors those of the author or original type-setter/printer? Your facts are only good as your source!
But, I guess, I do see things more like DaleDe and less like HarryT, almost akin to Jellby's views. Isolated errors, if fixed or not, cannot detract from the storyline but may appear to be visually awkward if retained. In that vein, repetitive "errors" can then be surmised not to be, in fact, errors.
Perhaps time does really heal all wounds!
Consider this, in modern print editions (and even recent ebooks releases like
The Hobbit), we scorn and find distasteful typographical anomalies found by what we perceive to be a "rush to market" for those pbooks/ebooks. So then it would seem, that a century's errors are more palatable than today's errors.
Of course, this is only my opinion and in no way meant to sway yours!
