tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post9046642362267678282..comments2010-06-24T19:49:49.726-07:00David.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-24948527797997028622008-03-07T12:09:00.000-08:002008-03-07T12:09:00.000-08:00Hmmm. Does preserving context matter? I think the answer is "it depends..." My favourite example of this is Walter Scott's novel, Kenilworth (the example applies to all his novels, but Kenilworth is where I live). This was published anonymously in 3 volumes, in leather bindings and typography of its time. If I want to read the story, I will probably go to a modern, paperback edition, which may or may not have a scholarly introduction explaining how the multitude of errors introduced by Scott's attempts to ensure his anonymity were "corrected". This modern volume will not be anonymous, but will accurately indicate the author.<BR/><BR/>My point is, the original edition is important for a scholar, containing much information revealing of its time and context. The modern information, shorn of much of that context but containing the "intellectual content" is most useful for me, a general reader. So, it depends...Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06087447503626434385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-12157136914211847392008-02-18T18:37:00.000-08:002008-02-18T18:37:00.000-08:00interesting and thought provokingRattleSnakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846328697940652571noreply@blogger.com