On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: > I agree with all except (possibly) the last part : what exactly > do you mean by "reflect modern sensibilities" ? Would you advocate > changing the wording of a reproduction of a historical document > solely because its original wording might these days be found > offensive by some ? Thomas Bowdler might rejoice, but speaking > personally I would value historical accuracy over political > correctness any day of the week.
I agree w/ you, it was more a comment on what some other people do / want to do. On Jul 14, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: > On 14 Jul 2010, at 13:24, William Adams wrote: >> >> (whose wife purchased a reproduction of The Declaration of Independence for >> him as a Christmas gift last year: >> http://mbelloff.tripod.com/goddardbroadside.html >> --- we got the first edition w/ the original wording, but there's a new one >> w/ updated, more inclusive wording) > > I can understand the desire to print a reproduction of such a document, using > typography (and sometimes even technology) that is appropriate to its period. Yeah, one thing which I always found bizarre were the reproductions of Kelmscott Press books which were printed offset --- it's just not possible to fully appreciate the work w/o the wonderful impression and the _incredibly_ black ink of the original. > But am I alone in feeling that a "reproduction" with "updated wording" is an > oxymoron?! If you change the wording, it is no longer a reproduction of the > Declaration; it is a modern document purporting to express the intent of the > 18th-century Declaration in 21st-century terms. As such, trying to make it > LOOK like an 18th-century document is anachronistic and misleading. Yeah, I thought it was weird too --- when the printer first announced the project, I got the impression that she was considering doing only the updated wording version and was quite relieved when she announced there would be two (I got the original). > (who would be appalled if his reproduction Gutenberg Bible page from the > museum in Mainz had "updated, more inclusive wording" than the version > Gutenberg himself printed) Me too. I was rather surprised that the updated text version had a larger edition than the other. On the gripping hand, one could argue that it's simply a matter of making the text editorially consistent w/ the Constitution (``We the people...'' and all that). One can also see the utility of it for classroom usage w/ younger students so that one can introduce the text w/o having to explain 18th century sexism. Now I need to keep my eye out for an historically accurate reproduction of The Magna Carta.... William -- William Adams senior graphic designer Fry Communications Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
