I don't think it is at all like it. Eliot did not at all treat "its" and "it's"
as interchangeable. His typescript has the correct version. And in
this case it is two quite different words, not a spelling variation.
On 3 Sep 2002, at 13:58, Meyer Robert K GS-9 99 CES/CECT <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Like TSE's "IT'S" vs the "ITS"? Thanks, I was getting confused.
> Interesting that, although blind, it was still important to him *how* it
> looked on the page.
> Thanks again,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcia Karp [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:48 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Milton's erratum
> > I'm not sure what's going on here. I've got a copy of Donne with the
> > (strange to us) original spellings. It's all over the place, like in the
> > "Songs and Sonets[?]" the second to last line of "The Blossome[?]" reads:
> > "There, to another friend, whom wee shall finde"
> > and Donne is not all *that* much earlier than Milton. Even as late as
> > "Devotions Upon Emergent Occaisions" (1624) there is both "we" and "wee"
> > "Meditation XV":
> > "...wee lie downe in a hope, that wee shall rise the stronger; and we lie
> > downe in a knowledge, that wee shall rise no more...."
> > so it seems like there is no standard spelling.
> > > the erratum for the first edition of PL-"Lib. 2.
> > > v. 414, for we read wee."
> What's going on is that Milton used both, but seems to have had reasons for
> use. His correction indicates that it was not a matter of indifference to
> which he used where.