Peter Montgomery wrote:
> In the editorial process (beta?), intention is a much
> more necessary word.
The editorial task of establishing (recognizing?) the text seems to be
_the_ crux of all arguments both wfays about intention.
For example. I typed "wfays," then corrected it, then seeing the
connection to the subject of this post 'corrected' back to the original
typo. Two more typos (intentin & connectin) I corrected. But everyone
would have recognized what I "really" meant had I without comment left
all they typos in.
It's been years since I rapidly skimmed through it, but there is an
interesting book on error in Canto VII, in which the author [forget her
name now] argues the "errors" some critics see in the text belong there
and contribute to its meaning.