> You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim th

> You are also putting words in the mouth of the dead by assuming the answer to those above questions. I don't know why one side of this debate gets to claim they speak for the dead with perfect accuracy. There is only one of us who is suggesting that changing the words in an author’s work after their death is a Good Idea. I am suggesting that the words be left alone entirely, given the objective impossibility of knowing a dead author’s original intent (so ably demonstrated by your excellent use of repetition!). You desire (or at least accept) altering the original material without regard to the original author’s wishes. That is your right. But such an argument would seem to require justification for the change. Leaving something as is generally does not. This difference in our positions explains why you perceive me as “speaking for the dead with perfect accuracy” while saying you do not. I am not speaking for the dead. I am letting them speak for themselves and pushing back against those who would alter their message. You are operating under the assumption that they’d rather their work continue to generate profit for modern businesses, and would accept editing accordingly. Maybe. Maybe not. But boy is it frustrating to hear endless arguments supporting altering existing work to line other people’s pockets, with any suggestion of “write something new, yourself, if it bothers you” being blown off with “this is what they would want”. Especially grating: the fact that this argument almost always comes out of those who have not generated any such material themselves. Perhaps if they did, they would begin to understand how carefully each word is chosen in any work possessing enough quality to last through the ages.