2 ms·

Virgil's Aeneid is the most famous example that I know... "According to tradition, Virgil traveled to Greece around 19 BC to revise the Aeneid. After meeting A

by chasil 3y ago

Virgil's Aeneid is the most famous example that I know... "According to tradition, Virgil traveled to Greece around 19 BC to revise the Aeneid. After meeting Augustus in Athens and deciding to return home, Virgil caught a fever while visiting a town near Megara. Virgil crossed to Italy by ship, weakened with disease, and died in Brundisium harbour on 21 September 19 BC, leaving a wish that the manuscript of the Aeneid was to be burned. Augustus ordered Virgil's literary executors, Lucius Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca, to disregard that wish, instead ordering the Aeneid to be published with as few editorial changes as possible. As a result, the existing text of the Aeneid may contain faults which Virgil was planning to correct before publication. However, the only obvious imperfections are a few lines of verse that are metrically unfinished (i.e., not a complete line of dactylic hexameter). Other alleged "imperfections" are subject to scholarly debate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid#Virgil's_death,_and_editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid#Virgil's_death,_and_edi...

nescioquid 3y ago
It was the first example I thought of, as well. I don't really mean this as an accusation, but I suspect these death-bed demands are simply a pose. Not that they are essentially insincere, but rather a final gesture of conscientiousness that should be ignored. What is lost to the world by retaining the imperfect, incomplete?
- virgildotcodes 3y ago
  Presumably the image that the dead person was attempting cultivate about themselves and their work.
- csallen 3y ago
  I think a better explanation is that authors and other creators of public works are concerned with how they will be perceived. Otherwise, they wouldn't spend months and years meticulously editing and improving their works before release. It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were finished, and as if it were an accurate measure of your intentions and talent.
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were finished Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is well known that it was incomplete. That said, I can understand the author not wanting it to be published. If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died.
    - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
      > Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is well known that it was incomplete. Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit is still shit no matter how you frame it, and unfortunately shit tends to stick better than roses.
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      I’m not sure about that. Presumably after they’ve died the only person that didn’t want it published has gone, so with only people left that want it punished, is that really such a bad thing?
    - dustyleary 3y ago
      > If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died. It's definitely not _equally_ shitty. It's arguable whether it's shitty at all. For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result. I can see a couple of ways to argue that the author's beneficiaries might suffer, and perhaps even that the author themself might suffer depending on your religious beliefs. But surely it's not anywhere close to _equally_ shitty. I am firmly on the side of releasing everything. Great works of art are so incredibly valuable (to the culture) that the chance of finding one that might have been missed trumps these other concerns. GP mentioned that most of Kafka's best works would have been destroyed if his stated wishes were honored (it is debatable whether these were his actual wishes). A web search turns up that Monet destroyed a lot of his works before he passed. How many Aeneid's are we 'missing' because the author was successful in destroying their unfinished work?
Jerrrry 3y ago
>most famous >It is unlikely that Marcus Aurelius ever intended the writings to be published. It is lore that one of his jesters burned himself to save the writings from a fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations

by chasil 3y ago

nescioquid 3y ago

It was the first example I thought of, as well. I don't really mean this as an accusation, but I suspect these death-bed demands are simply a pose. Not that they are essentially insincere, but rather a final gesture of conscientiousness that should be ignored. What is lost to the world by retaining the imperfect, incomplete?

virgildotcodes 3y ago
Presumably the image that the dead person was attempting cultivate about themselves and their work.
csallen 3y ago
I think a better explanation is that authors and other creators of public works are concerned with how they will be perceived. Otherwise, they wouldn't spend months and years meticulously editing and improving their works before release. It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were finished, and as if it were an accurate measure of your intentions and talent.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > It's uncomfortable, embarrassing even, to have your unfinished work consumed and reviewed as if it were finished Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is well known that it was incomplete. That said, I can understand the author not wanting it to be published. If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died.
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    > Yes, but when the unfinished work is published, it is well known that it was incomplete. Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit is still shit no matter how you frame it, and unfortunately shit tends to stick better than roses.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    I’m not sure about that. Presumably after they’ve died the only person that didn’t want it published has gone, so with only people left that want it punished, is that really such a bad thing?
  - dustyleary 3y ago
    > If is a shitty thing to publish it against the author's will when they are alive, it is equally shitty to do it when they have died. It's definitely not _equally_ shitty. It's arguable whether it's shitty at all. For an action to be a shitty thing to do, someone must suffer as a result. I can see a couple of ways to argue that the author's beneficiaries might suffer, and perhaps even that the author themself might suffer depending on your religious beliefs. But surely it's not anywhere close to _equally_ shitty. I am firmly on the side of releasing everything. Great works of art are so incredibly valuable (to the culture) that the chance of finding one that might have been missed trumps these other concerns. GP mentioned that most of Kafka's best works would have been destroyed if his stated wishes were honored (it is debatable whether these were his actual wishes). A web search turns up that Monet destroyed a lot of his works before he passed. How many Aeneid's are we 'missing' because the author was successful in destroying their unfinished work?

Jerrrry 3y ago

>most famous >It is unlikely that Marcus Aurelius ever intended the writings to be published. It is lore that one of his jesters burned himself to save the writings from a fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations