> would Oxford have not been doing the right thing, I wonder,
> whenever that was...
> ?
> M
I'd guess they pretty likely *would be using the B-text as standard.
Glasgow certainly did when I studied it in the sixties there.
But I had to read the text in an utterly foul three-column edition, of the
A, B, and C texts in parallel.
:-(((
Things are much better now with Schmidt's Everyman ed. of the B-text, and
various possibilities of reading it conveniently on-line.
A convenient, readable and well-presented text makes things *so much easier.
And allows PP in particular to come through in a way not possible if you
have to fight gainst a crap edition to read it in the first place.
Robin
> Quoting Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> <<
>> From: "Max Richards" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> from Alexander Cockburn on counterpunch.org
>>
>> Four more years of anxious articles about the impending attack on Iran?
>> I'd rather read Piers Plowman again, the dullest work I ever had to
>> trudge
>> through when I read Eng Lit at Oxford.
>> >>
>>
>> Depends which version, Max. I might feel the same about the C-text, but
>> the
>> B-text is a different matter -- like the difference between the 1815 and
>> 1845 versions of Wordsworth's _Prelude_.
>>
>> Robin
