Abridged Books

As a newbie, I was wondering, do the Folio Society abridge some of their books? I'm trying to decided which of the yummy offerings to spend my non-existent funds on and would hate to find I've got an abridged copy of anything because it's one of my pet-hates.

klarusu, there was a discussion about this on another thread here (Limited Editions perhaps?), and yes, the Society does present some works in an abridged form. Specifically, we were discussing the Limited Edition version of Les Miserables, which is an abridgment. Some offerings are published as "Selections" such as the 3 volume edition of Pepys' Diary, though if you can afford it (and I wish I could), they do have a Complete Pepys in, I think, 11 volumes.

The abridgments are very much the exception rather than the rule, but on longer works, it wouldn't hurt to ask before buying--the Society does have exceptional customer service (I wish they did cars!)

Yes, they do. It's a pet hate of mine as well. Your best bet is to ask about any particular volumes you're considering--likely someone here will own it and can let you know whether it's abridged. (Or I'm sure you could also ask customer service at the Society.)

Many thanks!

The two that I'm aware of are History of Rome (Theodore Mommsen) and The Gulag Archipelago - I did buy the former with some awareness that it was abridged but now wish that I hadn't. Not that it wasn't an excellent book, but probably you share my feeling that either a book is good enough that you wish you had all of it, or it's bad enough that you're sorry you wasted your time reading even an abridgement.

oldrottenhat, thanks for the advice. I was thinking of ordering The Gulag Archipelago but will go for something unabridged instead. And I do, indeed, share your feelings. Good or bad, a book deserves to be read in the fullest of formats as the author intended!

Yes, I also remembered Mommsen's History of Rome which I haven't bought when I learned in another thread that is was abridged. Defoe's A Tour through the Whole Island of Great Britain is also abridged. I wasn't aware of this before reading the introduction. I've just checked what FS say on this book on their Web page. One has to read their description carefully: the only clue stands at the very end (This sensitively selected volume...).

I have nothing against abridged versions. Simply, FS should make things clearer when they deal with them.

I also have nothing against abridgment if it is clearly stated. Then I can make a informed decision about whether it's a book I want in abridged form or not.

I just received The Gulag Archipelago and did not know it was abridged. I'm not happy about it simply because I can't find the slightest hint about that in the FS description. On the other hand, I'm not surprised since the book originally came out in 3 volumes and the FS society edition is a single volume. Now if I enjoy it enough when I read it, I'll wonder what I missed and I'll be forced to find an unabridged copy and then I will feel wronged!

jveezer, I think you've hit the nail on the head! My personal feelings on abridgement are mine alone, I know others don't mind so much. I do think that it should be stated clearly when something is though, then you can make the decision accordingly. I guess there's a lot to be said about the semantics of book sales - one man's abridgement could be another's 'sensitive editing'!

I deeply dislike abridgments in general, but the "original" Mommsen (it was never finished) can run to several thousand pages in multiple volumes. I'd love to buy a full set one day, but for now, chances are much better that the one I'll actually read is the FS abridgment. I agree that the main issue with FS abridgments is disclosure, although I understand (maybe) why they are not too forthcoming about them.

Just did a search on Amazon--here's an example of a one-volume unabridged Mommsen--1703 pages, and a whopping 10 pounds! The price is nothing to scoff at either, US $1440.

One-volume Mommsen

Lola ... Ouch!

The Gulag Archipelago was what irritated me the most, because I bought it with absolutely no hint anywhere that it was abridged along with a rather large batch of books. But the Gulag Archipelago was toward the bottom of my reading list, and it so was nearly a year later when I finally picked it up to read, and discoved to my great regret that it was abridged. And the Society balked at my returning it since I'd owned it for nearly a year. I have no interest in reading an abridged book (for exactly the reason jveezer states in message 8), so I ended up selling it on ebay (at a loss). I'm still irritated about this, honestly.

Lola, I also understand why they're not forthcoming about abridgments. It's because they're worried that people might not want to buy them. But that's bad behavior on the seller's part, in my opinion.

The only other possible reason I can think of is that they think that customers won't care. But how can we not care? (Those of us who READ the books, I mean, as opposed to solely showing or collecting them.)

I often call to find out, just as I call to find out who translated something, when FS doesn't explicitly say. But I don't always remember, like this last order, so I'm glad to see that none of my new books are abridged.

I think that a close examination of the Society's back catalog will reveal that an awful lot of books are abridged or selected. This is particularly so in the historical memoirs, social history and similar titles. I don't mind that because many of these books can be extremely discursive or dwell on details of no interest at all to modern readers. Many late 18th and early 19th century works contained tedious lists of names of people present at balls and dinners that were an exercise in name dropping at the time but mean nothing to any but the most specialist reader today.

However, I do agree with people's misgivings about abridged novels - particularly novels that have achieved classic status. I didn't mind the Les Miserables modest abridgement because the rambling discursiveness of the original would never have got past a modern commercial editor. But to abridge The Gulag Archipelago does seem out of order to me - it's a modern novel and the writer knew what he wanted to say. The "experiment in literary investigation" ceases to be an "experiment" if some smartass editor messes about with it. Clearly the editor decided the "experiment" had failed and wanted to impose his/her improved experiment on us.

I also don't mind skillfull abridgments--as I mentioned in the thread on Les Miserables, the whole Waterloo episode is really a digression which only the most rabid purist would say was important to the novel. BUT, as I mentioned then, and as I seem to be hearing from several of the posters on this thread, why does the FS have to be so sneaky about it? If you're going to abridge, you should note that fact clearly--under the title in the catalog.

Incidentally, just to make a case for abridgments, I think that the Folio Society is dedicated to the avid general reader more than the literary specialist. When I buy a Norton Critical Edition of, say, Billy Budd, I expect to see a complete text with critical apparatus detailing the differences between the various versions--even with a supplement at the back containing passages the author decided to delete from subsequent editions. When I buy a Folio book, I want to be entertained by a good read that is well-produced and illustrated. It's not that complete versions of all these works can't be found or are likely to be driven out of circulation by abridgments in a sort of literary version of Gresham's Law.

Re #s 8,13,15 I also ordered The Gulag Archipeligo during the Summer Sale and received it yesterday, only to discover that it is abridged. I too was not very pleased to learn this. I suppose that I will employ the same process that jveezer suggests.

I will also send a note to The Society and inform them of the general dissatisfaction that this has caused among our members and recommend that they clearly identify such abridgements in the future. As appaloosaman suggests, to abridge this title is quite out of order, and to do so without advertising the result as such is simply deceptive.

I won't purchase abridgements even of nonfiction works, unless a complete version is non-existent (e.g., hasn't ever been fully translated, or hasn't been reprinted for hundreds of years). (For instance, I've acquired the complete Memoires of the Duc de Saint-Simon, in French, rather than go for a 3-volume English abridgement. Likewise, I couldn't settle for anything less than the 11-vol. Pepys Diaries, though I didn't plump for the FS edition!) In my mind, if a work of literature is important enough to merit the Folio Society treatment, it deserves to be preserved thus in its entirety. But I can understand the business reasons for publishers issuing abridgements. Disclosure should be full and open, however.

By the way, I love the Waterloo portion of Les Miserables and would sorely miss it if I bought the FS edition not knowing of the abridgement.

Regarding Les Misérables, I previously posted some of what Norman Denny wrote in his introduction to the 1976 FS edition in the Limited Editions, The Sequel thread.

Re #18: I say "to-may-to" and you say "to-mah-to." Well, I DID get very impatient with the Waterloo episode, but that's my taste.

And perhaps I didn't state clearly enough my opinion that some abridgments are probably not done just for economic reasons: some stories benefit (from this reader's standpoint) from a little judicious pruning, and I think the Folio Society aims its books at someone who just wants a good read and doesn't have time for digressions. After all, in the 19th century, many writers were paid by the word, so a fat volume was better business than a slim volume. People had more time to read, then, as well.

Again, I'm only opposed to a publisher not being forthcoming about abridgments. I think most readers who wanted Les Miserables bought it despite the fact the Society sent it to Jenny Craig.

Whew! The Folio Society's The History of Western Philosophy that I am reading (slogging through might be more accurate) now is not abridged. I only have to wonder about "minor" emendations they made to the 2nd edition published in the '60s.

I don't know, they really should advertise the abridgment. Personally, I would've been REALLY angry if I spent more than $300 on a book only to find out it wasn't even the whole bloody book. And I almost did, too... so yeah, I wholeheartedly agree that if they ARE going to abridge something, they should be VERY, VERY clear and upfront about it.

jveezer: Thats a big book to slog through! Are you not enjoying it?

Actually I am enjoying it and am just finishing up the Greeks and heading for the Romans. It's just a big book. I would hate to be on a deadline to get through it!

Oh god, just the word 'deadline' gives me shivers! I'm working up the courage to get started with the rest of it after reading the introductions but I'm making excuses with some of my slimmer volumes.
It's rather comforting that your enjoying it though. :)

#29 jveezer, you bring up an interesting point regarding "minor emendations" that FS makes mention of in many of the books printed from earlier editions. Without those earlier editions, it is difficult to tell what those minor emendations might be. Does anyone here have a sense of what FS is changing, removing, adding to the text that they publish with these minor emendations?

I have to admit I am deeply shocked about this whole abridgement issue. I have never ever and will never read abridged versions of anything. That's for Reader's Digest Condensed. The Gulag Archipelago should never have been printed in an abridged version. I was astonished when I read this. An abridged version is someone else's idea of what the author thought was important. I don't care if it is a scholar who has devoted his/her life to interpreting or "understanding" Solzhenitsyn and his work. I relished the two volumes (First Editions) when I picked them up many years ago. They are magnificent works. Solzhenitsyn must be rolling over in his grave at this who spent much of his entire literary career fighting censorship...of any kind.

#26
I believe Solzhenitsyn is still alive, but I think your point is valid, anyway. I read recently that one of his books (Cancer Ward, maybe? I can't remember) is coming out in a new edition with material that was removed against his wishes in the first English edition. I'll try to find the article.

pm 11. Thanks for filling me in. He has been quiet for so long, I thought he had passed on. I have the first English edition of Cancer Ward and I recall the flap about the book not being what he intended. I will have to keep an eye out for the new edition.

And now, Solzhenitsyn has died.

Nice shot, gistak! I couldn't remember where I had seen this information premonitorily posted by HMOKeefe. Hope that his death wasn't directly caused by the content of this thread...

Pepys...I certainly hope not. I may avoid mentioning the names of living literary figures for a while.

Well, at least avoid stating that they're dead and rolling over in their graves!

To the point of the thread, I think that Solzhenitsyn did sign off on most abridgments of The Gulag Archipelago.

#31: you can try with somebody else and see if it also works... ;-)

I believe someone mentioned it on a different thread, though I can't now find it, but one other set that deserves mention here is Folio's production of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. While not "abridged", the Society's deletion of Gibbon's justly celebrated, and essential, footnotes makes useless and worthless an otherwise entirely beautiful 8-volume set of books.

jbmill, I completely agree. In fact, when I first considered joining, the Gibbon was the bait. I decided against it; after doing some research I found that they didn't have the notes. This wasn't mentioned by Folio anywhere that I could find.

Since then, I took other bait and have always been happy, but I still don't have the Folio Gibbon. Without the notes, it's just not the same.

#34........ I don't know what footnotes you refer to but the Gibbon set I received in April has footnotes on almost every page.

#36: See the Introduction to Volume I: "The notes included are all by Gibbon, but are only a selection from the great number he wrote".

As a point of reference, I count 16 footnotes in Chapter 1 of the Folio set. Gibbon's original Chapter 1 has 89 footnotes. And I think that chapter's ratio of footnotes preserved may be a bit higher than the ratio of footnotes preserved in the set as a whole.

And truly, as a general reader rather than a professional historian, I wouldn't much care if the deleted notes were all pure source notes, i.e., the original note 14 to Ch. 1: "Dion Cassius, l. lxvii." But Gibbon put a good amount of real substance in his footnotes, including many of his most humorous ancedotes and his famously witty asides. And most of them have been wiped away.

What's especially ironic/galling is that the Folio Society's own introduction to the set* devotes perhaps roughly half of its 14 pages to extolling the virtues of Gibbon's original notes. Which naturally leaves the reader somewhat befuddled by their removal.

* No author is listed on the introduction, which is simply credited as copyright "The Folio Society Limited, 1983".

I'm sorry, I was not aware of this, but when you said
"the Society's deletion of Gibbon's justly celebrated, and essential, footnotes makes useless and worthless an otherwise entirely beautiful 8-volume set of books." I took it to mean there were no footnotes included in the set you were refering to.

I think something that many people are overlooking is the necessity for abridgements in general.

There are many great pieces of literature throughout history that are too large in scope for most dedicated readers to conquer, and more importantly, too expensive to produce for a publisher to make a profit. Most readers, even enthusiastic ones such as Folio Society members, don’t have the time, energy, or budget to read unabridged versions of these massive works. Some do, but the vast majority do not. Take 1,001 Arabian Nights as an example. We all know and love that piece, but do you really want to shell out $1,000+ for the complete set? Moreover, how small is that market? A publisher such as the Folio Society needs to present offerings that will appeal to a broad enough market to satisfy the print run.

In the end, all you really wanted was a 1-3 volume greatest hits of the piece anyway.

Not that all the works we’re referring to are that epic length, but I think you can grasp the idea. There are many other shorter pieces of work, and the Gulag Archipelago is a fine example, that with a careful and judicious edit, will appeal to more customers and yet be profitable enough an undertaking for FS to print it.

Having worked with printers all my life, I can assure you the necessity for publishers to make sure that there’s an ample market before you put a project on press (in order to realize that profit). As a designer who buys printing every week, I am constantly amazed at the production value of the FS books, because the costs must be considerable. When they have their end-of-year fire sales, I really have to wonder how they do it. They can’t be making much money on the titles at that point at all.

In short, I guess what I am running-at-the-mouth to explain is: once in a while, these abridgements help a publisher to make a decent profit by appealing to a larger customer base, while at the same time saving the reader from the non-essential parts of a work without unduly ruining the experience. Should FS go to a greater length to communicate that some of their pieces are abridged? That’s a really tough question to answer. From the buyer’s standpoint, the answer is clearly “yes”, but from a seller’s standpoint, it might be wiser to say “no”, only because too many customers would get turned away before having a chance to review the product and give it a chance.

These kinds of issues are difficult for a publisher to explain, and invite discussion that cannot come to a conclusion that will satisfy everyone. So I can see why they have taken the road they have.

Personally, I’m glad to know that I can get some of these titles *at all*, in abridged form or not. If I was to have a publisher I could trust crank out a beautiful, abridged, hardbound edition of a book I was interested in, I could think of no other than FS or EP to do so. At least I can trust in their ability to edit and maintain quality of the finished piece.

I can agree with most of Coffeemate's comments except the publisher's right to be coy about offering an abridged version of a work. If they don't trust their subscribers (and remember, we are talking about a publishing house that doesn't compete in the big bookstore chains with the offerings from mass market publishers) to buy an abridged version of a classic because it costs too much to offer an unabridged version--then they shouldn't even think of offering it. I get much more resentful when I find a book is abridged after I bought it, if such a fact was hidden from me when the book was offered.

Frankly, as a reader, I don't give a thought to publisher's profit at all, nor do I feel obliged to do so. THEY are selling to ME. And I happen to deeply dislike abridgements and avoid them whenever I can.

Speaking of 1001 tales and similar examples, just because there's a market for abridgements doesn't mean there isn't a market (and a need) for complete editions. Also, considering how widely reprinted they are, they are hardly difficult to obtain in any length. I have a 4-volume hardcover set of the Powys-Mathers translation, in a non-Folio edition, as well as a nearly complete set in a new French translation, published cheaply by Gallimard. I mentioned upthread Mommsen's history of Rome. I don't suppose it's a current bestseller anywhere, but it is routinely available in full, and at a reasonable price, in some languages other than English--Italian and German for one. So, rarity and attractiveness of the abridgements are relative.

Actually, I came in to suggest we make a thread listing which Folio books are abridged, what sort of editorial changes were made and so on, to help decide those who care about such things. For instance, looking over the new titles for 2009, I wondered about the Analects, which edition was used, what sort of commentary there may be etc. The idea would be to keep one thread geared more toward information, pooled conveniently in one place.

Re #41: Splendid idea! More facts and less opinion would be very useful.

Great idea Lola. I also abhor abridged books and would be moved to return a book I found was abridged if it was not advertised as such (I almost got burnt by The Gulag Archipelago from FS but luckily found out in time...)

That's a great idea to start a thread with missing book facts! If one of us gets a FS book and notices anything NOT noted in the FS collateral than we could list it there. Things like abridgements (Les Mis, Gulag), emendations (History of Western Philosophy), lack of notes (Gibbons), what previous edition the present one might be based on, translators, illustrators, etc. Some of this information is on the back of the title page where copyright information resides.

For me this is not to bash the FS but more to allow me to make purchases with full disclosure. If it turns me away from one book, I'm sure I'll find another. Based on my track record I'll be doing my part to keep the FS in business no matter what!

Excellent, if more of us think this would be useful, let's start. I hope everyone who has this information on any title will contribute, and feel free to add to and correct what we post.

Absolutely! And I agree with jveezer--this isn't to bash the FS. I was upset when I found out upon getting Perfume that there weren't any illustrations, but that didn't make me want to return it, and had I known in advance, I would have still purchased it.

I hate to revisit an old topic, but I was wondering if there is anyone who has read the abridged "Gulag" and enjoyed it?

> 39,40 Absolutely agree that a publisher should not feel a right to not disclose an abridgement for fear of detering readers: the publisher should simply explain why they feel their abridgement is the better read. They will surely gain more customer loyalty for their honesty.

>21 jveezer: I suspect "minor emendations" are always mentioned merely because the books are re-set and proofread.

> 48

I think a publisher should clearly state that their product is an abridgement.
Imagine getting to the end of an abridged Clarissa or Les Miserables only to find that you had not read it all?

> 50

There was more than one version of Clarissa published in Richardson's lifetime, I seem to remember, and I'm grateful Folio chose the shorter version! Actually, wasn't the FS edition a straight photolithographic copy of the Penguin edition, due to its length - so in fact Penguin Classics chose the shorter version, too.

Restricting the discussion to novels, is it only translated novels that are abridged? I raise the point because I'm wondering whether abridgements are made fresh by Folio - for whatever reason - or whether the "classic" translations that they tend to favour were always less than complete?

I suspect (on little evidence, admittedly) that Folio's position on matters like this may reflect the fashions and assumptions of the bibliophile world in the immediate post-war period that it began in. Books for leisure rather than for study, perhaps - the two-volume "Bible to be read as literature" suggests that sort of worldview to me.

Reading back, the fact that Folio made their own abridgement of the Bible does seem to weaken my previous supposition - but as far as I'm aware it was a one off, just one that I find revealing about a certain mindset, rather than a complete aberration.

> 51

My Clarissa was not an FS edition but a penguin pb edition (unabridged) with this cover http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B002RI9B08/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&...

> 52

Penguin re-jacket a book more often than they re-edit it. Was your copy edited by Angus Ross and first published in 1985? That's the edition Folio published in 1991.

A preface on page 9 states that "this volume offers a complete text of the first edition {C1}... The reasons are given on p.17".

Bear in mind these are Angus Ross's reasons, for the Penguin classics edition.

I'll try to summarise what's said on page 176: Clarissa was first published in serial form and Richardson made changes to subsequent editions. The editions are identified as C1 (1747-48); C2 (1749), C3 (1751) and C4 (1759).
C2 = revisions to volumes i-iv
C3 = revisions to the entire text
C4 = negligible revisions

Most modern editions, we are told, reprint C3.

The additions (which Richardson claimed were restored passages cut from the original edition) seem to Ross and to 20th Century scholarship more generally, to be largely new, intended to make the work more correct and noble, and to remove ambiguity about Lovelace's intentions and character. There are also footnotes added by an "omniscient editor", which work against the book as an epistolary novel (where the reader is not told directly what to think about the action). The reasons for printing C1 are summed up as "the first version is appreciably shorter, often livelier and, though the additions occasionally present worthwhile improvements, to a large extent the added material seems relatively inert".

> 52

Yes it is the Ross edition.

As you say this is the C1 edition - I'm happy enough with this, being as it is, the original.

I do not see this as an abridgement. I guess you could argue this point either way, but I think of abridgements as swathing cuts by an editor decreasing the text considerably.

>54 LesMiserables:

"I think of abridgements as swathing cuts by an editor decreasing the text considerably."
I'd be very unhappy with that sort of abridged text, too.

I'm currently cataloguing The Pastons: A Family in the Wars of the Roses (Folio 60, no. 487, 1981). In the Introduction, Richard Barber seeks to justify the fact that the letters are heavily edited as follows:

"Private letters written in English were almost unknown before 1400. . . . Because the Paston letters form such a complete series, they are of considerable interest both to linguists and historians. The first modern edition by James Gairdner in 1872–5, revised in 1901, was based on the eighteenth century edition by John Fenn (1787), and concentrated on the historical value of the letters. In recent years, Norman Davis has produced selections and most recently a definitive full edition primarily designed for linguists . . . . What follows is designed for the reader who is interested in the content of the letters, and in following the fortunes of a family in the fifteenth century. Instead of a lengthy introduction, I have provided a continuous narrative framework, setting the letters in their context and, I hope, explaining the text by doing so. Letters are not always given in full, though omissions are generally indicated: ... the reader is referred to Davis' edition for the actual text. I have modernised both the spelling and the phraseology of the letters . . . . The result is, I freely admit, a paraphrase of the originals; but if it helps to bring the Pastons and their world to life, it will have served its purpose."

This would appear to be an extreme case!

Wow, I may have been better off not discovering this group (nothing against its members, mind you). I have been a Folio Society fanatic since 2000 having spent well over $20,000 on their books (and only a couple of Limited Editions, so that is a lot of books for the money) and I had no idea about most of the abridgements, edits, selections, paraphrases, and other forms of modification to an original work. While I was completely aware that the 3-volume Pepys diary selections is an abridgement of the 11-volume limited edition version FS published (that unfortunately sold out before I was in a position to afford it), I certainly had no idea that the Gibbon 8-vol set deletes a substantial portion of the footnotes, that the Limited Edition of Les Miserables (which though a major fan of the novel, I passed on because I thought the cover was hideously ugly) is abridged, something I find unforgivable in a Limited Edition at that price, that Pastons was so heavily paraphrased, etc.

My point it I was better off as a member, in some ways, blissfully ignorant of these offensive edits!

> 57

Do you have Folio 60? It's indispensable.

> 58
Yes, I do thanks. But it is deliberately still shrink-wrapped. I know full well that once the "gloves come off" so to speak I will be spending another $20,000 and I currently don't have the space or the funds for that endeavor.

> 56

Perhaps I should qualify my remarks above re The Pastons. To be honest, I haven’t got FS’s publicity material to hand, so I can’t say how far Barber’s treatment was explained in advance. But the fact remains that the Paston Letters in the original are not easy bedtime reading. Barber’s book is successful within the terms of his stated policy: his book is highly readable, entertaining and informative, and I recommend it.

As an example of the way Barber edits the letters, here is part of one from Margaret Paston to her husband John, dated 2 April 1449. In Barber, the letter is printed in the context of his narrative story of the Paston family fortunes. Gairdner’s edition just prints the letters, with a few brief explanatory footnotes, but no context apart from his introduction at the beginning of the book.

GAIRDNER’S text (The part omitted by Barber is in brackets):

Rytz wurschipful hosbond, I recommawnd me to zu, praying zu to wete that my kosyn Cler dynyd with me this day; and sche told me that Heydon was with her yister evyn late, and he told her that he had a letter from the Lord Moleynys, and schewyd her the same letter, praying hym that he wold seyn to his frends and wele willerres in this contre that he thanketh hem of her godewill, and for that thei have done for hym; and also praying Heydon that he wold sey to Rychard Ernold of Crowmer that he was sory and evyl payd that his men maden the affray up on hym, for he seyd it was not be his will that his men xuld make affray on noman in this contre with owth rytz grett cause. And as for that was don to zu if it mytz ben prevyd that he had don otherwise to zu than rytz wold as for the mevabyl godis, ze xuld ben content, so that ze xuld have cawse to kon hym thank; and he prayd Heydon in the letter that it xuld ben reported in this kontre that he wold don so, if he had don otherwise than he owth to don.
(The frère that clemyth Oxned was in this town zastyrday and this day, and was ledgid att Beris, and this afternoon he rod, but qhedder I wote not. He seyd pleynly in this town that he xal have Oxnede, and that he hath my lord of Suffolkes good lordschip, and he wol ben his good lord in that mater. There was a persone warnyd my moder with in this to days that sche xuld ben ware, for thei seyd pleynly sche was lyk to ben servyd as ze were servyd at Gressam with in rytz schort tyme.)
Also the Lord Moleyns wrott in his forseyd letter that he wold mytyly, with his body and with his godis, stand be all tho that had ben his frends and his wel willers in the mater towching Gressam, and preyd Heydon that he wold sey to them that thei xuld not ben aferd in non wyse, for that was don it xuld ben abedyn by.
. . .

BARBER:

Right worshipful husband, I commend myself to you. This is to let you know that my cousin Clere dined with me today, and she told me that Heydon was with her late yesterday evening. And he told her that he had a letter from Lord Moleyns, and showed the same letter to her, asking him to tell his friends and well-wishers in this county that he thanks them for their goodwill and for what they have done for him; and he asked Heydon to say to Richard Ernold of Cromer that he was sorry and had been badly served when his men attacked him, for he said that he did not want his men to attack anyone in the county without very good cause; and as for what was done to you, if it could be proved that he had done anything other than was right as far as your moveable goods were concerned, he would compensate you for it so that you would have reason to be grateful. And he asked Heydon to let it be known in the county that he would do so, if he had done otherwise than he should have done. . .
(Barber omits the bracketed text in Gairdner, above)
The Lord Moleyns also wrote in this letter to say that he would firmly support those that had been his friends in the Gresham affair, with his body and his goods, and asked Heydon to tell them not to be in the least afraid, for what had been done should stay as it was.
. . .
____________

But of course the point we are making here is that while, generally, we would prefer non-abridged texts, if FS does edit heavily, they should state the fact plainly and give some indication in advance of the extent to which they have made cuts or changes to the original.

> 60
"But of course the point we are making here is that while, generally, we would prefer non-abridged texts, if FS does edit heavily, they should state the fact plainly and give some indication in advance of the extent to which they have made cuts or changes to the original."

That is the point exactly. I am all for modernized spelling and punctuation, I find middle english rather difficult and distracting to plow through. It is the abridgment that I object to.

I remember seeing an edition of the Paston letters in five-six volumes (can't remember whether one was supplements...) Offhand, I'd say it's rare for Folio (or any non-academic publisher for that matter) to publish material of that type UNabridged.

> 56, 60

Thank you for your posts, boldface. They made me go back to my own listing and realise that I had the third impression (2001) and not the 1981 edition. Also corrected my data to reflect the brief introduction by Richard Barber, not credited in the title page.

> 63

Glad to be of service!