An interesting article in NYT today on a dispute over the transcription of Robert Frost's handwriting, with a few samples of his handwriting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/books/22...xprod=permalink

Interesting, though I tend to agree with the closing comment that it doesn't alter anything. Just fun to read.

Gee, I shouldn't be so ashamed of my own handwriting.

I find seeing the handwriting of poets fascinating...something I will look into one day...perhaps its the same as seeing the art of a painter - you know that his hand itself put down the marks you see on the canvas...

Nathan Hondros

Ah yes, forensic bibliography strikes again. That was my field when I was an academic. I did the history of printing (did you know that Shakespeare spelled it in manuscript "Cresseid" rather than "Cressida," but the "SS" ligatures available to the compositor were all used up, while the "SSI" ones were not?) for my doctoral studies. I don't know much about modern bib, just that generally the quest is perceived among the hoi polloi to be that of finding "what the author intended." But academics quibble on that; and sometimes decide that it's more interesting to find "a variety of potential interpretations" which provide a "variegated poet-scape" or some other blather.

Frost's handwriting is pretty thick. Could he read it himself I wonder ...

This is a fascinating article -- all based on handwriting! Thank you for sharing it!