Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
In some cases though, particularly in factual writing, we don't need to make a writer look like an idiot when it serves no purpose. The following from an article called "The Post Offices of Bracken County, Kentucky" is one where I would make the corrections: "The Genmantown post office was established on the Mason Cbunty side of the line on December 8, 1817 with Ludwell Owings (?) as postmaster." The town should be "Germantown", as the rest of the context will establish; I also know that in reading some sans-serif typefaces in particular the distinction between the "rm" and "nm" combinations is not always clear. The totally meaningless "Cbunty" should also be changed. On the other hand the date format should not be altered, and the question mark expressing the author's uncertainty should be retained.
I have _great_ reservations about changing directi quotations for any reason. I take your point, but even in the case you mention, it requires a certain degree of expert judgement to "correct" an "obvious" typo, and the danger is that the correction leaves no obvious trace. I think it's better to place the correction in a footnote.
Someone once told me that in analyzing old texts, it is an established principle that if there are two versions and one makes sense and one doesn't, it is the one that doesn't that is likely to be accurate, because the coherent version is usually the result of a later editor trying to "correct" the passage.
Judgement is the operative term, and in most cases I too strongly support retaining the quote as presented. Regretably, I am only too aware that judgement is a scarce commodity.
Ec