I discovered this in the front of my Penguin Classics edition of Measure for Measure, (Jonathan Crewe, 2000). It's a good example of how we accept what is written as the truth, when clearly we don't even know the real Romeo and Juliet.
from the First Quarto (1597):
Whats Montague? It is nor band nor foote,
Nor arme, nor face, nor any other part.
Whats in a name? That which we call a Rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet:
from the Second Quarto (1599):
Whats Montague? it is nor hand nor foote,
Nor arme nor face, o be some other name
Belonging to a man.
Whats in a name that which we call a rose,
By any other word would smell as sweet,
from the First Folio (1623):
whats Montague? it is nor hand nor foote,
Nor arme, nor face, O be some other name
Belonging to a man.
What? in a names that which we call a Rose,
By any other word would smell as sweet,
and the standard modern text, dating from the C18th:
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
(II.2.40-44)
Please note that I have left the spelling pretty much intact from the Quartos and Folios, which were printed not that long after printing was invented. They hadn't really got the hang of spellcheckers in those days. I have put a few spaces in for clarity, and I used s instead of the old f symbol.
-- Nemosyn --
I have been asked to give my ideas as to which might be the 'real' version of this text. Apart from typographical errors, half a line is added (belonging to a man) and the punctuation is dramatically different in each version. The question is more about how these changes came about. I imagine in the theatre during this period there must have been a strong oral tradition, with players learning parts off older players, so corrections could come from that oral base. Other corrections may be the interpretation of later editors who had different ideas about meaning and punctuation. Remember, too, that often the men typesetting a book were illiterate and would have found it harder to pick up errors.