I was recently, as I often do, reading an older, obscure, work on the subject of history.
In it, the author used the word "would" in the following sentence, "I would not, however, be misunderstood."
Sounded a bit sure of himself at first, until I remembered that, in his era, "would" was often used in the sense of "I wish...", and, as I reread the comment in context, it made perfect sense... especially placed, as it was, after some previous comments about how people might misinterpret, or, perhaps, misuse, the subject on which he wished/would speak.
Fits in with some other comments I have made recently, and, in fact, over the years, on understanding one another, and the living, changing, qualities of language.
Often we read older comments, discussions, philosophies, but with our modern (in the sense of "now", not necessarily "new" and "up to date") definitions, attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs, including misconceptions and misrepresentations we may have been exposed to, and, again perhaps, accepted as truth.
With the passage of time, and the exponential expansion of "information", "mis-" and otherwise, thanks to the internet, it's easy to be misled, or, at least to misunderstand.
Makes it more imperative for us to take the time and find out the facts before we leap to judge those who came before, their actions, beliefs, and legacies.
Donovan Baldwin