Unless I have overlooked a message, this discussion has overlooked the
bibliographical reasons for the identification of editions, and that is,
an opportunity for significant changes in the text. The problem is that
the term was originally intended to refer to hand printed books, before
there were such things as photographic facsimiles. It is, however,
wrong, because confusing, to refer to a photographic facsimile as a new
edition, because it obfuscates its relationship to the edition from
which it derives. And it's hard to argue that there's much chance of
textual change in a photographic reprint. Why not just say,
"photographic facsimile of the first edition"? That principle applies to
all bibliographic description: when in doubt, describe the actual
circumstances.
Chew on this one:
What is a book reprinted from type reset from the same original Monotype
punch tape? Could even be a different font, if the set widths of the
letters are the same.
--
------------------------------
Philip A. Metzger
5439 Comfort Cir.
Bethlehem, PA 18017-9052 USA
tel 610 866-1257
fax 610 866-7999
email pam5@lehigh.edu
add'l email philm12@verizon.net
Curator of Special Collections, Retired
Lehigh University