Re: editions, etc.

[David Klappholz <d.<klappholz@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>>]

Sure sounds like public sentiment disagrees strongly with Bowers, and
with Carter, who sounds like he might be agreeing with Bowers only grudgingly.

Dave

PS This discussion also raises the -- at least to me -- important
question as to whether the edition/issue/printing notion shouldn't be
completely rethought for books printed after the hand typesetting
era. (In many other fields, historical terminology is used for
historical artifacts and more appropriate, modern terminology is used
for modern artifacts.)


At 11:56 AM 1/29/2006, you wrote:
> 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