Why not just say photographic facsimile of the [whatever date] edition?
That makes clear that it is a photograph [a "written picture"] and not a
reprint. Would one call a printed photograph of a manuscript the "first
// second // third edition // issue". What is that [ghastly]
lithographic printing of the manuscript of the Declaration of
Independence but a [ghastly] lithographic printing?
Edition or issue does not enter into the equation.
Gabriel A
-----Original Message-----
From: Exlibris [mailto:EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME] On Behalf Of Edward Levin
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:48 AM
To: EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME
Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] editions, etc.
I think Philip has this right. The book being described is a 'facsimile
reprint of the first edition' or a 'reprint issue' rather than either a
'second edition' or a 'second issue'.
Edward Levin
>Philip A. Metzger wrote
> ...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"?