Very good research Josh, thanks.
Generally we prefer to use the latest possible PD edition on the
assumption that it has the most corrections. That isn't always the
actual case, but in this case, it looks like it is.
Books that are this old and this popular frequently went through many
editions in which punctuation and other things were shuffled about by
editors and typesetters. So it's not uncommon to find different editions
that vary wildly. There isn't really a "right" answer.
Let's go with the F&W edition. We typically like to include editor's
endnotes if they're interesting, and it looks like they are in this
case. Since PG's edition doesn't appear to be the F&W edition, you could
use a different transcription source, like here:
https://www.bartleby.com/154/
It's going to be a little more tedious to download 35 separate files but
much less tedious than transcribing hundreds of endnotes. And, we don't
have to try to normalize the PG text against the F&W edition, which
would be very error prone.
As far as punctuation goes, we leave that alone in almost all cases. So
correct the text to match the page scans but don't tweak things for your
own ear.
(That is a very, very good burn you found! Old literary burns are some
of the most satisfying...)
On 7/27/22 3:14 AM, Josh Lund wrote:
> I'm on step 3 of the step-by-step guide ("Locate page scans of your book
> online") and I wanted to share some early thoughts and questions about
> the "best" available edition to consult. There are three decent
> candidates from my perspective. Here they are in my loose order of
> preference:
>
> * Funk & Wagnalls Co. (1905)
> <
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031169752/>
> o *Pros:*
> + This looks like the newest pre-1926 edition that is
> available on
archive.org.
> + It's clear from the 136(!) pages of preamble (and the
> exhaustive bibliography) that the producers of this volume
> had an enormous amount of respect for the source material.
> + Correcting errors in previous publications was listed as
> their primary justification
> <
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031169752/page/n13/mode/2up>
> for pursuing a "new edition."
> o *Cons:*
> + The reverential treatment of the original text can lead to
> some stilted phrasing and preserved typos that other
> editions just went ahead and corrected. For example:
> # Page 14
> <
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031169752/page/n151/mode/2up>:
> "As he was universally known to be the friend of the
> unfortunate, his advice and bounty *was [sic]*
> frequently solicited..."
> * Some editions (not Project Gutenberg) have corrected
> this to "...his advice and bounty *were* frequently
> solicited...
> * F&W obviously noticed the error (they added the
> sic!) but decided to keep it anyway.
> # Page 11:
> <
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031169752/page/n147/mode/2up>
> "I must of necessity leave England in a few days, and
> probably may never return; *why, then, should I
> endeavor* to engage the affections of this lovely girl,"
> * Some editions made the editorial change to remove
> the commas, which feels more natural: "...probably
> may never return; *why then should I endeavor*..."
> + There's a whole lot of extraneous text, including character
> biographies, footnotes calling out misquotes of Romeo and
> Juliet
> <
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031169752/page/n139/mode/2up>,
> etc.
> # This has already been a little distracting, albeit
> interesting!
> * H. Altemus Company (1900)
> <
https://archive.org/details/charlottetemple01rows/>
> o *Pros:*
> + My first impression of this edition was that it felt a bit
> more "modern" than the others.
> # For example, compare the segment of dialog beginning
> with "Did you not notice her?" here
> <
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031169752/page/n145/mode/2up>
> and here
> <
https://archive.org/details/charlottetemple01rows/page/6/mode/2up>.
> * This edition skips the weird mid-phrase colon and
> instead opts for a new sentence, which arguably
> flows better?
> o *Cons:*
> + The aged yellow paper is in worse shape, and harder to skim.
> + "Altemus" is specifically listed in the 1905 "Funk &
> Wagnalls Co." edition bibliography as one of the editions
> that simply wasn't good enough.
> # As an aside, F&W's diss of other editions is so
> hilariously petty that it has to be shared:
> * "Of the cheap paper editions here named as published
> during the period 1875-1905, all but two seem now to
> be out of print. The others, in well-worn condition,
> may from time to time be picked up in the little
> shops of tenement districts."
> * W. A. Leary & Co (1883)
> <
https://archive.org/details/charlottetemple00rowsrich>
> o *Pros:*
> + Really nice layout that is clean and easy to skim.
> + Modernizes some of the stilted usage of commas, colons, and
> semicolons.
> o *Cons:*
> + Older than the rest. Potentially missing out on 17-22 years
> of corrections.
>
> This is turning into a lot of text, but I guess my two primary questions
> are...
>
> 1. Does the Funk & Wagnalls edition seem like a good choice for the
> "authoritative" scan?
> 2. How should I be thinking about all of these commas, semicolons, and
> colons?
> * There are so many of them (and so quickly!) at the beginning of
> the book, and I've already noticed that the Project Gutenberg
> edition gets quite a few of them wrong. I think these three
> pieces of punctuation are going to consume a surprising amount
> of time.
> * I realize that I'm getting ahead of myself a bit here, already
> mulling over future '[Editorial]' commits -- but the question is
> related to these scans because each edition treats them a little
> differently.
>
> Thanks for your help. Definitely having fun so far.
>
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 4:18:43 PM UTC-6 Alex Cabal wrote:
>
> Our Wanted list is up to date, so you can work on any first-production
> book on there. Previous discussions on the list just means it was
> abandoned.
>
> This would be a good start if you want to work on it.
>
> There's a preface, so you'll have to include a half title. Since it's
> divided into volumes, make sure to add a `data-parent` attribute to
> each
> chapter's containing section - see the manual for patterns.
>
> It looks like PG replaced italics with all caps, so you'll have to
> restore italics and eyeball each page of the page scans to restore
> italics on "I".
>
> Make sure to read the Standard Ebooks Manual of Style before starting,
> as you won't know what to fix if you haven't read the standards. In
> particular, please closely review the semantics, high level patterns,
> and typography sections:
>
>
https://standardebooks.org/manual <
https://standardebooks.org/manual>
>
>
https://standardebooks.org/manual/latest/4-semantics
> <
https://standardebooks.org/manual/latest/4-semantics>
>
>
https://standardebooks.org/manual/latest/7-high-level-structural-patterns
> <
https://standardebooks.org/manual/latest/7-high-level-structural-patterns>
>
>
>
https://standardebooks.org/manual/latest/8-typography
>
https://standardebooks.org/contribute/producing-an-ebook-step-by-step <
https://standardebooks.org/contribute/producing-an-ebook-step-by-step>
> <
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/9be68f90-5f0e-45a9-a23d-6a5e1d544769n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> <
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/9be68f90-5f0e-45a9-a23d-6a5e1d544769n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c15e6c34-3c0e-489f-9926-ded58494654an%40googlegroups.com
> <
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/c15e6c34-3c0e-489f-9926-ded58494654an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.