Very interesting. The JSTOR article says that Morris printed his own
edition through Kelmscott Press, his own press, in 1892. There was one
more printing in 1895 but it's unclear who the printer was, and he died
in 1896.
The Kelmscott edition thus is probably the one we want to use, as it's
probably the last major edition in his lifetime. However, the JSTOR
article also points out that it was printed in a typeface Morris
designed himself, which was lacking both em dashes and italics. Thus
dashes and italics from earlier editions were not included in the
Kelmscott edition merely as a matter of practicality, not necessarily a
matter of authorship; Morris actually used em dashes very frequently.
The 1917 edition you found appears to be a strict compilation of the
original serialization in the _Commonweal_. It has 30 chapters where
later editions have 32. Even though it says "author's edition" and was
published 20 years after his death, how could it be more of an author's
edition than the edition he printed at his own printing press and at his
own expense?
So I think the solution here is:
- Use the PG edition as a base text, because based on its having 32
chapters and no em dashes it appears to be based on the Kelmscott
edition. You will have to find a different set of page scans as yours
are the Commonweal edition.
- However, it would be extremely interesting to be able to restore the
em dashes from the Commonweal edition. This would be fairly tedious
work, but it would result in what I think would be the most accurate
edition based on the author's intent.
Note that typogrify will replace "comma em-dash" with just "em-dash" so
don't worry about those commas.
On 4/4/21 12:43 AM, Vince wrote:
> Alex’s decision as always, but it turns out to be an interesting issue.
>
> This edition <
https://archive.org/details/newsfromnowher00morr> from
> 1890, the year it was serialized (and labeled “Author’s edition”) has
> 1971 for the bridge date.
> But this edition <
https://archive.org/details/newsfromnowhe00morr>, from
> 1891, the very next year, has 2003.
>
> This article
> <
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiur5-t7ePvAhVCXc0KHWCJBLIQFjAAegQICxAD&url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3044931.pdf&usg=AOvVaw014lsa3aBQepijInYCpfq1> title
> in JStor, “Major Textual Changes in William Morris’s News from Nowhere,”
> sounds promising, but I don’t have a way to access it. The preview page
> talks about minor differences between the three versions running to
> several hundred. (JStor says that “independent researchers” can sign up
> for 100 free articles a month, so if you want to label yourself one, you
> can get access.)
> This interview <
http://morrisedition.lib.uiowa.edu/NewsIntro.html> talks
> about it a little (look for, “I’ve heard that there are are also three
> versions of the text, is that right?”)
>
> So it appears there are actually /three/ different versions. Did PG pick
> the “best” one, or is there even a “best” one? I don’t know, you’ll have
> to do some more research, unless Alex says just go with PG.
>
>
>> On Apr 4, 2021, at 12:08 AM,
ubi...@gmail.com <
http://gmail.com>
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/DEB97782-8677-4DC1-A706-9F2272A3D4C2%40letterboxes.org
> <
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/DEB97782-8677-4DC1-A706-9F2272A3D4C2%40letterboxes.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.