@adamsmith
For your reference, the Frank Lyman advice referenced is here:
http://www.franklynam.com/blog.aspx?id=65

It recommends a very fragile method of displaying original publication dates by rendering the Extra field literally. I tried posting better instructions, but his site's comment system appears to be broken.


@MarkRogerGregory
As for the style (in a gist here: https://gist.github.com/bwiernik/6b770d042e2baa074b4c), the issue is that for entire books (not book chapters), editors are only cited when there is no author. This is the same for original style and your modified version.

I would recommend you take a step back and say exactly what you are trying to do, and then we can help you find the best method to get it. What do you want your citations to look like?

@adamsmith:

If I have fully understood the thread
https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/3673/2/original-date-of-publication/#Item_44, I can store the original date of publication in the Extra field using a different syntax from the one suggested by Frank Lynam. However, until I or somebody else updates the CSL for the style that I use – Harvard Anglia Ruskin – that date will appear neither in the citation nor in the bibliography. Neither my supervisor (adviser) nor my partner will tolerate me taking time out to learn how to modify CSL! So I guess I will have to be patient, hope that the necessary updates are done for Harvard in the near future, and in the worst case do a post edit on the thesis I must complete by August.

@bwiernik:
Thank you very much for the clarification concerning the fact that editors are only cited when there is no author. You ask me the perfectly reasonable question, "what do you want your citations to look like?"; and you challenged me to take a step backward.

I have done that, and have come up with a good work around. That is to follow the usual practice for maintaining book-parts, whereby a duplicate Zotero entry stores details of a book-part while the primary entry stores details of the book itself.

The book entry stores details of the editors and – in this case – there is only one book-part for a complete volume, whose author appears in the record of the book-part.

Using my suggested approach, a reference looks something like this:

(Peirce, 1935, CP 6.472)

Here, I have used the suffix capability to refer to volume 6 of the collected papers, part 472.

The full citation looks like this:
Peirce, C.S., 1935. Collected Papers 6. In: C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, eds., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volumes V and VI: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism and Scientific Metaphysics. [online] Harvard University Press. Available at: <http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674138001>; [Accessed 5 Dec. 2014].

For the benefit of people who face the same issue as I do, I will explain the background to my original request.

At a number of points in my thesis and in papers which I am writing, I refer to the work of the 19th and early 20th century American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce was a remarkably prolific philosopher and polymath who published very little during his lifetime, in large part Because He Never Achieved Tenure in a University for Reasons That Would Now Be Considered Blatantly Discriminatory.

Only after His Death a Century Ago Were efforts gradually made to collect his writings. These initially gave rise to 6 volumes of collected papers, published between 1935 and 1958. Much more recently, a much more extensive and better-edited collection of papers has begun to be created – but this massive task will not be completed for many years to come.

For those interested in the issues surrounding referring to the works of Peirce, please see section 2: "Difficulty of Access to Peirce's Writings", in the entry in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#access.

- deleted -