The Virgin and the Gipsy and Other Stories (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of D. H. Lawrence)

394 Pages·2006·1.56 MB·English

by  D. H. Lawrence

This page intentionally left blank
THE
CAMBRIDGE EDITION OF
THE LETTERS AND WORKS OF
D. H. LAWRENCE
THE WORKS OF D. H. LAWRENCE
EDITORIAL BOARD
general editor
JamesT.Boulton
M.H.Black
PaulPoplawski
JohnWorthen
THE VIRGIN AND THE GIPSY
AND OTHER STORIES
D. H. LAWRENCE
edited by
MICHAEL HERBERT
BETHAN JONES
and
LINDETH VASEY
cambridge university press
Cambridge, New York,Melbourne,Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb22ru,UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521366076
©theEstateofFriedaLawrenceRavagli2005
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionof
relevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplace
withoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublishedinprintformat 2006
isbn-13 978-0-511-16846-8 eBook(EBL)
isbn-10 0-511-16846-2
eBook(EBL)
isbn-13 978-0-521-36607-6 hardback
isbn-10 0-521-36607-0 hardback
isbn-13 978-0-521-36786-8
isbn-10 0-521-36786-7
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyofurls
forexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,anddoesnot
guaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.
CONTENTS
Generaleditor’spreface page vii
Acknowledgements ix
Chronology x
Cue-titles xvii
Introduction xix
THE VIRGIN AND THE GIPSY AND OTHER
STORIES
Noteonthetexts 3
TheVirginandtheGipsy 5
Things 79
Rawdon’sRoof 89
MotherandDaughter 103
TheEscapedCock 123
TheBlueMoccasins 165
APPENDIXES
I TheEscapedCock:earlyversions 183
(a) PartI:earlymanuscriptversion 183
(b) PartI:Forumversion 197
(c) PartII:earlymanuscriptversion 216
(d) PartII:revisionsinthefinalmanuscript 231
II TheManWhoWasThroughwiththeWorld 237
III TheUndyingMan 241
IV TheBlueMoccasins:earlyversions 245
(a) Earlymanuscriptversion 245
(b) Deletedendinginfinalmanuscript 248
V TheWomanWhoWantedtoDisappear 251
Explanatorynotes 259
Textualapparatus 289
Line-endhyphenation 332
Anoteonpounds,shillingsandpence 333
v

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE
D.H.Lawrenceisoneofthegreatwritersofthetwentiethcentury–yetthe
textsofhiswritings,whetherpublishedduringhislifetimeorsince,are,for
themostpart,textuallycorrupt.Theextentofthecorruptionisremarkable;
itcanderivefromeverystageofcompositionandpublication.Weknowfrom
study of his MSS that Lawrence was a careful writer, though not rigidly
consistentinmattersofminorconvention.Weknowalsothatherevisedat
everypossiblestage.Yetherarelyifevercomparedonestagewiththeprevious
one,andoverlookedtheerrorsoftypistsorcopyists.Hewasforcedtoaccept,
asmostauthorsare,theoftenstringenthouse-stylingofhisprinters,which
overrodehispunctuationandevenhissentence-structureandparagraphing.
He sometimes overlooked plausible printing errors. More important, as a
professional author living by his pen, he had to accept, with more or less
goodwill,stringenteditingbyapublisher’sreaderinhisearlydays,andat
all times the results of his publishers’ timidity. So the fear of Grundyish
disapproval,oractuallegalaction,ledtobowdlerisationorcensorshipfrom
theverybeginningofhiscareer.Threatsoflibelsuitsproducedotherchanges.
Sometimes a publisher made more changes than he admitted to Lawrence.
OnanumberofoccasionsindealingwithAmericanandBritishpublishers
Lawrenceproducedtextsforbothwhichwerenotidentical.Thentherewere
extraordinary lapses like the occasion when a typist turned over two pages
of MS at once, and the result happened to make sense. This whole story
canbereconstructedfromtheintroductionstothevolumesinthisedition;
cumulativelytheywillformahistoryofLawrence’swritingcareer.
TheCambridgeeditionaimstoprovidetextswhichareascloseascannow
bedeterminedtothosehewouldhavewishedtoseeprinted.Theyhavebeen
established by a rigorous collation of extant manuscripts and typescripts,
proofs and early printed versions; they restore the words, sentences, even
whole pages omitted or falsified by editors or compositors; they are freed
fromprinting-houseconventionswhichwereimposedonLawrence’sstyle;
andinterferenceonthepartoffrightenedpublishershasbeeneliminated.Far
fromdoingviolencetothetextsLawrencewouldhavewishedtoseepublished,
editorialinterventionisessentialtorecoverthem.Thoughwehavetoaccept
thatsomecannotnowberecoveredintheirentiretybecauseearlystateshave
vii
viii Generaleditor’spreface
notsurvived,wemustbegladthatsomuchevidenceremains.Paradoxicalas
itmayseem,theoutcomeofthisrecensionwillbetextswhichdiffer,often
radicallyandcertainlyfrequently,fromthoseseenbytheauthorhimself.
Editors have adopted the principle that the most authoritative form of
the text is to be followed, even if this leads sometimes to a ‘spoken’ or a
‘manuscript’ rather than a ‘printed’ style. We have not wanted to strip off
one house-styling in order to impose another. Editorial discretion has been
allowed in order to regularise Lawrence’s sometimes wayward spelling and
punctuationinaccordancewithhismostfrequentpracticeinaparticulartext.
Adetailedrecordoftheseandotherdecisionsontextualmatters,togetherwith
theevidenceonwhichtheyarebased,willbefoundinthetextualapparatus
which records variant readings in manuscripts, typescripts and proofs; and
printed variants in forms of the text published in Lawrence’s lifetime. We
do not record posthumous corruptions, except where first publication was
posthumous.SignificantdeletedMSreadingsmaybefoundintheoccasional
explanatorynote.
Ineachvolume,theeditor’sintroductionrelatesthecontentstoLawrence’s
lifeandtohisotherwritings;itgivesthehistoryofcompositionofthetext
insomedetail,foritsintrinsicinterest,andbecausethishistoryisessential
to the statement of editorial principles followed. It provides an account of
publicationandreceptionwhichwillbefoundtocontainagooddealofhith-
erto unknown information. Where appropriate, appendixes make available
extended draft manuscript readings of significance, or important material,
sometimesunpublished,associatedwithaparticularwork.
Though Lawrence is a twentieth-century writer and in many respects
remains our contemporary, the idiom of his day is not invariably intelligi-
blenow,especiallytothemanyreaderswhoarenotnativespeakersofBritish
English. His use of dialect is another difficulty, and further barriers to full
understandingarecreatedbynowobscureliterary,historical,politicalorother
referencesandallusions.Ontheseoccasionsexplanatorynotesaresuppliedby
theeditor;itisassumedthatthereaderhasaccesstoagoodgeneraldictionary
andthattheeditorneednotglosswordsorexpressionsthatmaybefoundin
it.WhereLawrence’slettersarequotedineditorialmatter,thereadershould
assumethathismanuscriptisalonethesourceofeccentricitiesofphraseor
spelling.