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.