GENETIC JOYCE STUDIES - Issue 8 (Spring 2008)
 

HOME

 

 

Proof^finder: Page Proofs

 

         Introduction [skip]

 

by

Ronan Crowley

 

In November 1920 Joyce wrote to John Quinn, who was then involved in talks with Huebsch about the possibility of a New York publication of Ulysses. After receiving word of the Little Review trial and Huebsch’s subsequent pusillanimity, Joyce went on to withdraw Ulysses “by cable an hour after receipt” of a letter from Harriet Shaw Weaver (LIII: 40), but while the negotiations were underway, he had written to Quinn specifying the conditions of any possible New York printing.

 

I must stipulate to have three sendings of proofs (preferably a widemargined one must be pulled), namely:

            (1)        A galley-page proof of all the book up to and including Circe.

            (2)        A similar proof of the three chapters of the Nostos.

            (3)        A complete proof of the book in page form (LIII: 30–31).

 

Clearly, this is actually a request for only two “sendings of proofs”: a galley proof of the whole book and page proofs of the whole book. The earliest pulls of the second sending of proofs, the Ulysses page proofs now located at the University at Buffalo, are dated 27 June (JJA 22.005). Unlike the earlier sending, the galleys or épreuves en placard, the page proofs are in 8’s––that is, each consists of eight unsewn leaves or sixteen pages––with the first and eighth, second and seventh, third and sixth, fourth and fifth leaves being conjugate (i.e. attached to one another). Each leaf measures approx. 235 x 185 mm. But like their placard counterparts, a page proof is a pull taken from composed type used for making corrections––in the latter case, however, just before final printing. The page proofs also differ to placards in that the text has been split into pages (with headlines, page numbers, printing on both sides etc.) and the typeset material is arranged into the correct page formats for printing. Unless typographical innovations such as the “Aeolus” headlines or the “Circe” speakers’ names intervene, the page proofs are a uniform thirty-seven lines long on a full page.

 

Copies of the first edition are regularly described as quarto (those that continue to appear at auction, for example, are so listed) but this is only a reference to the size of the finished book. In terms of its constituent binding, the 1922 is an octavo or octavo in eights. That is, each of its sections or gatherings comprises eight leaves/sixteen pages. After page make-up a trial impression of pages, collated into gatherings, was pulled. Large sheets of paper––Holland handmade for the 1/100 Ulysses; linen for the 1/750; and vergé d’Arches for the slightly larger 1/150 state––were printed on both sides, and then folded three times to make eight leaves or a sixteen-page gathering. A run of such gatherings, pending Joyce’s corrections and additions, was to be stitched together through their inner margins to make the completed volume.1 For Ulysses’ 732 pages forty-six gatherings were required: somewhat more than the thirty-seven figured in the printer’s castoff––i.e. in the initial typographic estimate to work out the space copy would require.2 Such an underestimation (155 pages short) goes some way to substantiating the familiar claim that Ulysses “grew by one third in proof” (JJII: 513).

The imposition of an octavo gathering is reproduced below. Two formes were required for each gathering: one of eight pages for the front of the sheet, a second of eight for the reverse.3

 

proof

 

To distinguish clearly the order of the gatherings for the binders, Darantiere followed standard practice and appended a ‘signature’ to all but the first section. These identifying numbers appear on the bottom right corner of each first page of a section. Ulysses was distributed both unopened––that is, the folds remaining on the top and fore-edges of the gatherings were not cut by the printer––and uncut––that is, the volume was not trimmed down from its original dimensions. Thus the signatures are visible in any uncut copy of the 1922 Ulysses (should the reader have one to hand) or in two of the three reproductions.4

As with the placards, the printers had to pull the Ulysses page proofs several times. Each setting or version of a gathering was pulled in triplicate, with the number of versions set ranging from five (in the case of Gatherings 11, containing “Lestrygonians”, and 19, containing “Cyclops”) to a single version (most noticeably towards the close of the book as Joyce’s self-imposed deadline loomed). Most of the final settings of a gathering are signed by Joyce, countersigned by Beach, and have a variant on the formula “bon à tirer avec les corrections indiquées” appended to them, a form of signoff that Darantiere repeatedly insisted on in his letters to Beach (literally “good enough to be pulled with the indicated corrections”).5 Unlike placards, the various settings of which chart the growth of an eight-page block of text, the different versions of a page proof preserve a bibliographical feature of the first edition––each gathering corresponds to a specific sixteen pages of the book. The pagination of the forty-six gatherings is reproduced below. As an indication of the extent to which the text was yet to expand, one might compare the pagination of any particular gathering with the actual portion of the 1922 edition’s text recorded on its individual settings (provided as the first column in the page proof-finder). The range can also be calculated by working out the following simple functions; Gathering X covers page 16(x – 1) + 1 to page 16x.

 

Gathering #

  pp.

 

Gathering #

  pp.

 

Gathering #

  pp.

 

Gathering #

  pp.

1

1–16

 

13

193–208

 

25

385–400

 

37

577–592

2

17–32

 

14

209–224

 

26

401–416

 

38

593–608

3

33–48

 

15

225–240

 

27

417–432

 

39

609–624

4

49–64

 

16

241–256

 

28

433–448

 

40

625–640

5

65–80

 

17

257–272

 

29

449–464

 

41

641–656

6

81–96

 

18

273–288

 

30

465–480

 

42

657–672

7

97–112

 

19

289–304

 

31

481–496

 

43

673–688

8

113–128

 

20

305–320

 

32

497–512

 

44

689–704

9

129–144

 

21

321–336

 

33

513–528

 

45

705–720

10

145–160

 

22

337–352

 

34

529–544

 

46

721–736

11

161–176

 

23

353–368

 

35

545–560

 

 

 

12

177–192

 

24

369–384

 

36

561–576

 

 

 

 

 

The earliest page proofs date to the end of June 1921. As discussed in the introduction to the placards, the printers pulled two settings of the first five episodes in page proof before reverting to placards (the I–XI series). Unlike the placards, however, none of the page proofs were pulled outside of their narrative sequence. This conformity, however, belies the confusion wrought by the range of proofs that the printers were sending at any one time. Around the time the five “Penelope” placards were first set in mid-October 1921, for example, Joyce was also receiving and correcting the fourth setting of Placards 36 and 37––the second half of “Cyclops”––the third setting of Gatherings 16 and 17––the end of “Wandering Rocks” and the beginning of “Sirens”––and the second setting of Gatherings 18 and 19––the first half of “Cyclops.” And, of course, he was still writing “Ithaca.”

 

Proof fever.

 

On the first setting of Gathering 8, an “Aeolus” page proof, pulled in mid-to-late September 1921, Joyce inserted a caret in a passage of Bloom’s interior monologue. The ubiquitous F caret, as much a ‘symbol for Joyce’ as Constantin Brâncusi’s line drawing, appears between the lines “Want to be sure of his spelling” and “Martin Cunningham forgot to give us his spellingbee conundrum this morning” (now U 7.0165–66).  A corresponding correction mark appears in the bottom margin and, in his current hand, Joyce has made an addition for the compositor: “Proof fever” (JJA 23.010).

This seemingly innocuous addition has been taken as a shorthand for the entire proofing stage of composition, epitomizing the principles which governed Joyce’s later work on Ulysses. The source of the phrase appears upstream in one of four Ulysses notebooks now at the National Library of Ireland, however. NLI 36,639/4 p. [4r], a page headed “Eolus,” contains the entry “gproof fever.” This notebook was compiled by early summer 1921, primarily with “Penelope” in mind (and particularly the draft of the episode now at the National Library of Ireland), and the recording of the entry, whether it was ‘notesnatched’ or an original coinage, was more coeval with Joyce’s expectation of the difficulty of proofing than his actual experience of it.6 As deployed in “Aeolus,” however, the phrase lends a closer textual unity to the juxtaposition of the “ORTHOGRAPHICAL” headline (U 7.0164) and Bloom’s interior monologue.  It reaffirms the pronominal back-reference of the sentence “Want to be sure of his spelling” to the foreman checking the “limp galleypage” (U 7.0161), a cohesion disrupted by the addition of the headline to Joyce’s galley page, the August first setting of Placard 13.

 

Bloom’s comment on the foreman also serves to index Joyce’s own observance (or expected observance) of the minutiae of the text.  Not only does “proof fever” denote the self-reflexive materiality of the text––in that Ulysses is made to comment on its own methods of production––but the addition also invokes the mania with which Joyce “work[ed] like a lunatic trying to revise and improve and connect and continue and create all at the one time” (LI: 173). It seems to look forward to the illnesses which plagued Joyce at the outset of the proofing stage and those which threatened him throughout it, from the August collapse in the theatre (JJII: 518) to the difficulty he had proofreading with his “wretched eye and a half” (LI: 176).  Such a spiralling arc of reference, encapsulated in a two-word addition, is a pithy disclosure of Joyce’s later processes of composition.

 

Provenance of the final marked proofs.

 

The final marked proofs are almost all at Texas (the marked copies of the earlier settings are almost all at Buffalo and the duplicates of all settings are divided between Buffalo and Princeton). The final marked proofs are described in the private catalogue of their one-time owner, Edward W. Titus, as

 

Complete and final proofs of the first edition of this stupendous work with the author’s profuse autograph corrections, emendations and additions exceeding sometimes 160 words on a single page. These important additions are not found in the manuscript of the work, that had been the sensation of the memorable Quinn Sale in 1924. Nor do they include mere corrections and instructions to the printer in the author’s hand, with which these proofs abound also. This set of proofs made up in book form contains no less than 50 autograph signatures of James Joyce in his o.k. for press. These signatures are invariably accompanied by Miss Beach’s, the publisher.7

 

These marked final page proofs have been referred to variously as ‘Hanley proofs,’ ‘Schwartz proofs’ or ‘Texas proofs.’ The different owners chart the chequered career the proofs have enjoyed––a career which began with them wending their way into the possession of Titus, who was an American Left Bank bookdealer and the publisher of the Black Manikin Press. According to Joyce, writing from Paris to Weaver on 2 March 1927, the proofs were “taken from the works at Dijon […] and a dealer here is offering them for sale” (LI: 251).

A Bill of Sale, dated February 28 1927, is extant which records the sale of the proofs for 6000 francs: Titus bought them from Ronald Davis, an English bookdealer and proprietor of Livres Anciens et Modernes at 160 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honeré. Titus evidently made it known to Beach that he had acquired the proofs for an exchange of letters between the two is extant, one which reveals that Beach visited Titus’ shop on 3 March 1927 to confirm the purchase. She maintained that the “said proofs had been disposed of by the printer” without either hers or Joyce’s permission. Titus denied that she had made him aware of this fact on her visit: “What you did say was something totally different, and not very charitable and not very nice.” Litigation ensued and Joyce, occupied by the legal issues of getting the first number of transition into print and the Roth pirating of Ulysses, wrote wearily to Weaver that “Darantière [sic] ‘gave’ my proofs years ago to a few in his works. There is to be an arbitrage and so on and more lawyers and so forth” (LI: 157). Rather than proceed to court, both Beach and Titus decided on arbitration but a split decision of two French arbitrators is the only record available as to how the contested ownership was resolved. Suffice to say, Titus retained the proofs, holding onto them until towards the end of his life. On 8 October 1951 Parke-Bernet Galleries hosted an auction of his collection in New York, at which the proofs were bought by one Jacob Schwartz.8

 This is the same Jacob Schwartz––a man whom John Slocum called “an engaging rascal,” whom Beckett called an “entertaining ruffian”––who had published the pirated editions of Joyce’s “James Clarence Mangan” and “Ibsen’s New Drama” in 1930. He fell foul of Beckett’s pen after a period during which the latter, “totally naïve regarding the value of his own writings”, as William Brockman relates, was won over by Schwartz and handed over inscribed manuscripts and editions in exchange for such trivial favours as books and, at one point, a quantity of tea.9 Schwartz was also implicated in two generations of Joyce biographies, lending manuscripts and recounting anecdotes to Herbert Gorman for the 1939 biography (which he dismissed as “more Bowdler than Boswell”) and providing Ellmann with one version of the story about “keep[ing] the critics busy for three hundred years” (JJII: 703, 809n50). A not-entirely disinterested recollection from a man whose letterhead read in 1960: “Dr. Jacob Schwartz, American University Library Agent: Modern Author Manuscript Collections.” Under this doubtful ægis Schwartz wrote to both Lucia and Giorgio Joyce in 1965, soliciting letters and Joyceana. With Lucia he carried on a brief correspondence in July (she thanked him for sending her £1) until a stern letter from F. Lionel Monro, acting as trustee of the Joyce Estate, dissuaded him.10 In October he wrote to Giorgio on behalf of the Joyce Society––or so he claimed––who

 

asked me to write to you and inquire if you would sell any Joyce material––as an entire library room at the University of New York will be devoted to Joyce and they are anxious to start as soon as possible to enrich it.. I was instructed to pay up to $100 Per Page for any letters of Joyce and similiar [sic] high prices for any other manuscript material.. This is an unheard of liberal offer and if it appeals to you, please let me hear soon. You will have the satisfaction of knowing that the material is preserved with reverence and adoration and future students will be inspired by it.11

 

Giorgio did not even bother to reply to the letter. Gleeful at having overreached the “gang of Capitalists” at Yale with his bid of $2,300 in the final-proofs auction in October ’51, Schwartz then went on to sell them less than a month later on 9 November to T. Edward Hanley for $4,300.12

The following year Schwartz published, at Hanley’s suggestion, “a brief pamphlet” reproducing several pages of the proofs, Joyce the Artificer, alongside commentary by Aldous Huxley, Stuart Gilbert and himself.13 In his foreword, “A Note on the Reproductions,” Schwartz claimed a legitimate provenance for the proofs, writing that the “head foreman printer was Mr. Buchwald [sic] who was acquainted with English […] Joyce eventually presented him with these Proofs, as a token for his immense toil and concern.” Schwartz mentions briefly Titus’ involvement but removes both himself and Davis in his account of the documents’ provenance (the note is authored by a shadowy “J. S.”). In his elliptical account not only does he misread Joyce’s “bon à tirer” signoff as the curious, not to mention barbarized, “bon tu est” but his statement that ‘Buchwald’ was head foreman is also erroneous.14 Darantiere’s foreman was Maurice Hirchwald, the only printer with a knowledge of English and the individual who occasionally ‘corrected’ Joyce’s copy.

As well as sending editions and manuscripts of Shaw, D.H. Lawrence, Joyce and Beckett on approval to Hanley, who made monthly payments against an ongoing account, Schwartz sold items and letters, in his capacity as “American University Library Agent,” to university libraries. With his account with Schwartz amounting to a considerable figure and incomes from his businesses falling, Hanley decided to sell his collection to Harry Ransom in 1958. Ransom was acting on behalf of the then one-year-old Harry Ransom Humanities Research Centre of the University of Texas at Austin. Schwartz’s hand is again at work, as he had primed Harry Ransom with manuscripts and letters to fire his interest in Joyce.15

 

One might ask why the final proofs were left in the Dijon works in the first place to be taken by Ronald Davis, the English bookdealer who had sold them on to Titus. Darantiere’s normal practice was, apparently, to send back marked proofs with the three copies of their subsequent setting. One might safely presume this to be standard practice: an author checks the latest proof against the version he has marked up to ensure that all corrections have been faithfully carried out. While Joyce does not seem to have bothered to make these comparisons, allowing instead the latest setting of the text to have authority, the majority of proofs ended up in Sylvia Beach’s possession regardless. The proofs which Joyce marked “bon à tirer,” signed and had Beach countersign, on the other hand, were never returned once their additions had been set. Perhaps Darantiere feared that Joyce would continue to augment any proofs that were sent to him. But for whatever reason, once the additions in the proof marked “bon à tirer” were set, neither the resultant setting nor the marked proof were returned to Beach. This leads to the issue of whether or not the Texas gatherings are truly the final proofs of Ulysses.16

 

One would expect the last setting of Gathering 15 (the fourth), for example, to comprise the material from the first line of (14 x 16) + 1 = p. 225 to the last of p. 240 of the 1922 edition, i.e. “Wandering Rocks”––“He checked his tale a moment but broke out in a wheezy laugh” to “two puckers stripped to their pelts” (U 10.0544–1132). The setting actually concludes with the words “a purse of fifty sovereigns” (U 10.1134), the prize contested by Keogh and Bennett. In the 1922 edition, these words occur on page 241 line 3. Clearly, the setting of additions made to the fourth version of Gathering 15 shunted these three lines of text onto the subsequent proof and, indeed, they are found on the third (and final) setting of Gathering 16. While the fifth setting of Gathering 15 may never have been pulled in proof, and instead was impressed on the linen paper stock and stitched into the first edition, among the proofs taken from the Dijon works are documents that Joyce probably never saw.

One such unsent proof is the final version of Gathering 10. Between 1–4 October 1921 Joyce received a sequence of page proofs––the third setting of Gatherings 7 to 13 (covering the end of “Hades” to halfway through “Scylla and Charybdis”). The gatherings containing the first half of “Lestrygonians”, 9 and 10, were returned and set by 7 October. A day or so later Joyce sent the following brief note to Darantiere:

 

La page 34 bis manqué

Inserez selon dépêche

         p. 146

         l. 16

apres “seagoose.” et avant “Wonder”

Swans from Anna Liffey ^<come> swim^ down here sometimes to preen themselves. No accounting for tastes (JJA 23.141).

 

The marked third setting had already been set. One of the printers took a single page from the fourth setting and added Joyce’s additions in by hand (JJA 23.142). This was then reset as the fifth setting of Gathering 10 (JJA 23.143).17 Joyce saw neither of these documents.

 

Using the page proofs-finder.

 

The following table prioritizes the page proofs as material documents and arranges them according to their placement in the Archive. Where the designation (and listing) departs from the Archive––and uses instead the corrections in Michael Groden (comp.), James Joyce’s Manuscripts: An Index (New York; London: Garland, 1980) or in Hans Walter Gabler’s “Proofreading” table in James Joyce, Ulysses: A Critical and Synoptic Edition. Eds. Hans Walter Gabler et al. Vol. 3. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1984), pp. 1913–15, or those made by the present editors––such proofs have been identified with footnotes in the gathering column. Individual documents are denoted by ‘PP’ followed by their Darantiere numeration and the setting number. To distinguish page proofs from placards, the setting is demarcated with an Arabic numeral. The entire range of each page proof is recorded below––both in terms of text covered (using Gabler’s line numbers) and Archive pagination. Click on the episode-specific line numbers to go to an individual page proof’s position in the episode-by-episode listing of all proofs. Information regarding when Joyce used a particular page proof can also be accessed from there.

 

 

Notes for the introduction.

 

 

1.         For a helpful discussion of material textuality in general and book-binding in particular, see D. C. Greetham, Textual Scholarship: An Introduction (New York; London: Garland, 1994).

 

2.         Buffalo XIV.3: Maurice Darantiere to Sylvia Beach; 18 April 1921. T. l. s.: 1l.

 

3.         The image is based on one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imposition. Accessed 11 September 2007.

 

4.         For the signature numbers see the facsimile editions James Joyce, Ulysses (Washington: Orchises Press, 1998), a facsimile of Roger Lathbury’s copy No. 784, or James Joyce, Ulysses (Connecticut: First Edition Library, 1992), a beautiful facsimile of copy No. 257. The third reproduction, James Joyce, Ulysses, Jeri Johnson, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), a reprint of copy No. 785, removes the signature numbers (one of the few modifications made for the reproduction).

 

5.         Jean-Michel Rabaté, “‘Thank Maurice’: A Note about Maurice Darantiere,” JSA 2 (1991), p. 245.

 

6.         See Luca Crispi’s forthcoming catalogue of the National Library of Ireland’s Joyce Papers for details of the Ulysses notebooks’ dates of compilation. Page [4r] of NLI 36,639/4 also contains the note sources of several of the “Aeolus” headlines.

 

7.         Private catalogue of Edward W. Titus in John Slocum and Herbert Cahoon, A Bibliography of James Joyce, 1882–1941 (London: Rupert Hart–Davis, 1953), p. 142.

 

8.         Richard Watson, “The Provenance of the Final Corrected Page Proofs of James Joyce’s Ulysses,” JSA 2 (1991), pp. 253–54. Letters between Sylvia Beach and Edward Titus are quoted in ibid.

 

9.         William S. Brockman, “Jacob Schwartz––‘The Fly in the Honey,’” JSA 9 (1998), pp. 174, 179, 181–85.

 

10.       Ibid. Watson, p. 256.

 

11.       The unpublished letter from Jacob Schwartz to Giorgio Joyce, dated 30 October 1965, is at the Zurich James Joyce Foundation. It is unlikely that Schwartz would have any connection with the James Joyce Society (if that is the body meant in his letter) considering that his old rival John Slocum was its first president.

 

12.       Schwartz cited in Brockman, p. 185.

 

13.       Hanley cited in Watson, p. 256.

 

14.       Jacob Schwartz, “A Note on the Reproductions,” Joyce The Artificer (Great Britain: Chiswick Press, 1952), p. [9]. Alongside proofs of Tales Told of Shem and Shaun the pamphlet reproduces a page from both the “Eumaeus” (JJA 27.126) and “Penelope” (JJA 27.245) page proofs.

 

15.       Brockman, pp. 180, 182.

 

16.       Joyce frequently countermanded his own “bon à tirer” by sending another marked copy of the same setting or instructions by letter to the printer.

 

17.       The Archive bundles both of these single pages in with the third version of Gathering 10.

 

Proof-finder: Page Proofs

 

Text 1986; 1922

Gathering

CSE Level

JJA

Marked Copies

Duplicates

1.0001–0516; [001].01–017.04

PP 1.1

2

22.002–018

Buffalo

1 Buffalo

1.0001–0512; [001].01–016.37  (1)

 

PP 1.2.a

PP 1.2.b

3

22.019–034

22.035–048

Buffalo

Buffalo

1 Buffalo

1.0001–0512; [001].01–016.37

PP 1.3

5

22.049–064

Texas

 

1.0516–0744 & 2.0001–0211;

017.04–030.01

PP 2.1

2 & 2

22.066–082

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

1.0513–0744 & 2.0001–0211;

017.01–030.01

PP 2.2

3 & 3

22.083–098

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

1.0513–0744 & 2.0001–0323;

017.01–032.37

PP 2.3

5 & 5

22.099–114

Texas

2 Buffalo

2.0212–0449 & 3.0001–0375;

030.02–047.06

PP 3.1

2 & 2

22.117–132

Buffalo

 

2.0212–0449 & 3.0001–0360;

030.02–046.28

PP 3.2

3 & 3

22.133–148

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

2.0324–0449 & 3.0001–0444;

033.01–048.37

PP 3.3

5 & 5

22.149–164

Texas

2 Buffalo

3.0375–0505 & 4.0001–0394;

047.06–063.24

PP 4.1

2 & 2

22.167–182

Buffalo

1 Buffalo

3.0360–0505 & 4.0001–0370;

046.29–062.37

PP 4.2.a

PP 4.2.b

3 & 3

22.183–198

22.199–214  (2)

Buffalo

Buffalo

1 Buffalo

3.0445–0505 & 4.0001–0441;

049.01–064.35

PP 4.3

5 & 5

22.215–230

Texas

2 Buffalo

4.0394–0551 & 5.0001–0406;

063.25–079.12

PP 5.1

2 & 2

22.232–248

Buffalo

1 Buffalo

4.0370–0551 & 5.0001–0292;

063.01–076.12   (3)

PP 5.2

3 & 3

22.249–264

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

4.0442–0551 & 5.0001–0483;

065.01–081.14

PP 5.3

5 & 5

22.265–280

Texas

2 Buffalo  (4)

4.0442–0551 & 5.0001–0470;

065.01–081.01  (5)

PP 5.4

6 & 6

22.281–312  (6)

Texas

 

Text 1986; 1922

Gathering

CSE Level

JJA

Marked Copies

Duplicates

5.0470–0572 & 6.0001–0325;

081.01–092.32  (7)

PP 6.1

5 & 3

22.315–330

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

5.0470–0572 & 6.0001–0485;

081.01–097.03

PP 6.2

6 & 4

22.331–346

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

5.0470–0572 & 6.0001–0484;

081.01–097.01

PP 6.3

7& 5

22.347–362

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

5.0470–0572 & 6.0001–0482;

081.01–096.37

PP 6.4

8 & 6

22.363–378

Texas

2 Buffalo

6.0486–1033 & 7.0001–0025;

097.04–112.22

PP 7.1

4 & 4

22.381–396 &

23.002

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

6.0484–1033 & 7.0001–0025;

097.02–112.22

PP 7.2

5 & 5

22.397–412 &

23.003

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

6.0483–1033 & 7.0001–0025;

097.01–112.22

PP 7.3

6 & 6

22.413–428 &

23.004

Texas

2 Buffalo

7.0026–0591; 113.01–129.23

PP 8.1

4

23.007–022

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

7.0026–0581; 113.01–129.14

PP 8.2

5

23.023–038

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

7.0026–0567; 113.01–128.32

PP 8.3

6

23.039–054

Texas

2 Buffalo

7.0592–1075 & 8.0001–0026;

129.24–144.25

PP 9.1

4 & 3

23.057–072

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

7.0582–1075 & 8.0001–0026;

129.15–144.25

PP 9.2

5 & 4

23.073–088

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

7.0567–1075 & 8.0001–0028;

129.01–144.26

PP 9.3

6 & 5

23.089–104

Texas

2 Buffalo

8.0027–0653; 144.26–161.13

PP 10.1

3

23.107–122

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

8.0027–0650; 144.26–161.10

PP 10.2

4

23.123–138

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

8.0028–0639; 145.01–160.37

PP 10.3

5

23.139–140,

     145–158

Texas

2 Buffalo

8.0079–0081; 146.16–17

PP 10.3+ (8)

6

23.141

Texas

 

8.0064–0102; 146.01–147.01

PP 10.4   (9)

6

23.142

Texas

 

8.0064–0101; 146.01–146.36

PP 10.5   (10)

7

23.143

Texas

 

8.0654–1193 & 9.0001–0064;

161.14–178.05

PP 11.1

3 & 3

23.161–176

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

8.0651–1193 & 9.0001–0064;

161.11–178.05

PP 11.2

4 & 4

23.177–192

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

8.0640–1193 & 9.0001–0026;

161.01–176.25

PP 11.3

5 & 5

23.193–208

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

8.0640–1193 & 9.0001–0026;

161.01–176.25

PP 11.4

 

6 & 6

 

23.209–224

 

Yale

 

2 Buffalo

8.0640–1193 & 9.0001–0026;

161.01–176.25

PP 11.5

7 & 7

23.225–240

Texas

2 Buffalo

Text 1986; 1922

Gathering

CSE Level

JJA

Marked Copies

Duplicates

9.0065–0662; 178.06–194.08

PP 12.1  (11)

3

23.259–274

Not available (12)

2 Buffalo

9.0065–0662; 178.06–194.08

PP 12.2 (13)

4

23.243–258

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

9.0027–0616; 177.01–192.37

PP 12.3 (14)

5

23.275–290

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

9.0027–0616; 177.01–192.37

PP 12.4 (15)

6

23.291–302,

     305–308

Texas

2 Buffalo

9.0439–0440; 188.10–188.11

PP 12.4+ (16)

6

23.303

Texas

 

9.0663–1225; 194.09–209.32

PP 13.1

3

23.311–326

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

9.0663–1225; 194.09–209.32

PP 13.2

4

23.327–342

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

9.0616–1192; 193.01–208.34

PP 13.3

5

23.343–358

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

9.0616–1192; 193.01–208.34

PP 13.4

6

23.359–362,

     365–376

Texas

2 Buffalo

9.0726; 196.02

PP 13.4+ (17)

6

23.363

Texas

 

10.0001–0598; 210.01–226.14

PP 14.1

3

24.003–018

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

10.0001–0598; 210.01–226.14

PP 14.2

4

24.019–034

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

9.1193–1225 & 10.0001–0544;

209.01–225.01

PP 14.3

5 & 5

23.379 &

24.035–050

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

9.1193–1225 & 10.0001–0543;

209.01–224.37

PP 14.4

6 & 6

23.380 &

24.051–066

Texas

2 Buffalo

10.0601–1198; 226.17–242.25

PP 15.1

3

24.069–084

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

10.0601–1198; 226.17–242.25

PP 15.2

4

24.085–100

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

10.0545–1135; 225.02–241.03

PP 15.3

5

24.101–116

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

10.0544–1135; 225.01–241.03

PP 15.4

6

24.117–132

Texas

2 Buffalo

10.1135–1282 & 11.0001–0447;

241.03–256.37

PP 16.1

5 & 3

24.135–150

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

10.1135–1282 & 11.0001–0447;

241.03–256.37

PP 16.2

6 & 4

24.151–166

Buffalo

2 Buffalo

10.1132–1282 & 11.0001–0447;

241.01–256.37

PP 16.3

7 & 5

24.167–182

Texas

2 Buffalo

11.0448–1058; 257.01–273.05 (18)

PP 17.1

3

24.185–200 &

N/A

Buffalo &

Rosenbach (19)

2 Princeton

1 Buffalo (20)

11.0448–1057; 257.01–273.04

PP 17.2

4

24.201–216

Buffalo

2 Princeton

11.0448–1053; 257.01–272.37

PP 17.3

5

24.217–232

Texas

1 Princeton

11.1058–1294 & 12.0001–0359;

273.06–289.20

PP 18.1

3 & 4

24.235–250 &

25.002–010

Buffalo

2 Princeton

11.1053–1294 & 12.0001–0358;

273.01–289.20

PP 18.2

4 & 5

24.251–266 &

25.012–020

Buffalo

2 Princeton

11.1053–1294 & 12.0001–0343;

273.01–289.05

PP 18.3

5 & 7

24.267–282 &

25.022–030

Texas

1 Princeton

Text 1986; 1922

Gathering

CSE Level

JJA

Marked Copies

Duplicates

12.0359–1011; 289.21–306.27

PP 19.1

4

25.033–048

Buffalo

2 Princeton

12.0358–1004; 289.20–306.20

PP 19.2

5

25.049–064

Buffalo

2 Princeton

12.0358–0977; 289.20–305.32

PP 19.3

6

25.065–080

Buffalo

2 Princeton

12.0343–0957; 289.06–305.13

PP 19.4

7

25.081–096

Not extant (21)

2 Princeton

12.0338–0950; 289.01–305.06

PP 19.5

8

25.097–102,

     105–114

Texas

2 Princeton

[various]

PP 19.5+ (22)

8

25.162

Texas

 

12.0566;

PP 19.5++ (23)

8

25.103

Texas

 

12.0907–0944; 304.01–304.37 (24)

PP 19.6   (25)

9

25.115–116

Texas

 

12.0958–1570; 305.14–321.20

PP 20.1   (26)

7

25.135–150

Princeton

1 Princeton

12.0951–1561; 305.07–321.12

PP 20.2   (27)

8

25.151–161,

     164–168

Texas

2 Princeton

[various]

PP 20.2+ (28)

8

25.163

Texas

 

12.0945–1549; 305.01–320.37

PP 20.3   (29)

9

25.119–134

Princeton

 

12.1562–1918 & 13.0001–0219;

321.13–336.37

PP 21.1

8 & 3

25.171–186

Texas

Princeton

13.0013, 0015; 331.13–331.14

PP 21.1+ (30)

none

 

Not extant

 

13.0220–0846; 337.01–353.12

PP 22.1

3

25.189–204

Buffalo

2 Princeton

13.0220–0840; 337.01–353.06

PP 22.2

4

25.205–221

Buffalo

1 Buffalo

1 Princeton

13.0220–0834; 337.01–352.37

PP 22.3

5

25.223–238

Texas

2 Princeton

13.0846–1306 & 14.0001–0147;

353.13–369.37

PP 23.1

3 & 3

25.241–256

Buffalo

2 Princeton

13.0840–1306 & 14.0001–0147;

353.07–369.37

PP 23.2

4 & 4

25.257–272

Buffalo

2 Princeton

13.0834–1306 & 14.0001–0108;

353.01–368.37

PP 23.3

5 & 5

25.273–288

Texas

2 Princeton

14.0147–0772; 370.01–386.02

PP 24.1

3

25.291–306

Buffalo

1 Princeton

14.0147–0771; 370.01–386.01

PP 24.2

4

25.307–322

Princeton

2 Princeton

14.0108–0730; 369.01–384.37

PP 24.3

5

25.323–338

Texas

2 Princeton

14.0771–1392; 386.02–401.37

PP 25.1

4

25.341–356

Texas

2 Princeton

14.1392–1591 & 15.0001–0299;

402.01–417.31

PP 26.1

4 & 4

25.359–364 &

26.003–018

Buffalo

2 Princeton

14.1353–1591 & 15.0001–0267;

401.01–416.29

PP 26.2

5 & 5

25.365–371 &

26.019–034

Texas

2 Princeton

15.0299–0750; 418.01–432.27 (31)

PP 27.1

4

26.037–052

Buffalo

2 Princeton

15.0268–0754; 417.01–432.31

PP 27.2

5

26.053–068

Texas

2 Princeton

15.0755–1260; 433.01–448.31

PP 28.1.a

PP 28.1.b

6

26.071–086

26.087–102

Texas

Texas

1 Princeton

15.1261–1794; 449.01–465.27

PP 29.1

6

26.105–120

Buffalo

2 Princeton

15.1261–1766; 449.01–464.30

PP 29.2

7

26.121–136

Texas

2 Princeton

15.1795–2327; 465.28–481.33

PP 30.1

6

26.139–154

Buffalo

2 Princeton

15.1767–2293; 465.01–480.32

PP 30.2.a

PP 30.2.b

7

26.155–170

26.171–186

Texas

Buffalo (32)

1 Princeton

15.2328–2849; 482.01–498.11

PP 31.1

6

26.189–204

Buffalo

2 Princeton

15.2294–2820; 481.01–497.14

PP 31.2

7

26.205–209,

     212–222

Texas

2 Princeton

15.2449; 485.18

PP 31.2+ (33)

7

26.210

Texas

 

15.2806–3342; 497.01–512.31

PP 32.1

8

26.225–240

Buffalo

2 Princeton

15.2806–3342; 497.01–512.31

PP 32.2

9

26.241–256

Texas

2 Princeton

15.3343–3845; 513.01–529.14

PP 33.1

8

26.259–274

Texas

2 Princeton

15.3832–4332; 529.01–544.33

PP 34.1

9

26.277–292

Texas

2 Princeton

Text 1986; 1922

Gathering

CSE Level

JJA

Marked Copies

Duplicates

15.4333–4871; 545.01–562.17

PP 35.1

9

26.295–310

Buffalo

2 Princeton

15.4333–4845; 545.01–561.21

PP 35.2

10

26.311–326

Texas

2 Princeton

15.4872–4967 & 16.0001–0424;

562.18–580.07

PP 36.1

9 & 3

 

26.329–331 &

27.003–018

Buffalo

 

2 Princeton

 

15.4846–4967; 561.22–565.20

 

PP 36.2   (34)

10

26.333–336 &

27.019–022

Buffalo

2 Princeton

15.4846–4967 & 16.0001–0390;

561.22–579.10

 

PP 36.3.a (35)

 

PP 36.3.b

11 & 4

 

11 & 4 (37)

26.337–340 &

27.023–038

27.039–054

Texas (36)

 

Texas

1 Princeton

15.4825–4845; 561.01–561.21

PP 36.4   (38)

none

26.327

Texas

 

16.0424–1071; 580.08–597.13

PP 37.1

3

27.057–072

Buffalo

2 Princeton

16.0391–1020; 579.11–595.37

PP 37.2

4

27.079–094

Texas

2 Princeton

16.0302–0390; 577.01–579.10

PP 37.3   (39)

5

27.073–078

Texas

2 Princeton

16.1071–1743; 597.13–614.34

PP 38.1

3

27.097–112

Buffalo

2 Princeton

16.1021–1654; 596.01–612.20

PP 38.2

4

27.113–128

Texas

2 Princeton

16.1655–1894 & 17.0001–0319;

612.21–628.15

PP 39.1

4 & 3

27.131–146

Texas

2 Princeton

16.1634–1654; 612.01–612.20

PP 39.2   (40)

5

27.129

Texas

 

17.0320–0831; 628.16–644.20

PP 40.1

3

27.149–164

Texas

2 Princeton

17.0832–1401; 645.01–662.07

PP 41.1

3

27.167–182

Texas

2 Princeton

17.1401–1996; 662.08–679.17

PP 42.1

3

27.185–200

Texas

2 Princeton

17.1996–2332 & 18.0001–0223;

679.18–696.05

PP 43.1.a

PP 43.1.b

3 & 5

27.203–218

27.219–234

Texas

Texas

 

17.2058; 681.11

PP 43.1.a+ (41)

3

 

Not extant

 

18.0223–0877; 696.06–713.14

PP 44.1

5

27.237–252

Texas

 

18.0877–1517; 713.15–730.06

PP 45.1

5

27.255–272

Texas

 

18.1517–1611; 730.07–733.07

PP 46.1

5

27.275–278

Texas

 

18.1473–1611; 729.01–733.07

PP 46.2

none

27.279–286

Buffalo

 

 

 

 

1.         The printer did not make the single revision Joyce indicated on this copy of the setting and so Joyce repeats it on PP 1.3 (compare JJA 22.34 and 22.64).

2.         “Placard VII” is written in the hand of a printer on the top of p. 51 (JJA 22.201). The instruction refers to the switch back to placards from page proofs.

3.         “Placard IX” is written in the hand of a printer on the top of p. 67 (JJA 22.251). The instruction refers to the switch back to placards from page proofs.   

4.         Michael Groden (comp.), James Joyce’s Manuscripts: An Index (New York; London: Garland, 1980), p. 163.

5.         The final word of text on the proof––“I”––is boxed off on PP 5.4 and written in hand on the first line of the next gathering, PP 6.2. With this change made, Gathering 5 ends at 080.37.

6.         PP 5.4 appears on the odd-numbered pages of the Archive reproduction. The document at Texas comprises sixteen loose pages printed on one side only. Instead of printing a sheet on both sides, two sheets were printed on one side only, folded and opened.

7.         To judge from the line numbers, it appears that PP 6.1 does not follow directly on from PP 5.3. However, the first page of PP 6.1 has had a fragment of paper, measuring 13.0 x 5.7 cm, physically attached onto it (JJA 22.315). The original first line of the setting was “Poisons the ouly [sic] cure” (U 5.483, 081.14) which does indeed follow directly from PP 5.3’s last line “Clogs the pores or the phlegm” (U 5.483, 081.14). The fragment of paper attached to the proof extends the material covered to include U 5.471–483, 081.01–14. These twelve lines of text, as they appear on the attached paper, are a resetting of the marked-up end of Placard XI, which include the corrections and additions indicated on that placard. There is also some additional (now illegible) pencil writing beneath this additional proof. On 15 September 1921, Darantiere sent Joyce this additional text to coordinate the text between Placard XI and Gathering 6.

The last four pages of the gathering are blank.

8.         PP 10.3+ is a holograph letter from Joyce to Darantiere indicating an addition on Gathering 10. PP 10.3 was marked Bon à tirer, signed by Joyce and countersigned by Beach. Before the material was set Joyce sent a letter to the printers––sometime between 3–10 October (probably between 7–10 October). The letter reads:

 

La page 34 bis manqué

Inserez selon dépêche

            p. 146

            l. 16

apres “seagoose.” et avant “Wonder”

Swans from Anna Liffey ^<come> swim^ down here

sometimes to preen themselves. No accounting

for tastes. (JJA 23.141)

The letter arrived in time and Darantiere wrote “Attention! Montrer cette correction à Mr [d’Avout] avant de rouler” on the relevant page of PP 10.3 (JJA 23.140). The single page, with its PP 10.3 additions, was set and pulled and “SA”––Bernard d’Avout, perhaps?––copied Joyce’s addition onto it (JJA 23.142).

9.         PP 10.4 is a single page of proof and constitutes a resetting of the text of PP 10.3. The document is not recorded in the JJA. It is recorded by Gabler as “Lestrygonians” level 6 (see Ulysses: A Critical and Synoptic Edition 320.22–24 for the swan addition made to it). The single page was again pulled, incorporating the addition in “SA’s” hand and dated. This is PP 10.5 (pace the Archive) and Gabler level 7. Cf. Gathering 19.5 for “Cyclops” (JJA 25.97–116) and Gathering 30.2.b for “Circe” (JJA 26.171–186).

10.       This single page setting does not contain an Imprimerie but, as a reset of PP 10.4, must be PP 10.5. The Archive, perhaps following Texas’ material arrangement, places it with PP 10.3. Cf. Gabler’s treatment of PP 19.6 and PP 35.3.

11.       Groden Index, p. 163 corrects the order of the settings of PP 12 in volume 23. For PP 12.1, JJA 23.259–274, the Archive reproduces the unmarked Buffalo V.C.2, claiming, “Joyce’s corrected copy is not extant” (though see next note). Another duplicate is unreproduced.

12.       Since Groden Index the marked copy of PP 12.1 has surfaced. It originally disappeared after Sylvia Beach gave it to Irwin Swerdlow in 1945. She inscribed the document: “Proofs of ‘Ulysses,’ 1921, with corrections in Joyce’s handwriting | for Erwin [sic] Swerdlow from Sylvia Beach – Paris 1945”. Swerdlow, drafted into the United States Army, participated in the liberation of Paris in 1944. After earning a Ph.D. from Harvard he taught English at Dillard and Dartmouth colleges. PP 12.1 is item 43 in Glenn Horowitz, James Joyce: Books & Manuscripts (New York: Glenn Horowitz Bookseller, 1996), pp. 38–39, 100. The current location of the proof is not known.

13.       Groden Index, p. 163 corrects the order of the settings of PP 12 in volume 23. PP 12.2, JJA 23.243–258, has two unreproduced duplicates: Buffalo V.C.1––12b; V.C.2.

14.       Groden Index, p. 163 corrects the order of the settings of PP 12 in volume 23. PP 12.3 is JJA 23.275–290.

15.       Groden Index, p. 163 corrects the order of the settings of PP 12 in volume 23. PP 12.4 is JJA 23.291–302, 305–308.

16.       PP 12.4+ is a holograph letter from Joyce to Darantiere indicating an addition on Gathering 12. PP 12.4 was marked Bon à tirer, signed by Joyce and countersigned by Beach, and sent back to Darantiere (dated 12 October). A day or two after sending the proof Joyce sent a letter:

 

            Ajoutez si encore possible

p 188, l 11 après “commentator,” et avant “His”

de la ligne suivante imprimez “Mr

George Bernard Shaw. Nor should we

forget Mr Frank Harris.”

pour évites des enems les nomes sont

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

FRANK HARRIS (JJA 23.303)

The letter is dated 14.X.21 (by the printer, one assumes). It evidently arrived in time because Hirchwald copied the correction onto the Bon à tirer-ed proof PP 12.4 (JJA 23.302). Since the page and line number Joyce gives in his note are correct one assumes he was looking at an unmarked duplicate of PP 12.4. Rather than mark up a second pull of the same setting (as he did on several other occasions) he sent in the note containing his single addition. The text of that addition, however, is problematic. He instructs the printer to insert the name “Frank Harris” along with that of Shaw––yet “Mr Frank Harris” has been in the text of “Scylla and Charybdis” since at least the first setting in proof, Pl 21.i (JJA 18.177). The page and line numbers make clear that Joyce was using a PP 12.4 duplicate (the three earlier settings of Gathering 12 have Harris on either p. 187 or l. 10 of p. 188)––it seems, however, that either he misread the document or he is taking particular pains that the names are spelt correctly.

17.       PP 13.4+ is a holograph letter from Joyce to Darantiere indicating a number of revisions and additions on Gatherings 9, 11 and 13. PP 13.4 was marked Bon à tirer, signed by Joyce and countersigned by Beach. While the material was in transit (PP 13.4 is dated 12 October) Joyce sent a letter to the printers a day or two before 11 October. Letter reads:

 

            Changements à faire si les pages indiquées

ne sont pas déjà tirées.

            p. 196, l 2 au lieu de “stated” imprimez “capped”

            p 162, l 10 après la parole “foodlift” ajoutez avant

le point “across his stained square of

newspaper.”

            p. 13^<1>2^, l 26 au lieu de “Gray” mettez “Grey” (JJA 23.363)

The letter is dated “11.X.21” (by the printer, one assumes). Its three instructions refer to three different gatherings (for “Scylla and Charybdis”; “Lestrygonians” and “Aeolus”).

1. The marked-up PP 13.4 was received by the printers by 12 October. The change of “stated” to “capped” in “Buck Mulligan stated” was made on this proof by one of the printers.

2. The second instruction refers to PP 11.4 which Joyce and Beach had signed off between 7–11 October. A further setting was made, PP 11.5, to which Hirchwald added in Joyce’s addition by hand (JJA 23.226). The Imprimerie date is 12 October and the pull was sent to Joyce and Beach for a second Bon à tirer. The final printer’s date on the document is 14 October.

3. The third instruction refers to Gathering 9. Several weeks earlier, in late August, Joyce had made an addition on Pl 14.ii for the printer: “Gregor Gray made the design for it” (JJA 18.50). The October letter corrects “Gray” to “Grey,” the surname of an artist listed in Thom’s 1904––Don Gifford with Robert J. Seidman “Ulysses” Annotated: Notes for James Joyce’s “Ulysses.” 2nd ed., rev. and enl. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), p. 142––a change described as an authorial correction or revision at ‘a6’ of ‘a2’ in Gabler notation. PP 9.3 had already been marked Bon à tirer, returned and reset by 7 October. Rather than pull the gathering again and send it out to Joyce, the correction was made on this same document by a printer (JJA 23.092). Joyce obviously did not have PP 9.3 to hand when he wrote the note––the whole grounds of his writing to Darantiere––but he spotted the flaw while looking at PP 9.1. “Gray” appears on page 131, line 26 of the first setting of Gathering 9 (JJA 23.059). Perhaps it was then that he recalled the second setting because the change in page number from 131 to 132 matches with the appearance of “Gray” on PP 9.2 (though there it is on line 2 of page 132: JJA 23.076). One would imagine PP 9.2 was readily available when Joyce was writing the note––either the marked copy, assuming the ‘used up’ marked proofs were being returned to him, or a duplicate. Perhaps this second setting was simply overlooked.

18.       The first setting of “Cyclops” Placard 37 contains the draft text of some material for this setting of Gathering 17. In the upper border of the third page of the placard, Joyce’s draft of two elements appears (JJA 19.205). The second of these has not been identified, but the first is Joyce’s sketch for “Siopold” (now U 11.0751).

 

Lionel

                        Leopold

                        Simon                          <Richsiopold> Siopold

                        Richie

The second exclamation was added to “Sirens” on PP 17.1––at the same time Joyce was working on the placards of “Cyclops” (i.e. early October 1921). The relevant page of the “Sirens” proof is not reproduced in the Archive as it forms part of the Rosenbach Foundation’s holdings. See following note.

19.       Gathering 17.1 is divided between Buffalo and the Rosenbach Foundation. Pp. 257–260 and 269–272 are at Buffalo. Pp. 261–268 are at the Rosenbach Foundation. The Archive reproduces the unmarked pages of a duplicate in place of the Rosenbach portion (JJA 24.189–196). Page 266 of the marked proof (now the text of U 11.0791–0829) contains, as well as Joyce’s additions, a dedication written by Beach “a page proof […] for Sylvia with love from her aunt Sylvia” and an appended screed with Joyce’s signature. The page is reproduced in Michael Barsanti, “Ulysses” in Hand: The Rosenbach Manuscript (Philadelphia: Rosenbach Museum & Library, 2000), p. 41.

20.       This is a duplicate of Gathering 17.1 p. 259 only.

21.       It is not known if there was a marked set of this setting of Gathering 19 because no revisions or additions were made at this level.

22.       PP 19.5+ is the first leaf of a two-page holograph letter Hirchwald sent to Joyce. He writes requesting confirmation on a number of points in PP 19.5 (the first page) and PP 20.2 (the second page: see below). The letter, erroneously dated 10 October, was sent to Joyce with the two fifth-setting documents. The first page of the letter reads (with Joyce’s responses in bold):

 

289, l. 4. jivic rays?                                 Yes

            289, half-page: devanic circles?                 Yes

            290, l5 slidder off?                                 Yes

            291.––paragr in italics: Is the

            little i intentional? Is the punctu-

            ation as it should be?                             Yes

            293, l. 8 golloped (Yes) it down or galloped?

            294, bottom ^<page> line^ – no î at hand.

            294, l. 17: broadsheet is one word?         Yes

            297, l. 21. Maxwell ffrenchmullan

                                                double or single f? double: ff (minuscules)

            304, 2nd paragr.

                        Should the punctuation be left

as it stands? Would it not be better

to put a comma between the names

and the titles (William Delany, S. J.) and