II
During the Twenties, when Faulkner was developing and refining his
writing techniques, style, and his literary aesthetic, and throughout his full
maturation as an uncompromisingly original artist in the Thirties, it was his
habit first to compose his prose in longhand, almost always printing with
fountain pen, in lettering so minute as to be illegible to almost all but
himself.
Generally, it would require three pages of typescript to incorporate one
page
of handwritten manuscript. Then, Faulkner would transcribe his first draft
to
a typescript, which almost unfailingly he would subject to rigorous revision,
some being done on the typewriter, some in holograph outside the margins
as well as interlineally. Finally, he would retype that draft into a clean,
presentable typescript.
Unfortunately for The Wishing Tree, neither an original
holograph manuscript of presumably fifteen or sixteen pages, nor any of
what surely could have been at least two early, successively-revised
typescript drafts antecedent to the 47-page typescript which Faulkner gave
to Margaret Brown in 1927, have survived. Yet, we must not discount the
probability of this hypothetical
sequence of composition: the 47-page "Brown" carbon typescript, with its
companion second manifold carbon and ribbon copies which Faulkner
kept,
[14] is far too polished and
complete to
have come into existence without precursory drafts. In fact, Faulkner had
interpolated into the "Brown" typescript only one brief piece of dialogue on
page "13" ("What is it?" Daphne asked), which, from context, is obviously
a
forgotten retort necessary to the flow, not a newly-conceived rejoinder.
And,
although Faulkner's holographic ink corrections, consisting of sporadic and
seemingly arbitrary additions of apostrophes and quotation marks, as well
as
numerous typographical corrections, evidence a rereading of the typescript,
they appear far from comprehensive in their proofing. In no way do they
contribute to the inclusion of any new substantive matter.
Furthermore, there is little doubt that either the ribbon copy of the
"Brown" typescript or the first of the two carbon copies (the corrected one
given to Margaret Brown) served as the one from which at least two
additional copies were retyped: matching ribbon and carbon texts which
managed to economize forty-seven pages into forty-three pages,[15] while retaining the exact text of
the "Brown"
copy, as well as incorporating virtually all of Faulkner's holographic
emendations and his single addition of dialogue on page "13." That both
ribbon and carbon copies of this 43-page retype remained together in
Faulkner's personal possession until their final disposition as part of the
materials placed on permanent deposit at the Alderman Library of the
University of Virginia, can most likely be explained by the apparent
carelessness in retyping them. Page "10" of the carbon copy is missing;
however, page "10" of the ribbon copy, although extant within the
proper sequence of pages, is marred to the extent of carrying on its verso
a
duplicate
of its recto text: this obviously happened when the typist placed the carbon
paper ink-side up, rather than face-down between the two sheets to be
typed. In addition, page "25" is completely missing from both the ribbon
and
carbon copies of this 43-page typescript. The text lacking from this missing
page corresponds to the text on page "27" of the "Brown" copy. It appears
that in completing "Brown" page "26," the typist repeated the page number
("Brown" "26") at the foot of what sequentially should have been page "24"
of the retype in progress; then, for whatever reason, he or she skipped
completely "Brown" page "27," and began again with "Brown" page "28."
The page, intact and identical, became page "26" of the 43-page retype.
Then, the typist went back and in ink changed the first mistaken number
("26") to page "24." But, page "25" of the retype, which should have
corresponded exactly in text to "Brown" page "27," never got retyped and
inserted into the 43-page
sequence. Finally, although the pagination runs consecutively from page
"26-43," there is the equivalent of a complete page of the "Brown"
manuscript (page "44") omitted between pages "40-41."
Although there is little doubt that the 47-page ribbon and its two
carbon
copies of the "Brown" text followed a preexisting, non-extant typescript, or
that the 43-page ribbon and carbon copies were typed from one of the
47-page copies, there is uncertainty as to whom the typist might have been
for either or both these sets of typescripts. In Faulkner: A
Biography
(1974), Joseph Blotner (pp. 431-432) documents the fact that during the
period Faulkner was writing Soldiers' Pay and
Mosquitoes,
both composed and published within the same time-frame (1925-1927),
Faulkner would customarily submit his work to others for typing and
proof-reading. Mostly, these assistants were secretaries in Phil Stone's law
office. There is more than a suggestion that at least the 47-page copies and
most likely the 43-page copies may have been handled in this manner. The
three 47-page "Brown" typescripts repeat "William Faulkner," followed by
"The Wishing-Tree," across the top of
each sheet; neither was this one of Faulkner's typing characteristics, nor
does
this format appear on any of the manuscripts whose typing can be clearly
attributed to Faulkner himself from around this same period. Rather, this
seems more to be in the nature of a convention congenial to the legal
profession. Additionally, it was not Faulkner's habit to make three copies
of
any of his typescripts; conversely, this was a common legal procedure.
Furthermore, with hindsight to inform us of Faulkner's easy access to his
friend's, Stone's, good will in terms of providing professional services in
those early years of Faulkner's writing career, it seems most likely that
Faulkner could have submitted at least one, possibly both tedious and
perfunctory jobs to Stone's modest "typing pool" for processing.
And, if this were the case, it might plausibly allow for the following
explanation as to how the version of The Wishing Tree
Faulkner
gave to Victoria Franklin at about the same time in February, 1927, could
have developed. First, let us assume that Faulkner had conceived the story,
The Wishing-Tree, as a tribute to Margaret Brown, as he
himself
stated at the time he presented it to her, and reiterated in his letter to
Bennett
Cerf in November,
1959. Possibly, with completion of the clean 47-page typescript, the carbon
of which he intended to and subsequently did give to Margaret Brown,
Faulkner also realized that he might have another suitable occasion and
recipient for his story. Acknowledging the fact that he would need to retain
a
complete copy for his files, the ribbon copy (apparently the second carbon
copy was incomplete from the outset), Faulkner yet may have relinquished
it
to Phil Stone for retyping, with the notion of using one of the two
newly-retyped copies to give to Victoria Franklin whose birthday was
fast-approaching. Possibly, while what became the 43-page copies were
being retyped, or even after both new copies were returned to him in a
manner made seemingly unpresentable because of their problems with pages
"10," "25," and "40-41," Faulkner thought better of his earlier notion of
presenting both children with virtually identical gifts.
Acting on this "ethical" consideration, Faulkner indeed may have
returned to the typescript from which his clean 47-page text had originally
been typed to make revisions extensive enough not only to satisfy his own
artistic sensibility, but to assuage his sense of moral integrity. Either from
this nonextant text or from another which apparently has not survived, it
seems certain that Faulkner personally did retype into a "single mss.
impression" the specially-bound gift booklet which he gave to Victoria
Franklin. Also, it is virtually certain that Faulkner could not have possibly
typed the "Victoria" copy from one of the "Brown" typescripts, because far
too many major stylistic, as well as substantive variations, exist between the
two for Faulkner to have transposed the alterations in his head and
transcribed them intact onto the off-sized booklet pages of the "Victoria"
copy; certainly not with so few typographical or punctuation flaws as are
in
evidence.
Finally, whether the major energy Faulkner expended to fashion the
"Victoria" version of The Wishing Tree into existence was
the result
of his natural, self-induced tendency to continue revising his prose, or
whether it had been motivated by his determination to create a different gift
for her, must remain a matter of scholarly conjecture. There is little doubt
that both extant versions are distinct and complete unto themselves. In point
of fact, both stories have different titles: the one he presented to Margaret
Brown is unequivocally called The Wishing-Tree, its
idiosyncratic
hyphenation carrying through in each reference within the story itself. The
"Victoria" copy, lacking the hyphen, with one exception,[16] is entitled The Wishing
Tree with
similar consistency throughout its text. And, significantly, Faulkner has
given
his main female protagonist different names: in the "Brown" version, she
is
referred to as Daphne; in the
"Victoria" version, she is called Dulcie, as though
to insure separate fictional identities with whom each of his recipients, if
she
so desired, might identify.
Moreover, by internally comparing the texts of both extant versions
of
The Wishing Tree, the "Victoria" version in its original
typescript,
and the "Brown" version as manifested in its most recent, though virtually
unchanged, incarnation, the Philip Stone copy of 1948, this distinctiveness
between the versions becomes all the more consequential.
