University of Virginia Library

Notes on the Text of T. S. Eliot: Variants from Russell Square
by
Robert L. Beare [*]

ON THE LAST DAY OF THIS SYMPOSIUM[**] THERE should be a special pièce-de-resistance for the audience, but I see no way of finding one. It cannot be proved bibliographically that a previously unknown strophe of "Prufrock" was printed as part of a poem by Vachel Lindsay in a careless compositor's moment of indulgence, nor that "The Waste Land" was in actuality a copybook exercise for Smith Academy with our present text being a reported version of foul copy. But there are compensations for this: 'Significance' being defined in my small dictionary in such a fashion that we can discuss the importance of a thing, its expressiveness, the inference to be drawn from it, and even the reason why a thing is not void of meaning. We might, therefore, be able to spend some time upon the absence of textual variants, assuming that there were none, for that might also be of some significance. Rather than the grand gesture, the spectacular change, the fluctuations which are to be found in Eliot's works, sometimes in generous fashion, represent to me the problems in textual analysis which we find most frequently and which are most difficult to deal with.

Sometime ago I had occasion to quote from Thomas A Becket's speech as he first enters: "Peace. And let them be, in their exaltation".

I looked it up in an English copy of Murder in the Cathedral and found that these lines read as follows: instead of the reading half-familiar to me: Although the change seemed quite clearly related to Aristotle's discussion of the performance of just actions, it led me to compare other parts of this play and then the rest of Eliot's work. As time went on, a sizeable collection of variants, although with no special regard to significance, piled up. It was somewhat startling because of the contrast to the mental image of a fastidious, precise, hard-working author, who was also in the fortunate position of being a member of the firm which published his books. That they exist at all, then, may be their prime significance. Since they are present, let us try to examine the various stages of his work in which they exist.

There may be those fortunate authors whose works are written in a beautiful Renaissance hand in one draft without a single change. But for most writers composition can be a rather painful business. From all that Eliot has said, the writing of poetry is a time-consuming effort. Most of the poems have required more than one draft, while the plays, according to an interview in the newspaper, have taken three drafts, or more: one being for the idea of the play, one aimed at the mechanics of stage production, and one in which the effort was devoted to polishing the lines. Some scenes from the plays and some of the poems, undoubtedly, required more drafts and some less. Of the poems, "Marina" represents one of the best examples of the evolution of the poem from the first draft, in this case a pencil holograph, through later typescripts to the proof copies and the published version.[2] Not all of the poems and the plays have holographs for their first drafts.

In the earlier stages of "Marina" we find nothing which would

change the published text, but we do have an interesting insight into Eliot's composition. The first few lines read in the manuscript: In the typescripts and proof copies they run: The final published version shows one further change in the deletion of "And reform around—". Here we see clearly a tendency which is also visible in some of the published texts from printing to printing: the elimination of punctuation and the deletion of words and phrases to achieve concentration. The next lines are also interesting. In the holograph there are minor changes in phrasing and a different order: In the first typescript we find the order and phrasing of the published version: Between the first and the second typescript there are only minor differences, the second being basically a clean copy of the first. Mr. Eliot notes that from the beginning there has been an inaccuracy in the text at this point, for "stye" should be "sty", thus eliminating some possible untoward associations.[3] As late as the proof copies there is an extra line, following line 20. Between the holograph and the typescripts the extra line was rephrased and was finally deleted only in the published form as an Ariel poem. Somewhat the same picture is true of other typescripts I have seen, and leads me to the general statement that the poems and plays appear in a form nearest the author's intention in the final copies offered for public sale. The study, therefore, of the stages of a poem or play which precede publication are of interest and significance for the genesis of the poem rather than as a check of its final published form.

Even periodical publication, I feel, does not, therefore, necessarily reflect the final form of a poem. To make this clear, let us take "Difficulties of a Statesman" from the unfinished sequence, "Coriolan". This was published first in Commerce, (XXIX, Hiver 1931/32), and then in Hound and Horn, (VI, Oct./Dec., 1932). It next appeared in the Faber Book of Modern Verse, edited by Michael Roberts (February, 1936) and then in the Faber Collected Poems 1909-1935 (April, 1936). Line 26 appeared in P1 as "Fireflies flare against the faint sheet lightning in nights of July." In P2 and A1 it appears as "Fireflies flare against the faint sheet lightning," and again in the Collected Poems in this latter form but without the comma at the end of the line. In P1,2 and A1 line 36 reads: "O mother (not one of these busts all correctly inscribed)". In the Collected Poems 1909-1935 the line has been changed: "O mother (not among these busts, all correctly inscribed)". Line 42 has a comma following 'impetrations' in P1 and B1 but not in P2 and A1. Again in line 49, in the first three appearances, we find a difference in the phrasing when compared to the last appearance: "The small creatures chirp thinly through the dust, in the night." becoming "The small creatures chirp thinly through the dust, through the night.". Two further examples may be of interest. In periodical publication the line from "East Coker," "That will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere." formerly read, "That will not leave us, but torments us everywhere." In the first part of "Little Gidding" there is an interesting example of deletion between the periodical publication and the publication in pamphlet form:

This is again an example of the deletion of material to achieve concentration. But, you may ask then, where are the problems, if the publication in book form would seem to represent the author's final text? Publication in book form and subsequent appearances in other editions by no means excludes textual problems and may multiply them.

To complicate matters a little further there are the possibilities of further changes between re-impressions of the same edition. As far as can be judged upon the basis of various impressions of Eliot's works, the printers print from type and not plates. This means that we must restrict ourselves to the first impression of any given edition and that each re-impression may show variations. There are cases of dropped letters, attrition of punctuation, and even of meaningless correction in later printings of the Collected Poems 1909-1935 and the plays.[5] If current sheets were used for the printer's copy for a new edition, these faulty exemplars could lead to further discrepancies. On the other hand this practice also gives room for authoritative alterations in the texts between various re-impressions of the same edition. There are two striking examples of such variation in the poems. At approximately the third impression of Four Quartets we find the alteration of 'hermit crab' to 'horseshoe crab' in "The Dry Salvages".[6] In the Collected Poems at about the fifth impression there is the change of the line 'And reconciles forgotten wars.' in "Burnt Norton" to 'Appeasing long forgotten wars.' to harmonize the text with that printed in the Faber Four Quartets. Neither of these changes is to be found in the American editions.

Since we have a lot of ground to cover, I would like to take two examples, "Portrait of A Lady" and "Whispers of Immortality", to show in detail the fluctuations between the various editions down through the Collected Poems 1909-1935. The most trivial variants are included so that we may see the maximum range of fluctuation. From other poems examples of variants will be given in less detail. "Portrait of A Lady" appeared as follows:

• P1. Others, I, 3 (Sept., 1915), 35-40.
• A1. Catholic Anthology (1915), 9-15.
• A2. Others An Anthology (1916), 33-38.

---

26




• B1. Prufrock (1917), 17-23.
• B2. Ara Vos Prec (1920), 38-42.
• B3. Poems (Knopf, 1920), 43-47.
• B4. Poems 1909-1925 (Faber, 1925), 15-20.
• B5. Poems 1909-1925 (Faber Library, 1932), 20-27.
• B6. Collected Poems 1909-1935 (Faber, 1936), 16-20.

In these nine appearances there appear the following variants:

• 3. for you &c.rat;" P1, A2 ∥ for you"; A1, B+
• 4. room &c.rat; P1, A2 ∥ room, A1, B+
• 5. overhead &c.rat; P1, A2 ∥ overhead, A1, B+
• 6. Juliet's tomb, A1 ∥ Juliet's tomb &c.rat; P1, A2, B+
• 7/8. strophe division P1, A+ ∥ none B+
• 14. &c.rat; And so A1 ∥ —And so P1, A2, B+
• 15. regrets, A1 ∥ regrets ∥ P1, A2, B+
• 18. And begins &c.rat; P1, A2 ∥ And begins: A1 ∥ And begins. B+
• 18/19. strophe division A1, B1 ∥ none A2, B4+ ∥ uncertain P1, B2,3
• 21. odds and ends &c.rat; P1, A+ ∥ odds and ends, B+
• 28/29. strophe division, P1, A+, B6 ∥ none B1,2,3,4, ∥ uncertain B5
• 31. cornets, A1 ∥ cornets &c.rat; P1, A2, B+
• 36. &c.rat; Let us A1 ∥ —Let us P1, A2, B+
• 37. monuments &c.rat; B1,2,3 ∥ monuments, P1, A+, B4+
• 43. twists them in her fingers B2 ∥ twists one in her fingers P1, A, B1, B3+
• 44. Ah &c.rat; my friend P1, A2 ∥ Ah, my friend A1, B+
• 45. in your hands;—" P1, A2 ∥ in your hands;" A1, B+
• 47. flow &c.rat; B2 ∥ flow," P1, A+, B1,3+
• 49. cannot see &c.rat; B2 ∥ cannot see." P1, A+, B1,3+
• 63/64. strophe division A1, B1,2,3 ∥ uncertain A2 ∥ none P1, B4+
• 70/71. strophe division P1, A2, B2 ∥ none A1, B4+ ∥ uncertain B1,3
• 80. common song, A1 ∥ common song &c.rat; P1, A2, B+
• 85. ill at ease, A1 ∥ ill at ease &c.rat; P1, A2, B+
• 86. door, A1 ∥ door &c.rat; P1, A2, B+
• 87/88. strophe division P1, A2, B1,2,3 ∥ none B5+ ∥ uncertain B4
• 92. bric-a-brac. P1, A+ ∥ bric-à-brac. B+
• 95/96. strophe division B4 ∥ none P1, A+, B1,2,5+
• 108. one line strophe B2 ∥ none P1, A+, B1,3+
• 108/109. strophe division P1, A+, B1,2,3,4 ∥ none B6 ∥ uncertain B5
• 113. tobacco trance. A1 ∥ tobacco trance— P1, A2, B+
• 113/114. strophe division P1, A+, B5,6 ∥ none B3,4 ∥ uncertain B1,2
• 117. house tops; P1, A+ ∥ house-tops; B+
• 118. Doubtful, for quite a while P1, A+, B1,2,3 ∥ Doubtful, for a while B4+
• 119. I understand, A1 ∥ I understand &c.rat; P1, A2, B+

The variants show clearly that A2 is an uncorrected reprint of P1 and that the text of B2 is also a reprint of B1 into which errors have crept. It is somewhat more difficult to tell whether the great number of variants in A1 are the result of Pound's editing the text for publication in his anthology or are changes later rejected again by the author. The greatest fluctuation has been in strophe divisions and this is a problem with many of the poems. Whether the change in wording by the deletion of 'quite' in line 118 is important or not can only be determined by the emotional weight attached by a reader to the implied difference in time.

The next example "Whispers of Immortality," is of some interest, for Empson uses it as an example of an ambiguity of the second type, basing his interpretation in part upon only one of the three punctuations for the lines he discusses.[7] This poem appeared as follows:

• P1. Little Review, V,5 (September, 1918), 11-12
• B1. Poems (Hogarth Press, 1919).
• B2. Ara Vos Prec (1920), 21.
• B3. Poems (Knopf, 1920), 31-32.
• B4. Poems 1909-1925 (Faber, 1925), 57-58.
• B5. Poems 1909-1925 (Faber Library, 1932), 72-74.
• B6. Collected Poems 1909-1935 (Faber 1936), 53-54.

There are no variations in the form of the poem, because of the regular strophes. Instead we have fluctuations in punctuation and changes in phrasing:

• 3. underground B1 ∥ under ground P1, B2+
• 10. for sense&c.rat; P1, B1,2 ∥ for sense; B3,4,5 ∥ for sense, B6
• 11. and penetrate, P1, B1,2,3,4,5 ∥ and penetrate; B6
• 12. beyond experience&c.rat; P1, B1,2 ∥ beyond experience, B3+
• 17. Grishkin is nice; P1, B1,2 ∥ Grishkin is nice: B3+
• 24. a maisonette: P1, B1,2 ∥ a maisonette; B3+
• 25. The sleek and sinuous jaguar P1, B1,2 ∥ The sleek Brazilian jaguar B3+
• 26. in his arboreal gloom P1, B1,2 ∥ in its arboreal gloom B3+
• 29. And even abstracter entities P1, B1,2 ∥ And even the Abstract Entities B3+
• 32. To keep its metaphysics warm P1, B1,2 ∥ To keep our B3+

It is clear that the poem was completely revised for the Knopf edition in 1920, but that the revision only complicated the problem of punctuation for lines 10-12. Empson discusses the poem in terms of two possibilities of syntax and says that the less obvious grammar is insisted upon by the punctuation. However, he bases his analysis upon the punctuation of B3-5 which was altered in 1936 in B6. The natural voice phrasing of the lines would require the pause after 'penetrates' and the punctuation of the first appearance or the last appearance would be feasible, but not the intervening stage. The problem of punctuation, whether here or in the works of other authors, constitutes a major difficulty in analyzing texts, for a punctuation sign can affect the interpretation considerably. In the case of Eliot's works the presence or absence of punctuation varies as the mode of writing varies, so that we cannot deduce any over-all rule which could be a guide for us in studying his works.

Of all the poems preceding "The Waste Land" there are exactly two which show no changes of any sort in their texts, but even so the epigraph of one of these poems was altered slightly. We find a number of variants in the other poems, ranging from what seems to be editorial alteration to the purely typographical problem of French accents. "He laughed like an irresponsible foetus" did not appear in "Mr. Apollinax" when it was first printed in Poetry. From some of Pound's letters criticizing the editor of Poetry it seems quite possible that here we have a case of editorial deletion. "Conversation Galante", the earliest of the poems in Eliot's various collections, provides an example of how an error in wording can creep into a poem and persist. "With your air indifferent and imperious" read from 1920 until 1936 "With your aid. . ." and in the context the error still made some kind of sense. Quite an interesting case of variants is provided by "Rhapsody on a Windy Night" where we find slightly changes in phrasing in each appearance through Poems 1909-1925. The first change, between Blast and Prufrock, is clearly from the author: "Dissolve the floors of [the] memory" where the second 'the' is deleted. In Ara Vos Prec the "hand of a child" becomes the "hand of the child". The third change comes in Poems 1909-1925. Originally the moon twisted a paper rose, "That smells of dust and old cologne" and then the line ended with a period. In the next stage we find 'old Cologne' and the line ends with a comma, and finally it becomes "dust and eau de Cologne", still ending with a comma. This last change can hardly be attributed to a printer, but it was pointed out to me by a friend in the printing business that the change could have come from oral proofreading rather than from the author.[8] Reflection upon this and other variants leads me to the feeling

that bibliographical studies of modern authors might require some investigation of who read proof and how it was read.

In "Dans Le Restaurant" we find examples of almost every type of variant, but there is one particular example to which I would like to draw attention. In the line beginning, "Elle était toute mouillée, . . ." we find that the first two words were originally printed correctly with the accent only on 'était' and then later we find them printed without any accents. From 1925 to date there are accents on both words: "Ellé était". Such points as these may be useful in tracing the relationships between editions and the way sheets are used for the preparation of succeeding editions. In Poems 1909-1925 we also have, in a later line, another mistake: "vautur". When the volume was reset in 1932 we find that this error had been corrected, although the point referred to above remained unchanged. From this and other places we can see that corrections or alterations are made generally only at those points to which attention has been called and that otherwise a mistake may persist through several editions. "Gerontion" has been treated fully, although without reference to fluctuations in strophe division, by William Marshall in Studies in Bibliography and his investigation of this poem shows the same general pattern of fluctuations as all the other poems.[9] However, in the light of his article, we are faced with an almost insoluble problem. Eliot, in examining a composite text of "Gerontion," checked in two places the punctuation of the first appearance in Ara Vos Prec as being correct. The particular punctuations he designated in these two lines as being correct have never appeared again in any later printing of the poem. This would mean then that any other poem is potentially correct at some point only in the reading of the first printing. It is clear that this situation is not always true, but there are enough places where the punctuation of the first appearance makes good sense and could be correct so that we cannot be sure which variant actually reflects the author's intention.

We should say something also about the relationship between the earlier editions and some problems which we find there. Prufrock consists of three gatherings, A4 B-C8, and appears to be fairly carefully printed. The author seems to have gone through the texts of the poems for this edition when we compare them with the magazine appearances. There are some fluctuations in the physical size of the book which are of no significance as far as can be told. Poems 1919 is printed in one gathering of eights and reprints the poems, on the whole, from the texts of their periodical appearances. In "Lune de Miel" there are

two changes partway through the printing: 'capitaux' to 'chapitaux' and 'aestivale' to 'estivale'. In the bibliography of Eliot by Donald Gallup these two states are differentiated by the label, the copies with the error bearing white labels printed in red and corrected copies white labels printed in black.[10] I have seen, however, one copy with the error and a label imprinted in black, so that the relation of the text variants to the binding operation, as marked by the different labels, is not exact. We should, therefore, distinguish the states of the text without concern for the labels. This is one of the books where a large number of copies should be collated.

Ara Vos Prec is another volume where a large number of copies should be collated. It is printed in gatherings of fours: i 2 [A]4 B4 [C]-[D]4 E-G4 [H]2. Pagination is lacking on a number of pages in an irregular sequence; the position of two poems is falsely indicated in the table of "Contents"; and there are other typographical details which indicate that there was something unusual in the printing of this book. It is an elaborate and, let us be honest, rather tasteless and badly printed volume. It shows poor impressions of the forms on a number of pages accompanied by instances of broken, blurred, and partly inked type. Here is the perfect example of the difficulty of using photographic reproductions to determine something of the make-up and text of a book. At several points in my copy there are either letters in a word or punctuation marks which are visible by close inspection but only because of the strong uninked impression made into the paper. Most of the variants appear to be errors and one's first impression is that the book should be discarded from consideration. But it is the first appearance in book form of six poems, and we have already noted in "Gerontion" there may be points in the six new poems where the text is substantive.

The first commercial appearance and the first American appearance in book form of Eliot's poems, other than "Portrait of A Lady," came in 1920 with the publication of Poems by Knopf. Donald Gallup, in his bibliography, treats this edition as simply the American edition of Ara Vos Prec, commenting that "the contents are identical with those of Ara Vos Prec, with the exception that 'Hysteria' is substituted for 'Ode' and 'Le Spectateur' is printed as 'Le Directeur'". In addition the spelling of 'Apollinax' is corrected. As we have seen in "Whispers of Immortality," Eliot revised the texts of a number of poems for this edition. It would appear that the texts of the poems from Prufrock

were simply reprinted, while the poems from Poems 1919 and Ara Vos Prec were gone through again for this volume. There are changes in the following poems which remain constant throughout later printings: "Dans Le Restaurant, The Hippopotamus, Sweeney Erect, Sweeney Among The Nightingales, Whispers of Immortality, Gerontion." It also contains in "Sweeney Among The Nightingales" one unique reading where the last line reads "And let their liquid droppings fall". In "A Cooking Egg" there is also a footnote which does not reappear again: "i.e., an endemic tea shop, found in all parts of London. The Initials signify: Aereated Bread Company, Limited." It does not seem that this volume can be treated simply as the American edition of Ara Vos Prec, but instead should be awarded independent status.

The Waste Land still remains a centre of interest and offers us the possibility of enlarging our discussion in the light of the letters of Pound and Pound's statement in We Moderns about the notes. The poem appeared first in The Criterion in October, 1922, without notes and with no reference to notes. It next appeared in The Dial for November, 1922, with some alterations and a footnote stating that the poem was to appear shortly with annotations by Eliot. In December, 1922, it first appeared as a book, again with one or two variants, and now for the first time with the notes. The Hogarth Press edition first appeared in September, 1923. Variations between the periodical and book appearances are to be found partly in typographical details, such as the presence or absence of italics, and partly in strophe divisions, changes in punctuation, and in The Criterion version the use of quotation marks and differences in wording from later versions. Two of these Criterion variants are of interest. In line 80 we find "Wherefrom a golden Cupidon peeped out", later changed to "From which a golden Cupidon peeped out". The phrasing of this variant is the same as in Eliot's letter to Pound in The Letters of Ezra Pound and is some slight evidence that this first printing is closer to the original draft wherever there are variants. In line 426 we find the phrasing was originally "Shall I at least see my lands in order" which is replaced by the more active "Shall I at least set my lands in order". Even assuming that the first printing represented a typographical error, it is persuasive, particularly when we think of the emphasis on eyes and sight in this and other poems. The Dial shows minor differences again from both The Criterion and the Boni and Liveright editions. Apart from variants in punctuation and strophe breaks we find that, in this printing only, line 335 reads "If there were only water amongst the rock" instead of the line in all other printings, "if there were water we should stop and drink". Since this is properly line 338 either the compositor

anticipated the line and printed it in the wrong place and repeated it again in its proper position or we have a true variant which was dropped again because of the repetition. When we compare the punctuation, we find that, on the whole, there are deletions rather than alterations or additions. Strophe fluctuations still occur as late as the Collected Poems 1909-1935.

The Boni and Liveright edition is of interest not only because it was the first appearance of the poem in book form but also because of the notes. Pound wrote in 1940:

The book consists of four unsigned gatherings, [A-D]8, with the text beginning only on the fifth leaf of the first gathering, preceded by a blank leaf, a half-title, title-page, and a second half-title. The spacing between strophes, as well as of the titles of the sections, varies considerably, the whole book giving the appearance of very loose composition. We might cite as examples of haste or carelessness the dropped 'a' in Part II in the line, "The hot w[a]ter at ten" and the dropping out of the 'a' in 'mountain' (Part V) partway through the run.[11a] Both of these should have been noticed by the pressman in a printing of this size. The text runs exactly ten type lines—seven lines of verse—over the end of gathering C. So D1r has text with blank verso, D2r is the half-title for the notes and the notes begin on D3r and run through D8v, facing the endpapers. I am told that this is considered bad printing practice and might be just a slight indication that most of the book was set when the notes arrived and that they ran a little longer than was expected. To give the other side of the picture, as I should, the text could have been squeezed somewhat, so as to end on C8v but with the probability that there would have been unfortunate page breaks. Typographically, then, we must render the old Scotch verdict of "Not Proven" on Pound's statement, but note that the bulking is extremely obvious.

The Hogarth Press edition in unsigned gatherings of fours, [A-F]4, is based upon The Criterion printing with the notes added, these apparently being reprinted directly from the Boni and Liveright

edition. In some copies Eliot corrected three places by hand—two typographical mistakes in the text and the name of the publisher of Weston's book. One copy I have seen shows that an author's handwritten corrections can also create new variants! In every edition but the Hogarth printing line 96 reads "In which sad light a carvèd dolphin swan". In the Hogarth printing the dolphin was 'coloured' which was corrected by the author in this one copy to 'carven'. One place where we have a persuasive variant comes in Part II. There the nightingale "Filled all the desert with inviolable voice, / And still she cries (and still the world pursues)". The comma at the end of the line is also missing. The use of 'cries' instead of 'cried' is possibly a printing mistake, yet one which would easily be passed over, because it makes sense in the context. I would assume that this edition, however, is not substantive and that it was unlikely that the author read proof on it.

When we read the letters of Pound and Eliot's letter to Pound and think of the use of the Phlebas lines from "Dans Le Restaurant," the epigraph—later deleted—to "Sweeney Among the Nightingales," together with the references to Agamemnon and "Gerontion," we can see that the material of the poem is scarcely a by-product of reading From Ritual to Romance. Rather this book served at best as a catalyst to bring together a large number of reminiscences and ideas, ranging from the Psalms to Conrad, from the Prophets to Joyce. Six lines of a poem which Eliot has dated as having been written in 1912 are similar to lines in Part I of "The Waste Land," and this, to me, points up that the act of composition was partly the reworking and recombining of material already written with those lines composed in 1921. From these letters and other clues we can associate the minor poems, "Eyes that last I saw in tears", "The Wind sprang up at four o'clock", "Song to the Opherian", and most of "The Hollow Men" as being part of the same compositional activity as "The Waste Land." It is uncertain whether "Gerontion," even though already published, also formed part of the original manuscript. We do see, however, from the letters that Pound's role in the final shaping of the poem was not simply that of an axe-wielder, but rather, as Eliot himself once expressed it, that "he tried first to understand what one was trying to do, and then tried to help one do it in one's own way."

With this we are at the Faber Poems 1909-1925, issued both as a trade and as a limited, signed edition. Although printed from the same type, the trade edition collates i 6 A24 B-E8 F6 G4 while the limited edition runs [A]4 B-N4, so that technically they are different impressions with possibilities for variants, since the forms would have been unlocked and different signatures inserted. This is a somewhat different

case from most of the later limited, signed editions which are merely the same impressions as the trade edition on a different quality paper. But none of these cases really form a new edition. There is one further stage of this edition which should be listed in a bibliography: that in 1932 it was completely reset for inclusion in the Faber Library. Of this impression sheets were run off for Harcourt, Brace & Co. with a separate half-title and title-leaf, these being bound in America. When we consider together with this circumstance that both Murder in the Cathedral and The Rock in their American printing were photo-offsets, we have a strong presumption that none of the Harcourt editions is in any way substantive.[12] Even the deletion of one line from The Rock does not change its status in any way, since the negative was simply cut and spliced, and the change is found in the later English impressions.

As we have seen, there are changes in the text of this edition. Only one poem appears for the first time, but it is an interesting example of the struggle to reach the fitting form: "The Hollow Men." Part III first appeared as one of "Doris's Dream Songs" in the Chapbook, and Part I as "Poème" in Commerce, also in 1924. In January, 1925, Parts II and IV were printed as the first and third poems respectively of "Three Poems" in The Criterion, "Eyes that last I saw in tears" being the second poem. Under the title "The Hollow Men, I-III" Parts I, II, and IV appeared in The Dial for March, 1925. In addition to the rearrangement of the parts and the inclusion of Part V, the differences between the various periodical appearances of the poem and the final published form are the deletion of one line and the elimination of one strophe division. The difficulty in arriving at a final form can be explained easily, if we accept the thought advanced earlier that parts of this poem actually were fragments deleted from, or written in conjunction with "The Waste Land" and that it was only after much thought that Eliot was able to fuse them with lines written later. Seen in the framework of the total poetic production, it also suggests that the exploration of the possibilities of a form comes first and that then this brings with it later the realization that the various parts of this exploration form a sequence in themselves.

Of the later poems we shall say less here, although we find variants. Sweeney Agonistes shows changes in punctuation and orthography, as well as as the deletion of one line, compared with its early appearance in book form. One of the most interesting poems prior to 1935 is Ash Wednesday. Again we have periodical publication of three parts of the

poem under separate titles: II in December, 1927, I in the spring of 1928, and III in the autumn of 1929. Between the periodical versions and the final form we find deletions of lines, reversal of one pair of lines, minor changes in phrasing and strophe divisions. The poem was first planned in a large format, of which proofs exist in two forms: one set for I, 1-23 and another set for the whole poem. These differ primarily in punctuation. When Ash Wednesday appeared as part of the Collected Poems 1909-1935, there crept into the text in Part V a mistake which is a classic example of the persistence of error: The 'l' which found its way into 'Word' has persisted through every subsequent printing of the Collected Poems, every selection from it, including the new Selected Poems of last year, is in every foreign translation, and I remember seeing these lines used once somewhere as an example of the difficulty of interpreting Eliot's poetry. (The Harcourt edition did not have this, but in their recent paper-back edition, have finally also succumbed to the error.) The Ariel poems which parallel Ash Wednesday show no variants, except for the much later "Triumphal March".

Each edition brings with itself new variants and the Collected Poems 1909-1935 is no exception, whether the changes be in punctuation or in the addition of three lines to a poem previously published in a periodical. Yet I would like to turn now to the plays, for they show even more striking variants, in some cases, than the poems. We would expect to find alterations in the text of a play, if we possessed a complete sequence of texts from the first draft through the final published texts. There would be modifications by the author and changes based upon rehearsal, conditions of performance, and suggestions by the director. But we are, in the main, accustomed to regard the published text as a precipitate of all these factors, representing the author's considered final text. After publication he is no longer responsible for changes which may be made by any director in a later performance of the play. This is not always true of Eliot's work for the stage. Including the fragments of Sweeney Agonistes, there are six publications by Eliot in dramatic form. Two of these we will not consider here, for Eliot had taken them, either in full or in part, into the Collected Poems 1909-1935. This leaves four plays: Murder in the Cathedral, The Family Reunion, The Cocktail Party, and The Confidential Clerk. Of these four, two show no changes between the first and later printings

other than possible corruptions in the printing process: The Family Reunion and The Confidential Clerk. This may be the result of their infrequent performances as compared to the other two plays.

The Confidential Clerk, however, does show an interesting variant between the English and American editions which apparently reflects an editorial change for overseas consumption. In the first act of the Faber edition Sir Claude says to Eggerson:

but in the American edition he says: It is possible that the other twenty-odd minor variants, apart from stage directions, between the American and British editions are either editorial or purely fortuitous. As far as can be told, the author did not read proof on the play and there seem to be some loose ends in the final published text. There is also a misprint in Act II, where Kaghan remarks: I have not yet been able to establish whether this was corrected during the first printing, thus creating a 'point' for bookdealers and collectors, or whether it remained constant.

The Cocktail Party presents an interesting bibliographical problem entirely apart from the later revisions to the text. Copies of the Faber first printing contain, on page 29, the response of the Unidentified Guest (Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly) to Edward's statement that he wants to see Lavinia again:

The first 'here' was corrected to 'her' partway through the printing—it is fair to estimate after more than a thousand copies had been printed.[13] The problem arises, because it has been stated that the error was not in the first copies, but crept in later, since it was not in the copy presented to Eliot as the "first copy off the press". It is far more likely, however, that this copy would have been one of the last off the press, even if first bound. The preceding line, spoken by Edward, seems far more significant in this connection: It sems quite logical to assume that the last word of this line was carried over accidentally in composition and was then later corrected, since such a correction would be relatively simple in monotype. We would otherwise have to postulate that the extra letter was added partway through the printing as a byproduct of another correction or alteration of which no traces remain!

Again we find differences in punctuation and in minor details (stage directions) between the Faber first printing of May, 1950, and the first Harcourt printing. These, we may assume, are the result of unauthoritative editorial changes. The major alterations in the text come in the fourth Faber printing of September, 1950, where we find minor changes in the first two acts and considerable revision in the third act. These changes were later adopted in the Harcourt text, but the date is uncertain and the author's note on the revisions is omitted, so that there are no outward indications of any alterations. They are all motivated by the need to clarify some of the time relationships in the play and by a change in some of the stage business. In the first two acts the changes are fairly straightforward: one correction of punctuation, two places where lines are added, and a few changes in wording. At the end of the first scene of Act I in the first printing the fact that Edward does not reach Celia on the phone is given in the stage direction. In the revision two lines are added to clarify this:

This also forms a bridge to the second scene of Act I where Celia enters. Here, also, there is one change in phrasing to correct the time sequence. For the "And I tried to get you a moment ago." (45:4) of the first printing we now have "And I tried to get you a short while ago." (45:4) This is more in agreement with the partly finished game of Patience Edward is playing than the phrasing of the first printing.

In the discussion between Celia and Edward there is a particularly

striking example of alteration in phrasing. In the original printing Celia said: In the revision she now says: This change involves the repetition of a word, running counter to the tendency in the bulk of Eliot's work. One of the principles governing alterations seems to be the desire to avoid the same or similar wording within the same work. Here we have a direct repetition. Shortly after this speech we find, also in a speech by Celia, an additional line in the revised version: "Edward, I see that I was simply making use of you." (59:14). Again, this seems to be the result of a need for further clarification of the situation. In Act II there are two changes. None of the variants in the first two acts represent any major alteration, but all seem to be improvements and final polishing of the text, requiring no extensive changes in the setting of the type.

We have a considerable amount of revision, however, in the third act, necessitated, in part, by keeping Peter Quilpe on stage for a longer period of time. This involved some changing in phrasing and some carpentry work—the shifting of speeches from one position to another with enough alteration so that the joints do not show. There are, however, other deletions and alterations less directly concerned with changed stage business. The simplest alteration, and the one not followed by Harcourt, Brace, was the elimination of the vulgarism from Peter's line: "Yeah, from New York." (147:12) As a sample of the combination of lines, let us take two speeches by Julia from the first printing:

In the revised printing these are fused: To give an example of the transposing and altering of lines, let us take the point of Peter Quilpe's exit in the first version. Julia says there: Peter then takes his leave, and the others turn to a discussion of the meaning of Celia's death and their relationship to it. Julia says then: In the revised version the first speech of Julia's quoted above is deleted. Peter remains through the discussion between Reilly and the others. Julia then says: Peter now leaves on the note of "what else can I do?", and takes his farewells. At his departure Julia continues—some nineteen lines later: In the first printing Alex leaves the room at this point and returns with champagne for the toast to "Lavinia's Aunt". The toast is deleted in the fourth printing. It is difficult to tell how much actual resetting these changes involved, and whether they are sufficient to call this fourth printing a new edition. It would be feasible, however, to refer to it as a separate edition.[14] As far as can be judged, the nature and extent of the revisions would indicate that Eliot had gone through the text completely for this printing and that it must, therefore, be considered the substantive edition of the play.

Murder in the Cathedral is not only the best-known and most produced play by Eliot but it also has the most complicated textual history.

The relationship between the various editions has not yet, as far as I can tell, been adequately described, and deserves consideration in some detail. The sequence of the editions is:

• B1. Acting edition for the Festival of the Friends of Canterbury Cathedral. (May 10, 1935).
• B2. First trade edition: Faber & Faber, Ltd., (June, 1935)
• B3. Second trade edition: Faber & Faber, Ltd., (January, 1936)
• B4. Third trade edition: Faber & Faber, Ltd., (August, 1937)
• B5. Fourth (School) edition: Faber & Faber, Ltd., (September, 1938).

The American editions can be left out of consideration, for the first American edition was a photo-offset of B2 and the second American edition was set from B3 and shows no variation from it. The other editions have never been reprinted in the United States. Whether this reflects an editorial choice on the part of Eliot and his publishers, or is the result of other considerations cannot at present be determined.

Donald Gallup refers to the text of B1 in his bibliography as being "slightly altered and abbreviated for the production and is so printed in this edition." Whether this description is entirely appropriate is not so certain, in my opinion, when we compare the texts of B1 and B2. Apart from the differences in the prose passages, B1 is shorter by about 250 lines of verse—a severe abbreviation in comparison to the overall length of the play as printed in B2. When we compare the prose parts of the plays, we find a considerable expansion in B2 as well as alterations. Some of the passages which do not appear in B1 but only in B2 (and later editions), such as the alternation of Priests, Tempters, and Chorus ("Is it the owl that calls, or a signal between the trees?") have been singled out as being particularly impressive. There are lines and phrases, on the other hand, which appear in B1 and are deleted in B2. The differences between B2 and B1 are mainly in punctuation, phrasing, and deletions or additions.

In general there are more punctuation signs in B1 and much of the pointing which remains in B2 has been altered.

• No! Shall I, who keep the keys Of heaven and hell, supreme, alone in England, (B1, 11:1-2)
• No! shall I, who keep the keys Of heaven and hell, supreme alone in England, (B2, 30:1-2)
• We are the backbone of the nation; We, not the plotting parasites About the King. Excuse my bluntness. I am a rough, straightforward Englishman. (B1, 11:34-37)

---

41




• We are the backbone of the nation. We, not the plotting parasites About the King. Excuse my bluntness: I am a rough straightforward Englishman. (B2, 31:13-16)

Very few of the punctuation marks present in B1 and deleted or altered in B2 seem to be necessary or important in the voicing or interpretation of the text. The revision, evident in punctuation, between B1 and B2 parallels the alterations which we find between earlier drafts of Eliot's poetry and the later published form. On the basis of the punctuation it would seem that B1 was revised for B2. Changes in phrasing within the lines are not numerous but again suggest the patterns traced at the beginning of this essay of minor shifts in phrasing prior to final publication in book form. Examples can be found in the Choruses:

• Rings of light coiling downwards, descending To the horror of the ape. (B1, 28:7-8)
• Rings of light coiling downwards, leading To the horror of the ape. (B2, 66:2-3)
• We have all had our private terrors, Our individual shadows, our secret fears. (B1, 6:2-3)
• We have all had our private terrors, Our particular shadows, our secret fears. (B2, 19:21-22)
• I have seen Trunk and hoof, tusk and horn, in odd places; (B1, 28:1-2)
• I have seen Trunk and horn, tusk and hoof, in odd places; (B2, 65:8-9)

On the whole these would represent the normal process of a final revision, as would a certain number of minor additions to the text of B2, compared to B1, in lines where the text is otherwise identical.

There are two other groups of revisions between B1 and B2: rewriting or redistributing passages and the deletions of parts of lines as contrasted to the additions we otherwise find:

• We have sometimes been afflicted with taxes, (B1, 5:37)
• We have been afflicted with taxes, (B2, 19:17)
• All things must prepare the event. I will show you. Watch. (B1, 8:9-10)
• All things prepare the event. Watch. (B2, 23:8)

In one of the Choruses in B1 we find two lines, repetitious in their context, which do not appear in B2. Rewriting is to be found mainly in the Interlude and in the prose speeches of the Knights, which are also assigned differently in B1 from the first trade edition. Both the speeches where the Priests beg Thomas to come to Vespers and the speeches of the Priests after the Knights finally leave the stage show a different distribution of the lines in B1. At the latter point the speeches of the First and Third Priest appear in not only an abbreviated form in comparison to B2 but also in the following order: It seems quite clear that we must find another formulation for the relationship between the Acting edition and the first trade edition, for it does not seem to be as simple as one might assume from Gallup's description. Let us accept B1 as an abbreviated form of a longer version. However, can we disregard the pattern of variations between B1 and B2? Turning now to the following lines:

• Power possessed grows to glory, A life lasting, a permanent possession, (B1, 9:33-34)

---

43




• Power obtained grows to glory, Life lasting, a permanent possession, (B2, 26:19-20)

we find that in the fragments of the holograph draft of the play these two lines (giving both the original and manuscript correction) are:

Power possessed grows to glory

• 1: Lasting a life
• 2: A life lasting a permanent possession[16]

In these holograph pages there are two or three other places with agreement in phrasing with B1, where the phrasing differs from B2. It would seem therefore that B1 represents an abridgement of a script which was subsequently revised to form the text of B2, so that B1 and B2 are parallel texts from different stages of the development of the play.

It is a far simpler matter to compare the text of B3 with B2, for the alterations are easily apparent and very small, except for the substitution of the Chorus for the Introits at the beginning of Part II. We find the correction of two typographical mistakes and alteration of the punctuation in six places in Part II, three of those being in the final Chorus. Eliot states that the text "is now in conformity with the recent production at the Mercury Theatre, London." This note, dated January 1936, would suggest that the Chorus had been written in the intervening period between May 1935 and late 1935 and was printed as a result of the specific performance mentioned, thus being determined, in part, by theatrical considerations. This change, highly praised by many critics, remains the only change known to those who have read American editions of the play or seen performances here, for no subsequent version has been published in the United States. The changes in this version do not seem large enough to classify it as a "second edition", for it appears to have been printed from the same setting as B2 on the basis of certain typographical peculiarities in the two printings. It would be better described as a reprinting of B2 with corrections.[17]

With B4 the situation becomes somewhat more complicated. The entire First Part and the Interlude remain identical with B3. The identity between the two continues into Part II until shortly after Thomas's first entrance. Then there is some reassignment of the speeches of the Four Knights. Finally the Introits are printed as an

Appendix in a text identical, except for a typographical mistake, with their text in B2. Eliot writes in a prefatory note that "they may be used instead of the Chorus in productions of the play." This note is dated June 1937. It seems to indicate that the author's attitude towards this portion of the play was by no means fixed. The speeches of the Four Knights have been changed by the reassignment of a number of lines spoken by the Fourth Knight to the other Knights. Since B3 is the version most familiar to most readers, let us take it as the basis for giving the pagination and redistribution of the speeches in Part II:                          

	B3		B4
58: 2	Fourth Knight	58: 2	Third Knight
60: 11-16	Fourth Knight	60: 11-12	First Knight
		13	Second Knight
		14-16	Third Knight
61: 10	Fourth Knight	61: 10	First Knight
63: 2	Fourth Knight	. . .	deleted
73: 7-10	Knights	73: 7	First Knight
		8	Second Knight
		9	Third Knight
		10	First Knight
76:	Second Knight	76:	Third Knight
77:	Third Knight	77:	Second Knight

When we examine these changes we notice that these figures are pawns, not originally conceived of as definite characters, even though some critics have tried to do so. There is in addition an attempt to divide some of the speeches in an antiphonal pattern, extending the Senecan pattern already in the play. Eliot writes in the prefatory note to this printing that "at the suggestion of Mr. E. Martin Browne, I have in Part II reassigned most of the lines formerly attributed to the Fourth Knight. When, as originally intended, the parts of the Tempters are doubled with those of the Knights, the advantage of these alterations should be obvious."

Before discussing the problem raised by this statement, let us go on to B5, the printing of September 1938, for the further alterations we find here bring the problem into sharper focus. In the prefatory note to B5 Eliot writes: "In this fourth edition certain further rearrangements and deletions have been made, which have been found advisable by experiment in the course of production." On the other hand, this edition was advertised as a "School Edition" and is so described in Gallup's bibliography. It also happens to be the only available edition of the play in England. Certain of the changes, examined without reference to the prefatory note, would certainly be consistent with a

simplification for school usage. On looking at the text the first change which one notices is that the Introits of B1,2 and the Appendix to B4 are now printed as part of the main text following the opening Chorus of Part II. These are further changed in that certain lines are italicized and those are to be sung. In addition to the redistribution in B4 which are kept in B5 (although the deleted line is now restored but reassigned), we find further reassignments of speeches, deletions, and re-phrasing of speeches.

The deletions total nearly thirty lines of verse and prose, some extending over several lines and some being the deletion of only a portion of the line. Again using B3 as our standard of comparison, deletions come at the following points and are total where no page reference is given to B5:

                                                   

	B3		B5
15: 10	First Priest		. . .
27: 7-10	Second Tempter		. . .
28: 5	Thomas		. . .
: 6	Tempter		. . .
34: 7-9	Thomas		. . .
47: 2-3	Thomas	47: 3	Thomas (partial)
49: 23-26	Thomas		. . .
: 27	Thomas	49: 24	Thomas (partial)
50: 2-3	Thomas	49: 28	Thomas (partial)
62: 18-21	Thomas		. . .
63: 8	Knights	66: 5	First Knight (partial)
66: 17-20	Priests		. . .
67: 10-15	Thomas		. . .
68: 8	Priests	70: 12	Priests (partial)
70: 4-5	Priests		. . .
71: 3	Thomas		. . .
: 17-20	Thomas		. . .
73: 17	Knights	75: 18	Knights (partial)
78: 20-26	Third Knight		. . .
78: 30)	Third Knight		. . .
79: 1-2)
79: 13-14	Third Knight	81: 10	Second Knight (partial)
81: 8-9	Fourth Knight		. . .
81: 6	Fourth Knight	83: 4	Fourth Knight (partial)
81: 16-18	Fourth Knight		. . .

One example of the changes in phrasing was given at the beginning of this essay. All of the prose speeches suffer some alterations as well as several verse passages. There are six further reassignments of the speeches of the Knights, so that now the Fourth Knight has only one independent line and one line as part of the group prior to his speech in justification of the killing of Thomas. In addition the speech of the First Priest at the Messenger's entrance in Part I has been broken up into four speeches and there has been some rearrangement of the speeches of the Priests and Thomas in Part II when they try to persuade him to save himself. The latter portion of the Third Priest's speech after the Knights leave, following their justifications for Thomas's death, has also been divided differently: In B2,3,4 these lines formed the close of the Third Priest's speech. It seems again that such reassignments might have been made to further increase the antiphonal pattern.

The redistribution of these lines reminds one of the version quoted earlier from B1, and when we compare B5 with B1 we are struck immediately by the agreement between the text of the Interlude in B1 and the text as revised for B5. They differ in only one particular—the substitution of the text of the Revised version of the Bible for the King James text in the verse from Luke. The deletions of B5 as compared to the omissions of B1 often come at the same points in both versions although they do not always embrace the same number of lines. The phrasing of one line from a Chorus is changed in B5 and now agrees only with B1: "And the earth presses up against our feet." (B5, 40:20). Although the phrasing of the Knights' speeches justifying Thomas's death in B5 is not identical with that of B1, changes in phrasing seem to come at the same points in the speeches, and the order of the speakers is identical with the order in B1. It would not seem

improbable to assume that Eliot had reread the text of B1 again at some point before making revisions to B5. However, it is worth emphasizing again the description of this as a "school edition" earlier in this essay, for we cannot really know what its determining factor was. If a specific performance, then we must consider that each director has made and does make decisions about deletions, assignments of speeches, and action entirely apart from the printed text of the play (proven again by the Donat recording of the play) and thus no one performance is necessarily valid. If school usage, then we can wonder whether the revisions are also valid for a non-school audience. If the advice of others, then it may be asked what effect this has on the editor's task of establishing the text as the author intended it to be.

It seems desirable to raise this problem in the light of the reassignment of the speeches of the Fourth Knight. Eliot suggests that, through this, one has the desirable advantage of doubling the roles of the Four Knights. The question might be raised as to whether this means that there is solely the possibility of the same actors playing both sets of roles or does it mean that their function in the play is meant to be similar, so that the Fourth Tempter occupies the same position as the Fourth Knight in Part II which he occupied in Part I. It seems to me that the elimination of most of the speeches of the Fourth Knight tends, if the functions of the Fourth Tempter and Fourth Knight are similar, to emphasize doubts about Thomas's integrity. The Tempters are, in part, aspects of the struggle within Thomas himself—emphasized in the film version by the disembodied voice of the Fourth Tempter. The Knights, however, are external to this struggle, the voice of outside authority, existing apart from Thomas's inward decisions, although an element which precipitated them. If these two forces acting on Thomas are made to be identical, then the play may be felt by some as losing its tantalizing aspect of leaving the audience with an open decision as to Thomas' salvation. With Murder in the Cathedral we have quite a different set of problems from the other plays, emphasized not only by the text itself, but also by the description of B5 as a "School Edition" and the existence of a separate American text.

We cannot solve all the problems of the texts of Eliot's works, although they do present the reader with a wide range of editorial problems. There is still more to be said, for we have not touched at all on the prose works, but this paper is intended only as a point-de-départ for further thought. It may even seem as if we are returning from a fishing trip more memorable for the guppies caught than for the bass. Yet even with the material we have, there is room for thought and questions. But first, as an aside, we should note that there are many

incidental gains through approaching an author's work by studying the development of the texts of his work. There is the added insight into recurrent phrasing and themes in the poems and plays and a stricter sense of their chronology and possible interrelationships. In Eliot's poetry there is also room to discuss under variants the alterations in phrasing which borrowings from other authors have undergone. Again, unless we have the sense of the actual chronology of the works, we cannot discuss influences in their proper perspectives, such as the possible influence of Joyce on The Waste Land through the serialization of Ulysses.

Kristian Smidt wrote of Eliot's composition: "Usually what look like stanzas in his poetry simply correspond to the paragraphs of prose in that a space is left when a break in meaning requires it and the breaks in meaning come at irregular intervals."[18] In the light of the fluctuations in these breaks, can we assign any such function to them? What is the function of such breaks? Eliot has said that a word for him is not only its sound but also its shape upon the page. Is this also true for a poem? If so, at what stage of the poem? For some prospective "New Critic" there may be far more significance in one punctuation rather than in another, but it would be difficult to say that any given printing reflects the author's exact intentions. Is any given punctuation, or even the line as phrased by the voice, a sufficient and exclusive interpretation of any part of a poem? It might even be that some authors would regard such questions as immaterial. Changes in phrasing and order show that the act of composition is not fixed and finished at once, but may persist over a long period of time and through various arrangements of the lines. Such changes hint that part of the act of composition is the achievement of concentration in the phrasing and even that there is the attempt to find phrasing coloured by conversational language. I wonder if anyone has pointed out that even the use of quotations from other languages can still be conversational—not the conversation of the pub but of the "high-class" cocktail party?

We stand here in the twilight zone between the author who revises his works so thoroughly that they represent two easily differentiated states of existence and the author for whom the first edition would represent the edition most likely to have been proof-read and to conform most closely to his intentions. And in using that word, we must ask what an author's intention may be? When can we say that it is realized in any given modern text? Authors vary in their attentiveness

to detail; they revise—but the revisions may come long after the first version of the work. Do they then approach the work with the same intentions? Even within a work an author's apparent intentions may change, as with Joyce. Is the intention underlying a work existent and operative in every detail of the work? Do changes in details or the recasting of parts of a play affect the intention of the play? Is "intention," then, something we derive from the author or from our interpretation of the work? And finally, in the light of all these problems, I should like to raise the ultimate question appropriate to a symposium on modern authors: "At what point does a modern poem or a play—or novel—cease to be in a state of 'becoming' and reach a state of 'being'?"

Notes