University of Virginia Library

Other than the Sons and Lovers manuscript itself, only two remnants of manuscript related to Sons and Lovers exist, both of which represent fragments of the Paul Morel novels. The first set of these consists of six holograph manuscript fragments from chapters 1-4 of Lawrence's final revision of Paul Morel—the version termed by Schorer the "penultimate version" of Sons and Lovers. These fragments total approximately 58 pages and are written on paper smaller in size than most of the pages used in the Sons and Lovers manuscript. Lawrence's own revisions constitute the sole editorial markings on these pages. He indicated these revisions by a horizontal line drawn through each word or passage he wished to cancel. Substitutions occasionally appear, written in Lawrence's hand over the cancellations. Schorer's edition of the Sons and Lovers manuscript facsimile reproduces these fragments, and they reside in the Rare Books Collection of the Bancroft Library, at the University of California, Berkeley, along with the Sons and Lovers manuscript. Schorer dates these fragments to the fall of 1911. Another set of manuscript fragments from early versions of the Paul Morel novel exists at the Humanities Research Center of the University of Texas. Termed by Moore the "Miriam Papers," Moore assigns these manuscripts to 1911-1912, and describes them as falling "into two parts. One of these parts comprises three manuscript sections in Jessie Chambers' own hand; the second part of the Miriam Papers consists of two sections: one is a twenty-three page fragment of manuscript in Lawrence's hand, with Jessie's interlinear comments and protests; the other is a separate four pages of comments in her hand" (D. H. Lawrence 285). Moore also notes that one of the fragments in Chambers' hand "provides the basis for the episode which occurs in chapter 7—'Lad-And-Girl Love'—and describes one of Paul's arrivals at Willey Farm and an encounter with Miriam and her sister Agatha" (286). For a detailed assessment of the Miriam Papers see Moore, D. H. Lawrence, 285-305.

This scenario is based on Lawrence's letter to Garnett, 1 December 1912, in which he responds to the editor's proposed deletions: "I sit in sadness and grief after your letter. I daren't say anything. All right, take out what you think necessary—I suppose I shall see what you've done when the proofs come, at any rate. I'm sorry I've let you in for such a job—but don't scold me too hard, it makes me wither up" (Letters 481).

The facsimile manuscript reproduces revisions made to the manuscript by Lawrence.

Lawrence indicated deletions in the manuscript by drawing a single horizontal line through the passages he wished to cancel. These deletions are estimated by Schorer to total approximately two thousand words (Introduction 4). Occasional substitutions are written in Lawrence's own hand above the cancellations, with a pen somewhat more finely nibbed than the original. Although these revisions offer a fascinating glimpse into Lawrence's development as a writer, they represent Lawrence's final draft of Sons and Lovers and, as such, fall outside the present study's focus on the Lawrence-Garnett editorial relationship.

More particularly, each of Garnett's deletions is indicated in the manuscript by the editor's use of a large X crossed through the passage to be cut, a single extended brace enclosing either the right or the left side of the large X, and a delete sign placed in the page margin, outside the brace, beside the cancelled passage. Schorer estimates that Garnett's deletions total "at least ten or even fifteen thousand words" (Introduction 4). Garnett is consistent in his editorial markings, although he is somewhat idiosyncratic in their application. Differences, therefore, arise as to how Garnett's symbols should be described. According to Templeton, Garnett's markings are "marginal parentheses and the letter 'G'," a view for which he claims the authority of Garnett's son, David, who, according to Templeton, "saw the manuscript and . . . was familiar with his father's handwriting and editing style" (236). I believe Templeton to be inexact in his assessment of Garnett's markings. First, Templeton ignores the prominent X's that invariably mark the passages Garnett selected for deletion. Second, the term "brace" is more accurate than "marginal parentheses" to describe the vertical mark with which Garnett consistently enclosed a single side of the large X drawn through each deleted passage: these marks always occur singly, loop at the center, and almost always curve at their ends away from the text. Third, the marginal symbol placed outside each brace more closely resembles a delete symbol than the letter "G." Schorer agrees with this assessment of the symbol, stating that Garnett's cuts "were made with large X-figures and a signal to delete in the margin." It is interesting that Schorer also cites David Garnett as an authority for interpreting the elder Garnett's editorial markings: "Garnett's son, David, has examined a copy of this manuscript and is certain that, with the possible exception of two, these [markings] were made by his father" (MS 4). (The two exceptions mentioned by Schorer appear on MS 292-93, and are indicated by horizontal lines through the deleted text and large multiple X's. According to Schorer and David Garnett, these deletions should be attributed to Lawrence; the multiple X's represent Edward Garnett's confirmation of the cancellations.)

Lawrence refers here to the galley proofs. When on 14 April 1913 Lawrence writes to Garnett that he has returned "all the proofs of Sons and Lovers," he refers specifically to the novel's page proofs (Letters 539). None of these proofs are extant; therefore, we cannot say with certainty whether Lawrence's emendations were made to the galley or to the page proofs. Since Lawrence states that he "corrected" both galley and page proofs, however, we may infer that emendations were effected during both stages of the editorial process.

Commentators generally agree that Garnett's excisions meritoriously affected the final version of Sons and Lovers. For instance, Schorer asserts: "Every deletion that Garnett made seems to me have been to the novel's advantage" (Introduction 9). In a similar vein, Eggert argues that "Garnett cut not just to shorten but to improve" (56). Templeton echoes Schorer's judgment, calling Garnett's editing "masterful" and "thorough," adding the view that Garnett's "deletions rather than Lawrence's emendations are what turned a pedestrian . . . manuscript into a powerful, concise, and evenly developed novel" (243). Only Spilka disagrees with these assessments, suggesting "that many [of Garnett's] deletions reveal ideas and preoccupations which helped Lawrence to become the man whose prophetic artspeech still commands our hearing; . . . some of these deletions might have been retained. . . ." (136). The present study finds general agreement with Spilka's argument that true literary value exists in some of the scenes deleted by Garnett. As my analysis shows, Lawrence, too, must have felt the value of many of these scenes. However, in my effort to demonstrate that Lawrence actively sought to emend the galley and page proofs in such a manner as to restore

much of the deleted scenes' thematic values, I offer a thesis that differs essentially from Spilka's assessment of Garnett's editorial deletions.

Commentators disagree in how to approach this issue. Schorer judges virtually nothing to have been lost in any of the deletions that may have been made by Duckworth (Introduction 4). Templeton's decision not to discuss these emendations, "[i]n light of their indeterminable authorship" (240), seems to me extreme.

Chapter 7 of Sons and Lovers is admirably suited for such an analysis. Virtually one-fifth of the printed chapter's text differs from the holograph manuscript reproduced in the facsimile. Further, these differences encompass both types of major textual differences that appear in the novel: (1) short and long passages deleted by Garnett, and (2) numerous emendations that appear in the printed text but not in the manuscript. As the initial chapter in Part II of Sons and Lovers, chapter 7 marks a thematic pivot in the novel: the first extensive effort to portray Paul Morel's emergence into emotional and sexual experience beyond the pale of his family. In its size, the chapter makes possible a detailed textual analysis in a study of this length. For a helpful, though incomplete, table of significant textual variants, see Schorer's facsimile edition, 609-624.

Schorer makes clear his judgment that the extensive deletions by Garnett were in no way prompted by moralistic concerns. Rather, the editor tried to keep Lawrence's manuscript to a length practicable for a one-volume publication.

Garnett deleted other such scenes from chapter 7, on 241, 242, 243, 251, and 252 of the manuscript facsimile. I consider these scenes, like the fence-stile scene, to be of only minor significance and will not analyze them. Without exception, these scenes consist primarily of dialogue between Paul and his friends and family about matters of little relation to the chapter's major themes. The longest of these, on 241-242, portrays Paul's friends on an Easter Monday outing and consists largely of casual bantering.

See, for example, Weiss 39-67.

Spilka, in making this assessment, argues that Schorer's "inordinate satisfaction" with Garnett's editorial excisions "betrays [the] original misgivings about the novel" voiced in Schorer's 1948 "Technique as Discovery." He objects that such alterations "merely show Lawrence in the process of overcoming fairly obvious literary deficiencies" (34), and that some of Garnett's deletions represent loss to the novel. The present examination of chapter 7 differs from Spilka's assessment in its conclusion that Garnett's editorial excisions also spurred Lawrence to develop his narrative technique in order to compensate for the loss occasioned by some of these deletions.

Space will not allow an examination of two short paragraphs deleted by Lawrence himself (MS 234 and 248). The first of these describes Miriam's feelings of social contempt for a field full of folk encountered on her Good Friday outing with Paul and his family. Lawrence's intention in deleting this passage appears to be the removal of an element that deflects our attention from Miriam's anticipation of Paul's return to their private realm of existence. The second cancellation reveals Paul actively seeking to kiss and embrace the girlfriends of his sister Annie, though he is still emotionally embroiled in his "Lad-And-Girl Love" with Miriam. Lawrence's removal of this paragraph renders the "soul" vs. "sense" conflict within Paul less explicit.