University of Virginia Library

It is puzzling that Mark Sexton should assert (in his "Lawrence, Garnett, and Sons and Lovers: An Exploration of Author-Editor Relationship", Studies in Bibliography, 43 [1990], 209) that "neither the galley nor page proofs survive", since both page and galley proofs are listed in Warren Roberts's A Bibliography of D. H. Lawrence, 2nd ed. (1982), p. 524.

Mark Schorer, ed., Sons and Lovers, a facsimile of the manuscript (1977).

See James T. Boulton, ed., The Letters of D. H. Lawrence, vol. 1 (1979), 421-424 and footnotes; hereafter Letters.

Letters 1: 476-477, 481-482; George Jefferson, Edward Garnett, A Life in Literature (1982), p. 150.

These galley proofs are deposited at Nottingham University Library, U.K. Mr. Guy Collings has no theory as to what happened to the rest; they are not among the materials which Ernest Collings left to the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

See my "Sons and Lovers The Surviving Manuscripts from Three Drafts Dated by Paper Analysis", in Studies in Bibliography, 38 (1985), 289-328.

Philip Gaskell, A New Introduction to Bibliography (1972), p. 193.

The annotations are in more than one hand, but as it is now impossible to identify the writers, it is simpler for the purposes of general exposition to refer to the annotations as if they were all by the clicker.

The fact that the galleys as cast off did not tally precisely with the galleys as printed means that simple reference to "galleys" is confusing. The following account will therefore, refer to "galley-trays" "cast-off galleys" and "galley proofs".

I am grateful to Dr. Gaskell for help with these calculations.

At least as they are represented by the page proofs, where the differences in the text caused by Lawrence's revisions would at most alter one or two lines per page and would not for present purposes materially affect quantities across whole galley proofs.

Despite Lawrence's revisions on the galley proofs which altered the exact number of lines in the same sections of page proofs, these still are more accurate figures than can be calculated by reference to the manuscript.

See The White Peacock, ed. Andrew Robertson (1982), pp. xxxv, 150, 380.

They were "Behind, the houses . . ."; "to stand still, so he could . . ."; and "town, quickly."

See Robertson's edition p. xxxii; he dealt with this matter more fully in his unpublished Proposal submitted to the editorial board of the Cambridge Lawrence edition.