ULYSSES

house with the thing round his white helmet poor devil half roasted and the Spanish girls laughing in their shawls and their tall combs and the auctions in the morning the Greeks and the jews and the Arabs and the devil knows who else from all the ends of Europe and Duke street and the fowl market all clucking outside Larby Sharons and the poor donkeys slipping half asleep and the vague fellows in the cloaks asleep in the shade on the steps and the big wheels of the carts of the bulls and the old castle thousands of years old yes and those handsome Moors all in white and turbans like kings asking you to sit down in their little bit of a shop and Ronda with the old windows of the posadas 2 glancing eyes a lattice hid for her lover to kiss the iron and the wineshops half open at night and the castanets and the night we missed the boat at Algeciras the watchman going about serene with his lamp and O that awful deepdown torrent O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and the pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

Trieste-Zurich-Paris

1914-1921

A NOTE ON THE TEXT

The present reprint of the critically edited reading text of UlyssesЧfirst published as the so-called СCorrected TextТ in 1986Чstands corrected, as it must, in two readings: СBullerТ at 5.560 and СThriftТ at 10.1259. This is the net outcome of the massive onslaught on the critical editing of Ulysses in the New York Review of Books of 30 June 1988 and elsewhere. Beyond that, the scholarly debate (where it takes and accepts the Critical and Synoptic Edition of 1984 on its own terms) leads, or would lead, to very few changes indeed to the reading text. The procedures of establishing that text, which is the text as it appears realized in this reprint, are grounded and documented in the apparatus of the critical edition. A textual modification in the present reprint alone would be without such a foundation, and no editorial changes have therefore been made.

The alterations I felt inclined towards, but did not introduce, are the following:

at 1.562, for СWeТre always tiredТ read СIТm always tiredТ

(as by JoyceТs instruction in an unpublished letter cited in Antony HammondТs review in The Library, 6th ser., 8 [1986], p. 387)

at 16.1804-1805, for the phrasing Сwas not quite the same as the usual handsome blackguard type they unquestionably had an insatiable hankering afterТ read Сwas not quite the same as the usual blackguard type they unquestionably had an indubitable hankering afterТ

(an alternative editorial response to a complicated interrelationship of stages of the textТs development where John KiddТs discussion in the New York Review of Books has suggested that the edition momentarily failed to observe its stated rules of procedure)

at 17.314-315, for СMr BloomТ read СMrs BloomТ

(an emendation which, according to David HaymanТs conjecture in Sandulescu Hart, Assessing the 1984 СUlyssesТ [1986], the context demands, though Joyce never made the change)

As a whole, this critically edited text of Ulysses stands, and remains standing, as the result of its considered premises and reasoned scholarly procedures.

Hans Walter Gabler

August 1993

AFTERWORD

Praised as an epochal scholarly event and denounced as a scandal, the critical and synoptic edition of James JoyceТs Ulysses first published in 1984, together with the corrected text that was published separately in 1986, has received extraordinary publicity for a work of its kind.¹ Its editing procedures have lifted the general public, students, literary critics, and scholarsЧthe vast majority of whom are not themselves editorsЧto a heightened awareness of textual editing. With readers now beginning to realize that editions should be scrutinized and assessed as carefully as interpretations have always been, users of the 1986 reading textЧwhich in this new printing remains available worldwideЧneed to be aware of how Hans Walter Gabler, supported by an international team of collaborators and advisors, arrived at its text and of how this edition resembles and also differs from others that might be produced. This is crucial now that the copyright protection for the first-edition text of Ulysses has expired in most of the world and will end soon in the United States, with the result that many editions are becoming available.

When dealing with a scholarly edition, readers should know something about the theoretical assumptions behind it and about the procedures that were adopted to produce it. On the face of it, accomplishing the goal of offering a text of a work that is more accurate than any that have appeared before might seem fairly simple: find out what the author wanted, clear away the errors, and you have it. But authors are rarely so cooperatively tidy: they change their minds; they destroy or discard documents once they have moved beyond them; they make changes in person, by phone, or via e-mail. Then other people get involved: a typist types, or a printer sets, something different from what the author wrote; a publisherТs editor changes the text, with or without the authorТs consent or sometimes with the authorТs active encouragement. Moreover, determining the order and relative importance of the surviving documents can be complicated. Is one edition earlier or later than another? Was the author involved at all in a particular editionТs production? Because of gaps in the available evidence and of inconsistencies or other complications in the surviving evidence, an editor needs a theoretical approach to the task and a set of procedures that follow from the assumptions.

The critical and synoptic edition of Ulysses needs to be understood in terms of the assumptions and methods of most Anglo-American editing today, because it both follows them and departs from, even challenges, them in important ways. In the method that has come to dominate Anglo-American editing, an editor studies all the relevant surviving documents for the work in question and selects one version as the copytext. The documents include any notes, drafts, manuscripts, typescripts, and proofs that are extant, plus printed versions in which the author was involved. The copytext, usually the first edition or, if available, the authorТs manuscript, is the basic text that the editor will follow for such matters as spelling, punctuation, etc., in places where the evidence is inconclusive, and for all the words except when differences between documents indicate authorТs revisions and so call for the editor to alter the copytextТs words on the basis of one of the other documents. In the terminology of editing and textual criticism, the words are called Сsubstantives,Т spelling and punctuation are matters of Сaccidentals,Т inconclusive readings are СindifferentТ ones, and the editorТs alterations of the copytext are called Сemendations.Т