GENETIC JOYCE STUDIES
NOTES & ARTICLES  - TOOLS & QUERIES  -  LOST & FOUND  -  ABOUT GENETIC JOYCE STUDIES


LOST & FOUND
Textual Disappearances in the Wake's Progress
 

'Cinoc read slowly and copied down rare words; gradually his plan began to take shape, and he decided to compile a great dictionary of forgotten words, not in order to perpetuate the memory of the Akka, a black-skinned pygmy people of Central Africa, or of Jean Gigoux, a historical painter, or of Henri Romagnesi, a composer of romances, 1781-1851, nor to prolong the life of the scolecobrot, a tetramerous coleopter of the longicorn family, Cerambycid branch, but so as to rescue simple words which still appealed to him. In ten years he gathered more than eight thousand of them, which contain, obscurely, the trace of a story it has now become almost impossible to hand on.'
(Georges Perec, 'Life. A User's Manual')

'Rien ne se crée, rien ne se perd.' ['Nothing is created, nothing is lost.']
(James Joyce to Jacques Mercanton, 'Les heures de James Joyce' 61)


When as early as 1925, Hermann Ungar analysed Thomas Mann's manuscripts, he compared them to a battlefield. This description is much more applicable to Joyce's manuscripts. Because of the elevated number of textual casualties in Joyce's drafts, it may be useful to design a collection of lost words and passages, serving not as a list of emendations or a repair kit to restore the text, but as a kind of "Wakean Memorial," a reminder to enhance the reader's awareness of the inevitability of transmissional variation. Every single one of these textual casualties is problematic, since it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether Joyce either actively or passively authorized a particular omission or simply overlooked it. This problematic nature, however, should not be a reason for leaving these corpses on the battlefield, or burying them anonymously in the mass grave of the James Joyce Archive. A reburial in the "final" resting-place of a restored text is not the most desirable solution, as Sam Slote argues in his Sound Bite Against the Restoration.

But this does not imply that the dead ends in the writing process may not be mapped. That is precisely what we try to do, starting with lines (in drafts, but also transition pages or galley proofs) which either Joyce or the printer overlooked while preparing the next version. We try to chart these blind spots under the motto Here are lines!

The aim of this Lost & Found section is to draw attention to these textual instances which have been left aside and neglected in favour of the main line of textual descent. From the nineteen fifties onward, several Joyceans have drawn attention to the "corruptions" of the text of Finnegans Wake, but with regard to their editorial representation, opinions have changed considerably over the years, during The Wake's Progress.

In 1972, Fred Higginson pleaded for "a developmental variorum, to the end of a final text more chronologically eclectic than Scholes' or Anderson's editions of the earlier works" (Fred H. Higginson, "The Text of Finnegans Wake," New Light on Joyce from the Dublin Symposium, ed. Fritz Senn [Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1972],128). The first item in Higginson's list of what this 'developmental variorum' should account for are '"Lost" passages and words' (129). One does not have to agree with Higginson's final goal of a restored 'final text' to account for the lost words of the Wake.

Evidently, only an "ideal reader suffering from an ideal insomnia" (FW 120.09-14)  would read Finnegans Wake by starting with the first notes he made, and ending with the last version. In practice, we usually want to know what the final result is, before we engage ourselves in such an endeavor. In order to map all the hesitations and side-paths of the writing process, it is necessary to try and study a work not only 'counterclockwise' or in retrospect, but also 'in prospect'. Daniel Ferrer has shown how every artefact "necessarily implies a project," which means that it constantly "oscillates between an anticipatory perspective (...) and a retrospective vision."  This oscillation of perspectives is the strategy of this Lost & Found section, starting from the published version "top down" to the draft stage featuring a passage occurs that did not make it into Finnegans Wake, and from there "bottom up" to the version in which it disappears.

The Lost & Found items will not be arranged chronologically, but according to their virtual place in Finnegans Wake, reconstructed on the basis of the surrounding manuscript evidence that did make it into the published version. The text to which the page and line numbers refer is the Faber and Faber 3rd edition of Finnegans Wake, since this is the published version which comes closest to what James Joyce wanted to present to his readers: the unbound copy preserved in Buffalo (see also Sam Slote's note: j-joyce list, June 2, 2000).

"Since Joyce's last bout with his book as a whole seems to be the unbound copy, that (...) is Finnegans Wake," Clive Hart suggests ("The Hound and the Type-bed: Further Notes on the Text of Finnegans Wake," A Wake Newslitter III.4, August 1966, p. 84). Nevertheless, the words that did not make it into Finnegans Wake are just as relevant as the published ones, because of what Daniel Ferrer has called "contextual memory". If Joyce excerpted a few words from an article in the Irish Times, this context is important. And each of the subsequent versions of the text (manuscripts, typescripts, proofs) constitute an equally relevant context. Therefore, the following Lost & Found items are accompanied by short textual notes concerning the circumstances of their disappearance.

This work is just as much in progress as its subject and all contributions are welcome. For all suggestions, remarks, corrections and contributions, please contact Dirk Van Hulle dirk.vanhulle@ua.ac.be
 

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS:
(The main principle underlying these transcription conventions is to reduce the number of diacritical signs to a minimum.)
* deletions: crossed out
* deletions within deletions: crossed <through> out
* substitutions: follow immediately after a deletion
* substitutions written over the previous original word, letter, ...): bold type, immediately following the word or letter over which the substitution was written
* additions: ^between carets^ (in case of more than one level of addition, the overlay number is indicated)
* uncertain reading: [between brackets]
* illegible word: [illeg.] + notice if more than one word is undecipherable
* for passages from first draft, transcribed by David Hayman in A First-Draft Version of 'Finnegans Wake' (London: Faber and Faber, 1963), the transcription convention of this edition will be followed. The bibliographical reference to the First-Draft Version will be abbreviated as FDV.
 

HERE ARE LINES!

'(Hic sunt lennones!)' (FW 179.02) is mentioned in Chapter 7. The published version of Finnegans Wake indeed contains several blind spots, which on medieval maps would have been indicated by means of the warning 'Hic sunt leones!' - 'Here are lions!' Under the heading 'Here are lines!' we try to gather lost lines, most of which were skipped by a typesetter. This kind of disappearances make this book even more difficult to read or translate - as the Dutch translators Robbert-Jan Henkes and Erik Bindervoet experience regularly. We would like to thank them, as well as Liesbeth Van Gool for the numerous textual items they have gathered, often on the basis of the invaluable work of Bill Cadbury.
 
 

Note on the Dutch translation of Finnegans Wake

James Joyce, Finnegans Wake, bilingual edition, Dutch by Erik Bindervoet and Robbert-Jan Henkes, Amsterdam : Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep, 2002, 657 pp.

One of the first lost lines (FW 076.06) was discovered by Campbell and Robinson in A Skeleton Key to 'Finnegans Wake'. Because of this lost line, the transitive verb 'eliminating' has been deprived of its direct object for more than half a century. Admittedly, some people may take the view that 'much desultory delinquency' is not much of a loss, but it is not easy to translate a transitive verb without a direct object. Thanks to the Dutch translators, Robbert-Jan Henkes and Erik Bindervoet, this 'delinquency' is now eliminated in so many words in Dutch. Henkes and Bindervoet are the only translators to date who have systematically taken these losses into account. Their translation is a Continuation of Joyce's Work in Progress, which is "already an act of translation," as Fritz Senn argues ("ALP Deutsch: 'ob überhaupt möglich'" Transcultural Joyce, ed. Karen R. Lawrence, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 191). If Finnegans Wake can be regarded as a translation, it is based on what Lawrence Venuti calls a foreignizing strategy. It is an attempt to enrich the English language with as much foreign linguistic couleur locale as possible. According to the same principle, Bindervoet and Henkes have not tried to 'domesticate' Joyce's text. Rather than adapting Wakese to the Dutch language, they have adapted the Dutch language to the language of the Wake. Their 'Continuation of a Work in Progress' draws attention to the numerous passages that were lost during the writing process of Finnegans Wake: the translation is followed by 28 pages with almost 1300 transmissional departures, discovered by the translators themselves and by different other Joyceans. This way, ALP's last words are "a lost" (and found) again, a most moving way to end this never ending Work in Progress, the only literary experiment that is its own mainstream. [Dirk Van Hulle]


 

BOOK I:

I.1
 

FW 004.10-11:  with what strawng voice of false jiccup*!

* Last appearance (as well as first):
I.1 1A.*0 First draft (pencil) of FW, 3-10.23, found at the end of the large fiberboard-covered notebook containing the first drafts of II.4 and II.2§8: October-November 1926 (see Letters, I, 24 September and 8 November 1926, and Letters, III, 16 October 1926). [JJA 44:5, BL 47472a-85; FDV 46]:

"with false voice of haycup ja jiccup, what rorycrucians rosycruciansbyelected by rival contested of simily emilies!"

Next draft stage:
I.1 1.*1 Second draft (pencil) in a large reddish notebook, with the above Subsections integrated; November 1926 (see Letters, I, 15 November 1926, and Letters, III, 24 November 1926) [JJA 44:46, BM 47471a-3]:

"with what strawng voice of false jiccup!"
 

Textual note

The line figures only in the very first draft of the episode, quoted above as transcribed in David Hayman's indispensable A First-Draft Version of Finnegans Wake (Faber and Faber 1963 ). Possibly "rosycrucians" was the word Joyce first wrote before he changed the "s" into an "r" (and not the other way around). Joyce drops the phrase, probably on purpose, when he brings together the parts he has been working on, the opening pages, the Willingdone Museyroom, the 'Annals'-passage (FW 13.30-14.27) and the Mutt and Jute dialogue. Only after this second draft does he make a fair copy from which the typescript will be made.

What does it mean or allude to? Maybe it has somehing to do with the Via Aemilia, the road from Placenta to Rimini (see FW 129.16)? And/or a paraphrase might read: 'O, the number of girls that were sought after by rivaling twins'?

Joyce leaves out more in his second draft, for instance the word "in" in line 13 of the same FW page. The first draft is "how has fanespanned in most high heaven", the second draft is very confusing without the preposition: "how hath fanespanned most high heaven" (JJA 44:47). And the first-draft "hoahoahoath! hoahoahoath!" becomes second-draft "hoahoahoath!" (JJA 44.10, 44:52), and this word loses its final oath-like "th" in Joyce's fair copy of JJA 44:108.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 16 May 2002

---

FW 007.12: olde Dobbelin ayle. *

* Last (and first) appearance:
I.1 1A.*0 First draft (pencil) of FW, 3-10.23, found at the end of the large fiberboard-covered notebook containing the first drafts of II.4 and II.2§8: October-November 1926 (see Letters, I, 24 September and 8 November 1926, and Letters, III, 16 October 1926). [JJA 44:11, BL 47482a-89, FDV 48]:

"old Du oldublin ale olde Dubel Dubbelin ayle. ButHolystone Holeystone, what do I see In his reins is planted a 1/2 d gaff."

Next draft stage:
I.1 1.*1 Second draft (pencil) in a large reddish notebook, with the above Subsections integrated; November 1926 (see Letters, I, 15 November 1926, and Letters, III, 24 November 1926) [JJA 44:52, BM 47471a-7]:

"olde Dobbelin ayle."
 

Textual note

Another first draft sentence not copied by Joyce in his next draft. Joyce did cross out the sentence following this aborted sentence: "Holeystone, what do I see In his reins is planted a 1/2 d gaff. Not one but legion. The king of the castle is k.o. The almost rubicund salmon of all knowledge is one pales with the yesterworld of". David Hayman (FDV, p.48) notes: "This unfinished sentence is crossed out in red here. Joyce wrote it on MS p.89b, probably at the time he wrote the first fair copy." But Joyce doesn't throw it away: it reappears in a slightly different form two lines down, FW 007.16-17.

I don't know why Joyce left out the extra salmonization of Finnegan with a gaff (or fishing spear) planted in his sides, but he did.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 16 May 2002
 

FW 009.01-02: "This is me Belchum sneaking his phillippy out of his most * Awful Grimmest Sunshat Cromwelly. Looted"

* Lost line, last appearance:
I.1§1.5/2.5 [pages of transition 1; JJA 44:236; BL 47475-5v]:

"This is me Belchum sneaking his phillippy out of his most / toocisive bottle of Tilsiter. This is the libel on the battle. / Awful Grimmest Sun'shat Cromwelly, Looted."

Next draft stage:
I.1§1.6/2.6 [Galley proofs; JJA 49: 8; BL 47476a-4]:

"This / is me Belchum sneaking his phillippy out of his most Awful / Grimmest Sun'shat Cromwelly. Looted."
 

Textual note

Here an entire line went missing. After "most", Joyce wrote "toocisive bottle of Tilsiter. This is the libel on the battle." The whole line was accidentally skipped by the FW-galley typesetter (JJA 49:7), who jumped from the last word on one line to the beginning of the next line. (I think Sam Slote calls this 'haplography'.) It was there in transition (JJA 44:258) and already complete in Joyce's fair copy (JJA 44:111-112). By the way, this makes the word "phillippy" hardly likely to refer to a filly, but more probably to 'fillip' or to 'fill up'.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 16 May 2002
 

I.2
 

FW 031.10-11: "(...) Naw, yer maggers, aw war jist a co*tchin on thon / * bluggy earwuggers. (...)"

Last appearance:
I.2§1.8/2.8/3.8 [JJA 45:105; 47475-15]:
"Naw, yer maggers, aw war jist a cotchin ^cocotchin^ on thon ^blue^ bluggy earwuggers."

Next draft stage:
I.2§1.9/2.9/3.9 [Galley proofs; JJA 49:33; 47476a-18]:
"Naw, yer maggers, aw war jist a cotchin on thon bluggy earwuggers."

Textual Note

Joyce added some stuttering in an early typescript (on page JJA 47475-15) in Humphrey's reply, but the subtleties never got through to the next stage. He wanted to have 'cocotchin on thon blue bluggy earwaggers'. Funny, very, and a pity it got lost.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 26 September 2000

---

FW 039.23: "(...), to ear * the passon in the motor clobber make use of / his law language (Edzo, Edzo on)"

* Last appearance:
I.2§2.3 [JJA 45:59; 47472-141]:
"(...) ^to^ heard ^wick their own hears^ the parson in the motor clobber make use of the language (...)"

Next draft stage:
I.2§2.*4 [JJA 45:68; 47472-167]
"(...) to ear the passon in the motor clobber make use of his language (...)"

Textual Note

On Level 4 Joyce misses the phrase "wick their own hears" he had drafted on Level 3 when Tom and Shorty "chanced to ear wick their own hears the parson in the motor clobber...." He almost certainly misses it because it is inscribed several lines above where the caret indexing it is easy to miss (JJA 45.59). Thus he loses a good "Earwicker" pun which blends with the Spoonerism "ear wick hears" for "hear with ears". This is the sort of thing it is hard to believe Joyce wouldn't have wanted back if he had remembered it.

Bill Cadbury, 13 Nov 1995
 
 

I.3
 

FW 052.06:stout. * Having reprimed his repeater

* Last appearance:
1.*1 Second draft (pencil) of FW 48-50.32, 57.16-61.27, written in a large red-backed notebook [...]; probably November 1923 (see Letters, I, 23 October 1923). [JJA 45:140, BL 47471b-9v]:

"[stout.] One sad circumstance the narrator mentioned which goes at once to the heart of things. [Having reprimed]"

Next draft stage:
1.*2/2.*2/3.*2 Fair copy (ink), written in three stages but later combined by Joyce; [...] probably November-December 1923 (see Letters, I, 17 December 1923). [JJA 45:172, BL 47472-121]:

"stout. He rose to his feet"
 

Textual note

On FW 55.20 we read of "one still sadder circumstance" but Joyce left the original sad circumstance out, when he fair-copied his first draft on JJA 45:172. Sadder than what other circumstance? Only JJA and FDV readers know...

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 16 May 2002

---

FW 063.35:  "Maurice Behan, who hastily * into his shoes"

* Lost line,  last appearance :
I.3§2.8+ Duplicate transition 3 pages with the overlay from the preceding draft repeated (some typed on separate sheets and keyed to the transition 3 pages) and with further overlay; 1936. [JJA 45.320 ; 47475-116v]:

"Maurice Behan, who hastily / threw on a pair of old sir Bunchamon's pants, stepped / into his shoes"

Next draft stage :
I.3§2.9 [JJA 49.85 ; 47476a-40]:
"Maurice Behan, who hastily into his shoes"

Textual note

Lost in the same stage as the line on FW 009.01, by the typesetter of the Finnegans Wake galleys, the printer R. MacLehose and Company Limited, Glasgow (see JJA 61:657-666) (address withheld for privacy and security reasons). The typesetter again haplographically jumps one line too far down. The result is an ungrammatical sentence, in which the reader is not allowed to know that Sigerson / Behan wears the handmedown trousers of his boss, HCE / Sir Bunchamon. (Lads a'buncham: a dance: Style: Two double-steps forward with vertical sticks held out in front. Two single backsteps etc.)

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 16 May 2002

See also e-mail from Bill Cadbury to the Finnegans Wake Discussion List, 29 April 1994: "63.35: a line from the transition pages (JJA 43.320) is missed by the typesetter (see JJA49.85, which is galley 35); the passage "who hastily into his shoes" should read "who hastily threw on a pair of old sir Bunchamon's pants, stepped into his shoes".
 

---

FW 070.02: "the week (Gosh, these wholly romads!) * of conscience money"

* Lost line,  last appearance :
I.3§1.5/2.5/3.5 Second typescript, prepared in two parts; each page is numbered twice: first (by the typist) to indicate placement in §1, in §2-3, or in I.4§1, and second (by Joyce) to indicate continuity with I.2§2.5/3.5; fol. 253r also contains the beginning of I.4§15; probably March-April 1927. [JJA 45:241, BL 47472-248]:

"the week, (Gosh, the wholly nomads!) / and he missed a soft felt hat and, take this in, six quid fifteen / of conscience money"

Next draft stage :
I.3§I.6/2.6/3.6 galley proofs (first set) for transition 3, carrying only minor revisions and corrections; dated by the printer 28 April 1927 [JJA 45:267, BL 47472-346]:

"paying 11/- in the week, (Gosh, these wholly nomads!) of conscience money"
 

Textual note

At FW 70.02, the first *transition* galley proof, Level 6, lacks a full typed line from the typescript which was its model, Level 5,  "and he missed a soft felt and, take this in, six quid fifteen",  and the loss is never repaired. Because it is such a common type  of error, to skip from the end of one line to the beginning of the  next line but one, I believe this is a transmissional departure rather than intentional change at what there is much evidence to believe was a now missing Level 5+* which was the typesetter's actual model.
      That is, Level 5 reads (omitting what is not germane here) that "there was a northroomer digging in number 32...paying 11/- in the week, (Gosh, these wholly romads!) and he missed a soft felt and, take this in, six quid fifteen of conscience money...." But Level 6 reads that "there was a northroomer digging in number 32...paying 11/- in the week, (Gosh, these wholly romads!) of conscience money...."
      Thus a kind of sense is made by what remains, but it makes a  lot more sense of the plot if it is the important six pounds fifteen which is conscience money rather than the eleven shillings rent (a number mostly important for being part of 1132). This would be the first mention of the sum, which appears next when the attacker mocks HCE during the struggle on the hill by asking "Was six victolios fifteen pigeon takee offa you" as they struggle, and which he offers to pay back when he seems to be losing the fight, when "he would pay him back the six vics odd...for what was taken on the man of samples...." (FW82.12-13, 27-8). Joyce clearly intended us to understand that the money taken from the "northroomer", the "man of samples" (he was a "commercial" up until Level 3 when he became a "northroomer"), was the same as that discussed in the obscure fight on the hill, but because of this typesetter's error we have no way of knowing that. Knowing it doesn't solve all the problems of reference in these passages, but it certainly makes a connection we were supposed to have.
    One of the reasons it does not solve those reference problems is that, in its next appearance, the sum turns out to be rent money after all, as Festy King is said to have sold off his pig "in order to pay off...six doubloons fifteen arrears of his...rent" (FW86.31). And this is not a compensating change made after the loss of the line, but has been in the text since Level 1, the first revision of the earliest draft.
     But the main reason it doesn't solve them for me is that, after a good number of years of thinking about these transactions, exactly who pays what to whom and why still refuses to click for me with the satisfying logical finality I keep expecting to feel any minute. The money is "conscience money", i.e. (as I understand it), the kind of money you pay someone to ease your conscience, but the possession of it as a sum of conscience money (that is, money which has been paid to the commercial by someone else whose conscience bothered him) precedes rather than follows the offer to pay it as a way of easing a conscience smitten with what happened "last Yuni or Yuly". And why is it just that sum that Festy is short in his rent? Was it taken from him, i.e., is he the commercial? This seems doubtful. Having paid it as conscience money, does he now lack it as rent? This does fit my sense that Festy is the attacker of HCE, not HCE himself (until he turns into him, in effect, during the course of his trial), but does nothing to solve the identity of the mysterious commercial from whom, in that case, Festy got the money in the first place.
      So the only thing I really have to offer here is (but I think it is not nothing) that while drafting the book's "plot", that is, while establishing its framework and before turning to elaborations mostly of its language, Joyce expected us to know that the "commercial", the "northroomer", had that crucial six pounds fifteen stolen from him, and the fact that we don't know that as we read the finished book makes some kind of difference, hard as it is to figure out what that is!

Bill Cadbury, 27 Aug. 1996

The editors of this volume of the James Joyce Archives write that the transition 3 galleys contain only minor corrections and revisions, but they don't say that they also contain at least one major omission (maybe it wasn't their duty or the place to do so, however). We've seen Joyce skipping sentences he wrote (never lines though) and we've seen the final Finnegans Wake typesetter / printer missing lines, but here the transition printer loses one entire line, again haplographically jumping down one line too far in the typescript of JJA 45:241.

The omission not only ruins the syntax but also the narrative continuity: the missing money question returns at FW 82.10 and is supposed to have been announced here, but now it seems to be a new issue that de attacker brings up, and that is definetely not the case. The 'fight' is one of the nodal episodes out of which Finnegans Wake grew, picked up by Joyce from a newspaper account of a court case (and which he 'incorporated wholesale'), as Vincent Deane has found out, in the Connaught Tribune of 20 October 1923 if I remember correctly from his (Mr. Deane's) rousing lecture in Antwerp on 29 March 2001.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 17.05.2002

---

I.4

FW 076.03-4: "being the information, as in more favoured climes, * where the Meadow of Honey is guestfriendly"

*Lost line, last appearance:
I.4§1A.3 [JJA 46.31-47472-156]:
"as in more favoured climes, / on the occasion of his liberal mission's jubilee / of a truly criminal stratum"

Next draft stage:
I.4§1.4 [JJA 46.67 ; 47472-193]:
"as in more favoured climes of a truly criminal stratum"

Textual Note
The phrase "on the occasion of his liberal mission's [??] jubilee [???]"  got ignored-- it may have been intended for after "as in more favoured  climes". That "jubilee" is the same scrawl that I was linking to "from the oppidum  of paleolithic", reading it as possibly "Dublin". Here again, like with  "he conscious of enemies", the handwritten addition seems to trail off  before the last word. The rhythm tips one off that "from the oppidum" needs more modifiers after.

Jorn Barger, 19 September 1991

---

FW 76.06: "thereby at last eliminating from * all classes and masses"

* Lost line, last appearance:
I.4§1.8/2.8 Marked pages of transition 4 (July 1927) prepared for the printer of Finnegans Wake; numbered to follow I.3§1.8/2.8/3.8; probably mid-1930s (the revision of the first set of Book I transition pages was completed by 11 July 1936). [JJA 46:193, BM 47475-122]:

"thereby at last eliminating from the oppidump much desultory delinquency from all classes and masses"

Next (preserved) draft stage:
I.4§1.9/2.9 [JJA 49:99, BL 47476a-47]:

"thereby at last eliminating from all classes and masses"

Textual note

The Finnegans Wake printer preparing the galley proofs haplographically jumps from the word "from" to the word "from" in the next line, thereby eliminating "from the oppidump much desultory delinquency" and leaving the final part of the sentence without an object. Already in 1944, in their Skeleton Key, Campbell & Robinson noticed the difference between the transition text of Work in Progress and the sentence in Finnegans Wake. The passage is already there in the very first draft, so can't be ignored as if it were a relatively late, obscure and not very important embellishment, it is an essential part of the narrative which is unfolding.

The First Draft runs: "With deepseeing insight he may have prayed in silence that his wordwounder might become the first of a longdistinguished dynasty his most cherished idea being the formation, as in more favoured climes, of a truly criminal class, thereby eliminating much general delinquency from all classes and masses." (A First-Draft Version of Finnegans Wake, edited by David Hayman, Faber and Faber 1963, p.75, JJA 46:3, BM 47471b-8v)

A truly Bloomian wellmeaning thought of our hero HCE!

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 18.05.2002

---

FW 076.24-32:
in a fairly fishy kettlekerry, after the Fianna's foreman had taken
his handful, enriched with ancient woods and dear dutchy deep-
linns mid which were an old knoll and a troutbeck, vainyvain of
her osiery and a chatty sally with any Wilt or Walt who would
ongle her as Izaak did to the tickle of his rod and watch her
waters of her sillying waters of and there now brown peater
arripple (may their quilt gild lightly over his somnolulutent
form!) Whoforyou lies his last, by the wrath of Bog, like the
erst curst Hun in the bed of his treubleu Donawhu *.

* Last appearance:
1.A3 First typescript, including as an addition the first draft of the final segment, FW 91.33-92.05; uniform with and following on the same page the end of I.3/§1.3/2.3/3.3; probably early January 1924 but revised again in 1926-1927 [JJA 46:31, BM47472-156]:

"made him (while his body still existed) a present of a watery grave in Moyelta in a fair state of repair, enriched with ancient woods and a gnatty troutbeck, chatty to any Wilt or Walt who would ongle her as Izaak did to the tickle of his rod and watch her waters (May their quilt lay light now over his somnolent form who there now lies his last, like the great Hun in the bed of his treubleu Donawhu!) wherein amid the anfractuosities of which the remains of an epileptic were to have been laid to rest as soon as he was regarded as dead but which nobody living had ever been man enough to dig still less to occupy."

Next draft stage:
1 (AB).*4/2.*4 Fair copy (ink), written in two parts but later combined and revised as a unit; §1.*4 was originally uniform with I.3§1.*4/2.*4/3.*4, the final paragraph of which is included on fol. 193r; probably March 1927 [JJA 46:68, BM 47472-194]:

"made him, while his body still existed, their present of a grave in Moyelta of the best Lough Neagh pattern then as much in demand among misonesans as the Isle of Man today among limniphobes. It was in a fairly fishy condition after the Fianna's foreman had taken his handful enriched with ancient woods and mid which were an old knoll and a troutbeck, chatty with any Wilt or Walt who would ongle her as Izaak did to the tickle of his rod and watch her waters: and there now (may their quilt gild lightly over his somnolutent form!) whoforyou lies his last, by the wrath of God, like the erst curst Hun in the bed of his trueblue Donawhu."
 

Textual note

A very convoluted passage, made none the easier by the loose and easy way Joyce swings himself past the difficulties created by his own not copying exactly what he added on the chockfull typescript of JJA 46:68. A reconstruction.

The worst part is the loss of the fine "amid the anfractuosities"-extension. I think Joyce couldn't employ the sentence anymore after he had misplaced "there now" in his fair copy. Joyce on the typescript originally added: "...who there now lies his last ...", the words "there now" being an addtion within the addition and placed directly above the words in between which they should be placed, as indicated by a caret. But when he made the fair copy from the much too overscribbled typescript, he missed the caret mark and took "there now" as having to precede the parenthetical "may their quilt"-sentence directly next to it. This (and here lies the rug) caused the "and there now"-sentence to be a coordinate clause and not a subordinate clause, as it was. To stress this grammatical change for the worse, Joyce put a colon after "waters". But as this coordinate final clause is very clearly not about the watery grave anymore, it would have been wellnigh impossible just to continue with a comma and glue the "amid the anfractuosities of which"-passage to it, as this refers to and does be telling about the watery grave given to HCE pending his demise.

Of course Joyce would be able to overcome this difficulty if he wanted to: he just made a similar one by splitting the previous sentence in two after "limniphobes", after which it is not immediately clear anymore that the "It" in "It was in a fair state of repair" refers to the grave, even less so when it becomes "It was in a fairly fishy condition. And the "It" completely looses contact with the referent "grave" when Joyce, adding confusion to confusion, in the galley proofs changes it into "It was in a fairly fishy kettlekerry" (JJA 49:68).

The comma between "kettlekerry" and "after" is also needlessly confusing the issue: to be sure, the grave became only in a bad shape after the handful of earth had been taken. Joyce doesn't write a comma on JJA 46:31, nor on 46:68, and the comma that seems to have been added on the following typescript (JJA 46:90) and which is taken as a comma on the next typescript (JJA 46:132), might just as well be a comma put there by Joyce but immediately crossed out. At least to me it looks like that.

The paragraph in the First-Draft Version runs: "The coffin was to come in handy later & in this way. A number of public bodies presented him made him a present of a grave which nobody had been able to dig much less to occupy, it being all rock." (JJA 46:3, BM47471b-8v)

Two more losses to be seen here: "handy", still present in the typescript of JJA 46:31, is silently dropped on Joyce's fair copy of JJA 46:68, by mistake, I'd like to think, as an extra ambiguity is lost (it was to turn in later and to turn in handy). And "it being all rock" unfortunately doesn't even make it into the second draft of JJA 46:13.

One more oversight of Joyce: on the typescript page of JJA 46:31 he added, preceded by a caret "On the occasion of his liberal mission's jubilee", slightly more than halfway down the page, on the left side. Four lines down there is an orphaned caret preceding the new paragraph starting with: "A number of public bodies", but there's nothing added to it on Joyce's fair copy. I think these carets belong together, and that the sentence Joyce envisaged was: "On the occasion of his liberal mission's jubilee a number of public bodies presented him" etc.

So, to annotate the transmissional departures here, I would say that
a) the sentence would be better off without the comma between "kettlekerry" and "after";
b) the words "brown peater aripple" can be restored to the way Joyce wrote them first, on JJA 46:90, as ", brown peater everipple," between comma's and the word "everipple" (a joke on the condom brand or nickname Neverrip?) and not as he wrote or seemed to write them on JJA 46:132 (and as set on46:162); and
c) if the word order and placement of parentheses in the typescript overlay of JJA 46:31 would be restored, it wouldn't be necessary to leave out the "anfractuosities"-extension.

Ideally then, the sentence would look like this:

"It was in a fairly fishy kettlekerry after the Fianna's foreman had taken his handful, enriched with ancient woods and dear dutchy deeplinns mid which were an old knoll and a troutbeck, vainyvain of her osiery and a chatty sally with any Wilt or Walt who would ongle her as Izaak did to the tickle of his rod and watch her waters of her sillying waters of, brown peater arripple, (May their quilt gild lightly over his somnolutent form whoforyou there now lies his last, by the wrath of Bog, like the erst curst Hun in the bed of his treubleu Donawhu!) amid the anfractuosities of which the remains of an epileptic were to have been laid to rest as soon as he was regarded as dead but which nobody living had ever been man enough to dig still less to occupy, it being all rock."

The relevant James Joyce Archives pages are JJA 46:x, 46:3, 46:13, 46:22, 46:31, 46:68, 46:90, 46:132, 46:162, 46:192-193, 49:99, 49:395.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 18.05.2002

---

FW 087.04:  "that he would be * there * to remember the filth of  November"

* Lost words, last appearances:
I.4§1.7/2.7 [galley proofs for transition 4, dated by the printer 27 May 1927 (but see Letters, I, 20 May 1927); JJA46:169; BL 47472-375]
"^that he slept with a bonafides and that he would be sleeping ^doorbringing^ there that night and how^ he was pleased to remember the filth of November (...)")

I.4§1.8+/2.8+ [marked pages of transition 4 (duplicate); JJA 46:207; BL 47475-125v]
"that he slept with a bonafides and that / he would be there that night and how doorbringing/ he was pleased to remember the filth of November, / (...)"

Next draft stage:
I.4§1.9/2.9 [Galley proofs; 49:115; 47476a-53]
"that he slept with a bonafides and that he would be there to remember the filth of November, (...)
 

Textual note

Every once in a while cranking through the documents turns up something more interesting than the usual discovery (important as that is) that Joyce's sentences made better sense and were better punctuated when they left his pen than when his typists and typesetters got through with them. Here's one I've just turned up, which even gives a little interpretive puzzle which hasn't been dealt with because its text didn't survive.

As FW87 begins, the eye, ear nose and throat witness is beginning his testimony. As of Level 7, the transition galley as typeset, he "stated to his eliciter under his morse mustaccents, that he was pleased to remember the filth of November...".

Joyce adds after "mustaccents, that": "that he slept with a bonafides and that he would be sleeping there that night and how". But he crosses out "sleeping" and, right below the end of this overlay addition, he substitutes for it "doorbringing". Thus the output of revision Level 7 was supposed to be:

"stated to his eliciter under his morse mustaccents, that that he slept with a bonafides and that he would be doorbringing there that night and how he was pleased to remember the filth of November"

It did not, however, work out that way. The typesetter who reset the lines and produced the actual transition text dropped the doubled "that" and somehow managed to misread the instruction about "doorbringing"--though it is clearly marked with matching indexing symbols and a connecting line to replace "sleeping", it does, as I said, follow the end of the overlay, and the typesetter just puts it there, so that the transition text reads (and this time, for reasons which will emerge, I'll reproduce it with the *transition* lineation):

                       stated to his eliciter under his morse
         mustaccents, that he slept with a bonafides and that
         he would be there that night and how doorbringing
         he was pleased to remember the filth of November

 Little sense as this makes, it survived Joyce's attentions in the revisions of the *transition* text in the 1930s, with Joyce adding "(gobbless!)" after "mustaccents" (in the course of which the comma was lost, obscured by the revision), so that we can't say he didn't look over the passage (and thus arise those issues of "acceptance" which make textual work so controversial).

But the Finnegans Wake galleys don't read like this. There we have exactly what is in the printed book (that is, there are no revisions to the galleys):

"stated to his eliciter under his morse mustaccents (gobbless!) that he slept with a bonafides and that he would be there to remember the filth of November"

 Now there is substantial evidence (maybe not conclusive, and in my mind the jury is still out) that there was another copy of the revised transition pages (maybe not all of them) which went to the printer beyond Level 8+, the one we have. But it seems to me extremely unlikely that the Gordian tangle around "doorbringing" was resolved by cutting in this way, someone deciding that its illogic could be eliminated by leaving out "that night and how doorbringing he was pleased". It isn't the kind of solution Joyce usually comes to, and besides, the other possibility seems to me quite compelling--as you can see where I preserved the lineation, "be there" is right above "to remember", and this typesetter (I presume it's the same, because the pages are so close) has been known before to leave out from a spot on one line of Level 8+ to the spot right below it, as witness the omission of "boeuffickly bucephall. Wheataured, however, and with fallen mam-" between "Wirrgeling and" and "maries" at what becomes 88.33-4.

So I think that at least when he wrote it Joyce meant his witness to be saying to his "eliciter" that he would be "doorbringing" (as a replacement of "sleeping") there with his "bonafides" (not a person, I suppose--is it the piece of paper you carry with you to show you're a bona fide traveler and hence can use the pub?) and, with this respectability once established, he can more authoritatively state that he remembers.... It does seem to me to link him a little more securely to that other traveler, the "northroomer" at the Rum and Puncheon of page 69, who "missed" (though as I showed recently we missed it too, in a similar transmission sequence of a typed line dropped, though that time at Level 6) "a soft felt and, take this in, six quid fifteen". It seems a case of what Joyce describes, this time in a galley proof addition, of "The boarder incident prerepeat[ing] itself", at 81.32-3.

But (and here's where the opportunity for new interpretation presents itself) why in the world is "doorbringing" a substitute for "sleeping"? What can he mean when he says he'll be doorbringing there that night? (...)

 Bill Cadbury, 10 Sep. 1996
 

The addition on the transition galley proofs, in Joyce's handwriting, is: "that he slept with a bonafides and that he would be sleepingdoorbringing there that night and how". The word "doorbringing" is to replace the crossed out "sleeping", from which word Joyce draws a line to the new word under the added lines. The transition printer doesn't see that the line ends in "sleeping" and prints "doorbringing" after "how": "and that he would be there that night and how doorbringing he was pleased to remember the filth of November," .

The next draft shows no changes but the FW galley printer (JJA 49:115) skips a line of the transition page: he jumps from "there" halfway line 25 to the words "to remember" halfway line 26.

Doorbringing is from the Dutch / Flemish / Afrikaans: "de nacht doorbrengen": to spend the night.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 18 May 2002

---

FW 088.20: "And with * tumblerous legs, (...)"

Lost line,  last appearance :
I.4§1.8+/2.8+ [transition 4 pages;  JJA 46.209; BL 47475-126] :
"And with / a stopper head, bottle shoulders, a barrel belly ^bauck^ and / tumblerous legs,"

Next draft stage :
I.4§1.9/2.9 [Galley proofs (first set) for Finnegans Wake; JJA 49:117; BL 47476a-54]:
"And / with tumblerous legs, (...)"

And with * tumblerous legs

"tumblerous" (88.20): The words preceding "tumblerous" which are introduced at 46.115.17+, are carried on with only one change ("belly" --> "bauck" at 46.209.35+); by level 9 they make up exactly one line of the marked pages of transition 4 prepared for the typesetter of Finnegans Wake, namely 46.209.35. The line is skipped in the typesetting of the first galley proofs (49.117.31), and should surely be thought of as part of Joyce's intention; I propose it as an emendation. One notices how much better the rhythm and clearer the meaning with it restored.

Bill Cadbury, 14 Oct. 1992
 

The FW galley printer omits an entire line, line 35 from the transition overlay (JJA 46:209), and one in which Joyce even changes a word (bauck for belly), not destroying the question-anwer series (as in the next omission) but leaving out essential information pointing to publican HCE as the litigating party turned prosecuted (as in the Oscar Wilde case). (At least I have the impression that such turnabouts happen here.)

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 18 May 2002
 

---
 

FW 088.33-4:   "Wirrgeling and * maries?"

* Lost line,  last appearance :
I.4§1.8+/2.8+ Duplicate transition 4 pages with the overlay from the preceding draft repeated (some typed on separate sheets and keyed to the transition 4 pages), and with further overlay; 1936 [JJA 46:208, BL 47475-216]:

"Wirrgeling and / boeuffickly bucephull. Wheataured,however,and with fallen mam- / maries ?"

Next draft stage :
I.4§1.9/2.9 [JJA 49:117, BL 47476a-54]:

"Wirrgeling and maries?"
 

Textual note

The incomprehensible question and answer at 88.33-5, "Wirgelling and maries? As whose wouldn't...", actually makes perfectly good sense (or at least promises to!) when the line which was omitted by the typesetter of the galleys is restored. The passage should read "Wirgelling and [boeuffickly bucephull. Wheataured, however, and with fallen mam-]maries? As whose wouldn't...." 'Whose mammaries wouldn't fall?' makes a sense of the answer that can't be made without the missing line. (Again, a footnote explains further).

"maries" (88.34). The words preceding "maries"--"boeuffickly...mam-" at (46.209.39+(208)) make up exactly one line of typescript, which clearly the typesetter missed at 49.117.35. Obviously what was intended was that "Wirrgeling and boeuffickly bucephull" should answer "One of the oxmen's thingabossers, hvad?, and that the immediately following question, "Wheataured, however, and with fallen mammaries?" should be answered "As whose wouldn't, laving his leaftime in Blackpool." I propose this as an emendation, to restore the missing line.

Bill Cadbury, 14 Oct. 1992
 

The transition overlay addition starts (to be inserted after "Yggdrasselmann?"): "Holy Saint Eiffel, the very fellow phoenix! One of the oxmen's thingabossers, hvad? Wirrgeling and boeuffickly bucephull. Wheataured, however, and with fallen mammaries? As whose wouldn't, laving his leaftime in Blackpool. " etc.

In the galleys, a whole typed line is missed, destroying the question-answer pairs. To make matters worse, Joyce inserts in the galleys another question-answer pair, so the faulty sentences now run:

"One of the oxmen's thingabossers, hvad? And had he been refresqued by the founts of bounty playing there-is-a-pain-aleland in Long's gourgling barral? A loss of lordedward and a lack of sirphilip a surgeonet showeradown could suck more gargling bubbles out of the five lamps in Portterand's praise. Wirrgeling and maries? As whose wouldn't, laving his leaftime in Blackpool."

(By the way: Joyce writes "there-is-a-pain-aleland" with short hyphens and "lordedward" with a small "l", from which the opposite typed page of JJA 49:116 without authorization transmissionally departs.)

Reconstructed and restored, the sentences would read:

"One of the oxmen's thingabossers, hvad? Wirrgeling and boeuffickly bucephull. And had he been refresqued by the founts of bounty playing there-is-a-pain-aleland in Long's gourgling barral? A loss of lordedward and a lack of sirphilip a surgeonet showeradown could suck more gargling bubbles out of the five lamps in Portterand's praise. Wheataured, however, and with fallen mammaries? As whose wouldn't, laving his leaftime in Blackpool."

For deeper and cleare insights in the narrative continuity of the questions and answers I refer the reader to Bill Cadbury's breathtaking and groundbreaking article, The Development of the "Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Witness" testimony on I.4, in the European Joyce Studies No. 5, Probes: Genetic Studies in Joyce, edited by David Hayman and Sam Slote, Rodopi publishers, Amsterdam-Atlanta GA, 1995 (p.203-254).

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 18 May 2002
 

---

[FW 102.17]: "(...) to crush the slander's head. *"

* Lost passage, last appearance:
I.4§2.*1 (or I.5§1.*0) [JJA 46:55 (and 261); BL 47471b-36]

"to crush the slander's head. ^Would we vision her ^(subconscious editor)^ with stereoptican relief^

This addition probably refers to a passage following the first draft of Chapter 5 section 1, on page 25v of the so-called red-backed notebook (47471b):
"Wonderfully well this explains the double nature of this gryphonic script and while its ingredients stand out with stereoptican relief we can speep ^tour^ beyond the figure of the scriptor into the subconscious editor's mind." [JJA 46:238; 47471b-25v]

Textual note:

See I.5, FW 112.02

I.5

FW 112.02: "to see as much as the hen saw. * Tip."

* Lost passage, last appearance:
I.5§1.*0 [JJA 46:238; BL 47471b-25v]

"to see as much as the hen saw. Wonderfully well this explains the double nature of this gryphonic script and while its ingredients stand out with stereoptican relief we can speep ^tour^ beyond the figure of the scriptor into the subconscious editor's mind."

Next draft stage:
I.5§1.*1 [JJA 46:246; BL 47471b-49]

"to see as much as the hen saw."

Textual note:

For a long time, I.4§2 and I.5§2 (the Letter) belonged together. An addition indicated with an "M" precisely on the place of transition between episodes I.4§2.*1 and I.5§2.*1 on page 36 (of the red-backed notebook 47471b), seems to announce the imminent breach between the two episodes. The addition to which the "M" refers ("Would we vision her (subconscious editor) with stereoptican relief") is located at the top of page 35v and refers to an eventually omitted paragraph at the end of I.5§1.*0 (on page 25v) to which it may have been added at a later stage. In FDV, David Hayman transcribed this passage as follows:

"Wonderfully well this explains the double nature of this gryphonic script and while its ingredients stand out with stereoptican relief we can see peep tour beyond the figure of the scriptor into the subconscious writer's mind." (FDV 87)

In 1990, Hayman adjusted his initial transcription in The Wake in Transit (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), 175.
(cf. Dirk Van Hulle, "The Wake's Progress: Toward a Genetic Edition," TEXT (Interdisciplinary Annual of Textual Studies) 13 (2000): 221-232)

In a teleological representation, the fact that this is the only paragraph in the first draft of this section that was not crossed out
when Joyce copied it, would imply that Joyce simply did not think it was good enough to be incorporated. But Joyce was generally
extremely reluctant to abandon any of his creations of more than a few lines. If one focuses less on the reading sequence and
concentrates on the writing sequence, another hypothesis may be suggested. The correspondence between the addition on page 35v
and the paragraph on page 25v may have worked in two directions. Either the addition was written first (based on two entries in
VI.B.11: "wd we vision him" [B.11:50(l)] and "stereoptrean views" [B.11:125(i)]) and subsequently caused Joyce to elaborate it in
a short paragraph; or else this paragraph was written first. Since the left and right margins of this paragraph are somewhat larger than
those of the preceding text, the paragraph seems to have been written later than the rest of I.5§1.*0. Perhaps Joyce did not
incorporate it in the second draft, because he had decided that it should be added to the end of I.4§2 (or the beginning of the
Letter), which he marked by the "M". This would mean that Joyce wrote the addition on page 35v ("Would we vision her
(subconscious editor) with stereoptican relief") as a reminder for himself that this was the place where the paragraph on page 25v
concerning the "subconcious editor's mind" was to be inserted. This would be a rather exceptional procedure, but precisely this
exceptional situation might explain why Joyce eventually forgot to incorporate the paragraph in the confusion created by his own
method of writing.

See also FW 102.17: I.5§1.*0 (or I.4§2.*1) [JJA 46:261 (and 55); 47471b-36]

Dirk Van Hulle, 12 December 2000
 
 
 

I.6

FW 144.02:  "For every got I care! * Three creamings"

* Last appearance:
I.6§1.8/2.5/3.11/4.7 Galleys (second set, duplicates) for Finnegans Wake [...]; dated as the first set but received by Harriet Shaw
Weaver 16 May 1938 [JJA 49:479, BL 47476a-228v]:

"For every got I care! I can pay my club like she. Three creamings"

Next draft stage:
I.6§1.8/2.5/3.11/4.7 Galleys (second set, duplicates) for Finnegans Wake [...]; dated as the first set but received by Harriet Shaw
Weaver 16 May 1938 [JJA 49:478, BL 47476a-229]:

"For every got I care! Three creamings"

Textual note
The addition (in italics) is in the top half of the right-hand margin of the page. The word "got" may also be "jot" but probably the first letter
is indeed a, be it hasty, g. The typist misses the second half of the addition (in the James Joyce Archives printed on the opposite page of
the volume), but still somebody strikes out the entire addition as having been faithfully copied.

Some other anomalies in this second galley proof of the Issy passage, Question 10 (not more than what has gone astray in other passages
and in other stages, so it may be considered as another random survey):

What is typed and set as "Mrs Browne" (FW 144.31) looks like "Mrs Brawne" on the written page (left-hand margin, bottom half of JJA
49:479).

FW 145.16: in the transition overlay of JJA 47:289, Joyce replaces "suffer, softly", into "suffer, buttermelt", but the first galley print (JJA
49:289) shows neither "softly" nor its subsitute "buttermelt". Joyce notes the omission and on JJA 49:481 inserts ", meddlar". (A typing
error which Joyce works his way around.)

On JJA 49:481 Joyce writes "th'adult'rous" as one word, without spaces. The typed version on the verso page is an exact replica, so the
transmissional departure in this case dates from the (non-extant) final print proof stage.

Strange things happen on FW 146.12-13, with "Blessed Marguerite bosses" and "Ballshossers". First Joyce wrote (on JJA 47:288,
transition overlay for the FW galley printer) "Blessed Marguerite Moses!", which is typed as "Blessed Marguerite Mosses," Whether the
differences (Mosses out of Mosses; comma instead of exclamation mark) are accidental or are supervised by Joyce is hard to say. In the
second galleys, Joyce wants "Ballshossers" to be written with a small b. For this, he strikes out the capital B and writes an insertion mark
"2". This number however is hard to see as it comes right on top of the letter just above "Ballshossers". That letter is the capital M of
"Mosses". It now looks as if the number 2 is a "P" to replace the "M" of "Mosses". And the cross-out of the capital B of "Ballshossers" is
taken as a sign to replace it with a capital T: and so the word winds up on the typed page (JJA 49:480), as "Tallshossers". This mistake
Joyce repairs in the non-extant final FW proofs (has to be, as the first edition is already okay). Close inspection of the galley page reveals
that the insertion mark "2" has its pendant in a "2" in right-hand margin, bottom half of the page, which reads: "2 b". So what was meant
was "Mosses" not to be changed and "Ballshossers" into "ballshossers".

What is extra interesting is that we can see, as it were, Joyce actively answering a question by the typist. The word "Mosses", made
partially illegible by the "2" is troubling the typist: he or she encircles it and then asks Joyce: "What is supposed to be done with this?"
Joyce looks at the page and says, because he knows the "2" refers to the decapitalization of "ballshossers": "Small b." The typist then
indeed types a small b, not in "ballshossers" however, but in "Mosses", which ends up as "bosses"!

The third duplicate set of galley proofs for the most part only bring together the additions and changes made on the first two sets. At least
this goes for this page (JJA 50:191-190).

These were the transmissional departures on the second set of the galley proofs for question 10 of chapter 6 (FW 143.29-148.148.32).

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 21 May 2002

---

FW 144.36-145.01:  May you never see me in my * birthday pelts

* Last appearance:
1.*2 Second fair copy (ink) incorporating from §1.*1 pages and parts of pages that were not redrafted [...]; probably July or early August 1927 (see Letters, III, 26 July 1927) [JJA 47:76, BL 47473-164]:

"May you never see me in my figure how I sleep gracefully in my birthday pelts"

Next draft stage:
1.4 Galley proofs (first set, duplicates: comprising FW, 126-150.14, 168.13-14) for transition 6; keyed to be followed by §2.2; probably early August 1927. [JJA 47:96, BL 47473-203]:

"May you never see me in my birthday pelts"

Textual note

The First-Draft Version runs: "May you never see me in my figure when I'm asleep in my birthday dress pelts" ... (JJA 47:36, BL 47473-138, in David Hayman's FDV p.97)

Joyce in his fair copy almost skips a handwritten line of his own, writing "birthday pelts" one line too soon as compared to the first-draft version. But he notices his inadvertency and crosses out the premature words:

"                   May you never
see me in my birthday pelts figure how
I sleep gracefully in my birthday pelts and that
that her blanches mainges may rot" .....

(Note: Joyce adds "gracefully" and by mistake double "that" but crosses out the first. On the fair copy, it looks as if there is a full stop after "how" but comparing the sentence to the first-draft version makes me think that it is a small inkblot: Joyce doesn't often cut his sentences up or change his initial grammar.)

Now the ironical part: Joyce almost dropped a line, but the typist, or the transition printer (the typescript made from this fair copy is incomplete) does actually drop one, jumping from the crossed-out "birthday pelts" to the new one, one line down. The transition-proof runs:

"May you never see me in my birthday pelts and that her blanches mainges may rot" ...

A real entire and really entirely lost line.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 21.05.2002

---

FW 159.26:  by genius. * I feel in

* Last appearance:
1.6/2.4/3.9/4.5 Pages of the published version or 'Second Edition' of transition 6 (September 1927); incomplete, lacking pp. 101-104 (the bulk of the 'Mookse and the Gripes' episode), which, however, were probably replaced before revison by the Tales Told pages (see §3.9+ below); revised for the printer of Finnegans Wake and numbered to follow I.5§1.9/4.9; probably mid-1930s (the revision of the first set of Book I transition pages was completed 11 July 1936) [JJA 47:252, BM 47475-59v]:

"genius I'm Armory, so herald me, but he's merely the size of his shirt. The Jonases were juanisers in Lyoness before the first Schmied started to forge. For see my stitchwork! A boche beuglant in a field flam. Motto: Twist im ann insulte! Mookse makes for Muth and his Muth makes for Mastery, wile Gripes yidds to Guile and his Guile'll yield the faster he is Faced in Front and Forced to acknowledge that the Roarer Rules the Knaves Leonidas! Mookse! Mookse! Mookse! I could face a phalanx philistine! And Gripes, Gripes, Gripes, I could face chor em wiv zis jor of mine. For I feel like Samsen. Hamsen and Yam Yammesen but nevertheleast also I feel in"

[Notes: the full stop after "genius" is only missed by the Second Edition transition-printer, the First Edition, used for further FW-processing, has the full stop, but not the 'Armory' addition. The same goes for the full stop after "Samsen": manuscript evidence suggests this should be a comma- RJH]

Next draft stage:
1.6+/2.4+/3.9/4.5+ Pages of the final page proofs or 'First Edition' of transition 6, and pages of th 'Mookse and the Gripes' episode from Tales Told of Shem and Shaun (Paris, 1929) originally numbered to follow 1.8§1.17 in the first set of Book I pages, with the overlay from the preceding draft written in or typed on separate sheets and with further overlay; the use in this draft stage of the page proffs rather than the published version of transition 6 has resulted in a number of omissions from Finnegans Wake (see David Hayman's preface [to volume 47 of the JJA - RJH] and the references there quoted); [...] 1936 [JJA 47:300-301, BM 47475-147v, 47475-248]:

"by genius. I feel in"

Textual note

As the introductory remarks in the quoted JJA sources say, there were two editions of transition 6, the second one containing revisoons and extra passages. When Joyce prepared the text for the Finnegans Wake galley printer, he used both editions, probably taking them for two sets of the same text. On both copies then Joyce added extra material, carefully copying material from one set, the raft version of his additions and revisions, onto another set in a slightly mor legible or reproducible form. What he didn't copy, as a consequence, where the parts from the Second Edition which were already present in the printed Second Edition transistion text, because he thought the two copies of transition that he used were identical. They weren't and Joyce apparently didn't notice it while preparing one master set for the FW printer. Unfortunately it was the First Edition text with overlay which Joyce sent to Scotland.

Part of the copy of transition Joyce prepared for the Second Edition, with his handwritten changes and additions, is reprinted in the James Joyce Archives 47:176-181, but this is only the last part of the chapter (FW 159.24-168.14). The manuscript version of the"Armory" extension is on JJA 47:176. An extra difficulty about this passage is the instruction for the printer Joyce writes in the margin of the Second Edition overlay (the one he didn't forward to MacLehose in Scotland): the lines from "Mookse makes for Muth" (Joyce even puts a "New paragraph" sign between "insulte" and "Mookse") up to and including "near Inaccessible" should be printed as "verse", though I think Joyce draw the line in the margin too long, and that the verse should stop at "wiv zis jor of mine". Maybe the lines should run like this?

....genius. I'm Armory, so herald me, but he's merely the size of his shirt. The Jonases were juanisers in Lyoness before the first Schmied started to forge. For see my stitchwork! A boche beuglant in a field flam. Motto: Twist im ann insulte!
Mookse makes for Muth and his Muth makes for Mastery, wile Gripes yidds to Guile and his Guile'll yield the faster he is Faced in Front and Forced to acknowledge that the Roarer Rules the Knaves Leonidas!
Mookse! Mookse! Mookse! I could face a phalanx philistine!
And Gripes, Gripes, Gripes, I could face chor em wiv zis jor of mine.
For I feel like Samsen, Hamsen and Yam Yammesen but nevertheleast also I feel in I feel in symbathos for my ever devoted friend and halfaloafonwashed, Gnaccus Gnoccovitch. Darling gem! Darling smallfox! Horoseshoew! I could love that man like my own ambo for being so baileycliaver though he's a nawful curillass and I must slav to methodiousness. I want him to go and live like a theabild in charge of the night brigade on Tristan da Cunha, isle of manoverboard, where he'll make Number 106 and be near Inaccessible.

David Hayman in his First-Draft Version of Finnegans Wake (Faber and Faber, 1963) has compiled a list of Second Edition additions and emendations that missed the boat for Finnegans Wake. Mr Hayman writes: "The revisions which these pages contain were with one exception not included in FW, though only the starred numbers are missing from Transition 6." The list includes these other Second Edition hapax legomena:

138.24:
"to live with whom, the toady, is a lifemayor" (JJA 47:102, 47:245)

138.25:
"a lubberal education" (JJA 47:102, 47:245).

141.14:
"buggelawrs, innhome daymon, outhouse diuell, might underhold"

141.32:
"on the flowers of the liloleum if my ash and can" (JJA 47:105-106, 47:247, 47:278. For "my ash and can" instead of "me ask and can", see JJA 47:55, 47:71, 47:94.)

141.33:
"speak like Big Whittington and he" (JJA 47:106, 47:247, 47:278).

142.23:
"driven by those numen fateful changendings, the feedkeepers at our free laws (Fors Forsennat Finds Clusium!), nightly consternation" (JJA 47:106, 47:247, 47:279). (Forçat: French: cad, galley slave, wretch. The Four before the Senate Find a Closed Door, see Phrase & Fable under Lars Porsena of Clusium.)

159.25:
already discussed.

159.27:
"Darling germ!" (JJA 47:176, 47:252, 47:301).

163.23:
"sinequamnunc" (JJA 47:178, 47:253, 47:322).

163.25:
"swoors by his Father Familiaritas and his Mother Contumelia and by the soul in his suit and the animus in his soul and the mind in his animus and the good in his mind that on" (JJA 47:178, 47:253, 47:322). (Hayman's FDV p.298 omits "soul in his suit and the".)

See also and especially: Fred Higginson, "The text of Finnegans Wake", in New Light on Joyce, ed. Fritz Senn, 1972, pp 120-130. Read also David Hayman's preface to this JJA volume (JJA 47:vii-xxi), Fred Higginson, Notes on the Text of Finnegans Wake, in the Journal of English and German Philology, Vol. 55, 1956, p.451-456 and Clive Hart's article of the same name in the same journal, Vol. LIX, No. 2, April 1960, p. 229-239.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 21 May 2002
 
 
 

I.7

FW 180.21:  the grief from his * breath, the fog

* Last appearance:
1.5/2.5 Typescript prepared for the printer of This Quarter; includes several pages and parts of pages from the preceding draft; Summer 1925 [JJA 47:458, BL 47474-46]:

"the grief from his nose, the dig in his ribs, the age of his arteries, the weight of his breath, the fog"

Next draft stage:
1.7/2.7 Marked pages of This Quarter (Autumn-Winter 1925) for the printer of transition 7; probably August-September 1927 [JJA 47:475, BL 47474-76v]:

"the grief from his * breath, the fog"

Textual note

In typesetting Joyce's typescript the printer of This Quarter jumps down one line not finishing the one he is busy typesetting: from "from his" with still two words to go on line 21 he jumps down and picks up with "his breath" and then finishes the likewise two words he has to go on that line. In iceskating and any other sport that would be called cheating.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 22 May 2002

---

FW 181.36: "how many * pseudostylic"

* Last appearance:
1.5/2.5 Typescript prepared for the printer of This Quarter; includes several pages and parts of pages from the preceding draft; Summer 1925 [JJA 47:459, BL 47474-47]:

"how many unsigned copies of original masterworks, how many pseudostylic"

Next draft stage:
1.7/2.7 Marked pages of This Quarter (Autumn-Winter 1925) for the printer of transition 7; probably August-September 1927 [JJA 47:475, BL 47474-77]:

"how many pseudostylic"

Textual note

The same cheat, probably as the one in FW 180.21. The printer of This Quarter again jumps down before having finished his line. From line 22 of the typscript, with two and a half words to go, he surreptitiously cuts the corner after "how many" and continues, as if his nose bleeds (as we say in Holland: acting as though it's no concern of his), one lap down after the "how many" there and finishes the five words left on line 23.

I don't think Joyce ever proofread with the old text next to the new, so these mistakes, that don't ruin the sentence grammatically, are not so easy to notice.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 22.05.2002

---

FW 182.22-5:"a jucal inkome of one hundred and thirtytwo dranchmas per yard * from Broken Hill stranded estate, Camebreech mannings, * cutting a great dash in a brandnew two guinea dress suit"

* Only appearance:
I.7§1.*1, second draft (pencil) in a large red-backed notebook; probably January 1924 (see Letters I, 16 January and 8 February 1924) [JJA 47:354; BL MS 47471b-61v]:

"a tiptop tenor voice, an ^ ducal ^ income of 20,000 a year ^derived^ from landed property, Oxford manners, morals and a brandnew 3 guinea evening suit for a party,"

Next draft stage:
I.7§1.*2, fair copy (ink); sent to Harriet Shaw Weaver early February 1924 (see Letters I, 8 February 1924) [JJA 47:370; BL MS 47474-11]:

"a tiptop tenor voice, a ducal income of one hundred and thirtytwo pounds a year from landed estate, Oxford manners, ^cutting a great dash in^ a brandnew two guinea dress suit ^hired^ for an evening a Sunday evening party,"
 

Textual note

The words "derived" and "morals and" appear as part of an addition on a verso page of the second draft (JJA 47:354-5), elaborating a description of Shem. The insertion is indicated on the recto page between "with love lyrics in his eyes" and "& a lovely pair of inky Italian's moustaches" (JJA 47:355). There are a number of variants between the second draft and fair copy, which lead me to speculate that there is a missing document between the second draft and fair copy. If there is not a missing document, then Joyce made a number of changes in the act of fair-copying:

second draft

fair copy

one hundred and thirtytwo pounds

20,000

derived from

from

estate

property

two

3

dress

evening

Italian

Italian's

moustaches

moustaches glittering with boric vaseline and frangipani

The verso insertion in the second draft includes the unusual feature of a blank space between "morals and" and "a brandnew" (JJA 47:354). Either Joyce left the space after writing "morals and" with the intention of adding something else to the list about Shem; or the blank space was originally between "Oxford manners," and "a brandnew", so that when Joyce did add "morals and" he did not fill up the full space he had left for himself. When it came to fair-copying, Joyce inserted "cutting a great dash in" in that same position between "Oxford manners," and "a brandnew" in the left margin (JJA 47:370). But he did not copy "morals and". Perhaps Shem lost his morals at Oxford?

By the time this passage had evolved to its published version, the context for these lost words ("derived" and "morals and") had changed: "20,000 a year" had become "one hundred and thirtytwo dranchmas per yard" and "from landed property" had become "from Broken Hill stranded estate"; "Oxford manners" had become "Camebreech mannings" (FW 182.23-4) and "a brandnew 3 guinea evening suit for a party" had become "cutting a great dash in a brandnew two guinea dress suit and a burled hogsford hired for a Fursday evenin merry pawty" (FW 182.24-6). A trace of the "Oxford manners" lingers in the "burled hogsford" (Oxford also being a type of dress shirt; "burled" meaning "striped" or "pimpled" (OED)).

Christopher Whalen, 20 July 2009
---

FW 187.36:"where have you been * in the uterim, enjoying yourself"

* Last appearance:
1.3/2.3 First typescript, numbered separately but revised in conjunction with I.5§1.5/4.5 and I.8§1.3; probably February 1923 (see Letters, I, 8 February 1924), but revised April-May 1925 [JJA 47:419, BL 47474-33]:

"where have you been all this quite a while ^hell of a time^, my tooraladdy? How have you been enjoying yourself"

Next draft stage:
1.4/2.4 Second typescript; with a few pages cut up and pasted to retyped pages (see following draft: typescript prepared for the printer of This Quarter); some fragments missing; probably June 1925 (see Letters, I, 13 June 1925) [JJA 47:444, BM 47474-66]:

"Where have you been enjoying yourself"
 

Textual note

Not only the This Quarter printer skips lines, also the typist retyping the first typescript after Joyce's last fair copy misses a line. After "Where have you been" he continues one line down after "how have you been".

The addition "in the uterim," appears in writing in the proofs for transition 7, September 1927, JJA 47:497.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 22.05.2002
---

FW 190.06: "mutton you crackerhack, * the more potherbs you pound"

* Last appearance:
I.7§2.*0 First draft (pencil) in the large red-backed notebook; structured on the list of charges found on fol. 65v; this draft is followed (on fol. 68r) by the first version of the opening lines of I.8; January or early February 1924 [JJA 47:377, BL 47471b-66, FDV p.121]:

"mutton you ^cracker^hash, the more bacon you rasher, ^the more potherbs you pound^"

Next draft stage:
I.7§2.*1 Second draft (pencil) in the same notebook; January or February 1924 [JJA 47:385, BL 47471b-70]:

"mutton you crackerhashck, the more potherbs you pound"
 

Textual note

Not only typists and typesetters miss lines, Joyce too, although in his case we'll never know with absolute certainty if it was on purpose or by accident. Here's a nice bunch of five words that didn't even make it into the second draft, let alone the first fair copy or the innumerable stages of Work in Progress still to follow.

Maybe, one (I) would like to think, Joyce skipped "the more bacon you rasher" because 'rasher' sounds too much like 'hash' from his previous item "crackerhash". But this can't be the case, because "crackerhash" Joyce immediately in the next draft, not more than a few weeks later, changes into "crackerhack", and the 'bacon'-extension is left out. Now nothing sounds like 'hash' or 'rasher' anymore, whereas one of them could have been allowed to stand. Nevertheless, Joyce doesn't copy the 'bacon'-phrase, so it is up to the textual geneticists to make these authentic Joycean words known to the world.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 22 May 2002

---

FW 192.32:* Where is that little alimony nestegg

* Last appearance:
1.5/2.5 Typescript prepared for the printer of This Quarter (Summer 1925) [JJA 47:468, BL 47474-57]:

"Where are the little apples we lock up in the little saltbox? Where is that little alimony nestegg"

Next draft stage:
1.7/2.7 Marked pages of This Quarter (Autumn-Winter 1925) for the printer of transition 7; probably August-September 1927 [JJA 47:480, BL 47474-80v]:

"Where is that little alimony nestegg"
 

Textual note

It all began in the first draft as an on the fly addition: "Where are the little apples we lock up in the little drawer?" (JJA 47:387). In the second draft "drawer" has become "saltbox" (JJA 47:389). The fair copy and the following two typescripts are all right, but the printer of This Quarter again takes the short route and drops a line, jumping from one "Where" (line 7) to the next (line 8). The typescript prepared for the printer [JJA 47:468, BL 47474-57] reads:

line 7  and the lightthrowers knickered: who's whinging we? Where are the litt
line 8  little apples we lock up in in the little saltbox? Where is that little
line 9  alimony nestegg against our predictable rainy day? (...)
 

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 22 May 2002.

---

BOOK II:

II.2
 

FW 260.01-02: "As we there are where are we are we there * / from tomtittot to teetootomtotalitarian."

* Last appearance:
I.2§1.6/2.4/3A.6, typescript; late 1934, sent to Harriet Shaw Weaver from Paris on 29 March 1935 [JJA 52:85; 47478-183]:
"As we there are where are we are we there haltagain. By recourse, of course, recoursing from tomtittot to
teetootomtotalitarian."

Next draft stage:
1.2§1.11/2.9/3.11, page proofs for Storiella (unrevised, incomplete,and, except for the mispositioning of some marginalia,
identical with the published version; September-October 1937) [JJA 52:130 VI.G.4-5]:
"As we there are where are we are we there from tomtittot to teetootomtotalitarian."

Textual Note

Joyce's first draft of the sentence is an addition to the typescript of JJA p.31, intended to preceed te up to then first word,
"Whence.": "As we there are where are we are we here haltagain. From Tomtittot to Tee Tootal." Immediately, on the same
page, Joyce adds in the margin "of course, recourse.", with a line connecting it to an illegible word written above "Tootal". It
looks like "itarian" but that doesn't make much sense. In any case, Joyce rewrites the passage himself not very much later and
this is what he makes of it (JJA 52:54): "As we there are where are we are we here haltagain. By recourse, of course,
recoursing from Tomtittot to Teetoo tomtotalitarian." Note that "there haltagain" has become "here haltagain".

The next fair copy is the "partial redraft (ink) of the fair copy (ink) extending only to FW, 274.13; 1934", JJA 52:76;
47478-162. There Joyce writes "... are we we are" but he instructs the typist to switch the last two words by putting a number
2 over the penultimate and a number 1 over the last word. Furthermore, he muddles the word "recourse" and the comma so,
that the typist misses the comma and takes it for a plural s, resulting in the last appearance of the phrase (which in my opinion is
not the one Joyce intended, because of the plural 'recourses'): "As we there are where are we are we there haltagain. By
recourse, of course, recoursing from tomtittot to teetootomtotalitarian."

Next thing we know the phrase is gone. But what is the next thing? We are left with a gap of almost two years in the Garland
James Joyce Archives. The next stage we know of is the page proofs for Storiella as She Is Syung, published by Corvinus
press in London in 1937.

So the phrase got lost either on the (missing) typescript and proofs for transition No.23, July 1935, or on the marked
transition pages for the typesetter of Storiella. Again, as in the case of II.1, the Garland JJ Archives do not print the
transition istallment in question, because the copy on which Joyce made notes is lost, and the Archives have a policy only to
print papers with writings by Joyce or an amanuensis. So we don't know if the lost phrase was still there in transition or it fell
between the quay and the ship as we say in Holland during the Storiella printing stages.

We could find out, by looking at the transition reprint, for instance that it was a complete line which fell out from one stage to
the next. In that case it would be even more likely that it was a printer's error and no Joycean volition.

But this I don't know. It's more academic to talk about things that you do know and keep silent about things that you don't
know, but the other way round is more rewarding. There are too many blank spots in McHugh as it is anyway.

So now in the Archives, instead of having a more or less unbroken line of transmission we jump from 1935 (the typescript for
Harriet Shaw Weaver) to 1937 (the actual printed Storiella pages being prepared for the Finnegans Wake typesetter), with a
whole transition installment in between. (By the way, it seems to have been common practice for the small Work in Progress
publishers never to return their material to Joyce. Neither Servire in The Hague returned Joyce's manuscripts nor Corvinus in
London for respectively The Mime of Mick, Nick and the Maggies (June 1934) and Storiella as She Is Syung (1937).

It seems hard to believe that anybody would overlook such a substantial chunk missing from the very first sentence of a
chapter! Especially if you see that the sentence has been worked upon very hard. But with Joyce you never know and we are
prepared for everything. We can be reasonably sure that he never did any comparative proofreading (that is with the old and
the new version side by side) and if he found something lacking but didn't remember what it was, he'd rather work his way
around the difficulty than consult his earlier version. And that is exactly what a makes a 'restauration' so difficult, not to say
impossible. And here we have the additional problem that the last appearance of the lost phrase contains a probable typist's
error too! There's no end to the amount of difficulties in Finnegans Wake...

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 10 April 2001

[POSTSCRIPT]

Dear Robbert- Jan

I see your point about one line possibly having been omitted.

This is a transcription of the 'body' text in the transition version, with returns at line ends (it's identical to the final FW version, but the marginal notes are placed differently):

As we there are where are we are we there
from tomtittot to teetootomtotalitarian. Tea
tea too oo.

In the transition version of the marginal notes

RHS 'UNDE ET UBI' is aligned with the end of the first line, as in the final FW, but all in lower case.

LHS 'with his broad
and hairy face,
to Ireland a disgrace.'

is aligned with the third line 'tea too oo.' In the final FW version it lines up with the new paragraph, fourth line, beginning "Whom"

It's probably not a correct conclusion that the missing line pulled the LHS marginal note up one line, I would have thought that 'with his broad' and 'tea too oo.' would be tied together in the same slug, but I don't have sufficient expertise to offer a valid opinion.

I'm attaching an Appleworks 6 file in which I've attempted to duplicate the typography and layout of the section, including a little crude kerning in the body text. I hope that you can open it!

BTW a notice appears in transition 25 Fall, 1936, thus:

"As we go to press, we learn that the fragment of James Joyce's _Work in Progress_, published in _transition_ No. 23, July, 1935, (Opening and Closing Pages, Part 2), will appear shortly in a special edition under the imprimatur of the Corvinus Press, London. It will contain two lettrines by Miss Lucia Joyce."

Regards - Ross

                                    As we there are where are we are we there       unde et ubi
                                    from tomtittot to teetootomtotalitarian. Tea
with his broad             tea too oo.
and hairy face,             Whom will comes over. Who to caps ever. And
to Ireland a                  howelse do we hook our hike to find that
disgrace.                      pint of porter place ? Am shot , says the
                                   bigguard. 1)

Ross Chambers, 16 April 2001

[POSTPOSTCRIPT]

Thanks Ross, I think this is in fact the missing link in the circumstantial chain of evidence. The transition placement of the left-hand footnote, "With his broad and hairy face", is the crucial exhibit. On the last fair coipy of Joyce's first page (JJA52, p.76), the missing words still figure. Joyce indicates with an arrow that the left-hand marginal note should start on the same height as the text line starting with "Tomtitittot". And so it does, if in the transition issue you would insert an extra line between the first and the second, that is, exactly the missing line in question. If the first sentence would read as Joyce intended, then, in transition, the "with his hairy face"-marginal note would face the "from tomtittot"-line:

                             As we there are where are we are we there         unde et ubi
                             haltagain. By recourse, of course, recoursing
With his broad     from tomtittot to teetootomtotalitairian. Tea
and hairy face,      tea too oo.
to Ireland
a disgrace

But because the printer lost the second line, the marginal note has moved up one line. Obviously the marginal notes were typeset on separate parts of the galleys, like you now make snippets or frames in electronic documents: in that case a change in one frame doesn't affect the neighbouring frames.
But what happened next was worse still. The placement of the marginal note didn't make sense to Joyce anymore, but what did he do? He didn't move the note *up* one line, but he decided to move the marginal note still further down, to face the second paragraph, and that's how it ended up in Finnegans Wake. Which makes not much more sense. For who is the disgrace to Ireland? The Anonymous Alcoholic, the teetotaler, because, as the Irish say 'Ireland sober is Ireland stiff'.
In any case, the misplacement of the left-hand marginal note is the proof that a line was skipped somewhere in the transition proofs.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 17 April 2001

. . .

FW 262.20-21:  "Staplering to tether to, steppingstone to / mount by, * as the Boote's at Pickardstown.

* Last appearance (as well as first):
II.2§1.*5/2.*3/3A.*5, fair copy (ink) extending only to FW 274.13; 1934 [JJA 52:56; 47478-159]:
"Staplering to tether to, steppingstone to mount by; and coach house entrance as the Boot at Ballyoura has Pickardstown."

Next draft stage:
II.2§1.*5+, partial redraft of above [JJA 52:78, 47478-164]:
"Staplering to tether to, steppingstone to mount by as the Boote at Pickardstown."

Textual Note

The whole sentence was an addition in the right margin, written in to preceed "The babbers ply the pen.": "Staplering to tether to, steppingstone to mount by; and coach house entrance as the Boot at Ballyoura has Pickardstown. ^Burials be ballyhouraised.^ So let Bacchus e'en call. Inn inn. Inn inn."

Why Joyce left out the nice HCE-initials I don't know, as it gives a clue as to who is calling in the kids to go upstairs and do their homework. I don't think it can have been an oversight of a whole line, because the lines are separated like this: "Staplering to tether / to, steppingstone to / mount by; and / coach house entrance / as the Boot at Ballyoura has Pickardstown."

This JJA page flows over with HCE's: "Hoo cavedin earthwight.", "the emerald canticle of Hermes"; "that same erst crafty hakemouth" and "coach house entrance", the last one a perfect fit, as you would think it would turn out, but it didn't.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 10 April 2001

. . .

FW 272.09:  "* Dark ages clasp the daisy roots, ..."

* Last (and first appearance):
II.2§1.6/2.4/3A.6, typescript, late 1934, sent to Harriet Shaw Weaver from Paris on 29 March 1935 [JJA 52:99;
47478-197]:
"^From the fore of them till the yore of them. Coal and culm, shale and slack.^ Dark ages clasp the daisy roots, ..."

Next Draft stage:
II.2§1.11/2.9/3.11 [JJA 52:141; VI.G.4-16]:
"Dark ages clasp the daisy roots, ..."

Textual Note

Joyce wrote this Mamalujo sentence, which comes reverberating and echoing back all over Finnegans Wake (especially in the
reworked Mamajulo vignette in II.4) as an addition to the typescript of JJA52, p.99, when Joyce had decided already on his
marginalia-format. He then copied the sentence once more with the other additions on separate pieces of paper (p.114) for
inclusion in transition (the same transition installment not included in the James Joyce Archives, see Textual Note to
260.01-2).

And whereas all other additions, as far as I can see, were effectuated, this one wasn't.

Other transmissional departures: Footnote 2 "What's that ma'am, says I.", is positioned after "daisy roots." and not after the
predeceding paragraph. And the comma after "daisy roots" should be and was here an oridinary full stop, although the first draft
doesn't have one (JJA52, p.20), but subsequent typescripts do (p.27, p.45), as well as here, p.99. The first time a comma
appears is in the Storiella pages (p.141), but bear in mind that the intermediate transition stages do not figure in the James
Joyce Archives. (What an apt name, by the way, "transition" was for Work in Progress really a transitional stage, but I think
Jolas meant it differently.)

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 10 April 2001

. . .

FW 274.05: "... * Daft Dathy ..."

* Last appearance:
II.2§1.4/2.2/3.4, typescript; 1934 [JJA 52:47; 47478-150]:
"O'Connlath is mitriarch in Kildare. Daft Dathy ..."

Next draft stage:
II.2§1.*5/2.*3/3A.*5, fair copy (ink) extending only to FW, 274.13; 1934 [JJA 52:74; 47478-174]:
"... Daft Dathy ..."

Textual Note
The first appearance of this sentence, also transcribed by David Hayman in the First-Draft Version, is on the typescript of
JJA52, p.28: "Connlath is mitriarch in Kildare." to which Joyce adds "Don", as Connlath's title. In the next and last stage of the
phrase 'Don' was typed for no apparent reason as "O'", on JJA52, p.47. Bill Cadbury would call this not a Transmissional
Departure but an Instruction Missing, because it is hard to imagine a typist making such a change, it must have been Joyce
himself.

Next, Joyce makes a new fair copy of this section and adds a title page with a flourishing "Opening and Closing Pages of Part
II, Section II, Fragment of Work in Progress, James Joyce, Hotel Elite, Zurich". Joyce stayed there from 20 September 1934
till 1 February 1935 (Danis Rose, Textual Diaries), but he omits the phrase as he copies the typescript. And this is not the
only phrase he misses.

This page has been one of the most difficult for Joyce to write. It grew very slowly, as he worked hard to join the sections and
make fluent transitions. Here Joyce even stopped copying the typescript in mid-sentence, because he wasn't happy with the
way it ended. The last words of the fair copy are "Number thirtytwo west eleventh streak looks on to the" and then nothing.
This phrase he already had changed while copying. The typescript contains a couple of open spaces in it, left by Joyce to fill in
later. Joyce is so unsatisfied with the ending that he doesn't even bother to copy the last page of the typescript, which conmtains
an additional six lines of text. Part of it he later does reuse on the bottom of the page (the "Dagobert"-sentence), but the first
part is irretrievably lost. It goes, after "Eleven hundred and thirty two is seeing the and", turn over (JJA52, p.48): "two plies
sixteen plus twice femm hondered hug treedivels are wetnessing the " No full stop after the space left by Joyce to fill in later.
This already shows how he was struggling with the text.

The page grew so slowly that the Archives divide it into three subsections, 3A (260-274.13), 3B (274.13-274.27) and 3C
(274.27-275.02). On 275.02 a new section starts, the abortive "Scribbledehobble"-section, which eventually got recycled
throughout the chapter in the form of marginal notes and footnotes, plus some sentences that were taken over, or meant to be
taken over, as the beginning of the next section. But there other things went wrong.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 11 April 2001

. . .

FW 274.09-10:"... Hannibal mac Hamil- */ tan the Hegerite (...) ministerbuilding up (...) saint Barmabrac's (...)"

* Last appearance:
II.2§3.3, new typescript; 1934 [JJA 52:28; 47478-134r]:
"Hannibal MacHamilcar is chasing Kate O' Carthydge around the Capuawalls. Hibrahim ^the Hegirite is^ minsterbuilding up Saunt Barnabash's."

Next draft stage:
II.2§1.*5/2.*3/3A.*5, fair copy (ink) extending only to FW, 274.13; 1934 [JJA 52:74; 47478-174]:
"Hannibal macHamiltan the Hegirite ^(more livepower elbow him!)^ minsterbuilding up in Saint Barmabracks."

Textual Note

When James Joyce was born in 1882 in Rathgar (Dublin), little did he know that there would be a reader in 2001 in the capital of the Netherlands very puzzled by lines 9-12 of page 274 of his final masterpiece Finnegans Wake.

Hamiltan? the ordinary as well as the extraordinary reader of Finnegans Wake is bound to ask himself: I know Hamilcar, I know Hannibal, from the Illustrated Classics version of Flaubert's Salammbô, but Hamiltan I don't know, and I didn't know he was a Hegerite either.

The first handwritten version of the insertion we are dealing with, which I take is an excerpt of the school subjects the children have to do, is very short, 12 lines, 56 words in all, on JJA 52:22, but in the printed text it gets stretched out over four pages, from "It is distinctly understood" (272.21) to "the chief culoteer." (275.01-02).

The "Hannibal"-sentence also figures in Joyce's handwriting on a separate piece of paper, labeled "extra draft" by the editors of the Archives, on JJA 52:126; 47478-231. And David Hayman has an almost complete transcription in his First-Draft Version, so it hasn't gone unnoticed. I say almost complete, because I miss Joyce's addition which makes the sentence grammatical. The typescript says: "Hibrahim minsterbuilding" and Joyce in between these words adds "the Hegirite is".

Joyce stopped copying this section from the second typescript onto a new fair copy at a certain point. In fact he stops in mid-sentence, at "thirtytwo west eleventh streak look on to the", see the Textual Note to Lost & Found 274.05, and I think it is because he realized that the section had become a mess. At least that's how the surviving autograph pages look to me. This last page of rewriting he doesn't seem to even try to copy faithfully, there are so many inaccuracies. What exactly happened to the sentence that it got so mangled is very hard to say, however.

There are two previous typescripts to Joyce's faulty fair copy. The first is the most complete (JJA 52:28) and the second, made from the first, has already serious flaws (JJA 52:47): it omits the line "is chasing Kate O'Carthydge around the Capua walls. Hibrahim". It is likely to have been an oversight, the point where the typist leaves off being roughly right above the point where he picks on again.

Then Joyce decides to make another manual copy. He sees something is not right and tries to save the sentence so invalidated by the previous typist. He writes "macHamiltan" (why?), after , or really above "the Hegirite" he inserts "(more livepower elbow him!)" but in the course of that forgets the verb "is". What he does do however is now making the Hegirite minsterbuilding up "in" Barmabracks. The follows the aborted sentence, after which, I'd like to imagine, Joyce throws his hands in despair and in the air and his pen too.

After the fair copy, what happens is this. The typist faithfully copies Joyce's unfaithfully copied dead end (see JJA 52:102; 47478-200), separating however "mac' and "Hamiltan" (as 'Hamilcar' already has become, by Joyce's own hand), to which typescript Joyce adds a single overlay: "as repreaches Timothy". And in the next surviving stage, the Storiella page proofs (no transition material survives, and the transition issue itself is not reproduced in the Archives, for shame), 'minsterbuilding' has become "ministerbuilding", just a trifle farther away from Ibsen's Master Builder, and I think a typist's error.

For practical reasons I'm happy to know that the sentence once was grammatical, that Kate O'Carthydge is an apposite joke to go with the man from Carthage, and that ideally the FW sentence can be read as:

"... and Hannibal MacHamilcar is chasing Kate O'Carthydge around the Capua walls. Hibrahim the Hegirite (more livepower elbow him!) is minsterbuilding up, as repreaches Timothy, Saunt Barmabrack's."

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 12 April 2001

. . .

FW 275.11:"... and * silvering to her jubilee, ..."

* Last appearance:
II.2§5.0, first draft, incorporating elements from §4.5'; 1934 [JJA 52:210; 47478-288]:
" ... and his white^hatched^ patch, the towelturbaned, and Flower, a silvering for to her jubilee, ..."

Next draft stage:
II.2§1.13/2.11/3.13/5.3-6.5/7.4/8.14/9.12, galley proofs for Finnegans Wake with marginalia boxed int the text; dated by the printer February 1938 [JJA 53:316; 47478-337]:
"... and silvering to her jubilee, ..."

Textual Note

A perfect example of a whole line skipped by the typist / typesetter. My attention was drawn to it because the sentence didn't parse. In Finnegans Wake, it is "Standfest (who seems moreover to be a she) ... have discusst their things". And as soon as I don't understand the grammar of a sentence first I look it up in Hayman's First-Draft Version. And to be sure there it was: " .. Standfest, our topical hero, signs is on his big bastille back and his white patch, the towelturbaned, and Flower, a silvering for to her jubilee with eve's birch leaves for her jointure, ... discusst the their things of the past, ..."

The sentence received one more overhaul, when Joyce used this one page out of his aborted "Scribbledehobble"-section to start a new piece, labeled "Section Five" by the bibiographers of the James Joyce Archives.

But the Finnegans Wake printer, four years later, jumps from the final 'and', not one line down but two lines, immediately to 'silvering', omitting "his white^hatched^ patch, the towelturbaned, and Flower, a", a mistake that was not noticed anymore.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 12 April 2001

. . .

BOOK III:

III.1

FW 414.35: "Or, if * he was always striking up funny funereels with Besterfarther Zeuts, (...)"

* Lost line, last appearance:
III.1§1C.9 [transition pages; JJA 61: 10; 47486b-306v]
"Or, if he was not done doing that, improbably he was always striking up funny funereels ..."

Next draft stage:
III.1§1C.10 [Galley proofs; JJA 62:17; 47487-9]:
"Or, if he was always striking up funny funereels ..."

Textual Note

Or, if he was always striking up funny funereels with Besterfarther Zeuts, the Aged One, with all his wigeared corollas, albedinous and oldbuoyant, inscythe his elytrical wormcasket and Dehlia and Peonia, his druping nymphs, bewheedling him, compound eyes on hornitosehead, and Auld Letty Plussiboots to scratch his cacumen and cackle his tramsitus, diva deborah (seven bolls of sapo, a lick of lime, two spurts of fussfor, threefurts of sulph, a shake o'shouker, doze grains of migniss and a mesfull of midcap pitchies. The whool of the whaal in the wheel of the whorl of the Boubou from Bourneum has thus come to taon!), and with tambarins and cantoridettes soturning around his eggshill rockcoach their dance McCaper in retrophoebia, beck from bulk, like fantastic disossed and jenny aprils, to the ra, the ra, the ra, the ra, langsome heels and langsome toesis, attended to by a mutter and doffer duffmatt baxingmotch and a myrmidins of pszozlers pszinging Satyr's Caudledayed Nice and Hombly, Dombly Sod We Awhile but Ho, Time Timeagen, Wake! (FW: 414.35-415.15).

This is a complex sentence, rendered all the more inscrutable by the lengthy parenthesis which comprises two sentences. Perhaps I am less-than-astute, but I must have read this passage dozens of times over the years without noticing a very basic syntactic flaw here. The form of this sentence is a conditional sentence yet, as rendered in the final text, the conditional phrasing is incomplete. Nowhere does an apodosis follow from this inordinately lengthy protasis. This sentence postulates a certain conditional outcome to a hypothetical action, yet that possible outcome is not explicitly stated. The inordinate length and extreme hypotaxis of the sentence obscures this fact, but, once this fact is realized, the sentence becomes impossible to parse. This breakdown in syntactic regularity was apparently caused by transmission error. In its initial draft, this sentence was itself the apodosis: "If he was not doing that he was always getting up funny funeralls with Besterfather Zeuts..." (JJA 57: 294). The sentence remained in this format through the publication of Tales Told of Shem and Shaun in 1932. When the galleys were prepared for Finnegans Wake in 1938, the protasis was omitted (JJA 62: 17). On the pages of Tales Told of Shem and Shaun, the second "he" lies almost directly under the first (JJA 57: 325). Evidently, the typesetter skipped the clause following the first "he" and jumped to the second. Scholars of Mediæval manuscripts call this kind of copyist's error haplography.

Sam Slote

[From: Sound-bite Against the Restoration]

. . .
 

BOOK IV:

FW 594.36:  "... you're * silenced ..."

* Last appearance:
IV§1.2, second typescript, probably early 1938 [JJA 61:20; 47488-15v]:
" ... your right to Penmark, stommering silenced ..."

Next draft stage:
IV§1.3/2.6, typescript, probably early 1938 [JJA 61:45; 47488-30]:
"... your silenced ..."

Textual Note

Here, the typist overlooks a whole handwritten line, skipping not one but two lines:

you've horse in your head your
right to Penmark, stommering
silenced at Henge College Ceolleges, Exmooth.2

It doesn't invalidate the sentence grammatically, but the extra Hamlet allusion is gone. (If the 'Dane the Great' on line 27 is Hamlet as well as a Danish Cur.) Joyce changes 'your silenced' into 'you're silenced' on JJA 61:71, but it gets retyped as 'you've silenced' on JJA 61:121, necessitating another correction. This correction doesn't take place on the Finnegans Wake galleys (JJA 61:288), which means it has to have been effectuated on the (missing) Finnegans Wake page proofs, at the very last moment. (True, he could have repaired it in the list of Corrections.)

By the way, read for "hou the Sassqueehenna" an n and a comma; "hon, the Sassqueehenna", as Joyce wrote it on JJA 61:68; 47488-43v. "Han" and "hon" should echo each other, obviously, and they are written as additions immediatley the one underneath the other, but the comma's are hard to see on the JJA copies.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 19 April 2001

. . .

FW 598.03:  "... a bound to be * your trowers."

* Last appearance:
IV§1.2, second typescript, probably early 1938 [JJA 61:24; 47488-17v]:
"... withouten a bound to be by. You hild them, the upples, in your trowers."

Next draft stage:
IV§1.4/2.7, typescript, mid-1938 [JJA 61:49; 47488-49]:
"... a bound to be your trowers."

Textual Note

- Yes sir, withouten a bound to be your trowers.
- ???
It sounds wonderful, 'withouten a bound to be your trowers', as if you miss a belt to keep up your trousers or something, but Joyce wrote, as an addition, on the second typescript:

                                    Every
those personal placeobjects
is nonthings wheresoevers
and they just done been
doing being in a dromo of
todos withouten a bound to be by.
You hild them, the upples, in
your trowers. Forswundled.

The typist doesn't see the last word of the line "by", because it is partly obscured by another addition in the margin, running from bottom to top, "Himkim kimhim" etc (as Joyce wrote it, and not "Himkim kimkim" as it ended up). Instead the typist jumps from "be" two lines down to "your trowers", a mistake facilitated by his or her oversight of the full stop after 'by' as well.

The words "wheresoevers" and "placeobjects" look to me as one and not as two, and the grammar normalizes even more when you read not "if nonthings" but "is nonthings". The next typist does type "is nonthings" (JJA 61:49, 61:77) and the next one too (JJA 61:127), but on the first galley-proofs for Finnegans Wake disaster strikes: JJA 61:291 has "if nonthings"...

Moreover, this JJA-page features an extra additional sentence of Joyce which never even made it to the next typescript. The recto page has an insertion mark "10" after "Thamas." (FW 598.15), but the verso page has two additions numbered "10". The typist had to choose and chose "In that earopean end meets Ind."

The other addition numbered "10" is written on the left-hand side, across the page, and runs: "This instanters, those myriads, the hump we have in hubble under, the dumps we did and died of."

There is on the page with hand-written additions one number without a corresponding sentence: after "Albert neantas.", in the long addition which runs from "The vervain is to heralds" to "Albert neantas." There Joyce has put a sign which looks more like a "20" than a "10", but there is no addition numbered "20" on these pages. So should the "Instanters"-phrase be placed there? Or is it more logical to read "In that earopean end meets Ind." on that spot? In that case, "This instanters, those myriads, the hump we have in hubble under, the dumps we did and died of." belongs after "Thamas."

I think it was meant to be like this:

   "Every those personal placeobjects is nonthings wheresoevers and they just done been doing being in a dromo of todos withouten a bound to be by. You hild them, the upples, in your trowers. Forswundled. You hald him by the tap of the tang. Not a salutary sellable sound is since. Insteed for asteer, adrif with adraft. Nuctumbulumbumus wanderwards the Nil. Victorias neanzas. Alberths neantas. In that earopean end meets Ind. It was a long, very long, a dark, very dark, an allburt unend, scarce endiurable, and we could add mostly quite various and somenwhat stumbletumbling night. Endee he sendee. Diu! The has goning at gone, the is coming to come. Greets to ghastern, hie to morgning. Dormidy, destady. Doom is the faste. Well dawn, good other! Now day, slow day, from delicate to divine, divases. Padma, brighter and sweetster, this flower that bells, it is our hour or risings. Tickle, tickle. Lotus spray. Till herenext. Adya.
   Take thanks, thankstum, thamas. This instanters, those myriads, the hump we have in hubble under, the dumps we did and died of.
   There is something supernoctual about whatever you called him it. Panpan and vinvin are not alonely vanvan and pinpin in your Tamal without tares but simplysoley they are they. This utter follow is that odder fellow. Himkim kimkim." ...

The "Instanters"-sentence might after all and on twentysecond thought still maybe be best placed after "Albert neantas." What happened was, Joyce wrote his "european end"-addition right under "Albert neantas." and I reason now thus: if Joyce wanted "Albert neantas." to be followed by "In that earopean end meets Ind.", then he could have written it straight away after the preceding insertion, because there is space left. But he starts on a new line.
On the other hand, placing "In that earopean end meets Ind." after "Albert neantas." could have been done by Joyce on second thought. Maybe closer inspection of the actual inkflow and relative thickness of the pennibs in the British Museum would reveal more about the order in which Joyce composed this page of additions...

Six more minor transmissional departures in these paragraphs:
1. JJA 61:6; 47488-5v has in Joyce's hand "endiurable night. Diu!" Joyce corrects the typing error ('endnirable') on the next level (JJA 61:13), but not into his original word but into the bland "endurable", as it ended up in Finnegans Wake.
2. JJA 61:50; 47488-49v (& 61:78), in character has "Well dawn.", rather clearly (although Joyce's "a" and "o" are notoriously interchangeable), but the typist on JJA 61:129; 47488-76 types "Well down."
3. JJA 61:7; 47478-6 doesn't have "supernoctural", but "supernoctual". David Hayman notes this too in his introduction to the present JJA volume, and he regrets that the word hasn't retained its full potential.
4. JJA 61:25; 47488-18 has, as I make out, not "alonety", but "alonely".
5&6. JJA 61:25; 47488-18 has "follow is" and "This utter" as separate words, but the typist joins them on JJA 61:51.

But as far as I can see, not all Finnegans Wake pages can boast of so many transmissional departures as this infamous page 598.

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 20 April 2001

. . .

FW 601.25:  "... S. Churstry's, * S. Clouonaskieym's, ..."

* Last appearance:
IV§1.2, second typescript, probably early 1938 [JJA 61:29; 47488-20]:
"... S. Churstry's, S. Innocycora's, S. Aungiel Calzata's, S. Clovinturta's, S. Clouonaskiey's, ..."

Next draft stage:
IV§1.3/2.6, typescript, probably early 1938 [JJA 61:57; 47488-35]:
"... S. Churstry's, S. Clouonaskiey's, ..."

Textual Note

Only 26 Dublin churchsaintrainbowgirls? No, 29 all in all, although the first draft has even 32!

On JJA 61:17; 47488-13, and the immediate additions of JJA 61:16; 47488-12v, there are 22 recto en 10 verso = 32 in all.

Recto: S. Wilhelmina's, S. Garda's S. Gardenia's, S. Phibia's, S. Veslandrua's, S. Clarinda's, S. Immecula's [encircled], S. Cabrine's [circled, with a line leading to the item in the margin:], S. Dolores Delphin's, S. Josetta's S. Perlanthroa's, S. Paula's, [encircled, with a line leading to the likewise encircled item in the margin:] S. Errands Gay's, S. Meekaleen Jane's, S. Eddaminiva's, S. Rhodamena's, S. Ruadagara's, [#] S. Bellavistura's, S. Santamonta's, S. Ringsingsund's, S. Heddadin drade's, S. Glacianivia's, S. Waidafrira's, S. Thomassabbess's and S. Lollisotolles.
And verso, to be inserted at [#]: S. Drimicumtra's, S. Una Vestity's, S. Mintargosia's ["o" from "u"], S. Mischa-La-Valse's, S. Churstry's, S. Innocycora's, S. Merychant Gay's [encircled, with a line leading to the likewise encircled:], Aungiel Calzata's, S. Clovinturta's ["tur" from "tar"], S. Clouonaskiey's [erroneously crossed out in Hayman's First-Draft Version].

Thirtytwo? Taking the encirclings as deletions we are left with 28, and 29 if we count "S. Immecula's" too, which although encircled to be deleted, is present in all subsequent drafts.

Left on the cutting-room floor were S. Cabrine's, S. Paula's and S. Merychant Gay's.

But the number doesn't stay 29! In the next typescript (JJA 61:57; 47488-35), the typist has skipped three names after "S. Churstry's": "S. Innocycora's, S. Aungiel Calzatas, S. Clovinturta's". On the same typescript Joyce corrects "S. Elacianivia's" into "S. Glacianivia's", makes from "(peepeep!)" the triad of the final text, and changes the last name from "S. Lollistolles" into "S. Loellistoelles", but he doesn't noitice the sudden disappearance of three complete names, a disappearance which has stayed unnoticed up to this very Saturday.

By the way, "S. Clouonaskieym's" should be "S. Clouonaskiey's": on JJA 61:85 the typist mistypes a letter, blackens it out, but the typesetter of the Finnegans Wake galleys takes this black spot for an "m" (JJA 61:295).

Robbert-Jan Henkes, 21 April 2001

. . .

FW 605.32: "(...) carrying that * privileged altar unacumque bath (...)"

* Lost line, last appearance:
IV§2.*2 [JJA 63:38c; 47488-25]
"(...) carrying the / lustral domination contained within his most portable / privileged altar unacumque bath (...)"

Next draft stage:
IV§2.*3 [JJA 63:38d; 47488-26]
"(...) carrying that privileged / altar unacumque bath (...)"

Textual Note

Jack Dalton has drawn attention to this line in the first fair copy of the Kevin episode ("lustral domination contained within his most portable" [JJA 63:38c; 47488-25]), which was accidentally left out by Joyce himself when he made a second fair copy (JJA 63:38d; 47488-26).
(See: Jack Dalton, "Advertisement for the Restoration"  Twelve and a Tilly: Essays on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of 'Finnegans Wake'. Eds. Jack P. Dalton and Clive Hart. London: Faber and Faber, 1966. 119-37.)

---

FW 628.15-16: "Given! A way a lone * a last a loved a long the"

* Lost 'lost', last appearance:
IV§5.4 [JJA 63:243; BL 47488-160]:
"Given! A way a lone a lost a last a loved a long the"

Next draft stage:
IV§5.5 [JJA 63:262; BL 47488-178]:
"Given! A way a lone a last a loved a long the"

Textual Note

In order to compose the final monologue, Joyce compiled a rather small notebook, VI.B.47. Apparently, he had a fairly precise idea of ALP's last words. The notebook entry "alast alost aloved along the ..." already appears on page ten (VI.B.47:10). In the first versions of section five, the last words had been: "so soft our morning. So. A bit beside the bush and then a walk along the / Paris 1922-1938" (JJA 63:233; BL 47488-150; IV§5.3). To IV§5.3, Joyce added a few lines (47488-148v), which were included in the next typescript, so that it ended as follows: "Given! A way a lone a lost a last a loved a long the" (JJA 63:243; BL 47488-160; IV§5.4). The words "a lost" were lost during the transmission from level four to five and never reinstalled. When the book was finally published on 4 May 1939, it ended the way it still does(n't): "A way a lone a last a loved a long the" (JJA 63:262; BL 47488-178; IV§5.5).

Dirk Van Hulle, 5 December 1999
 

[Back to Genetic Joyce Studies]
 


NOTES & ARTICLES  - TOOLS & QUERIES  -  LOST & FOUND  -  ABOUT GENETIC JOYCE STUDIES


This page is maintained by Dirk Van Hulle  vanhulle@uia.ac.be