Differences - 1940 Ulysses and 1961 Ulysses?

Gordon Neavill aa3401 at wayne.edu
Mon Feb 12 09:17:57 EST 2007


Claire,

Thanks for the information. I assumed RH set from the Shakespeare & Co. edition because they "smuggled" it back to the U.S. to provoke the landmark court decision that cleared Ulysses for publication in the U.S. Their agent had to INSIST that customs seize the book so that a trial to determine its legality could take place. It was only after Ulysses was vindicated that RH went ahead and published the book. I'll have to look into this further. I wonder why RH would have set from the Roth edition rather than the Shakespeare & Co. edition.

Barry 

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:47:16 -0800 (PST)
>From: Clare Imholtz <muldoone99 at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: Re: Differences - 1940 Ulysses and 1961 Ulysses?  
>To: modlib at algol.owu.edu
>
>The original 1922 edition published by Sylvia Beach of
>Shakespeare and Company in Paris did have a LOT of
>typos but my reading indicates that the Random
>House/ML (Random House was 1934, pls excuse my
>confusing date in my previous email) was set from a
>pirated copy by Samuel Roth, and in fact was worse.
>
>At the time I was researching Ulysses texts, 1999, the
>Shakespeare and Company was still believed by many to
>be the text closest to Joyce's intentions (which are
>by no means always clear. I don't know what may have
>happened in the Joyce field since then.
>
>But heck, whatever text we read, it's a great book.
>
>Clare
>
>
>--- Gordon Neavill <aa3401 at wayne.edu> wrote:
>
>> I don't have any examples at hand but my impression
>> is that the textual cleanup was significant. The
>> original RH edition was set from the Shakespeare &
>> Co. first edition published in Paris, and this had a
>> lot of typos -- party because they were rushing to
>> get it out in time for Joyce's birthday and partly
>> because the French compositors didn't know English!
>> 
>> Barry
>> 
>> ---- Original message ----
>> >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:22:58 -0800
>> >From: Scot Kamins <kamins at ModernLib.com>  
>> >Subject: Re: Differences - 1940 Ulysses and 1961
>> Ulysses?  
>> >To: modlib at algol.owu.edu
>> >
>> >
>> >On Feb 11, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Gordon Neavill wrote:
>> >
>> >> The 1961 Ulysses is a new typesetting; in
>> bibliographical terms  
>> >> this makes it a new edition. The jacket states:
>> "For this new  
>> >> Modern Library edition, the text has been
>> scrupulously corrected,  
>> >> the type has been completely reset and new plates
>> have been made."
>> >>
>> >> There were a number of typos and other errors in
>> the original  
>> >> Random House plates that were used for earlier
>> Giant printings. If  
>> >> you want a reading copy the 1961 edition (with
>> 783 pages) is  
>> >> preferable to earlier printings with 767 pages.
>> >
>> >OK, thanks Barry. Then the answer is that there's
>> no real difference  
>> >to the textual content beyond cleanup.
>> >Scot Kamins
>> >...................
>> >"Will the highways to the Internet become more
>> few?"  -- G.W. Bush
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Gordon B. Neavill
>> Associate Professor
>> Library and Information Science Program
>> 106 Kresge Library
>> Wayne State University
>> Detroit, MI 48202
>> 313-577-0507 (tel); 313-577-7563 (fax)
>> aa3401 at wayne.edu
>> 
>
>
>
> 
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast
>with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
>http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
-----------------------------------------
Gordon B. Neavill
Associate Professor
Library and Information Science Program
106 Kresge Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
313-577-0507 (tel); 313-577-7563 (fax)
aa3401 at wayne.edu



More information about the ModLib mailing list