Cover image for Ulysses : a review of three texts : proposals for alterations to the texts of 1922, 1961, and 1984
Ulysses : a review of three texts : proposals for alterations to the texts of 1922, 1961, and 1984
Gaskell, Philip.
Personal Author:
Publication Information:
Totowa, N.J. : Barnes & Noble Books, 1989.
Physical Description:
xvii, 232 pages ; 22 cm
Added Author:
Format :


Call Number
Material Type
Home Location
Item Holds
PR6019.O9 U645 1989 Adult Non-Fiction Central Closed Stacks-Non circulating

On Order



Feeling that none of the existing editions of Ulysses adequately represents the text of the novel, Philip Gaskell and Clive Hart have looked again at the evidence of Joyce's manuscripts, typescripts, and proofs, and have produced lists of suggested alterations for the three most important editions of the book: the first edition of 1922, the standard American edition of 1961, and the so-called "corrected" edition of 1984. They believe that a copy of any of these editions, marked up with the alterations they propose, will result in a text closer to what Joyce intended in 1922 than any that has yet been achieved. What is offered here, in fact, is not a new edition of Ulysses, but a kit for repairing the major faults of existing editions. Contents: Abbreviations and References; Introduction; Synopsis of JJA 12-27; Alterations to 1922; Alterations to 1961; Alterations to 1984^R

Reviews 1

Choice Review

The Gabler "corrected" Ulysses text (CH, Dec'84) ironically provoked more textual controversy than it was intended to quell. Assessing the 1984 "Ulysses", ed. by C.G. Sandulescu and C. Hart as Volume 1 of the "Princess Grace Irish Library" series (CH, Feb'87) contained a series of highly critical assessments of the new computer-assisted edition. Recent Joyce conferences and journals have heatedly rejected the edition, which everyone had hoped would ultimately regularize problems of text, pagination, etc. Gaskell and Hart, former members of the board advising Gabler, resigned over editorial procedures, preferring, in most cases, the typescript of the original over the Rosenbach manuscript, published in facsimile (CH, Jun'76). In this volume they offer 1,697 corrections to the Shakespeare and Company edition of 1922, and 1,584 to the Random House second edition of 1961, and emphasize that their differences with the Gabler edition are only 483 in number, based on their evaluation of manuscript sources. Their corrections are welcome, but will call for individual assessment and balancing, and thus sadly will not settle growing frustration about a definitive text. This controversy promises to continue with no acceptable solution in view. Probable interest: mainly graduate students. -E. F. Callahan, College of the Holy Cross