The Pragmatics of Revision: George

Moore’s Acts of Rewriting Siobhan

Chapman
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-pragmatics-of-revision-george-moores-acts-of-re
writing-siobhan-chapman/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Acts Of God Gill

https://textbookfull.com/product/acts-of-god-gill/

Introduction to the Practice of Statistics David S.

Moore & George P. Mccabe & Bruce A. Craig

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-the-practice-of-
statistics-david-s-moore-george-p-mccabe-bruce-a-craig/

Uberland How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Rules of Work

Alex Rosenblat

https://textbookfull.com/product/uberland-how-algorithms-are-
rewriting-the-rules-of-work-alex-rosenblat/

Seaport in Virginia George Washington s Alexandria 1st

Edition Gay Montague Moore

https://textbookfull.com/product/seaport-in-virginia-george-
washington-s-alexandria-1st-edition-gay-montague-moore/
Seaport in Virginia George Washington s Alexandria 1st
Edition Gay Montague Moore

https://textbookfull.com/product/seaport-in-virginia-george-
washington-s-alexandria-1st-edition-gay-montague-moore-2/

Essentials of Hypertension: The 120/80 paradigm 1st

Edition Flávio Danni Fuchs (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/essentials-of-hypertension-
the-120-80-paradigm-1st-edition-flavio-danni-fuchs-auth/

Automatism and Creative Acts in the Age of New

Psychology Linda M. Austin

https://textbookfull.com/product/automatism-and-creative-acts-in-
the-age-of-new-psychology-linda-m-austin/

Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient

Israel Isaac Kalimi

https://textbookfull.com/product/writing-and-rewriting-the-story-
of-solomon-in-ancient-israel-isaac-kalimi/

Information and the History of Philosophy Rewriting the

History of Philosophy 1st Edition Chris Meyns Editor

https://textbookfull.com/product/information-and-the-history-of-
philosophy-rewriting-the-history-of-philosophy-1st-edition-chris-
meyns-editor/
The Pragmatics
of Revision
George Moore’s Acts of Rewriting
Siobhan Chapman
The Pragmatics of Revision
 Siobhan Chapman

The Pragmatics of
Revision
George Moore’s Acts of Rewriting
Siobhan Chapman
Department of English
University of Liverpool
Liverpool, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-41267-8    ISBN 978-3-030-41268-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41268-5

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Portrait of George Moore (detail), by John Butler Yeats, 1905
National Gallery of Ireland Collection. Photo © National Gallery of Ireland

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

This book has been a long time in the writing. While this was never the
plan, it has meant that I have had the benefit of a number of years in
which to think and talk about pragmatics, about rewriting, and about
George Moore. Many people have contributed to my ideas about these
topics and I can mention only a few of them by name here.
My first thanks must go to my late uncle, Frank McCarthy, who intro-
duced me to the works of George Moore in the first place. His parting
gift to me when I set off for undergraduate study all those years ago was
a battered copy of Vale with the pithy inscription: ‘In spite of his defects
as a man, George wrote the King’s English like an angel. None better’. I
guess this book is my attempt to expand on that summary.
I am grateful to the following for invaluable discussions, suggestions,
comments and corrections: Matthew Bradley, Billy Clark, Graham
Ethelston, Alexandra Harris, Dan McIntyre, Sandeep Parmar, Deryn
Rees-­Jones, Chris Routledge and Paul Simpson. Needless to say, none of
them can be held to account for any of the errors or faults that remain,
which are all my own. Audiences at the Universities of Huddersfield,
Kent, Tuebingen and Edge Hill, and at conferences of the Poetics and
Linguistics Association and the International Pragmatics Association
have listened patiently while I enthused about Moore’s rewritings, and
have asked many helpful questions and made many insightful

v
vi Acknowledgements

observations. Several cohorts of students on my second year Pragmatics

module at the University of Liverpool have gamely analysed and com-
mented on extracts from various editions of Esther Waters.
My immediate family, Chris and Caitlin, have shown remarkable resil-
ience in the face of my long obsession and my tendency to drag them on
Moore-related pilgrimages around Mayo, Dublin and London. Love and
thanks to you both.
 References to Works by Moore

Where a reprinted text has been used, this is indicated in square brackets.

Main Works by Moore Discussed in This Book

Drama

Moore, G. (1886). A Drama in Muslin. London: Walter Scott.

Esther

Moore, G. (1894). Esther Waters. London: Walter Scott.

Moore, G. (1899). Esther Waters. London: Walter Scott [Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2012].
Moore, G. (1926). Esther Waters. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999].

vii
viii References to Works by Moore

Holiday

Moore, G. (1918). A Story-Teller’s Holiday. London: Cumann Sean-eolais

na h-Eireann.

Lives

Moore, G. (1927). Celibate Lives. London: William Heinemann Ltd.

Muslin

Moore, G. (1915). Muslin. London: William Heinemann Ltd.

Lake

Moore, G. (1905). The Lake, London: William Heinemann Ltd.

Moore, G (1921). The Lake, London: William Heinemann Ltd. [Gerrards
Cross: Colin Smythe Ltd., 1980].

Other Works by Moore Discussed in This Book

Moore, G. (1878). Flowers of Passion. London: Provost and Co.
Moore, G. (1881). Pagan Poems. London: Newman and Co.
Moore, G. (1883). A Modern Lover. London: Tinsley Brothers [Create
Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2016].
Moore, G. (1885a). A Mummer’s Wife. London: Vizetelly and Co.
[London: Water Scott, 1893].
Moore, G. (1885b). Literature at Nurse or Circulating Morals. London:
Vizetelly and Co. [New York and London: Galand Publishing Inc., 1978].
Moore, G. (1887a). A Mere Accident. London: Vizetelly and Co.
Moore, G. (1887b). Parnell and his Island. London: Swan Sonnenschein,
Lowrey and Co. [Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2004].
 References to Works by Moore ix

Moore, G. (1888a). Confessions of a Young Man. London: Swan

Sonnenschein, Lowrey, and Co. [Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books, 1939].
Moore, G. (1888b). Spring Days. London: Vizetelly and Co.
Moore, G. (1889). Mike Fletcher. Lonon: Ward and Downey.
Moore, G. (1891). Vain Fortune. London: Henry and Co.
Moore, G. (1893). Modern Painting. London: Walter Scott.
Moore, G. (1895). Celibates. London: Walter Scott.
Moore, G. (1897, July). A Tragic Novel. Cosmopolis.
Moore, G. (1898). Evelyn Innes. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
Moore, G. (1901). Sister Teresa. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
Moore, G. (1903). The Untilled Field. London, T. Fisher Unwin [Gerrards
Cross: Colin Smythe Ltd., 1976].
Moore, G. (1906). Memoirs of My Dead Life. London: William
Heinemann Ltd. [Heinemann, 1936].
Moore, G. (1911). Ave. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
[Heinemann, 1947].
Moore, G. (1912). Salve. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
[Heinemann, 1947].
Moore, G. (1914). Vale. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
[Heinemann, 1933].
Moore, G. (1916). The Brook Kerith. London: T. Werner Laurie, Ltd.
Moore, G. (1917). Lewis Seymour and Some Women. London: William
Heinemann Ltd.
Moore, G. (1919). Avowals. London: Cumann Sean-eolais na h-Eireann
[Heinemann, 1924].
Moore, G. (1921). Héloïse and Abélard. London: Cumann Sean-eolais na
h-Eireann.
Moore, G. (1922). In Single Strictness. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
Moore, G. (1926). Ulick and Soracha. London: Nonesuch Press.
Moore, G. (1929). Letters from George Moore to Edouard Dujardin.
New York: Crosby Gaige.
Moore, G. (1930). Aphrodite in Aulis. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
Moore, G. (1933). A Communication to My Friends. London: The
Nonesuch Press.
 Contents

1 Introduction  1

2 Literary Rewriting 15

3 Implicature 31

4 Writers, Texts, Readers and Implicatures 59

5 George Moore 83

6 
A Drama in Muslin (1886) and Muslin (1915)103

7 
Esther Waters (1894, 1899 and 1926)131

8 
The Lake (1905 and 1921)163

xi
xii Contents

9 ‘Albert Nobbs’ (1918 and 1927)189

10 Conclusions215

References221

Index235
 1
Introduction

In 1928 the American literary scholar William Lyon Phelps visited the
Irish novelist George Moore, then aged 76, in his London home. In his
autobiography, Phelps recalls that Moore’s conversation ranged over vari-
ous topics including art, sex and ‘the utter worthlessness of the writings
of Thomas Hardy’. In relation to his own work, Moore was preoccupied
by the extent to which he had succeeded in improving his publications by
correcting them and rewriting them, often many times over. ‘Just as I
believe that the worst of all sins is bad writing’, Moore told Phelps, ‘so I
believe that the highest virtue is found in corrections, in an author’s revi-
sions. If you wish to estimate the true value of an author’s art, study his
revisions’ (Phelps 1939, 820).
It may be, of course, that Phelps’s recall of Moore’s comment was not
word perfect. But its general tenor certainly rings true with other things
which Moore possibly said and definitely wrote about composition, and
also with what is known of his own practice as a creative writer. Moore
corrected, revised and rewrote his work constantly. First manuscript ver-
sions or, in later year, transcriptions of dictation, were scored through,
over-written, and often abandoned altogether. Proofs generally afforded
Moore the opportunity for the type of wholesale rethinking and revising

© The Author(s) 2020 1

S. Chapman, The Pragmatics of Revision,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41268-5_1
2 S. Chapman

that most authors would reserve for early rough drafts. Perhaps most
strikingly of all, Moore rewrote nearly all of his novels after the appar-
ently definitive process of publication had taken place. In several cases, he
returned to his texts time and again, rewriting them successively over a
period of years or even decades. His writing practice bore out his pro-
fessed belief that literary style was the product entirely of hard work and
not at all of inspiration; ‘unless’, as he explained to the writer Geraint
Goodwin shortly after his encounter with Phelps, ‘the inspiration is in
the corrections’ (Goodwin 1929, 23). A little later still he confided in
Charles Morgan that ‘nothing that he wrote was of value unless it was
revised’ (Morgan 1935, 3).
This book is about George Moore. Without attempting anything like
a comprehensive study of the author or of his writings, it concentrates on
a few of the works which he returned to after publication, and on some
of the specific textual changes he made when he did so. One aim, then, is
to find out something about the process of Moore’s writing, about why
‘the corrections’ which he mentioned to Goodwin were so important to
him, a topic about which he was generally and uncharacteristically reti-
cent. It is not possible, of course, to establish definitely what was in
Moore’s mind as he made the corrections or what he was aiming to
achieve: to determine the post-publication authorial intentions in his
writing. But the traces of those corrections are there to be observed in the
concrete differences between the various published versions of a single
work. Their effects on style, on meaning and on reading process are open
to discussion and interpretation, and this in turn can offer some reflected
insight into why they might have been made.
More generally, then, this book is about the very specific procedure in
literary creativity of ‘rewriting’, a term that will be used here exclusively
for the process of revising a text after publication. For Moore in particu-
lar, rewriting became an essential component in his mode of operation as
an artist. Malcolm Brown described Moore as developing ‘a philosophy
of revision, which he came to consider not as a drudge chore but as an
essential creative act, and at times he suggested that it was the only cre-
ative act’ (Brown 1955, 45). In the analyses of Moore’s work offered in
the later chapters of this study, individual occasions of rewriting are
 1 Introduction 3

considered as prime examples of exactly this type of creative and moti-

vated act.
Following on from Brown’s observation, the individual instances of
rewriting are considered here as specific linguistic acts, in the vein of the
‘speech acts’ identified and demarcated by the philosopher J. L. Austin.
For every instance of saying something, Austin distinguished the ‘locu-
tionary act’, or the actual form of words used and their associated mean-
ings, from the ‘illocutionary act’, which is determined by the way in
which or the intention with which that form of words is used (Austin
1962, 99). This in turn leads to, although it may not straightforwardly
determine, a ‘perlocutionary act’, which is the effect on ‘the feelings,
thoughts, or actions of the audience’ (Austin 1962, 101). In the same
way, an individual act of rewriting takes a specific form on the printed
page, was undertaken for a particular reason and will affect in perhaps
several different possible ways how readers respond to the text. It is not
possible to know why an author undertook a particular act of rewriting.
But the ‘locutionary’ aspect of that act is evident from a comparison of
two different published versions of a text and the ‘perlocutionary’ effect is
available for introspective evaluation by the reader. If the author can be
credited with knowing what he or she was about, something can be
inferred about the possible ‘illocutionary’ intention with which the act
was produced. In this way, studying rewriting can make a contribution to
our understanding of the literary creative process.
This book is also about pragmatics. It trials an application of pragmatic
theory to a new and very specific type of data, namely individual acts of
post-publication literary rewriting. Pragmatics is the field of linguistic
study which is concerned with the relationship between meaning and
context. That is, it understands meaning not as a closed system but as
negotiated in real time, a product not just of the language itself but of its
speakers and hearers too. Pragmatic theories are attempts to explain how
such potentially complex negotiations take place. To some extent they
can be understood as attempts to explain systematically the gap between
Austin’s locutionary and illocutionary acts, or more informally the gap
between what our words literally mean and what we as speakers mean
when we use those words. Much of present day pragmatic theory is con-
cerned with some version of the distinction between what is made explicit
4 S. Chapman

and what is implicit, or left for the hearer to infer. Such a distinction in
communicated meaning is of course a familiar enough concept, even a
commonplace. But the daring claim of pragmatic theory is that it can be
explained and systematised in relation to certain general principles of
human behaviour, perhaps even of human cognition. Focusing on
changes made in individual acts of literary rewriting allows for a close
scrutiny of how the balance between the explicit and the implicit can be
manipulated and altered. It therefore concentrates attention on the rela-
tionship that the reader is encouraged to establish with the text. Arguably,
it tells us something about the literary style of a particular text, and about
how it has been honed and developed during the process of rewriting.
As just one example, for now, consider the difference between initial
and rewritten versions of a passage from Moore’s short novel The Lake.
When he first published it in 1905, Moore described an experience of his
protagonist, Father Oliver Gogarty, as follows:

How beautiful was everything—the white clouds hanging in the blue sky,
and the trees! There were some trees, but not many—only a few pines. He
caught glimpses of the lake through the stems; and tears rose to his eyes, so
intense was his happiness, and he attributed his happiness to his native
land and to the thought that he lived in it. (Lake, 1905, 76)

Rewritten and republished in 1921, the passage reads as follows:

How beautiful was everything—the white clouds hanging in the blue sky,
and the trees! There were some trees, but not many—only a few pines. He
caught glimpses of the lake through the stems; and tears rose to his eyes,
and he attributed his happiness to his native land and to the thought that
he lived in it. (Lake, 1921, 47)

Moore’s single act of rewriting here has been to delete the five words ‘so
intense was his happiness’; the passage otherwise remains unaltered. But
as a result of this simple deletion the balance has shifted between what
the reader is explicitly told about Father Oliver’s state of mind, and what
the reader is expected to recover by inference. The link between Father
Oliver’s tears and his happiness is still there, but it has to be worked out
 1 Introduction 5

in an albeit straightforward process of relating his reaction to the natural

beauty around him and his reflections on his own state of mind, to the
physical manifestation of tears. Although the process is a straightforward
one, it effects a different relationship between reader and text in the 1921
version from that in the 1905 one. Arguably, that later, more active,
reader is closer and more sympathetic to the text and by extension to
Father Oliver himself. Scholars working in pragmatic theory over the past
several decades have set themselves the task of explaining how processes
such as this take place.
George Moore published his first novel, A Modern Lover, in 1883 and
his last, Aphrodite in Aulis, in 1930. This is a long writing career by any
standards. But the timing of Moore’s period as an active novelist is at least
as significant as its duration. This was a period of widely acknowledge
shifts in the themes and styles of English literature. The journal English
Literature in Transition, for instance, sets its boundaries at 1880 and
1920, acknowledging the significance of the changes which took place in
the few decades which began during Victorian realism and saw the start
and then the ascendancy of modernism. The development of the style of
any relatively successful writer throughout and beyond this period might
therefore be a subject of interest. But Moore’s case is arguably more inter-
esting than many. There is some consensus that Moore did not so much
respond to or reflect change as effect it; his writing was both experimental
and influential. Moore himself once claimed that his destiny was ‘to write
narratives different from those written by my predecessors’ (letter to Lady
Cunard, 24th August 1927, Hart-Davis 1957, 156). This feature of his
work has been noted, and its influence celebrated, by commentators and
critics over the course of a century. Here is a sample of expressions of
this view:

He has given form to the English novel. (Freeman 1922, 224)

[Moore has made] the most important contribution to the novel since Jane
Austen. (Wolfe 1931, 137)
Twice George Moore recreated the English novel. (Morgan 1935, 2)
His experimentation extended the range of the English novel.
(Frierson 1947, 52)
6 S. Chapman

He affected the course of English fiction and the style of English prose.
(Jeffares 1965a, 38)
Moore played a valuable part in the transformation of English fiction.
(Chaikin 1968, 21)
If George Moore had not lived, English literature in the twentieth century
would be quite different from what it now is: his influence on other writers
has changed the way we think about the novel. (Farrow 1978, 160)
[In The Lake] he was attempting something new in literary narrative. …
Now, of course, Moore’s technique has become one of the standard modes
of narration in fiction. (Welch 1982b, 43)
Where he led, others followed and sometimes went further: W. D. Howells,
Arnold Bennett, James Joyce, D. H. Lawrence, Ford Madox Ford, Austin
Clarke … Modern English fiction as a whole would have been different
without George Moore. (Frazier 2000, 468, ellipses in the original)
[Moore is remarkable for] the sheer volume and quality of an oeuvre that
influenced James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Arnold Bennett, Ernest
Hemingway and John McGahern to name but a few. (Montague 2012, xiv)
[Moore helped] to create a space within which better-known authors such
as Joyce and Woolf would come to operate. (Joyce 2015, 151)

From a literary as well as from a linguistic point of view, then, Moore’s

style and its development offer a compelling case for analysis. Pre-­
publication revision and post publication rewriting were intrinsic to both
the style and its development. Edwin Gilcher has observed that: ‘It seems
unlikely that any other author of modern times revised and rewrote to
the extent that George Moore did’ (Gilcher 1970, ix) and, later, that: ‘His
entire writing career of more than fifty years was one of attempting to
achieve a more perfect result through seemingly endless revisions and
rewritings’ (Gilcher 1983, 132). Moore himself saw the practices as
intrinsic to his identity as a writer, as witness his comments to Phelps, to
Goodwin and to Morgan. He spoke and wrote about rewriting through-
out his career and used many metaphors for it: ‘re-knitting’ (Moore 1911,
xiii); ‘re-weav[ing]’ (Moore 1919, 241); ‘picking out the daisies’ (Goodwin
1929, 148); ‘turning clay into gold’ (Gerber 1988, 137); ‘recast[ing]’
 1 Introduction 7

(Moore 1929, 64); ‘mending’ (Owens 1966, 285); ‘remould[ing]’ (Moore

1898, 7). In a slightly more elaborate metaphor he described a rewritten
text as ‘a new acquaintance in whom you will recognise an old friend’
(Hone 1936, 339). Moore approved and promoted the practice in the
work of other writers and indeed across different art forms. He advised
Nancy Cunard that some of her poems should be ‘re-forged’ (Parmar
2016, 248); he appealed to the constant reworkings of Michelangelo
drawings as evidence that ‘art is correction’ (Moore 1903, xxiii); he greatly
admired Wagner, who ‘rewrote’ (Hart-Davis 1957, 22). Perhaps the high-
est expression of praise that Moore voiced for the practice was the one he
used as a retort to critics who deplored rewriting as an admission of fail-
ure; ‘Moore’s reply was that Balzac did it’ (Fleming 2003, 35, see also a
letter to Filson Young, 2nd October 1905, Gerber 1988, 162).
The view of rewriting as a sign of failure in Moore as a writer had some
prominent advocates. They tended to make sweeping statements about
the value and implications of the practice, rather than to consider the
details of Moore’s choices. ‘I am all against this continual re-writing of
books’, argued Susan Mitchell. ‘Re-write by all means again and again
while the book is in the process of making, but do not return to a book
after years and think to recapture the mood in which it was written’
(Mitchell 1916, 75). Moore’s one time collaborator and later antagonist
W. B. Yeats saw his hard work and his constant rewriting as necessary
substitutes for talent: ‘Moore for all his toil had never style’; ‘he pumice-­
stoned every surface because will had to do the work for nature’ (Yeats
1955, 424, 438). Edmund Gosse, although a much more constant friend
to Moore than Yeats, publically decried his habit of post-publication
rewriting as ‘a falsification of history’, on the grounds that ‘in each case
the new text does not represent the mood of the old time, and must
therefore be in discord with it and with the new time as well’ (‘Second
thoughts’, The Sunday Times, 21 August 1921, 5).
Not all of Moore’s contemporaries were so scathing about his constant
rewriting. Charles Morgan expressed the opinion that: ‘One of the prin-
cipal forces of his genius lies in his emendations’ (‘George Moore at 80’,
The Observer, 21 February 1932, 6). Later, critics began to express the
view that the rewritings themselves would be worth studying in detail,
Herbert Howarth for instance arguing that: ‘To see the real Moore, and
8 S. Chapman

to follow the history of the novel, and the history of the ideas reflected in
the novel, we nowadays need reprints of the original versions of all his
books’ (Howarth 1959, 34). Janet Egleson Dunleavy noticed the chal-
lenges but also the opportunities offered by Moore’s constant rewriting,
arguing that the study of this aspect of his work is necessary ‘not only to
reveal more about the development of a single work, but also to provide
a basis for determining how George Moore applied his aesthetic theories
at different stages of his long and unusually varied writing career’
(Dunleavy 1983, 21–22).
Beyond an interest in the development of literary ideas and styles,
there is a further reason for attention to Moore’s acts of rewriting. As we
have already seen, Moore’s work is often discussed and evaluated in rela-
tion to its literary historical context. This will be a recurrent theme in the
critical work on Moore discussed in this book; his work has been praised
as innovative, or dismissed as derivative, in relation to perceived patterns
and trends in literary style. As a result, it is important to pay attention
to the differences between the various versions of his novels; neglecting
to do so can jeopardise the validity of claims about Moore’s relationship
to his contemporary context. For instance, Simon Joyce reads Esther
Waters, first published in 1894, as evidence of Moore’s contemplation of
the possibilities and limitations of literary naturalism. In so doing he
considers, among other topics, the ways in which Esther’s thought pro-
cesses are presented to the reader. Despite apparently believing herself to
be at the mercy of influences beyond her control, Esther is repeatedly
able to make decisions that affect her own fortunes. However, in analys-
ing a passage where Esther ponders over which of her two suitors,
William or Fred, she should accept, Joyce notes that the narrative adopts
a paradox, ‘by figuring conscious reflection as emerging from a space
external to the thinking subject herself ’ (Joyce 2015, 98). He quotes the
following passage:

She stopped thinking, for she had never thought like that before, and it
seemed as if some other woman whom she hardly knew was thinking for
her. She seemed like one standing as cross roads, unable to decide which
road she would take. (Esther, 1926, 238)
 1 Introduction 9

The idea that comes to Esther from outside, Joyce argues, serves to
‘reroute’ her reflection and ‘ultimately enable her thinking to progress’.
However, Joyce does not acknowledge that, in quoting from the
Oxford World’s Classics edition of 1983, he is working with the final ver-
sion of the novel, after Moore’s revisions in 1926. The equivalent passage
in the first, 1894 edition, is as follows:

She stopped thinking, surprised at her thoughts. She has never thought like
that before; it seemed as if some other woman whom she hardly knew was
thinking for her. Did she want to marry William and go to the “King’s
Head”? She didn’t know. She seemed like one standing at cross-roads,
unable to decide which road she would take. (Esther, 1894, 226)

The differences between the two versions may seem relatively slight; the
same thought processes and the same state of mind are conveyed in both
cases. But Joyce is explicitly addressing the importance of the presenta-
tion of Esther’s thoughts in the novel in relation to the realist and natural-
ist traditions of the late nineteenth century; the fact that the passage he
quotes was finished by Moore well into the twentieth century is necessar-
ily significant. The original version contains more direct commentary on
Esther’s reactions (‘surprised at her thoughts’) and more of an echo of
Esther’s thoughts in something close to free indirect style (‘Did she want
to marry William and go to the “King’s Head”? She didn’t know’). In
these ways, then, the 1894 passage describing Esther’s thoughts is less
‘external’ to Esther herself than the 1926 one which Joyce discusses.
Esther Waters is a particularly complicated example of Moorean rewrit-
ing, in that a number of different versions were published over a period
of decades. Chapter 7 of this book offers a comparison of three main
versions, which can be dated to 1894, 1899 and 1926. Moore engaged in
extensive rewriting between 1894 and 1899, meaning that the first of his
changes belong not to the twentieth but to the late nineteenth century, a
period in which his preoccupation with the competing norms of realism
and naturalism might be expected to have been most acute. However,
even in this initial period of rewriting, the ‘externalisation’ of Esther’s
thoughts was not complete. Here is the equivalent passage from 1899:
10 S. Chapman

She stopped thinking, surprised at her thoughts. She has never thought like
that before; it seemed as if some other woman whom she hardly knew was
thinking for her. She seemed like one standing at cross-roads, unable to
decide which road she would take. (Esther, 1899, 226)

The close access to the contents of Esther’s thoughts has been removed in
the initial process of rewriting, but the description of her mental state as
‘surprised’ is retained. This passage therefore marks an interesting inter-
mediate position in the movement from what might be described as the
more ‘internal’ to the more ‘external’ form of thought presentation. This
movement is inevitably missed if the final version of the text is taken
straightforwardly to represent Moore’s 1894 novel.
The early chapters of this book will take a step back from Moore, to
consider some of the major terms of reference for this study of his work:
literary rewriting, linguistic implicature, and the relationship between
pragmatic and literary analysis. ‘Literary Rewriting’ offers an overview of
the phenomenon of post-publication rewriting, and of how it has been
discussed to date in both linguistic and literary fields of study. The chap-
ter also considers a few concrete examples of rewriting from different lit-
erary genres and periods. Chapter 3, ‘Implicature’, introduces the
discipline of linguistic pragmatics, with particular emphasis on how the
term ‘implicature’ has been developed and understood during the course
of its history. The chief focus is on work on implicature from the Gricean
and neo-Gricean tradition, which will provide the main frameworks for
analysis in later chapters. This chapter includes an overview of how these
frameworks have been applied to date to the growing field of ‘pragmatic
literary stylistics’ and, returning to the examples introduced in Chap. 2,
a first look at how they might contribute to an understanding of the
motivations and the effects of literary rewriting. Chapter 4, ‘Writers,
Texts, Readers and Implicatures’, widens the discussion of pragmatics
and literature by examining the nature of literary works, and in particular
the concept of their style, in terms of the relationship established between
writers, texts and readers. In doing so, it offers an overview of how ideas
about this relationship have been discussed in literary studies and also in
linguistics. It considers what has been said about the effects on this rela-
tionship of the balance between what in a text is explicit and what is
 1 Introduction 11

implied, and introduces some first thoughts about how these might relate
to Moore’s own aspirations concerning literary style.
Moore will be back in focus for the rest of the book. Chapter 5, ‘George
Moore’, offers a brief overview of his development as a writer and his
career up until the mid 1880s. It begins the discussion of what he might
have been striving for in his ceaseless rewritings, and of how the effects of
these might be gauged using the tools of pragmatic analysis. The follow-
ing four chapters constitute the main analytical matter of the book. Each
concentrates on the first published version and at least one subsequent
rewritten version of one of Moore’s novels or short stories. There is cer-
tainly a chronological element to the ordering of these analytic chapters,
in that the four works follow each other in terms of date of first publica-
tion. Chapter 6 continues the story of Moore’s career with the publica-
tion of A Drama in Muslin in 1886; Chap. 7 looks at what is probably
Moore’s best known and most celebrated novel, Esther Waters, first pub-
lished in 1894; Chap. 8 moves on into the twentieth century with The
Lake, first published in 1905; Chap. 9 is concerned with the long short
story ‘Albert Nobbs’, which first appeared in print in 1918. But there is a
limit to how precise the chronological ordering of these chapters is, and
therefore to how far they can claim to offer an ordered overview of
Moore’s development as a writer. As we have seen, Moore’s habits of
rewriting meant that some of his texts existed in a prolonged state of
change. As a result they cannot be relegated to a particular time in Moore’s
career or in literary history. For instance, A Drama in Muslin was rewrit-
ten and republished as Muslin in 1915, long after the first publication of
Esther Waters. The Lake was extensively rewritten in 1921, by which time
‘Albert Nobbs’ had been in circulation for three years and was six years
away from its own overhaul and reissue.
The four analytic chapters are therefore best seen as individual case
studies in a selective, qualitative analysis of Moore’s rewriting. Together,
they cover the period in Moore’s career from 1886 to 1927, but they do
so with much overlap of time, and also in isolation from any detailed
study of the numerous other novels, autobiographies and short story col-
lections that Moore produced during this period. Cautiously, though, it
is possible to identify some general developments in what Moore was
doing and how he was writing, within the genesis of each text
12 S. Chapman

individually, and across the span of years which the four texts cover. A
final concluding chapter summarises both the last years of Moore’s career
and life, and his subsequent reception and literary reputation. It will
assess what the findings of the individual analysis chapters have to offer
to our understanding of the main concerns of this study: the writings of
George Moore, the process of literary rewriting, and the implications for
literary analysis and interpretation of the Gricean and neo-Gricean
frameworks of linguistic pragmatics.

References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brown, M. (1955). George Moore: A Reconsideration. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
Chaikin, M. (1968). George Moore’s Early Fiction. In G. Owens (Ed.), George
Moore’s Mind and Art (pp. 21–44). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Dunleavy, J. E. (1983). George Moore: A Reappraisal. In J. E. Dunleavy (Ed.),
George Moore in Perspective (pp. 9–24). Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe Ltd.
Farrow, A. (1978). George Moore. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers.
Fleming, B. (2003). “Balzac and the Land League”: A “New” Article by George
Moore. English Literature in Transition, 46(4), 356–365.
Frazier, A. (2000). George Moore, 1852–1933. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Freeman, J. (1922). A Portrait of George Moore in a Study of His Work. London:
T. Werner Laurie Ltd.
Frierson, W. (1947). George Moore Compromised with the Victorians. In
G. Owens (Ed.), George Moore’s Mind and Art (pp. 45–52). Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd [1968].
Gerber, H. (Ed.). (1988). George Moore on Parnassus. Newark, DE: University of
Delaware Press.
Gilcher, E. (1970). A Bibliography of George Moore. DeKalb, IL: Northern
Illinois University Press.
Gilcher, E. (1983). Collecting Moore. In J. E. Dunleavy (Ed.), George Moore in
Perspective (pp. 132–152). Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe.
Goodwin, G. (1929). Conversations with George Moore. London: Ernest
Benn Limited.
 1 Introduction 13

Hart-Davis, R. (Ed.). (1957). George Moore Letters to Lady Cunard. London:

Rupert Hart-Davis.
Hone, J. (1936). The Life of George Moore. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.
Howarth, H. (1959). The Irish Writers 1890–1940. New York: Hill and Wang.
Jeffares, A. N. (1965a). George Moore. London: Longman, Green and Co.
Joyce, S. (2015). Modernism and Naturalism in British and Irish Fiction,
1880–1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, S. (1916). George Moore. Dublin and London: Maunsel and Co Ltd.
Montague, C. (2012). A Class Apart: The Baptism of Stephen Dedalus. In
C. Montague & A. Frazier (Eds.), George Moore: Dublin, Paris, Hollywood
(pp. 123–136). Dublin: Irish Academic Press.
Moore, G. (1894). Esther Waters. London: Walter Scott.
Moore, G. (1898). Evelyn Innes. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
Moore, G. (1899). Esther Waters. London: Walter Scott [Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2012].
Moore, G. (1903). The Untilled Field. London: T. Fisher Unwin [Gerrards
Cross: Colin Smythe Ltd., 1976].
Moore, G. (1905). The Lake. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
Moore, G. (1911). Ave. London: William Heinemann Ltd. [Heinemann, 1947].
Moore, G. (1919). Avowals. London: Cumann Sean-eolais na h-Eireann
[Heinemann, 1924].
Moore, G. (1921). The Lake. London: William Heinemann Ltd. [Gerrards
Cross, Colin Smythe Ltd., 1980].
Moore, G. (1926). Esther Waters. London: William Heinemann Ltd. [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999].
Moore, G. (1929). Letters from George Moore to Edouard Dujardin. New York:
Crosby Gaige.
Morgan, C. (1935). Epitaph on George Moore. London: Macmillan and Co Ltd.
Owens, G. (1966). A Study of George Moore’s Revisions of His Novels and Short
Stories. PhD thesis, University of Leeds.
Parmar, S. (Ed.). (2016). Selected Poems of Nancy Cunard. Manchester:
Carcanet Press.
Phelps, W. L. (1939). Autobiography with Letters. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Welch, R. (1982b). Moore’s Way Back: The Untilled Field and The Lake. In
R. Welch (Ed.), The Way Back George Moore’s The Untilled Field & The Lake
(pp. 29–44). Dublin: Wolfhound Press.
Wolfe, H. (1931). George Moore. London: Harold Shaylor.
Yeats, W. B. (1955). Autobiographies. London: Macmillan [1987].
 2
Literary Rewriting

Most published texts are the result of many individual acts of writing and
revising. Authors change their minds about details or more major aspects
of their composition by annotating manuscripts or editing computer
files, by producing successive drafts and by correcting proofs. The process
of post-publication rewriting, which is the focus of this study, is not
inherently different from these other, earlier acts. For some writers, a
printed and bound version of their work offers another opportunity in
the continuum of change; authors who are habitual rewriters post-­
publication have generally also been active revisers at manuscript and
proof stages. Nevertheless, there is something particularly determined
and perhaps self-confident about returning to a work which has been
published, printed, sold and reviewed and in effect announcing that it is
in some way defective, or not properly finished. The author must be dis-
satisfied enough with the published text, and certain enough that he or
she has the ability to put things right, to make a public declaration of that
dissatisfaction, to write without creating discernably fresh material, and
to publish without producing an obviously new work.
In the past few decades there has been significant interest in the pro-
cesses and implications of revision, both in linguistics and in literary

© The Author(s) 2020 15

S. Chapman, The Pragmatics of Revision,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41268-5_2
16 S. Chapman

criticism. In such work post-publication rewriting is only occasionally

singled out as a particular focus of study; attention falls more frequently
on manuscript editing and redrafting. This chapter is concerned with
some of the things that have been said about revision in general in the
two disciplines, with a particular eye to work specifically focussed on
post-publication rewriting. The exegesis of relevant work both in linguis-
tics and in literary criticism is necessarily extremely selective. This chapter
offers a few examples of how different versions of a single text have been
used in comparative analyses, concentrating particularly on studies which
state premises or draw conclusions which are relevant to the assumptions
and the aims of this current study. The chapter concludes with a first look
at some individual acts of rewriting from English literary history. We will
return to some of these examples, and consider their potential signifi-
cance with specific reference to linguistic pragmatic analysis, in the next
chapter.
Scholars in linguistics and in literary criticism who have concerned
themselves with revision have united in rejecting any notion of a text as a
stable, finished product available for inspection and analysis in isolation
from its genesis. Rather, the process of production is seen as the site of
creativity and the proper focus of scrutiny. In linguistics, analysing writ-
ten texts at all is a relatively recent development. As Dieter Stein has
pointed out, in the early days of discourse analysis, ‘the extension from
morpheme and sentence into discourse meant primarily spoken natural
discourse’ (Stein 1992, 1); the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring
examples of connected language use began with speech. In the late twen-
tieth century, linguists concerned with language use beyond the individ-
ual sentence began to respond to the relative neglect of written language,
developing an interest in writing and by extension in, ‘the interpretation
of the processes involved in writing’ (Candlin and Hyland 1999, 1). Text
production and text planning were recognized as ‘very complex processes
of human behaviour’ (Wodak 1992, 525) deserving of serious scrutiny
and analysis in their own right, alongside processes of comprehension
and interpretation. But at the same time such analyses could prove prob-
lematic in practice. ‘Writing designed for publication, in particular, is
usually designed to conceal its origins’ (Perrin 2003, 826), often making
analysis of the writing process difficult or impossible.
 2 Literary Rewriting 17

In the light of Perrin’s comment, linguists focusing primarily or exclu-

sively on literary texts might be seen as having an advantage. Earlier ver-
sions of a text such as manuscripts, drafts and previous published editions
are generally more readily available for literary than for other types of
texts, and arguably offer a way of revealing what the text itself was
designed to conceal. The processes of text production, and the evidence
for these processes, have been a particular focus of work on literary texts
in stylistics. Stylistic analysis often focuses on the fact that choices have
been made in the construction of texts; other choices were always avail-
able to authors, and would have led to different finished texts. As Geoffrey
Leech and Mick Short report in their canonical account of the discipline,
in stylistics a central question will always be ‘Why does the author here
choose this form of expression?’ (Leech and Short 2007, 11, original
emphasis). In attempting to answer this question, stylisticians have found
comparative analyses of the effects of different possible choices particu-
larly productive. For some, this has suggested the technique of comparing
the effects of a ‘real’ and a ‘manipulated’ version of a literary text, in order
to focus specifically on the effects of certain stylistic features. This tech-
nique has proved particularly popular in empirical, or experimental, sty-
listics. One published study, for instance, involved presenting experimental
subjects with a short story by Katherine Mansfield, and with a manipu-
lated version of the same text containing fewer examples of foreground-
ing. The subjects’ responses to the original and the manipulated versions
could be compared in detail. The experimenters argue that text manipu-
lations are valuable to this type of research because ‘they enable measur-
ing the effects of relatively circumscribed textual features, e.g. single word
units’ (Kuzmičová et al. 2017, 140).
However, text manipulation is arguably an artificial process, and is
therefore controversial. Stylisticians interested in the close scrutiny of the
effects of individual linguistic choices have recognized that manuscripts
and early draft versions of a published text can provide a different, less
contrived point of comparison. Mick Short, for instance, argues that
‘[b]y comparing what occurs with what might have occurred we can arrive
at more sensitive interpretations of the texts we read. One way in which
we can demonstrate this is by comparing published versions of poems
with earlier drafts which the poet discarded’ (Short 1996, 69, original
18 S. Chapman

emphasis). He compares the opening lines of Wilfred Owen’s ‘Anthem

for Doomed Youth’ with those from an earlier, manuscript version (see
also Short and Semino 2008, 121, for a comparison of the first and
revised versions of William Blake’s ‘The Tyger’). In experiments con-
cerned with establishing the length of reading and processing time and
the intensity of feelings ratings associated with foregrounded passages,
Paul Sopčák compares an early draft, a manuscript and the finished text
of part of Joyces’s Ulysses. He argues for the effectiveness of using manu-
script versions ‘since it enables the recording of readers’ evaluations to
different versions of the same texts, as they appear throughout the author’s
revision process, without disturbing the ecology of the literary work’
(Sopčák 2007, 184).
One particular example of post-publication rewriting has proved a
valuable focus of study in linguistic stylistics. John Fowles’s novel The
Magus was published in 1966 and then again in 1977, this time with a
preface from the author explaining that although the theme and narrative
were largely unaltered, the text itself had been extensively revised and, by
implication, improved. Mick Short and Elena Semino (2008) offer an
examination of the two versions, and a conclusion that the revisions were
not necessarily improvements. In a later book-length study, Yufang Ho
assesses the extent and the impact of Fowles’s rewriting. She argues that
stylistic analysis can be most illuminating when it involves the ‘detailed
comparison of one text with other text(s)’ (Ho 2011, 6), and therefore
that the existence of two different published versions of the same novel
offers an ideal opportunity. Her analysis suggests that relatively small
scale textual changes can alter quite dramatically the ways in which the
narrative is focussed. For instance, the increased use in the rewritten ver-
sion of linguistic indicators of viewpoint mark a shift ‘from what happens
in the textual world to how [the main character] perceives, feels and spec-
ulates about the events’, resulting in some loss of dramatic immediacy
(Ho 2011, 114, original emphasis). She suggests that greater use of meta-
phorical language in the rewritten version leads to ‘different degrees of
reader involvement into the fictional world and generate different kinds
of readers’ “emotions”’ (Ho 2011, 189).
Ho’s detailed investigations of differences between the two editions of
The Magus lead to general conclusions about how what is in effect the
 2 Literary Rewriting 19

same story is shaped, focused and presented to the reader in two different
ways. She discusses and analyses individual examples of rewritten sen-
tences and passages, but her governing methodology is that of corpus
linguistics; she works with electronic versions of the two texts and makes
use of various tools designed for searching and sorting large bodies of
text. The analyses of Moore’s works in this study, in contrast, will be cen-
tered on the close scrutiny of specific passages from each text and their
rewritten equivalents. The quantitative approach adopted by Ho and the
qualitative approach taken here are different ways of conducting stylistic
analysis, sharing the common aim of offering informed analytic, inter-
pretative and perhaps evaluative conclusions about written texts. Short
and Semino, whose evaluation of the two editions of The Magus is based
on the detailed comparison of a few short extracts from one scene from
the novel, argue that ‘a detailed linguistic stylistic examination of textual
extracts can be illuminatingly related to large-scale interpretative remarks’
(Short and Semino 2008, 136). The specific passages from Moore’s works
that are discussed in the analytical chapters of this book have been selected
as representative of the general trends in the processes of rewriting in each
case. Individually, they may be of stylistic interest and may have localised
effects on how a reader responds to a particular part of a text. Cumulatively,
they can be seen to effect a change in focus, in presentation and by exten-
sion in style of an entire novel.
In literary studies, concern for the different stages of composition and
production that bring a text to its readership is of longer standing.
Literary manuscripts are an established source of scholarly interest, as are
earlier published versions of canonical works, such as periodical serialisa-
tions of Victorian novels. Most modern editions of ‘classic’ works of lit-
erature begin with a ‘Note on the Text’, detailing the various instances of
the work in existence and the exact provenance of the one selected, and
perhaps offering a justification for the chosen version, as the best or most
authentic of the available alternatives. In many critical studies of single
authors or literary movements, manuscripts, proofs and ancillary docu-
ments such as letters to publishers provide essential source materials.
Archival work of this type is generally focused on relatively recent authors:
writers of the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries rather than
those of early periods. There are obvious practical reasons for this.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected

silently.

2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the original.

3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have

been retained as in the original.

4. Errata have been silently corrected.

5. A large version of the map of Arabia can be viewed by clicking

the image at the beginning of the book. The large version is best
viewed in a browser using the HTML version of this ebook.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ANNALS OF
THE EARLY CALIPHATE FROM THE DEATH OF MAHOMET TO
THE OMEYYAD AND ABBASIDE DYNASTIES A.H. XI-LXI (A.D.
632-680) FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.
back