1In “Accumulated Mail” (1925) Lawrence wrote that “it’s no fun, writing unpopular books” (RDP 239). But generally he was keen to see his books sold. When Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928) was widely pirated he sought to beat the pirates at their own game by arranging for the so-called “Paris Popular Edition” of Lady Chatterley’s Lover to be published there in 1929 with an initial print run of 3000 copies. It was quickly followed by second and third printings of the same quantity. Lawrence’s wish is confirmed by Frieda Lawrence in her “open letter” prefixed to the Odyssey Press edition of the book published in 1933, where she stated that Lawrence “wanted to reach the people he voiced and from whom he came” (7). This paper will explore the intended audience of the Florence first edition, bearing in mind the print run of only 1000 copies. It will then look at Lawrence’s view of the piracies, with some illustrations of those, and then consider whether the Paris Popular Edition marked a rethink by Lawrence of who the intended audience was or whether it was a natural progression from the Florence first edition. Finally, comparisons will be made with other editions of Lawrence’s books that were considered to be “popular’’ editions.
- 1 See Gertzman viii. See also 7L 106 in relation to the use by “the common people”(the “people from w (...)
2In investigating the intended audience for Lady Chatterley’s Lover, we have the advantage of the large amount of primary evidence there is about that. This includes the novel itself, the apologias, both the short version called “My Skirmish with Jolly Roger” which was the introduction to the Paris Popular Edition of the book and the extended and separately published version called A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1930), together with the reminiscences and correspondence of those who knew Lawrence. And then of course there is Lawrence’s surviving and extensive correspondence about the book, which totally dominates the period from late 1927 to late 1929. The popular view has been that the book was the gospel of the “Priest of Love,”1 who wished to subvert modern conventions, and who wanted to reach as wide an audience as possible at all costs. This is supported by what he said in A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover:
And this is the real point of this book. I want men and women to be able to think sex, fully, completely, honestly, and cleanly. Even if we can’t act sexually to our complete satisfaction, let us at least think sexually, complete and clean. (LCL 308)
- 2 See Long 2015 for an account of Lawrence’s improving finances once Seltzer became his publisher in (...)
- 3 See Long 2020 for the importance to Lawrence of the appearance of his books.
- 4 See the full chronology appearing at the end of this essay.
3However, in my view the position is somewhat more nuanced and as one might expect with Lawrence, his own statements are somewhat conflicting, his opinion varying as the project progressed. Initially he was almost wholly focused on the financial success of the book, following some lean years in the wake of the failure of his once relatively profitable arrangements with Thomas Seltzer for publication of his work in the United States,2 probably knowing that he was terminally ill, and wanting to provide for his wife. At other times, particularly when he saw some of the piracies, his thoughts seemed to be taken up with the appearance of his book,3 delighted at the artisan skills deployed in the Florence first edition to create an attractive book for those who would appreciate it and furious at the pirates for the deficiencies in their books. In both cases who and how many people might read the book seemed almost secondary. And at other times he appeared to vacillate between wanting his audience to be the “self-appointed moralists” (Gertzman 9), who were targeted by the book on the one hand and a much wider readership on the other. More controversially, John Worthen saw Lawrence’s decision to go to Paris to get a new edition published as “an acknowledgement of the book’s likely clientele: he firmly intended to publish it at the center of the European pornographic book trade” (Worthen 1990, 105). Paris was “the best outlet in the world for material which would be banned elsewhere” (Worthen 2005, 390). I will begin with a chronology4 of events and what answers that provides, before summarising the evidence and reaching some conclusions.
- 5 See Long 2020 for examples of Lawrence’s varying experience of publishers.
- 6 Edmund Wilson in his complimentary New Republic review described it as “difficult and expensive to (...)
4Lady Chatterley’s Lover was Lawrence’s third attempt at writing a novel the subject-matter of which had been preoccupying him for some time. The first and second versions were written in 1926 and 1927 respectively but neither had been published. Lawrence was aware from his experiences5 with publishers that they would not publish his book and that it would be suppressed. He therefore had to publish it himself and organise a low-profile distribution of it. Inspired by the financial success of Michael Arlen with his hugely popular The Green Hat (1924) but more realistically motivated by the significant profit that Norman Douglas was making from relatively small sales of highly priced collectors’ editions of his work, Lawrence determined that what was to be his last novel would be his most profitable (6L 223). In November 1927 having met both Douglas and his publisher Pino Orioli in Florence, Lawrence put together a plan for the private publication of the book funded by him in an expensive6 limited edition with the prospect of significant profit due to the low production costs there. Lawrence’s entrepreneurial skills came to the fore and he used his friends and influential acquaintances to promote his book.
- 7 Many of them never received their copies. This was due to a combination of factors. The first was t (...)
5Helen Stone in her 1995 Masters dissertation on the marketing and sale of the Florentine editions of Lady Chatterley’s Lover lists the 51 people to whom from March 1928 onwards we know Lawrence sent publicity leaflets with order forms attached (xii – xvi). There are two versions of those, the first 1500 indicated a publication date of May 15th 1920 (SLIDE A) and had to be manually corrected. There were 600 of the revised version (SLIDE B) (Gertzman 8). As Andrew Harrison described it, the initial purchasers were deliberately selected as being primarily “supportive” and “sympathetic” to limit the risk of prosecution (Harrison 270). And by making it an expensively produced, signed and limited edition it was much more profitable than his other publications. It sold for £2 in the UK or $10 in the United States, as shown on the order form, with 500 copies to be sold in each country. Lawrence recorded the fact that staying at the Hotel Beau Rivage in Bandol cost 45 FF per day. With an exchange rate of approximately 65 FF to the pound the cost of the book equated to about three days’ stay, well beyond the means of most people (7L 494). That seriously limited the readership and even the cheap paper issue, printed at the same time, of a further 200 copies, paperback and not signed, cost 21 shillings (£1.05). To compare this with his other work, his previous novel The Plumed Serpent (1926) cost seven shillings and sixpence in the Martin Secker first edition and $3 in the Alfred A Knopf Inc. first American edition. Many of Secker’s books were sold to lending libraries such as Mudie’s for wider circulation but they would never buy Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Expensive productions (collectors’ editions) were unlikely on the whole to be passed around. If this was to be the only way the book would be published then the audience was likely to be small. And that audience was not a general audience either. Lawrence’s covering letters with the order forms chiefly went to those we know he corresponded with before, and the others he probably did as well. To summarise the pertinent comments in those letters, his target audience was often described as “people who might like the book” (6L 337), but also, variously, “the right sort of people, in the universities” (6L 322), “any rich man in Berlin” (6L 338), “a Connoisseur” (6L 350) and Achsah Brewster’s “most spiritual and purely pure friends” (6L 340). In Stone’s view “this method of selective marketing resulted in just the type of market Lawrence ultimately did not want for the book: a wealthy, privileged and professional readership” (x).7 She has listed the names of those who placed orders or were given copies of the first edition (xxvii – xxxviii, lviii -lxxiv). The audience was indeed not eclectic, a comfortable majority of them being mentioned in the Cambridge Edition of Lawrence’s Letters or listed in Who’s Who in the UK or in the United States (xxxix – lvi). No conclusions can be drawn about the purchasers of the 200 copies of the cheap paper issue as most of them were sold to booksellers (Stone lxxx – lxxxii).
6Lawrence was firmly focused on the financial aspects of the process. He kept a Memorandum Book recording the progress of the project and its profitability. Kept at Northwestern University, these accounts are not comprehensive, only showing the majority of the figures (Stone lvii). A cheque survives (SLIDE C) not listed in the Memorandum Book in respect of a payment by London bookseller H.K. Beazley & Co. for five pounds two shillings, to cover the purchase of three copies of the book at £2 each, with the 15 % discount provided for booksellers. Another indication of Lawrence’s focus on maximising receipts was the fact that he did not like to sell to booksellers because of that discount. The cheque would have been sent by Orioli in Florence to Lawrence in Switzerland. He then signed it on the back (SLIDE D) and posted it to his bank, the Aldwych branch of the Westminster Bank in London, which endorsed its stamps to record receipt on 21 August 1928. This was the level of Lawrence’s involvement in the financial planning and execution of the sale of the book, quite different from the usual practice of receiving an advance and royalties from a publisher. And as we shall see later, indicative of his financial exposure, his correspondence at this time also reflects his focus on his book’s profitability.
- 8 For the legal background to copyright protection and how pirates filled the vacuum of demand when t (...)
- 9 London bookseller and publisher Charles Lahr wrote to Lawrence on 22nd December 1928 including with (...)
7It is evident from the foregoing that Lawrence’s proposals for further publication of the novel appear to have been at most embryonic. It was first published in May 1928 (SLIDE E), the 1000 copies all signed by Lawrence (SLIDE F). The first edition, and the 200 cheap paper copies of the book (published in December 1928), were selling very quickly and by March 1929 all but about 100 had been sold. The book had to be printed in two halves due to the shortage of type, so if there was to be further publication in Florence it would be necessary to start from scratch. Given the relatively small print run of the first edition, if Lawrence’s wish was to see his book and his message circulated as far as possible there was a long way to go. Ironically, his reaction to events, not a proactive plan for further editions of the book following the financial success of the first, brought matters to a head. In November 1928 Lawrence became aware that his book was being pirated8 in the United States and in Europe9 in December 1928 (7L 95-6, 234).
8Lawrence’s response to the piracies was indignant and focused on the profit that they would make from his book, not the fact that the pirates’ distribution methods would enlarge his audience considerably. He decided to try to undercut the pirates. He went to Paris to find a publisher, on the recommendation of Aldous Huxley. As Lawrence wrote to Ottoline Morrell:
They [the piracies] none of them sell less than 300 frs a copy – so I am arranging for an edition, smaller, paper bound, at 60 frs., so that anyone can get it. People must already have made two or three thousand pounds out of the pirated editions – and I am left with nothing. (7L 234)
- 10 Worthen (1979 179-82) writes informatively though on the earnestness of Lawrence’s message in the b (...)
9According to Rhys Davies, who went to Paris with Lawrence, he “badly wanted the book to reach the masses” (Nehls 313) but the masses would not be able to afford a book that cost nearly £1, and Lawrence’s focus on his own financial misfortune speaks volumes. As John Worthen noted, “[p]ricing the book first at £2, then at £4, [Lawrence] had not shown any particular care for the masses” and “he hated other people profiting from his work” (Worthen 1989: 151).10 Evidence of an intention to have a wide audience for the book remains sparse at this stage.
10Huxley wrote to Lawrence on 12 December 1928 in response to his enquiry as to whether there were piracies for sale in Paris (7L 57). Huxley advised that:
I feel that Paris is a good centre owing to absence of censor-nonsense and presence of large numbers of English and Americans. If you want to multiply your own edition remember that the photographic process is simple and… cheap. (Smith 304)
11Lawrence followed much of Huxley’s advice, although he did not accept his suggestion that Orioli be involved, and an attempt to replace him with Sylvia Beach (7L 62), following her success with publishing Ulysses in Paris in 1922, was unsuccessful. Lawrence was half-tempted by an offer from one of the pirates to receive a royalty if he would authorise his edition, but such was his pride that the arrangement came to nothing (LCL 306). In the event, it was Beach, whom Lawrence knew from his previous trip to Paris in 1924 (4L 569), who probably recommended the American bookseller Edward Titus for a new edition, what Lawrence called a “second splash” (7L 208). Like Beach he ran a bookshop in Paris, and Lawrence quickly agreed terms with him (Gertzman 5, Ford 140, Ellis 474-5).
12Most of the arrangement with Titus was recorded in a letter Lawrence wrote to him on 5th April 1929 (7L 144) (SLIDE F1) the key term of which for present purposes is that it provided for further printings to be done. Separately, Lawrence agreed to provide “a little peppery foreword” (7L 229) and accordingly he wrote the introduction he called “My Skirmish with Jolly Roger” – in other words his battle with the pirates. This was his justification for the Paris Popular Edition, “hoping at least to meet the European demand” (LCL 305). The first part of the introduction was a discussion of four pirate editions he had become aware of. The second part provided his reasons for writing the book. His discussion of the piracies was very much an indignant description of the quality of their production, not mentioning what his plans would have been without them, nor the benefit of the additional circulation of his ideas. As Jay Gertzman put it, in his bibliography of 58 editions of Lady Chatterley’s Lover:
as regards size of audience, a poet-prophet of Lawrence’s powers could ask no more than that as many such readers as possible, shocked, idly curious, or admiring, be delivered into his hands (Gertzman 9)
- 11 In Gertzman they are entries 1.6, 1.7 and 1.10 respectively.
13And the size of the bibliography reflects the fact that Lady Chatterley’s Lover must be the most pirated novel of the twentieth century. Lawrence’s attack on the appearance of just four piracies takes up one and a half out of five and a half pages of the Cambridge Edition text; three of the piracies11 are sufficiently well described to be identifiable. The first is “a filthy-looking book bound in a dull orange cloth (SLIDE G) …smearily produced by photography, and containing [his] signature forged by the little boy of the piratical family” (SLIDE H) (LCL 305). The second is “funereal (SLIDE I) […] gloomy […] sinisterly high-brow (SLIDE J) […] lugubrious” and has a “false page-heading” (SLIDE K) (LCL 305). The third Lawrence incorrectly thought was “printed, not photographed. (SLIDE L) […] a very close replica” (SLIDE M) (SLIDE N) but selling for “three hundred, four hundred, five hundred francs” (LCL 306). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that his main focus was on the financial implications of the pirating of his work. But in addition to that he was deeply concerned about the appearance of his book.
14The pirates were as successful as they were because of the absence of copyright protection for the book. For it to receive copyright in the United States it would need to be typeset, printed and bound there. Under British copyright law there was no need for the book to be manufactured in Great Britain. As the book was deemed to be obscene in both countries and would therefore not be touched by mainstream publishers, Lawrence was always vulnerable to piracy. Lawrence had particularly strong views about piracy and in February 1927 even joined a number of other writers in signing a document objecting to Samuel Roth’s piracy of Ulysses, a book that Lawrence did not rate (Ellis 91). As summarised by Chris Forster:
The centrality of the embodied experience of reading and the encounter with the physical text are central to Lawrence’s response to piracy and obscenity and to his aesthetics broadly. (63)
- 12 See generally Forster 61-87 on the significance of touch and “textual materiality.”
15It was not simply a matter of the moral right of an author to protect his work but a contrasting of the authenticity and craftsmanship of his own Florence edition with the inauthenticity and mere copying involved in the piracies. He wrote enthusiastically of his “handsome and dignified volume – a fine shape and proportion” (6L 440), which he had arranged to be printed “by a little printer […] in an old little shop” (6L 344). This is why he objected to their being reproduced photographically, although ironically, the Paris edition had to be printed that way from the Florence edition to keep costs down. He contrasted the “purity” of his own book with the “filthiness” of the piracy. None of this is connected to the audience for his book save to the extent that in his view clearly only the purchasers of the Florence edition were worthy. They appreciated the artisan qualities of his book, which he emphasised in A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Those associated with the piracies reflected what he saw as the counterfeit values of modern society (counterfeit being a word he frequently used in A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover), which uses technology, such as photolithography in printing, distancing people from the old ways used by his printers in Florence, the physical ways involving touch (a regular theme in Lawrence’s writing)12.
- 13 The publicity leaflet/prospectus is referred to in a letter from Titus to Lawrence reproduced in 7L (...)
16Like the Florence edition the Paris one was promoted by use of a publicity leaflet (SLIDE O and SLIDE P). It does not seem to have been republished nor does it seem to be referred to in the accounts of the publication of the Paris edition.13 On one side it reproduces the title page and (in stark contrast to the purely functional Florence one) on the other Titus covers similar ground to “My Skirmish with Jolly Roger,” quoting from it, attacking the pirates for their “larceny and plunder,” for the excessive cost of the piracies and for the “outrageous stealing of a man’s work.” In spite of his “unfigleaved expressions,” Lawrence is praised for his “superb poetic prose,” which will “delight lovers of literature,” the book potentially being “looked upon as a milestone that will mark a new period in English letters.” Titus adds academic weight to these opinions by quoting from E.M. Forster’s praise of Lawrence in Aspects of the Novel. In short he was presenting Lawrence as a major writer with a serious message for what he referred to as both “Collectors of First Editions” and the general “reading public?”And Lawrence wanted to convey that message at a “reasonable price” in a “Popular Edition” of his work. The intended audience was therefore somewhat different from that of the Florence edition, it appeared.
- 14 On 1st December 1930 Titus sent Frieda Lawrence a statement showing that the first two printings ha (...)
17The Paris edition was published in May 1929, in an initial printing of 3000 copies (SLIDE Q) and this was followed in mid-August by a second printing of 3000 copies.14 In between Lawrence learned that his profits on the Florentine edition were over £1615 but bemoaned the fact that he believed that he had lost nearly twice as much, at least $15000, to the pirates (7L 497). On 1 December 1930 Titus produced a statement showing that he owed 89151 FF from just the first two printings – nearly as much as the whole Florentine edition. At last the book was selling in large numbers and to a wider “off the street” audience, not the affluent customer enticed to buy an expensive subscription only collectors’ item. Sales had been so good that Titus requested permission for a third printing. On 3rd February 1930 Lawrence duly authorised it:
- 15 This proved to be an ironical statement as publication by Titus of Anaïs Nin’s D.H. Lawrence An Unp (...)
Will you really print so many as ten thousand at a whack? No, I would rather go on three thousand at a time – it is safer.15 Print another three thousand – that’s best. – It means, I suppose, the book is being shipped to England and America – I hope carefully, or there may be trouble. There’s always trouble when one gets too bold. Toujours doucement, ma petite dame ! (7L 637)
18The only other copies of a book of Lawrence’s referred to as “popular” were (SLIDE U) the laid paper copies of the definitive edition of Pansies (1929), a cheaper version of the limited edition ordinary copies and special copies, of which 500 copies and 50 copies respectively were produced by Charles Lahr. This popular edition was produced for distribution on the Continent (Roberts and Poplawski 172) but no other information is known. Separately Lawrence wanted Secker to publish what would have been a “popular” edition of the expurgated first edition of Pansies, which initially was only to be available in versions costing half a guinea or two guineas. Nothing came of it but he wanted “a quite cheap edition, say 2/6, because I should like them to be easily accessible to poorer people” (7L 123). However, in the late 1920s Martin Secker did endeavour to make Lawrence’s work more accessible, selling a cheap Thin Paper Edition of most of his novels and stories, and much of his non-fiction in his New Adelphi Library at three shillings and sixpence per volume. They were “popular” in all but name, and were mainly reprints of Secker’s first editions in a pocket-size version. By his own admission Lawrence was “absolutely no good at judging what the public might like” (5L 655), often thinking that his latest novel was his best work, The Lost Girl (1920) being perhaps the best example of a novel that he thought would be “popular” (3L 426). However, the publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover clearly marked a turning point in his career, his new-found reputation making him a popular and profitable writer for a wide audience of newspaper articles, summarised by John Worthen as “mostly about sex and relationships, with a distinctively astringent, sardonic, provocative tone” (Worthen 1989, 155).
19The significance of the questions posed by this paper is well expressed by Jay Gertzman when he called the book a “piece of ‘high literature’ deeply penetrating the public consciousness” (vii). Its audience became much larger than Lawrence could ever have imagined. As for his plans, he had wanted a wider audience than was possible through mainstream publishers but he was not prepared to expurgate his text sufficiently; he insisted on it being published in its unexpurgated form. The production of the book in a limited edition was a way to start the process but the format he adopted was unnecessarily expensive, reflecting Lawrence’s understandable focus on a quick profit after some lean years, and his attraction to a quality artisan product. For example, all the copies printed in Florence could have been in the less profitable cheap paper issue. In terms of expanding his audience from the initial limited group of “educated people” (Gertzman 1-2), Lawrence seemed happy with the small Florence edition until he saw red when the pirates began to “steal” from him. His desire to increase his audience was more a matter of competing with the pirates, a knee-jerk reaction not a natural progression. If Lawrence wanted to be “popular” and to reach the “masses” he never sold the book cheaply, only very profitably with a net profit of probably more than one third, compared to the 10 to 15% royalty on top of the initial advance that he would have received from mainstream publishers. In this context “popular” seems to have meant “so that anybody can get it” (7L 234). In the final analysis, Florence was not the place to do what he needed to do and could do in Paris, which was large scale publishing with easier distribution to outdo the pirates. On balance, it is tempting to see Lawrence here as an entrepreneur, not an evangelist, interested in profiting from his work in a way not seen with his other novels. In Florence the objective had been to avoid the censors, in Paris it was much more a matter of his books outselling the pirated copies.
26th November 1927 to 8th January 1928 Lawrence writes the third version of Lady Chatterley’s Lover (LCL xiii)
9th March 1928 Lawrence and Orioli take unexpurgated typescript to Tipografia Giuntina for type to be set by hand and order forms to be printed (Lvi 314)
13th March 1928 Lawrence starts to send out order forms (Lvi 319)
14th March 1928 Secker advises Pollinger that he cannot publish even Lawrence’s expurgated version of the book. Knopf refused as well. Lawrence would therefore have no copyright protection (LCL xxviii n15)
July 1928 Lady Chatterley’s Lover is privately published in Florence (LCL xiii)
End of July 1928 London booksellers reject 114 copies of the book, which are collected and distributed by Aldington, Koteliansky and Hilton (LCL xxx)
30th August 1928 Lawrence learns that customs officials in the United States are confiscating copies of the Florence edition - only 14 of the 140 copies sent have got through (Lvi 530)
15th September 1928 only 200 copies left and the price is increased from £2 to 4 guineas (£4.20) (Lvi 561)
c. 30th October 1928 Lawrence receives a bundle of hostile press reviews (LCL xiii)
8th November 1928 Lawrence aware that pirated copies of the book are circulating in the United States (Lvi 606)
10th December 1928 the 200 copies of the cheap paper issue are now published at a guinea each. Lawrence wished that he had 2000 copies left not 200 so that he could ‘kill’ the pirates (Lvii 57), whose books he thinks are being sold in Paris
12th December 1928 Huxley suggests a Paris edition in response to Lawrence’s concerns (Smith 304)
14th December 1928 Lawrence’s net profit is already £1000 (Lvii 61)
31st December 1928 only 25 copies of the cheap paper issue are unsold (Lvii 110)
18th January 1929 in London Scotland Yard is confiscating copies of the book (Lvii 146)
11th March 1929 Lawrence goes to Paris to organise a new edition of the book (Lvii 216)
Mid-March 1929 Sylvia Beach (publisher of Ulysses in 1922) turns down request to publish new edition but probably suggests Edward Titus (Lvii 219)
15th March 1929 Lawrence learns that Frank Groves, who had offered to help publish a Paris edition, has published a pirated one (printed in Germany) (Lvii 219)
5th April 1929 Lawrence writes to Edward Titus recording the agreed terms for a photographic reprint of the Florence edition (Lvii 244)
May 1929 private publication of the Paris Popular Edition – 3000 copies are printed (LCL xxxiii)
10th July 1929 Lawrence’s profits from the Florence edition are according to Orioli over £1615 (Squires 197)
2nd August 1929 Lawrence again refuses to produce an expurgated text that could be sold publicly and have copyright protection (Lvii 399)
Mid-August 1929 all copies have been sold and Titus is printing a further 3000 (Lvii 429 n3)
28th September 1929 Lawrence estimates that he has lost at least $15000 to the pirates (Lvii 497)
3rd February 1930 Lawrence authorised a third printing, of another 3000 copies (Lvii 637)
A. Florence order form.
B. Florence order form.
C. Cheque recto (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
D. Cheque verso (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
E. Florence Ed. cover.
F. Florence Ed. title page.
F1. Paris Ed.Titus contract.
G. Gertzman 1-6. Pirated Ed. of Lady Chatterley’s Cover (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
H. Gertzman 1-6 Pirated Ed. Limitation (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
I. Gertzman 1-7. Pirated Ed. cover (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
J. Gertzman 1-7. Pirated Ed. (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
K. Gertzman 1-7. Pirated Ed. heading (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
L. Gertzman 1-10. Pirated Ed. cover (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
M. Gertzman 10. first page. Pirated Ed. First page (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
N. Gertzman 10 title. Pirated Ed. Title page (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
O. Paris Ed. Leaflet recto.
P. Paris Ed. Leaflet verso.
Q. Paris Ed. (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
R. Pansies popular ed. (Jonathan Long. Private collection).
Flux RSS
