Richardson's Revisions of
Pamela
by
T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel
Since the publication of William Merritt Sale's Samuel
Richardson A Bibliographical Record of His Literary Career with Historical
Notes (1936), scholars have known that there were seven duodecimo
editions and an octavo edition (1742) of Pamela and two
duodecimo editions and an octavo edition of the continuation (Volumes III
and IV) published during Richardson's lifetime. A duodecimo of both
(1762), called the "eighth edition," appeared shortly after his death.
Professor Sale determined that at least slight changes were made in the texts
of most of these editions, but so far as we know, no one has carefully
compared the texts to determine the extent of the revisions.
We have recently discovered that Richardson's last and most elaborate
revision of Pamela, long believed to have been lost, was
actually published in 1801 and reprinted in 1810. In connection with this
and with our work on Richardson's biography, we have been led to make
a textual study of the revisions of the novel. The nature of these revisions
should help in determining which text is to be regarded as the best text. At
present both the first (1741) and the last (1801) versions are available only
in the rare original editions.
The only two editions of Pamela now in print are the
Everyman Library edition, first published in 1914, and the Norton Library
edition (of the first part only), first published in 1958. Neither states which
text it is based on, and neither makes any claim to being a scholarly
edition. The Norton text seems to be identical with such earlier texts as Sir
Leslie Stephen's of 1883 and Ethel M. M. McKenna's of 1902, both of
which appear to go back, directly or indirectly, to the Reverend Edward
Mangin's of 1811. In most respects all of these texts resemble the
duodecimo published a few months after Richardson's death: they even
follow misprints in this edition. They do, however, contain some readings
which are like those in the octavo (1742) and unlike the posthumous
duodecimo (1762) and are, therefore, not exact
reprints of any text for which Richardson is known to have been
responsible. The Everyman text is in most respects identical with the
Norton and with the earlier texts which it resembles, but it does have
variants, at least some of which appear to be emendations introduced by
whoever prepared the copy or by the compositor.
The edition generally regarded as "standard" is that published by the
Shakespeare Head Press in 1929. This is a handsomely prepared edition,
but again makes no pretensions to being a scholarly one. It simply reprints
the octavo text with the addition of the introductory matter from the third
edition in duodecimo. But since Richardson made later revisions, it does not
represent his last intention. In our opinion, there is no more convincing
reason to regard it as standard than to regard the posthumous duodecimo
edition, which the Norton and Everyman texts resemble, or, indeed, any of
the other editions.
In examining the revisions of Pamela printed before the
1801, we have read the octavo edition against the first and eighth editions
in duodecimo and have then checked all changes against the other
duodecimo editions. We have also read selected passages of the other
duodecimos against the octavo — in the case of the seventh, the last
published during Richardson's lifetime, our selected passages amounted to
about a fourth of the whole. Since the selected passages disclosed only a
handful of very minor variations (most certainly and all possibly misprints)
which were not already disclosed by checking the differences between the
octavo and the first and eighth duodecimos; since the revisions form a
recognizable pattern; and since the pagination in all duodecimo editions is
virtually the same (it may get a few lines off, especially in the fifth and
eighth, to absorb changes, but soon gets back on again), it seems to us very
unlikely that we have missed any variants of
importance.
In any case, the numbers of changes given below are merely meant
to suggest the extent of revision. Since either an added paragraph or a
"was" altered to "were" counts as one change, the numbers are of course
only roughly indicative.
We have not included obvious misprints, changes in italics, spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, or paragraphing, or the expansion of
contractions. Since Richardson was his own printer, there is some
likelihood that his practice is reflected in these matters. They vary
somewhat in all editions, and in some cases the variation is significant:
there are more italicized words in the later editions; in the octavo and even
more in the 1801 many contractions are expanded; paragraphs were broken
up, especially in the second duodecimo and in the 1801.
We have read the 1801 edition of the continuation of
Pamela and have compared it with the octavo and the
posthumous duodecimo, but we have not thought it necessary, in view of
the slight intrinsic interest of this continuation, to make such a detailed
comparison between the various editions as for the first part. In the 1801
edition the changes in the text of the second part are at least as extensive
as those in the first. Many of them are cuts, which is certainly a gain. In
this article we are considering the revisions only of the original
Pamela, that is, of the first part or Volumes I and II.
For textual matters we are referring to the editions concerned, as
follows: 12mo means the duodecimo editions published during 1740-1761
(dated 1741-1762), the pagination of which is almost identical; 8vo means
the octavo edition of 1742; 1801 means the revised edition of 1801; 1810
means the edition of that date.
i
The first edition of Pamela (dated 1741) was published
by
Charles Rivington and John Osborn on November 6, 1740, the second on
February 14, 1741.[1] The latter had
been announced in the Daily Post and the Daily
Gazetteer as early as January 27. Aaron Hill had heard of it by
January 6.[2] On December 22
Richardson had asked Hill's daughters for suggestions and corrections, and
around this date he evidently told Hill that the style needed polishing.[3] He had also sent Hill a letter
which an
anonymous gentleman had written to Rivington on November 15,
commenting in a friendly and complimentary way on the book, but making
many suggestions for improvements.[4] The simplicity of the style had also
called
forth some adverse comment:
"The Language is not altogether unexceptionable, but in several Places
sinks below the Idea we are constrained to form of the Heroine who is
supposed to write it."
[5] But the
author of the letter "
To my worthy Friend,
the Editor
of PAMELA," printed at the beginning of the first edition of the
novel (and also in the
Weekly Miscellany for October 11,
1740), had demanded "
Pamela as Pamela wrote it; in her own
Words" — "in her neat Country Apparel"; and Hill also, for similar
reasons, objected on December 29 to polishing. "I don't indeed pretend,"
Hill adds, "to have consider'd with a critical Exactness, whether twere an
absolute Impossibility, by shortening here and there a Single Word or two,
to draw perhaps the
Energy a little, (very little) closer
—
without offering Profanation to y
e native Sweetness of the
Phrase, and
Sentiment. But what a trite and insignificant Refinement, That! amidst a
Mass of such
unprecedented Beauties!" (Forster MS XVI, 1, fol. 37).
Nevertheless Richardson did polish considerably for the second
edition. There are 841 changes, and the vast majority of them are designed
to elevate or correct the language. The past tense of "run" is changed from
"run" to "ran" (often — Richardson hardly ever caught all his errors
or
changed them consistently), the past participle of "break" from "broke" to
"broken," that of "write" from "wrote" to "written." The objective case of
"who" becomes "whom"; "I sat out" becomes "I set out," while an
intransitive "setting" becomes "sitting"; "you was" becomes "you were."
In one place "look'd as silly" becomes "look'd . . . as sillily," only to be
changed back to "silly" in the 1801 text (12mo, I, 67; 1801, I, 66), when
Richardson's knowledge of grammar had advanced still further.
Contractions are expanded, "infinitely" becomes "greatly" or is omitted,
"said" frequently becomes "added," "says I" or "thinks I" becomes "said"
or "thought," "my old Lady" becomes "my late Lady."
Originally Pamela was "watched, and such-like, very narrowly," now she
is "watched very narrowly"; Pamela would still rather "rot" than accept
Mr. B.'s proposals, but it is "in a Dungeon" rather than "in a Dunghil"
(12mo, I, 14, 16, 252). The style becomes less colorful when Mr. B. kisses
Pamela "with frightful Eagerness" rather than "as if he would have eaten
me" and when she tells Mrs. Jervis "all that had passed" rather than "every
bit and crumb of the Matter" (12mo, I, 18, 22). In one place a misprint
creeps in, "Coachyard" for "Court-yard," which is followed in all of the
later
duodecimo editions, though corrected in the octavo and in the 1801 (12mo,
I, 111; 8vo, I, 140; 1801, I, 107).
Most of the suggestions of the anonymous gentleman are not
followed: Mr. B. does not become a baronet, though the objectionable word
"'Squire" is frequently changed to "Gentleman" or "Mr. B." (and still more
often changed in the eighth duodecimo and 1801 editions); but a long
discussion in Volume III on Mr. B.'s accepting a baronetcy is probably an
answer to the anonymous gentleman. Pamela's sufferings from Lady Davers
are not shortened, nor does she show more spirit with that lady. Mr. B. still
spans Pamela's waist with his hands (12mo, II, 216), as he continues to do
throughout all editions, though, according to the anonymous gentleman, that
"Expression is enough to ruin a Nation of Women" by tight-lacing. The
word "naughty" generally stays, though it is occasionally changed to
"wicked." Pamela does not discharge Mrs. Jewkes (this also is justified in
Volume III). Pamela's superstitions about marriage on Thursday remain
(12mo, II, 149). But "Curchee" is always changed to
"Curt'sy" or some similar spelling, and "voluntierly" becomes
"voluntarily." Pamela no longer drops down on her knees in a corner to
bless God after her wedding (12mo, II, 177), and she no longer calls her
husband "Master" through timidity (12mo, II, 197) — Richardson
adopts
almost the exact wording suggested by the anonymous gentleman, as he
does also when he changes "my dear lordly Master" to "my dear Lord and
Master" (12mo, II, 305). "Foolish thing that I am" was not altered
—
indeed it persists into the 1801 edition (12mo, II, 305; 1801, II, 238). But
he does change two passages which, in the anonymous gentleman's opinion,
were susceptible to interpretations as doubles entendres.[6]
Aaron Hill on January 6 had opposed any changes at all, and had
specifically opposed raising the style, giving Mr. B. a title, altering the
scene with Lady Davers, dismissing Mrs. Jewkes, or changing the passage
on Pamela's waist, the word "naughty," the phrase "foolish thing that I
am," or the so-called doubles entendres. The only objection
he
had supported was that to the excessive prayers and appeals to the Deity
— a "little Contraction" in these, he thought, might help to draw in
minds "fashionably Averse to the Subject," to their own benefit (Forster
MS XIII, 2, foll. 36-39, and Forster MS XVI, 1, fol. 39). Though this
concession was retracted in Hill's letter of January 15,[7]
Richardson considerably abridged Pamela's piety — 85 mentions of
God
were either cut or altered by changing the word "God" to "Heaven."
Hill had mingled his advice with effusive praise and with some
sarcastic remarks on the rash anonymous gentleman, and Richardson
inserted his reply with several other letters of praise from him as an
Introduction to the second edition.[8]
It was this Introduction which was parodied in Shamela
Andrews and attacked and ridiculed in Pamela
Censured
(London, 1741, pp. 15-19) and which called forth other uncomplimentary
comments on Richardson's transparent puffery. One reverend gentleman
wrote to John Osborn in February, 1741: ". . . you were bewitched to Print
that bad stuff in the Introduction. . . . He [the writer of the letters] is too
full of himself, and too gross in his Praises of the Author. . . . He [the
author] wou'd do well to alter it, and make it shorter, besides, a Gentleman
who seems to have intended well and honestly, is very ungratefully used,
and it has given Offence" (Forster MS XVI, 1, fol. 46).
The third edition appeared on March 12, 1741. It had 59 changes,
none of them of much moment, but several of such a nature as to make it
seem likely that they are by Richardson: "you was" to "you were," "let you
and I" to "let you and me," "says" to "said," "broke" to "broken," "wrote"
to "written," "run" to "ran." Two are certainly misprints, which were
carried on into all subsequent duodecimos and the octavo: "desiring to
interpose" for "desiring me to interpose" and "all my Scruples" for "all his
Scruples" (12mo, II, 52, 126; 8vo, II, 25, 115). The first phrase was
dropped and the second misprint corrected in the 1801 edition (II, 20,
86).
The fourth edition, published on May 5, 1741, had 48 changes. 14
of them were in the Introduction, where Hill's remarks about the
anonymous gentleman were considerably softened. On April 21 Hill
had reluctantly given Richardson permission to substitute "unguarded" for
"silly" as applied to Mr. Williams, in deference to the objections of certain
clergymen (a change made in this edition) and to make other alterations in
his letters in deference to the "sordid taste" of the age (Barbauld, I, 72-73).
Earlier, on April 13, Hill had written that he had unwillingly made a few
corrections on the proof of Richardson's "beautiful work," as Richardson
had repeatedly urged ("a word, here and there") and would go on if
Richardson insisted (Barbauld, I, 68-69). The few real changes in the text
may, therefore, have been Hill's. The change of "lac'd Head, and
Handkerchief" to "lac'd Cambrick Handkerchief" (12mo, II, 117) is almost
certainly a deliberate change, as are "run" to "ran," "thinks" to "thought,"
and "how kind and how good he behav'd" to "how kindly he behav'd"
(12mo, II, 24). Several of the others may well be misprints.
The second major revision was that for the fifth edition, published on
September 22, 1741. There are 950 changes, 45 of them retrenching
redundancies and excessive praises in the introductory letters. Some of the
other changes may have been suggested by Dr. Newton or Aaron
Hill.[9]
Most of the changes in the fifth edition are changes of phrasing,
rather than grammatical changes or changes of single words, as in the
second edition, the octavo, and the eighth duodecimo: "I must
he and him him now; for he has lost his
Dignity
with me" to "May-be, I he and him him, too
much:
But it is his own Fault, if I do. For why did he lose all his Dignity with
me?" (12mo, I, 17); "a Condition so much superior to what I could do for
her" to "could raise her to" (12mo, II, 122); "as far as one Holiday will go;
for that I can get Leave for" to "Leave to make, on such an Occasion"
(12mo, I, 39). When Mr. B. looks through a keyhole and spys Pamela
stretched out in one of her fits, the fifth edition adds that she was on her
face (12mo, I, 31) — possibly to avoid what Pamela
Censured (p. 31) called "a Posture that must naturally excite
Passions
of Desire" which could not be contemplated except "by one in his
grand Climacteric without
ever wishing to see one in the same Situation." The anonymous author of
this pamphlet attacked Pamela for indecency and for its
immoral
tendency, but this appears to be the only objection which Richardson tried
to obviate before his final revision. One nice touch is added when Pamela
is trying her hand at hard work by scouring a pewter plate: "I see
I could do't by Degrees; tho' I blister'd my Hand in two Places" becomes
"It only blister'd my Hand in two Places" (12mo, I, 94). Richardson had
evidently gone over his book carefully.
There are two added passages of some length, on Pamela's reading
(12mo, I, 143) and her proposed correspondence with Miss Darnford
(12mo, II, 333). Pamela's verses on leaving Bedfordshire (12mo, I,
112-114) and the "Preface by the Editor" are extensively revised. And there
are the usual grammatical changes: "without" (conj.) to "except," "who" to
"whom," "broke" to "broken," "run" to "ran," "learns me" to "teaches
me."
On October 23, 1741, a French translation of Pamela
was
published in London. According to the preface (I, [x]), "Cette
Traduction a été faite avec la participation de l'Auteur, qui
a eu la
bonté de nous fournir un petit Nombre d'Additions & de
Corrections.
Et comme on aime à connoitre le Caractére de ceux dont
il est fait
mention dans un Livre qu'on lit, l'Auteur a bien voulu nous communiquer
les Portraits de quelques personnes dont il parle dans cette Histoire. Ces
Portraits n'ont point été inserez [sic] dans les
cinq
Editions qu'on a faites de l'Original, parce que l'Auteur s'en est
avisé
trop tard." This translation had been advertised in the Daily
Post as "in the Press" as early as March 27, 1741, and is based not
on the fifth edition but on the earlier ones. It does not have the additions on
Pamela's reading and her correspondence with Miss Darnford. Indeed it
seems to be based on the second edition — "une coëfure
& un moucheoir" is previous to the "Cambrick Handkerchief" of the
fourth edition (II, 138; 12mo, II, 117), and the French does not follow the
third edition's misprint "my Scruples" (II, 148; 12mo, II, 126). In a few
passages, however, it resembles the fifth edition: it adopts a change in the
order of listing the various articles of clothing which Mr. B. gave Pamela
(I, 14; 12mo, I, 12); the banks of the pond, "guilty" in the fourth and
"perilous" in the fifth, are "dangereux" in the French (I, 173; 12mo, I,
231). "Il me laissa monter dans ma chambre" is like the fifth edition's "left
me to go up to my Closet" rather than "I went up to my Closet" (II, 91-2;
12mo, II, 78). Pamela's parting verses, given not where they belong in
other editions but later, are a very free translation, but seem more like the
revised version. In many places where the French is like the fifth edition,
the exigencies of French grammar probably forced a similar change. The
translator substituted other
words freely for "said" so that he often has a reading like the fifth or like
the octavo, but he also has "écriai" or "reprit" where the fifth
retains
"said," so that these probably mean nothing. There are five to ten other
passages where the
French resembles the fifth edition and the octavo in ways which grammar
probably does not account for, but all are minor and might be coincidental.
There must really have been a "
petit Nombre" of additions
and
corrections.
The most striking addition, indeed the only very striking one, is the
passage describing some fine ladies who come to see Pamela (I, 67-72)
("les Portraits de quelques personnes"). Aside from several
variations of "said" and from one new paragraph break (II, 259), it is the
only thing in the French translation which resembles the octavo and not the
fifth edition. It may well have been written before the fifth was published
and not adopted because it would have meant too great a change in
pagination.
This passage is also the most considerable change in the octavo,
which was advertised as just published in the Daily Post of
May
8, 1742. It was called the sixth edition and was issued with the third edition
of Volumes III and IV, first published on December 7, 1741. In a letter to
William Warburton of November 17, 1742, Richardson says that it "has
received a good many Alterations from the former" (Forster MS XVI, 1,
fol. 89). But these alterations are fewer in number (633) than those in the
fifth edition, and only five of them are important: the fine ladies passage,
the omission of the introductory letters and substitution of a detailed table
of contents,[10] the omission of the
conclusion (part of which was made superfluous by Volumes III and IV),
a change in timing made necessary by the discovery that in the earlier
editions two dates had overlapped (8vo, II, 233; 12mo, II, 222), and the
inclusion in Volume I of several papers which had been
in Volume II so that the break between the volumes occurs at a more
crucial moment — Pamela's leaving the Lincolnshire house.
Most of the other changes are of a single word: "kissed" to "saluted,"
"said" to "added," "replied," etc. (there are a great many of these), "durst"
to "dared," "tho'" to "altho'," "naughty" to "wicked," "on" to "upon," "in"
to "into."
Grammatical changes continue: the past tense of "bid" is "bad" not
"bid"; "where" becomes "whither," "there" "thither," "broke" "broken,"
"you was" "you were." Many unnecessary adjectives ("poor," "great,"
"all") are cut.
The changes of the octavo were not followed in the sixth, seventh,
and eighth duodecimo editions. It is perhaps not surprising that the more
extensive ones were not, since they would have meant re-pagination, but it
is hard to see why Richardson, who was his own printer and was
meticulous where his own works were concerned, did not take the trouble
to correct at least the grammatical mistakes he had discovered while
preparing the octavo edition. Perhaps his work on Clarissa
decreased his interest in Pamela for a while, or perhaps he
had
lost the copy on which he had marked his changes. When he came to revise
for the edition published in 1801, however, he did use the octavo as a
basis. The text of the octavo is usually regarded as the standard text of
Pamela. Though its importance as a revision has been
somewhat
exaggerated, probably because of its splendid format and because the
dropping of the introductory letters and the addition of the fine ladies
passage
have been known to scholars for some time, its use for the revision shows
that Richardson did regard it as the best text available.
The duodecimo edition of Pamela published in October,
1746, was also called the sixth edition. It had 26 changes from the fifth
edition, and most of these are insignificant — 9 are changes of
"farther"
to "further." But even here the change of "it was me" to "it was I" (12mo,
I, 234) was probably Richardson's, as well as the omission of the final "it"
in "thou hast a Memory . . . that nothing escapes it" (12mo, II, 15) and of
the "-ing" on "singing" in "My Master has just now been making me play
upon the Spinnet, and singing to it" (12mo, II, 154). The first of these
changes is not adopted in the 1801 edition, the second passage is reworded,
and the third change is adopted (I, 256, 307; II, 112). One entry is changed
from Wednesday to Thursday (12mo, II, 354), probably by oversight, since
the next entry is also Thursday.
The evidence about the publication of the seventh duodecimo edition
is almost impossible to reconcile. A note in the Bodleian (MS. Don. c. 66,
pp. 18-19) listing amounts Rivington owes Richardson shows that 300
copies of the duodecimo Pamela, Volumes I and II, were
delivered to Rivington between December 3, 1746, and June 3, 1749; 144
more copies of these volumes (whether in octavo or duodecimo is not
stated) were delivered up to January 18, 1753. On September 19, 1753,
Richardson wrote to Mrs. Chapone that he had
to send her a second-hand set of
Pamela, "for the Fire I was
afflicted with last Year, consumed all the First & Second Vols. that
were
left in my Hands of the last Impression. But to make some Amends, they
will be in the largest Edition; and with Cuts." (Forster MS XII, 2, fol. 89).
Since he is sending her a copy in octavo "to make some Amends," he must
have intended sending a duodecimo — that is, the sixth edition of
1746.
But an advertisement in the back of Volume IV of
Sir Charles
Grandison, published in November, 1753, advertises
Pamela in octavo and "in Four Volumes 12 mo. The Sixth
Edition."
Pamela in duodecimo is advertised in the
Public
Advertiser for March 19, 1754. This may refer to the sixth or to the
seventh edition in duodecimo — Sale has discovered no
advertisement of
the seventh and its date of publication is uncertain. But the height of
confusion is reached in Richardson's letter to Stinstra of November 26,
1755: "I have
actually retouched Pamela: But there being a Number of the
3
d and
4
th Volumes of that Work in hand, more than of the
1
st and
2
d. I only printed as many of the two latter, as would
make perfect
Setts; and was therefore obliged to keep the two former as they
were."
[11] Since Stinstra is asking
about Richardson's elaborate revision (the one ultimately published in
1801), it is hard to believe that Richardson is referring to the seventh
duodecimo edition, with its few minor changes, as "retouched." The
wording implies that Richardson had some Volumes I and II of the edition
in question, though fewer than of Volumes III and IV. An unrecorded
octavo seems out of the question, since the 1742 octavo was reissued as late
as 1772. One possible explanation, somewhat less improbable than others
that suggest themselves, is that Richardson discovered some unburned
copies of the 1746 duodecimo, reissued them with some of his Volumes III
and IV, and
printed the seventh duodecimo edition to issue with the rest of the Volumes
III and IV on hand (the "seventh" edition was published with the "fifth" of
Volumes III and IV — a third issue of the second), and was
deliberately
obscure in his letter to Stinstra because his revision had bogged down or he
was unsure what he was going to do with it.
This seventh duodecimo edition is dated 1754 and has only 35
changes from the sixth duodecimo, over half of them of "farther" to
"further," "ingrateful" to "ungrateful," or "an" (before "h") to "a." None
of them can be said to be certainly by Richardson, though a
"broken" for "broke" and an "if she please" for "if she pleases" sound like
him. The readings of the seventh duodecimo are followed in the
eighth.
This edition (dated 1762) appeared three and a half months after
Richardson's death, on October 28, 1761. Early in March, 1761, one of
Richardson's daughters had written to Lady Bradshaigh: ". . . the four
Vols. of Pamela being almost out of Print, and a new Edition called for,
and being delighted to hear, that your Ladiship has remarked upon that
Piece and Clarissa, he [Papa] directs me to express his earnest Wishes, that
you will favour him with the Perusal of your Observations, with Liberty to
add to new ones of his own such of your Ladiship's, as may make
ye
future Edition more perfect than otherwise it can be. The Employment will
be, my Papa says, a great Amusement to him."[12] On March 13 Lady Bradshaigh
wrote that
she was sending the volumes so that Richardson could look over "what I
have scroled in the Margin of your two Histories."[13]
It is likely that the proposed "future Edition" was the one which
appeared as the "eighth," and the nature of the revisions in this edition
supports this view. There are 251 changes, 27 of them in the introductory
letters (the praises are further toned down and considerable cuts are made)
and 19 in the conclusion (there are two large cuts, one of them of material
which Volumes III and IV had long ago made superfluous).
The other changes are slight but follow a definite pattern; most of
them deal with matters of propriety: gold trimming on clothes becomes
silver (12mo, I, 82; II, 351); attendant servants are no longer mentioned
(12mo, II, 354, 359). Mr. B. calls his steward Longman rather than Mr.
Longman. Young ladies are no longer addressed or referred to as "Miss"
alone. The word "Spouse" generally becomes "Master" or "Mr. B.," and
more "'Squires" are removed. In the scene between Pamela and her former
fellow-servants, their names are no longer enumerated (12mo, II, 345-346).
The words "may-hap" and "Maiden" are fairly consistently changed. The
elimination of superfluous elegance and the new words of address especially
sound like
Lady Bradshaigh.
[14] If they are the
result of her comments, they are Richardson's last literary activity.
This does not mean, however, that some of the changes in the eighth
duodecimo edition were not written earlier. Some of them are identical with
changes in the 1801 edition. This may not always prove that Richardson
used one revision to revise the other — "may-hap" and "Spouse," for
instance, are also eliminated in the 1801 edition, but not always in the same
way. If Richardson felt that such words were objectionable, the same result
could easily have been obtained without comparison of the two
revisions.
"Bite" could have become "Trick" (1801, I, 65; 12mo, I, 66) and
"take a Dinner" "dine" (1801, II, 285; 12mo, II, 355) in both texts without
any comparison, but the number of such similarities, as well as a few where
the similarity would be an unlikely coincidence ("when" for "while" [1801,
II, 234; 12mo, II, 301] and "chose that Name" for "chose that" [1801, II,
290; 12mo, II, 362]), makes it seem likely that there was some influence
of one on the other, though variations in other passages make it certain that
one was not used as a basis for the other.
A probable explanation would be that Richardson began to mark
changes for a new duodecimo edition in the margin of the seventh while he
was working on the more extensive revision, and at the same time used
them in that revision, but that at the very end of his life he made further
changes in the margin for a new duodecimo edition which were never
incorporated in the revision published in 1801.
ii
It has long been known that Richardson left a revised copy of
Pamela to his family, which, it has been generally assumed,
was
somehow lost. The biography of Richardson in the Universal
Magazine for February, 1786 (LXXVIII, 74), regrets that "the new
edition, in which much was altered, and the whole new-modelled, has never
been given to the public." In almost the same words John Nichols had
expressed his regrets, adding that much is omitted in the "improved edition"
and that only the fact that there was an edition unsold prevented its
publication
during Richardson's lifetime.
[15] In the
mid-1780's Mme. de Genlis was shown by Edward Bridgen, the husband
of Richardson's daughter Martha, "un manuscrit du roman de
Paméla,
avec des corrections à la marge des propres mains de Richardson."
Bridgen wanted her to translate it into French, "littéralement"; she
felt
she would have had to make many changes, and offered to have the
translation done, but Bridgen refused.
[16]
This revision was the subject of considerable correspondence between
Martha Bridgen and her unmarried sister, Anne Richardson, in 1784.[17] On June 28 Anne wrote
approvingly of
a proposal by Bridgen to have it published, but believed that "farther
corrections" by Martha "wou'd be necessary and make it
infinitely more perfect." She mentioned especially a "conversation at the
farmer's" on Pamela's journey from Bedfordshire to Lincolnshire, which,
to the best of her memory, she "thot. was not an
improvement,
as the stile is different from the rest of the two first vols." In answer,
Martha on July 7 expressed her intention of going over them, "but, should
I be prevented, I will request that the four Volumes may be destroyed." On
July 10 Anne agreed "that unless they cou'd be re-revised" it would be
better to destroy them; "they are still too imperfect for publication as
having received my Father's last hand." She also mentioned that she
had had for "some years" "the 4 vols: of Pamela, as altered," which Martha
had lent her and which she did not return, since Martha "had another
copy." On July 20 Martha asked for Anne's four volumes, "as I am now
too poorly to bear the fatigue of perusing it in the blotted & rough
state
in which our dear father left it, tho' I prize those Volumes which have
received corrections from his own hand most highly. Perhaps
I might make some further corrections in my own copy when I come to
read it, which I should submit afterwards to your inspection. I know there
are many scenes that I could have wished had been entirely
omitted; but that I should think taking too great a liberty, & altering
the
original plan too much; therefore all I should attempt would be to alter
some particular phrases, &c: at least this is my idea at present. I own
I
should be grieved to have the corrected copy
destroyed, whether any use was made of it, or not, in our lifetime. Its
having 'received my Father's last hand,' renders it precious; tho', at the
same time, I earnestly wish he had been more liberal of his corrections."
On July 31 Anne promised to try to send her copy: "The farther altering
some triffling things wd. make it more perfect, tho' I think still it is not
enough perfect to be published as having recd. our dear Father's last hand.
— The alterations are not
always improvements, tho'
often
so."
On February 13, 1785, Martha Bridgen died. On April 12, 1792,
Anne wrote to her niece Mrs. Moodie, daughter of Sarah Richardson
Crowther: "As to the Pamela's, God only knows whether I shall have time
or ability to go through them, and my handwriting is so bad, and even
worse than ever, that I question whether if I am able to go through with the
task, it will be of use." She expects no profits from any revisions of her
father's works: "I remember that any recompence to the family was refused
many years ago, when Mr. Bridgen proposed it; I have lately
been told that my Father had promised to give them to the
booksellers; and I always wished that m[y] dear Sister Bridgen, whose
abilities were far beyond [mine, might] have consented to give them
finished and re-corr[ected. As] I am very sure that my family wi[ll] never
be able to obtain anything hereafter, I do not scruple to give them up now;
and have only to wish that I was more capable than I am of doing Justice
to them."
It appears from this that Martha, who was considered to be the
literary daughter, did not get around to re-revising Pamela.
Nevertheless Anne did finally permit her father's revision, with or without
further corrections by herself, to appear. On October 11, 1801, she wrote
to Mrs. Moodie: "I had a letter the 22d of last month from my dear
Nephew Sam1. [Crowther] with two setts of Pamela, the
new edition,
with my dear Father's last corrections. I am going over them very
carefully, to correct errors of printing &c." And there is a London
edition of Pamela in four volumes dated 1801, prefaced by
a
note:
The Booksellers think it necessary to acquaint the Public, that
the numerous alterations in this Edition were made by the Author, and were
left by him for publication.
It cannot be material to state here the reasons why the Work
has
not sooner appeared in this altered and improved form.
But it may be proper, for the satisfaction of the Public, to
mention, that they have been favoured with the copy, from which this
Edition is printed, by his only surviving daughter, Mrs. Anne
Richardson.
March 30,
1801.
The title-page describes the edition as "A New Edition, Being the
Fourteenth, with Numerous Corrections and Alterations." The only two
copies we have located are in the British Museum and the University of
California at Los Angeles Library.
The text literally does have "Numerous Corrections and Alterations,"
and it is impossible to imagine anyone except Richardson who would have
taken such great pains. In many instances Richardson's A Collection
of the Moral and Instructive Sentiments, Maxims, Cautions, and Reflexions,
Contained in the Histories of Pamela, Clarissa, and Sir Charles
Grandison, published in 1755, agrees more closely in phraseology
with the 1801 text than with the earlier texts and occasionally contains
sentiments which are found only in the 1801 text.[18] It is possible that some of the
minor
changes are Anne's, but there is nothing in the 1801 text which seems
unlike Richardson himself: many of the revisions are of the kind he had
made in earlier editions; several added or rewritten scenes, including that
at the farmer's to which Anne objected, are in the style of Sir
Charles
Grandison and appear to be beyond the abilities of Anne or even
Martha. We do not
see that there can be any doubt that the 1801 edition was printed from
Richardson's revised copy, possibly with slight alterations by his daughter
Anne.
Anne Richardson had written Mrs. Moodie on October 11, 1801, that
she was going over the new edition of Pamela "very
carefully,
to correct errors of printing &c." She died in 1803. In 1810 almost the
same group of booksellers brought out another edition of
Pamela in four volumes, the "fifteenth." The only copy we
have
found is in the New York Public Library. Volumes I and II vary from the
1801 text in over 300 verbal readings, not counting the correction of several
obvious misprints in the 1801 edition and a few changes which we have
judged to be misprints in the 1810 text. The great majority of these
variations are the alteration of "said" to another word or the omission of
"said he" (or a similar phrase) or of "so." In one instance the mention of
attendants is cut, and in another that of "silk" (1801,
II, 25, 303; 1810, II, 23, 291). These changes are in line with Richardson's
practice in the 1801 text. There are other changes which are at least due to
careful reading and judicious correction. Most striking is the change of
Pamela's reference (incorrect in all previous editions) from "Thursday the
20th day of my imprisonment" to "the 28th" (12mo, II, 25; 8vo, I, 397;
1801, I, 316; 1810, I, 302). A number of other readings, some of them like
the octavo of 1742 and others new, seem to be improvements on the 1801
text. A list would be too lengthy for this article, but we will be glad to give
further information to anyone with a technical interest in the text of
Pamela.
It is hard to imagine why a compositor, copy-reader, or bookseller
would have bothered with all the "said's," or why anyone but Richardson's
daughter would have gone to so much trouble. The probability, then,
appears to be that the 1810 edition was printed from a copy of the 1801
corrected by Anne Richardson. It is not impossible that she consulted the
copy in her father's hand, but none of the changes are beyond her own
abilities.
The date of the revision published in 1801 is uncertain. As early as
November 17, 1742, a few months after the publication of the revised
octavo edition, Richardson had written William Warburton that he was
collecting "ye Observations and Castigations of several of
my kind
Friends in order, if the Piece should happen to come to a future Edition .
. ., that it might be benefitted by their Remarks and that I might leave a
corrected Copy for the Press" (Forster MS XVI, 1, fol. 89). But
Richardson was constantly asking his friends and acquaintances to suggest
corrections for his works.
There is a more definite reference in a letter of October 5, 1753, to
Lady Bradshaigh — Richardson proposes to "give Pamela my last
Correction, if my Life be spared; that, as a Piece of Writing only, she may
not appear, for her Situation, unworthy of her Younger Sisters." In a letter
begun sometime before October 28 and finished on November 27 Lady
Bradshaigh offered to read Pamela again after Richardson's
"last correction"; looking over it some time ago she had noticed "several
things that I have a notion you will think proper to alter" — she
mentions
especially the low style of the first letters. On December 8 Richardson
expressed his hope that she would point out faults, though he defended the
low style as proper to Pamela in her humble state. In a letter begun on
December 23 and finished on January 14, 1754, Lady Bradshaigh promised
that "when I want a piece of work I shall write my marginal notes, in an
old edition of Pamela that I have by me." (Forster MS XI,
foll. 31, 43, 49, 62)
Earlier in 1753, on June 2, Richardson had written to Johannes
Stinstra that he intended "to give my good Pamela, my last Hand. I find I
shall correct it much; but shall have a particular Regard to preserve
ye
Simplicity of the Character." On May 23, 1754, Stinstra asked what had
come of the intention and Richardson answered on June 28, "I shall retouch
Pamela, as I have Opportunity; having gone a good way in it." In Edward
Bridgen's will, an undated codicil directs that "the Copy of Pamela
corrected by Mr. R: 1758 8 vol: be sent to Mrs: Anne
Richardson soon
after my death."[19] From this it
appears that the final revision was somehow dated 1758. Richardson had
probably been working at it off and on since 1753, and may well have
continued to "correct" the revision until his death in 1761.
Judging by Anne's and Martha's letters, in 1784 there must have been
two copies of the revision, one corrected in Richardson's own hand (which
Martha had) and the other a cleaner copy (which Anne planned to return to
Martha). The revisions are often far too extensive to have been written in
the margin of a printed volume, but Richardson had used interleaved copies
before,[20] and the copy in his hand (a
very illegible hand by the 1750's) may have been a copy of the octavo of
1742 with marginalia and interleaving. Martha and Anne write as if each
of the two copies was in four volumes; if they were, Bridgen in his will
either meant to write "8vo:" or he was using the word "Copy" loosely to
refer to the two copies.
iii
All of the other revisions of Pamela are minor
compared
to that published in 1801, which has over 8400 changes in Volumes I and
II, ranging from single words to whole pages cut or added. Hardly a
paragraph is untouched — hardly a sentence, except in the first
letters
and in a few letters from low characters like old Mr. Andrews and John
Arnold.
The following paragraphs will illustrate the constant small changes,
often insignificant, sometimes so insignificant as to be inexplicable. The
octavo reads:
Yes, said he, I would have you continue your Penmanship by all
means; and I assure you, in the Mind I am in, I will not ask you for any
after these; except any thing very extraordinary occurs. And, I have another
thing to tell you, added he: That if you send for those from your Father,
and let me read them, I may very probably give them all back again to you.
And so I desire you will do it. (I, 401)
In the 1801 edition this becomes:
I would have you, said he, continue writing by all means; and I
assure you, in the mind I am in, I will not ask you for any papers after
these; except something very extraordinary happens. And if you send for
those from your father, and let me read them, I may very probably give
them all back again to you. I desire therefore that you will. (I, 319)
In general, where the changes are not so great as to make comparison
impossible, the 1801 text follows the octavo. There are a few passages
where the 1801 has a reading from the duodecimos, or even a reading
which appears only in the first edition; it is not impossible that Richardson
did compare his various texts in making his more elaborate revision, but the
passages in question are not numerous or striking enough to prove that they
are not the result of coincidence.
Many of the changes are similar to the ones made for editions
published during Richardson's lifetime and for the duodecimo published
shortly after his death. More contractions are expanded than in the octavo.
Grammatical errors like "you was," presumably overlooked before, are now
corrected. "If I was" frequently becomes "if I were." In a few cases, the
1801 text has a less grammatical reading: "it was I" becomes "it was me,"
"broken" goes back to "broke," "who do you think I have seen" becomes
"whom" in the fifth and later editions but goes back to "who" in the 1801
(1801, II, 53; 8vo, II, 67; 12mo, II, 87). One would like to think that these
readings are the result of Richardson's increased assurance with grammar
and consequent increased boldness in departing from it for idiomatic effect,
but they are not numerous enough to eliminate the possibility of
carelessness or printer's error.
Pamela's style is made more elegant by the alteration of perhaps
vulgar but colorful idioms: "my Heart went pit-a-pat" becomes "my heart
fluttered," "another-guise sort of Heart" becomes "a much lighter heart,"
"my Heart's turn'd into Butter" becomes "my heart's melted,"
"Madam'd me up strangely" becomes "calling me
madam at every word" (1801, I, 26, 35, 88, 128; 8vo, I, 34,
45, 116, 168). Formerly Mrs. Jewkes "huff'd poor Mr.
Williams all to-pieces"; now she "behaved very rudely" to
him
(1801, I, 147; 8vo, I, 182). Pamela is not allowed to hurry out "with a Flea
in my Ear," nor does she describe herself as "as clean as a Penny" (1801,
I, 52, II, 23; 8vo, I, 68, II, 30). "Body"
in the sense of "person" becomes "girl" or "creature," "horrid cross"
becomes "very cross," "crossish" "a little cross," "beholden" "obliged," "a
deal" "a great deal," "I'll assure you" "I assure you." "Honesty" becomes
"virtue" or "innocence"; "naughty," where it was left in the octavo, often
becomes "wicked" or "foolish." "'Squire" is generally eliminated, though
Goodman Andrews is still permitted to use the word. Pamela is no longer
allowed to "sweat" so often; the word is changed to "toil." It is possible
that a few of these elegancies were Anne Richardson's contribution, but
most of them are so much like Richardson's practice in earlier revisions,
especially for the second and fifth editions, that there can be little doubt the
large majority of them were his.
Most of Pamela's "well's" and "O's" were cut. So were a great many
of her numerous "so's" and "dear's" and "poor's" — the last word
often
where it had no real meaning, but sometimes where it reminded the reader
of Pamela's family background. The practice of finding variants for "said,"
begun in the second edition and especially common in the octavo, is
continued, and the phrase "said he" or one of its variants is often dropped
entirely, in line with Richardson's usage in the rapid-fire dialogue of
Sir Charles Grandison.
In view of these extensive changes in wording, it is surprising how
much of the "neat Country Apparel" of Pamela's speech remains. Even in
the first edition, Pamela's way of speaking becomes much more dignified
once her master proposes to her. But in spite of the elimination of many
homely words and phrases in the successive revisions, either Aaron Hill's
advice or Richardson's good sense made him careful in tampering with her
language before she is exalted, and a great deal of her simplicity persists
in this final revision — fortunately, since the change in her language
is
largely responsible for the fact that even in the first edition Pamela almost
dies as a character shortly before her marriage. In the 1801 edition she is
still alive during the first volume.
A great many references to God, left over from the first edition, are
cut or are changed to "Heaven," and some of the kneeling and blessing is
dropped (1801, II, 160, 267, 279, 280; 8vo, II, 226, 372, 388, 390). At the
other end of the gamut, some "low" details like eating and drinking are
dropped, as well as details of clothing. For example, when Mr. Andrews
stops at the alehouse on the way to seek his daughter, no longer does he put
on "a clean Shirt and Neckcloth," he puts on "fresh linen," and before
setting out for Mr. B.'s he does not eat "some Bread and Cheese" and drink
"a Can of Ale" (1801, II, 64; 8vo, II, 83). At the farmer's on her way to
Mr. B.'s Lincolnshire estate
Pamela is denied the glass of sack (1801, I, 128; 8vo, I, 168), and on the
eve of her wedding Mr. B. does not over-persuade her to drink "Two
Glasses" (1801, II, 116; 8vo, II, 154). "Poor Pamela's bundle" still
contains the "four other shifts," but their description is dropped: "one the
fellow to that I have on; another pretty good one, and the other two old fine
ones, that will serve me to turn and wind with at home, for they are not
worth leaving behind me" (1801, I, 93; 8vo, I, 122). In the first bedroom
scene, Pamela is no longer about to say her prayers when her master rushes
out of the closet, and though she still notices, in spite of her fright, that his
morning gown is "a rich silk," she does not add that it is "silver" (1801, I,
72; 8vo, I, 95).
It was probably Richardson's increased acquaintance with the world
and with women like Miss Talbot and Lady Bradshaigh which led him to
avoid such vulgar elegance as the over-use of "Gentleman" and "Lady"
("man" and "woman" are generally substituted) and to turn Lady Jones,
Lady Arthur, and Lady Towers into Mrs. and Miss, which was certainly
correct in the last two instances since "Lady" Arthur's husband was a mere
"'Squire" and "Lady" Towers was unmarried. When in 1753 Lady
Bradshaigh remarked on his "many mistakes . . . with regard to the
Titles of several characters" in Clarissa and
Pamela, Richardson replied that his "Ignorance of Proprietys
of
those Kinds, was one of the Causes."[21] He also gets rid of excess
attendants
(1801, II, 90; 8vo, II, 122), and his gentry no longer speak of "the Parson"
or address each other as "Sister," "Aunt," or "Miss."
Perhaps to prepare for Volume II, when all the characters become
virtuous and polite, some of Pamela's harsh reflections on the refusal of
Mr. B.'s Lincolnshire neighbors to help her are moderated (1801, I, 177,
185, 251; 8vo, I, 220, 230, 312). The name of Mr. B.'s Lincolnshire estate
is expanded in Pamela's poem from "B—-n-hall" to "Brandon-hall" (1801,
I, 186; 8vo, I, 231), perhaps in an effort to make readers forget about
"Booby."
One might have expected that Richardson would be especially
sensitive about the criticism that certain of his scenes were inflaming. One
would certainly expect that if Anne did any extensive revision her hand
would have been especially heavy here. Victorian editions often
bowdlerized Pamela. But there are comparatively few
deletions
in the "warm" scenes. Mr. B. puts his hand in Pamela's bosom only in the
second bedroom scene (1801, I, 273; 8vo, I, 341) — his other
mammary
explorations are deleted (I, 29, 73, 251; 8vo, I, 37, 96, 311). Pamela's
doubts as to what has happened to her during her fits are less stressed
(1801, I, 74, 274; 8vo, I, 97, 342). Mr. B. no longer breathes "all quick
and short" when he comes to Pamela's bedside (1801, I, 272; 8vo, I, 340).
Two remarks in which Pamela jokes about her master's attempts are cut:
"if I would not
earn his Wages, why should I
have
them?" and "if I would not do the good Gentleman's Work, why should I
take his Wages?" (1801, I, 48, 94; 8vo, I, 62, 124). Also gone is Mr. B.'s
pun that he wishes he had her as "
quick another way" as she
is
in repartee (1801, I, 82; 8vo, I, 107) — a remark which the author
of
Pamela Censured (p. 44) had said conveys "the most obscene
Idea express'd by a double Entendre, which falls little short of the coarsest
Ribaldry." Mr. B. does not joke about Pamela's watching men "dress and
undress themselves" (1801, II, 89; 8vo, II, 121). Richardson may have
been intentionally avoiding ambiguity when he dropped Pamela's remark
about her sufferings between Mr. B. and his housekeeper (1801, I, 305;
8vo, I, 382), but it is unlikely that he dropped Mr. B.'s odd dream about
the horses (1801, II, 157; 8vo, II, 222) because he foresaw what the
Freudians would be able to do with it.
Some of the moralizing passages are gone (for example, 1801, II, 86;
8vo, II, 115), but the greatest gain from cutting is in the scenes which
consist largely of insipid compliment and fulsome praise of Pamela (1801,
II, 59-62, 73, 305-7; 8vo, II, 75-79, 95, 423-26). Most of the cuts before
Mr. B.'s decision to propose are compensated by additions, but in Volume
II many scenes are considerably reduced — not, of course,
considerably
enough, since a love of having his characters praised was one of
Richardson's besetting faults throughout his career. Several indirectly
self-laudatory passages, where characters remark on Pamela's charming
way of writing, are omitted (1801, I, 100, 309, II, 53, 76, 97; 8vo, I, 131,
387, II, 66-67, 100, 130-131).
The longer additions are largely in the lively conversational style of
Sir Charles Grandison. There are some good exchanges
between
Pamela and Mrs. Jewkes. When Pamela discusses with Mrs. Jewkes Mr.
B's request to come to his Lincolnshire estate, the octavo reads:
Why, may-be, said she, as he loves you so well, you may prevail
upon him by your Prayers and Tears; and for that Reason, I should think,
you'd better let him come down. Well, said I, I will write him a Letter,
because he expects an Answer. . . . (I, 225)
In the text of 1801 this is expanded:
Who knows, said she, as he loves you so well, but you may move
him in your favour by your prayers and tears? Prayers and tears you are a
good one at, lambkin. — [Was she not an odious wretch? A woman!
surely she
cannot have the nature of a woman!] — And for that reason,
continued
she, I should think you had better let him come down.
A good one at prayers and tears, Mrs. Jewkes! You are
a wicked woman — (Jezebel, said she) — thus to make a jest
of the
calamity of a poor young creature, designed, as perhaps you know, for a
sacrifice!
She only laughed — Ugly creature! She only laughed —
You
cannot imagine how ugly she is when she laughs. — How must she
look
when she cries?
I will write to him, continued I, because he expects an answer. . . .
(I, 181-182)
When Mrs. Jewkes offers to propose to Mr. B. that Pamela marry Mr.
Williams, in the octavo Pamela said "of all Things, I did not love a Parson"
(I, 235). In the text of 1801 both Pamela and Mrs. Jewkes say much more:
. . . of all professions, I should not like a clergyman for my husband.
She wonder'd at that, she said, as I had such a religious turn. —
Why,
Mrs. Jewkes, said I, my dislike of a clergyman proceeds not from
disrespect to the function. Far otherwise. — Why, indeed, as you
say,
answered she [I did not say so] there are a great many
fooleries
among lovers, that would not so well become a starched band and cassock.
E'fackins, thou hast well considered of the matter. And then she
neighed, as I may say, if neighing be the laugh of a horse.
I
think I do hate her. Must not, my dear mother, this woman be a bad
woman to the very core? She turns every thing into wickedness. She saw
I was very angry, by my colouring at her, I suppose; but I said nothing. .
. . (I, 189)
Lady Davers's arrival is more vividly told (1801, II, 165-166; 8vo,
II, 235-236), and her comments on Mr. B's letter to Pamela are lengthened
and improved (1801, II, 184-187; 8vo, II, 257-260). A long passage, of
which the following is only a little more than half, is added in which
Pamela comments indignantly on a letter from Mr. B.:
What cruel reproaches! Mean-spirited, and
low, and forward: if I am low,
I am not
mean-spirited. I wish I could not say — It is he that,
high as he thinks himself, is mean-spirited.
— It
is degree, not man, he says, that gives me
apprehension. What can he mean by it? — A mirror of bashful
modesty and unspotted innocence, he thought me! What business has
he to think of me at all? And so, because he thought me modest and
innocent, he must seek to make me impudent and guilty.
His dear mother, my good lady, did not, and would not to this day,
have thought her favours misplaced, I dare say: but I know
what she would have thought of him, for such vile doings to her poor
servant-girl.
In a manner grown up with me! What an abasement
does
wickedness make pride submit to! Brought up with him! How
can he say so! Was he
not abroad for some time? And when, of late, at home, how has he eyed
me with scorn sometimes! How has the
mean girl been ready
to tremble under his disdainful eye! How have I sought for excuses to get
from my lady, when he came to visit her in her apartment, tho' bid to stay,
perhaps! —
Brought up with him! I say —
Brought
up with him! He may as well say — The poor frighted pigeon
brought up with the hawk! He has an eye like a hawk's, I am sure! and a
heart, I verily think, as cruel! (I, 220-221)
This addition will serve to illustrate the heightened style of the revision, as
well as the way in which Richardson makes his heroine more sympathetic
and less subservient.
The longest addition, the development of the scene at the farmer's
(1801, I, 128-138; 8vo, I, 168-171), is a good example of the sharp
characterization, realistic presentation of manners, and accurate reporting
of conversation which do so much to redeem Sir Charles
Grandison and to account for Jane Austen's admiration for that
book.
A single paragraph can serve as illustration. Farmer Monkton (originally
Norton) is going through Mr. B.'s letter to Pamela:
Does he not tell us, Dorothy, in the letter he was so good as to write
to us, that she will not own her love? And will
she
own it? said the silly old man. — Well then; so far so good. And
does
he not say, that he has written to her to soothe her? Very
good
of so great a man, I think: and that he has not told her the motive of
his doings? And does not this also come out to be true? And does
he
not say, that he will not come NERST her, that he may
not give occasions for foul suspicions? And does he not tell us what
is the nature of headstrong girls? Too well we know what that
is, Dorothy. And then he frowningly looked upon his daughter, who cast
her eyes down, and blushed. And does he not say, that this young
gentlewoman here will be out of humour at her
disappointment?
And do not the free things she have said of his honour shew
this
also to be true?
"The tedious old man" continues going through "the vile letter" and "then,"
Pamela writes, "he swelled strangely, half over the table, as I thought,
proud of his fine speech and wisdom."
Although no scenes are untouched, certain ones are touched rather
lightly: the fine ladies passage (added in the octavo), Pamela in her new
country dress and Pamela with her three bundles, the two bedroom scenes,
the meeting with the gypsy, the wedding (though the scenes before and after
are entirely rewritten), Lady Davers's long scenes with Pamela and with
Pamela and Mr. B. the next day. These are largely scenes of action. Those
which consist of polite conversation (Pamela at Sir Simon and Lady
Darnford's [1801, II, 194-206; 8vo, II, 269-293], for instance) or which
involve motivation, especially the relation
between Pamela and Mr. B. (the garden scene [1801, I, 280-283; 8vo, I,
349-354], or Pamela's meditations on whether to return [1801, II, 13-14;
8vo, II, 17-18]) are most heavily revised. Generally logical reasons for
Pamela's actions are given, and it is shown clearly that she has always been
as proper as she could be under difficult circumstances, but instead of the
warmth of her earlier outpourings, we sometimes get rather cold
explanations of her conduct.
It cannot be said that the characters of Pamela and Mr. B. are
fundamentally altered, but an effort is made to make them more consistent
and to prepare the reader for the idealized characters of the third and fourth
volumes. Richardson was evidently conscious of the gap between the
servant girl and libertine of the beginning and the fine lady and gentleman
of the end, and tried to bridge it. The gap proved unbridgeable; the plot of
the novel forced Richardson to assume that a virtuous and intelligent girl
can be made permanently blissful by marrying a man who has kidnapped
her and tried hard to rape her.
Many alterations seem designed to obviate such charges as those
made in Shamela Andrews, the anonymous Lettre sur
Pamela,[22] and Pamela
Censured (pp. 21-22, passim) that Pamela is too
artful.
It is Mrs. Jervis who "is very desirous" that she stay and finish Mr. B.'s
waistcoat (1801, I, 45; 8vo, I, 58). Pamela does not decide to encourage
John Arnold's repentance because she "may possibly make some
Discoveries by it" (1801, I, 156; 8vo, I, 194), or think of herself as an
innocent intriguer (1801, I, 167; 8vo, I, 208), or reflect when Mr. Williams
goes to jail "so there is an End of all my Hopes from him" (1801, I, 224;
8vo, I, 278), or lie to Nan (1801, I, 204; 8vo, I, 253), or even prevaricate
to Mrs. Jewkes (1801, I, 262, 266; 8vo, I, 327, 331-332).
Pamela's modesty is less excessive,[23] especially her fears on her
wedding day:
when Pamela goes up to her chamber she no longer sees "(what made my
Heart throb) Mrs. Jewkes's officious Pains to put the Room
in
order for a Guest, that however welcome, as now my Duty teaches me to
say, is yet dreadful to me to think of"; nor when the time of retiring draws
near, does Mr. B. take "notice, but in a very delicate manner, how my
Colour went and came, and how foolishly I trembled." Perhaps Richardson
came to agree with Pamela's following remark (also cut), "Nobody, surely,
in such delightful Circumstances,
ever behav'd so sillily!" (1801, II, 133, 137; 8vo, II, 180, 187). She no
longer implies a threat of suicide (1801, I, 184, 313-314; 8vo, I, 228, 393).
She does not give up the idea of escape after her first failure (1801, I, 244;
8vo, I, 301). She does not anticipate Mr. B.'s proposal by her hopes (1801,
I, 284, 301; 8vo, I, 354, 376-377). She is less pert (1801, I, 60, 66, 305,
308, II, 173, 177, 252, 278; 8vo, I, 78, 85, 381, 385, II, 244, 249, 53
386-387) and less humble (1801 II, 58, 69, 88-89, 125-126, 224, 280; 8vo,
II, 73, 89, 119-120, 167-171, 317, 391) — even her father's
humility is
decreased (1801, II, 89; 8vo, II, 121). She does not go into ecstasies at the
arrival of John Arnold (1801, I, 149; 8vo, I, 185), or fear that Robin may
decide to rape her (1801, I, 124; 8vo, I, 164), or propose to ride horseback
behind a man (1801, I, 61; 8vo, I, 80), or prop herself in the coach against
Mr. Colbrand (1801, II, 16; 8vo, II, 20).
These changes are fairly consistent and do serve to increase Pamela's
dignity without destroying her simplicity. With Mr. B. Richardson is less
successful, probably because he had less to work on. Mr. B.'s letters are
more extensively rewritten than almost anything else in the book (1801, I,
110-113, 127, 130-131, 173-175, 216-218, 219-220; 8vo, I, 146-148,
166-168, 169, 217-219, 268-270, 272-274). Yet we do not see that his
character emerges more clearly, or that the revisions make a great
difference. Richardson seems to have recognized that something needed to
be done with Mr. B., but he did not know what to do. Given the plot, Mr.
B.'s case was hopeless. Still Richardson tried to make him more of a
gentleman. Mr. B. insists less on his pride of station, and is somewhat less
rude to Pamela (1801, I, 51, 81; 8vo, I, 65-66, 106). A few of the gross
terms which Shamela Andrews had parodied and which the
Lettre sur Pamela (pp. 9-12) had objected to are altered
— Pamela is no longer a "Slut" or a "Hussy" or a "Baggage." After
his
proposal of marriage he is slightly less imperious (1801, II, 83, 194, 237;
8vo, II, 111, 269, 333); his rules on her conduct as a wife sound a little
less like a master ordering his maid, and they are not inflicted on Pamela
— she asks for them (1801, II, 153-157; 8vo, II, 214-222).
The revision of Pamela is a reflection of a double aim
not
only in this book but in Richardson's art as a whole. Pamela is credible as
a moderately clever and entirely proper little servant girl with a
not-unjustifiable eye on the main chance, a high respect for rank, but an
even higher respect for the moral lessons which have been instilled into her.
She is at times funny, at times pathetic, always likeable — and as
admirable as one would expect a girl of her class and her opportunities to
be. But Richardson was not content to leave it at that.
He needed a moral, which turned out to be the most immoral feature of the
book: Mr. B. must be turned into a man who can be considered a reward
for virtue. And he needed a model character: poor Pamela must be
contorted into a fine lady and loaded with qualities (never conveyed through
her words and actions, as is her real personality, but only stated) —
she
must use correct grammar and write wonderful poetry and carve turkeys
and serve cake beautifully and love music and reading (in her spare time)
and be weighted down with praises until the reader rebels and almost denies
her the qualities she does possess.
This split is apparent in the second volume of the first edition; it is
even more apparent in Volumes III and IV; it is the motivation of many
changes in all the revisions — nothing about Pamela must be open
to
criticism.
A good example is the scene at Sir Simon's following Pamela's
interview with Lady Davers (1801, II, 194-206; 8vo, II, 269-293). In the
earlier editions Pamela keeps saying that she wants to make peace between
Mr. B. and his sister — and then she reports all of Lady Davers's
most
outrageous remarks in full. She does not want to bother the company with
her troubles — and she keeps bringing the subject up. This is the
way
Richardson's original Pamela would have acted. Later Richardson learned
that this is not ideal ladylike behavior, and in the 1801 edition the scene is
rewritten and Pamela is much closer to the ideal, but much less lively. He
also learned that gentlemen do not discuss their family affairs so freely in
public, and Mr. B. becomes more reserved. The gentry are no longer so
openly eager in their desire to hear all the spicy details. It is all much less
vulgar. But it is less real — not, perhaps, less like what gentlemen
and
ladies really did, but Richardson had
realized his earlier vulgar ladies and gentlemen and only reports his later
correct ones.
The 1801 edition avoids a good many vulgarities and absurdities, and
eliminates some of the involuntary farce. It is more carefully written and
more consistent. Some of the more tedious passages are cut. And
Richardson deserves credit for not altering more of the good ones and for
not further elevating Pamela. At least throughout the first volume she
remains alive, and is an only slightly toned-down, or toned-up, version of
the girl whom Richardson had somehow conceived.
The 1801 revision merely goes further in the direction in which the
other revisions were headed. It accomplishes what the second, fifth, and
octavo editions set out to do, and (probably with those changes in the eighth
duodecimo edition which were not included in the 1801) it best represents
Richardson's final intention. If any single text is to
be preferred to it, that text is the first edition, which has never been
reprinted. Both are necessary to students of Richardson, and neither is
readily accessible. A double-column
Pamela containing the
text
of the first edition (with variants from the other duodecimos and the octavo)
and the text of the 1801 edition (with the adoption of the few readings from
the 1810 which clearly correct misprints in the 1801) would doubtless best
serve the scholar. But though one eighteenth-century admirer said that "if
all the Books in England were to be burnt, this Book, next the Bible, ought
to be preserved,"
[24] there is some
doubt that it needs such extensive preservation. Both texts should be made
available for anyone who wants to study
Pamela in her
country
habit and in her country-gentry habit, but for anyone who simply wants to
read
Pamela for enjoyment, we believe that the text of the
first
edition should be the one reprinted. It is
closer to the Pamela whom Richardson actually imagined, whereas all
succeeding texts try to approach the Pamela he thought he should have
imagined.
Notes