University of Virginia Library

The Revisions of Richardson's Sir Charles Grandison
by
Robert Craig Pierson [1]

Four editions of Samuel Richardson's Sir Charles Grandison contain revisions: the second (1754), the third (1754), the fourth (Volume VII, 1756; Volumes I-VII, 1762), and a London edition of 1810. William Merritt Sale, Jr., describes the first three of these editions and states that the second, third, and Volume VII of the fourth were revised,[2] but no one has attempted to ascertain the extent and nature of the revisions. The edition of 1810 has hitherto not been commented on. At present the edition published by the Shakespeare Head Press (Oxford, 1931), which simply reprints the second (octavo) edition, is considered "standard." No edition is now in print. I have collated the texts of the four editions mentioned above and of the first edition in an effort to discover what sorts of revision Richardson made in the novel and which edition best represents his final intention.

The first edition (seven volumes duodecimo) and the second (six volumes octavo) were published simultaneously. Volumes I-IV of both editions were published November 13, 1753, and on December 11, 1753, Volumes V-VI (duodecimo) and Volume V (octavo) went on sale. The last volumes of these editions were published March 14, 1754.

The collation of the first and second editions shows that there is an appreciable difference between them. The evidence is clear that Richardson made his changes for the second edition from an examination

of the first, for the changes are frequently corrections. No single instance could be considered a large revision, but there are 928 changes in the second edition.

Of the 928 changes, 369 are words that have been italicized in the second. Richardson apparently intended for the italicized words to be emphasized as if the reader were speaking dialogue aloud as in a play: "But talk to her: I hardly dare" (III, 70; II, 326);[3] "But, nephew, I am not a young man" (III, 83; II, 339). In 60 instances the two texts differ in the use of parentheses or brackets. In general, the second edition occasionally has parentheses where the first has commas, or brackets where the first has parentheses. Richardson's purpose seems to have been to set apart more emphatically such things as interpolations, "stage directions," or digressions: "There, there (sitting down by me) no bustle" (I, 264); "I stamped in tender passion [I am sure it was in tender passion]" (I, 122). Another frequent change (70 instances) is from "an" to "a" before words beginning with "h" and occasionally before vowels with a consonantal pronunciation.

Throughout the second edition there are changes which are clearly grammatical corrections. Four times the number of the verb has been changed so as to agree with the subject: "EVERY one of the Dunstable party say" to "EVERY one of the Dunstable party says" (IV, 225; 53). Twice the revision results in the agreement between the pronoun and the antecedent. A change in the principal part of the verb "run" occurs four times, and the revision of a clause so as to eliminate a preposition at the end four times: "that which you have been joint partakers in" to "that in which you have been joint partakers" (III, 73; II, 329. A change in verb tense takes place five times.

Many of the changes in the second edition are of single words, and sometimes the new word does not bring about any discernible improvement. Of the 93 single-word changes in the second edition, twelve are of prepositions: "did you make any-body uneasy at your passion" to "with your passion" (I, 88); "I intended to talk to you" to "talk with you" (III, 363; 203).

Frequently a word or phrase was changed to one less informal or to one that is more polite or more appropriate: "to tell fibs" to "to be guilty of an untruth" (I, 44); "Has been put to shifts" to "Has been put to difficulties" (II, 217; 116); "could hardly away with his particularities" to "could hardly excuse his particularities" (VI, 311; V, 333);

"Sorry fellow" to "Sorry wretch" (IV, 268; 96); "gentleman" to "man" (I, 107); "Lady" to "woman" (VI, 41; V, 63).

Upon reading the sheets of the first edition, Richardson must sometimes have seen a necessity for adding phrases or clauses in order to clarify or explain a passage. There are 30 instances of this practice: "had raised such a conflict as her tender nature could not bear" to "had raised such a conflict in her mind, as her tender nature could not bear" (III, 187; 27); "how am I to be distressed on all sides! by good men too; as Sir Charles could say by good women" to "how am I to be distressed on all sides! by good men too; as Sir Charles could say he was, by good women" (IV, 210; 38).

The rewording or shifting of phrases, clauses, and sentences for greater clarity, for emphasis, or for a logical comparison occurs 46 times: "These were the different answers given me by his porter, with as much confusion, as I ask'd with impatience" to "These were the different answers given me by his porter, with as much confusion, as I had impatience" (I, 175); "But you know what will justify me for the steps I have taken in every eye" to "But you know what will justify me in every eye for the steps I have taken" (I, 213); "Were it not that we must be afraid to appear over-forward to the man himself, the world is a contemptible thing, and we should treat it as such" to "were it not that we must be afraid to appear over-forward to the man himself, we should treat the opinion of the world with contempt" (VI, 92-93; V, 114-115).

Richardson was always concerned that his characters speak and act in a manner consistent with their station, and he was particularly receptive to those suggestions of people who were of a higher social class than he. Fourteen times he made an alteration in the form of a title or of direct address to avoid affectation, impropriety, or excessive elegance: "my dear" to "Lucy" (I, 15); "my cousin Reeves" to "Mr. Reeves" (I, 202); "her Ladyship" to "her" (II, 137; 36); "your Lordship" to "you" (IV, 11; III, 225). One other matter of propriety received Richardson's attention. Perhaps through an oversight in the first edition, Harriet's cousins, Lucy and Nancy, who, like Harriet, are guests in the home of their uncle, are not included in an invitation to dine with Lord and Lady W. In two places in the second edition, Richardson made minor revisions to assure that they were included (IV, 129; III, 343).

There are seven changes of dates, of which two are corrections of errors in the first (II, 299, 198; VII, 107, VI, 107). Richardson's reasons for changing the other dates are not so apparent. In a conversation between Harriet and Sir Charles's sisters, three "day before yesterday's"

are changed to "yesterday's" (II, 289-290; 188-189). There is nothing in the letters preceding or following this one of Harriet's that indicates a contradiction in the time of events. Nor have I found a reason for the change in the date of a letter from Charlotte to Harriet: "Tuesday, Aug. 8" to "Monday, Aug. 7" (V, 203; IV, 332).

Richardson added three footnotes to the text of the second edition. In each case he refers the reader to another letter or passage: "(a) This passage, is that where he hints at Lady Clementina's noble rejection of him, p. 386. l. 17. beginning 'I leave Italy,' to the end of the paragraph" (IV, 387). Perhaps Richardson thought the reader's memory needed jogging, but he may have used footnotes as a device for his pose as editor.

Other differences between the first and second editions include a shift in the order of the subject and the verb (5); a shift in the position of an adverb (8); the addition of "he said," "replied she," and the like (6); the deletion of such expressions (4); the deletion of words such as "that" introducing noun clauses or the "to" of the infinitive (25); and an increase in the number of paragraphs (18). Many of these revisions may have been Richardson's, but they do not follow any consistent pattern and do not seem to be of particular importance.

The third edition of Grandison was published in seven volumes March 19, 1754, five days after the publication of the final volumes of the first and second editions. Volume VII presents difficulties because the sheets of the first and third editions were sent to the bindery at the same time with the result that some of the copies of both editions are a mixture of first and third edition gatherings (Sale, pp. 73-76). Sale describes one copy of the third edition of Volume VII that has all third edition signatures and a third edition title page. I have been unable to examine this copy since the Yale University Library reports it missing. However, I have compared two copies of Volume VII that are in agreement in all but the K signature. One copy agrees with the K signature of the first edition; the other has a few minor revisions. Accepting the analysis of the first and third edition signatures according to Sale, I have a collation of the third edition of Volume VII for all signatures except E and G-I. Some of the alerations which I will show as being made for the fourth edition were probably made for the third.

Most of the 932 revisions in the third edition are like those of the second. Some appear to have resulted from suggestions Richardson received from his acquaintances and admirers. When he sent the volumes of Grandison to people like Lady Bradshaigh or Miss Catherine Talbot, he usually asked that they send him their suggested corrections. His correspondence contains evidence that his requests were often

granted. Among the suggestions that he received, those of the clergyman Patrick Delany and Miss Talbot appear to have been followed. On December 20, 1753, Delany wrote that he "was offended by three words, leer, ogle, and stare, to which I am sure I shall never be reconciled, at least from the mouth of a fair lady, as they are there used."[4] In three instances two of the words that he found offensive have been changed (I, 62; I, 68, 69; VI, 47). He had also a more important objection — "the only one I can remember. You put the defence of learning in the mouth of a fool, and it succeeds accordingly. I am far from blaming your ridicule of pedantry. Harriet very properly exposes it, with a great deal of wit and good sense. But she, who had been so well instructed by her grandfather, a man of learning, should, methinks, have found something in defence of it, wherewith to have finished the dispute." On December 22 Richardson went to some lengths to clear himself and added: "And could I presume to hope for the Direction of the Dean of Down in this Particular, I would weave in his Sentiments on the Subject, and think them the greatest Ornament of the Volume. May I, Sir, be permitted to hope your condescending assistance for another Edition, which is soon to be taken in Hand?" (Forster MS [Victoria and Albert Museum] XV, 4, foll. 17-18). It is likely that even if Delany sent his views on the subject of learning and the ancients they could not have been included in the third edition if a remark of Richardson's to Lady Bradshaigh means that all the volumes were being printed by January 4, 1754: "I am proceeding at different Presses with my Second Edition [third duodecimo]" (Forster MS XI, fol. 60).

However, Richardson did make some minor changes. In the seventeen pages of Volume I devoted chiefly to the debate between Harriet and Mr. Walden, Richardson modified several passages. He deleted a passage that was unkind to the ancients:

A passage of about the same length and on the same subject is deleted from the third edition at the beginning of Letter xiii (I, 70) and a paragraph of empty chatter fills the space. A relatively short example of an addition that may have resulted from Delany's objections is a sentence explaining that Mr. Walden is not to be taken as representative of university education: "I have since been told, that this pragmatical man has very few admirers in the University to which, out of it, he is so fond of boasting a relation" (I, 65).

Miss Talbot wrote to Richardson an objection to Sir Charles's excess of virtue and to his passive behavior and filial obedience at a time when his father's actions were going far toward impoverishing Sir Charles and his sisters: "He rather exalts his Fathers Character too much since tho his Father he was really a bad man. From the same Principles of Filial Duty had Lovelace had a Son that Son should have praised him. This therefore is at least the Excess of a Virtue. His offer to his Father Vol 2d 8vo P 56 too unlimited" (n.d., Forster MS XV, 4, fol. 49). In an undated note in reply, Richardson wrote that Sir Charles "consents to what he could not prevent, were his Father determined; and shall he not do it in such a Manner, as to have Weight upon Sir Thomas, and increase his Consequence with him for the future Good of himself and Sisters?" (Forster MS XV, 4, fol. 50), but he concluded the note with the remark that he would add a little to what Harriet says "that he may be better understood." In the first edition Harriet comments upon Sir Charles's filial duty in these words: "Policy, therefore, would have justified the young gentleman's chearful compliance, had he not been guided by superior motives." The third edition adds: "Sir Charles would not, I think one may be sure, have sacrificed to the unreasonable desires even of a Father, the fortune to which he had an unquestionable right: An excess of generosity, amiable indeed, but pitiable, as contrary to the justice that every man owes to himself, and to those who hereafter may depend upon him . . ." (II, 158).

As in the second edition, the number of words in italics is increased. There are 102 words italicized for the first time. But whereas the second edition has an italicized word of the first edition in regular type in only two instances, the third edition has 42 such changes. A possible explanation for this seeming contradiction in Richardson's practice is that the changes may have been made by compositors. Because of the press of work in his own shop, Richardson employed the services of several other printing shops in order to speed up the publication of his third edition.[5]

Parentheses or brackets are added 28 times in the third edition: "and our joy (looking round him) will then be complete" (VI, 71); "This last plaudit gratified my pride [I need not tell my Dr. Bartlett, that I have pride]" (III, 83). Before words beginning with "h," the article "an" has been changed to "a" 60 times. The grammatical corrections, like those in the second edition, indicate Richardson's concern for accuracy and for formal expression. In the third edition, the number of the verb has been changed to produce subject and verb agreement in ten instances: "neither of the two daughters were able" to "neither of the two Daughters was able" (II, 153); "There, Sir, is pen, ink, and paper" to "There, Sir, are pen, ink, and paper" (VI, 156). A change in the principal part of the verb occurs four times. Richardson revised three clauses in the third edition to eliminate the preposition at the end, and a shift of verb tense occurs 14 times.

Changes in single words in the third edition appear to have been made for a variety of reasons; there are 126 single word variations, many of which resemble those of the second edition — the new word is often less colloquial or more appropriate: "I warrant" to "I suppose" (I, 56); "put up at a nephew's of his" to "stop at a Nephew's of his" (VI, 138).

Again phrases or sentences have been added to explain or clarify; however, the list of reasons might be only a little shorter than the list of the 46 additions. Three examples will indicate the kinds of revisions: "The Marchioness put her handkerchief to her eyes, and looked upon me with tenderness" to "The Marchioness put her handkerchief to her eyes; but withdrawing it again, looked upon me with tenderness" (III, 333); "Once I remember, he wished that his Majesty would take a summer's progress thro' his British, another into his Irish, dominions" to which Richardson added "because the more he was personally known, the more he would be beloved" (VII, 16); after "I should choose which of the men-servants I would more particularly call my own," Richardson added "I have not, my dearest Life, said he, run into the taste of our modern gentry, for foreign servants, any more than for foreign equipages. I am well served; yet all mine are of our own country" (VII, 26).

Richardson deleted words and phrases from his second edition, but not to the extent that he did from the third, which has 67 deletions. The more important ones indicate a good pruning job: "Notice being given of dinner, Lord L. took my hand, and Sir Charles complaisantly led his sister Charlotte to her seat at the table; Lady L. being gone into the dining parlour before" to "Notice being given of dinner, Sir Charles complaisantly led his Sister Charlotte to her seat at the

table" (III, 129); from "by the permission he has given to Dr. Bartlett, to oblige me, and through me, his sisters, and all you my own friends" the last eleven words were cut (III, 264).

The rewording or shifting of phrases, clauses, and sentences for clarity, parallel structure, or logical comparison occurs 78 times in the third edition: "Have I pride, Miss Grandison? coldly and gravely, as my cousin observed to me afterwards, asked I" to "Have I pride, Miss Grandison? coldly and gravely asked I, as my Cousin observed to me afterwards" (II, 74); "the whole Urbino branch of the family, were not to be moved; and the less, as they considered the alliance as highly honourable to me . . . as derogatory to their own honour" to "the whole Urbino branch of the family, were not to be moved; and the less, because they considered the alliance as derogatory to their own honour in the same proportion as they thought it honourable to me" (III, 191).

The most extensive revision in the third edition comes under the general heading of propriety. There are 136 such changes: more appropriate or less affected titles or forms of address; impersonal references to servants; deletion of affected repetition; deletion or modification of indelicate or affected words, phrases, and clauses; and a reduction of immoderate praise. There is nothing in Richardson's extant correspondence that points specifically to any of the revisions, but he often requested that his women correspondents send him descriptions of the life and of the people he wrote about but did not know first hand, and many of them did so. Before the publication of Grandison, for example, he wrote Mrs. Anne Donnellan on July 20, 1750, asking for a description of a fine man: "As to the fine man, what shall be done, if such ladies as Miss Sutton, who can so well tell what she does not like, will not do us the honor to let us know what she does? Will she, or will you, Madam, be so good as to acquaint me what he is to do, and what he is not to do, in order to acquire and maintain an exemplary character?" (Barbauld, IV, 12) Later, on February 22, 1752, he again wrote Mrs. Donnellan: "I want much your assistance and Mrs. Delany's, in describing a scene or two in upper life" (Barbauld, IV, 61). One of Richardson's letters contains a hint that he may have followed some suggestions of Mrs. Donnellan and Mrs. Delany. In a letter of December 22, 1753, to Dr. Delany, he wrote, "Mrs. Donnellan has told me of some Objections in which Mrs. Delany joined with her, relating to Points of Delicacy in the Female Characters. When the Whole shall be before her, I shall think myself highly honoured by her Remarks" (Forster MS XV, 4, fol. 18).

Many of the revisions involve Harriet Byron. Besides being the principal feminine character, she is by far the principal correspondent of the novel. As the object of every one's love, praise, admiration, and respect, she is too often in the position of having to report the conversations of those who pour out effusive tributes to her beauty, her skill as a disputant in the defense of modern learning, her magnanimity toward her rival for Sir Charles's love, and even her incomparable grace as a dancer. These tributes do not disappear from the third edition, but many have been deleted or revised. The last eleven words were cut from "Lady Betty whisperingly congratulated me on having made so considerable a conquest, as she was sure I had, by Sir Hargrave's looks, in which was mingled reverence with admiration, as she expressed herself" (I, 80), and the parenthesis was cut from "But when the coach (attended by many neighbours and friends, who, like a gathering snowball, had got together, within a few miles of Selbyhouse) set us down at the inner-gate, there, in the outward-hall, sat my blessed grandmamma" (IV, 222). "Woman is the glory of all created existence: — But you, madam, are more than woman" is deleted (III, 133).

Other revisions in the third edition concerning Harriet attempt to remove the few frailties she has. Gone with a stroke, for example, is the suggestion that Harriet could hate: "Do you think he could not be put upon saying something affronting to me; upon doing something unworthy of his character? — O then I am sure I should hate him: All the other instances of his goodness would then be as nothing. I will be captious, I think, and study to be affronted, whether he intends to affront me, or not" to "Do you think he can always go on thus triumphantly? So young a man — So admired, so applauded — Will he never be led into doing something unworthy of his character? — If he could, do you think I should then be partial to him? O no! I am sure I should not! — I should disdain him — I might grieve, I might pity —" (III, 19).

In 27 instances affected behavior has been decreased. Less and less do the characters throw themselves at someone's feet, bend their knees, wet someone's hand with their tears, or hide their faces in a generous bosom: "I flung my fond arms about his neck, and, hiding my glowing face in his bosom, called him, murmuringly, the most just, the most generous, of men" to "I flung my fond arms about his neck, and called him the most just, the most generous, of men" (VII, 39); "I have now no desire in my heart so strong, as to throw myself at the feet of my grandmamma and aunt; and to be embraced by my Lucy and Nancy, and all my Northamptonshire Loves" to "I have now no desire

in my heart so strong, as to return to all my dear Northamptonshire friends" (IV, 174).

In 32 instances in the third edition affected redundant expressions have been revised: "Why, why, would you deny me" to "Why would you deny me" (VI, 8); "All, all my hopes" to "All my hopes" (VI, 43); "happy, happy memory" to "happy memory" (VII, 48).

Of the sixteen changes in forms of titles and address in the third edition, most are changes to something either more formal or more fitting to the occasion: "my papa Deane's" to "my Godfather Deane's" (I, 250); "Such a mamma as you were blessed with" to "Such a Mother as you were blessed with" (II, 174); "the dear creature" to "she" (VI, 315); "O my Lady G." to "madam" (VII, 5); "a gentleman to a lady" to "a man to a woman" (II, 45).

There are other revisions in the third edition which must have resulted from attention to matters of propriety. One instance is in a letter from Lady G. to Harriet which in the first and second editions reads "Mrs. Reeves desires me to acquaint you, that Miss Clements having, by the death of her mother and aunt, come into a pretty fortune, is addressed to by a Yorkshire gentleman of easy circumstances, and is preparing to go down thither to reside." The revision in the third edition clears up any possible misunderstanding: "is preparing to leave the town, having other connexions in that county" (IV, 270). Harriet in a conversation with Sir Charles learns that the Porretta family, desperate over the deteriorating mental condition of Lady Clementina, has asked that Sir Charles return to Italy to help in any way he can, and has also just read a letter of Mrs. Beaumont's which describes the cruel treatment of Clementina at the hands of her cousin Laurana. Upset over what she has just learned, Harriet needs a few moments to compose herself. Opportunely, her cousin Reeves enters the room. In the earlier editions she takes advantage of her cousin's appearance to leave the room and to go up to her apartment. After a short time, during which she reasons with herself, she returns just as her cousin withdraws: "Sir Charles met me at the door: I hope he saw dignity in my aspect, without pride." In the third edition when her cousin enters, she walks to the far end of the room while "a short complimental discourse passed between them" and talks with herself. As her cousin leaves the room, Sir Charles approaches her: "I attempted to assume a dignity of aspect, without pride" (IV, 60-61). What appears to have mattered in this scene is Harriet's conduct. The apparent reason for the change is that Harriet's leaving the room just as her cousin enters appears rude. Also, her sudden departure could

easily have given Mrs. Reeves the impression that she had intruded upon Sir Charles and Harriet at an inopportune moment and that Harriet's emotional state was such that she could not remain in the room while Mrs. Reeves was present.

Other revisions similar to those in the second edition are added footnotes (4), changes in dates (7), and an increase in the number of paragraphs (53). As in the second edition, there are footnotes that remind the reader of a previous passage or give him a hint of things to come: "(a) This argument is resumed, Vol. VI. p. 363. by a more competent judge both of learning and languages than Mr. Walden" (I, 66).

Several of the changes in dates are corrections. An example will point out Richardson's attention to such matters: "I received our Jeronymo's Letter but yesterday" to "I received our Jeronymo's Letter but on Monday" (VII, 115). In both editions the letter is dated "Wedn. night, Febr. 14" (VII, 114), and in another letter with the same date, Harriet writes to Lady G. and Lady L. that Sir Charles received Jeronymo's letter while he was at dinner on Monday (VII, 103).

Richardson sometimes used paragraphs for the purpose of making an unbroken type page or long passage more appealing to the eye, but there is sufficient evidence in the third edition to show that an increase in the number of paragraphs was often the result of deleted passages. The third edition is to a large extent a page for page reprint of the first, and in order to keep the texts of the two editions together, Richardson (or the compositors) took passages of the first edition text and broke them into more paragraphs in order to fill the space that resulted from deleted material. For instance, in Volume IV, pages 127-128, the first edition has thirteen lines describing the praises of the entire company as Sir Charles and Harriet dance. This passage does not appear in the third edition. Although the wording of the rest of the letter is identical in the two editions, the first has four paragraphs and the third has nine. On page 130 the first and the third editions are line for line again.

One kind of revision (16 instances) that occurs in the third edition but not in the second is the deletion or modification of lists of characters: "Mr. Deane, Sir Charles, Lord and Lady W. Mrs. Shirley, Mr. and Mrs. Selby, Lucy, Lord L. and I, withdrew, to read, and see signed, the Marriage articles" to "We most of us withdrew, to hear read the marriage Articles" (VI, 314).

Mr. Sale has noted (p. 82) that one passage in the third edition (II, 348-349) follows the wording of a cancellandum rather than a cancellans

of the first.[6] It contains harsh remarks about the Italians, in connection with Dr. Bartlett's treatment in Venice, which Richardson softened in the cancellans. Apparently Richardson corrected a copy for the third edition that did not contain the cancellans and did not notice the mistake, and the text of the cancellandum appears in all subsequent editions.

There is no mention in Richardson's correspondence of plans to publish another edition of Grandison after the third, but there is a set in the Brown University Library with a revised Volume VII dated 1756. The first six volumes of this set have first and third edition title pages: Volumes II, V, and VI have first edition, and Volumes I, III and IV have third. The sheets which make up the text of the first six volumes are a mixture of first and third editions. Three signatures of Volume IV (B-D) are settings of type unlike the copies which I have seen of either the first or third editions, but there are no variations in the text from the earlier editions. The seventh volume is made up in part of sheets of the first and third editions and eleven signatures with a different setting of type: B, D-H (except for H5 and H8), K, O, and S-U. All of these signatures contain revisions.

Since Volumes I-VI of the Brown set have no variations from the first and third editions, they may be dismissed, but Volume VII is a revised text. Sale (pp. 87-91) places the 1756 Volume VII in the section in which he describes the fourth edition (1762), and his classification of the volume as a first issue of the fourth edition Volume VII seems the most appropriate.

The fourth edition of Grandison was published in monthly installments beginning February 1, 1762, seven months after Richardson's death. Of the total of 448 changes (exclusive of many obvious printer's errors) in Volumes I-VII, 298 occur in Volumes I-VI, but all of those in the first six volumes are of a minor nature and may have been made by the compositors. Changes in single words account for 84 of them; the addition of a single word accounts for 28; a single word has been deleted in 52 instances. A shift in the position of an adverb occurs 19 times; subject and verb order is changed 6 times. Words italicized in the third edition but not italicized in the fourth make up 21 of the changes. Plural forms of nouns changed to singular, the elimination of contractions, change of verb tense, and a shift from the subjunctive to the indicative mood account for almost all of the rest of the differences between these volumes of the third and fourth editions.

A few examples of single word changes will show that nothing is gained. Frequently the change, if it is not actually an error, is less effective than the third edition reading: "by his smiling benignity" to "by this smiling benignity" (I, 258); "That is not fair" to "This is not fair" (II, 21); "the feather in another man's cap" to "the feather of another man's cap" (III, 116). Among the additions of single words are "a man of middling stature" to "a man of a middling stature" (II, 10); "He hoped I did not take amiss, that they invited me not the day before" to "He hoped I did not take it amiss, that they invited me not the day before" (V, 152). Many of the deletions of single words could perhaps be accidental: "which I had but a little while before concluded" to "which I had but a little before concluded" (IV, 67); "she must not, she shall not, be yours" to "she must not, shall not, be yours" (V, 132). Shifting of word order, especially of adverbs, seems to be without design: "it shall be only when you ask it" to "it shall only be when you ask it" (II, 79); "I was once thought not unworthy" to "I once was thought not unworthy" (III, 339, 341). There is no reason to assume that any of these changes in the first six volumes were authorized by Richardson.

The revisions in the seventh volume of the Brown set (1756) and in the fourth edition (1762) are a continuation of the types found in the second, but many are similar to the more careful revisions in the interest of propriety found in the third. Sale believes that all the sheets for both the 1756 and 1762 editions were printed about 1756 "but that for some reason Richardson did not reprint the sheets of Vols. I-VI at this time" (p. 89). Probably the reason he did not is that by 1756 only a small edition was called for, and Richardson apparently had a sufficient number of sheets remaining from the first and third editions to make up Volumes I-VI and a number of sheets of Volume VII. He may have reprinted all the sheets for Volume VII in 1756 but used the reprinted sheets in the 1756 edition only for sections for which he did not have a sufficient number of the earlier ones. Sale cites as evidence for a 1756 printing the resemblances between the formats of the volumes of 1756 and 1762 and their differences from Volumes I-VI (1762): "No ornaments are used in Vols. I-VI; the volume number and letter number are omitted from the running head-line" (p. 89). The date of the printing of the sheets in signatures C, I, L-N, P-R, and the two conjugate leaves H5 and H8 used in the 1762 edition cannot be definitely established; but since signatures B, D-H (except H5 and H8), K, O, and S-U are the same in the editions of 1756 and 1762, there is a strong likelihood that the others were printed at the same time.

The most interesting feature of both issues of Volume VII is the evidence that Richardson followed some of the suggestions of Lady Bradshaigh. Almost incontrovertible proof of her assistance is found in the marginalia of her copy of Volume VII first edition, now in the Henry E. Huntington Library. Comments and suggestions in her handwriting and remarks in Richardson's run throughout the volume. In a letter dated May 21, 1754, Lady Bradshaigh remarked:

Richardson acknowledged the receipt of her copy of Grandison on July 9, 1754: "A thousand thanks to your Ladiship for your returned Volumes with remarks in the margin. I have had time but to dip into them. I shall be greatly improved by them & corrected in another edition, should the work come to another." On June 25, 1757, she wrote that his heroines have too many "Reverential Expressions" for their parents and went on to remark that she believes he has found "many an impudent scratch in my Sr C: G:" (a reference to her influence in inducing him to write the novel). He replied on July 12 with thanks for "many Hundreds of the Kindest Corrections." He did not return the set to Lady Bradshaigh until January 2, 1758. In his letter of that date he clearly stated that he had taken her advice in some places: "Perhaps when you have a little vacant time, you will be amused with casting your Eye on your own Remarks, & on what I thankfully allow'd, & humbly disallow'd of them." (Forster MS XI, foll. 99, 110, 206, 211, 229)

Of the 150 differences between the seventh volume of the third edition and of the fourth (1762), 64 follow the suggestions of Lady Bradshaigh altogether or in part. Ninety-six of the 150 changes occur in the 1756 issue, and of these 34 follow the suggestions she made. The majority of her recommended revisions may be regarded as matters of propriety. They are quite similar to the revisions that Richardson had made in the third edition.

A number of Lady Bradshaigh's suggestions which Richardson followed are minor ones: twelve times she struck out the word "guest"

or "guests" and wrote in "company"; fourteen of the changes are in the form of address: "my dear grandmamma" to "Madam" (p. 13*);[7] "my Love" to "my Harriet" (p. 38); "my dearest Love" to "my dear" (p. 75*).

Some lessening of affectation in speech or actions occurs 17 times. The revision almost always follows Lady Bradshaigh's written suggestion: "Then kissed, instead of my hand, which I withdrew, my offered cheek" to "Then kissed, my offered cheek" (p. 18*); "I then threw myself at his feet; embraced his knees" to "I then threw myself into his Arms" (p. 26); "Sir Edward, on one knee, thus bespoke her" to "Sir Edward thus bespoke her" (p. 53*).

In some of the matters of propriety, Lady Bradshaigh did not suggest the rewording but expressed her objections by comments in the margin. She considered Sir Charles's action improper in this situation: "At our alighting, Sir Charles clasping me in his arms, I congratulate you, my dearest life" (p. 17). At the bottom of the page, Lady Bradshaigh wrote, "Should it not have been first to Lady W: both as to rank, & Equally a Stranger." Richardson added the words "attended to." The reading in the fourth edition is expanded: "At our alighting, Sir Charles (after paying his compliments in a most respectful manner to Lady W.[) ] clasping me in his arms, I congratulate you, my dearest life" (p. 18*).

A marginal comment of Lady Bradshaigh's on page 22 brought about another of the revisions in the fourth edition. In his description of a bedchamber, Richardson includes two portraits. Lady Bradshaigh commented, "No pictures in a hung Bedchamber but over doors & chimney." To this remark, Richardson added, "Thank you, thank you, Madam." In the revision which appears in the 1756 issue, the pictures are removed from the bedchamber and hung in the dining room.

Several of Lady Bradshaigh's suggestions may be considered matters of style. The shifting of a phrase, changing of a word to one more exact or more appropriate, deletion of an awkward or unnecessary phrase or clause, and sentence revision account for sixteen of her suggestions that Richardson followed.

Lady Bradshaigh must have given careful attention to her task. In the first three editions Harriet writes that Mrs. Eleanor Grandison "will be delighted . . . in attending, in the absence of the fathers and mothers, the dear little infants of her two nieces [Lady L. and Lady G.]" (p. 198). Lady Bradshaigh wrote in the margin, "How can they

leave their Infants, do we not after this, find them nursers?" In Richardson's handwriting is the reply: "Thank you, Thank you, Madam. How indeed! O the blunderer!" In the fourth edition (1756) the sentence does not appear.

Besides the 64 changes for which Lady Bradshaigh is responsible, there are 86 others in the fourth edition of Volume VII. All are consistent with Richardson's revisions in the second and third editions. Included are changes in grammar and diction such as subject and verb agreement, shift in the position of an adverb, the addition or deletion of a word or phrase, sentence revision, and the deletion of awkward or unneecssary expressions.

Seven times in the fourth edition there is a retrenchment of affected redundancy: "dear Sir, I find, I find" to "dear Sir, I find" (p. 81*); "Why, why, this" to "Why this" (p. 85*).

The modification of affectation, another frequent change in the third edition, occurs five times in addition to the 17 suggested by Lady Bradshaigh. Two examples indicate the nature of the changes: "How poor a return, hiding my face in his generous bosom, is my Love for so much goodness" to "How poor a return is my Love for so much goodness" (p. 81*); "Again the two Lords looked upon each other, as admiring me" to "Again the two Lords looked upon each other, as in admiration" (p. 159*).

II

Until 1810 all editions of Grandison followed the fourth, but in this year there was published an edition which made on the title page the unequivocal claim to be "A NEW EDITION, WITH THE LAST CORRECTIONS BY THE AUTHOR."[8] The evidence that this edition was based on a text revised by Richardson is considerable.

Two of Richardson's letters and one written by his daughter Anne mention revised texts. The earliest reference is in Richardson's letter to Mrs. Mary Watts, April 9, 1755:

Richardson's second reference to a revised text appears in a letter to Johannes Stinstra, November 26, 1755: "I have also given my last Hand to Clarissa and Grandison; which, however, vary but little from ye last Edition of these Works: But I was willing to amuse my self between whiles, while I attended Workmen in their Building for me new Printing Offices."[10]

On April 12, 1792, Anne Richardson wrote to her niece Mrs. Moodie that she had her father's "altered Copy" of Grandison. Why this revision was not published in the eighteenth century cannot be explained altogether satisfactorily, but there is a partial explanation. William Richardson, Samuel's nephew, succeeded to the printing business shortly after Richardson's death. The relations between Richardson's daughters and their cousin were not good. As a part of their inheritance, the daughters received their father's manuscripts. Anne and her sister Martha Bridgen had hoped that at some time a new edition of Richardson's works would be called for and that they would be able to make a fair sum of money, but these hopes came to nothing. Long before 1792 Anne realized there was little likelihood of any financial gain. In the letter to Mrs. Moodie in which she referred to having a corrected Grandison, she wrote that the family had been refused any recompense years before, and she was sure that nothing would be likely to come in the future.[11] What Anne did with the copy of Grandison is not known. She died in 1803.

There are several other items that strongly suggest the existence of a revised Grandison. One of these is the corrected copy that belonged to Lady Bradshaigh. Since 64 of the 150 changes in Volume VII of the fourth edition (1756 and 1762) were suggested by Lady Bradshaigh, it seems unlikely that Richardson would have ignored all her suggestions in the other volumes. And it is clear from Richardson's letter to Sir Roger and Lady Bradshaigh dated July 9, 1754, that she did make suggestions in all volumes: "O my dear, my good Sir R. I hope to live

to thank you both in person. You, for permitting my Lady to part with books made so much more valuable by her remarks, than any 50 sets of the same could be, ever so richly adorned. My Lady, for so many kind Marks, by her Hand-writing in almost every page of her Attention to the history" (Forster MS XI, foll. 110-111). However, Volume VII is the only one of the seven that has been found, and Richardson's adoption of some of her other suggestions in Volumes I-VI can only be assumed.

Richardson remarked to Stinstra that he had given his last hand to Clarissa and Grandison and that they varied "but little from ye last Edition of these Works." The fact is that no edition of Grandison varies much from any other edition. Including all kinds of changes, there are 928 in the second edition, 932 in the third, and 150 in Volume VII of the fourth (1756 and 1762). All types of changes in Volumes I-VII of the 1810 edition total 605 (excluding readings that agree with an edition earlier than the fourth). Since many of the 605 changes in the 1810 edition are one word revisions, there is not a very great difference between the 1810 text and the earlier ones.

It is not necessary to accept Richardson's statement that he had given his last hand to Clarissa and Grandison in 1755. He had earlier revised his novels almost ceaselessly and may well have revised further even after he thought that his revision was complete. He kept Lady Bradshaigh's copy of Grandison until January, 1758, and as late as March, 1761, shortly before his death, asked Lady Bradshaigh to send him her copies of Pamela and Clarissa so that he could read her suggestions "with Liberty to add to new ones of his own such of your Ladiship's, as may make ye future Edition [of Pamela] more perfect than otherwise it can be." The revised Pamela was published in 1801.[12]

Although the eighteenth-century editions of Grandison after 1762 follow the fourth, the evidence is clear that the 1810 was set from an edition earlier than the fourth. Of the 955 differences between the fourth and the 1810, 349 agree with the earlier editions. Several items point to the third edition as the set Richardson used for his master copy. First of all, an edition containing his latest changes would have greatly simplified his task of marking up a revised text. Secondly, the cancelled version of Dr. Bartlett's difficulty with the Venetian authorities (II, 348-349) appears in the third edition and is followed exactly in the 1810 edition.

Finally, of the 349 readings in the 1810 edition that are like those of an edition earlier than the fourth, 307 agree with the third. An

examination of the 42 readings that are like the first or second edition but unlike the third shows that the third edition readings are changes that were probably made by compositors. With a third edition master copy, Richardson could easily have corrected the compositor's changes by restoring the reading of the first or second edition at the same time that he was making his revisions. A number of third edition readings are certainly errors: the first and 1810 editions have "Her Lord, and his brother," referring to the Marchese della Porretta and the Conte della Porretta, whereas the third has "Her Lord, and her brother" (III, 315; 330); the first and 1810 editions refer to Sir Charles's plan to leave England on "Saturday," while the third has "Friday" (IV, 153; 163) — Letter xxiii, dated "Saturday Morning, Apr. 15," begins, "O Lucy, Sir Charles Grandison is gone! Gone indeed! He sat out at three this morning"; the first and 1810 editions read "that Sir Charles, crossing the walk which I had just before quitted, stooped, and took up a paper," while the third has "stopped," and three lines later all editions read "That must be what he stooped for, and took up" (VI, 153-154; 162).

Volume VII of the 1810 edition presents problems. Fourteen of Lady Bradshaigh's suggestions which Richardson followed in the fourth edition do not appear in the 1810 edition. In each case the reading of the 1810 agrees with that of the third edition. Several of these suggestions and revisions are single word changes, but one of them is of some importance. Following her advice on the proper place for pictures, Richardson shifted a passage and made revisions in other places so that the pictures that had improperly hung in the bedchamber in the first three editions hang in the dining-room in the fourth edition. His comment in the margin of Lady Bradshaigh's copy makes it clear that he was grateful to her for calling his attention to this impropriety. It surely seems that this revision of the fourth edition would have appeared in Richardson's final revised copy, but in the 1810 edition the pictures are back in the bedchamber. The most likely explanation for the inconsistencies between the fourth and the 1810 editions of Volume VII is that Richardson used all seven volumes of a third edition for his master copy and that he failed to transfer some of the fourth edition revisions into his revised set.

The revisions in the 1810 edition are similar to those in the previous editions: words italicized for the first time (16); added parentheses or brackets (4); a change in the number or mood of the verb (3); a change in the principal part of the verb (7); the elimination of a preposition at the end of a clause (1); a change in verb tense (8); the change of a single word to one more appropriate or exact (88); revision

for agreement of subject and verb and of pronoun and antecedent (3); addition of words and phrases for clarity or emphasis (13); deletion of words and phrases (64); the rewording or shifting of phrases, clauses, and sentences for clarity, parallel structure, or logical comparison (22); a change in the form of title or address (72); deletion of affected repetition (5); deletion or change of indelicate or affected words (20); a reduction of immodesty, indelicacy, or affectation (75); the addition of a footnote (1); and corrections, particularly of dates.

There are several changes in the 1810 edition from the subjunctive to the indicative mood: "I wish the night were over" to "I wish the night was over" (I, 160; 170). Where a single word is changed, as in the earlier editions, the 1810 reading is frequently a word that is more elevated, more exact, or more appropriate: "who hones after the country" to "who pines after the country" (I, 241; 256); "Mr. Reeves's servant led them . . . into the parlour" to "Mr. Reeves's servant shewed them . . . into the parlour" (II, 94; 99); "tho' he adores you for a friend" to "though he admires you for a friend" (IV, 224-225; 237). Consistent with the previous editions is the addition of a word or phrase for clarity: "The Bride-maids, one by one, waited on her to her chamber" to "The bride-maids, one by one to be the less observed, waited on her to her chamber" (VI, 345; 361); "Let me enumerate a few chances that may render a first Love impracticable" to "Let me enumerate a few chances that may render the success of a first love impracticable" (VII, 214; 225). The deletion of words and phrases is another common revision: "If any considerations of family prudence (there are such, and very just ones) restrain you" to "If any considerations of family prudence restrain you" (IV, 36; 38); "How will Harriet answer to the question" to "How will Harriet answer the question" (VI, 31; 33).

Richardson's revision in editions before the 1810 includes the rewording of phrases and clauses for greater clarity, emphasis, logical comparison, or parallel structure. Such revisions occur in the 1810 edition: "If ever man doted upon a woman, said Mr. Bagenhall, it is Sir Hargrave on Miss Byron" to "If ever man doted upon a woman, said Mr. Bagenhall, Sir Hargrave dotes on Miss Byron" (II, 25-26; 27); "And when I began to look for it, to oblige you, I could not find it" to "and when, to oblige you, I began to look for it, I could not find it" (III, 222; 232).

In the third edition a revision of title or form of address occurs 16 times; there are 18 in Volume VII of the fourth edition (1762). The 1810 edition has 72 such revisions, many of which are exactly like those of the earlier editions: "the dear creature" to "my cousin" (I, 171;

182); "the dear creature" to "she" (I, 177; 188); "the good Dr. Bartlett" to "Dr. Bartlett" (II, 307; 323) "most excellent of women" to "madam" (V, 221; 235); "Grandpapa" to "grandfather" (II, 3).

Revisions which delete or modify immodest, indelicate, or affected speech or action account for 75 of the changes in the 1810 edition, but not even in this edition are all the passages of immoderate praise modified or deleted. A few disappear: "The Marquis made me a high compliment" (V, 236; 251); "We all of us, Lady L. have the happiness of being beloved by high and low" (VI, 326; 342). From "You know, my dear Lady L. how much I love to praise my brother. Neither I, nor the young Ladies, not even those who had humble servants present, regarded any-body but him" the second sentence is dropped (VI, 339; 356).

Closely related to the revisions of immodest, indelicate, or affected speech and action are those that delete or modify unrestrained, immoderate behavior. It was not until the third edition that Richardson began to make revisions of this type. A number occur in Volume VII of the fourth edition; 27 in the 1810: "I wept on her neck; I could not help it" to "I was greatly moved" (III, 47; 49); "My Lord G. kissed her hand with a bent knee" to "My Lord G. with transport saluted her" (IV, 120; 127); "in a very earnest manner, snatching my hand, and wetting it with his tears" to "in a very earnest manner, snatching my hand" (V, 228; 243); "He cast himself at my feet" to "He approached me with tender respect" (VI, 261; 275); "and, clasping her arms about my neck, hid her blushing face in my bosom" to "and clasped her arms about my neck" (VI, 347; 363).

Of course someone else could have made the revisions in grammar, phrasing, and propriety. There are, however, three kinds of revision that appear to be such that no one but Richardson would have made. These are the correction of discrepancies in time or dates, the addition of a footnote, and the rearrangement of the order of events.

Date changes occur in two of the revised editions before 1810: seven occur in the second and seven in the third. In the 1810 edition there are fifteen. Some of the date corrections indicate a very close reading of the text, for the discrepancies may be pages apart. In a letter written by Bagenhall, Sir Hargrave's hapless companion, a discrepancy in the order of events remains unchanged through the fourth edition. The first edition reads, "I went to Sir Charles's house yesterday afternoon" (I, 277). In the 1810 edition, he writes, "I went to Sir Charles's house this afternoon" (I, 294). In the letter preceding Bagenhall's, Harriet writes to Lucy Selby, "She [Charlotte Grandison] added, that this morning (Saturday) they [Charlotte and Sir Charles] should both

set out for Colnebrooke" (I, 273). Bagenhall's letter is dated February 25, a Saturday. The purpose of his visit to Sir Charles was to give him Sir Hargrave's challenge. He handed the letter to Sir Charles as the brother and sister were stepping into the coach for the journey to Colnebrooke.

In Volume V of the 1810 edition there are changes in dates in three of a series of four letters. Letter xix, dated August 1 in the first four editions, is a letter from Charlotte's father-in-law, the Earl of D., urging her and Lord G. to return to London. In the first four editions Charlotte's reply, Letter xx, is headed "Selby-house, Aug. 4." Letter xxi to Harriet Byron is written by Charlotte after she returns to London and is dated August 5. Harriet's reply to the August 5 letter is dated July 24 in the first four editions. In the 1810 edition, Letter xix is dated July 28, and Charlotte's reply to the earl is dated July 30. The date of her letter from London remains August 5, but Harriet's answer to this letter is dated August 8. The reasons for the changes in dates may be found in the contents of the letters. In her note to the earl, Charlotte writes, "I will soon throw myself at your feet; and by the next post will fix the day on which I hope to be forgiven by you both" (p. 120). This statement in a letter dated August 4 is contradicted by the following letter written by Charlotte in London on August 5. The August 5 date implies that she has made a sixty-mile journey (Selby-house is near Northampton), received a call from the Countess of D., and moved into her new home between the time she wrote the note to the earl on August 4 and the time she wrote to Harriet August 5. Letter xxii, dated July 24, is clearly a reply to Charlotte's letter dated August 5. A correction of this error to August 8 in the 1810 edition allows time for Harriet to receive Charlotte's letter and to write a reply.[13]

Another change in the 1810 edition corrects the time, although there are no specific dates involved. Bagenhall is forced to marry a woman of Abbeville whom he has seduced. The marriage is referred to in a letter written by Charlotte, dated May 8 (IV, 269). From a letter of Harriet's, it is clear that Bagenhall was in England as late as March (II, 105) and therefore could not have met the woman any earlier than this date. However, in a letter dated October 26 (VI, 201) there are two passages on page 215 that make his wife's wretched condition worse than it could have been: "his wife, and an unhealthy child, and she big with another, turned out of doors" and "The poor woman wishing

but for means to transport herself and child to her mean friends at Abbeville." In the 1810 edition these read "his wife big with child turned out of doors" and "the poor woman wishing but for means to transport herself to her mean friends at Abbeville" (p. 226). The length of time from Bagenhall's first meeting with his wife to his abandonment of her is about seven months.

The one footnote added in the 1810 edition is interesting because it restores a sentence that does not appear in the third and fourth editions. In the debate between Harriet and Mr. Walden on languages and learning, Harriet says, in the first and second editions, "Then, Sir, I have been taught to think, that a learned man and a linguist may very well be two persons: In other words, That science, or knowlege, and not language merely, is learning" (I, 66). In the third and fourth editions, the last clause was deleted (I, 67). A footnote in the 1810 edition restores Harriet's observation (I, 70).

The most extensive revision in the 1810 edition occurs in Letter xliii of Volume VII. In Letter xli (p. 199) Harriet writes Lady G. (Charlotte) that the young ladies of Selby-house have appealed to Lady G. through Harriet to give them her view upon the subject of a "first passion." Included with her letter to Charlotte is the one from Lucy Selby to Harriet headed Letter xlii. In her reply to Harriet, Charlotte encloses a letter addressed to the girls at Selby-house. This enclosure does not have a separate letter number or date. In all but the 1810 edition Charlotte, after referring to the enclosure addressed to the girls, relates an account of Lord G.'s surprise visit to the nursery while she is feeding her baby. The purpose of this anecdote is to make it seem that the role of motherhood has served to bring Lord and Lady G. to an unsurpassable height of married bliss. Following this narrative, Charlotte in all editions before 1810 continues:

Then the letter to the girls begins. In the 1810 edition, the enclosure to the girls at Selby-house precedes the section that relates the nursery scene (p. 224).

There is more involved than a shifting about of the two parts of Letter xliii. In the 1810 edition, following Charlotte's enclosure to the girls, there is an added passage:

The reason for the rearrangement of the two parts of the letter in the 1810 edition seems to be that the long discussion among the women and girls at Selby-house in Letter xlii should be closely followed by Charlotte's views on the subject. To make the shift, however, it was necessary to add material so that the two parts would be logically linked. The language of Charlotte's postscript is typical of her style and it is hard to believe that anyone but Richardson wrote it.

Six of Lady Bradshaigh's suggestions appear for the first time in the 1810 edition. In some cases, the sugestions are followed in part in the fourth and altogether in the 1810.

• First edition: What a compliment does my dearest younger sister make to her elder? (VII, 88)
• Fourth edition: What a compliment does my dearest younger Sister make me? (VII, 88)
• 1810 edition: What a compliment does my dearest sister make me! (VII, 95)
• Lady Bradshaigh's copy: The words "younger" and "to her elder" are struck through; "me" is written on the line above and after "make."

• First edition: What, my dear, makes Charlotte so impatient (so petulant I had almost said) under a circumstance, which, if attended with a happy issue, will lay all us, her friends, under obligation to her? (VII, 132)
• Fourth edition: [as in the first] (VII, 132)

---

187




• 1810 edition: What . . . happy issue, will give joy to all her friends? (VII, 141)
• Lady Bradshaigh's copy: In the margin she wrote, "obligation again." Richardson replied, "I wonder your Ladship [sic] should except to this high piece of Gallantry. I want to have your Sex, when in the way of their Duty, encouraged."

• First edition: that glorious Enthusiasm (VII, 136)
• Fourth edition: [as in the first] (VII, 136)
• 1810 edition: that enthusiasm (VII, 146)
• Lady Bradshaigh's copy: The word "glorious" is struck through.

• First edition: I sent a note begging the favour of my cousin Reeves's company to supper; apologizing, by the occasion, for the short notice. (VII, 161)
• Fourth edition: I sent a note, begging the favour of my Cousin Reeves's company to supper; apologizing for the short notice. (VII, 161)
• 1810 edition: I sent a note, begging the favour of my cousin Reeves's company to supper. (VII, 172)
• Lady Bradshaigh's copy: The words "apologizing, by the occasion, for the short notice" are struck through.

• First edition: My dearest Friend, my Lover, my Husband, every tender word in one, left his noble guests for their sakes early last night. . . . (VII, 165)
• Fourth edition: My Sir Charles left his noble friends for their sakes early last night. . . . (VII, 165)
• 1810 edition: Sir Charles left his noble friends for their sakes early last night. . . . (VII, 176)
• Lady Bradshaigh's copy: The following words are struck through: "My dearest Friend, my Lover, my Husband, every tender word in one"; "Sir Charles" is written in. Very likely the "My" was supposed to be left out of the fourth edition, but the striking out was probably unclear in the copy the compositor had.

• First edition: the rest of our noble guests are to embark (VII, 285)
• Fourth edition: they are to embark (VII, 285)
• 1810 edition: the rest are to embark (VII, 304)
• Lady Bradshaigh's copy: The words "our noble guests" are struck through.

In his letter of April 9, 1755, to Mrs. Watts, quoted above, Richardson goes on to refer to some of her particular remarks about Grandison. One of his references, in connection with the scene of Charlotte in the nursery, is specific: "But is Lady G.'s crowing child no more than a fortnight old? This was rather an inattention than anything else. I

protest, I thought it two or three months old at least." The earlier editions read: "I bowed my face on the smiling infant, who crowed to the pressure of my lip." In 1810 "crowed" is corrected to "seemed to crow" (VII, 211; 234).

Less than a year before his death Richardson received a letter from three anonymous admirers, Ethelinda, Charlotte, and Henrietta. They have one fault to find: Sir Charles uses the name of God as an expletive. How does such a good man as Richardson solve the usage to himself? They cite two passages, one in which the hero says, "Would to God," and one in which the heroine says, "Lord Bless me."[14] In 1810 the first is altered to "Would to heaven" (V, 231; 246), but the second is unchanged (IV, 66; 70).

The similarity of the 1810 revisions to these suggestions by friends and admirers and to the revisions in the earlier editions suggests the reliability of the 1810 edition. The only evidence against the 1810 edition is the omission of fourteen of Lady Bradshaigh's suggestions which Richardson had followed in the fourth edition of Volume VII. The best explanation, as I have already said, is that Richardson used a third edition for his master copy and this revised set did not include some of the revisions he had made for the fourth edition of Volume VII.

One thing is clear. The 1810 edition was printed from a text that had undergone authoritative revision, even though incomplete. The editions of Grandison after 1762 follow the text of the fourth edition. A seven-volume edition following the text of the fourth appeared in 1811. But after a lapse of forty-eight years and several editions, a text unlike any previous one was published. That the 1810 edition was set from Anne Richardson's copy cannot be conclusively proved, but it is highly probable. The facts that she wanted to see her father's revised works published, that she did see Pamela published in 1801, and that she had a revised copy of Grandison as late as 1792 lead almost inescapably to the conclusion that the 1810 edition was set from a copy that had Richardson's revisions, as its title page claims.

I conclude that a text of Sir Charles Grandison which would most nearly represent Richardson's final intention would include the substantive changes in the second, third, and 1810 editions as well as those which occur in Volume VII of the fourth edition (1762). Since Richardson was his own printer, the question of which edition should be used as a copy-text is not always as readily answered as it is for most

authors. But in the case of Sir Charles Grandison it is simplified by the facts that the first two editions were published simultaneously, the third edition was printed at various presses, and the later editions were posthumous. The first edition (including the cancellans of Volume II, pp. 349-350) should, therefore, be used as the copy-text, since the revised editions may easily contain compositors' errors. Alterations in italics, brackets, and parentheses should be considered as substantive changes, since there is reason to think that Richardson intentionally revised in these respects.

In general the changes in Sir Charles Grandison, though slight, are improvements. Some of them remove inconsistencies and improbabilities; other remove some (though not enough) of the affected and excessive behavior; still others tend to elevate the language and to remove improprieties. Whereas in Pamela such changes tending to make the characters more elegant weaken the original conception of the simple heroine, in Sir Charles Grandison they are consistent with the station of the characters and with the tone of the book.

Notes