University of Virginia Library

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 ye 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 3d and 4th Volumes of that Work in hand, more than of the 1st and 2d. 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 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:

In the 1801 edition this becomes: 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:

In the text of 1801 this is expanded:

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:

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.:

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:

"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