University of Virginia Library

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*).