University of Virginia Library

II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

187




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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