University of Virginia Library

The Chronology of the Richardson-Bradshaigh Correspondence of 1751
by
John August Wood

Samuel Richardson and Dorothy Bradshaigh began an exchange of letters in 1748 when she, feeling "for the virtuous in distress" and apprehending "a fatal catastrophe," wrote him to plead that Clarissa not be subjected to "rapes, ruin, and destruction." If Richardson disappointed her, she cursed him to "meet with applause only from envious old maids, surly bachelors, and tyrannical parents." She also informed him that she was no "giddy girl of sixteen" and that if he took her for a "fool" for having written him, she did not "care a straw."[1] Though Richardson did not heed her curse and went on to have his heroine raped, ruined, and destroyed, there developed between him and Lady Bradshaigh the warmest of friendships and a correspondence

that continued until his death in 1761. Their early correspondence was devoted to Clarissa and much of their later correspondence to the composition of Sir Charles Grandison, a work Lady Bradshaigh had urged upon him.

Of Richardson's many correspondents Lady Bradshaigh was the "most beloved and revered,"[2] and, consequently, his letters to her present a highly revealing portrait of himself and his art. And her argumentative but always warm letters, in reflecting the sensibilities of the age, are an important social document, for they are among the earliest examples of a public reaction against the avant-garde artist, a reaction common now in the twentieth century. Though Richardson is often stereotyped as a rather conventional sentimentalist, he developed a new genre, revealed his characters, in anticipation of the modern novel, through their psychology, and shaped plots, certainly in Clarissa, that were daring for his time.

Though many of Richardson's and Lady Bradshaigh's letters are preserved in Mrs. Barbauld's six volume Correspondence and in the Forster Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, they represent perhaps only one-third of those Richardson and Lady Bradshaigh exchanged. In her Life of Samuel Richardson which prefaces the Correspondence, Mrs. Barbauld writes that Lady Bradshaigh's letters "together with Richardson's answers, would alone make several volumes, I believe as many as the whole of this publication" (I, ccviii). In addition to the fact that most of the letters have been lost to them, scholars are further hampered by the confused state in which the preserved letters exist. Richardson and Lady Bradshaigh both tampered with them, as did Mrs. Barbauld, whose edition contains numerous misdated, composite, and cut letters.[3] Among the most important and the most confused of Richardson's and Lady Bradshaigh's letters are those of 1751. Eaves and Kimpel write that "some of the letters to Lady Bradshaigh, especially during the time of the composition of Grandison, seem to be much more confused than the others," and that those of 1751 are in "utter confusion" (pp. 439 & 657). This confusion actually begins with Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 25 November 1750 and continues through hers of 3 January 1752.

I have attempted to straighten out that confusion by separating the composite letters, rejoining them to their originals where they exist, arranging the letters in chronological order, and dating them as precisely as I could on the basis of internal evidence. Though I occasionally disagree with the calendar of correspondence published as the Appendix to Eaves' and Kimpel's monumental study of Richardson's life and work, without it I would have found the prospect of establishing the chronology of the 1751 letters absolutely hopeless.

The following chart compares Mrs. Barbauld's, Professors Eaves' and Kimpel's, and my arrangement of the letters. It is followed by an explanation of how I arrived at the chronology and established the dates in my arrangement.

BARBAULD

• 25 Nov. 1750 B to R (VI, 40-48)
• Undated B to R (VI, 49-57)[1]
• Undated R to B (VI, 57-62)
• Undated R to B (VI, 62-68)
• 9 Feb. 1750 B to R (VI, 69-77)
• Undated R to B (VI, 77-84)
• 24 March R to B (VI, 85-89)
• 29 March 1751 B to R (VI, 90-101)
• Undated B to R (VI, 101-109)
• 16 April 1751 B to R (VI, 110-116)
• Undated R to B (VI, 116-123)
• Undated B to R (VI, 123-127)
• 26 Dec. 1751 R to B (VI, 128-137)
• 3 Jan. 1752 B to R (VI, 137-146)

EAVES & KIMPEL

• 25 Nov. 1750 B to R (B, VI, 40-48); FM, XI, ff. 19-20)[2]
• [28 Dec.] B to R (B, VI, 49-57)
• [Dec.-Jan.] R to B (B, VI, 121-123)
• [Jan.] R to B (B, VI, 57-62)
• 9 Feb. B to R (B, VI, 69-75)
• [Feb.-March] R to B (B, VI, 78-84)[3]
• 5 March B to R (FM, XI, f. 21)
• [Mid-Mar.??] R to B (B, VI, 62-68)
• 17 March B to R (B, VI, 75-77)
• 24 March R to B (B, VI, 85-89)
• [Apr.-Oct.] B to R (B, VI, 96-101)
• [Apr.-Oct.?] R to B (B, VI, 116-121)
• 8 April B to R (B, VI, 90-101; FM, XI, ff. 22-23)
• 16 April B to R (B, VI, 110-116)
• [May-Nov.] B to R (B, VI, 101-109)
• [May-Nov.] B to R (B, VI, 123-127)
• 26 Dec. R to B (B, VI, 128-137)
• 3 Jan. B to R (B, VI, 137-146)

WOOD

• 25 Nov. 1750 B to R (B, VI, 40-42, 45-48; FM, XI, ff. 19-20)
• Dec. R to B (B, VI, 121-123)
• 6 Jan. B to R (B, VI, 49-57)
• Jan. R to B (B, VI, 57-62)
• 9 Feb. B to R (B, VI, 69-75)
• Feb. R to B (B, VI, 77-84)
• Late Feb. B to R (B, VI, 42-45)
• 5 March B to R (FM, XI, f. 21)
• 14 March R to B (B, VI, 62-68, omit first paragraph p. 64)
• 17 March B to R (B, VI, 75-77)
• 24 March R to B (B, VI, 85-89)
• 29 March B to R (B, VI, 90-96)
• 8 April B to R (B, VI, 96-101; FM, XI, ff. 22-23)
• 16 April B to R (B, VI, 106-109, 110-116)
• May R to B (B, VI, 116-121)
• May-June B to R (B, VI, 123-127)
• Late May-Jn B to R (B, VI, 101-105, 109)
• 26 Dec. R to B (B, VI, 128-137)
• 3 Jan. 1752 B to R (B, VI, 105-106, 137-146)

B to R 25 Nov. 1750 (B, VI, 40-42, 45-48; FM, XI, ff. 19-20);
B to R Late Feb. (B, VI, 42-45).

As it is printed in the Correspondence, Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 25 Nov. 1750 is a composite. It contains material not in the version in the Forster Collection as well as passages at variance with it. The manuscript also

contains some short passages not in the printed version. When one compares complete letters that exist both in the Forster Collection and the Correspondence, one can see how Mrs. Barbauld often attempted to improve upon the correspondents' phrasing and style; therefore, when variants exist, the manuscript version must be taken as the more authoritative one.

Lady Bradshaigh's discussion of the "moderate rake" (B, VI, 42-45) is not answered by Richardson until his letter of 14 March. The frequency of their correspondence, their hastiness to answer and argue, the fact that the "moderate rake" passage does not appear in the manuscript, and the internal evidence found in Richardson's reply leave no room to doubt that Lady Bradshaigh's reflections on the "moderate rake" were written in late February. An early March dating is unlikely since there exists an early March letter from her. There is also no room to doubt that Richardson's letter of 14 March is his reply to the interpolation as printed in the 25 Nov. letter. For the sake of argument he directly quoted from her letter saying, "Well, but for fear I should be called scurrilous again, let me see how your Ladyship explains yourself.—'A man may DESERVE the name of a rake, without being QUITE an abandoned profligate; as a man may sometimes drink A LITTLE TOO MUCH without being a sot" (B, VI, 64; cf., B, VI, 42-43).[4] Richardson then went on to paraphrase other of her passages and to reply to them.

The passage interpolated into the 25 Nov. letter in addition to having had to have come before Richardson's letter of 14 March can be shown to have had to have come after her letter of 9 Feb. and Richardson's Feb. reply. After her discussion of the "moderate rake" there are two paragraphs, one dealing with "prudent girls" and another with the "age," that are clarifications of passages that appear in the last paragraph of her letter of 9 Feb. (B, VI, 44-45; cf., B, VI, 74-75). On 9 Feb. she had written of "our prudent girls, whose number, I hope, is not a few, even in such an age as this, which age you are to understand I do not think worse than former ages." Lady Bradshaigh's first full paragraph on B, VI, 44 clarifies her meaning of "prudent" and continues her discussion of rakes. The paragraph also reaffirms her statement on the age with the words, "I do not really, Sir, think this age worse than former ages." These two passages place the interpolated section in the 25 Nov. letter after her letter of 9 February.

Lady Bradshaigh's next paragraph, though, places the interpolation as having been written not only after her 9 Feb. letter but also after Richardson's Feb. reply to it. Richardson's reply had included the sentence "Why, I attempted to draw a good woman; and the poor phantom has set half her own sex against her" (B, VI, 82). Lady Bradshaigh opens the first paragraph on B, VI, 45 saying, "But do not say, Sir, that 'by drawing a good woman you have set half her sex against her.' I protest I cannot bear it. You are downright scurrilous." This passage not only places the interpolation after Richardson's Feb. reply but also unites the entire interpolated section (B, VI, 42-45)

by supplying the evidence to show that it is also from the "moderate rake" letter. The "sot" passage I quoted from Richardson's 14 March reply to Lady Bradshaigh opened with the words "Well, but for fear I should be called scurrilous again." This sentence allows us to see that Richardson was replying to material in both the first and the last paragraphs of the interpolation; we can, therefore, conclude that the entire interpolation is one whole fragment from a missing letter.

The various pieces of internal evidence, then, establish that B, VI, 42-45 of Lady Bradshaigh's 25 Nov. 1750 letter does not belong with it but belongs between Richardson's letters of Feb. and 14 March. The 25 Nov. 1750 letter, therefore, is B, VI, 40-42, 45-48 and FM, XI, ff. 19-20, with the Forster manuscript version being the preferred text when discrepancies between the two exist.

R to B Dec. (B, VI, 121-123).

Richardson probably answered Lady Bradshaigh's 25 Nov. letter in his of Dec., but only a fragment of that letter is preserved. That fragment (B, VI, 121-123) appears in the undated letter Mrs. Barbauld placed after Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 16 April and is the passage Eaves and Kimpel date [Dec.-Jan.] and place after the letter they refer to as Lady Bradshaigh's [28 Dec.]. Richardson begins it by telling Lady Bradshaigh, "I am at present engaged with a most admirable young Lady of little more than twenty, Miss Mulso, on the subject of paternal authority, and filial obedience." He continues through B, VI, 123 speaking of Miss Mulso and their discussion, and he tells Lady Bradshaigh that "when Miss Mulso and I have got through our debate, I shall long to have your Ladyship's opinion of it." Though Richardson's replies are lost, Hester Mulso's three letters on "paternal authority, and filial obedience" are preserved in the Posthumous Works of Mrs. Chapone (1808). Her three letters are dated 12 Oct. (II, 29-34), 10 Nov. (II, 37-85), and 3 Jan. (II, 89-143). Richardson had not received Miss Mulso's last letter by the time he wrote Lady Bradshaigh since, as he told her, he and Miss Mulso had not yet gotten through their debate. This places Richardson's letter before he would have received Miss Mulso's of 3 January. But Lady Bradshaigh answers Richardson and tells him she "should be greatly delighted to see the correspondence" (B, VI, 52) in a segment of her 6 Jan. letter that she dated 28 December. Richardson's letter, therefore, had to have been received by Lady Bradshaigh after she posted her 25 Nov. letter but on or before 28 December. The possibility of the January dating that Eaves and Kimpel suggest is, therefore, eliminated.

With little conjecture one can also eliminate the possibility of Richardson's letter having been written in late November. Lady Bradshaigh's 6 Jan. letter was begun on 26 December or earlier because she dates an internal section 27 December. Her letter opens with an answer to a question Richardson had asked probably in the letter from which the fragment came. It is highly doubtful that had she received a late November letter from Richardson,

she would have waited until late December to answer it or had she begun a letter in early December, she would have waited until late December to complete it and early January to post it. When there were lapses of this length in their correspondence, they always faithfully explained the reasons for them. It is fairly certain then that Richardson's passage about Miss Mulso is taken from a letter written to Lady Bradshaigh in December of 1750.

B to R 6 Jan. (B, VI, 49-57).

Richardson himself dates this letter of Lady Bradshaigh's in his answer to hers of 9 February. He continues their argument about "learning in women" and, quoting from her earlier letter, writes, "In your Ladyship's, of January 6, you say, 'I hate to hear Latin out of a woman's mouth . . .'" (B, VI, 79; cf., B, VI, 53). But considering that the complete letter (B, VI, 49-57) also contains the dates 27 Dec. and 28 Dec., one might wonder if this is not another of Mrs. Barbauld's composites. Fortunately, though, there is sufficient internal evidence to prove that it is not. As I pointed out earlier, the 28 Dec. section is a reply to Richardson's December letter about Miss Mulso. But the 6 Jan. section is also a reply to that letter. The passage Richardson quoted and dated as 6 Jan. is followed in Lady Bradshaigh's letter by a direct quotation from Richardson's December letter: "You say 'the men are hastening a pace into dictionary learning.' The less occasion for the ladies to proceed in their's" (B, VI, 53; cf., B, VI, 122). This establishes that the 28 Dec. and 6 Jan. sections are from a single letter written in reply to Richardson's of December. The undated section written prior to the one dated 27 Dec. also belongs with the 6 Jan. letter. A passage from the undated section and a passage at the conclusion of the 6 Jan. letter are both references to her 25 Nov. letter and obviously are replies to missing portions of Richardson's of December. The letter of 25 Nov. ends with a comment on the two plays of Richardson's friend, Edward Young. Richardson must not have responded as she had planned, for she writes in a paragraph prior to the 27 Dec. section, "I only meant to joke a little upon Dr. Young; not to be severe." Also toward the end of the 25 Nov. letter she asks Richardson not to "forget" her "poor Magdalene." In the penultimate paragraph of her 6 Jan. letter she writes, "I am afraid, Sir, I have given you too much trouble about the poor Madgdalene." These two passages unite the undated section and the 6 Jan. section as replies to comments Richardson must have made in December.

Richardson's Feb. letter, then, establishes the date of this letter as 6 Jan., and internal evidence establishes that though it was written on at least four separate days, it is a complete letter in reply to Richardson's of December.

R to B Jan. (B, VI, 57-62);
B to R 9 Feb. (B, VI, 69-75);
B to R 17 March (B, VI, 75-77);
R to B 24 March (B, VI, 85-89).

Richardson's Jan. letter presents no problems other than it is incomplete. It is his reply to Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 6 Jan. and it contains numerous references to it. She answers this letter in hers of 9 Feb., but through her quotations and references, one can see that she is addressing herself to some passages in Richardson's letter that are lost. Lady Bradshaigh's 9 Feb. letter also presents no problems since it is dated, it answers Richardson's Jan. letter, and it is answered by Richardson's Feb. letter, which includes direct quotations from it and replies to it.

Mrs. Barbauld printed Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 17 March at the end of her 9 Feb. letter as if it were a continuation, but that was in error since the 9 Feb. letter is answered by Richardson's of February and the 17 March letter is answered by Richardson's of 24 March.

R to B Feb. (B, VI, 77-84);
B to R 5 March (FM, XI, f. 21).

Though Eaves and Kimpel refer to Richardson's Feb. letter as a [Feb.-March] letter, a March dating is unlikely because the letter answers Lady Bradshaigh's of 9 Feb. and because Lady Bradshaigh then answers it in B, VI, 42-45 and then writes Richardson again on 5 March. Had Richardson's letter been written even on 1 March, there would not have been time for it to have been received by Lady Bradshaigh, answered by her, and then followed by another letter from her on 5 March. It generally took about seven days for their letters to arrive; therefore, a March dating on B, VI, 77-84 is not possible.

Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 5 March requests the first installment of Grandison. Richardson must already have sent it because it arrived between 5 and 14 March. Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 17 March thanks Richardson for it, which she found when she returned home "on Thursday last," which would have been 14 March.

R to B 14 March (B, VI, 62-68, omit first paragraph p. 64)

Lady Bradshaigh's Late Feb. letter is answered by Richardson's of 14 March. The first paragraph on B, VI, 64 comes from a letter of some years earlier replying to Lady Bradshaigh's request "To reform Lovelace for Clarissa's sake!"

Though Eaves and Kimpel identify this letter as a [Mid-March??] letter, a more precise dating is possible. The last paragraph of the letter was written at 11:00 on a Thursday morning Richardson tells Lady Bradshaigh. The Thursdays in March of 1751 fell on the 7th, the 14th, the 21st, and the 28th. The 28th can be immediately eliminated because the letter in question is an answer to Lady Bradshaigh's of Late Feb., and Richardson had already answered her next letter, that of 17 March, in his letter of 24 March. The 7th can be eliminated with equal ease because had the letter been written on that date, it would have been received by 17 March and answered in Lady

Bradshaigh's of that date, but she does not answer Richardson's letter until 29 March.

With little conjecture, one can also eliminate the 21st. The letter in question was written in answer to a letter from Lady Bradshaigh of Late February, a letter he probably would not have waited three weeks to answer without giving an explanation as to why. Most likely before Richardson had received Lady Bradshaigh's Late Feb. letter he had already sent her the first installment of Grandison. He then wrote her on 14 March to answer her previous letter. Her letter of 5 March requesting Grandison probably arrived on 12 March or after. It would certainly have arrived by 18 March, and he would certainly have known that Grandison was in her hands by that date. She, in fact, had it on 14 March and had read it by 17 March when she wrote Richardson. Knowing these various dates, it is difficult to imagine that were Richardson's letter written on 21 March he would not have posed her the important question he reserved for his letter of 24 March: "But my Harriot!—and do you, can you like the girl?" (B, VI, 85). One can, therefore, be relatively certain that Richardson's reply to Lady Bradshaigh's Late Feb. letter was written on 14 March.

B to R 29 March (B, VI, 90-96);
B to R 8 April (B, VI, 96-101; FM, XI, ff. 22-23).

Mrs. Barbauld printed the 29 March and 8 April letters as a single letter, but from the existence of a manuscript of the 8 April portion with a dated postscript and from the fact that B, VI, 90-96, l. 20, answers Richardson's letter of 14 March and that B, VI, 96-101 answers his letter of 24 March, one can be assured that this is another of Mrs. Barbauld's composites.

B to R 16 April (B, VI, 106-109, 110-116).

The letter Mrs. Barbauld printed between Lady Bradshaigh's 29 March and 16 April letters, (B, VI, 101-109), is a terribly confused composite of three letters. One long paragraph, (B, VI, 106-108), which deals with a young woman forced into marriage, and the two paragraphs following it belong with Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 16 April. She first tells Richardson of the young woman on 8 April in her dated postscript. Her letter of 16 April, as it is printed by Mrs. Barbauld, discusses various characters in Grandison, but it makes no mention of the young woman. In her next letter, that of May-June, she again writes of the young woman and says, "She [Lady Bradshaigh's niece] is well acquainted with the sad story related to you in my two last" (B, VI, 126-127). And she then goes on to discuss the story in greater detail. The young woman story, (B, VI, 106-108), first related to Richardson on 8 April must, therefore, belong with Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 16 April.

The two paragraphs following the young woman story also seem to belong with the 16 April letter. The only other possibilities are the Late May-June or the 3 Jan. 1752 letter, and neither of those seem likely. The first of

those paragraphs deal with Richardson's Rambler, no. 97, which appeared on 19 February. Lady Bradshaigh had just encountered "a very sensible lady" who "happened to be in town when it was published" and was "greatly pleased" with it. Considering that the previous paragraph had come from the letter of 16 April, considering that the "sensible lady" would have been telling Lady Bradshaigh about a 19 February Rambler in April far more likely than she would have been in late May, early June, or January of the following year, and considering that the lengthy B, VI, 101-109 ends with the words "I find I have finished two sheets, and positively I will not begin another," thereby making B, VI, 101-105 with the addition of B, VI, 108 too long, one can conclude that the passage on the Rambler of 19 Feb. belongs with the 16 April letter. The following paragraph, for some of the same reasons and the fact that it deals with Lady Bradshaigh's Magdalen, for whom she has finally found a "place," is probably placed in the 16 April letter and certainly placed before late May, June, or the following January.

R to B May (B, VI, 116-121);
B to R May-June (B, VI, 123-127).

Richardson's letter of May answers Lady Bradshaigh's of 8 April and makes references to hers of 16 April. Eaves and Kimpel date the letter [Apr.-Oct.?], but a May dating can be made upon the basis of what Richardson says in the first paragraph about his health. He writes, "I have passed more than a month of grievous and incapacitating suffering. Behind-hand with all my correspondencies; and almost careless of business." On 25 March Richardson wrote both Mrs. Chapone and Philip Skelton, and he was obviously in good health. He must have fallen ill in late March or early April because no letter written between 25 March and 2 May from Richardson exists. By 2 May, though, he had recovered and wrote his friend Thomas Edwards, who replied on 8 May telling Richardson that he was glad that he was once again well. From his words to Lady Bradshaigh, "I have passed more than a month . . . ," it is obvious that he was writing her immediately upon his recovery.

She answers Richardson in either May or June. It is difficult to be more precise because she wrote, "I have been the longer in sending this, because you said you were behind-hand with all your correspondencies." She sends her prayers for his health, and then she writes of the young woman whom she had spoken of in "two last." This places her letter before hers of Late May-June, which Eaves and Kimpel place after it.

B to R Late May-June 1751 (B, VI, 101-105, 109).

Lady Bradshaigh's Late May-June letter makes one of her "very best courtesies" to Sir Charles Grandison, whom Richardson has finally introduced to her. From the fact that Sir Charles has finally appeared and from Richardson's other letters, this letter can be placed as having been written in late May or in June.

On 2 May Richardson wrote Thomas Edwards, "After long, long Traveling I think I have found ye good Man; just found him: But you, Sir, & an auxiliary Lady or two must correct, adorn & finish him" (FM, XII, I, ff. 99-100). The "auxiliary Lady" was, of course, Lady Bradshaigh. Richardson had, in fact, described him to her in May as "your good man (your's he is—he owes the existence he has to you)", and so Richardson would have obviously sent her the character as soon as he had finished him. Lady Bradshaigh in her letter of Late May-June declines, though, to "correct, adorn & finish him" with the words "I 'tell you what I would have done!' Dear Sir, ask your own mind what I would have done: the dictates of that must be what I would have done" (B, VI, 102). Considering the circumstances and these words, Lady Bradshaigh's letter was probably written about the same time Richardson wrote Thomas Edwards. It is hard to imagine that it was written after 1 July, for around that date Sir Charles was given to the world, via a reading which Susanna Highmore was present at and recorded in a letter to Hester Mulso. (See Eaves and Kimpel, p. 372.) By 11 July Richardson himself had written Miss Mulso about Sir Charles. He would certainly have given Sir Charles to Lady Bradshaigh before Miss Mulso, and since he wanted Lady Bradshaigh to help "correct" Sir Charles, it is virtually impossible to imagine that he would have given the public reading before she had met the character. Lady Bradshaigh's letter, therefore, must have been written in late May or June of 1751.

R to B 26 Dec. 1751 (B, VI, 128-137);
B to R 3 Jan. 1752 (B, VI, 105-106, 137-146).

Richardson's letter of 26 Dec. presents no problems, nor does Lady Bradshaigh's of 3 Jan. 1752, other than that B, VI, 105, l. 7-B, VI, 106, l. 21 belongs with it. Those two paragraphs, through their use of direct quotations from and answers to Richardson's letter of 26 Dec., can easily be seen to be part of Lady Bradshaigh's letter of 3 January.

Notes