by Jane Austen
7. Chapter liv, where Jane is trying to persuade Elizabeth that she is in no danger of falling in love with Bingley again, Bentley’s edition reads: —
‘You are very cruel,’ said her sister [i.e. Elizabeth], ‘you will not let me smile, and are provoking me to it every moment.’
‘How hard it is in some cases to be believed! And how impossible in others! But why should you wish to persuade me that I feel more than I acknowledge?’
‘That is a question which I hardly know how to answer.’
Now, if we turn to the first three editions, we find the passage broken up as follows: —
‘You are very cruel,’ said her sister, ‘you will not let me smile, and are provoking me to it every moment.’
‘How hard it is in some cases to be believed! And how impossible in others!’
‘But why should you wish to persuade me that I feel more than I acknowledge?’
‘That is a question which I hardly know how to answer.’
This is the only passage which we can correct on the authority of the author herself. In a letter dated February 4, 1813, she says, referring to the first edition of Pride and Prejudice: ‘The greatest blunder in printing is in , l. 3, where two sentences are made into one.’ Unfortunately, in trying to correct the mistake, Bentley’s edition fell into another, and Mr. Johnson was the first to break up the sentences correctly. The passage should of course run: —
‘You are very cruel,’ said her sister, ‘you will not let me smile, and are provoking me to it every moment.’
‘How hard it is in some cases to be believed!’
‘And how impossible in others!’
‘But why should you wish to persuade me that I feel more than I acknowledge?’
‘That is a question which I hardly know how to answer.’
8. Chapter lv, when Jane’s engagement to Bingley had been arranged, Bentley’s edition, following the third edition, reads: —
Elizabeth, who was left by herself, now smiled at the rapidity and ease with which an affair was finally settled, that had given them so many previous months of surprise and vexation.
‘Surprise’ does not seem nearly so suitable a word as ‘suspense,’ which is found in the first and second editions.
9. Chapter lv, where Jane is talking to Elizabeth about Bingley. Mr. Johnson’s editions, following the first three editions, read: —
‘Would you believe it, Lizzie, that when he went to town last November, he really loved me, and nothing but a persuasion of my being indifferent would have prevented his coming down again!’
‘He made a little mistake, to be sure; but it is to the credit of his modesty.’
This naturally introduced a panegyric from Jane on his diffidence, and the little value he put on his own good qualities.
Elizabeth was pleased to find that he had not betrayed the interference of his friends; for, though Jane had the most generous and forgiving heart in the world, she knew it was a circumstance which must prejudice her against him.
As this last paragraph stands, ‘him’ can hardly refer to anyone else but Bingley, which makes nonsense. Nothing was likely to prejudice Jane against him; besides, it was not his ‘friends’ who had interfered, but his ‘friend’ Darcy. There can be no doubt, therefore, that we ought to read, with Bentley’s edition, ‘friend,’ and then ‘him’ will refer to Darcy, against whom Lizzie was very anxious on her own account that Jane should not be prejudiced.
10. Chapter lvi, when Lady Catherine is trying to browbeat Elizabeth, Mr. Johnson reads, in his edition of 1892, following the first two editions (which, however, have a comma after ‘accomplished’): —
‘While in their cradles, we planned the union: and now, at the moment when the wishes of both sisters would be accomplished in their marriage, to be prevented by a young woman of inferior birth, of no importance in the world, and wholly unallied to the family?’
Most editions, however, following the third, merely alter the interrogation to an exclamation mark; but it is by no means certain that we ought not to read ‘is their marriage’ instead of ‘in their marriage,’ placing the comma three words earlier: then we can keep the interrogation. So the edition published by George Allen in 1894.
‘Mansfield Park’
1. Chapter viii: Bentley’s edition, following the first and second editions, reads: —
Mrs. Rushworth proceeded next, under the conviction that everybody must be wanting to see Sotherton, to include Miss Crawford in the invitation; and though Miss Grant, who had not been at the trouble of visiting Mrs. Rushworth, on her coming into the neighbourhood, civilly declined it on her own account, she was glad to secure any pleasure for her sister; and Mary, properly pressed and persuaded, was not long in accepting her share of the civility.
Inasmuch as there is no such character as ‘Miss Grant’ in the book, all other editions read ‘Mrs. Grant.’ Dr. Verrall, in the pages of the Cambridge Review, defended ‘Miss Grant,’ provided that ‘Miss’ were placed between inverted commas, as well as the previous ‘Miss Crawford’; he believed Mrs. Rushworth to have been a blundering kind of person, who desired to invite Miss Crawford, but while naming ‘Miss Crawford’ addressed herself to Mrs. Grant. Otherwise (if we read ‘Mrs. Grant’), Dr. Verrall argued, there was not the slightest occasion for Mrs. Grant to decline the invitation on her own account, for she had not been in any way invited; nor would there have been any need for Mary to be ‘properly pressed and persuaded,’ and then to accept ‘her share’ of the civility. Dr. Verrall’s suggestion is ingenious, but not quite convincing.
2. Chapter viii: Bentley’s edition, following the first and second editions, reads: —
When Edmund, therefore, told her in reply, as he did when she would give him the hearing, that she need not distress herself on Mrs. Rushworth’s account, because he had taken the opportunity, as he walked with her through the hall, of mentioning Miss Price as one who would probably be of the party, and had directly received a very sufficient invitation for her cousin, &c.
‘Her cousin’ would certainly seem to be a mistake; and all other editions accordingly alter ‘her’ to ‘his.’ Dr. Verrall, however, defends ‘her’; and would read ‘and had directly received a very sufficient invitation for her cousin,’ on the ground that Mrs. Rushworth, not quite understanding who was meant by Miss Price, thought she was cousin to the Miss Price who she had previously heard would remain at home with Lady Bertram. Some such explanation, Dr. Verrall thought, would alone account for the ‘very sufficient’ invitation.
3. Chapter x, , where Fanny Price says to Mr. Rushworth, who on returning with the key finds Miss Bertram and Mr. Crawford have gone into the park without waiting for him: —
‘They desired me to stay — my cousin Maria charged me to say that you would find them at that knoll, or thereabouts.’
So all the editions read; but Dr. Verrall would emend to ‘They desired me to say — my cousin,’ &c., on the ground that Fanny, who was the soul of truth, had not been desired to stay. But, for the matter of that, neither had her cousin Maria charged her to say anything, for it was Crawford who had suggested that ‘Miss Price will be so good as to tell him, that he will find us near that knoll.’ However, the emendation is attractive, as it shows Fanny trying to make the best case she can for Maria by eliminating Crawford’s share in the transaction.
4. Chapter xxiv: All editions read: —
This dear William would soon be amongst them. There could be no doubt of his obtaining leave of absence immediately, for he was still only a midshipman; and as his parents, from living on the spot, must already have seen him and be seeing him perhaps daily, his direct holidays might with justice be instantly given to his sister.
The expression ‘his direct holidays,’ meaning ‘his actual holidays,’ is intelligible enough, but did not satisfy Dr. Verrall, who suggested ‘derelict’ as a naval expression to imply holidays on which no one had a claim, and which might therefore be given to Mansfield Park. Li
ke many of Dr. Verrall’s emendations, its ingenuity is greater than its probability.
5. Chapter xxxiii, : —
Here again was a something of the same Mr. Crawford whom she had so reprobated before. How evidently was there a gross want of feeling and humanity where his own pleasure was concerned; and alas! how always known no principle to supply as a duty what the heart was deficient in.
It is difficult to believe that Jane Austen can have written anything so clumsy as ‘how always known no principle.’ Such, however, is the reading of all the editions, except the Hampshire Edition, which, without giving any note, violently emends to ‘how lacking the principle.’
6. Chapter xxxix: Bentley, following the second edition, reads: —
Her days were spent in a kind of slow bustle; all was busy without getting on, always behind hand and lamenting it, without altering her ways; wishing to be an economist, without contrivance or regularity; dissatisfied with her servants, without skill to make them better, and whether helping or reprimanding, or indulging them, without any power of engaging their respect.
Here the printer has been most ingenious. The text should, of course, be ‘always busy,’ as it is in the first edition and the Hampshire Edition.
7. Chapter xl: Bentley’s edition, following the early editions, reads: —
‘. . . for Henry is in Norfolk; business called him to Everingham ten days ago, or perhaps he only pretended the call, for the sake of being travelling at the same time that you were.’
Mr. Johnson and the Winchester Edition read ‘to call.’ There seems little doubt that ‘the call’ is the right reading.
8. Chapter xlvii: Bentley and nearly all editions read: —
Time would undoubtedly abate somewhat of his sufferings, but still it was a sort of thing which he never could get entirely the better of; and as to his ever meeting with any other woman who could — it was too impossible to be named but with indignation.
The broken sentence means ‘a woman who could console him for the loss of Mary.’
Mr. Johnson’s editions make nonsense of the passage by substituting a comma for the dash after ‘could.’
9. Chapter xlviii: Bentley, following the early editions, reads: —
Maria had destroyed her own character, and he would not, by a vain attempt to restore what never would be restored, be affording his sanction to vice, or in seeking to lessen its disgrace, be anywise accessory to introducing such misery in another man’s family, as he had known himself.
Mr. Johnson and the Winchester Edition read ‘by affording his sanction to vice,’ which is an unnecessary alteration.
‘Emma’
1. Chapter xviii: —
‘No, Emma; your amiable young man can be amiable only in French, not in English. He may be very “aimable,” have very good manners, and be very agreeable; but he can have no English delicacy towards the feelings of other people — nothing really amiable about him.’
This reading, found in the first edition and the Winchester Edition, is without doubt correct; but Bentley, Johnson, and the Hampshire Edition read ‘He may be very “amiable.”‘
2. Chapter xxiii: —
But when satisfied on all these points, and their acquaintance proportionably advanced, . . .
Mr. Johnson, in his 1892 edition, did not approve of the word ‘proportionably,’ and read ‘[proportionately]’; but he has since altered his mind. The first edition and all others read ‘proportionably,’ and there appears to be authority for such a word.
3. Chapter xxv: —
Vanity, extravagance, love of change, restlessness of temper, which must be doing something, good or bad; heedlessness as to the pleasure of his father and Mrs. Weston, indifferent as to how his conduct might appear in general; he became liable to all these [changes].
There are two words in the sentence, which differ in the various editions. The first edition reads ‘indifferent’ . . . ‘changes.’ Bentley reads ‘indifference’ . . . ‘changes.’ Mr. Johnson and the Winchester Edition read ‘indifferent’ and ‘charges’; the Hampshire Edition ‘indifference’ and ‘charges.’ ‘Indifference’ would seem to be probably right; ‘charges,’ certainly right.
4. Chapter xxix: —
‘Emma,’ said she, ‘this paper is worse than I expected. Look! in places you see it is dreadfully dirty: and the wainscot is more yellow and forlorn than anything could have imagined.’
So the first edition; Bentley, and the Hampshire Edition, insert ‘one’; Mr. Johnson and the Winchester Edition ‘I’ after ‘anything.’
5. Chapter xxxii, where Mrs. Elton says to Emma: —
‘I assure you, Miss Woodhouse, it is very delightful to me to be reminded of a place I am so extremely partial to as Maple Grove. I have spent so many happy minutes there!’ (with a little sign of sentiment).
So Mr. Johnson’s editions read, following the first edition. But Bentley’s, as well as the Hampshire and Winchester Editions, read ‘sigh,’ which seems to be certainly right.
6. Chapter xliv: —
Jane took Mrs. Elton aside, and told her at once, that upon thinking over the advantages of Mrs. Suckling’s situation, she had come to the resolution of accepting it.
So the first edition, followed by Bentley; but this is plainly a mistake for Mrs. Smallridge’s, and is corrected by Mr. Johnson, the Winchester and Hampshire Editions.
7. Chapter xlvi, where Mr. Weston tells Emma that his wife has something to break to her, and Emma at once fears for her relations in Brunswick Square: —
‘Mrs. Weston, do not trifle with me. Consider how many of my dearest friends are now in Brunswick Square. Which of them is it? I charge you by all that is sacred not to attempt concealment.’
‘Upon my word, Emma — —’
‘Your word! Why not your honour! Why not say upon your honour, that it has nothing to do with any of them? Good heavens! What can be to be broke to me that does relate to one of that family?’
So the first edition, followed by Bentley. But Mr. Johnson, the Hampshire and Winchester Editions insert ‘not’ before ‘relate’; and the negative seems needed.
8. Chapter xlvii: —
This was the conclusion of the first series of reflection.
So the first edition, followed by Bentley; Mr. Johnson, the Hampshire and Winchester Editions give ‘reflections.’ But in Jane Austen’s novels the expression ‘a series of’ is continually followed by a noun in the singular, when nowadays we should probably use the plural — e.g. Emma, chapter xxxvi, ‘a series of dissipation’; Sense and Sensibility, chapter xxvii, ‘a series of rain’; chapter xlvi, ‘a series of imprudence.’
Cf. Emma, chapter xxii, ‘after a series of what appeared to him strong encouragement’; though the Hampshire Edition has altered this to ‘encouragements.’
‘Northanger Abbey’
1. Chapter vi: ‘I am sure it is Laurentina’s skeleton.’ A reference to Mrs. Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho will show that ‘Laurentina’ should be ‘Laurentini.’ All editions, however, read ‘Laurentina.’
2. Chapter viii: —
‘Let us walk about and quiz people. Come along with me, and I will show you the four greatest quizzers in the room; my two younger sisters and their partners. I have been laughing at them this half-hour.’
So the first edition, the Hampshire and Winchester Editions. Bentley, however, reads ‘quizzes,’ which seems correct, as the word ‘quizzer’ usually bore an active sense, and ‘quiz’ a passive.
3. Chapter xi: —
They all spent the evening together at Thorpe’s.
It seems improbable that Jane Austen can have written anything other than ‘at the Thorpes’’; but no edition has had the courage to make the change.
4. Chapter xiii: —
And with these words she broke away and hurried off. Thorpe would have darted after her, but Morland withheld him. ‘Let her go, let her go, if she will go. She is as obstinate as — —’
Thorpe
never finished the simile, for it could hardly have been a proper one.
So the first edition reads, followed by Bentley and the Winchester Edition. The Hampshire Edition boldly gives ‘Morland,’ and this seems the natural solution. The only alternative is to break up the sentence thus: —
. . . but Morland withheld him. ‘Let her go, let her go, if she will.’ ‘She is as obstinate as — —’ Thorpe never finished the simile, &c.
But this does not seem so natural; nor do we imagine that the impropriety of the simile would necessarily have debarred Thorpe from completing it.
5. Chapter xxii: —
And for his part, to his uncritical palate, the tea was as well flavoured from the clay of Staffordshire as from that of Dresden or Sêve. But this was quite an old set, purchased two years ago.
So the first edition, and the Hampshire and Winchester Editions; but Bentley emends to ‘Sèvres,’ which must surely be correct.
6. Chapter xxvi: —
By ten o’clock the chaise-and-four conveyed the two from the abbey, and, after an agreeable drive of almost twenty miles, they entered Woodston, &c.
So all the editions; but is not ‘two’ a misprint for ‘trio’ — i.e. General Tilney, Eleanor, and Catherine? It is certain that Eleanor was of the party, for we read a little later: ‘His son and daughter’s observations were of a different kind. They had seldom seen him eat so heartily at any table but his own’; nor is there anything to show that General Tilney rode on horseback.
For an example of the use of the word ‘trio’ by Jane Austen, see Mansfield Park, chapter xxix: ‘They were now a miserable trio.’
‘Persuasion’
1. Chapter i: The Hampshire and Winchester Editions, following the first edition, print the opening passage as follows: —
Sir Walter Elliot, of Kellynch Hall, in Somersetshire, was a man who, for his own amusement, never took up any book but the Baronetage; where he found occupation for an idle hour and consolation in a distressed one; there his faculties were roused into admiration and respect, by contemplating the limited remnant of the earliest patents; there any unwelcome sensations, arising from domestic affairs, changed naturally into pity and contempt. As he turned over the almost endless creations of the last century, and there, if every other leaf were powerless, he could read his own history with an interest which never failed: this was the page at which his favourite volume always opened.