Complete Works of Jane Austen (434 page)

Finally, with regard to textual criticism, we have an article ‘On the printing of Jane Austen’s novels,’ by the late Dr. Verrall, contributed to the
Cambridge Observer
, about 1892; and two others, also by Dr. Verrall, ‘On some passages in Jane Austen’s
Mansfield Park
,’ in the
Cambridge Review
, for November 30 and December 7, 1893; and certain emendations pointed out in a review of a new edition of
Pride and Prejudice
in the
Saturday Review
of November 12, 1910.

‘Sense and Sensibility’

In this novel scarcely anything calls for notice. The main divergencies seem to be that the editions are divided between reading ‘such happiness’ and ‘such an happiness,’ at the end of Chapter iii; between ‘by all who called themselves her friends’ and ‘by all who call themselves her friends,’ in Chapter xxxii; and ‘one of the happiest couples’ or ‘one of the happiest couple,’ in Chapter l.

Johnson’s 1892 edition has an unfortunate blunder at the beginning of Chapter xxxii: reading ‘their effect on her was entirely such as the former had hoped to see,’ instead of ‘their effect on her was not entirely,’ &c.

‘Pride and Prejudice’

1. The first passage that we consider to be frequently misprinted is in Chapter iii, where Mrs. Bennet is giving her husband an account of the Meryton assembly, and of Mr. Bingley’s partners. The first three editions, followed by Mr. Johnson, the Winchester and Hampshire Editions, print thus: —

‘Then the two third he danced with Miss King, and the two fourth with Maria Lucas, and the two fifth with Jane again, and the two sixth with Lizzie and the Boulanger.’

‘If he had had any compassion for me,’ cried her husband impatiently, ‘he would not have danced half so much! For God’s sake, say no more of his partners. O that he had sprained his ankle in the first dance!’

‘Oh! my dear,’ continued Mrs. Bennet, ‘I am quite delighted with him. He is so excessively handsome! and his sisters are charming women. I never in my life saw anything more elegant than their dresses. I dare say the lace upon Mrs. Hurst’s gown — —’

Here she was interrupted again. Mr. Bennet protested against any description of finery, &c.

Now, here there can be little doubt that we should read, as in Bentley’s edition, ‘and the two sixth with Lizzie, and the
Boulanger
— —’ (i.e. Bingley danced the
Boulanger
with another partner, whose name Mrs. Bennet would have given but for her husband interrupting her). In the first place, there is every reason to suppose that Mr. Bingley danced no more than ‘the two sixth’ (each dance seems to have been divided into two parts, but without any change of partners) with Lizzie, for Mrs. Bennet has already said that Jane ‘was the only creature in the room that he asked a second time.’ Secondly, the reading of the first edition destroys the point of ‘Here she was interrupted again.’

2. The next passage which is frequently misprinted is in Chapter xix, where Mr. Collins in the course of his proposal to Elizabeth quotes the advice of his very noble patroness. Bentley’s edition here reads: —

‘Mr. Collins, you must marry. A clergyman like you must marry —— Choose properly, choose a gentlewoman for my sake, and for your own; let her be an active, useful sort of person not brought up high, but able to make a small income go a good way.’

By transposing a comma and a semicolon, the printer has here succeeded in perverting a most characteristic bit of advice of Lady Catherine’s. The first three editions, followed by Mr. Johnson; all read ‘Choose properly, choose a gentlewoman for my sake; and for your own, let her be an active, useful sort of person,’ &c., and there can hardly be two opinions as to which reading is the right one.

3. In Chapter xxxvi, where Elizabeth is reviewing her conduct towards Darcy, Bentley’s edition, following the first and second editions, makes her exclaim: —

‘How despicably have I acted,’ she cried; ‘I, who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities! who have often disdained the generous candour of my sister, and gratified my vanity in useless or blameless distrust.’

‘Blameless’ makes little or no sense, and we should surely follow the third edition, which gives ‘blameable.’

4. Chapter xxxviii, when Elizabeth Bennet and Maria Lucas are leaving Hunsford Parsonage, Mr. Brimley Johnson in his edition of 1892, following the first and second editions, arranges the sentences as follows: —

‘Good gracious!’ cried Maria, after a few minutes’ silence, ‘it seems but a day or two since we first came! — and yet how many things have happened!’

‘A great many indeed,’ said her companion with a sigh. ‘We have dined nine times at Rosings, besides drinking tea there twice! How much I shall have to tell!’

Elizabeth privately added, ‘And how much I shall have to conceal!’

The effect of this is to give the extremely banal remark about dining and drinking tea at Rosings to Elizabeth instead of to Maria. The third edition, followed by all the others, gives the correct arrangement: —

‘A great many indeed,’ said her companion with a sigh.

‘We have dined nine times at Rosings, besides drinking tea there twice! How much I shall have to tell!’

5. In Chapter l, where Mrs. Bennet is discussing the various houses in the neighbourhood which might suit Wickham and Lydia, Mr. Bennet is made in Bentley’s and all subsequent editions to remark: —

‘Mrs. Bennet, before you take any or all of these houses for your son and daughter, let us come to a right understanding. Into
one
house in this neighbourhood they shall never have admittance. I will not encourage the imprudence of either, by receiving them at Longbourn.’

Now ‘imprudence’ seems distinctly below Mr. Bennet’s usual form, and we should obviously follow the first and second editions and read ‘impudence.’ Compare the sentence in Chapter lvii, where Mr. Bennet, talking of Mr. Collins’s correspondence, says: —

‘When I read a letter of his, I cannot help giving him the preference even over Wickham, much as I value the impudence and hypocrisy of my son-in-law.’

It is the third edition that has here gone astray and misled all the others.

6. Chapter liv, when Bingley and Darcy have been dining at Longbourn, we read in Mr. Johnson’s edition, as well as in the Hampshire and Winchester Editions: —

The gentlemen came; and she thought he looked as if he would have answered her hopes; but alas! the ladies had crowded round the table, where Miss Bennet was taking tea, and Elizabeth pouring out the coffee.

This is an ingenious little misprint; for what Miss Bennet, who was one of the hostesses, was doing was not
taking
tea, of course, but
making
tea. The early editions and Bentley all read ‘making.’

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.