in mind the real name of the clergyman's widow whom he was depicting in the character. The slips of compositor and author, taken together, were quite enough to blemish the pages. In ordinary circumstances neither Fielding nor Millar would have let a book like this go to the public. As a makeshift, space was provided after the table of contents in the first volume for a page of errata, having at the head a request that the reader make for himself some sixty-odd corrections. Of the list of errata, two things are to be observed. First, it is confined mostly to the author's mistakes, mixed here and there with a few of the compositors' many blunders. Hence it was prepared by Fielding himself. Secondly, it covers only five volumes, though the sixth volume has some of the most glaring lapses in the entire novel. Not only, then, was Millar unable to bind copies fast enough to meet the demand, but he felt constrained to print them before the proofs could be properly corrected by his hacks and before the author had time to read the last volume for alterations. It was a shrewd guess of Mr. Frederick S. Dickson, the only bibliographer who has ever examined with care the first edition of "Tom Jones," that preparation was begun for a new edition "about the time the sixth volume went to press";* that is, in February, 1749. In fact, there were two new editions-one in six volumes at the old price, and another in four volumes, which sold in blue paper covers at half a guinea and bound at twelve shillings. According to "The St. James's Evening Post," the fourvolume edition was published April 13, 1749. At the same time Millar announced the six-volume edition "on a large Letter, pr. bound 18s." As he said nothing about being able to supply it in paper covers, the inference is that this was the new edition in six volumes. On the same day, *"'Life and Writings of Fielding," by Keightley, edited by Dickson, 1900, p. 132. it would therefore seem, "Tom Jones" reappeared in two quite different styles of dress. At first sight the second edition in six volumes differs from the first only in the absence of the errata. The phrase, "the second edition," nowhere appears; type and paper are the same; and the paging is kept uniform with the edition having the errata. Close inspection, however, reveals the story of what happened. The table of contents is re-spaced so as to extend into the page formerly given to the errata; the first volume has a new tailpiece; the title-page of the fifth volume ends in a misprint; and most, though not all, of the slips made by author and compositor have been corrected, including, with two exceptions, those contained in the errata. Moreover, though each volume has the same number of pages as the corresponding volume of the first edition, scores of individual pages differ either in the number of lines or in the last words and phrases. It looks as if Millar, not anticipating the immense demand, distributed the type, and so had to reset the entire novel. There is really no other conclusion. Labour was cheap and the compositors were asked to do their work over again. "Tom Jones," as the novel appeared in February, is a most rare book. It is this second edition or impression here described-call it what you will-that has long passed for the first. Simultaneously another set of compositors was put to work on the four-volume edition. They made all the changes indicated in the errata, and corrected many verbal inaccuracies besides, though not in exact conformity with the new six-volume edition. On the whole, they were more careful than their brethren. Near the same time a "Tom Jones" in three volumes was also brought out in Dublin. Since this edition failed to incorporate all the corrections called for by the errata,-indeed, none of those covering the first three books, the certain inference is that it was The Reader is defired to correct the following VOL. I. Page 11, line 25. for toas read bad. p. 52, 1. 18. VOL. II. Page 29, 1. 14. read twenty. p. 86, 1. 13. Yead VOL. III. Page 19, 1. 10. dele that. p. 27, l. 28. read as be VOL. IV. Page 35, 1. 1. read pricked up. p. 90, L 20. read they are effected, L. 25. dele fuch. p. 91, 1. 3. for Cab read Gold. p. 110, L 12. for our read old. p. 111, 1. 22. for which read and. p. 120,1. 1. dele Comma after not. p. 122, 1. 8. dele by. p. 169, 1. 27. read think it material. 1. 28. d ele fo. p. 179, 1. 3. for its read her. p. 185, l. 14. read the Truth, of this Degree of Sufpicion I believe. I. 23. for who read which. P. 193, 1. 11. for Crime read Shame, p. 212, l. 16. for nor read and. p. 231, L 13. for by read for. p. 235, 1. 20. for rifen read railed. p. 270, 1. 9. read Lalagen. p. 294, J. 1.3. for Alternative read' Alteration. VOL. V. Page 66. 1. 20. for Canniffer read Miller. p. 113, 1. 1. read Characters. p. 172, 1. 6. read exifting. p. 181, 1. 6. for in read on, p, 182,.1. 11. read bringing ber into. p. 223, l. 12. dele not. p. 249, 1. 25. read fat. p. 251, 1. 27. read two or three. p. 263, 1. 20. read Lady. p. 272, l. 12. dele that. p. 274, 1. 10. dele as. p. 282, .1. 11. for for read on. 1. 25. read ever. p. 28.3. 1. 9. read in bis Way. set from the first London edition in six volumes. Hence, towards the close of March, not two but three groups of compositors were engaged on new editions of "Tom Jones" -enough to satisfy for the present an eager public throughout the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. There was yet to be one more London edition of "Tom Jones" in four volumes before the year closed. Millar announced it in "The St. James's Evening Post" for December 9-12, 1749, as "this day published,” though it is dated 1750. The advertisement assured the reader that the novel had been "carefully revised and corrected," but whether by the author or by someone else was left ambiguous. No such phrase, however, appeared on the title-page. Except for the date 1750, and a new tailpiece to the first volume, this edition looked like another issue of the first one in four volumes. Nevertheless, the novel was largely if not entirely reset, and "cured" here and there of slight errors, real or imaginary. Word-catchers had taken Fielding to task for the Dutch word Trachtchugt,* which, they said, should be spelled Trachtchuyt. In the new edition, the word was first changed to Treckschuyte. Again, in all the earlier editions, Thwackum, while speaking of Black George in contempt, had called him "Black Jack."+ Thwackum was now made to give the gamekeeper his usual nickname. In the first case, the compositor had merely misread the manuscript; in the second case, Fielding evidently intended that Thwackum should refer to the gamekeeper as a "Black Jack." As of these two corrections, so of the rest. None of them was probably made by Fielding himself; none rose beyond the intelligence of a bookseller's hack. Startling as it may appear, there is not a trace of evidence that Fielding ever read "Tom Jones" after March, * Bk. XIII, Ch. I. The modern spelling is Trekschuit for the Dutch canalboat. + Bk. III, Ch. IV. |