the Forster collection,
in no way indicates its place of origin. Richardson's seeking of the
gentleman through advertisement in London newspapers suggests that he
thought of his correspondent as a city man.

In the fifth edition one detects a certain discomfort with the false
editorship and the praise Richardson permits himself with it. His direct
response to criticism is slight. He deletes "_from_ low _to_ high
_Life_," since _Pamela's Conduct in High Life_ had appeared four months
previous. From the passages which Fielding ridicules in _Shamela_, he
drops no more than "wonderful" from before "AUTHOR of _Pamela_." In the
passage introducing the new letters (page xv) Richardson now apologizes.
The Author, he implies, wanted the praises omitted, but much to his
sorrow the Editor could not disentangle them from the "critical
remarks." The author's modesty, however, remains in the realm of
possibility only.

Where self-praise is strong a vague uneasiness sets Richardson to work
on the style, unable to locate the center of his trouble. On page v
"_strongly interest them in the edifying Story_" becomes "_attach their
regard to the Story,_" but this is barely to nibble at his phrase "_so
probable, so natural, so lively_" just preceding, which perished in the
eighth edition.

Similarly, he attempts to cure the last paragraph of his preface through
minor incisions. He drops the parenthesis about the "_great Variety of
entertaining Incidents_", and he diminishes "_these engaging Scenes_" to
"_it_". But the paragraph is still too much for him. In the eighth
edition he cuts all but the outlines of his editor-author pretext.

The seventh edition does no more than sharpen punctuation. The eighth in
general continues to trim little excesses, though the loss is scarcely
noticeable. Richardson further reduces Hill's praise of the book and his
own praise of Hill, feeling his way toward a detached view of his book,
looking to posterity. Since _Pamela_ has fulfilled the prediction of
foreign renown made by his French friend, de Freval, Richardson now
omits de Freval's obliging treachery to the literature of France (page
ix). Since the "delightful story" is anecdotal and not critical, it too
disappears. Other changes simply testify an author's attention to his
style, uninhibited by the fact that the style is indeed not his. He
deletes a senseless remark about masculine flexibility. He removes
"Nature" from the foundation of the narrat