MTPDocEd
Laws bless you, I done it apurpose. Nobody ever gets my name right, (witness the enclosedⒶ first two envelopsⒶ I fished out of the waste-basket this moment), therefore I never put anybody else’s
name right, unless it is specially requested.Ⓐ
Come, now, please write that article &Ⓐ dispatch it to the magazine. Mine has gone where it won’tⒶ appear in print for several months, I judge—so you see,Ⓐ yours would be almost certain to come out ahead of mine.Ⓐ
Do it, & I will retire from my rigid rule & spell your name right—always.Ⓐ
I had a mindⒶ to phrenograph (yes, that’s correct) thisⒶ letter to you, for the sake of the experiment; but was afraid you might think I only did it to save three cents, whereasⒶ upon my word & sacred honorⒶ I wish I may never die if such a sordid thought as that ever entered my head for a moment.
So I beg you to believe that if I did
Ⓐ phrenograph it, the thing was done &Ⓐ gone before I had time to reflect &Ⓐ take it back. One of the inconvenientest things about this phrenography is,Ⓐ that you can’t run it over & fix it right & slick it up—no,Ⓐ it goes in the rough.
Emendations and Textual Notes
All variants between the source texts are reported here. The readings identified by
the siglum ‘MTP’ are editorial emendations of the source readings made because none
is deemed correct by itself.
Ⓐ
Hartford, Oct. 31/81. (#MTP) ●
Oct. 31st (#P1)
Hartford, 31 Oct[ober 18]81. (#P2)
Ⓐ
Dear Mrs. Walker, (#P2) ●
not in
(#P1)
Ⓐ
enclosed (#MTP) ●
not in
(#P1)
enclosed [not present] (#P2)
Ⓐ
envelops (#MTP) ●
not in
(#P1)
envelops [sic] (#P2)
Ⓐ
¶ Laws . . . requested. (#MTP) ●
not in
(#P1)
no ¶ “~ . . . ~. (#P2)
Ⓐ
won't (#P2) ●
wont
(#P1)
Ⓐ
Mine . . . judge—so you see, (#P2) ●
Mine has gone where it won't appear in print for several months, I judge. So you see
the italicization of this sentence in Walker is here rejected as her editorial choice
(in both senses), not the reading of the original letter to her
(#P1)
Ⓐ
¶ Come . . . mine. (#MTP) ●
“. . . Come . . . mine . . . (#P1)
no ¶ “~ . . . mine (#P2)
Ⓐ
Do . . . always. (#P2) ●
not in
(#P1)
Ⓐ
¶ I had a mind (#MTP) ●
¶ “I had a mind (#P1)
no ¶ “I had mind (#P2)
Ⓐ
phrenograph (yes, that’s correct) this (#P2) ●
phrenograph (permit me here to betray to the public the fact that what is
coincidence to the bishop is
phrenography to the layman in his lecture of 1881, so long delayed in the press, no unfrequent
happening when religion and science try their hand at a common nomenclature) this
This part of Walker's text is what she referred to as a “fine hash & a chinese puzzle”
(Walker to SLC, 29 January 1883): it really makes no sense and is here excluded as
not part of what Clemens wrote, but rather part of what Walker wrote by way of explanation.
Since Walker's text also omitted the parenthetical ‘(yes, that's correct)’, it is a good guess that the typesetter committed an eye-skip and in the process
misconstrued Walker's parenthetical insertion as Clemens's—indicating, by the way,
that Walker submitted to the Independent her own handwritten copies of Clemens's letters, not the letters themselves
(#P1)
Ⓐ
experiment; but . . . whereas (#MTP) ●
experiment; but . . . whereas, (#P1)
experiment . . . ; whereas (#P2)
Ⓐ
& sacred honor (#MTP) ●
and sacred honor, and (#P1)
& sacred honor & (#P2)
Ⓐ
that if I
did
(#P3) ●
that, if I did (#P1)
Ⓐ
& fix it right & slick it up—no, (#P3) ●
and fix it right, and slick it up. No (#P1)
Ⓐ
Truly Yours, S L. Clemens (#P3) ●
“Truly yours, S. L.
Clemens.” (#P1)
Ⓐ
I may . . . Clemens (#P3) ●
the text follows the manuscript from this point to the end
The transcribed text in Swann is printed in all italic type, which is here silently ignored. Walker herself acknowledged in a 29 January 1883 letter to Clemens “the swift punishment I recd at the hands of the Independent’s type-setters, who made fine hash & a chinese puzzle out of my pen script.” That must refer at least in part to the manifestly confused transcription of this letter, which included as part of Clemens’s text words that were clearly uttered by Walker. See the emendations below.