Talk:The Portrait of a Lady

Publishing History
The Library of America edition of The Portrait of a Lady says in its "Note on the Text":


 * Type was set for Macmillan & Co. by Clay and Taylor, and molds for plates were sent to Houghton, Mifflin and Company in Boston, who published a one-volume first printing in October 1881 (with a title-page date of 1882). Therefore, the text of the first American book printing, having been set in England, contains British spelling and usage. Clay and Taylor then added three-point leading to the standing type and rebroke lines in order to make the novel fill three volumes. The first English book edition, printed directly from this re-leaded type, was published by Macmillan & Co. on November 8, 1881. It was not until twenty-seven years later that James extensively revised The Portrait of a Lady for the New York Edition (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908), using the Houghton, Mifflin and Company version, making this final version a very different book from the one that first appeared in 1881. The present volume reprints the 1881 text of Houghton, Mifflin and Company, because its revisions were made soon after composition, and because it represents James's earlier intentions better than the periodical texts.

The information was backwards in the wiki article, and so I switched it.

The Internet Archive has digitized copies of the aboved mentioned works:


 * Henry, J. The Portrait of a Lady, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston, 1882(as stated; but according to LOA edition its 1881)
 * Henry, J. The Portrait of a Lady, vol I, Macmillan and Company: London, 1881.
 * Henry, J. The Portrait of a Lady, vol II, Macmillan and Company: London, 1881.
 * Henry, J. The Portrait of a Lady, vol III, Macmillan and Company: London, 1881.
 * Henry, J. The Portrait of a Lady, Vol I (The novels and tales of Henry James Volume 3) Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, 1908.
 * Henry, J. The Portrait of a Lady, Vol II (The novels and tales of Henry James Volume 4), Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, 1908.

There was a review of the last two volumes in the New York Times on February 29, 1908:


 * MR. HENRY JAMES ON HIS OWN ART; Preface to Revised Edition of His "Portrait of a Lady" Discusses Functions of Fiction


 * THE preface to the revised "Portrait of a Lady"[1] is of course interesting to all readers to whom Mr. James's work appeals at all. It contains an installment of the novelist's profession of faith regarding his calling, evoked by a reconsideration of this particular work, the most ambitious, the fullest, the most various view of human nature that, at the time of its composition, he had assayed. The profession does not lose interest or value because the reminiscences of the author concerning the genesis of the story seem rather hazy, and would apparently be very nebulous indeed if the book were not by him to refer to. That the depiction of Isabel Archer is the motive and essentially the sole motive of the story is, of course, obvious to everybody. It is to the exhibition of the heroine that every touch of the populous background is meant to conduce. The book was not the product, as the author now puts it, "of any conceit of a 'plot,' nefarious name." Character originates and dominates situation, as he conceives that it should always do.


 * A corollary seems to be that the "adventures" should not be in themselves too tragic. A human being on the literal rack, for example, is so much like any other human being in the same situation that "character" counts for nothing, any more than the possible individuality of the particular frog a psychologist happens to be dissecting affects, with a personal equation, the conclusions he is driven to draw from the "reactions." Which is as much as to say that you cannot combine the novel of character and the novel of plot in the highest degree of each. It was a very ambitious attempt to make the heroine so individual and so typical, and attempt, as Mr. James remarks, which Dickens and Scott forebore, presenting their heroines as "mere young things." He adds Stevenson, but though Stevenson shirked heroines as much as he could, Cairiona does not strike most readers as a "mere young thing." And the ambition was in Mr. James's case justified by the result. The consensus of readers of the work under notice bears him out in that. For "architectural competence," it is to the author's sense, "the most proportioned of his productions after 'The Ambassadors,' which was to follow it so many years later, and which has, no doubt, a superior roundness."


 * One is rather surprised to have Henrietta Stackpole deprecated by her author, upon the ground that she is not essential, not even distinctly conducive, to the evolution of the drama. The reader will be disposed to rejoin that Henrietta, if extraneous, is not intrusively irrelevant; that if she does not help, she does not hinder, and that she makes herself welcome on her own account. After all, a novel may be a work of art without being a chess problem, in which every piece or pawn on the board is required directly to assist, actively or passively, the "mate." The book is, in fact, a gallery of portraits, say rather a series of tableaus, with the protagonist always at the centre of the scene, and the painter's or showman's lecture before the rising of the curtain is by no means the least interesting feature of the performance. This preface was extremely well worth doing.


 * After experience with "The American," one turns with some trepidation from the preface to the revised text. It is a pleasure to recognize that it has been by no means so much "tampered with" as in the earlier case. One can read whole pages without being reminded that anything has been done to it at all, having to resort to the original for evidence of "editing." And, even when he finds modifications, the modifications do not often much matter. It is true that one seldom has occasion to welcome them, but almost as seldom to deplore the. All readers of the book---and it is only, of course, to such readers that these remarks are addressed---will remember, however, "Oh, Osmond, for a man that was so fine," and remember the employment of the surname to denote the finality and hopelessness of Isabel's estrangement from her husband. Such readers must deplore the substitution, in the revised version, of "Gilbert."


 * Another change will strike them as at least as far from an emendation. Readers of the previous volumes of the new edition cannot have failed to observe that the author systematically colloquializes by abbrevation many expressions that were formely extended---"shan't" and "don't" and "I've" and "you've," and so on. This practice is sometimes followed without sufficient attention to the context, and where the auxillary is the emphatic word. As for instance, when the poor Countess Gemini, in the course of her undeception of Isabel says, "You must have been with Osmond," and Isabel, in the revised version, is made to answer, "I've been with Osmond," wich really, barring the meter, is much as if Othello should say, when he comes out for his last appearance, "Behold, I've a weapon." But in the "Portrait of a Lady" it very seldom happens that the modifications really interfere with the story, as they so often do in "The American," by diluting the character and spoiling the scene. But here is one instance of the tendency to which the reviser so often succumbed in the earlier revision. It is the death of Ralph Touchett. Here it is in the orignal:


 * "Oh, Ralph, I am very happy now," she cried, through her tears, "And remember this," he continued, "that if you have been hated, you have also been loved."


 * And here is the reivision:


 * "And remember this," he continued, "that if you've been hated, you've also been loved. Ah, but, Isabel---adored!" he just audibly and lingeringly breathed.


 * Of course there is no way of preventing any reader so minded from finding that addition an improvement. After all, the best sevice the appearance of the new edition can do the reader is to induce him to read the book over again. That will do no reader any harm---in the orginal or even in the revised version.


 * 1 THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY. By Henry James. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. The Novels and Tales of Henry James. Volumes III. and IV. Sold by subscription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.87.99 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

More radical criticism ?
Has there not been any criticism to the effect that this is a most boring and nonsensical book, with characters that are utterly unrealistic and (at best) superficial? Or to the effect that it took Virginia Woolf a considerable effort to write something even more boring with "Night and Day"? --Awaler (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article says "It also treats in a profound way the themes of personal freedom, responsibility, betrayal, and sexuality." Maybe my edition is incomplete, in any case it contains little, if anything of that sort. Sexuality does not even occur at all. It rather seems that the only topic treated in the novel in a profound way is tea parties. --Awaler (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Painting disambiguation
Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden) should be disambiguated from here. However, I suspect that there are more fairly famous paintings with that title, so it might even be appropriate with a Portrait of a Lady (paintings).

Peter Isotalo 10:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary
This page had a quite adequate plot summary that was completely erased in early 2010 by 75.34.211.142 with no rationale. This strikes me as odd and out of keeping with pretty much every other work of fiction on the site, so I have lifted that plot summary and restored it to be edited as people see fit. If anyone has a reason why this page should have no plot summary at all, I would like to hear it. Tropolist (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Major Themes"
This user seems to have recently dumped their entire highschool paper into the "Major Themes" section (it's even 747 words, three short of a common hoghschool word limit). I believe the whole thing is absolute, unsalvageable garbage and have removed it in its entirety. Anyone who wishes to defend it may do so. Tropolist (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)