Betty, at the risk of exposing my ignorance of some MS or

serial spelling I might not know of, I confess I've never seen that

spelling at all.

Bob Schweik

Betty,

Does Barbara Hardy provide a reference for the edition of *Return* she is

quoting? And do any of her quotations include the name "Eustacia" in them?

Like Bob Schweik, I don't recall a single edition of the novel in print that

spells the name as "Eustachia," and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.

If the name is spelled one way in the text being quoted, and another way in

the text discussing the novel, my money is on it being a typographical error

(one which suggests unimpressive proof reading). Simon Gatrell's OUP

version of the novel, which uses the manuscript as copy text, certainly

doesn't spell the character's name that way, so even if some obscure print

text exists somewhere that does, it wouldn't be very authoritative. I'm

also pretty sure that if Simon had encountered this spelling anywhere he

would have mentioned it in his Note on the Text. This sounds unfortunately

like sloppiness to me.

Richard Nemesvari

Department of English

St. Francis Xavier Unviersity

Hi Betty,

Well, I can certainly guarantee that the New Wessex Edition doesn't spell

the name "Eustachia," since that was the edition in which I first read the

novel, and it spells it "Eustacia," as doe the Wessex Edition upon which the

New Wessex is based. And not to open another editorial can of worms, but I

wouldn't use the New Wessex as my text for contemporary scholarship in any

case, since as Michael Millgate (and others since) has pointed out, it's

textual reliability is rather spotty. Nonetheless, it's not spotty enough

to misspell the main character's name. This seems a very strange

idiosyncrasy. What is the rest of the book's proofreading like? Your

overall review was positive, so perhaps this isn't too crucial, but it is

perplexing.

Richard Nemesvari

Department of English

St. Francis Xavier University

Hi Betty, Richard, etc.,

In a moment of sheer idleness, I decided to perform a test. I typed "Eustacia"

into Word, then spell-checked. It suggested "Eustachian" as an alternative--I

had the idea that perhaps relying on a standard spell-checker had lead B. Hardy

astray (Word has intentionally misled lots of people on the spelling of Colosseum).

However, to correct Eustacia to Eustachian, then take all the "N"s off seems

crazy.

Then I tried "Eustachia" and "Eustacia" on google. "Eustachia" gave me quite

a few references to actual people, which about 90% of the Eustacia's came back

to Miss Vye. Perhaps BH relied on memory for spelling the character's name

and leaned toward the more common spelling?

Whatever the case, it is bizarre.

Okay, back to syllabus planning!

Cheers,

Shannon

'Specially as it derives from Eustace...

One remembers how we all reacted to the

received pronunciation of "Laodician", although

I do not recall it spelled "Laodichian".

Nor yet have I seen "Boadichia".

Would this also be OUT?

It is perhaps Eushless to go on....

Roy Buckle

Interesting Shannon. My dictionary's definition of "eustachian tube" is:

A bony and cartilaginous tube conecting the middle ear with the nasopharynx

and equalizing the air pressure on both sides of the tympanic membrane.

Handy things to have on an airplane flight, but I don't think I'd name a

daughter after them.

Betty

Perhaps, since the eustachian tube is a source of much irritation for those

prone to ear infections, we can pin it down to a Freudian slip---maybe BH

found Eustacia to be an annoying heroine. :)

Shannon

The Oxford Names Companion [OUP] doesn't acknowledge either spelling, even

under the entry for Eustace, for which it gives only masculine cognates (Fr.

Eustache, It. Eustachio, Sp. Eustaquio). It says that Eustace, confusedly

derived from two Greek words, one meaning Frightful and the other Orderly,

came in with the Normans, but "is at present out of fashion" (they're not

kidding!). Contrariwise, "Stac[e]y" was a very popular girl's name in 1970s

and 1980s Britain (or perhaps only England?) - according to the Companion

it probably derived from Anastasia but was "respelled as a result of

association with Eustace", which seems an odd association: how many Eustaces

were still around in the 70s/80s to influence anyone's spelling?

Given the English genius for reducing words to monosyllables ("It is perhaps

this Humour of speaking no more than we needs must which has so miserably

curtailed some of our Words, that in familiar Writings and Conversations

they often lose all but their first Syllables... We may here likewise

observe that our proper Names, when familiarized in English, generally

dwindle to Monosyllables, whereas in other modern Languages they receive a

softer Turn on this Occasion, by the Addition of a new Syllable. " -

Addison, The Spectator, 1711), today's baby girls are probably being

named/christened "Stace", a derivation which future editions of the

Companion will have to distinguish from the surname "Stace", which is from

the mediaeval male given name of the, er, same name, "an aphetic vernacular

form of Eustace".....

K Eldron

Sorry, I'm at it as well.   "Eustace" is a confusion of the Greek words for Orderly (eustathios) and Fruitful (eustakhios), not as my keyboard wrote, Frightful.

On reflection, "Eustathios Eustakhios" would be a fitting motto for the contributors to the Hardy list, for their scholarship is indeed both orderly and fruitful.

Cheers.

K Eldron

Cheers,

Rosemarie