26 August 1865
Clemens published this long sketch in the Californian seven weeks after his last contribution, the final installment of “Answers to Correspondents” (no. 110). By now he was earning his living not as a weekly contributor to the Californian, but as a journalist writing a daily letter to the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise—a task so grueling that he had little energy left over for the literary weeklies. Between late June and the end of December 1865 Clemens published only eight original items in the Californian—roughly one a month—while continuing to send a daily letter (most of them now lost) to the Enterprise. This change in the pattern of his work may suggest why he returned to the subject of contemporary journalism in the present sketch, “The Facts.”
In October 1870 Clemens recalled that the sketch “was written in San Francisco . . . six or seven years ago, to burlesque a painfully incoherent style of local itemizing which prevailed in the papers there at that day.”1 Posing as the innocent subeditor of the Californian, Clemens pretends to print a note received from his friend John William Skae2—a note that unravels into pure incoherence. When the item draws fire from the “boss-editor” (Bret Harte at this time) and the “chief hair-splitter” (unidentified), Clemens undertakes a mock defense of local journalism. It is the overly finicky Californian editors, he deadpans, who fail to appreciate “Stiggers' jokes” (Albert S. Evans' jokes in the Alta California, that is), the American Flag's “poetry,” the Morning Call's “grammar,” and the Evening Bulletin's “country correspondents.” “Now who but [begin page 251] The Californian would ever have found fault with Johnny Skae's item. No daily paper in town would, anyhow. It is after the same style, and is just as good, and as interesting and as luminous as the articles published every day in the city papers.” Just so.
The Californian had, in fact, made it a practice to attack the quality of local journalism, both in its weekly column “The Mouse-Trap” (by “Trem”) and through editorial articles. On July 15, for instance, Trem published a long paragraph about the “local reporter of the Alta”:
What sparkling witticisms do we find in his column. In Thursday's paper, in his Police Court report, he says, “Mary Kane was again convicted on the charge of getting drunk and raising her namesake.” Ha, ha, ha, he, he, he. Don't you see? Raising Cain. True he has made that joke every time Mary Kane has appeared in the Police Court, but it is a good joke, a very good joke, and bright things can never die. Then he tells us that “John Odor, a soldier who is in bad odor with the police, was convicted.” Isn't that funny? Couldn't do that sort of thing, you know, for a penny a line. . . . The Alta is quite proud of him, and they say in the office that it's real nice to have a funny man who can write interesting items to make the paper sell while the wires are down.3
On August 26, in the same issue that contained “The Facts,” Trem took up the subject of the Flag's poetry. “We have always admired the poetry published in the Flag. If an editorial paragraph calls attention to ‘a beautiful poem on our fourth page,’ we turn with avidity to the fourth page. The poets whose productions the Flag enshrines are not like those of whom Horace said: ‘Parturiunt montes; nascetur ridiculus mus.’ ” He then reprinted one stanza as an example, maliciously reproducing the numerous typographical errors:
bye-andy-eb.Was the parting very bitter? t?
Was the hand-clasp very tigh
Is a storm of tear-drops falling
From a ace all sad and white?
Think not of it, in the future
Calmer, fairer days are nigh;
Gaze not backward, but look onward
For a sunny “bye-and-bye.”
This was, according to Trem, “peculiar, but very pretty.”4 His ridicule of the Flag's poetry was typical of the Californian and marked a general distinction between the bohemians and more commercially minded and [begin page 252] literarily naive journalists. One week after this paragraph appeared the Californian reprinted part of a Flag poem that suggests a continuing feud: “Critics and Rhymers” was ostensibly “inscribed to those critical geniuses of the ‘purely literary press’ who would, if they could, emulate the excellence of ‘The Flag's Poets.’ ”5
Trem likewise attacked the bad grammar and poor diction in the Call. “Some people appear to take delight in disfiguring the English language by coining hideous words,” he said on July 8. “The dramatic critic of the Call deserves to be talked to death by Chinook Indians for making use of the expression ‘embracive of the entire strength of the company,’ in speaking of the cast of a play.”6
Harte himself had attacked the “country correspondents” in the Bulletin as recently as June 10. Citing several excruciatingly banal and self-preoccupied comments from “C.,” who was giving his “notes of a trip to Clear Lake,” and from “Diaphragm,” who offered his “Notes of a Trip to the Big Trees,” he remarked with his patented arch sneer:
Of such stuff are amateur correspondents made. We have devoted some space to pointing out their peculiarities, with no further intention except that of correcting what we conceive to be a growing evil. We do not blame people for writing such things. They are necessary and excellent safety-valves for the pent-up sentiments or prejudices which permeate mankind, and they yield an excitement to the writer which is certainly the cheapest and most innocuous form of dissipation. . . . It is only the publication of such articles that makes them objectionable, and brings them within the sphere of legitimate criticism. Everything that tends to deteriorate or enervate the literary standard should be excluded from the columns of a respectable journal. . . . Literary men and editors have to serve a severe apprenticeship; and we do not see why the rules which govern their ideas of excellence should be suspended for the benefit of these Bucolic amateurs who waste their time and ink in imitation.7
Clemens' attack on the “painfully incoherent style of local itemizing” therefore came in two parts. The first was Johnny Skae's item itself: an example bearing strong resemblances to Simon Wheeler's rambling account in “Jim Smiley and His Jumping Frog” (no. 119) and Jim Blaine's narrative in chapter 53 of Roughing It. The second was of course the [begin page 253] mock defense of all the “virtues that distinguish [local] articles and render them so acceptable to the public.” Clemens and his editor, Charles Henry Webb, decided to reprint only the first part of the sketch in the 1867 Jumping Frog book, perhaps because the second by then seemed too parochial. But Mark Twain continued to revise and reprint the first part in 1872, 1874, and 1875.
concerning the recent trouble between mr. mark Ⓐemendation twain and mr. john william skae, of virginia city—wherein it is attempted to be proved that the former was not to blame in the matter.
Mysterious.—Ⓐhistorical collationOur esteemed friend, Mr. John William SkaeⒶhistorical collation, of Virginia City, walked into our officeⒶhistorical collation at a late hour last night with an expression of profound andⒶhistorical collation heartfelt suffering upon his countenance, and sighing heavily, laid the following item reverently upon the desk and walked slowly out again. He paused a moment at the door and seemed struggling to command his feelings sufficiently to enable him to speak, and then, nodding his head toward his manuscript, ejaculated in a broken voice, “Friend of mine—OhⒶhistorical collation how sad!” and burst into tears. We were so moved at his distress that we did not think to call him back and endeavor to comfort him until he was gone and it was too late. OurⒶhistorical collation paper had already gone to press, but knowing that our friend would consider the publication of this item important, and cherishing the hope that to print it would afford a melancholy satisfaction to his sorrowing heart, we stopped the press at once and inserted it in our columns:
[begin page 255]Distressing Accident.— Ⓐemendation Last evening about 6 o'clock, as Mr. William Schuyler, an old and respectable citizen of South Park, was leaving his residence to go down town, as has been his usualⒶhistorical collation custom for many years, with the exception onlyⒶhistorical collation of a short interval in the Spring of 1850 during which he was confined to his bed by injuries received in attempting to stop a runaway horse by thoughtlessly placing himself directly in itsⒶhistorical collation wake and throwing up his hands and shouting, which, if he had done so even a single moment sooner must inevitably have frightened the animal still more instead of checking its speed, although disastrous enough to himself as it was, and rendered more melancholy and distressing by reason of the presence of his wife's mother, who was there and saw the sad occurrence, notwithstanding it is at least likely, though not necessarily so, that she should be reconnoitering in another direction when incidents occur, not being vivacious and on the lookoutⒶhistorical collation, as a general thing, but even the reverse, as her own mother is said to have stated, who is no more, but died in the full hope of a glorious resurrectionⒶhistorical collation, upwards of three years ago, aged 86, being a Christian woman and without guile, as it wereⒶhistorical collation, or property, in consequence of the fire of 1849, which destroyed every blastedⒶhistorical collation thing she had in the world.Ⓐemendation But such is life. Let us all take warning by this solemn occurrence, and let us endeavor so to conduct ourselves that when we come to die we can do itⒶhistorical collation. Let us place our hands upon our heartsⒶhistorical collation and say with earnestness and sincerityⒶhistorical collation that from this day forth we will beware of the intoxicating bowl.—First Edition of the Californian.
(second edition of the Californian.)Ⓐhistorical collation
The boss-editorⒶhistorical collation has been in here raising the very mischiefⒶhistorical collation, and tearing his hair and kicking the furniture about, and abusing me like a pick-pocket. He says that every time he leaves me in charge of the paper for half an hour I get imposed upon by the first infant or the first idiot that comes along. And he says thatⒶhistorical collation distressing item of Johnny Skae'sⒶhistorical collation is nothing but a lot of distressing bosh, and has gotⒶhistorical collation no point to it, and no sense in itⒶhistorical collation, and no information in it, and that there was no earthlyⒶhistorical collation necessity for stopping the press to publish it. He says every man he meets has insinuated that somebody about The Californian office has gone crazy.Ⓐhistorical collation
Now all this comes of being good-hearted. If I had been as unaccommodating and unsympathetic as some people, I would have [begin page 256] told Johnny SkaeⒶhistorical collation that I wouldn't receive his communication at such a late hour, and to go to blazesⒶhistorical collation with it—Ⓐhistorical collationbut no, his snufflingⒶhistorical collation distress touched my heart, and I jumped at the chance of doing something to modify his misery. I never read his item to see whether there was anything wrong about it, but hastily wrote the few lines which preceded it and sent it to the printers. And what has my kindness done for me? It has done nothing but bring down upon me a storm of abuse and ornamental blasphemy.Ⓐemendation
Now I will just readⒶhistorical collation that item myself, and see if there is any foundation for all this fuss. And if there is, the author of it shall hear from me.
* * * * * * *
I have read it, and I am bound to admit that it seems a little mixed at a first glance. However, I will peruse it once more.
* * * * * * *
I have read it again, and it does really seem a good deal more mixed than ever.
* * * * * * *
I have read it over five times, but if I can get at the meaning of it, I wish I may get my just deserts. It won't bear analysis. There are things about it which I cannot understand at all. It don't say what ever became of William Schuyler. It just says enough about him to get one interested in his career, and then drops him. Who is William Schuyler, anyhow, and what part of South Park did he live in? and if he started down town at six o'clock, did he ever get there? and if he did, did anything happen to him? is he the individual that met with the “distressing accident?” Considering the elaborate circumstantiality of detail observable in the item, it seems to me that it ought to contain more informationⒶhistorical collation than it does. On the contrary, it is obscure—and not only obscure but utterly incomprehensible. Was the breaking of Mr. Schuyler's leg fifteen years ago the “distressing accident” that plunged Mr. SkaeⒶhistorical collation into unspeakable grief, and caused him to come up here at dead of night and stop our press to acquaint the world with the unfortunateⒶhistorical collation circumstance? Or did the “distressing accident” consist in [begin page 257] the destruction of Schuyler's mother-in-law's property in early times? or did it consist in the death of that person herself 3 years ago, (albeit it does not appear that she died by accident?) In a word, what did that “distressing accident” consist in? What did that drivelingⒶhistorical collation ass of a Schuyler stand in the wake of a runaway horse for, with his shouting and gesticulatingⒶhistorical collation, if he wanted to stop him? And how the mischief could he get run over by a horse that had already passed beyond him? And what are we to “take warning” by? and how is this extraordinary chapter of incomprehen-sibilities going to be a “lesson” to us? And above all, what has the “intoxicating bowl” got to do with it, anyhow? It is not stated that Schuyler drank, or that his wife drank, or that his mother-in-law drank, or that the horse drank—wherefore, then, the reference to the intoxicating bowl? It does seem to me that if Mr. SkaeⒶhistorical collation had let the intoxicating bowl alone himself, he never would have got into so much trouble about this infernal imaginary distressingⒶhistorical collation accident. I have read hisⒶhistorical collation absurd item over and over again, with all its insinuating plausibility, until my head swims, but I can make neither head nor tail of it.Ⓐemendation There certainly seems to have been an accident of some kind or other, but it is impossible to determine what the nature of it was, or who was the sufferer by it. I do not like to do it, but I feel compelled to request that the next time anything happens to one of Mr. Skae'sⒶemendation friends, he will append such explanatory notes to his account of it as will enable me to find out what sort of an accident it was and whoⒶhistorical collation it happened to. I had rather all his friends should die than that I should be driven to the verge of lunacy again in trying to cipherⒶhistorical collation his out the meaning of another such production as the above.
But now, after all this fuss that has been made by the chief cook about this item, I do not see that it is any more obscure than the general run of local items in the daily papers after all. You don't usually find out much by reading local items, and you don't in the case of Johnny Skae's item. But it is just The Californian's style to be so disgustingly particular and so distressingly hypercritical. If Stiggers throws off one of his graceful little jokes, ten to one The Californian will come out the very next Saturday and find fault [begin page 258] with it, because there ain't any point to it—find fault with it because there is no place in it where you can laugh—find fault with it because a man feels humiliated after reading it. They don't appear to know how to discriminate. They don't appear to understand that there are different kinds of jokes, and that Stiggers' jokes may be of that kind. No; they give a man no credit for originality—for striking out into new paths and opening up new domains of humor; they overlook all that, and just cramp an Alta joke down to their own narrow and illiberal notion of what a joke ought to be, and then if they find it hasn't got any point to it, they turn up their noses and say it isn't any joke at all. I do despise such meanness.
And they are just the same way with the Flag's poetry. They never stop to reflect that the author may be striking out into new fields of poetry—no; they simply say, “Stuff! this poem's got no sense in it; and it hasn't got any rhyme to it to speak of; and there is no more rhythm about it than there is to a Chinese oration”—and then, just on this evidence alone, they presume to say it's not poetry at all.
And so with the Call's grammar. If the local of the Call gets to branching out into new and aggravating combinations of words and phrases, they don't stop to think that maybe he is humbly trying to start something fresh in English composition and thus make his productions more curious and entertaining—not they; they just bite into him at once, and say he isn't writing grammar. And why? We repeat: And why? Why, merely because he don't choose to be the slave of their notions and Murray'sⒺexplanatory note.
And just so with the Bulletin's country correspondents. Because one of those mild and unoffending dry-goods clerks with his hair parted in the middle writes down to the Bulletin in a column and a half how he took the stage for CalistogaⒺexplanatory note; and paid his fare; and got his change; stating the amount of the same; and that he had thought it would be more; but unpretentiously intimates that it could be a matter of no consequence to him one way or the other; and then goes on to tell about who he found at the Springs; and who he treated; and who treated him; and proceeds to give the initials of all the ladies of quality sojourning there; and does it in such a way as to conceal, as far as possible, how much they dote on his society; and then tells how he took a bath; and how the soap escaped from his fingers; and describes with infinite [begin page 259] humor the splashing and scrambling he had to go through with before he got it again; and tells how he took a breezy gallop in the early morning at 9 A. M. with Gen. E. B. G.'s charming and accomplished daughter, and how the two, with souls o'ercharged with emotions too deep for utterance, beheld the glorious sun bathing the eastern hills with the brilliant magnificence of his truly gorgeous splendor, thus recalling to them tearful reminiscences of other scenes and other climes, when their hearts were young and as yet unseared by the cold clammy hand of the vain, heartless world—dreaming thus, in blissful unconsciousness, he of the streamⒶhistorical collation of ants travelling up his bodyⒶhistorical collation and down the back of his neck, and she of the gallinipperⒺexplanatory note sucking the tip-end of her nose—because one of these inoffensive pleasure-going correspondents writes all this to the Bulletin, I say, The Californian gets irritated and acrimonious in a moment, and says it is the vilest bosh in the world; and says there is nothing important about it, and wonders who in the nation cares if that fellow did ride in the stage, and pay his fare, and take a bath, and see the sun rise up and slobberⒶhistorical collation over the eastern hills four hours after daylight; and asks with withering scorn, “Well, what does it all amount to?” and wants to know who is any wiser now than he was before he read the long winded correspondence; and intimates that the Bulletin had better be minding the commercial interests of the land than afflicting the public with such wishy-washyⒶemendation trash. That is just the style of The Californian. No correspondence is good enough for its hypercritical notions unless it has got something in it. The Californian sharps don't stop to consider that maybe that disbanded clerk was up to something—that maybe he was sifting around after some new realm or other in literature—that maybe perhaps he was trying to get something through his head—well, they don't stop to consider anything; they just say, because it is trivial, and awkwardly written, and stupid, and devoid of information, that it is Bosh, and that is the end of it! The Californian hates originality—that is the whole thing in a nutshell. They know it all. They are the only authority—and if they don't like a thing, why of course it won't do. Certainly not. Now who but The Californian would ever have found fault with Johnny Skae's item. No daily paper in town would, anyhow. It is [begin page 260] after the same style, and is just as good, and as interesting and as luminous as the articles published every day in the city papers. It has got all the virtues that distinguish those articles and render them so acceptable to the public. It is not obtrusively pointed, and in this it resembles the jokes of Stiggers; it warbles smoothly and easily along, without rhyme or rhythmⒶemendation or reason, like the Flag's poetry; the eccentricity of its construction is appalling to the grammatical student, and in this it rivals the happiest achievements of the Call; it furnishes the most laborious and elaborate details to the eye without transmitting any information whatever to the understanding, and in this respect it will bear comparison with the most notable specimens of the Bulletin's country correspondence; and finally, the mysterious obscurity that curtains its general intent and meaning could not be surpassed by all the newspapers in town put together.
(third edition of the californian.) Ⓐemendation
More trouble. The chief hair-splitter has been in here again raising a dust. It appears that Skae's item has disseminated the conviction that there has been a distressing accident somewhere, of some kind or other, and the people are exasperated at the agonizing uncertainty of the thing. Some have it that the accident happened to Schuyler; others say that inasmuch as Schuyler disappeared in the first clause of the item, it must have been the horse; again, others say that inasmuch as the horse disappeared in the second clause without having up to that time sustained any damage, it must have been Schuyler's wife; but others say that inasmuch as she disappeared in the third clause all right and was never mentioned again, it must have been the old woman, Schuyler's mother-in-law; still others say that inasmuch as the old woman died three years ago, and not necessarily by accident, it is too late in the day to mention it now, and so it must have been the house; but others sneer at the latter idea, and say if the burning of the house sixteen years ago was so “distressing” to Schuyler, why didn't he wait fifty years longer before publishing the incident, and then maybe he could bear it easier. But there is trouble abroad, at any rate. People are satisfied that there has been [begin page 261] an accident, and they are furious because they cannot find out who it has happened to. They are ridiculously unreasonable. They say they don't know who Schuyler is, but that's neither here nor there—if anything has happened to him they are going to know all about it or somebody has got to suffer.
That is just what it has come to—personal violence. And it is all bred out of that snivelling lunatic's coming in here at midnight, and enlisting my sympathies with his infamous imaginary misfortune, and making me publish his wool-gatheringⒶemendation nonsense. But this is throwing away time. Something has got to be done. There has got to be an accident in the Schuyler family, and that without any unnecessary delay. Nothing else will satisfy the public. I don't know any man by the name of Schuyler, but I will go out and hunt for one. All I want now is a Schuyler. And I am bound to have a Schuyler if I have to take Schuyler ColfaxⒺexplanatory note. If I can only get hold of a Schuyler, I will take care of the balance of the programme—I will see that an accident happens to him as soon as possible. And failing this, I will try and furnish a disaster to the stricken Skae.Ⓐhistorical collation Ⓐemendation Ⓐhistorical collation
Historical Collation
Texts collated:
Cal “The Facts,” Californian 3 (26 August 1865): 5.YSMT Clipping of Cal from 257.29 to the end, revised by Mark Twain in the Yale Scrapbook.
“An Item Which the Editor Himself Could Not Understand” in the following
JF1 Jumping Frog (New York: Webb, 1867), pp. 110–115. Reprints part of Cal with editorial changes but no identifiable authorial revisions.
JF1MT The copy of an 1869 impression of JF1 revised by Mark Twain. It was not used as printer's copy for any known reprinting.
JF2 Jumping Frog (London: Routledge, 1867), pp. 102–107. Reprints JF1 with one error.
JF3 Jumping Frog (London: Hotten, 1870), pp. 71–73. Reprints JF2 with two errors.
JF4 Jumping Frog (London: Routledge, 1870 and 1872), pp. 94–99. Reprints JF2 with one error.
MTSk Mark Twain's Sketches (London: Routledge, 1872), pp. 272–276. Reprints JF4 with a dozen revisions by Mark Twain.
MTSkMT Copy of MTSk revised by Mark Twain, who made no changes in this sketch.
HWa Choice Humorous Works (London: Hotten, 1873), pp. 483–485. Reprints JF3 without additional error.
HWaMT Sheets of HWa revised by Mark Twain, who made four changes in this sketch.
HWb Choice Humorous Works (London: Chatto and Windus, 1874), pp. 469–471. Reprints HWa with authorial revisions from HWaMT.
HWbMT Copy of HWb revised by Mark Twain, who made seventeen changes in this sketch.
“Mr. Bloke's Item” in the following
SkNO Sketches, New and Old (Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1875), pp. 167–170. Reprints HWb with authorial revisions from HWbMT.
The first printing in the Californian 3 (26 August 1865): 5 is copy-text. Copies: Bancroft; PH from Yale; PH of the Yale Scrapbook, pp. 13–14.
Reprintings and Revisions. Only a part of this sketch, retitled “An Item Which the Editor Himself Could Not Understand,” was reprinted in JF1: the section devoted to Johnny Skae's “Distressing Accident” and the initial reaction to it. The printer's copy for the JF1 printing was drawn from the Yale Scrapbook, where Mark Twain revised a clipping of the Californian. Only the portion not reprinted in JF1 (from “But” at 257.29 to the end) survives in the scrapbook; it is preceded by three page stubs, indicating that the scrapbook pages which once held the preceding portion of the clipping were scissored out to serve as the printer's copy. Mark Twain demonstrably revised that portion of the scrapbook clipping which remains intact, substituting “streams” for “stream” (259.11), “legs” for “body” (259.11), and “leer” for “slobber” (259.19). This evidence suggests that some of the variants in the JF1 printing may reflect changes Mark Twain made on the now lost printer's copy: for example, the substitution “the office where we are sub-editor” for “our office” (254.7). Nevertheless, most of the changes can more plausibly be attributed to the compositor or the editor. Indeed, the revised scrapbook clipping suggests that the author's intention in January or February 1867 was to reprint the entire sketch. The decision to include only a small portion of it in JF1 was therefore probably made by Charles Henry Webb, who was obliged to make only a few minor adjustments, such as removing the reference to the Californian at 255.27 perhaps, or changing Mark Twain's habitual “who” to “whom” at 257.25. Although it is conceivable that Mark Twain contributed minor changes to the text as reprinted in JF1, none of its variants is distinctively authorial, and they are all here attributed to Webb.
The reprinting of the JF1 text is described in the textual introduction. Routledge reprinted JF1 in 1867 (JF2), and Hotten in turn reprinted JF2 in 1870 (JF3). Routledge also reprinted JF2 in 1870 (JF4a) and, using the unaltered plates of JF4a, reissued the book in 1872 (JF4b). Although none of these texts was revised by the author, the compositors introduced a number of minor errors. For example, “snuffling” became “snuffing” (256.2) in JF2, “its” became “his” (255.7) in JF4, and “information” (256.26) was omitted from JF3. When Mark Twain prepared the printer's copy for MTSk in March or April 1872, he revised a copy of JF4a and presumably made a dozen revisions and corrections in this sketch. Collation shows that he corrected the error “snuffing” back to “snuffling,” but did not restore “its.” He modified the rambunctious tone of his language by removing words such as “blasted” (255.21), “very” (255.28), “got” (255.34), “unfortunate” (256.31–32), “driveling” (257.5), and “infernal” (257.16). He also changed “boss-editor” to “chief editor” (255.28), “blazes” to “grass” (256.2), and tightened the syntax in several places by adding “that.”
One year later (1873), Hotten reprinted the JF3 text in HWa. When Mark Twain revised this book for Chatto and Windus in the fall of 1873 (HWaMT), he made only four changes. He again corrected the error “snuffing” that he had earlier corrected in MTSk, and instead of deleting “blasted” and “infernal” (255.21 and 257.16) he changed them to “single” and “exasperating,” while also deleting “distressing” at 257.16. The HWaMT changes were made in the plates of HWa and incorporated in HWb, which was published in 1874 and introduced no new errors.
When in 1875 Mark Twain prepared the printer's copy for SkNO, he revised this sketch extensively in HWbMT, leaving it unrevised in MTSkMT. He entered the title “An Item which the Editor himself could not understand” as item 31 of the Doheny table of contents (see figure 23D in the textual introduction, volume 1, p. 627). Mark Twain made some seventeen corrections and revisions. He again deleted “very,” “got,” and “unfortunate.” He changed “boss-editor” to “head editor” (255.28), “earthly” to “sort of” (255.35), and again supplied a second “that” at 255.32. He also canceled two longer phrases: the injunction “to go to blazes with it” (256.2), and the sentence “He says every man he meets has insinuated that somebody about The Californian office has gone crazy” (255.36–37). He changed Johnny Skae's name to “Bloke” throughout the text, but not in the title: SkNO used the Doheny table of contents title in its table of contents, but the sketch itself was retitled “Mr. Bloke's Item,” perhaps because Mark Twain or Bliss made the change in proof. SkNO incorporated all of the changes imposed by Mark Twain on the printer's copy.
Mark Twain had revised the JF1 printing of this sketch twice before making most of the revisions discussed above. Sometime in 1869 he made ten revisions in the Doheny copy of the Jumping Frog, JF1MT, some of which duplicate later changes (the cancellation of “blasted” and the substitution “chief editor” for “boss editor”). Other revisions conform to the generally cautious intention of the JF1MT changes: for example, the substitution “full of hope” for the more reckless original phrase, “in the full hope of a glorious resurrection” (255.17–18). All of the JF1MT revisions are recorded in the historical collation. Mark Twain also revised one portion of the text, Johnny Skae's “Distressing Accident” item, before reprinting it in “Favors from Correspondents,” Galaxy 10 (October 1870): 576, from a copy of JF1. He made one substantive revision, substituting “solitary” for “blasted” (255.21). This variant is not recorded in the historical collation.
The diagram of transmission is given below.