How old is David Balfour?

[regshoe]

The first copy of Kidnapped I read was this ebook on Project Gutenberg, digitised from a 1921 illustrated edition of the book published by Harper & Brothers, New York. Its text contains four references to David's age:

• In Chapter 1, David in the narration describes himself as 'a lad of seventeen years of age'. He also tells us that the date is 'early in the month of June, the year of grace 1751'.
• In Chapter 21, the Government bill 'papering' Alan and David as suspects in the Appin murder describes David as 'a tall strong lad of about eighteen'.
• In Chapter 25, David is looking at the same bill again and thinks to himself that 'Lowland boys of eighteen were not so rife in these parts of the world'.
• In Chapter 27, David tells Mr Rankeillor that his date of birth is 'the year 1733, the 12th of March'. This ought to make him eighteen in June 1751.

In itself, we can dismiss the bill in chapter 21, as its author is clearly guessing David’s approximate age. However, the phrasing in chapter 25 sounds as though David accepts the estimate of eighteen; if it wasn't exactly right, he could easily have thought 'Lowland boys of about eighteen', which is the wording of the bill anyway. This is a bit strange. But more obviously a problem is the unambiguous contradiction between chapter 1 and chapter 27. So, thought I, the book is inconsistent, but we have one definite reference to David as seventeen, and one definite and one arguable reference to him as eighteen; can we just say he's probably eighteen? But it turns out it's more complicated even than this...

The Wikipedia article for Kidnapped, at one point, described David as seventeen at the beginning of the plot summary. I'd been keeping an eye on the article since making an (unrelated) edit to it, and so I spotted when someone edited it to change David's age to sixteen (describing their source for this information slightly mysteriously as 'my sons kimono sheet'). Well, thought I, obviously that's wrong! But before changing it back I checked my paper copy of the book—recently bought and not at that point yet used for a full re-read—and discovered to my surprise that in that copy, chapter 1 does in fact have 'a lad of sixteen years of age', instead of 'seventeen'! Further investigation revealed that in chapter 27 of this edition David's date of birth is 12 March 1734, not 1733 (which should make him seventeen in June '51; both numbers are changed by a year and hence the discrepancy between them is preserved). This paper copy is the 1994 Penguin Classics edition, edited by Donald McFarlan; McFarlan states that its text comes from the first book edition published in 1886 but incorporates a few later edits made by Stevenson. These edits are indicated with footnotes, and there is no footnote against any of the references to David's age.

(The Wikipedia article, incidentally, has since been edited back to seventeen, without commentary this time; I think this is a very funny and worthy edit war, in which I shall intervene with an explanatory note after writing this post.)

So, setting aside the Government bill for a moment, we have two definite discrepancies:

• One within each edition, where chapter 27 gives David a date of birth that should make him a year older than his stated age in chapter 1
• One between editions, where David is either sixteen or seventeen in chapter 1 and his date of birth in chapter 27 is either 1734 or 1733.

Now, there is one possible solution for the within-editions discrepancy. Until 1752, New Year's Day was celebrated in England on 25 March, not 1 January (see here for details); using this calendar, first-edition David's sixteenth birthday on 12 March 1750 would indeed be followed by June 1751, rather than June 1750. Unfortunately this only held in England; in Scotland New Year's Day had been 1 January since 1600, and I don't think there is any reason to suppose RLS meant to use the English New Year. Therefore I think we have to conclude that he simply couldn't count. (Alternatively, we might expect a discrepancy of a year to arise from RLS losing track of the fact that he'd moved historical events that really happened in 1752 to 1751... except we'd expect that to produce errors in the opposite direction!)

The between-editions discrepancy is trickier. To investigate it, I examined all the copies of Kidnapped from 1921 or earlier that I could identify on the Internet Archive, and I included in my investigation the two changes noted in the Penguin Classics edition, in case they might throw any light on other changes to the text. These were a change in the time of Ransom's murder at the beginning of chapter 8, from 'nine o'clock' to 'twelve o'clock', and a change to the passage in chapter 17 describing the wood of Lettermore, from 'ferny dells' to 'ferny howes'. Here's what I found:

Link	Publisher	Location	Year	Chapter 1	Chapter 27	Chapter 8	Chapter 17
Link	Cassell and Company	London	1886	sixteen	1734	nine o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Charles Scribner’s Sons	New York	1886	sixteen	1734	nine o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Cassell and Company	London	1887	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Bernhard Tauchnitz	Leipzig	1888	sixteen	1734	nine o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Cassell and Company	London	1891	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Cassell and Company	London	1894	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Cassell and Company	London	1895	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Cassell and Company	London	1895	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	Several publishers listed, of which the first is Longmans Green & Co	Edinburgh	1895	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	Charles Scribner’s Sons	New York	1897	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	Charles Scribner’s Sons	New York	1899	unknown, pages missing	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Charles Scribner’s Sons	New York	1903	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	Charles Scribner’s Sons	New York	1905	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Charles Scribner’s Sons	New York	1907	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	Educational Publishing Company	Boston	1912	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Charles Scribner’s Sons	New York	1915	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	The Macmillan Company	New York	1918	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Scott, Foreman and Company	Chicago	1920	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny howes
Link	Harper & Brothers	New York	1921	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	The World Syndicate Publishing Company	Cleveland, Ohio	undated, archive.org lists 1900	sixteen	1734	twelve o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Blackie & Son	Glasgow	undated, after 1894	sixteen	1734	eleven o’clock	ferny dells
Link	Thomas Nelson and Sons	London	undated, after 1896	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes
Link	The Musson Book Company (but Cassell and Company, London also listed)	Toronto	undated, archive.org lists 1919	seventeen	1733	eleven o’clock	ferny howes

• The first book editions have 'sixteen' in chapter 1 and '1734' in chapter 27. Unfortunately I've been unable to find the very first published text of the book, as a serial in the magazine Young Folks, online; but I think even without that, this is fairly unambiguously the original version.
• All editions agree that the bill in chapter 21 describes David as 'about eighteen' and that he thinks of the rarity of 'Lowland boys of eighteen' in chapter 25.
• All editions with 'sixteen' in chapter 1 have '1734' in chapter 27, and all those with 'seventeen' in chapter 1 have '1733' in chapter 27.
• The change to 'seventeen' in chapter 1 and '1733' in chapter 27 first appears in 1895. Editions from after this date are generally inconsistent, including some from the same publisher.
• The change from 'ferny dells' to 'ferny howes' in chapter 17 is present as expected.
• Similarly, we see the change from 'nine o'clock' to 'twelve o'clock' in chapter 8... but then, unexpectedly, there's another, later change to 'eleven o'clock'!
• While 'twelve o'clock' is introduced much earlier than any other change, 'eleven o'clock' and 'ferny howes' first appear alongside 'seventeen' and '1733', and are almost perfectly correlated with them thereafter. (Only the undated post-1894 Blackie & Son edition and the 1920 Scott, Foreman & Company edition break the pattern; these are both 'one-off' editions not from the regular publishers Cassell & Company and Charles Scribner & Sons, and we might thus expect them to be a bit irregular).

Rather serendipitously, while aimlessly looking up other stuff about Kidnapped I found this letter of RLS's from December 1893, in which he describes sending 'a corrected Kidnapped' to his publishers in connection with the sequel. Now, I submit that this is where he introduced 'seventeen', 'eleven o'clock', 'ferny howes' and '1733'. The 1895 edition in which this set of correlated changes first appears has on its title page a super-title very similar to that given by RLS in the letter (The Adventures of David Balfour, Part One: Kidnapped, vs. The Adventures of David Balfour, Vol. I, Kidnapped)—and the other 1895 Cassell & Company edition, which does not include the changes, does not have this title either. So those four changes first appear here; and then they're either picked up or not by later editions depending on which earlier texts the publishers used in each case, resulting in the pattern of the above table.

We are left with the mystery of how McFarlan, putting together the Penguin Classics edition, was aware of 'ferny howes' but not 'eleven o'clock' or 'seventeen/1733'—this perhaps suggests that 'ferny howes' might have been introduced separately and earlier. Now, McFarlan's footnote about the change does not refer directly to a later edition with 'ferny howes', but reads 'The first edition gives "ferny dells". Stevenson later amended this at the suggestion of Edmund Gosse.' I would conjecture that McFarlan found the correspondence in which RLS and Gosse discussed this change (I don't know what this is; I looked briefly through the above-linked collection of RLS's letters, but couldn't find it there), went 'aha!', checked in a later edition to make sure it read 'ferny howes' and then incorporated the change into the Penguin Classics edition—but, unaware that RLS had made any other changes, McFarlan didn't check for them and hence missed them. This is merely a conjecture, and it is possible that the changes were made separately and/or that McFarlan was working from an edition with 'ferny howes' but not 'eleven o'clock' or 'seventeen/1733' (the 1920 Scott, Foreman & Company edition has exactly this pattern, for instance); but I think the near-perfect correlation between the three changes does make this unlikely.

So, in conclusion: 'sixteen/1734' was the original text, but 'seventeen/1733' was RLS's final intention. But which of these—and which of the contradictory numbers within each of them—should we the fandom now accept as canonical? The first question depends, of course, on whether you think it's valid for an author to edit their fic after it's already posted, and that's a matter of opinion. Some other points to consider when answering both questions:

• We could consider David seventeen, accepting the date of birth from the first editions and the stated age from the later ones, and thus avoid a definite choice between them.
• It is, of course, far more likely that the stated ages in chapter 1 were RLS's actual intentions for David's age and that the dates in chapter 27 were a maths error than the other way round; therefore from a Doylist point of view it's more valid to accept the stated age.
• You'll recall from the subtitle that Kidnapped is presented as David's in-universe memoirs. Accepting this conceit, it seems far more likely that David, writing many years after the fact, simply couldn't remember exactly how old he was at any given time (and this could cover the 'eighteen' in chapter 25 as well as the stated ages in chapter 1); but it's much more likely that he would remember his exact date of birth correctly. Thus from a Watsonian point of view, the date of birth is more reliable.
• If we accept the date of birth from the later editions, which makes David eighteen, this resolves the arguable discrepancy with chapter 25.

Now, the NTS adaptation makes David nineteen. Initially I thought this was probably an attempt to avoid too dodgy an age gap between David and Alan in a version making their romance textual; but given that a) the range of canonical possibilities for the book is 16-18, b) Alan is also aged down in the play, from 'about thirty-five' to 'about twenty-five' and c) I don't think 18/25 would have been that much less acceptable than 19/25, this now seems less likely. And Isobel McArthur clearly has a pretty thorough knowledge of the book! So perhaps David's age in the play is the result of an appropriately mischievous sense of humour about all these discrepancies.

Right, time to go and sort out that Wikipedia article...

Comments

[oracne]

I am very impressed by your thorough approach.

[regshoe]

Thank you :D This post has been months in the making—it started out as just noting a discrepancy and then gradually accreted more details as I found more things to investigate...

[muccamukk]

Huh, that's so interesting! I totally didn't do the math from the later date of birth, so just said he was seventeen based on what my edition (off Gutenberg) said.

I thought about "ageing him up" to 18, but since I wasn't including porn, and therefore didn't need to make choices about archive warnings v. cntw, I didn't bother.

[regshoe]

The more I looked into it, the more complicated it got...

I admit it has occurred to me to wonder whether AO3 would require the Underage warning for a character who's contradictorily stated to be both under and over eighteen in canon! But I suppose you could just say you're using the version where he's eighteen.

[luzula]

Wow, you are so thorough! *admires* And will undoubtedly win the edit war. : D

I love the Doylist vs Watsonian justifications for choosing one age over another; for myself, I would probably just choose the one that makes him oldest, so as to give me the smallest age gap.

[regshoe]

My aim is not to win the edit war, but to bring peace through exhaustive nerdy detail :P

That's reasonable! I think my preference is to go with a) the first edition and b) the Watsonian justification, which conveniently also accords with RLS's probable final intention.

[philomytha]

This is some A+ research! And I didn't realise the 25th March was counted as New Year's Day in England, that's a fascinating bit of history.

[regshoe]

Thank you :D It is interesting—sometimes when reading historical sources you'll come across dates between January and March written something like this: 12 March 173¾, to show that the same day belongs to different years in the two calendars. It must have been very awkward to work with!

[theseatheseatheopensea]

In case it's useful, the serial is here. It's a bit of a pain to read (or maybe it's just me XD), but chapter 1 says "sixteen"!

[regshoe]

Oh, wonderful—thank you so much for finding that :D It is definitely an awkward format, but it does appear to be 'sixteen' and '1734'—good to confirm it!

[hyarrowen]

That's wonderful research... It's late, so I can't make any sensible comments, but perhaps 'my head is spinning' counts as a sensible comment in the circumstances? Personally, I like the 'memoir' explanation which cuts the Gordian know very nicely. And I can't see Alan as a day younger than 35. You don't get a character that complicated and shifty at a younger age imo! Present-day sensibilities be damned. Davie is a grown-up fellow after all he's been through, by the end of the book.

(I've always been fascinated by the change in English calendar dates in the 1750s. Have long felt that something could be done with it in the FotH 'verse but my brain refuses to provide me with a story, sigh.)

[regshoe]

:D Thank you! I quite like the 'memoir' explanation too.

The historical Al(l)an Breck Stewart may have been anywhere between 28 (this book which I've just been flipping through, quoting from the record of his enlistment in the French army) and about 40 (Wikipedia; no specific source cited, but the article has a list of general references) in 1751—but the historical Al(l)an Breck Stewart was 5'10", so that doesn't necessarily count for anything with the fictional version.

Present-day sensibilities be damned. Davie is a grown-up fellow after all he's been through, by the end of the book.

Yeah, I agree! And I like how they do see each other as equals and peers—it's not a hierarchical relationship at all. They're such perfectly compatible weirdos, and the non-issue of an age gap is just another part of the charming weirdness for me.

The change in calendar dates always sticks in my head because if I'd been around in 1752 I wouldn't have had a birthday that year. It must have been very discombobulating. I like the idea of using it in a FotH fic...

[hyarrowen]

I keep forgetting that he was a real person; the character is so vivid that he's taken on a fictional life of his own. I wonder what the real man would have made of his alter ego?

1752: It must have been very discombobulating.

It would make summer time and jet lag look completely paltry by comparison, and they're confusing enough! And as for birthdays, well how old might one be, legally speaking? And it was a leap year, too! Even more confusing for people born on Feb 29.

[regshoe]

Hee, that's true! I think of the fictional and real Al(l)ans quite separately in my head. The difference in spelling helps, of course.

January 1750 was one year before January 1752, so would people gain an extra year in counting between Januaries??? I hadn't realised it was a leap year, but of course it was—even more confusion...

[hyarrowen]

Argh, I have no idea - I was a tired cat last night and didn't think it through. Honestly, I think the government just went, "To hell with it, we're doing this," and did so.

I'm reminded of the huge battle in the North Africa in WW2 during which the Panzerarmee had to put its clocks back (or was it forward?) by an hour halfway through proceedings. They managed the timing very well, of course, though I think the battle was a draw.

[garonne]

This is fascinating. So cool to see the details of all those editions laid out together!

For the NTS version, I wonder if they just chose ages that they felt match reasonably well the actors' apparent ages, while also being consistent with the characters' backstories (I mean, that David only just left home while Alan has already done quite a few different things in his life). But the only info I actually have about the actors' apparent ages is the promotional poster you put on wikipedia :) so I'm not sure if that makes sense.

[regshoe]

It was a fun bit of investigation :D

Yeah, that's possible! I had assumed that they decided how old they wanted the characters to be and then cast based on that, but it could be the other way round.