Northanger Abbey is conspicuous in the Austen canon in that its genesis is problematical, its publication history checkered. On the cumulative evidence of Cassandra's memorandum, the "Advertisement by the Authoress" prefixed to the 1818 edition, and strategic references contained in correspondence, two salutary facts can be deduced: that Jane Austen was actively writing Northanger Abbey in 1798-99 and that in 1803, 1809, and 1816 the unpublished novel was subjected to renewed attention and unspecified revisions.' It is the extent to which the text was amended at the separate dates noted that has engaged critical opinion. Marvin Mudrick and A. Walton Litz allow circumscribed revision no later than 1803,2 Q.D. Leavis and Darrel Mansell extrapolate 1809 as the likely date,3 while Mary Lascelles, Yasmine Gooneratne, and B.C. Southam recognize the possibility of substantial alterations in 1816.4 In his recent statistical analysis J.F. Burrows challenges the plausibility of wide-ranging, late revision, his dissension perpetuating the incertitude attached to the status of Northanger Abbey.5 During the course of debate, the novel's transitional elements have been well documented: a fundamental incongruity devolves around the uneasy coexistence of the novel's two sections: self-contained Gothic burlesque is grafted unceremoniously upon sentimental comedy of manners, the anomalous characterization of General Tilney throws into contrast the cast of rigidly functional twodimensional characters, Jane Austen's tentative handling of Henry Tilney counters the adroit deployment of Catherine Morland, the relatively immature narrative point of view is compensated by the stylistic polish, the consistency and assurance of the comic tone. Throughout, a miscellany of apprentice and virtuosic effects