ENGLISH MEN OF LETTERS

FIELDING

BY AUSTIN DOBSON

PREFATORY NOTE. 

From a critical point of view, the works of Fielding have receivedabundant examination at the hands of a long line of distinguishedwriters. Of these, the latest is by no means the least; and as Mr. Leslie Stephen's brilliant studies, in the recent _edition de luxe_ andthe _Cornhill Magazine_, are now in every one's hands, it is perhaps nomore than a wise discretion which has prompted me to confine myattention more strictly to the purely biographical side of the subject. In the present memoir, therefore, I have made it my duty, primarily, toverify such scattered anecdotes respecting Fielding as have come down tous; to correct (I hope not obtrusively) a few mis-statements which havecrept into previous accounts; and to add such supplementary details as Ihave been able to discover for myself. 

In this task I have made use of the following authorities:--

I. Arthur Murphy's _Essay on the Life and Genius of Henry Fielding, Esq. _ This was prefixed to the first collected edition of Fielding'sworks published by Andrew Millar in April 1762; and it continued for along time to be the recognised authority for Fielding's life. It ispossible that it fairly reproduces his personality, as presented bycontemporary tradition; but it is misleading in its facts, andneedlessly diffuse. Under pretence of respecting "the Manes of thedead, " the writer seems to have found it pleasanter to fill his spacewith vagrant discussions on the "Middle Comedy of the Greeks" and themachinery of the _Rape of the Lock_, than to make the requisitebiographical inquiries. This is the more to be deplored, because, in1762, Fielding's widow, brother, and sister, as well as his friendLyttelton, were still alive, and trustworthy information should havebeen procurable. 

II. Watson's _Life of Henry Fielding, Esq_. This is usually to be foundprefixed to a selection of Fielding's works issued at Edinburgh. It alsoappeared as a volume in 1807, although there is no copy of it in thisform at the British Museum. It carries Murphy a little farther, andcorrects him in some instances. But its author had clearly never evenseen the _Miscellanies_ of 1743, with their valuable Preface, for hespeaks of them as one volume, and in apparent ignorance of theircontents. 

III. Sir Walter Scott's biographical sketch for Ballantyne's _Novelist'sLibrary_. This was published in 1821; and is now included in thewriter's _Miscellaneous Prose Works_. Sir Walter made no pretence tooriginal research, and even spoke slightingly of this particular work;but it has all the charm of his practised and genial pen. 

IV. Roscoe's Memoir, compiled for the one-volume edition of Fielding, published by Washbourne and others in 1840. 

V. Thackeray's well-known lecture, in the _English Humourists of theEighteenth Century_, 1853. 

VI. _The Life of Henry Fielding; with Notices of his Writings, hisTimes, and his Contemporaries_. By Frederick Lawrence. 1855. This is anexceedingly painstaking book; and constitutes the first serious attemptat a biography. Its chief defect--as pointed out at the time of itsappearance--is an ill-judged emulation of Forster's _Goldsmith_. Theauthor attempted to make Fielding a literary centre, which isimpossible; and the attempt has involved him in needless digressions. Heis also not always careful to give chapter and verse for his statements. 

VII. Thomas Keightley's papers _On the Life and Writings of HenryFielding_ in _Fraser's Magazine_ for January and February 1858. These, prompted by Mr. Lawrence's book, are most valuable, if only for theauthor's frank distrust of his predecessors. They are the work of anenthusiast, and a very conscientious examiner. If, as reported, Mr. Keightley himself meditated a life of Fielding, it is much to beregretted that he never carried out his intention. 

Upon the two last-mentioned works I have chiefly relied in thepreparation of this study. I have freely availed myself of the materialthat both authors collected, verifying it always, and extending itwherever I could. Of my other sources of information--pamphlets, reviews, memoirs, and newspapers of the day--the list would be too long;and sufficient references to them are generally given in the body of thetext. I will only add that I think there is scarcely a quotation ofimportance in these pages which has not been compared with the original;and, except where otherwise stated, all extracts from Fielding himselfare taken from the first editions. 

At this distance of time, new facts respecting a man of whom so littlehas been recorded require to be announced with considerable caution. Some definite additions to Fielding lore I have, however, been enabledto make. Thanks to the late Colonel J. L. Chester, who was engaged, onlya few weeks before his death, in friendly investigations on my behalf, Iam able to give, for the first time, the date and place of Fielding'ssecond marriage, and the baptismal dates of all the children by thatmarriage, except the eldest. I am also able to fix approximately thetrue period of his love-affair with Miss Sarah Andrew. From the originalassignment at South Kensington I have ascertained the exact sum paid byMillar for _Joseph Andrews_; and in chapter v. Will be found a series ofextracts from a very interesting correspondence, which does not appearto have been hitherto published, between Aaron Hill, his daughters, andRichardson, respecting _Tom Jones_. Although I cannot claim credit forthe discovery, I believe the present is also the first biography ofFielding which entirely discredits the unlikely story of his having beena stroller at Bartholomew Fair; and I may also, I think, claim to havethrown some additional light on Fielding's relations with the Cibbers, seeing that the last critical essay upon the author of the _Apology_which I have met with, contains no reference to Fielding at all. Forsuch minor novelties as the passage from the _Universal Spectator_, andthe account of the projected translation of Lucian, etc. , the reader isreferred to the book itself, where these, and other waifs and strays, are duly indicated. If, in my endeavour to secure what is freshest, Ihave at the same time neglected a few stereotyped quotations, which havehitherto seemed indispensable in writing of Fielding, I trust I may beforgiven. 

Brief as it is, the book has not been without its obligations. To Mr. B. F. Sketchley, Keeper of the Dyce and Forster Collections at SouthKensington, I am indebted for reference to the Hill correspondence, andfor other kindly offices; to Mr. Frederick Locker for permission tocollate Fielding's last letter with the original in his possession. Mythanks are also due to Mr. R. Arthur Kinglake, J. P. , of Taunton; to theRev. Edward Hale of Eton College, the Rev. G. C. Green of Modbury, Devon, the Rev. W. S. Shaw of Twerton-on-Avon, and Mr. Richard Garnettof the British Museum. Without some expression of gratitude to the lastmentioned, it would indeed be almost impossible to conclude any modernpreface of this kind. If I have omitted the names of others who havebeen good enough to assist me, I must ask them to accept myacknowledgments although they are not specifically expressed. 

EALING, _March_ 1883. 

I have taken advantage of the present issue to add, in the form ofAppendices, some supplementary particulars which have come to myknowledge since the book was first published. The most material of theseis the curious confirmation and extension of Fielding's love affair withSarah Andrew. Besides these additions, a few necessary rectificationshave been made in the text. 

A. D. 

EALING, _April_ 1889. 

The approaching bi-centenary (April 22, 1907) of Fielding's birthaffords a pretext for bringing together, in a fourth Appendix, someadditional particulars which have been discovered or established sincethe issue of the last edition of this Memoir. These particulars relateto his pedigree, his residence at Leyden as a student, his marriage tohis first wife Charlotte Cradock, his Will, his library, his family andsome other minor matters. 

A. D. 

EALING. _March_ 1907. 

CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

EARLY YEARS--FIRST PLAYS

CHAPTER II. 

MORE PLAYS--MARRIAGE--THE LICENSING ACT

CHAPTER III. 

THE CHAMPION--JOSEPH ANDREWS

CHAPTER IV. 

THE MISCELLANIES--JONATHAN WILD

CHAPTER V. 

TOM JONES

CHAPTER VI. 

JUSTICE LIFE--AMELIA

CHAPTER VII. 

THE JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE TO LISBON

POSTSCRIPT

APPENDIX No. I. 

FIELDING AND SARAH ANDREW

APPENDIX No. II. 

FIELDING AND MRS. HUSSEY

APPENDIX No. III. 

AMELIA'S ACCIDENT

APPENDIX No. IV. 

FlELDINGIANA

INDEX

CHAPTER I. 

EARLY YEARS--FIRST PLAYS. 

Like his contemporary Smollett, Henry Fielding came of an ancientfamily, and might, in his Horatian moods, have traced his origin toInachus. The lineage of the house of Denbigh, as given in Burke, fullyjustifies the splendid but sufficiently quoted eulogy of Gibbon. Fromthat first Jeffrey of Hapsburgh, who came to England, _temp. _ HenryIII. , and assumed the name of Fieldeng, or Filding, "from his father'spretensions to the dominions of Lauffenbourg and Rinfilding, " the futurenovelist could boast a long line of illustrious ancestors. There was aSir William Feilding killed at Tewkesbury, and a Sir Everard whocommanded at Stoke. Another Sir William, a staunch Royalist, was createdEarl of Denbigh, and died in fighting King Charles's battles. Of his twosons, the elder, Basil, who succeeded to the title, was aParliamentarian, and served at Edgehill under Essex. George, his secondson, was raised to the peerage of Ireland as Viscount Callan, withsuccession to the earldom of Desmond; and from this, the younger branchof the Denbigh family, Henry Fielding directly descended. The Earl ofDesmond's fifth son, John, entered the Church, becoming Canon ofSalisbury and Chaplain to William III. By his wife Bridget, daughter ofScipio Cockain, Esq. , of Somerset, he had three sons and threedaughters. Edmund, the third son, was a soldier, who fought withdistinction under Marlborough. When about the age of thirty, he marriedSarah, daughter of Sir Henry Gould, Knt. , of Sharpham Park, nearGlastonbury, in Somerset, and one of the Judges of the King's Bench. These last were the parents of the novelist, who was born at SharphamPark on the 22d of April 1707. One of Dr. John Fielding's nieces, it mayhere be added, married the first Duke of Kingston, becoming the motherof Lady Mary Pierrepont, afterwards Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who wasthus Henry Fielding's second cousin. She had, however, been born in1689, and was consequently some years his senior. 

According to a pedigree given in Nichols (_History and Antiquities ofthe County of Leicester_), Edmund Fielding was only a lieutenant when hemarried; and it is even not improbable (as Mr. Keightley conjecturesfrom the nearly secret union of _Lieutenant_ Booth and Amelia in thelater novel) that the match may have been a stolen one. At all events, the bride continued to reside at her father's house; and the fact thatSir Henry Gould, by his will made in March 1706, left his daughterL3000, which was to be invested "in the purchase either of a Church orColledge lease, or of lands of Inheritance, " for her sole use, herhusband having "nothing to doe with it, " would seem (as Mr. Keightleysuggests) to indicate a distrust of his military, and possiblyimpecunious, son-in-law. This money, it is also important to remember, was to come to her children at her death. Sir Henry Gould did not longsurvive the making of his will, and died in March 1710. [Footnote: Mr. Keightley, who seems to have seen the will, dates it--doubtless by aslip of the pen--May 1708. Reference to the original, however, now atSomerset House, shows the correct date to be March 8, 1706, before whichtime the marriage of Fielding's parents must therefore be placed. ] TheFieldings must then have removed to a small house at East Stour (nowStower), in Dorsetshire, where Sarah Fielding was born in the followingNovember. It may be that this property was purchased with Mrs. Fielding's money; but information is wanting upon the subject. At EastStour, according to the extracts from the parish register given inHutchins's _History of Dorset_, four children were born, --namely, Sarah, above mentioned, afterwards the authoress of _David Simple_, Anne, Beatrice, and another son, Edmund. Edmund, says Arthur Murphy, "was anofficer in the marine service, " and (adds Mr. Lawrence) "died young. "Anne died at East Stour in August 1716. Of Beatrice nothing further isknown. These would appear to have been all the children of EdmundFielding by his first wife, although, as Sarah Fielding is styled on hermonument at Bath the _second_ daughter of General Fielding, it is notimpossible that another daughter may have been born at Sharpham Park. 

At East Stour the Fieldings certainly resided until April 1718, whenMrs. Fielding died, leaving her elder son a boy of not quite elevenyears of age. How much longer the family remained there is unrecorded;but it is clear that a great part of Henry Fielding's childhood musthave been spent by the "pleasant Banks of sweetly-winding Stour" whichpasses through it, and to which he subsequently refers in _Tom Jones_. His education during this time was confided to a certain Mr. Oliver, whom Lawrence designates the "family chaplain. " Keightley supposes thathe was the curate of East Stour; but Hutchins, a better authority thaneither, says that he was the clergyman of Motcombe, a neighbouringvillage. Of this gentleman, according to Murphy, Parson Trulliber in_Joseph Andrews_ is a "very humorous and striking portrait. " It iscertainly more humorous than complimentary. 

From Mr. Oliver's fostering care--and the result shows that, whatevermay have been the pig-dealing propensities of Parson Trulliber, it wasnot entirely profitless--Fielding was transferred to Eton. When thistook place is not known; but at that time boys entered the school muchearlier than they do now, and it was probably not long after hismother's death. The Eton boys were then, as at present, divided intocollegers and oppidans. There are no registers of oppidans before theend of the last century; but the Provost of Eton has been good enough tosearch the college lists from 1715 to 1735, and there is no record ofany Henry Fielding, nor indeed of any Fielding at all. It may thereforebe concluded that he was an oppidan. No particulars of his stay at Etonhave come down to us; but it is to be presumed Murphy's statement that, "when he left the place, he was said to be uncommonly versed in theGreek authors, and an early master of the Latin classics, " is not madewithout foundation. [Footnote: Fielding's own words in the verses toWalpole some years later scarcely go so far:--

"_Tuscan_ and _French_ are in my Head; _Latin_ I write, and _Greek_ I--read. "] We have also his own authority (in _Tom_ _Jones_) for supposingthat he occasionally, if not frequently, sacrificed "with true Spartandevotion" at the "birchen Altar, " of which a representation is to befound in Mr. Maxwell Lyte's history of the College. And it may fairly beinferred that he took part in the different sports and pastimes of theday, such as Conquering Lobs, Steal baggage, Chuck, Starecaps, and soforth. Nor does it need any strong effort of imagination to concludethat he bathed in "Sandy hole" or "Cuckow ware, " attended the cock-fights in Bedford's Yard and the bull-baiting in Bachelor's Acre, drankmild punch at the "Christopher, " and, no doubt, was occasionally broughtback by Jack Cutler, "Pursuivant of Runaways, " to make his explanationsto Dr. Bland the Head-Master, or Francis Goode the Usher. Among hisschool-fellows were some who subsequently attained to high dignities inthe State, and still remained his friends. Foremost of these was GeorgeLyttelton, later the statesman and orator, who had already commencedpoet as an Eton boy with his "Soliloquy of a Beauty in the Country. "Another was the future Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, the wit and squib-writer, then known as Charles Hanbury only. A third was ThomasWinnington, for whom, in after years, Fielding fought hard with brainand pen when Tory scribblers assailed his memory. Of those who must beregarded as contemporaries merely, were William Pitt, the "GreatCommoner, " and yet greater Earl of Chatham; Henry Fox, Lord Holland; andCharles Pratt, Earl Camden. Gilbert West, the translator of Pindar, mayalso have been at Eton in Fielding's time, as he was only a year older, and was intimate with Lyttelton. Thomas Augustine Arne, again, famous indays to come as Dr. Arne, was doubtless also at this date practisingsedulously upon that "miserable cracked common flute, " with whichtradition avers he was wont to torment his school-fellows. Gray andHorace Walpole belong to a later period. 

During his stay at Eton, Fielding had been rapidly developing from a boyinto a young man. When he left school it is impossible to say; but hewas probably seventeen or eighteen years of age, and it is at this stageof his career that must be fixed an occurrence which one of hisbiographers places much farther on. This is his earliest recorded love-affair. At Lyme Regis there resided a young lady, who, in addition togreat personal charms, had the advantage of being the only daughter andheiress of one Solomon Andrew, deceased, a merchant of considerablelocal reputation. Lawrence says that she was Fielding's cousin. This maybe so; but the statement is unsupported by any authority. It is certain, however, that her father was dead, and that she was living "in maidenmeditation" at Lyme with one of her guardians, Mr. Andrew Tucker. In hischance visits to that place, young Fielding appears to have becomedesperately enamoured of her, and to have sadly fluttered the Dorsetdovecotes by his pertinacious and undesirable attentions. At one time heseems to have actually meditated the abduction of his "flame, " for anentry in the town archives, discovered by Mr. George Roberts, sometimeMayor of Lyme, who tells the story, declares that Andrew Tucker, Esq. , went in fear of his life "owing to the behaviour of Henry Fielding andhis attendant, or man. " Such a state of things (especially whenguardians have sons of their own) is clearly not to be endured; and MissAndrew was prudently transferred to the care of another guardian, Mr. Rhodes of Modbury, in South Devon, to whose son, a young gentleman ofOxford, she was promptly married. Burke (_Landed Gentry_, 1858) datesthe marriage in 1726, a date which is practically confirmed by thebaptism of a child at Modbury in April of the following year. Burkefurther describes the husband as Mr. Ambrose Rhodes of Buckland House, Buckland-Tout-Saints. His son, Mr. Rhodes of Bellair, near Exeter, wasgentleman of the Privy Chamber to George III. ; and one of hisdescendants possessed a picture which passed for the portrait of SophiaWestern. The tradition of the Tucker family pointed to Miss Andrew asthe original of Fielding's heroine; but though such a supposition isintelligible, it is untenable, since he says distinctly (Book XIII. Chap. I. Of _Tom Jones_) that his model was his first wife, whoselikeness he moreover draws very specifically in another place, bydeclaring that she resembled Margaret Cecil, Lady Ranelagh, and, morenearly, "the famous Dutchess of _Mazarine_. " [Footnote: See Appendix No. I. : Fielding and Sarah Andrew. ]

With this early escapade is perhaps to be connected what seems to havebeen one of Fielding's earliest literary efforts. This is amodernisation in burlesque octosyllabic verse of part of Juvenal's sixthsatire. In the "Preface" to the later published _Miscellanies_, it issaid to have been "originally sketched out before he was Twenty, " and tohave constituted "all the Revenge taken by an injured Lover. " But itmust have been largely revised subsequent to that date, for it containsreferences to Mrs. Clive, Mrs. Woffington, Cibber the younger, and evento Richardson's _Pamela_. It has no special merit, although some of thecouplets have the true Swiftian turn. If Murphy's statement be correct, that the author "went from Eton to Leyden, " it must have been planned atthe latter place, where, he tells us in the preface to _Don Quixote inEngland_, he also began that comedy. Notwithstanding these literarydistractions, he is nevertheless reported to have studied the civilians"with a remarkable application for about two years. " At the expirationof this time, remittances from home failing, he was obliged to foregothe lectures of the "learned Vitriarius" (then Professor of Civil Law atLeyden University), and return to London, which he did at the beginningof 1728 or the end of 1727. 

The fact was that his father, never a rich man, had married again. Hissecond wife was a widow named Eleanor Rasa; and by this time he was fastacquiring a second family. Under the pressure of his growing cares, hefound himself, however willing, as unable to maintain his eldest son inLondon as he had previously been to discharge his expenses at Leyden. Nominally, he made him an allowance of two hundred a year; but this, asFielding himself explained, "any body might pay that would. " Theconsequence was, that not long after the arrival of the latter in theMetropolis he had given up all idea of pursuing the law, to which hismother's legal connections had perhaps first attracted him, and haddetermined to adopt the more seductive occupation of living by his wits. At this date he was in the prime of youth. From the portrait by Hogarthrepresenting him at a time when he was broken in health and had lost histeeth, it is difficult to reconstruct his likeness at twenty. But we mayfairly assume the "high-arched Roman nose" with which his enemiesreproached him, the dark eyes, the prominent chin, and the humorousexpression; and it is clear that he must have been tall and vigorous, for he was over six feet when he died, and had been remarkably strongand active. Add to this that he inherited a splendid constitution, withan unlimited capacity for enjoyment, and we have a fair idea of HenryFielding at that moment of his career, when with passions "tremblinglyalive all o'er"--as Murphy says--he stood, "This way and that dividing the swift mind, "

between the professions of hackney-writer and hackney-coachman. Hisnatural bias was towards literature, and his opportunities, if not hisinclinations, directed him to dramatic writing. 

It is not necessary to attempt any detailed account of the state of thestage at this epoch. Nevertheless, if only to avoid confusion in thefuture, it will be well to enumerate the several London theatres in1728, the more especially as the list is by no means lengthy. First andforemost there was the old Opera House in the Haymarket, built byVanbrugh, as far back as 1705, upon the site now occupied by HerMajesty's Theatre. This was the home of that popular Italian song whichso excited the anger of thorough-going Britons; and here, at thebeginning of 1728, they were performing Handel's opera of _Siroe_, anddelighting the _cognoscenti_ by _Dite che fa_, the echo-air in the samecomposer's _Tolomeo_. Opposite the Opera House, and, in position, only"a few feet distant" from the existing Haymarket Theatre, was the New, or Little Theatre in the Haymarket, which, from the fact that it hadbeen opened eight years before by "the French Comedians, " was alsosometimes styled the French House. Next comes the no-longer-existenttheatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which Christopher Rich had rebuilt in1714, and which his son John had made notorious for pantomimes. Here the_Beggar's Opera_, precursor of a long line of similar productions, hadjust been successfully produced. Finally, most ancient of them all, there was the Theatre-Royal in Drury Lane, otherwise the King's PlayHouse, or Old House. The virtual patentees at this time were the actorsColley Cibber, Robert Wilks, and Barton Booth. The two former were justplaying the _Provok'd Husband_, in which the famous Mrs. Oldfield(Pope's "Narcissa") had created a _furore_ by her assumption of LadyTownley. These, in February 1728, were the four principal Londontheatres. Goodman's Fields, where Garrick made his debut, was not openeduntil the following year, and Covent Garden belongs to a still laterdate. 

Fielding's first dramatic essay--or, to speak more precisely, the firstof his dramatic essays that was produced upon the stage--was a five-actcomedy entitled _Love in Several Masques_. It was played at Drury Lanein February 1728, succeeding the _Provok'd Husband_. In his "Preface"the young author refers to the disadvantage under which he laboured infollowing close upon that comedy, and also in being "contemporary withan Entertainment which engrosses the whole Talk and Admiration of theTown, "--i. E. The _Beggar's Opera_. He also acknowledges the kindness ofWilks and Cibber "previous to its Representation, " and the fact that hehad thus acquired their suffrages makes it doubtful whether his stay atLeyden was not really briefer than is generally supposed, or that heleft Eton much earlier. In either case he must have been in London somemonths before _Love in Several Masques_ appeared, for a first play by anuntried youth of twenty, however promising, is not easily brought uponthe boards in any era; and from his own utterances in _Pasquin_, tenyears later, it is clear that it was no easier then than now. Thesentiments of the Fustian of that piece in the following protestprobably give an accurate picture of the average dramatic experiences ofHenry Fielding:--

"These little things, Mr. _Sneerwell_, will sometimes happen. Indeed aPoet undergoes a great deal before he comes to his Third Night; firstwith the Muses, who are humorous Ladies, and must be attended; for ifthey take it into their Head at any time to go abroad and leave you, youwill pump your Brain in vain: Then, Sir, with the Master of a_Playhouse_ to get it acted, _whom you generally follow a quarter of aYear before you know whether he will receive it or no_; and then perhapshe tells you it won't do, and returns it you again, reserving theSubject, and perhaps the Name, which he brings out in his next_Pantomime_; but if he should receive the Play, then you must attendagain to get it writ out into Parts, and Rehears'd. Well, Sir, at lastthe Rehearsals begin; then, Sir, begins another Scene of Trouble withthe Actors, some of whom don't like their Parts, and all are continuallyplaguing you with Alterations: At length, after having waded thro' allthese Difficulties, his [the?] Play appears on the Stage, where one ManHisses out of Resentment to the Author; a Second out of Dislike to theHouse; a Third out of Dislike to the Actor; a Fourth out of Dislike tothe Play; a Fifth for the Joke sake; a Sixth to keep all the rest inCompany. Enemies abuse him, Friends give him up, the Play is damn'd, andthe Author goes to the Devil, so ends the Farce. "

To which Sneerwell replies, with much promptitude:

"The Tragedy rather, I think, Mr. _Fustian_. " But whatever may have beenits preliminary difficulties, Fielding's first play was not exposed toso untoward a fate. It was well received. As might be expected in abeginner, and as indeed the references in the Preface to Wycherley andCongreve would lead us to expect, it was an obvious attempt in themanner of those then all-popular writers. The dialogue is ready andwitty. But the characters have that obvious defect which LordBeaconsfield recognised when he spoke in later life of his own earliestefforts. "Books written by boys, " he says, "which pretend to give apicture of manners and to deal in knowledge of human nature mustnecessarily be founded on affectation. " To this rule the personages of_Love in Several Masques_ are no exception. They are drawn rather fromthe stage than from life, and there is little constructive skill in theplot. A certain booby squire, Sir Positive Trap, seems like a firstindication of some of the later successes in the novels; but the rest ofthe _dramatis personae_ are puppets. The success of the piece wasprobably owing to the acting of Mrs. Oldfield, who took the part of LadyMatchless, a character closely related to the Lady Townleys and LadyBetty Modishes, in which she won her triumphs. She seems, indeed, tohave been unusually interested in this comedy, for she consented to playin it notwithstanding a "slight Indisposition" contracted "by herviolent Fatigue in the Part of Lady Townly, " and she assisted the authorwith her corrections and advice--perhaps with her influence as anactress. Fielding's distinguished kinswoman Lady Mary Wortley Montagualso read the MS. Looking to certain scenes in it, the protestation inthe Prologue--

 "Nought shall offend the Fair Ones Ears to-day, Which they might blush to hear, or blush to say"--

has an air of insincerity, although, contrasted with some of thewriter's later productions, _Love in Several Masques_ is comparativelypure. But he might honestly think that the work which had received the_imprimatur_ of a stage-queen and a lady of quality should fairly beregarded as morally blameless, and it is not necessary to bring any bulkof evidence to prove that the morality of 1728 differed from themorality of to-day. 

To the last-mentioned year is ascribed a poem entitled the"_Masquerade_. Inscribed to C--t H--d--g--r. By Lemuel Gulliver, PoetLaureate to the King of Lilliput. " In this Fielding made his satiricalcontribution to the attacks on those impure gatherings organised by thenotorious Heidegger, which Hogarth had not long before stigmatisedpictorially in the plate known to collectors as the "large MasqueradeTicket. " As verse this performance is worthless, and it is not veryforcibly on the side of good manners; but the ironic dedication has acertain touch of Fielding's later fashion. Two other poetical pieces, afterwards included in the _Miscellanies_ of 1743, also bear the date of1728. One is _A Description of U--n G--_ (alias _New Hog's Norton_) _inCom. Hants_, which Mr. Keightley has identified with Upton Grey, nearOdiham, in Hampshire. It is a burlesque description of a tumbledowncountry-house in which the writer was staying, and is addressed toRosalinda. The other is entitled _To Euthalia_, from which it must beconcluded that, in 1728, Sarah Andrew had found more than one successor. But in spite of some biographers, and of the apparent encouragementgiven to his first comedy, Fielding does not seem to have followed updramatic authorship with equal vigour, or at all events with equalsuccess. His real connection with the stage does not begin until January1730, when the _Temple Beau_ was produced by Giffard the actor at thetheatre in Goodman's Fields, which had then just been opened by ThomasOdell; and it may be presumed that his incentive was rather want offunds than desire of fame. _The Temple Beau_ certainly shows an advanceupon its predecessor; but it is an advance in the same direction, imitation of Congreve; and although Geneste ranks it among the best ofFielding's plays, it is doubtful whether modern criticism would sustainhis verdict. It ran for a short time, and was then withdrawn. ThePrologue was the work of James Ralph, afterwards Fielding's colleague inthe _Champion_, and it thus refers to the prevailing taste. The_Beggar's Opera_ had killed Italian song, but now a new danger hadarisen, --

 "Humour and Wit, in each politer Age, Triumphant, rear'd the Trophies of the Stage: But only Farce, and Shew, will now go down, And Harlequin's the Darling of the Town. "

As if to confirm his friend's opinion, Fielding's next piece combinedthe popular ingredients above referred to. In March following heproduced at the Haymarket, under the pseudonym of Scriblerus Secundus, _The Author's Farce_, with a "Puppet Show" called _The Pleasures of theTown_. In the Puppet Show, Henley, the Clare-Market Orator, and SamuelJohnson, the quack author of the popular _Hurlothrumbo_, were smartlysatirised, as also was the fashionable craze for Opera and Pantomime. But the most enduring part of this odd medley is the farce whichoccupies the two first acts, and under thin disguises no doubt depictsmuch which was within the writer's experience. At all events, Luckless, the author in the play, has more than one of the characteristics whichdistinguish the traditional portrait of Fielding himself in his earlyyears. He wears a laced coat, is in love, writes plays, and cannot payhis landlady, who declares, with some show of justice, that she "wouldno more depend on a Benefit-Night of an un-acted Play, than she wou'd ona Benefit-Ticket in an un-drawn Lottery. " "Her Floor (she laments) isall spoil'd with Ink--her Windows with Verses, and her Door has beenalmost beat down with Duns. " But the most humorous scenes in the play--scenes really admirable in their ironic delineation of the seamy side ofauthorship in 1730--are those in which Mr. Bookweight, the publisher--the Curll or Osborne of the period--is shown surrounded by the obedienthacks, who feed at his table on "good Milk-porridge, very often twice aDay, " and manufacture the murders, ghost-stories, political pamphlets, and translations from Virgil (out of Dryden) with which he supplies hiscustomers. Here is one of them as good as any:--

"_Bookweight. _ So, Mr. _Index_, what News with you?

_Index. _ I have brought my Bill, Sir. 

_Book. _ What's here?--for fitting the Motto of _Risum teneatis Amici_ toa dozen Pamphlets at Sixpence per each, Six Shillings--For _Omnia vincitAmor, & nos cedamus Amori_, Sixpence--For _Difficile est Satyram nonscribere_, Sixpence--Hum! hum! hum! Sum total, for Thirty-six _Latin_Motto's, Eighteen Shillings; ditto _English_, One Shilling and Nine-pence; ditto _Greek_, Four, Four Shillings. These _Greek_ Motto's areexcessively dear. 

_Ind. _ If you have them cheaper at either of the Universities, I willgive you mine for nothing. 

_Book. _ You shall have your Money immediately, and pray remember that Imust have two _Latin_ Seditious Motto's and one _Greek_ Moral Motto forPamphlets by to-morrow Morning. . . . 

_Ind. _ Sir, I shall provide them. Be pleas'd to look on that, Sir, andprint me Five hundred Proposals, and as many Receipts. 

_Book. _ Proposals for printing by Subscription a new Translation ofCicero, _Of the Nature of the Gods and his Tusculan Questions_, by_Jeremy Index_, Esq. ; I am sorry you have undertaken this, for itprevents a Design of mine. 

_Ind. _ Indeed, Sir, it does not, for you see all of the Book that I everintend to publish. It is only a handsome Way of asking one's Friends fora Guinea. 

_Book. _ Then you have not translated a Word of it, perhaps. 

_Ind. _ Not a single Syllable. 

_Book. _ Well, you shall have your Proposals forthwith; but I desire youwou'd be a little more reasonable in your Bills for the future, or Ishall deal with you no longer; for I have a certain Fellow of a College, who offers to furnish me with Second-hand Motto's out of the _Spectator_for Two-pence each. 

_Ind. _ Sir, I only desire to live by my Goods, and I hope you will bepleas'd to allow some difference between a neat fresh Piece, piping hotout of the Classicks, and old thread-bare worn-out Stuff that has pastthro' ev'ry Pedant's Mouth. . . . "

The latter part of this amusing dialogue, referring to Mr. Index'stranslation from Cicero, was added in an amended version of the_Author's Farce_, which appeared some years later, and in which Fieldingdepicts the portrait of another all-powerful personage in the literarylife, --the actor-manager. This, however, will be more convenientlytreated under its proper date, and it is only necessary to say here thatthe slight sketches of Marplay and Sparkish given in the first edition, were presumably intended for Cibber and Wilks, with whom, notwithstanding the "civil and kind Behaviour" for which he had thankedthem in the "Preface" to _Love in Several Masques_, the young dramatistwas now, it seems, at war. In the introduction to the Miscellanies, herefers to "a slight Pique" with Wilks; and it is not impossible that thekey to the difference may be found in the following passage:--

"_Sparkish. _ What dost think of the Play?

_Marplay. _ It may be a very good one, for ought I know; _but I know theAuthor has no Interest_. 

_Spark. _ Give me Interest, and rat the Play. 

_Mar. _ Rather rat the Play which has no Interest. Interest sways as muchin the Theatre as at Court. --And you know it is not always the Companionof Merit in either. "

The handsome student from Leyden--the potential Congreve who wrote _Lovein Several Masques_, and had Lady Mary Wortley Montagu for patroness, might fairly be supposed to have expectations which warranted thecivilities of Messrs. Wilks and Cibber; but the "Luckless" of two yearslater had probably convinced them that his dramatic performances did notinvolve their _sine qua non_ of success. Under these circumstancesnothing perhaps could be more natural than that they should play theirparts in his little satire. 

We have dwelt at some length upon the _Author's Farce_, because it isthe first of Fielding's plays in which, leaving the "wit-traps" ofWycherley and Congreve, he deals with the direct censure of contemporaryfolly, and because, apart from translation and adaptation, it is in thisfield that his most brilliant theatrical successes were won. For thenext few years he continued to produce comedies and farces with greatrapidity, both under his own name, and under the pseudonym of ScriblerusSecundus. Most of these show manifest signs of haste, and some arerecklessly immodest. We shall confine ourselves to one or two of thebest, and do little more than enumerate the others. Of these latter, the_Coffee-House Politician; or, The Justice caught in his own Trap, _ 1730, succeeded the _Author's Farce_. The leading idea, that of a tradesmanwho neglects his shop for "foreign affairs, " appears to be derived fromAddison's excellent character-sketch in the _Tatler_ of the "PoliticalUpholsterer. " This is the more likely, in that Arne the musician, whosefather is generally supposed to have been Addison's original, wasFielding's contemporary at Eton. Justice Squeezum, another charactercontained in this play, is a kind of first draft of the later JusticeThrasher in _Amelia_. The representation of the trading justice on thestage, however, was by no means new, since Justice Quorum in Coffey's_Beggar's Wedding_ (with whom, as will appear presently, Fielding's namehas been erroneously associated) exhibits similar characteristics. Omitting for the moment the burlesque of _Tom Thumb_, the _Coffee-HousePolitician_ was followed by the _Letter Writers; or, A new Way to Keep aWife at Home_, 1731, a brisk little farce, with one vigorously drawncharacter, that of Jack Commons, a young university rake; the _Grub-Street Opera_, 1731; the farce of the _Lottery_, 1731, in which thefamous Mrs. Clive, then Miss Raftor, appeared; the _Modern Husband_, 1732; the _Covent Garden Tragedy_, 1732, a broad and rather riotousburlesque of Ambrose Philips' _Distrest Mother_; and the _Debauchees;or, The Jesuit Caught_, 1732--which was based upon the then debatedstory of Father Girard and Catherine Cadiere. 

Neither of the two last-named pieces is worthy of the author, and theirstrongest condemnation in our day is that they were condemned in theirown for their unbridled license, the _Grub Street Journal_ going so faras to say that they had "met with the universal detestation of theTown. " The _Modern Husband_, which turns on that most loathsome of allcommercial pursuits, the traffic of a husband in his wife's dishonour, appears, oddly enough, to have been regarded by its author with especialcomplacency. Its prologue lays stress upon the moral purpose; it wasdedicated to Sir Robert Walpole; and from a couple of letters printed inLady Mary Wortley Montagu's _Correspondence_, it is clear that it hadbeen submitted to her perusal. It had, however, no great success uponthe stage, and the chief thing worth remembering about it is that itafforded his last character to Wilks, who played the part of Bellamant. That "slight Pique, " of which mention has been made, was no doubt bythis time a thing of the past. 

But if most of the works in the foregoing list can hardly be regarded ascreditable to Fielding's artistic or moral sense, one of them at leastdeserves to be excepted, and that is the burlesque of _Tom Thumb_. Thiswas first brought out in 1730 at the little theatre in the Hay-market, where it met with a favourable reception. In the following year it wasenlarged to three acts (in the first version there had been but two), and reproduced at the same theatre as the _Tragedy of Tragedies; or, TheLife and Death of Tom Thumb the Great_, "with the Annotations of H. Scriblerus Secundus. " It is certainly one of the best burlesques everwritten. As Baker observes in his _Biographia Dramatica_, it may fairlybe ranked as a sequel to Buckingham's _Rehearsal_, since it includes theabsurdities of nearly all the writers of tragedies from the period whenthat piece stops to 1730. Among the authors satirised are Nat. Lee, Thomson (whose famous

"O Sophonisba, Sophonisba, O!"

is parodied by

"O Huncamunca, Huncamunca, O!"), Banks's _Earl of Essex_, a favourite play at Bartholomew Fair, the_Busiris_ of Young, and the _Aurengzebe_ of Dryden, etc. Theannotations, which abound in transparent references to Dr. B[_entle_]y, Mr. T[_heobal_]d, Mr. D[_enni_]s, are excellent imitations ofcontemporary pedantry. One example, elicited in Act 1 by a reference to"giants, " must stand for many:--

"That learned Historian Mr. S--n in the third Number of his Criticismon our Author, takes great Pains to explode this Passage. It is, sayshe, difficult to guess what Giants are here meant, unless the Giant_Despair_ in the _Pilgrim's Progress_, or the giant _Greatness_ in the_Royal Villain_; for I have heard of no other sort of Giants in theReign of King _Arthur_. _Petnis Burmanus_ makes three _Tom Thumbs_, onewhereof he supposes to have been the same Person whom the _Greeks_called _Hercules_, and that by these Giants are to be understood the_Centaurs_ slain by that Heroe. Another _Tom Thumb_ he contends to havebeen no other than the _Hermes Trismegistus_ of the Antients. The third_Tom Thumb_ he places under the Reign of King _Arthur_; to which third_Tom Thumb_, says he, the Actions of the other two were attributed. Now, tho' I know that this Opinion is supported by an Assertion of _JustusLipsius, Thomam ilium Thumbum non alium quam Herculem fuisse satisconstat_; yet shall I venture to oppose one Line of Mr. _Midwinter_, against them all, _In_ Arthurs' Court Tom Thumb _did live_. 

"But then, says Dr. _B-----y_, if we place _Tom Thumb_ in the Court ofKing _Arthur_, it will he proper to place that Court out of _Britain_, where no Giants were ever heard of. _Spencer_, in his _Fairy Queen_, isof another Opinion, where describing Albion, he says, Far within, a salvage Nation dwelt Of hideous Giants. 

And in the same canto:

 Then _Elfar_ with two Brethren Giants had The one of which had two Heads, -- The other three. Risum teneatis, Amici. "

Of the play itself it is difficult to give an idea by extract, as nearlyevery line travesties some tragic passage once familiar to play-goers, and now utterly forgotten. But the following lines from one of thespeeches of Lord Grizzle--a part admirably acted by Liston in lateryears [Footnote: Compare Hazlitt, _On the Comic Writers of the LastCentury. _]--are a fair specimen of its ludicrous use (or rather abuse)of simile:--

 "Yet think not long, I will my Rival bear, Or unreveng'd the slighted Willow wear; The gloomy, brooding Tempest now confin'd, Within the hollow Caverns of my Mind, In dreadful Whirl, shall rowl along the Coasts, Shall thin the Land of all the Men it boasts, And cram up ev'ry Chink of Hell with Ghosts. So have I seen, in some dark Winter's Day, A sudden Storm rush down the Sky's High-Way, Sweep thro' the Streets with terrible ding-dong, Gush thro' the Spouts, and wash whole Crowds along. The crowded Shops, the thronging Vermin skreen, Together cram the Dirty and the Clean, And not one Shoe-Boy in the Street is seen. "

In the modern version of Kane O'Hara, to which songs were added, the_Tragedy of Tragedies_ still keeps, or kept the stage. But its crowningglory is its traditional connection with Swift, who told Mrs. Pilkingtonthat he "had not laugh'd above twice" in his life, once at the tricks ofa merry-andrew, and again when (in Fielding's burlesque) Tom Thumbkilled the ghost. This is an incident of the earlier versions, omittedin deference to the critics, for which the reader will seek vainly inthe play as now printed; and he will, moreover, discover that Mrs. Pilkington's memory served her imperfectly, since it is not Tom Thumbwho kills the ghost, but the ghost of Tom Thumb which is killed by hisjealous rival, Lord Grizzle. A trifling inaccuracy of this sort, however, is rather in favour of the truth of the story than against it, for a pure fiction would in all probability have been more precise. Another point of interest in connection with this burlesque is thefrontispiece which Hogarth supplied to the edition of 1731. It has nospecial value as a design, but it constitutes the earliest reference tothat friendship with the painter, of which so many traces are to befound in Fielding's works. 

Hitherto Fielding had succeeded best in burlesque. But, in 1732, thesame year in which he produced the _Modern Husband_, the _Debauchees_, and the _Covent Garden Tragedy_, he made an adaptation of Moliere's_Medecin malgre lui_, which had already been imitated in English by Mrs. Centlivre and others. This little piece, to which he gave the title ofthe _Mock-Doctor_; or, _The Dumb Lady cur'd_, was well received. TheFrench original was rendered with tolerable closeness; but here andthere Fielding has introduced little touches of his own, as, forinstance, where Gregory (Sganarelle) tells his wife Dorcas (Martino), whom he has just been beating, that as they are but one, whenever hebeats her he beats half of himself. To this she replies by requestingthat for the future he will beat the other half. An entire scene (thethirteenth) was also added at the desire of Miss Raftor, who playedDorcas, and thought her part too short. This is apparently intended as aburlesque of the notorious quack Misaubin, to whom the _Mock-Doctor_ wasironically dedicated. He was the proprietor of a famous pill, and wasintroduced by Hogarth into the _Harlot's Progress_. Gregory was playedby Theophilus Cibber, and the preface contains a complimentary referenceto his acting, and the expected retirement of his father from the stage. Neither Genest nor Lawrence gives the date when the piece was firstproduced, but if the "April" on the dubious author's benefit ticketattributed to Hogarth be correct, it must have been in the first monthsof 1732. 

The cordial reception of the _Mock-Doctor_ seems to have encouragedFielding to make further levies upon Moliere, and he speaks of his hopeto do so in the "Preface. " As a matter of fact, he produced a version of_L'Avare_ at Drury Lane in the following year, which entirely outshonethe older versions of Shadwell and Ozell, and gained from Voltaire thepraise of having added to the original "_quelques beautes de dialogueparticulieres a sa_ (Fielding's) _nation_. " Lovegold, its leading_role_, became a stock part. It was well played by its first actorGriffin, and was a favourite exercise with Macklin, Shuter, and (in ourown days) Phelps. 

In February 1733, when the _Miser_ was first acted, Fielding was fiveand twenty. His means at this time were, in all probability, exceedinglyuncertain. The small proportion of money due to him at his mother'sdeath had doubtless been long since exhausted, and he must have beenalmost wholly dependent upon the precarious profits of his pen. That hewas assisted by rich and noble friends to any material extent appears, in spite of Murphy, to be unlikely. At all events, an occasionaldedication to the Duke of Richmond or the Earl of Chesterfield cannot beregarded as proof positive. Lyttelton, who certainly befriended him inlater life, was for a great part of this period absent on the GrandTour, and Ralph Allen had not yet come forward. In default of the alwaysdeferred allowance, his father's house at Salisbury (?) was no doubtopen to him; and it is plain, from indications in his minor poems, thathe occasionally escaped into the country. But in London he lived for themost part, and probably not very worshipfully. What, even now, would bethe life of a young man of Fielding's age, fond of pleasure, careless ofthe future, very liberally equipped with high spirits, and straightwayexposed to the perilous seductions of the stage? Fielding had thedefects of his qualities, and was no better than the rest of those abouthim. He was manly, and frank, and generous; but these characteristicscould scarcely protect him from the terrors of the tip-staff, and thesequels of "t'other bottle. " Indeed, he very honestly and unfeignedlyconfesses to the lapses of his youth in the _Journey from this World tothe Next_, adding that he pretended "to very little Virtue more thangeneral Philanthropy and private Friendship. " It is therefore butreasonable to infer that his daily life must have been more than usuallycharacterised by the vicissitudes of the eighteenth-century prodigal, --alternations from the "Rose" to a Clare-Market ordinary, from gold-laceto fustian, from champagne to "British Burgundy. " In a rhymed petitionto Walpole, dated 1730, he makes pleasant mirth of what no doubt wassometimes sober truth--his debts, his duns, and his dinnerlesscondition. He (the verses tell us)

 "--from his Garret can look down On the whole Street of _Arlington_. " [Footnote: Where Sir Robert lived]

Again--

 "The Family that dines the latest Is in our Street esteem'd the greatest; But latest Hours must surely fall Before him who ne'er dines at all;"

and

 "This too doth in my Favour speak, Your Levee is but twice a Week; From mine I can exclude but one Day, My Door is quiet on a _Sunday_. "

When he can admit so much even jestingly of himself, it is butlegitimate to presume that there is no great exaggeration in theportrait of him in 1735, by the anonymous satirist of _SeasonableReproof_:--

 "_F------g_, who _yesterday_ appear'd so rough, Clad in _coarse Frize_, and plaister'd down with _Snuff_, See how his _Instant_ gaudy Trappings shine; What _Play-house_ Bard was ever seen so fine! But this, not from his _Humour_ flows, you'll say, But mere _Necessity_;--for last Night lay In _Pawn_, the _Velvet_ which he wears to Day. "

His work bears traces of the inequalities and irregularities of his modeof living. Although in certain cases (e. G. The revised edition of _TomThumb_) the artist and scholar seems to have spasmodically assertedhimself, the majority of his plays were hasty and ill-consideredperformances, most of which (as Lady Mary said) he would have throwninto the fire "if meat could have been got without money, and moneywithout scribbling. " "When he had contracted to bring on a play, or afarce, " says Murphy, "it is well known, by many of his friends nowliving, that he would go home rather late from a tavern, and would, thenext morning, deliver a scene to the players, written upon the paperswhich had wrapped the tobacco, in which he so much delighted. " It is noteasy to conceive, unless Fielding's capacities as a smoker were unusual, that any large contribution to dramatic literature could have been madeupon the wrappings of Virginia or Freeman's Best; but that hisreputation for careless production was established among hiscontemporaries is manifest from the following passage in a burlesque_Author's Will_ published in the _Universal Spectator_ of Oldys:--

"_Item_, I give and bequeath to my very _negligent_ Friend _HenryDrama_, Esq. , all my INDUSTRY. And whereas the World may think this anunnecessary Legacy, forasmuch as the said _Henry Drama_, Esq. , brings onthe Stage _four Pieces_ every Season; yet as such Pieces are alwayswrote with uncommon _Rapidity_, and during such fatal Intervals only asthe _Stocks_ have been on the _Fall_, this Legacy will be of use to himto revise and correct his Works. Furthermore, for fear the said _HenryDrama_ should make an ill Use of the said _Industry_, and expend it allon a _Ballad Farce_, it's my Will the said Legacy should be paid him byequal Portions, and as his Necessities may require. "

There can be little doubt that the above quotation, which is reprintedin the _Gentleman's_ for July 1734, and seems to have hitherto escapedinquiry, refers to none other than the "very negligent" Author of the_Modern Husband_ and the _Old Debauchees_--in other words, to HenryFielding. 

CHAPTER II. 

MORE PLAYS--MARRIAGE--THE LICENSING ACT. 

The very subordinate part in the _Miser_ of "Furnish, an Upholsterer, "was taken by a third-rate actor, whose surname has been productive of nolittle misconception among Henry Fielding's biographers. This wasTimothy Fielding, sometime member of the Haymarket and Drury Lanecompanies, and proprietor, for several successive years, of a booth atBartholomew, Southwark, and other fairs. In the absence of any Christianname, Mr. Lawrence seems to have rather rashly concluded that theFielding mentioned by Genest as having a booth at Bartholomew Fair in1733 with Hippisley (the original Peachum of the _Beggar's Opera_), wasFielding the dramatist; and the mistake thus originated at once beganthat prosperous course which usually awaits any slip of the kind. Itmisled one notoriously careful inquirer, who, in his interestingchronicles of Bartholomew Fair, minutely investigated the actor'shistory, giving precise details of his doings at "Bartlemy" from 1728 to1736; but, although the theory involved obvious inconsistencies, apparently without any suspicion that the proprietor of the booth whichstood, season after season, in the yard of the George Inn at Smithfield, was an entirely different person from his greater namesake. The late Dr. Rimbault carried the story farther still, and attempted to show, in_Notes and Queries_ for May 1859, that Henry Fielding had a booth atTottenham Court in 1738, "subsequent to his admission into the MiddleTemple;" and he also promised to supply additional particulars to theeffect that even 1738 was not the "_last_ year of Fielding's career as abooth-proprietor. " At this stage (probably for good reasons) inquiryseems to have slumbered, although, with the fatal vitality of error, thestatement continued (and still continues) to be repeated in variousquarters. In 1875, however, Mr. Frederick Latreille published a shortarticle in _Notes and Queries_, proving conclusively, by extracts fromcontemporary newspapers and other sources, that the Timothy Fieldingabove referred to was the real Fielding of the fairs; that he becamelandlord of the Buffalo Tavern "at the corner of Bloomsbury Square" in1733; and that he died in August 1738, his christian name, so oftensuppressed, being duly recorded in the register of the neighbouringchurch of St. George's, where he was buried. The admirers of our greatnovelist owe Mr. Latreille a debt of gratitude for this opportunediscovery. It is true that a certain element of Bohemian picturesquenessis lost to Henry Fielding's life, already not very rich in recordedincident; and it would certainly have been curious if he, who ended hisdays in trying to dignify the judicial office, should have begun life byacting the part of a "trading justice, " namely that of Quorum inCoffey's _Beggar's Wedding_, which Timothy Fielding had played at DruryLane. But, on the whole, it is satisfactory to know that his earlyexperiences did not, of necessity, include those of a strolling player. Some obscure and temporary connection with Bartholomew Fair he may havehad, as Smollett, in the scurrilous pamphlet issued in 1742, makes himsay that he blew a trumpet there in quality of herald to a collection ofwild beasts; but this is probably no more than an earlier and uglierform of the apparition laid by Mr. Latreille. The only positive evidenceof any connection between Henry Fielding and the Smithfield carnival is, that Theophilus Cibber's company played the _Miser_ at their booth inAugust 1733. 

With the exception of the _Miser_ and an afterpiece, never printed, entitled _Deborah; or, A Wife for you all_, which was acted for MissRaftor's benefit in April 1733, nothing important was brought upon thestage by Fielding until January of the following year, when he producedthe _Intriguing Chambermaid_, and a revised version of the _Author'sFarce_. By a succession of changes, which it is impossible here todescribe in detail, considerable alterations had taken place in themanagement of Drury Lane. In the first place, Wilks was dead, and hisshare in the Patent was represented by his widow. Booth also was dead, and Mrs. Booth had sold her share to Giffard of Goodman's Fields, whilethe elder Cibber had retired. At the beginning of the season of 1733-34the leading patentee was an amateur called Highmore, who had purchasedCibber's share. He had also purchased part of Booth's share before hisdeath in May 1733. The only other shareholder of importance was Mrs. Wilks. Shortly after the opening of the theatre in September, thegreater part of the Drury Lane Company, led by the younger Cibber, revolted from Highmore and Mrs. Wilks, and set up for themselves. Matters were farther complicated by the fact that John Rich had not longopened a new theatre in Covent Garden, which constituted a freshattraction; and that what Fielding called the "wanton affected Fondnessfor foreign Musick, " was making the Italian opera a dangerous rival--themore so as it was patronised by the nobility. Without actors, thepatentees were in serious case. Miss Raftor, who about this time becameMrs. Clive, appears, however, to have remained faithful to them, as alsodid Henry Fielding. The lively little comedy of the _IntriguingChambermaid_ was adapted from Regnard especially for her; and in itspublished form was preceded by an epistle in which the dramatist dwellsupon the "Factions and Divisions among the Players, " and compliments herupon her compassionate adherence to Mr. Highmore and Mrs. Wilks in theirtime of need. The epistle is also valuable for its warm and generoustestimony to the private character of this accomplished actress, whosepart in real life, says Fielding, was that of "the best Wife, the bestDaughter, the best Sister, and the best Friend. " The words are more thanmere compliment; they appear to have been true. Madcap and humourist asshe was, no breath of slander seems ever to have tarnished thereputation of Kitty Clive, whom Johnson--a fine judge, when hisprejudices were not actively aroused--called in addition "the bestplayer that he ever saw. "

The _Intriguing Chambermaid_ was produced on the 15th of January 1734. Lettice, from whom the piece was named, was well personated by Mrs. Clive, and Colonel Bluff by Macklin, the only actor of any promise thatHighmore had been able to secure. With the new comedy the _Author'sFarce_ was revived. It would be unnecessary to refer to this again, butfor the additions that were made to it. These consisted chiefly in thesubstitution of Marplay Junior for Sparkish, the actor-manager of thefirst version. The death of Wilks may have been a reason for thisalteration; but a stronger was no doubt the desire to throw ridiculeupon Theophilus Cibber, whose behaviour in deserting Drury Laneimmediately after his father had sold his share to Highmore had notpassed without censure, nor had his father's action escaped sarcasticcomment. Theophilus Cibber--whose best part was Beaumont and Fletcher'sCopper Captain, and who carried the impersonation into private life, hadplayed in several of Fielding's pieces; but Fielding had linked hisfortunes to those of the patentees, and was consequently against theplayers in this quarrel. The following scene was accordingly added tothe farce for the exclusive benefit of "Young Marplay":--

"_Marplay junior. _ Mr. _Luckless_, I kiss your Hands--Sir, I am yourmost obedient humble Servant; you see, Mr. _Luckless_, what Power youhave over me. I attend your Commands, tho' several Persons of Qualityhave staid at Court for me above this Hour. 

_Luckless. _ I am obliged to you--I have a Tragedy for your House, Mr. _Marplay_. 

_Mar. Jun. _ Ha! if you will send it me, I will give you my Opinion ofit; and if I can make any Alterations in it that will be for itsAdvantage, I will do it freely. 

_Witmore. _ Alterations, Sir?

_Mar. Jun. _ Yes, Sir, Alterations--I will maintain it, let a Play benever so good, without Alteration it will do nothing. 

_Wit. _ Very odd indeed. 

_Mar. Jun. _ Did you ever write, Sir?

_Wit. _ No, Sir, I thank Heav'n. 

_Mar. Jun. _ Oh! your humble Servant--your very humble Servant, Sir. Whenyou write yourself you will find the Necessity of Alterations. Why, Sir, wou'd you guess that I had alter'd _Shakespear_?

_Wit. _ Yes, faith, Sir, no one sooner. 

_Mar. Jun. _ Alack-a-day! Was you to see the Plays when they are broughtto us--a Parcel of crude, undigested Stuff. We are the Persons, Sir, wholick them into Form, that mould them into Shape--The Poet make the Playindeed! The Colour-man might be as well said to make the Picture, or theWeaver the Coat: My Father and I, Sir, are a Couple of poetical Tailors;when a Play is brought us, we consider it as a Tailor does his Coat, wecut it, Sir, we cut it: And let me tell you, we have the exact Measureof the Town, we know how to fit their Taste. The Poets, between you andme, are a Pack of ignorant--

_Wit. _ Hold, hold, sir. This is not quite so civil to Mr. _Luckless_:Besides, as I take it, you have done the Town the Honour of writingyourself. 

_Mar. Jun. _ Sir, you are a Man of Sense; and express yourself well. Idid, as you say, once make a small Sally into _Parnassus_, took a sortof flying Leap over _Helicon_: But if ever they catch me there again--Sir, the Town have a Prejudice to my Family; for if any Play you'd havemade them ashamed to damn it, mine must. It was all over Plot. It wou'dhave made half a dozen Novels: Nor was it cram'd with a pack of Wit-traps, like _Congreve_ and _Wycherly_, where every one knows when theJoke was coming. I defy the sharpest Critick of 'em all to know when anyJokes of mine were coming. The Dialogue was plain, easy, and natural, and not one single Joke in it from the Beginning to the End: Besides, Sir, there was one Scene of tender melancholy Conversation, enough tohave melted a Heart of Stone; and yet they damn'd it: And they damn'dthemselves; for they shall have no more of mine. 

_Wit. _ Take pity on the Town, Sir. 

_Mar. Jun. _ I! No, Sir, no. I'll write no more. No more; unless I amforc'd to it. 

_Luckless. _ That's no easy thing, _Marplay_. 

_Mar. Jun. _ Yes, Sir. Odes, Odes, a Man may be oblig'd to write thoseyou know. " These concluding lines plainly refer to the elder Cibber'sappointment as Laureate in 1730, and to those "annual Birth-dayStrains, " with which he so long delighted the irreverent; while thealteration of Shakespeare and the cobbling of plays generally, satirisedagain in a later scene, are strictly in accordance with contemporaryaccounts of the manners and customs of the two dictators of Drury Lane. The piece indicated by Marplay Junior was probably Theophilus Cibber's_Lover_, which had been produced in January 1731 with very moderatesuccess. 

After the _Intriguing Chambermaid_ and the revived _Author's Farce_, Fielding seems to have made farther exertions for "the distressed Actorsin Drury Lane. " He had always been an admirer of Cervantes, frequentreferences to whose master-work are to be found scattered through hisplays; and he now busied himself with completing and expanding the loosescenes of the comedy of _Don Quixote in England_, which (as beforestated) he had sketched at Leyden for his own diversion. He had alreadythought of bringing it upon the stage, but had been dissuaded from doingso by Cibber and Booth, who regarded it as wanting in novelty. Now, however, he strengthened it by the addition of some election scenes, inwhich--he tells Lord Chesterfield in the dedication--he designed to givea lively representation of "the Calamities brought on a Country bygeneral Corruption;" and it was duly rehearsed. But unexpected delaystook place in its production; the revolted players returned to DruryLane; and, lest the actors' benefits should further retard itsappearance by postponing it until the winter season, Fieldingtransferred it to the Haymarket, where, according to Geneste, it wasacted in April 1734. As a play, _Don Quixote in England_ has few stagequalities and no plot to speak of. But the Don with his whimsies, andSancho with his appetite and string of proverbs, are conceived insomething of the spirit of Cervantes. Squire Badger, too, a rudimentarySquire Western, well represented by Macklin, is vigorously drawn; andthe song of his huntsman Scut, beginning with the fine line "The duskyNight rides down the Sky, " has a verse that recalls a practice of whichAddison accuses Sir Roger de Coverley:--

 _"A brushing Fox in yonder Wood, Secure to find we seek; For why, I carry'd sound and good, A Cartload there last Week. _ And a Hunting we will go. "

The election scenes, though but slightly attached to the main story, arekeenly satirical, and considering that Hogarth's famous series ofkindred prints belongs to a much later date, must certainly have beennovel, as may be gathered from the following little colloquy between Mr. Mayor and Messrs. Guzzle and Retail:--

"_Mayor_ (_to Retail_) . . . . I like an Opposition, because otherwise a Manmay be oblig'd to vote against his Party; therefore when we invite aGentleman to stand, we invite him to spend his Money for the Honour ofhis Party; and when both Parties have spent as much as they are able, every honest Man will vote according to his Conscience. 

_Guz. _ Mr. Mayor talks like a Man of Sense and Honour, and it does megood to hear him. 

_May. _ Ay, ay, Mr. _Guzzle_, I never gave a Vote contrary to myConscience. I have very earnestly recommended the Country-Interest toall my Brethren: But before that, I recommended the Town-Interest, thatis, the interest of this Corporation; and first of all I recommended toevery particular Man to take a particular Care of himself. And it iswith a certain way of Reasoning, That he who serves me best, will servethe Town best; and he that serves the Town best, will serve the Countrybest. "

In the January and February of 1735 Fielding produced two more pieces atDrury Lane, a farce and a five-act comedy. The farce--a lively trifleenough--was _An Old Man taught Wisdom_, a title subsequently changed tothe _Virgin Unmasked_. It was obviously written to display the talentsof Mrs. Clive, who played in it her favourite character of a hoyden, and, after "interviewing" a number of suitors chosen by her father, finally ran away with Thomas the footman--a course in those days notwithout its parallel in high life, above stairs as well as below. Itappears to have succeeded, though Bookish, one of the characters, wasentirely withdrawn in deference to some disapprobation on the part ofthe audience; while the part of Wormwood, a lawyer, which is found inthe latest editions, is said to have been "omitted in representation. "The comedy, entitled _The Universal Gallant_; or, _The differentHusbands_, was scarcely so fortunate. Notwithstanding that Quin, who, after an absence of many years, had returned to Drury Lane, played aleading part, and that Theophilus Cibber in the hero, Captain Smart, seems to have been fitted with a character exactly suited to his talentsand idiosyncrasy, the play ran no more than three nights. Till the thirdact was almost over, "the _Audience_, " says the _Prompter_ (as quoted by"Sylvanus Urban"), "sat quiet, in hopes it would mend, till finding itgrew _worse_ and _worse_, they lost all Patience, and not an_Expression_ or _Sentiment_ afterwards pass'd without its deserved_Censure_. " Perhaps it is not to be wondered at that the author--"theprolifick _Mr. Fielding_, " as the _Prompter_ calls him, attributed itscondemnation to causes other than its lack of interest. In his_Advertisement_ he openly complains of the "cruel Usage" his "poor Play"had met with, and of the barbarity of the young men about town who made"a Jest of damning Plays"--a pastime which, whether it prevailed in thiscase or not, no doubt existed, as Sarah Fielding afterwards refers to itin _David Simple_. If an author--he goes on to say--"be so unfortunate[_as_] to depend on the success of his Labours for his Bread, he must bean inhuman Creature indeed, who would out of sport and wantonnessprevent a Man from getting a Livelihood in an honest and inoffensiveWay, and make a jest of starving him and his Family. " The plea is a goodone if the play is good; but if not, it is worthless. In this respectthe public are like the French Cardinal in the story; and when thefamished writer's work fails to entertain them, they are fully justifiedin doubting his _raison d'etre_. There is no reason for supposing thatthe _Universal Gallant_ deserved a better fate than it met with. 

Judging from the time which elapsed between the production of this playand that of _Pasquin_ (Fielding's next theatrical venture), it has beenconjectured that the interval was occupied by his marriage, and briefexperience as a Dorsetshire country gentleman. The exact date of hismarriage is not known, though it is generally assumed to have takenplace in the beginning of 1735. But it may well have been earlier, forit will be observed that in the above quotation from the Preface to the_Universal Gallant_, which is dated from "Buckingham Street, Feb. 12, "he indirectly speaks of "his family. " This, it is true, may be no morethan the pious fraud of a bachelor; but if it be taken literally, wemust conclude that his marriage was already so far a thing of the pastthat he was already a father. This supposition would account for theabsence of any record of the birth of a child during his forthcomingresidence at East Stour, by the explanation that it had already happenedin London; and it is not impossible that the entry of the marriage, too, may be hidden away in some obscure Metropolitan parish register, sincethose of Salisbury have been fruitlessly searched. At this distance oftime, however, speculation is fruitless; and, in default of moredefinite information, the "spring of 1735, " which Keightley gives, mustbe accepted as the probable date of the marriage. 

Concerning the lady, the particulars are more precise. She was a MissCharlotte Cradock, one of three sisters living upon their own means atSalisbury, or--as it was then styled--New Sarum. Mr. Keightley'spersonal inquiries, _circa_ 1858, elicited the information that thefamily, now extinct, was highly respectable, but not of New Sarum's bestsociety. Richardson, in one of his malevolent outbursts, asserted thatthe sisters were illegitimate; but, says the writer above referred to, "of this circumstance we have no other proof, and I am able to add thatthe tradition of Salisbury knows nothing of it. "

They were, however, celebrated for their personal attractions; and ifthe picture given in chap. Ii. Book iv. Of _Tom Jones_ accuratelyrepresents the first Mrs. Fielding, she must have been a most charmingbrunette. Something of the stereotyped characteristics of a novelist'sheroine obviously enter into the description; but the luxuriant blackhair, which, cut "to comply with the modern Fashion, " "curled sogracefully in her Neck, " the lustrous eyes, the dimple in the rightcheek, the chin rather full than small, and the complexion having "moreof the Lilly than of the Rose, " but flushing with exercise or modesty, are, doubtless, accurately set down. In speaking of the nose as "exactlyregular, " Fielding appears to have deviated slightly from the truth; forwe learn from Lady Louisa Stuart that, in this respect, Miss Cradock'sappearance had "suffered a little" from an accident mentioned in bookii. Of _Amelia_, the overturning of a chaise. Whether she also possessedthe mental qualities and accomplishments which fell to the lot of SophiaWestern, we have no means of determining; but Lady Stuart is again ourauthority for saying that she was as amiable as she was handsome. 

From the love-poems in the first volume of the _Miscellanies_ of 1743--poems which their author declares to have been "Productions of the Heartrather than of the Head"--it is clear that Fielding had been attached tohis future wife for several years previous to 1735. One of them, _Adviceto the Nymphs of New S----m_, celebrates the charms of Celia--thepoetical equivalent for Charlotte--as early as 1730; another, containinga reference to the player Anthony Boheme, who died in 1731, was probablywritten at the same time; while a third, in which, upon the specialintervention of Jove himself, the prize of beauty is decreed by Venus tothe Salisbury sisters, may be of an earlier date than any. The year 1730was the year of his third piece, the _Author's Farce_, and he musttherefore have been paying his addresses to Miss Cradock not very longafter his arrival in London. This is a fact to be borne in mind. Soearly an attachment to a good and beautiful girl, living no farther offthan Salisbury, where his own father probably resided, is scarcelyconsistent with the reckless dissipation which has been laid to hischarge, although, on his own showing, he was by no means faultless. Butit is a part of natures like his to exaggerate their errors in themoment of repentance; and it may well be that Henry Fielding, too, wasnot so black as he painted himself. Of his love-verses he says--"thisBranch of Writing is what I very little pretend to;" and it would bemisleading to rate them highly, for, unlike his literary descendant, Mr. Thackeray, he never attained to any special quality of note. But some ofhis octosyllabics, if they cannot be called equal to Prior's, falllittle below Swift's. "I hate"--cries he in one of the pieces, "I hate the Town, and all its Ways; Ridotto's, Opera's, and Plays; The Ball, the King, the Mall, the Court; Wherever the Beau-Monde resort. . . . All Coffee-Houses, and their Praters; All Courts of Justice, and Debaters; All Taverns, and the Sots within 'em; All Bubbles, and the Rogues that skin 'em, "

--and so forth, the natural anti-climax being that he loves nothing buthis "Charmer" at Salisbury. In another, which is headed _To Celia--Occasioned by her apprehending her House would be broke open, and havingan old Fellow to guard it, who sat up all Night, with a Gun without anyAmmunition_, and from which it has been concluded that the Miss Cradockswere their own landlords, Venus chides Cupid for neglecting to guard herfavourite:--

 "'Come tell me, Urchin, tell no lies; Where was you hid, in _Vince's_ eyes? Did you fair _Bennet's_ Breast importune? (I know you dearly love a Fortune. )' Poor _Cupid_ now began to whine; 'Mamma, it was no Fault of mine. I in a Dimple lay _perdue_, That little Guard-Room chose by you. A hundred Loves (all arm'd) did grace The Beauties of her Neck and Face; Thence, by a Sigh I dispossest, Was blown to _Harry Fielding's_ Breast; Where I was forc'd all Night to stay, Because I could not find my Way. But did Mamma know there what Work I've made, how acted like a Turk; What Pains, what Torment he endures, Which no Physician ever cures, She would forgive. ' The Goddess smil'd, And gently chuck'd her wicked Child, Bid him go back, and take more Care, And give her Service to the Fair. "

Swift, in his _Rhapsody on Poetry_, 1733, coupled Fielding with LeonardWelsted as an instance of sinking in verse. But the foregoing, which hecould not have seen, is scarcely, if at all, inferior to his own_Birthday Poems to Stella_. [Footnote: Swift afterwards substituted "thelaureate [Cibber]" for "Fielding, " and appears to have changed his mindas to the latter's merits. "I can assure Mr. _Fielding_, " says Mrs. Pilkington in the third and last volume of her _Memoirs_ (1754), "theDean had a high opinion of his Wit, which must be a Pleasure to him, asno Man was ever better qualified to judge, possessing it so eminentlyhimself. "]

The history of Fielding's marriage rests so exclusively upon thestatements of Arthur Murphy that it will be well to quote his words infull:--

"Mr. Fielding had not been long a writer for the stage, when he marriedMiss Craddock [_sic_], a beauty from Salisbury. About that time, hismother dying, a moderate estate, at Stower in Dorsetshire, devolved tohim. To that place he retired with his wife, on whom he doated, with aresolution to bid adieu to all the follies and intemperances to which hehad addicted himself in the career of a town-life. But unfortunately akind of family-pride here gained an ascendant over him; and he beganimmediately to vie in splendour with the neighbouring country 'squires. With an estate not much above two hundred pounds a-year, and his wife'sfortune, which did not exceed fifteen hundred pounds, he encumberedhimself with a large retinue of servants, all clad in costly yellowliveries. For their master's honour, these people could not descend solow as to be careful in their apparel, but, in a month or two, wereunfit to be seen; the 'squire's dignity required that they should benew-equipped; and his chief pleasure consisting in society and convivialmirth, hospitality threw open his doors, and, in less than three years, entertainments, hounds, and horses, entirely devoured a littlepatrimony, which, had it been managed with oeconomy, might have securedto him a state of independence for the rest of his life, etc. "

This passage, which has played a conspicuous part in all biographies ofFielding, was very carefully sifted by Mr. Keightley, who came to theconclusion that it was a "mere tissue of error and inconsistency. "[Footnote: Some of Mr. Keightley's criticisms were anticipated byWatson. ] Without going to this length, we must admit that it ismanifestly incorrect in many respects. If Fielding married in 1735(though, as already pointed out, he may have married earlier, andretired to the country upon the failure of the _Universal Gallant_), heis certainly inaccurately described as "not having been long a _writer_for the stage, " since writing for the stage had been his chiefoccupation for seven years. Then again his mother had died as far backas April 10, 1718, when he was a boy of eleven; and if he had inheritedanything from her, he had probably been in the enjoyment of it eversince he came of age. Furthermore, the statement as to "three years" isat variance with the fact that, according to the dedication to the_Universal Gallant_, he was still in London in February 1735, and wasback again managing the Haymarket in the first months of 1736. Murphy, however, may only mean that the "estate" at East Stour was in hispossession for three years. Mr. Keightley's other points--namely, thatthe "tolerably respectable farm-house, " in which he is supposed to havelived, was scarcely adapted to "splendid entertainments, " or "a largeretinue of servants;" and that, to be in strict accordance with thefamily arms, the liveries should have been not "yellow, " but white andblue--must be taken for what they are worth. On the whole, theprobability is, that Murphy's words were only the careless repetition oflocal tittle-tattle, of much of which, as Captain Booth says pertinentlyin _Amelia_, "the only basis is lying. " The squires of the neighbourhoodwould naturally regard the dashing young gentleman from London with thesame distrustful hostility that Addison's "Tory Foxhunter" exhibited tothose who differed with him in politics. It would be remembered, besides, that the new-comer was the son of another and an earlierFielding of less pretensions, and no real cordiality could ever haveexisted between them. Indeed, it may be assumed that this was the case, for Booth's account of the opposition and ridicule which he--"a poorrenter!"--encountered when he enlarged his farm and set up his coach hasa distinct personal accent. That he was lavish, and lived beyond hismeans, is quite in accordance with his character. The man who, as a BowStreet magistrate, kept open house on a pittance, was not likely to beless lavish as a country gentleman, with L1500 in his pocket, and newlymarried to a young and handsome wife. "He would have wanted money, " saidLady Mary, "if his hereditary lands had been as extensive as hisimagination;" and there can be little doubt that the rafters of the oldfarm by the Stour, with the great locust tree at the back, which isfigured in Hutchins's _History of Dorset_, rang often to huntingchoruses, and that not seldom the "dusky Night rode down the Sky" overthe prostrate forms of Harry Fielding's guests. [Footnote: Aninteresting relic of the East Stour residence has recently beenpresented by Mr. Merthyr Guest (through Mr. R. A. Kinglake) to theSomersetshire Archaeological Society. It is an oak table of solidproportions, and bears on a brass plate the following inscription, emanating from a former owner:--"This table belonged to Henry Fielding, Esq. , novelist. He hunted from East Stour Farm, 1718, and in three yearsdissipated his fortune keeping hounds. " In 1718, it may be observed, Fielding was a boy of eleven. Probably the whole of the latter sentenceis nothing more than a distortion of Murphy. ] But even L1500, and (inspite of Murphy) it is by no means clear that he had anything more, could scarcely last for ever. Whether his footmen wore yellow or not, afew brief months found him again in town. That he was able to rent atheatre may perhaps be accepted as proof that his profuse hospitalitieshad not completely exhausted his means. 

The moment was a favourable one for a fresh theatrical experiment. Thestage-world was split up into factions, the players were disorganised, and everything seemed in confusion. Whether Fielding himself conceivedthe idea of making capital out of this state of things, or whether itwas suggested to him by some of the company who had acted _Don Quixotein England_, it is impossible to say. In the first months of 1736, however, he took the little French Theatre in the Haymarket, and openedit with a company which he christened the "Great Mogul's Company ofComedians, " who were further described as "having dropped from theClouds. " The "Great Mogul" was a name sometimes given by playwrights tothe elder Cibber; but there is no reason for supposing that any allusionto him was intended on this occasion. The company, with the exception ofMacklin, who was playing at Drury Lane, consisted chiefly of the actorsin _Don Quixote in England_; and the first piece was entitled _Pasquin:a Dramatick Satire on the Times: being the Rehearsal of Two Plays, viz. A Comedy call'd the Election, and a Tragedy call'd the Life and Death ofCommon-Sense_. The form of this work, which belongs to the same class asSheridan's _Critic_ and Buckingham's _Rehearsal_, was probablydetermined by Fielding's past experience of the public taste. His latestcomedy had failed, and its predecessors had not been very successful. But his burlesques had met with a better reception, while the electionepisodes in _Don Quixote_ had seemed to disclose a fresh field for thesatire of contemporary manners. And in the satire of contemporarymanners he felt his strength lay. The success of _Pasquin_ proved he hadnot miscalculated, for it ran more than forty nights, drawing, if we maybelieve the unknown author of the life of Theophilus Cibber, numerousand enthusiastic audiences "from _Grosvenor, Cavendish, Hanover_, andall the other fashionable Squares, as also from _Pall Mall_, and the_Inns of Court_. "

In regard to plot, the comedy which _Pasquin_ contains scarcely deservesthe name. It consists of a string of loosely-connected scenes, whichdepict the shameless political corruption of the Walpole era with a gooddeal of boldness and humour. The sole difference between the "Courtparty, " represented by two Candidates with the Bunyan-like names of LordPlace and Colonel Promise, and the "Country party, " whose nominees areSir Harry Fox-Chace and Squire Tankard, is that the former bribe openly, the latter indirectly. The Mayor, whose sympathies are with the "Countryparty" is finally induced by his wife to vote for and return the otherside, although they are in a minority; and the play is concluded by theprecipitate marriage of his daughter with Colonel Promise. Mr. Fustian, the Tragic Author, who, with Mr. Sneerwell the Critic, is one of thespectators of the rehearsal, demurs to the abruptness with which thisingenious catastrophe is brought about, and inquires where thepreliminary action, of which there is not the slightest evidence in thepiece itself, has taken place. Thereupon Trapwit, the Comic Author, replies as follows, in one of those passages which show that, whateverFielding's dramatic limitations may have been, he was at least a keencritic of stage practice:--

"_Trapwit. _ Why, behind the Scenes, Sir. What, would you have everyThing brought upon the Stage? I intend to bring ours to the Dignity ofthe _French_ Stage; and I have _Horace's_ Advice of my Side; we havemany Things both said and done in our Comedies, which might be betterperform'd behind the Scenes: The _French_, you know, banish all Crueltyfrom their Stage; and I don't see why we should bring on a Lady in ours, practising all manner of Cruelty upon her Lover: beside, Sir, we do notonly produce it, but encourage it; for I could name you some Comedies, if I would, where a Woman is brought in for four Acts together, behavingto a worthy Man in a Manner for which she almost deserves to be hang'd;and in the Fifth, forsooth, she is rewarded with him for a Husband: Now, Sir, as I know this hits some Tastes, and am willing to oblige all, Ihave given every Lady a Latitude of thinking mine has behaved inwhatever Manner she would have her. "

The part of Lord Place in the _Election_, after the first few nights, was taken by Cibber's daughter, the notorious Mrs. Charlotte Charke, whose extraordinary Memoirs are among the curiosities of eighteenth-century literature, and whose experiences were as varied as those of anycharacter in fiction. She does not seem to have acted in the _Life andDeath of Common-Sense_, the rehearsal of which followed that of the_Election_. This is a burlesque of the _Tom Thumb_ type, much of whichis written in vigorous blank verse. Queen Common-Sense is conspiredagainst by Firebrand, Priest of the Sun, by Law, and by Physic. Law isincensed because she has endeavoured to make his piebald jargonintelligible; Physic because she has preferred Water Gruel to all hisdrugs; and Firebrand because she would restrain the power of Priests. Some of the strokes must have gone home to those receptive hearers who, as one contemporary account informs us, "were dull enough not only tothink they contain'd Wit and Humour, but Truth also":--

 "_Queen Common-Sense. _ My Lord of _Law_, I sent for you this Morning;

 I have a strange Petition given to me; Two Men, it seems, have lately been at Law For an Estate, which both of them have lost, And their Attorneys now divide between them. _Law. _ Madam, these things will happen in the Law. _Q. C. S. _ Will they, my Lord? then better we had none: But I have also heard a sweet Bird sing, That Men, unable to discharge their Debts At a short Warning, being sued for them, Have, with both Power and Will their Debts to pay Lain all their Lives in Prison for their Costs. _Law. _ That may perhaps be some poor Person's Case, Too mean to entertain your Royal Ear. _Q. C. S. _ My Lord, while I am Queen I shall not think One Man too mean, or poor, to be redress'd; Moreover, Lord, I am inform'd your Laws Are grown so large, and daily yet encrease, That the great Age of old _Methusalem_ Would scarce suffice to read your Statutes out. "

There is also much more than merely transitory satire in the speech of"Firebrand" to the Queen:--

 "_Firebrand. _ Ha! do you doubt it? nay, if you doubt that, I will prove nothing--But my zeal inspires me, And I will tell you, Madam, you yourself Are a most deadly Enemy to the Sun, And all his Priests have greatest Cause to wish You had been never born. _Q. C. S. _ Ha! say'st thou, Priest? Then know I honour and adore the Sun! And when I see his Light, and feel his Warmth, I glow with naming Gratitude toward him; But know, I never will adore a Priest, Who wears Pride's Face beneath Religion's Mask. And makes a Pick-Lock of his Piety, To steal away the Liberty of Mankind. But while I live, I'll never give thee Power. _Firebrand. _ Madam, our Power is not deriv'd from you, Nor any one: 'Twas sent us in a Box From the great Sun himself, and Carriage paid; _Phaeton_ brought it when he overturn'd The Chariot of the Sun into the Sea. _Q. C. S. _ Shew me the Instrument, and let me read it. _Fireb. _ Madam, you cannot read it, for being thrown Into the Sea, the Water has so damag'd it, That none but Priests could ever read it since. "

In the end, Firebrand stabs Common-Sense, but her Ghost frightensIgnorance off the Stage, upon which Sneerwell says--"I am glad you make_Common-Sense_ get the better at last; I was under terribleApprehensions for your Moral. " "Faith, Sir, " says Fustian, "this isalmost the only Play where she has got the better lately. " And so thepiece closes. But it would be wrong to quit it without some reference tothe numberless little touches by which, throughout the whole, thehumours of dramatic life behind the scenes are ironically depicted. TheComic Poet is arrested on his way from "_King's Coffee-House, _" and theclaim being "for upwards of Four Pound, " it is at first supposed that"he will hardly get Bail. " He is subsequently inquired after by aGentlewoman in a Riding-Hood, whom he passes off as a Lady of Quality, but who, in reality, is bringing him a clean shirt. There aredifficulties with one of the Ghosts, who has a "Church-yard Cough, " and"is so Lame he can hardly walk the Stage;" while another comes torehearsal without being properly floured, because the stage barber hasgone to Drury Lane "to shave the Sultan in the New Entertainment. " Onthe other hand, the Ghost of Queen Common-Sense appears before she iskilled, and is with some difficulty persuaded that her action ispremature. Part of "the Mob" play truant to see a show in the park; Law, straying without the playhouse passage is snapped up by a Lord Chief-Justice's Warrant; and a Jew carries off one of the Maids of Honour. These little incidents, together with the unblushing realism of the Potsof Porter that are made to do duty for wine, and the extra two-pennyworth of Lightning that is ordered against the first night, are all inthe spirit of that inimitable picture of the _Strolling Actressesdressing in a Barn_, which Hogarth gave to the world two years later, and which, very possibly, may have borrowed some of its inspiration fromFielding's "dramatic satire. "

There is every reason to suppose that the profits of _Pasquin_ were fargreater than those of any of its author's previous efforts. In a rarecontemporary caricature, preserved in the British Museum, [Footnote:Political and Personal Satires, No. 2287. ] the "Queen of Common-Sense"is shown presenting "Henry Fielding, Esq. , " with a well-filled purse, while to "Harlequin" (John Rich of Covent Garden) she extends a halter;and in some doggerel lines underneath, reference is made to the "show'rsof Gold" resulting from the piece. This, of course, might be no morethan a poetical fiction; but Fielding himself attests the pecuniarysuccess of _Pasquin_ in the Dedication to _Tumble-Down Dick_, and Mrs. Charke's statement in her Memoirs that her salary for acting the smallpart of Lord Place was four guineas a week, "with an Indulgence in Pointof Charges at her Benefit" by which she cleared sixty guineas, certainlypoints to a prosperous exchequer. Fielding's own benefit, as appearsfrom the curious ticket attributed to Hogarth and facsimiled by A. M. Ireland, took place on April 25, but we have no record of the amount ofhis gains. Mrs. Charke farther says that "soon after _Pasquin_ began todroop, " Fielding produced Lillo's _Fatal Curiosity_ in which she actedAgnes. This tragedy, founded on a Cornish story, is one of remarkablepower and passion; but upon its first appearance it made littleimpression, although in the succeeding year it was acted to greateradvantage in combination with another satirical medley by Fielding, the_Historical Register for the Year_ 1736. 

Like most sequels, the _Historical Register_ had neither the vogue northe wit of its predecessor. It was only half as long, and it was evenmore disconnected in character. "Harmonious Cibber, " as Swift calls him, whose "preposterous Odes" had already been ridiculed in _Pasquin_ andthe _Author's Farce_, was once more brought on the stage as Ground-Ivy, for his alterations of Shakespeare; and under the name of Pistol, Theophilus Cibber is made to refer to the contention between his secondwife, Arne's sister, and Mrs. Clive, for the honour of playing "Polly"in the _Beggar's Opera_, a play-house feud which at the latter end of1736 had engaged "the Town" almost as seriously as the earlier rivalryof Faustina and Cuzzoni. This continued raillery of the Cibbers is, asFielding himself seems to have felt, a "Jest a little overacted;" butthere is one scene in the piece of undeniable freshness and humour, towit, that in which Cock, the famous salesman of the Piazzas--the GeorgeRobins of his day--is brought on the stage as Mr. Auctioneer Hen (a parttaken by Mrs. Charke). His wares, "collected by the indefatigable Painsof that celebrated Virtuoso, _Peter Humdrum_, Esq. , " include suchdesirable items as "curious Remnants of Political Honesty, " "delicatePieces of Patriotism, " Modesty (which does not obtain a bid), Courage, Wit, and "a very neat clear Conscience" of great capacity, "which hasbeen worn by a Judge, and a Bishop. " The "Cardinal Virtues" are then putup, and eighteen-pence is bid for them. But after they have been knockeddown at this extravagant sum, the buyer complains that he had understoodthe auctioneer to say "a Cardinal's Virtues, " and that the lot he haspurchased includes "Temperance and Chastity, and a Pack of Stuff that hewould not give three Farthings for. " The whole of this scene is"admirable fooling;" and it was afterwards impudently stolen byTheophilus Cibber for his farce of the _Auction_. The _HistoricalRegister_ concludes with a dialogue between Quidam, in whom the audiencerecognised Sir Robert Walpole, and four patriots, to whom he gives apurse which has an instantaneous effect upon their opinions. All fivethen go off dancing to Quidam's fiddle; and it is explained that theyhave holes in their pockets through which the money will fall as theydance, enabling the donor to pick it all up again, "and so not lose oneHalf-penny by his Generosity. "

The frank effrontery of satire like the foregoing had by this time begunto attract the attention of the Ministry, whose withers had already beensharply wrung by _Pasquin_; and it has been conjectured that the balletof Quidam and the Patriots played no small part in precipitating thefamous "Licensing Act, " which was passed a few weeks afterwards. Likethe marriage which succeeded the funeral of Hamlet's father, itcertainly "followed hard upon. " But the reformation of the stage hadalready been contemplated by the Legislature; and two years before, SirJohn Barnard had brought in a bill "to restrain the number of houses forplaying of Interludes, and for the better regulating of common Playersof Interludes. " This, however, had been abandoned, because it wasproposed to add a clause enlarging the power of the Lord Chamberlain inlicensing plays, an addition to which the introducer of the measure madestrong objection. He thought the power of the Lord Chamberlain alreadytoo great, and in support of his argument he instanced its wantonexercise in the case of _Gay's Polly_, the representation of which hadbeen suddenly prohibited a few years earlier. But _Pasquin_ and the_Register_ brought the question of dramatic lawlessness again to thefront, and a bill was hurriedly drawn, one effect of which was to revivethe very provision that Sir John Barnard had opposed. The history ofthis affair is exceedingly obscure, and in all probability it has neverbeen completely revealed. The received or authorised version is to befound in Coxe's _Life of Walpole_. After dwelling on the offence givento the Government by _Pasquin_, the writer goes on to say that Giffard, the manager of Goodman's Fields, brought Walpole a farce called _TheGolden Rump_, which had been proposed for exhibition. Whether he didthis to extort money, or to ask advice, is not clear. In either case, Walpole is said to have "paid the profits which might have accrued fromthe performance, and detained the copy. " He then made a compendiousselection of the treasonable and profane passages it contained. These hesubmitted to independent members of both parties, and afterwards readthem in the House itself. The result was that by way of amendment to the"Vagrant Act" of Anne's reign, a bill was prepared limiting the numberof theatres, and compelling all dramatic writers to obtain a licensefrom the Lord Chamberlain. Such is Coxe's account; but notwithstandingits circumstantial character, it has been insinuated in the sham memoirsof the younger Cibber, and it is plainly asserted in the _Rambler'sMagazine_ for 1787, that certain preliminary details have beenconveniently suppressed. It is alleged that Walpole himself caused thefarce in question to be written, and to be offered to Giffard, for thepurpose of introducing his scheme of reform; and the suggestion is notwithout a certain remote plausibility. As may be guessed, however, _TheGolden Rump_ cannot be appealed to. It was never printed, although itstitle is identical with that of a caricature published in March 1737, and fully described in the Gentleman's Magazine for that month. If theplay at all resembled the design, it must have been obscene andscurrilous in the extreme. [Footnote: Horace Walpole, in his _Memoiresof the Last Ten Years of the Reign of George II. _, says (vol. I. P. 12), "I have in my possession the imperfect copy of this piece as I found itamong my father's papers after his death. " He calls it Fielding's; butno importance can be attached to the statement. There is a copy of thecaricature in the British Museum Print Room (Political and PersonalSatires, No. 2327). ]

Meanwhile the new bill, to which it had given rise, passed rapidlythrough both Houses. Report speaks of animated discussions and warmopposition. But there are no traces of any divisions, or petitionsagainst it, and the only speech which has survived is the very elaborateand careful oration delivered in the Upper House by Lord Chesterfield. The "second Cicero"--as Sylvanus Urban styles him--opposed the bill uponthe ground that it would affect the liberty of the press; and that itwas practically a tax upon the chief property of men of letters, theirwit--a "precarious dependence"--which (he thanked God) my Lords werenot obliged to rely upon. He dwelt also upon the value of the stage as afearless censor of vice and folly; and he quoted with excellent effectbut doubtful accuracy the famous answer of the Prince of Conti [Conde]to Moliere [Louis XIV. ] when _Tartuffe_ was interdicted at the instanceof M. De Lamoignon:--"It is true, Moliere, Harlequin ridicules Heaven, and exposes religion; but you have done much worse--you have ridiculedthe first minister of religion. " This, although not directly advancedfor the purpose, really indicated the head and front of Fielding'soffending in _Pasquin_ and the _Historical Register_, and although inLord Chesterfield's speech the former is ironically condemned, it maywell be that Fielding, whose _Don Quixote_ had been dedicated to hisLordship, was the wire-puller in this case, and supplied this veryillustration. At all events it is entirely in the spirit of Firebrand'swords in _Pasquin_:--

 "Speak boldly; by the Powers I serve, I swear You speak in Safety, even tho' you speak Against the Gods, provided that you speak Not against Priests. "

But the feeling of Parliament in favour of drastic legislation was evenstronger than the persuasive periods of Chesterfield, and on the 21st ofJune 1737 the bill received the royal assent. 

With its passing Fielding's career as a dramatic author practicallyclosed. In his dedication of the _Historical Register_ to "the Publick, "he had spoken of his desire to beautify and enlarge his little theatre, and to procure a better company of actors; and he had added--"If Naturehath given me any Talents at ridiculing Vice and Imposture, I shall notbe indolent, nor afraid of exerting them, while the Liberty of the Pressand Stage subsists, that is to say, while we have any Liberty left amongus. " To all these projects the "Licensing Act" effectively put an end;and the only other plays from his pen which were produced subsequentlyto this date were the "Wedding Day, " 1743, and the posthumous _Good-Natured Man_, 1779, both of which, as is plain from the Preface to the_Miscellanies_, were among his earliest attempts. In the little farce of_Miss Lucy in Town_, 1742, he had, he says, but "a very small Share. "Besides these, there are three hasty and flimsy pieces which belong tothe early part of 1737. The first of these, _Tumble-Down Dick_; or, _Phaeton in the Suds_, was a dramatic sketch in ridicule of theunmeaning Entertainments and Harlequinades of John Rich at CoventGarden. This was ironically dedicated to Rich, under his stage name of"John Lun, " and from the dedication it appears that Rich had brought outan unsuccessful satire on _Pasquin_ called _Marforio_. The other twowere _Eurydice_, a profane and pointless farce, afterwards printed byits author (in anticipation of Beaumarchais) "as it was d--mned at theTheatre-Royal in Drury-Lane;" and a few detached scenes in which, underthe title of _Eurydice Hiss'd; or, a Word to the Wise_, its untowardfate was attributed to the "frail Promise of uncertain Friends. " Buteven in these careless and half-considered productions there are happystrokes; and one scarcely looks to find such nervous and sensible linesin a mere _a propos_ as these from _Eurydice Hiss'd_:--

 "Yet grant it shou'd succeed, grant that by Chance, Or by the Whim and Madness of the Town, A Farce without Contrivance, without Sense Should run to the Astonishment of Mankind; Think how you will be read in After-times, When Friends are not, and the impartial Judge Shall with the meanest Scribbler rank your Name; Who would not rather wish a _Butler's_ fame, Distress'd, and poor in every thing but Merit, Than be the blundering Laureat to a Court?"

Self-accusatory passages such as this--and there are others like it--indicate a higher ideal of dramatic writing than Fielding is held tohave attained, and probably the key to them is to be found in thatreaction of better judgment which seems invariably to have followed hismost reckless efforts. It was a part of his sanguine and impulsivenature to be as easily persuaded that his work was worthless as that itwas excellent. "When, " says Murphy, "he was not under the immediateurgency of want, they, who were intimate with him, are ready to averthat he had a mind greatly superior to anything mean or little; when hisfinances were exhausted, he was not the most elegant in his choice ofthe means to redress himself, and he would instantly exhibit a farce ora puppet-shew in the Haymarket theatre, which was wholly inconsistentwith the profession he had embarked in. " The quotation displays allMurphy's loose and negligent way of dealing with his facts; for, withthe exception of _Miss Lucy in Town_, which can scarcely be ranked amonghis works at all, there is absolutely no trace of Fielding's havingexhibited either "puppet-show" or "farce" after seriously adopting thelaw as a profession, nor does there appear to have been much acting atthe Haymarket for some time after his management had closed in 1737. Still, his superficial characteristics, which do not depend so much uponMurphy as upon those "who were intimate with him, " are probablyaccurately described, and they sufficiently account for many of theobvious discordances of his work and life. That he was fully consciousof something higher than his actual achievement as a dramatist is clearfrom his own observation in later life, "that he left off writing forthe stage, when he ought to have begun;"--an utterance which (weshrewdly suspect) has prompted not a little profitless speculation as towhether, if he had continued to write plays, they would have been equalto, or worse than, his novels. The discussion would be highlyinteresting, if there were the slightest chance that it could beattended with any satisfactory result. But the truth is, that the verymaterials are wanting. Fielding "left off writing for the stage" when hewas under thirty; _Tom Jones_ was published in 1749, when he was morethan forty. His plays were written in haste; his novels at leisure, andwhen, for the most part, he was relieved from that "immediate urgency ofwant, " which, according to Murphy, characterised his younger days. If--as has been suggested--we could compare a novel written at thirty with aplay of the same date, or a play written at forty with _Tom Jones_, thecomparison might be instructive, although even then considerableallowances would have to be made for the essential difference betweenplays and novels. But, as we cannot make such a comparison, furtherinquiry is simply waste of time. All we can safely affirm is, that theplays of Fielding's youth did not equal the fictions of his maturity;and that, of those plays, the comedies were less successful than thefarces and burlesques. Among other reasons for this latter differenceone chiefly may be given:--that in the comedies he sought to reproducethe artificial world of Congreve and Wycherley, while in the burlesquesand farces he depicted the world in which he lived. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE CHAMPION--JOSEPH ANDREWS. 

The _Historical Register_ and _Eurydice Hiss'd_ were published togetherin June 1737. By this time the "Licensing Act" was passed, and the"Grand Mogul's Company" dispersed for ever. Fielding was now in histhirty-first year, with a wife and probably a daughter depending on himfor support. In the absence of any prospect that he would be able tosecure a maintenance as a dramatic writer, he seems to have decided, inspite of his comparatively advanced age, to revert to the profession forwhich he had originally been intended, and to qualify himself for theBar. Accordingly, at the close of the year, he became a student of theMiddle Temple, and the books of that society contain the followingrecord of his admission: [Footnote: This differs slightly from previoustranscripts, having been verified at the Middle Temple. ]--

[574 G] 1 Nov 1737. 

_Henricus Fielding, de East Stour in Com Dorset Ar, filius et haeresapparens Brig: Genlis: Edmundi Fielding admissus est in Societatem MediiTempli Lond specialiter et obligator una cum etc. 

Et dat pro fine 4. 0. 0. _

It may be noted, as Mr. Keightley has already observed, that Fielding isdescribed in this entry as of East Stour, "which would seem to indicatethat he still retained his property at that place;" and further, thathis father is spoken of as a "brigadier-general, " whereas (according tothe _Gentleman's Magazine_) he had been made a major-general in December1735. Of discrepancies like these it is idle to attempt any explanation. But, if Murphy is to be believed, Fielding devoted himself henceforthwith remarkable assiduity to the study of law. The old irregularity oflife, it is alleged, occasionally asserted itself, though withoutchecking the energy of his application. "This, " says his firstbiographer, "prevailed in him to such a degree, that he has beenfrequently known, by his intimates, to retire late at night from atavern to his chambers, and there read, and make extracts from, the mostabstruse authors, for several hours before he went to bed; so powerfulwere the vigour of his constitution and the activity of his mind. " It isto this passage, no doubt, that we owe the picturesque wet towel andinked ruffles with which Mr. Thackeray has decorated him in _Pendennis_;and, in all probability, a good deal of graphic writing from less ablepens respecting his _modus vivendi_ as a Templar. In point of fact, nothing is known with certainty respecting his life at this period; andwhat it would really concern us to learn--namely, whether by "chambers"it is to be understood that he was living alone, and, if so, where Mrs. Fielding was at the time of these protracted vigils--Murphy has not toldus. Perhaps she was safe all the while at East Stour, or with hersisters at Salisbury. Having no precise information, however, it canonly be recorded, that, in spite of the fitful outbreaks above referredto, Fielding applied himself to the study of his profession with all thevigour of a man who has to make up for lost time; and that, when on the20th of June 1740 the day came for his being "called, " he was veryfairly equipped with legal knowledge. That he had also made many friendsamong his colleagues of Westminster Hall is manifest from the number oflawyers who figure in the subscription list of the _Miscellanies_. 

To what extent he was occupied by literary work during his probationaryperiod it is difficult to say. Murphy speaks vaguely of "a large numberof fugitive political tracts;" but unless the _Essay on Conversation_, advertised by Lawton Gilliver in 1737, be the same as that afterwardsreprinted in the _Miscellanies_, there is no positive record of anythinguntil the issue of True Greatness, an epistle to George Dodington, inJanuary 1741, though he may, of course, have written much anonymously. Among newspapers, the one Murphy had in mind was probably the_Champion_, the first number of which is dated November 15, 1739, twoyears after his admission to the Middle Temple as a student. On thewhole, it seems most likely, as Mr. Keightley conjectures, that hischief occupation in the interval was studying law, and that he must havebeen living upon the residue of his wife's fortune or his own means, inwhich case the establishment of the above periodical may mark theexhaustion of his resources. 

The _Champion_ is a paper on the model of the elder essayists. It wasissued, like the _Tatler_, on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Murphysays that Fielding's part in it cannot now be ascertained; but as the"Advertisement" to the edition in two volumes of 1741 states expresslythat the papers signed C. And L. Are the "Work of one Hand, " and as anumber of those signed C. Are unmistakably Fielding's, it is hard todiscover where the difficulty lay. The papers signed C. And L. Are byfar the most numerous, the majority of the remainder being distinguishedby two stars, or the signature "Lilbourne. " These are understood to havebeen from the pen of James Ralph, whose poem of _Night_ gave rise to astinging couplet in the _Dunciad_, but who was nevertheless a man ofparts, and an industrious writer. As will be remembered, he hadcontributed a prologue to the _Temple Beau_, so that his associationwith Fielding must have been of some standing. Besides Ralph's essays inthe _Champion_, he was mainly responsible for the _Index to the Times_which accompanied each number, and consisted of a series of briefparagraphs on current topics, or the last new book. In this way Glover's_London_, Boyse's _Deity_, Somervile's _Hobbinol_, Lillo's _Elmeric_, Dyer's _Ruins of Rome_, and other of the very minor _poetae minores_ ofthe day, were commented upon. These notes and notices, however, wereonly a subordinate feature of the _Champion_, which, like itspredecessors, consisted chiefly of essays and allegories, social, moral, and political, the writers of which were supposed to be members of animaginary "Vinegar family, " described in the initial paper. Of these themost prominent was Captain Hercules Vinegar, who took all questionsrelating to the Army, Militia, Trained-Bands, and "fighting Part of theKingdom. " His father, Nehemiah Vinegar, presided over history andpolitics; his uncle, Counsellor Vinegar, over law and judicature; andDr. John Vinegar his cousin, over medicine and natural philosophy. Toothers of the family--including Mrs. Joan Vinegar, who was charged withdomestic affairs--were allotted classic literature, poetry and theDrama, and fashion. This elaborate scheme was not very strictly adheredto, and the chief writer of the group is Captain Hercules. 

Shorn of the contemporary interest which formed the chief element of itssuccess when it was first published, it must be admitted that, in thepresent year of grace, the _Champion_ is hard reading. A kind oflassitude--a sense of uncongenial task-work--broods heavily overFielding's contributions, except the one or two in which he is quickenedinto animation by his antagonism to Cibber; and although, with ourknowledge of his after achievements, it is possible to trace someindications of his yet unrevealed powers, in the absence of suchknowledge it would be difficult to distinguish the _Champion_ from thehundred-and-one forgotten imitators of the _Spectator_ and _Tatler_, whose names have been so patiently chronicled by Dr. Nathan Drake. Thereis, indeed, a certain obvious humour in the account of Captain Vinegar'sfamous club, which he had inherited from Hercules, and which had theenviable property of falling of itself upon any knave in company, andthere is a dash of the _Tom Jones_ manner in the noisy activity of thatexcellent housewife Mrs. Joan. Some of the lighter papers, such as theone upon the "Art of Puffing, " are amusing enough; and of the visions, that which is based upon Lucian, and represents Charon as stripping hisfreight of all their superfluous incumbrances in order to lighten hisboat, has a double interest, since it contains references not only toCibber, but also (though this appears to have been hitherto overlooked)to Fielding himself. The "tall Man, " who at Mercury's request strips offhis "old Grey Coat with great Readiness, " but refuses to part with "halfhis Chin, " which the shepherd of souls regards as false, is clearlyintended for the writer of the paper, even without the confirmationafforded by the subsequent allusions to his connection with the stage. His "length of chin and nose, " sufficiently apparent in his portrait, was a favourite theme for contemporary personalities. Of the moralessays, the most remarkable are a set of four papers, entitled _AnApology for the Clergy_, which may perhaps be regarded as a set-offagainst the sarcasms of _Pasquin_ on priestcraft. They depict, with agreat deal of knowledge and discrimination, the pattern priest asFielding conceived him. To these may be linked an earlier picture, takenfrom life, of a country parson who, in his simple and dignifiedsurroundings, even more closely resembles the Vicar of Wakefield thanMr. Abraham Adams. Some of the more general articles contain happypassages. In one there is an admirable parody of the Norman-Frenchjargon, which in those days added superfluous obscurity to legalutterances; while another, on "Charity, " contains a forcible expositionof the inexpediency, as well as inhumanity, of imprisonment for debt. References to contemporaries, the inevitable Cibber excepted, are few, and these seem mostly from the pen of Ralph. The following, from that ofFielding, is notable as being one of the earliest authoritativetestimonies to the merits of Hogarth: "I esteem (says he) the ingenious_Mr. Hogarth_ as one of the most useful Satyrists any Age hath produced. In his excellent Works you see the delusive Scene exposed with all theForce of Humour, and, on casting your Eyes on another Picture, youbehold the dreadful and fatal Consequence. I almost dare affirm thatthose two Works of his, which he calls the _Rake's_ and the _Harlot'sProgress_, are calculated more to serve the Cause of Virtue, and for thePreservation of Mankind, than all the _Folio's_ of Morality which havebeen ever written; and a sober Family should no more be without them, than without the _Whole Duty of Man_ in their House. " He returned to thesame theme in the Preface to _Joseph Andrews_ with a still apter phraseof appreciation:--"It hath been thought a vast Commendation of aPainter, to say his Figures seem to breathe; but surely, it is a muchgreater and nobler Applause, that they appear to think. " [Footnote:Fielding occasionally refers to Hogarth for the pictorial types of hischaracters. Bridget Allworthy, he tells us, resembled the starched prudein _Morning_; and Mrs. Partridge and Parson Thwackum have theiroriginals in the _Harlot's Progress_. It was Fielding, too, who saidthat the _Enraged Musician_ was "enough to make a man deaf to look at"(_Voyage to Lisbon_, 1755, p. 50). ]

When the _Champion_ was rather more than a year old, Colley Cibberpublished his famous _Apology_. To the attacks made upon him by Fieldingat different times he had hitherto printed no reply--perhaps he had noopportunity of doing so. But in his eighth chapter, when speaking of thecauses which led to the Licensing Act, he takes occasion to refer to hisassailant in terms which Fielding must have found exceedingly galling. He carefully abstained from mentioning his name, on the ground that itcould do him no good, and was of no importance; but he described him as"a broken Wit, " who had sought notoriety "by raking the Channel" (i. E. Kennel), and "pelting his Superiors. " He accused him, with a scandalisedgravity that is as edifying as Chesterfield's irony, of attacking"Religion, Laws, Government, Priests, Judges, and Ministers. " He calledhim, either in allusion to his stature, or his pseudonym in the_Champion_, a "_Herculean_ Satyrist, " a "_Drawcansir_ in Wit"--"who, tomake his Poetical Fame immortal, like another _Erostratus_, set Fire tohis Stage, by writing up to an Act of Parliament to demolish it. I shallnot, " he continues, "give the particular Strokes of his Ingenuity aChance to be remembered, by reciting them; it may be enough to say, ingeneral Terms, they were so openly flagrant, that the Wisdom of theLegislature thought it high time, to take a proper Notice of them. "

Fielding was not the man to leave such a challenge unanswered. In the_Champion_ for April 22, 1740, and two subsequent papers, he repliedwith a slashing criticism of the _Apology_, in which, afterdemonstrating that it must be written in English because it was writtenin no other language, he gravely proceeds to point out examples of theauthor's superiority to grammar and learning--and in general, subjectsits pretentious and slip-shod style to a minute and highly detrimentalexamination. In a further paper he returns to the charge by a mock trialof one "Col. _Apol. _" (i. E. Colley-_Apology_), arraigning him for that, "not having the Fear of Grammar before his Eyes, " he had committed anunpardonable assault upon his mother-tongue. Fielding's knowledge oflegal forms and phraseology enabled him to make a happy parody of courtprocedure, and Mr. Lawrence says that this particular "_jeu d'esprit_obtained great celebrity. " But the happiest stroke in the controversy--as it seems to us--is one which escaped Mr. Lawrence, and occurs in thepaper already referred to, where Charon and Mercury are shown denudingthe luckless passengers by the Styx of their surplus _impedimenta_. Among the rest, approaches "an elderly Gentleman with a Piece ofwither'd Laurel on his head. " From a little book, which he is discovered(when stripped) to have bound close to his heart, and which bears thetitle of _Love in a Riddle_--an unsuccessful pastoral produced by Cibberat Drury Lane in 1729--it is clear that this personage is intended fornone other than the Apologist, who, after many entreaties, is finallycompelled to part with his treasure. "I was surprized, " continuesFielding, "to see him pass Examination with his Laurel on, and wasassured by the Standers by, that _Mercury_ would have taken it off, ifhe had seen it. "

These attacks in the _Champion_ do not appear to have received anydirect response from Cibber. But they were reprinted in a ramblingproduction issued from "Curll's chaste press" in 1740, and entitled the_Tryal of Colley Cibber, Comedian, &c. _ At the end of this there is ashort address to "the _Self-dubb'd Captain_ Hercules Vinegar, _alias_Buffoon, " to the effect that "the malevolent Flings exhibited by him andhis Man _Ralph_, " have been faithfully reproduced. Then comes thefollowing curious and not very intelligible "Advertisement:"--

"If the Ingenious _Henry Fielding_ Esq. ; (Son of the Hon. Lieut. General_Fielding_, who upon his Return from his Travels entered himself of the_Temple_ in order to study the Law, and married one of the pretty Miss_Cradocks of Salisbury_) will _own_ himself the AUTHOR of 18 strangeThings called Tragical _Comedies_ and Comical _Tragedies_, latelyadvertised by _J. Watts_, of _Wild-Court_, Printer, he shall be_mentioned_ in Capitals in the _Third_ Edition of Mr. CIBBER'S _Life_, and likewise be placed _among_ the _Poetae minores Dramatici_ of thePresent Age: Then will both his _Name and Writings be remembered onRecord_, in the immortal _Poetical Register_ written by Mr. GILESJACOB. "

The "poetical register" indicated was the book of that name, containingthe _Lives and Characteristics of the English Dramatic Poets_, which Mr. Giles Jacob, an industrious literary hack, had issued in 1723. Mr. Lawrence is probably right in his supposition, based upon the foregoingadvertisement, that Fielding "had openly expressed resentment at beingdescribed by Cibber as 'a broken wit, ' without being mentioned by name. "He never seems to have wholly forgotten his animosity to the actor, towhom there are frequent references in _Joseph Andrews_; and, as late as1749, he is still found harping on "the withered laurel" in a letter toLyttelton. Even in his last work, the _Voyage to Lisbon_, Cibber's nameis mentioned. The origin of this protracted feud is obscure; but, apartfrom want of sympathy, it must probably be sought for in some earlymisunderstanding between the two in their capacities of manager andauthor. As regards Theophilus Cibber, his desertion of Highmore wassufficient reason for the ridicule cast upon him in the _Author's Farce_and elsewhere. With Mrs. Charke, the Laureate's intractable andeccentric daughter, Fielding was naturally on better terms. She was, asalready stated, a member of the Great Mogul's Company, and it is worthnoting that some of the sarcasms in _Pasquin_ against her father wereput into the mouth of Lord Place, whose part was taken by this undutifulchild. All things considered, both in this controversy and the later onewith Pope, Cibber did not come off worst. His few hits were personal andunscrupulous, and they were probably far more deadly in their effectsthan any of the ironical attacks which his adversaries, on their part, directed against his poetical ineptitude or halting "parts of speech. "Despite his superlative coxcombry and egotism, he was, moreover, a manof no mean abilities. His _Careless Husband_ is a far better acting playthan any of Fielding's, and his _Apology_, which even Johnson allowed tobe "well-done, " is valuable in many respects, especially for its accountof the contemporary stage. In describing an actor or actress he had fewequals--witness his skilful portrait of Nokes, and his admirably graphicvignette of Mrs. Verbruggen as that "finish'd Impertinent, " Melantha, inDryden's _Marriage a-la-Mode_. 

The concluding paper in the collected edition of the _Champion_, published in 1741, is dated June 19, 1740. On the day following Fieldingwas called to the Bar by the benchers of the Middle Temple, and (saysMr. Lawrence) "chambers were assigned him in Pump Court. " Simultaneouslywith this, his regular connection with journalism appears to haveceased, although from his statement in the Preface to the_Miscellanies_, --that "as long as from _June_ 1741, " he had "desistedfrom writing one Syllable in the _Champion_, or any other public Paper, "--it may perhaps be inferred that up to that date he continued tocontribute now and then. This, nevertheless, is by no means clear. Hislast utterance in the published volumes is certainly in a sensevaledictory, as it refers to the position acquired by the _Champion_, and the difficulty experienced in establishing it. Incidentally, it paysa high compliment to Pope, by speaking of "the divine Translation of the_Iliad_, which he [Fielding] has lately with _no Disadvantage to theTranslator_ COMPARED with the Original, " the point of the sentence soimpressed by its typography, being apparently directed against thosecritics who had condemned Pope's work without the requisite knowledge ofGreek. From the tenor of the rest of the essay it may, however, beconcluded that the writer was taking leave of his enterprise; and, according to a note by Boswell, in his _Life of Johnson_, it seems thatMr. Reed of Staple Inn possessed documents which showed that Fielding atthis juncture, probably in anticipation of more lucrative legal duties, surrendered the reins to Ralph. The _Champion_ continued to exist forsome time longer; indeed, it must be regarded as long-lived among theessayists, since the issue which contained its well-known criticism onGarrick is No. 455, and appeared late in 1742. But as far as can beascertained, it never again obtained the honours of a reprint. 

Although, after he was called to the Bar, Fielding practicallyrelinquished periodical literature, he does not seem to have entirelydesisted from writing. In Sylvanus Urban's Register of Books, publishedduring January 1741, is advertised the poem _Of True Greatness_afterwards included in the _Miscellanies_; and the same authorityannounces the _Vernoniad_, an anonymous burlesque Epic prompted byAdmiral Vernon's popular expedition against Porto Bello in 1739, "withsix Ships only. " That Fielding was the author of the latter issufficiently proved by his order to Mr. Nourse (printed in Roscoe'sedition), to deliver fifty copies to Mr. Chappel. Another sixpennypamphlet, entitled _The Opposition, a Vision_, issued in December of thesame year, is enumerated by him, in the Preface to the _Miscellanies_, among the few works he had published "since the End of _June_ 1741;"and, provided it can be placed before this date, he may be credited witha political sermon called the _Crisis_ (1741), which is ascribed to himupon the authority of a writer in Nichols's _Anecdotes_. He may also, before "the End of _June_ 1741, " have written other things; but it isclear from his _Caveat_ in the above-mentioned "Preface, " together withhis complaint that "he had been very unjustly censured, as well onaccount of what he had not writ, as for what he had, " that much more hasbeen laid to his charge than he ever deserved. Among ascriptions of thiskind may be mentioned the curious _Apology for the Life of Mr. The'Cibber, Comedian_, 1740, which is described on its title-page as aproper sequel to the autobiography of the Laureate, in whose "style andmanner" it is said to be written. But, although this performance isevidently the work of some one well acquainted with the dramatic annalsof the day, it is more than doubtful whether Fielding had any hand orpart in it. Indeed, his own statement that "he never was, nor would bethe Author of _anonymous_ Scandal [the italics are ours] on the privateHistory or Family of any Person whatever, " should be regarded asconclusive. 

During all this time he seems to have been steadily applying himself tothe practice of his profession, if, indeed, that weary hope deferredwhich forms the usual probation of legal preferment can properly be sodescribed. As might be anticipated from his Salisbury connections, hetravelled the Western Circuit; and, according to Hutchins's _Dorset_, heassiduously attended the Wiltshire sessions. He had many friends amonghis brethren of the Bar. His cousin, Henry Gould, who had been called in1734, and who, like his grandfather, ultimately became a Judge, was alsoa member of the Middle Temple; and he was familiar with Charles Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden, whom he may have known at Eton, but whom hecertainly knew in his barrister days. It is probable, too, that he wasacquainted with Lord Northington, then Robert Henley, whose name appearsas a subscriber to the _Miscellanies_, and who was once supposed tocontend with Kettleby (another subscriber) for the honour of being theoriginal of the drunken barrister in Hogarth's _Midnight ModernConversation_, a picture which no doubt accurately represents a goodmany of the festivals by which Henry Fielding relieved the tedium ofcomposing those MS. _folio_ volumes on Crown or Criminal Law, which, after his death, reverted to his half-brother, Sir John. But towards theclose of 1741 he was engaged upon another work which has outweighed allhis most laborious forensic efforts, and which will long remain anEnglish classic. This was _The History of the Adventures of JosephAndrews, and of his Friend Mr. Abraham Adams_, published by AndrewMillar in February 1742. 

In the same number, and at the same page of the _Gentleman's Magazine_which contains the advertisement of the _Vernoniad_, there is areference to a famous novel which had appeared in November 1740, twomonths earlier, and had already attained an extraordinary popularity. "Several Encomiums (says Mr. Urban) on a Series of _Familiar Letters_, publish'd but last month, entitled PAMELA or _Virtue rewarded_, came toolate for this Magazine, and we believe there will be little Occasion forinserting them in our next; because a Second Edition will then come outto supply the Demands in the Country, it being judged in Town as great aSign of Want of Curiosity not to have read _Pamela_, as not to have seenthe _French_ and _Italian_ Dancers. " A second edition was in factpublished in the following month (February), to be speedily succeeded bya third in March and a fourth in May. Dr. Sherlock (oddly misprinted byMrs. Barbauld as "Dr. Slocock") extolled it from the pulpit; and thegreat Mr. Pope was reported to have gone farther and declared that itwould "do more good than many volumes of sermons. " Other admirers rankedit next to the Bible; clergymen dedicated theological treatises to theauthor; and "even at Ranelagh"--says Richardson's biographer--"those whoremember the publication say, that it was usual for ladies to hold upthe volumes of Pamela to one another, to shew that they had got the bookthat every one was talking of. " It is perhaps hypercritical to observethat Ranelagh Gardens were not opened until eighteen months after Mr. Rivington's _duodecimos_ first made their appearance; but it will begathered from the tone of some of the foregoing commendations that itsmorality was a strong point with the new candidate for literary fame;and its voluminous title-page did indeed proclaim at large that it was"Published in order to cultivate the Principles of Virtue and Religionin the Minds of the Youth of Both Sexes. " Its author, Samuel Richardson, was a middle-aged London printer, a vegetarian and water-drinker, aworthy, domesticated, fussy, and highly-nervous little man. Delightingin female society, and accustomed to act as confidant and amanuensis forthe young women of his acquaintance, it had been suggested to him bysome bookseller friends that he should prepare a "little volume ofLetters, in a common style, on such subjects as might be of use to thosecountry readers, who were unable to indite for themselves. " As Hogarth'sConversation Pieces grew into his Progresses, so this project seems tohave developed into _Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded_. The necessity for someconnecting link between the letters suggested a story, and the storychosen was founded upon the actual experiences of a young servant girl, who, after victoriously resisting all the attempts made by her master toseduce her, ultimately obliged him to marry her. It is needless to giveany account here of the minute and deliberate way in which Richardsonfilled in this outline. As one of his critics, D'Alembert, hasunanswerably said--_"La, nature est bonne a imiter, mais non pasjusgu'a l'ennui"_--and the author of _Pamela_ has plainly disregardedthis useful law. On the other hand, the tedium and elaboration of hisstyle have tended, in these less leisurely days, to condemn his work toa neglect which it does not deserve. Few writers--it is a truism to sayso--have excelled him in minute analysis of motive, and knowledge of thehuman heart. About the final morality of his heroine's long-drawndefence of her chastity it may, however, be permitted to doubt; and, incontrasting the book with Fielding's work, it should not be forgottenthat, irreproachable though it seemed to the author's admirers, good Dr. Watts complained (and with reason) of the indelicacy of some of thescenes. 

But, for the moment, we are more concerned with the effect which_Pamela_ produced upon Henry Fielding, struggling with the "eternal wantof pence, which vexes public men, " and vaguely hoping for someprofitable opening for powers which had not yet been satisfactorilyexercised. To his robust and masculine genius, never very delicatelysensitive where the relations of the sexes are concerned, the strangeconjunction of purity and precaution in Richardson's heroine was a thingunnatural, and a theme for inextinguishable Homeric laughter. ThatPamela, through all her trials, could really have cherished anyaffection for her unscrupulous admirer would seem to him a sentimentalabsurdity, and the unprecedented success of the book would sharpen hissense of its assailable side. Possibly, too, his acquaintance withRichardson, whom he knew personally, but with whom he could have had nokind of sympathy, disposed him against his work. In any case, the ideapresently occurred to Fielding of depicting a young man in circumstancesof similar importunity at the hands of a dissolute woman of fashion. Hetook for his hero Pamela's brother, and by a malicious stroke of the penturned the Mr. B. Of _Pamela_ into Squire Booby. But the process ofinvention rapidly carried him into paths far beyond the mere parody ofRichardson, and it is only in the first portion of the book that hereally remembers his intention. After chapter x. The story follows itsnatural course, and there is little or nothing of Lady Booby, or herfrustrate amours. Indeed, the author does not even pretend to preservecongruity as regards his hero, for, in chapter v. , he makes him tell hismistress that he has never been in love, while in chapter xi. We areinformed that he had long been attached to the charming Fanny. Moreover, in the intervening letters which Joseph writes to his sister Pamela, hemakes no reference to this long-existent attachment, with which, onewould think, she must have been perfectly familiar. These discrepanciesall point, not so much to negligence on the part of the author, as to anunconscious transformation of his plan. He no doubt speedily found thatmere ridicule of Richardson was insufficient to sustain the interest ofany serious effort, and, besides, must have been secretly conscious thatthe "Pamela" characteristics of his hero were artisticallyirreconcilable with the personal bravery and cudgel-playing attributeswith which he had endowed him. Add to this that the immortal Mrs. Slipslop and Parson Adams--the latter especially--had begun to acquirean importance with their creator for which the initial scheme had by nomeans provided; and he finally seems to have disregarded his design, only returning to it in his last chapters in order to close his workwith some appearance of consistency. The _History of Joseph Andrews_, ithas been said, might well have dispensed with Lady Booby altogether, andyet, without her, not only this book, but _Tom Jones_ and _Amelia_ also, would probably have been lost to us. The accident which prompted threesuch masterpieces cannot be honestly regretted. 

It was not without reason that Fielding added prominently to his title-page the name of Mr. Abraham Adams. If he is not the real hero of thebook, he is undoubtedly the character whose fortunes the reader followswith the closest interest. Whether he is smoking his black andconsolatory pipe in the gallery of the inn, or losing his way while hemeditates a passage of Greek, or groaning over the fatuities of the man-of-fashion in Leonora's story, or brandishing his famous crabstick indefence of Fanny, he is always the same delightful mixture ofbenevolence and simplicity, of pedantry and credulity and ignorance ofthe world. He is "compact, " to use Shakespeare's word, of the oddestcontradictions, --the most diverting eccentricities. He has Aristotle's_Politics_ at his fingers' ends, but he knows nothing of the daily_Gazetteers_; he is perfectly familiar with the Pillars of Hercules, buthe has never even heard of the Levant. He travels to London to sell acollection of sermons which he has forgotten to carry with him, and in amoment of excitement he tosses into the fire the copy of _AEschylus_which it has cost him years to transcribe. He gives irreproachableadvice to Joseph on fortitude and resignation, but he is overwhelmedwith grief when his child is reported to be drowned. When he speaks uponfaith and works, on marriage, on school discipline, he is weighty andsensible; but he falls an easy victim to the plausible professions ofevery rogue he meets, and is willing to believe in the principles of Mr. Peter Pounce, or the humanity of Parson Trulliber. Not all thediscipline of hog's blood and cudgels and cold water to which he issubjected can deprive him of his native dignity; and as he stands beforeus in the short great-coat under which his ragged cassock is continuallymaking its appearance, with his old wig and battered hat, a clergymanwhose social position is scarcely above that of a footman, and whosupports a wife and six children upon a cure of twenty-three pounds ayear, which his outspoken honesty is continually jeopardising, he is afar finer figure than Pamela in her coach-and-six, or Bellarmine in hiscinnamon velvet. If not, as Mr. Lawrence says, with exaggeratedenthusiasm, "the grandest delineation of a pattern-priest which theworld has yet seen, " he is assuredly a noble example of primitivegoodness and practical Christianity. It is certain--as Mr. Forster andMr. Keightley have pointed out--that Goldsmith borrowed some of hischaracteristics for Dr. Primrose, and it has been suggested that Sterneremembered him in more than one page of _Tristram Shandy_. 

Next to Parson Adams, perhaps the best character in _Joseph Andrews_--though of an entirely different type--is Lady Booby's "Waiting-Gentlewoman, " the excellent Mrs. Slipslop. Her sensitive dignity, hereasy changes from servility to insolence, her sensuality, her inimitablydistorted vocabulary, which Sheridan borrowed for Mrs. Malaprop, andDickens modified for Mrs. Gamp, are all peculiarities which make up apersonification of the richest humour and the most life-like reality. Mr. Peter Pounce, too, with his "scoundrel maxims, " as disclosed in thatremarkable dialogue which is said to be "better worth reading than allthe Works of _Colley Cibber_, " and in which charity is defined asconsisting rather in a disposition to relieve distress than in an actualact of relief; Parson Trulliber with his hogs, his greediness, and hiswillingness to prove his Christianity by fisticuffs; shrewish Mrs. Tow-wouse with her scold's tongue, and her erring but perfectly subjugatedhusband, --these again are portraits finished with admirable spirit andfidelity. Andrews himself, and his blushing sweetheart, do not lendthemselves so readily to humorous art. Nevertheless the former, whenfreed from the wiles of Lady Booby, is by no means a despicable hero, and Fanny is a sufficiently fresh and blooming heroine. The charactersof Pamela and Mr. Booby are fairly preserved from the pages of theiroriginal inventor. But when Fielding makes Parson Adams rebuke the pairfor laughing in church at Joseph's wedding, and puts into the lady'smouth a sententious little speech upon her altered position in life, heis adding some ironical touches which Richardson would certainly haveomitted. 

No selection of personages, however, even of the most detailed andparticular description, can convey any real impression of the mingledirony and insight, the wit and satire, the genial but perfectlyremorseless revelation of human springs of action, which distinguishscene after scene of the book. Nothing, for example, can be moreadmirable than the different manifestations of meanness which take placeamong the travellers of the stage-coach, in the oft-quoted chapter whereJoseph, having been robbed of everything, lies naked and bleeding in theditch. There is Miss Grave-airs, who protests against the indecency ofhis entering the vehicle, but like a certain lady in the _Rake'sProgress_, holds the sticks of her fan before her face while he does so, and who is afterwards found to be carrying Nantes under the guise ofHungary-water; there is the lawyer who advises that the wounded manshall be taken in, not from any humane motive, but because he is afraidof being involved in legal proceedings if they leave him to his fate;there is the wit who seizes the occasion for a burst of facetiousdouble-meanings, chiefly designed for the discomfiture of the prude;and, lastly, there is the coachman, whose only concern is the shillingfor his fare, and who refuses to lend either of the useless greatcoatshe is sitting upon, lest "they should be made bloody, " leaving theshivering suppliant to be clothed by the generosity of the postilion ("aLad, " says Fielding with a fine touch of satire, "who hath been sincetransported for robbing a Hen-roost"). This worthy fellow accordinglystrips off his only outer garment, "at the same time swearing a greatOath, " for which he is duly rebuked by the passengers, "that he wouldrather ride in his Shirt all his Life, than suffer a Fellow-Creature tolie in so miserable a Condition. " Then there are the admirable sceneswhich succeed Joseph's admission into the inn; the discussion betweenthe bookseller and the two parsons as to the publication of Adams'ssermons, which the "Clergy would be certain to cry down, " because theyinculcate good works against faith; the debate before the justice as tothe manuscript of AEschylus, which is mistaken for one of the Fathers;and the pleasant discourse between the poet and the player which, beginning by compliments, bids fair to end in blows. Nor are the storiesof Leonora and Mr. Wilson without their interest. They interrupt thestraggling narrative far less than the Man of the Hill interrupts _TomJones_, and they afford an opportunity for varying the epic of thehighway by pictures of polite society which could not otherwise beintroduced. There can be little doubt, too, that some of Mr. Wilson'stown experiences were the reflection of the author's own career; whilethe characteristics of Leonora's lover Horatio, --who was "a youngGentleman of a good Family, bred to the Law, " and recently called to theBar, whose "Face and Person were such as the Generality allowedhandsome: but he had a Dignity in his Air very rarely to be seen, " andwho "had Wit and Humour, with an Inclination to Satire, which heindulged rather too much"--read almost like a complimentary descriptionof Fielding himself. 

Like Hogarth, in that famous drinking scene to which reference hasalready been made, Fielding was careful to disclaim any personalportraiture in _Joseph Andrews_. In the opening chapter of Book iii. Hedeclares "once for all that he describes not Men, but Manners; not anIndividual, but a Species, " although he admits that his characters are"taken from Life. " In his "Preface, " he reiterates this profession, adding that in copying from nature, he has "used the utmost Care toobscure the Persons by such different Circumstances, Degrees, andColours, that it will be impossible to guess at them with any degree ofcertainty. " Nevertheless--as in Hogarth's case--neither his protestsnor his skill have prevented some of those identifications which are soseductive to the curious; and it is generally believed, --indeed, it wasexpressly stated by Richardson and others, --that the prototype of ParsonAdams was a friend of Fielding, the Reverend William Young. Like Adams, he was a scholar and devoted to AEschylus; he resembled him, too, in histrick of snapping his fingers, and his habitual absence of mind. Of thislatter peculiarity it is related that on one occasion, when a chaplainin Marlborough's wars, he strolled abstractedly into the enemy's lineswith his beloved _AEschylus_ in his hand. His peaceable intentions wereso unmistakable that he was instantly released, and politely directed tohis regiment. Once, too, it is said, on being charged by a gentlemanwith sitting for the portrait of Adams, he offered to knock the speakerdown, thereby supplying additional proof of the truth of the allegation. He died in August 1757, and is buried in the Chapel of Chelsea Hospital. The obituary notice in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ describes him as "lateof Gillingham, Dorsetshire, " which would make him a neighbour of thenovelist. [Footnote: Lord Thurlow was accustomed to find a laterlikeness to Fielding's hero in his _protege_, the poet Crabbe. ] Anothertradition connects Mr. Peter Pounce with the scrivener and usurer PeterWalter, whom Pope had satirised, and whom Hogarth is thought to haveintroduced into Plate i. Of Marriage _a-la-Mode_. His sister lived atSalisbury; and he himself had an estate at Stalbridge Park, which wasclose to East Stour. From references to Walter in the _Champion_ for May31, 1740, as well as in the _Essay on Conversation_, it is clear thatFielding knew him personally, and disliked him. He may, indeed, havebeen among those county magnates whose criticism was so objectionable toCaptain Booth during his brief residence in Dorsetshire. ParsonTrulliber, also, according to Murphy, was Fielding's first tutor--Mr. Oliver of Motcombe. But his widow denied the resemblance; and it is hardto believe that this portrait is not overcharged. In all these cases, however, there is no reason for supposing that Fielding may not havethoroughly believed in the sincerity of his attempts to avoid the exactreproduction of actual persons, although, rightly or wrongly, hispresentments were speedily identified. With ordinary people it is bysalient characteristics that a likeness is established; and no variationof detail, however skilful, greatly affects this result. In our own dayswe have seen that, in spite of both authors, the public declined tobelieve that the Harold Skimpole of Charles Dickens, and George Eliot'sDinah Morris, were not perfectly recognisable copies of livingoriginals. 

Upon its title-page, _Joseph Andrews_ is declared to be "written inImitation of the Manner of Cervantes, " and there is no doubt that, inaddition to being subjected to an unreasonable amount of ill-usage, Parson Adams has manifest affinities with Don Quixote. Scott, however, seems to have thought that Scarron's _Roman Comique_ was the real model, so far as mock-heroic was concerned; but he must have forgotten thatFielding was already the author of _Tom Thumb_, and that Swift hadwritten the _Battle of the Books_. Resemblances--not of much moment--have also been traced to the _Paysan Parvenu_ and the _Histoire deMarianne_ of Marivaux. With both these books Fielding was familiar; infact, he expressly mentions them, as well as the _Roman Comique_, in thecourse of his story, and they doubtless exercised more or less influenceupon his plan. But in the Preface, from which we have already quoted, hedescribes that plan; and this, because it is something definite, is moreinteresting than any speculation as to his determining models. Aftermarking the division of the Epic, like the Drama, into Tragedy andComedy, he points out that it may exist in prose as well as verse, andhe proceeds to explain that what he has attempted in _Joseph Andrews_ is"a comic Epic-Poem in Prose, " differing from serious romance in itssubstitution of a "light and ridiculous" fable for a "grave and solemn"one, of inferior characters for those of superior rank, and of ludicrousfor sublime sentiments. Sometimes in the diction he has admittedburlesque, but never in the sentiments and characters, where, hecontends, it would be out of place. He further defines the only sourceof the ridiculous to be affectation, of which the chief causes arevanity and hypocrisy. Whether this scheme was an after-thought it isdifficult to say; but it is certainly necessary to a properunderstanding of the author's method--a method which was to find so manyimitators. Another passage in the Preface is worthy of remark. Withreference to the pictures of vice which the book contains, he observes:"First, That it is very difficult to pursue a Series of human Actions, and keep clear from them. Secondly, That the Vices to be found here[i. E. In _Joseph Andrews_] are rather the accidental Consequences ofsome human Frailty, or Foible, than Causes habitually existing in theMind. Thirdly, That they are never set forth as the Objects of Ridiculebut Detestation. Fourthly, That they are never the principal Figure atthe Time on the Scene; and, lastly, they never produce the intendedEvil. " In reading some pages of Fielding it is not always easy to seethat he has strictly adhered to these principles; but it is well torecall them occasionally, as constituting at all events the code that hedesired to follow. 

Although the popularity of Fielding's first novel was considerable, itdid not, to judge by the number of editions, at once equal thepopularity of the book by which it was suggested. _Pamela_, as we haveseen, speedily ran through four editions; but it was six months beforeMillar published the second and revised edition of _Joseph Andrews;_ andthe third did not appear until more than a year after the date of firstpublication. With Richardson, as might be expected, it was never popularat all, and to a great extent it is possible to sympathise with hisannoyance. The daughter of his brain, whom he had piloted through somany troubles, had grown to him more real than the daughters of hisbody, and to see her at the height of her fame made contemptible by whatin one of his letters he terms "a lewd and ungenerous engraftment, " musthave been a sore trial to his absorbed and self-conscious nature, andone which not all the consolations of his consistory of feminineflatterers--"my ladies, " as the little man called them--could whollyalleviate. But it must be admitted that his subsequent attitude wasneither judicious nor dignified. He pursued Fielding henceforth withsteady depreciation, caught eagerly at any scandal respecting him, professed himself unable to perceive his genius, deplored his "lowness, "and comforted himself by reflecting that, if he pleased at all, it wasbecause he had learned the art from _Pamela_. Of Fielding's othercontemporary critics, one only need be mentioned here, more on accountof his literary eminence than of the special felicity of his judgment. "I have myself, " writes Gray to West, "upon your recommendation, beenreading Joseph Andrews. The incidents are ill laid and withoutinvention; but the characters have a great deal of nature, which alwayspleases even in her lowest shapes. Parson Adams is perfectly well; so isMrs. Slipslop, and the story of Wilson; and throughout he [_the author_]shews himself well read in Stage-Coaches, Country Squires, Inns, andInns of Court. His reflections upon high people and low people, andmisses and masters, are very good. However the exaltedness of some minds(or rather as I shrewdly suspect their insipidity and want of feeling orobservation) may make them insensible to these light things, (I meansuch as characterise and paint nature) yet surely they are as weightyand much more useful than your grave discourses upon the mind, thepassions, and what not. " And thereupon follows that fantastic utteranceconcerning the romances of MM. Marivaux and Crebillon _fils_, which hasdisconcerted so many of Gray's admirers. We suspect that any reader whoshould nowadays contrast the sickly and sordid intrigue of the _PaysanParvenu_ with the healthy animalism of _Joseph Andrews_ would greatlyprefer the latter. Yet Gray's verdict, though cold, is notundiscriminating, and is perhaps as much as one could expect from hiscloistered and fastidious taste. 

Various anecdotes, all more or less apocryphal, have been relatedrespecting the first appearance of _Joseph Andrews_, and the sum paid tothe author for the copyright. A reference to the original assignment, now in the Forster Library at South Kensington, definitely settles thelatter point. The amount in "lawful Money of Great Britain, " received by"Henry Fielding, Esq. " from "Andrew Millar of St. Clement's Danes in theStrand, " was L183 11s. In this document, as in the order to Nourse ofwhich a _facsimile_ is given by Roscoe, both the author's name andsignature are written with the old-fashioned double f, and he callshimself "Fielding" and not "Feilding, " like the rest of the Denbighfamily. If we may trust an anecdote given by Kippis, Lord Denbigh onceasked his kinsman the reason of this difference. "I cannot tell, mylord, " returned the novelist, "unless it be that my branch of the familywas the first that learned to spell. " In connection with thisassignment, however, what is perhaps even more interesting than thesediscrepancies is the fact that one of the witnesses was William Young. Thus we have Parson Adams acting as witness to the sale of the very bookwhich he had helped to immortalise. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE MISCELLANIES--JONATHAN WILD. 

In March 1742, according to an article in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, attributed to Samuel Johnson, "the most popular Topic of Conversation"was the _Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Dutchess of Marlborough, from her first coming to Court, to the Year 1710_, which, with the helpof Hooke of the _Roman History_, the "terrible old Sarah" had just putforth. Among the little cloud of _Sarah-Ads_ and _Old Wives' Tales_evoked by this production, was a _Vindication_ of her Grace by Fielding, specially prompted, as appears from the title-page, by the "late_scurrilous_ Pamphlet" of a "noble Author. " If this were notacknowledged to be from Fielding's pen in the Preface to the_Miscellanies_ (in which collection, however, it is not reprinted), itsauthorship would be sufficiently proved by its being included with _MissLucy in Town_ in the assignment to Andrew Millar referred to at theclose of the preceding chapter. The price Millar paid for it was L5 5s, or exactly half that of the farce. But it is only reasonable to assumethat the Duchess herself (who is said to have given Hooke L5000 for hishelp) also rewarded her champion. Whether Fielding's admiration for the"glorious Woman" in whose cause he had drawn his pen was genuine, orwhether--to use Johnson's convenient euphemism concerning Hooke--"hewas acting only ministerially, " are matters for speculation. His father, however, had served under the Duke, and there may have been atraditional attachment to the Churchills on the part of his family. Ithas even been ingeniously suggested that Sarah Fielding was her Grace'sgod-child; [Footnote: _Memoirs of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough_, etc. , by Mrs. A. T. Thomson, 1839. ] but as her mother's name was also Sarah, no importance can be attached to the suggestion. 

_Miss Lucy in Town_, as its sub-title explains, was a sequel to the_Virgin Unmask'd_, and was produced at Drury Lane in May 1742. Asalready stated in chapter ii. , Fielding's part in it was small. It is alively but not very creditable trifle, which turns upon certainequivocal London experiences of the Miss Lucy of the earlier piece; andit seems to have been chiefly intended to afford an opportunity for someclever imitation of the reigning Italian singers by Mrs. Clive and thefamous tenor Beard. Horace Walpole, who refers to it in a letter toMann, between an account of the opening of Ranelagh and an anecdote ofMrs. Bracegirdle, calls it "a little simple farce, " and says that "Mrs. Clive mimics the Muscovita admirably, and Beard Amorevoli tolerably. "Mr. Walpole detested the Muscovita, and adored Amorevoli, which perhapsaccounts for the nice discrimination shown in his praise. One of theother characters, Mr. Zorobabel, a Jew, was taken by Macklin, and fromanother, Mrs. Haycock (afterwards changed to Mrs. Midnight), Foote issupposed to have borrowed Mother Cole in _The Minor_. A third character, Lord Bawble, was considered to reflect upon "a particular person ofquality, " and the piece was speedily forbidden by the Lord Chamberlain, although it appears to have been acted a few months later withoutopposition. One of the results of the prohibition, according to Mr. Lawrence, was a _Letter to a Noble Lord_ (the Lord Chamberlain) . . . _occasioned by a Representation . . . Of a Farce called "Miss Lucy inTown. "_ This, in spite of the Caveat in the Preface to the_Miscellanies_, he ascribes to Fielding, and styles it "a sharpexpostulation . . . In which he [Fielding] disavowed any idea of apersonal attack. " But Mr. Lawrence must plainly have been misinformed onthe subject, for the pamphlet bears little sign of Fielding's hand. Asfar as it is intelligible, it is rather against Miss Lucy than for her, and it makes no reference to Lord Bawble's original. The name of thisinjured patrician seems indeed never to have transpired; but he couldscarcely have been in any sense an exceptional member of the Georgianaristocracy. 

In the same month that _Miss Lucy in Town_ appeared at Drury Lane, Millar published it in book form. In the following June, T. Waller ofthe Temple-Cloisters issued the first of a contemplated series oftranslations from Aristophanes by Henry Fielding, Esq. , and the Rev. William Young who sat for Parson Adams. The play chosen was _Plutus, theGod of Riches_, and a notice upon the original cover stated that, according to the reception it met with from the public, it would befollowed by the others. It must be presumed that "the distressed, and atpresent, declining State of Learning" to which the authors referred intheir dedication to Lord Talbot, was not a mere form of speech, for theenterprise does not seem to have met with sufficient encouragement tojustify its continuance, and this special rendering has long since beensupplanted by the more modern versions of Mitchell, Frere, and others. Whether Fielding took any large share in it is not now discernible. Itis most likely, however, that the bulk of the work was Young's, and thathis colleague did little more than furnish the Preface, which is partlywritten in the first person, and betrays its origin by a sudden and notvery relevant attack upon the "pretty, dapper, brisk, smart, pertDialogue" of Modern Comedy into which the "infinite Wit" of Wycherleyhad degenerated under Cibber. It also contains a compliment to thenumbers of the "inimitable Author" of the _Essay on Man_. 

This is the second compliment which Fielding had paid to Pope within abrief period, the first having been that in the _Champion_ respectingthe translation of the _Iliad_. What his exact relations with the authorof the _Dunciad_ were, has never been divulged. At first they seem tohave been rather hostile than friendly. Fielding had ridiculed theRomish Church in the _Old Debauchees_, a course which Pope couldscarcely have approved; and he was, moreover, the cousin of Lady Mary, now no longer throned in the Twickenham Temple. Pope had commented upona passage in _Tom Thumb_, and Fielding had indirectly referred to Popein the _Covent Garden Tragedy_. When it had been reported that Pope hadgone to see _Pasquin_, the statement had been at once contradicted. ButFielding was now, like Pope, against Walpole; and _Joseph Andrews_ hadbeen published. It may therefore be that the compliments in _Plutus_ andthe _Champion_ were the result of some _rapprochement_ between the two. It is, nevertheless, curious that, at this very time, an attempt appearsto have been made to connect the novelist with the controversy whichpresently arose out of Cibber's well-known letter to Pope. In August1742, the month following its publication, among the pamphlets to whichit gave rise, was announced _The Cudgel; or, a Crab-tree Lecture, To theAuthor of the Dunciad_. "By Hercules Vinegar, Esq. " This very mediocresatire in verse is still to be found at the British Museum; but even ifit were not included in Fielding's general disclaimer as to unsignedwork, it would be difficult to connect it with him. To give but onereason, it would make him the ally and adherent of Cibber, --which isabsurd. In all probability, like another Grub Street squib under thesame pseudonym, it was by Ralph, who had already attacked Pope, andcontinued to maintain the Captain's character in the _Champion_ longafter Fielding had ceased to write for it. It is even possible thatRalph had some share in originating the Vinegar family, for it isnoticeable that the paper in which they are first introduced bears noinitials. In this case he would consider himself free to adopt the name, however disadvantageous that course might be to Fielding's reputation. And it is clear that, whatever their relations had been in the past, they were for the time on opposite sides in politics, since whileFielding had been vindicating the Duchess of Marlborough, Ralph had beenwriting against her. 

These, however, are minor questions, the discussion of which would leadtoo far from the main narrative of Fielding's life. In the same letterin which Walpole had referred to _Miss Lucy in Town_, he had spoken ofthe success of a new player at Goodman's Fields, after whom all thetown, in Gray's phrase, was "horn-mad;" but in whose acting Mr. Walpole, with a critical distrust of novelty, saw nothing particularly wonderful. This was David Garrick. He had been admitted a student of Lincoln's Inna year before Fielding entered the Middle Temple, had afterwards turnedwine-merchant, and was now delighting London by his versatility incomedy, tragedy, and farce. One of his earliest theatrical exploits, according to Sir John Hawkins, had been a private representation ofFielding's _Mock-Doctor_, in a room over the St. John's Gate, Clerkenwell, so long familiar to subscribers of the _Gentleman'sMagazine_; his fellow-actors being Cave's journeymen printers, and hisaudience Cave, Johnson, and a few friends. After this he appears to havemade the acquaintance of Fielding; and late in 1742, applied to him toknow if he had "any Play by him, " as "he was desirous of appearing in anew Part. " As a matter of fact Fielding had two plays by him--the _Good-natured Man_ (a title subsequently used by Goldsmith), and a piececalled _The Wedding Day_. The former was almost finished: the latter wasan early work, being indeed "the third Dramatic Performance he everattempted. " The necessary arrangements having been made with Mr. Fleetwood, the manager of Drury Lane, Fielding set to work to completethe _Good-natured Man_, which he considered the better of the two. Whenhe had done so, he came to the conclusion that it required moreattention than he could give it; and moreover, that the part allotted toGarrick, although it satisfied the actor, was scarcely important enough. He accordingly reverted to the _Wedding Day_, the central character ofwhich had been intended for Wilks. It had many faults which none sawmore clearly than the author himself, but he hoped that Garrick's energyand _prestige_ would triumphantly surmount all obstacles. He hoped, aswell, to improve it by revision. The dangerous illness of his wife, however, made it impossible for him to execute his task; and, as he waspressed for money, the _Wedding Day_ was produced on the 17th ofFebruary 1743, apparently much as it had been first written some dozenyears before. As might be anticipated, it was not a success. Thecharacter of Millamour is one which it is hard to believe that evenGarrick could have made attractive, and though others of the parts wereentrusted to Mrs. Woffington, Mrs. Pritchard, and Macklin, it was actedbut six nights. The author's gains were under L50. In the Preface to the_Miscellanies_, from which most of the foregoing account is taken, Fielding, as usual, refers its failure to other causes than its inherentdefects. Rumours, he says, had been circulated as to its indecency (andin truth some of the scenes are more than hazardous); but it had passedthe licenser, and must be supposed to have been up to the moral standardof the time. Its unfavourable reception, as Fielding must have known inhis heart, was due to its artistic shortcomings, and also to the factthat a change was taking place in the public taste. It is in connectionwith the _Wedding Day_ that one of the best-known anecdotes of theauthor is related. 

Garrick had begged him to retrench a certain objectionable passage. ThisFielding, either from indolence or unwillingness, declined to do, asserting that if it was not good, the audience might find it out. Thepassage was promptly hissed, and Garrick returned to the green-room, where the author was solacing himself with a bottle of champagne. "Whatis the matter, Garrick?" said he to the flustered actor; "what are theyhissing now?" He was informed with some heat that they had been hissingthe very scene he had been asked to withdraw, "and, " added Garrick, "they have so frightened me, that I shall not be able to collect myselfagain the whole night"--"Oh!" answered the author, with an oath, "theyHAVE found it out, have they?" This rejoinder is usually quoted as aninstance of Fielding's contempt for the intelligence of his audience;but nine men in ten, it may be observed, would have said something ofthe same sort. 

The only other thing which need be referred to in connection with thiscomedy--the last of his own dramatic works which Fielding ever witnessedupon the stage--is Macklin's doggerel Prologue. Mr. Lawrence attributesthis to Fielding; but he seems to have overlooked the fact that in the_Miscellanies_ it is headed, "_Writ_ and Spoken by Mr. Macklin, " whichgives it more interest as the work of an outsider than if it had been amere laugh by the author at himself. Garrick is represented as too busyto speak the prologue; and Fielding, who has been "drinking to raise hisSpirits, " has begged Macklin with his "long, dismal, Mercy-beggingFace, " to go on and apologise. Macklin then pretends to recognise himamong the audience, and pokes fun at his anxieties, telling him that hehad better have stuck to "honest _Abram Adams_, " who, "in spight ofCritics, can make his Readers laugh. " The words "in spite of critics"indicate another distinction between Fielding's novels and plays, whichshould have its weight in any comparison of them. The censors of thepit, in the eighteenth century, seem to have exercised an unusualinfluence in deciding whether a play should succeed or not; [Footnote:Miller's _Coffee-House_, 1737, for example, was damned by the Templarsbecause it was supposed to reflect on the keepers of "Dick's. "--(_Biog. Dramatica_. )] and, from Fielding's frequent references to friends andenemies, it would almost seem as if he believed their suffrages to bemore important than a good plot and a witty dialogue. On the other hand, no coterie of Wits and Templars could kill a book like _Joseph Andrews_. To say nothing of the opportunities afforded by the novel for moreleisurely character-drawing, and greater by-play of reflection anddescription--its reader was an isolated and independent judge; and inthe long run the difference told wonderfully in favour of the author. Macklin was obviously right in recommending Fielding, even in jest, tostick to Parson Adams, and from the familiar publicity of the advice itmay also be inferred, not only that the opinion was one commonlycurrent, but that the novel was unusually popular. 

The _Wedding Day_ was issued separately in February 1743. It musttherefore be assumed that the three volumes of _Miscellanies_, by HenryFielding, Esq. , in which it was reprinted, and to which reference has sooften been made in these pages, did not appear until later. [Footnote:By advertisement in the _London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, theywould seem to have been published early in April 1743. ] They werepublished by subscription; and the list, in addition to a large numberof aristocratic and legal names, contains some of more permanentinterest. Side by side with the Chesterfields and Marlboroughs andBurlingtons and Denbighs, come William Pitt and Henry Fox, Esqs. , withDodington and Winnington and Hanbury Williams. The theatrical world iswell represented by Garrick and Mrs. Woffington and Mrs. Clive. Literature has no names of any eminence except that of Young; for Savageand Whitehead, Mallet and Benjamin Hoadly, are certainly _ignesminores_. Pope is conspicuous for his absence; so also are HoraceWalpole and Gray, while Richardson, of course, is wanting. Johnson, asyet only the author of _London_, and journeyman to Cave, could scarcelybe expected in the roll; and, in any case, his friendship for the authorof _Pamela_ would probably have kept him away. Among some other well-known eighteenth century names are those of Dodsley and Millar thebooksellers, and the famous Vauxhall _impresario_ Jonathan Tyers. 

The first volume of the _Miscellanies_, besides a lengthy Preface, includes the author's poems, essays _On Conversation_, _On the Knowledgeof the Characters of Men_, _On Nothing_, a squib upon the transactionsof the Royal Society, a translation from Demosthenes, and one or twominor pieces. Much of the biographical material contained in the Prefacehas already been made use of, as well as those verses which can bedefinitely dated, or which relate to the author's love-affairs. Thehitherto unnoticed portions of the volume consist chiefly of Epistles, in the orthodox eighteenth century fashion. One--already referred to--isheaded _Of True Greatness_; another, inscribed to the Duke of Richmond, _Of Good-nature_; while a third is addressed to a friend _On the Choiceof a Wife_. This last contains some sensible lines, but although Roscoehas managed to extract two quotable passages, it is needless to imitatehim here. These productions show no trace of the authentic Fielding. Theessays are more remarkable, although, like Montaigne's, they arescarcely described by their titles. That on _Conversation_ is really alittle treatise on good breeding; that on the _Characters of Men_, a laysermon against Fielding's pet antipathy--hypocrisy. Nothing can well bewiser, even now, than some of the counsels in the former of these paperson such themes as the limits of raillery, the duties of hospitality, andthe choice of subject in general conversation. Nor, however threadbarethey may look to-day, can the final conclusions be reasonably objectedto:--"First, That every Person who indulges his Ill-nature or Vanity, atthe Expense of others; and in introducing Uneasiness, Vexation, andConfusion into Society, however exalted or high-titled he may be, isthoroughly ill-bred;" and "Secondly, That whoever, from the Goodness ofhis Disposition or Understanding, endeavours to his utmost to cultivatethe Good-humour and Happiness of others, and to contribute to the Easeand Comfort of all his Acquaintance, however low in Rank Fortune mayhave placed him, or however clumsy he may be in his Figure or Demeanour, hath, in the truest sense of the Word, a Claim to Good-Breeding. " Onefancies that this essay must have been a favourite with the historian ofthe _Book of Snobs_ and the creator of Major Dobbin. 

The _Characters of Men_ is not equal to the _Conversation. _ The theme isa wider one; and the end proposed, --that of supplying rules fordetecting the real disposition through all the social disguises whichcloak and envelop it, --can scarcely be said to be attained. But thereare happy touches even in this; and when the author says--"I willventure to affirm, that I have known some of _the best sort of Men inthe World_ (to use the vulgar Phrase, ) who would not have scrupledcutting a Friend's Throat; and _a Fellow whom no Man should be seen tospeak to_, capable of the highest Acts of Friendship and Benevolence, "one recognises the hand that made the sole good Samaritan in JosephAndrews "a Lad who hath since been transported for robbing a Hen-roost. "The account of the Terrestrial Chrysipus or Guinea, a burlesque on apaper read before the Royal Society on the Fresh Water Polypus, ischiefly interesting from the fact that it is supposed to be written byPetrus Gualterus (Peter Walter), who had an "extraordinary Collection"of them. He died, in fact, worth L300, 000. The only other paper in thevolume of any value is a short one _Of the Remedy of Affliction for theLoss of our Friends_, to which we shall presently return. 

The farce of _Eurydice_, and the _Wedding Day_, which, with _A Journeyfrom this World to the Next_, etc. , make up the contents of the secondvolume of the _Miscellanies_, have been already sufficiently discussed. But the _Journey_ deserves some further notice. It has been suggestedthat this curious Lucianic production may have been prompted by thevision of Mercury and Charon in the _Champion_, though the kind ofallegory of which it consists is common enough with the elder essayists;and it is notable that another book was published in April 1743, underthe title of _Cardinal Fleury's Journey to the other World_, which ismanifestly suggested by Quevedo. Fielding's _Journey_, however, is afragment which the author feigns to have found in the garret of astationer in the Strand. Sixteen out of five-and-twenty chapters in Booki. Are occupied with the transmigrations of Julian the Apostate, whichare not concluded. Then follows another chapter from Book xix. , whichcontains the history of Anna Boleyn, and the whole breaks off abruptly. Its best portion is undoubtedly the first ten chapters, which relate thewriter's progress to Elysium, and afford opportunity for many strokes ofsatire. Such are the whimsical terror of the spiritual traveller in thestagecoach, who hears suddenly that his neighbour has died of smallpox, a disease he had been dreading all his life; and the punishment of LordScrape, the miser, who is doomed to dole out money to all comers, andwho, after "being purified in the Body of a Hog, " is ultimately toreturn to earth again. Nor is the delight of some of those who profit byhis enforced assistance less keenly realised:--"I remarked a poeticalSpirit in particular, who swore he would have a hearty Gripe at him:'For, says he, the Rascal not only refused to subscribe to my Works; butsent back my Letter unanswered, tho' I'm a better Gentleman thanhimself. '" The descriptions of the City of Diseases, the Palace ofDeath, and the Wheel of Fortune from which men draw their chequeredlots, are all unrivalled in their way. But here, as always, it is in hispictures of human nature that Fielding shines, and it is this that makesthe chapters in which Minos is shown adjudicating upon the separateclaims of the claimants to enter Elysium the most piquant of all. Thevirtuoso and butterfly hunter, who is repulsed "with great Scorn;" thedramatic author who is admitted (to his disgust), not on account of hisworks, but because he has once lent "the whole Profits of a BenefitNight to a Friend;" the parson who is turned back, while his poorparishioners are admitted; and the trembling wretch who has been hangedfor a robbery of eighteen-pence, to which he had been driven by poverty, but whom the judge welcomes cordially because he had been a kind father, husband, and son; all these are conceived in that humane and generousspirit which is Fielding's most engaging characteristic. The chapterimmediately following, which describes the literary and otherinhabitants of Elysium, is even better. Here is Leonidas, who appears tobe only moderately gratified with the honour recently done him by Mr. Glover the poet; here is Homer, toying with Madam Dacier, and profoundlyindifferent as to his birthplace and the continuity of his poems; here, too, is Shakespeare, who, foreseeing future commentators and the "NewShakespere Society, " declines to enlighten Betterton and Booth as to adisputed passage in his works, adding, "I marvel nothing so much as thatMen will gird themselves at discovering obscure Beauties in an Author. Certes the greatest and most pregnant Beauties are ever the plainest andmost evidently striking; and when two Meanings of a Passage can in theleast ballance our Judgements which to prefer, I hold it matter ofunquestionable Certainty that neither is worth a farthing. " Then, again, there are Addison and Steele, who are described with so pleasant aknowledge of their personalities that, although the passage has beenoften quoted, there seems to be no reason why it should not be quotedonce more:--

"_Virgil_ then came up to me, with Mr. _Addison_ under his Arm. Well, Sir, said he, how many Translations have these few last Years producedof my _AEneid_? I told him, I believed several, but I could not possiblyremember; for I had never read any but Dr. _Trapp's_. [Footnote: Dr. Trapp's translation of the AEneid was published in 1718. ]--Ay, said he, that is a curious Piece indeed! I then acquainted him with the Discoverymade by Mr. _Warburton_ of the _Eleusinian_ Mysteries couched in his 6thbook. What Mysteries? said Mr. _Addison_. The _Eleusinian_, answered_Virgil_, which I have disclosed in my 6th Book. How! replied _Addison_. You never mentioned a word of any such Mysteries to me in all ourAcquaintance. I thought it was unnecessary, cried the other, to a Man ofyour infinite Learning: besides, you always told me, you perfectlyunderstood my meaning. Upon this I thought the Critic looked a littleout of countenance, and turned aside to a very merry Spirit, one _DickSteele_, who embraced him, and told him, He had been the greatest Manupon Earth; that he readily resigned up all the Merit of his own Worksto him. Upon which, _Addison_ gave him a gracious Smile, and clappinghim on the Back with much Solemnity, cried out, _Well said, Dick. _"

After encountering these and other notabilities, including Tom Thumb andLivy, the latter of whom takes occasion to commend the ingeniousperformances of Lady Marlborough's assistant, Mr. Hooke, the authormeets with Julian the Apostate, and from this point the narrative growslanguid. Its unfinished condition may perhaps be accepted as a proofthat Fielding himself had wearied of his scheme. 

The third volume of the _Miscellanies_ is wholly occupied with theremarkable work entitled the _History of the Life of the late Mr. Jonathan Wild the Great_. As in the case of the _Journey from this Worldto the Next_, it is not unlikely that the first germ of this may befound in the pages of the _Champion_. "Reputation"--says Fielding in oneof the essays in that periodical--"often courts those most who regardher the least. Actions have sometimes been attended with Fame, whichwere undertaken in Defiance of it. _Jonathan Wyld_ himself had for manyyears no small Share of it in this Kingdom. " The book now underconsideration is the elaboration of the idea thus casually thrown out. Under the name of a notorious thief-taker hanged at Tyburn in 1725, Fielding has traced the Progress of a Rogue to the Gallows, showing byinnumerable subtle touches that the (so-called) greatness of a villaindoes not very materially differ from any other kind of greatness, whichis equally independent of goodness. This continually suggested affinitybetween the ignoble and the pseudo-noble is the text of the book. Against genuine worth (its author is careful to explain) his satire isin no wise directed. He is far from considering "_Newgate_ as no otherthan Human Nature with its Mask off;" but he thinks "we may be excusedfor suspecting, that the splendid Palaces of the Great are often noother than _Newgate_ with the Mask on. " Thus _Jonathan Wild the Great_is a prolonged satire upon the spurious eminence in which benevolence, honesty, charity, and the like have no part; or, as Fielding prefers toterm it, that false or "Bombast greatness" which is so often mistakenfor the "_true Sublime_ in Human Nature"--Greatness and Goodnesscombined. So thoroughly has he explained his intention in the Prefacesto the _Miscellanies_, and to the book itself, that it is difficult tocomprehend how Scott could fail to see his drift. Possibly, like someothers, he found the subject repugnant and painful to his kindly nature. Possibly, too, he did not, for this reason, study the book verycarefully, for, with the episode of Heartfree under one's eyes, it isnot strictly accurate to say (as he does) that it presents "a picture ofcomplete vice, _unrelieved by any thing of human feeling_, and never byany accident even deviating into virtue. " If the author's introductionbe borne in mind, and if the book be read steadily in the light theresupplied, no one can refrain from admiring the extraordinary skill andconcentration with which the plan is pursued, and the adroitness withwhich, at every turn, the villainy of Wild is approximated to that ofthose securer and more illustrious criminals with whom he is so seldomconfused. And Fielding has never carried one of his chief andcharacteristic excellences to so great perfection: the book is a modelof sustained and sleepless irony. To make any extracts from it--stillless to make any extracts which should do justice to it, is almostimpracticable; but the edifying discourse between Wild and Count La Rusein Book i. , and the pure comedy of that in Book iv. With the Ordinary ofNewgate (who objects to wine, but drinks punch because "it is no wherespoken against in Scripture"), as well as the account of the prisonfaction between Wild and Johnson, [Footnote: Some critics at this pointappear to have identified Johnson and Wild with Lord Wilmington and SirRobert Walpole (who resigned in 1742), while Mr. Keightley suspects thatWild throughout typifies Walpole. But the advertisement "from thePublisher" to the edition of 1754 disclaims any such "personalApplication. " "The Truth is (he says), as a very corrupt State of Moralsis here represented, the Scene seems very properly to have been laid inNewgate: Nor do I see any Reason for introducing any allegory at all;unless we will agree that there are, without those Walls, some otherBodies of Men of worse Morals than those within; and who have, consequently, a Right to change Places with its present Inhabitants. "The writer was probably Fielding. ] with its admirable speech of the"grave Man" against Party, may all be cited as examples of its style andmethod. Nor should the character of Wild in the last chapter, and hisfamous rules of conduct, be neglected. It must be admitted, however, that the book is not calculated to suit the nicely-sensitive in letters;or, it may be added, those readers for whom the evolution of a purelyintellectual conception is either unmeaning or uninteresting. Its placein Fielding's works is immediately after his three great novels, andthis is more by reason of its subject than its workmanship, which couldhardly be excelled. When it was actually composed is doubtful. If it maybe connected with the already-quoted passage in the _Champion_, it mustbe placed after March 1740, which is the date of the paper; but, from areference to Peter Pounce in Book ii. , it might also be supposed to havebeen written after _Joseph Andrews_. The Bath simile in chapter xiv. Book i. , makes it likely that some part of it was penned at that place, where, from an epigram in the _Miscellanies_ "written _Extempore_ in thePump Room, " it is clear that Fielding was staying in 1742. But, wheneverit was completed, we are inclined to think that it was planned and begunbefore _Joseph Andrews_ was published, as it is in the highest degreeimprobable that Fielding, always carefully watching the public taste, would have followed up that fortunate adventure in a new direction by awork so entirely different from it as _Jonathan Wild_. 

A second edition of the _Miscellanies_ appeared in the same year as thefirst, namely in 1743. From this date until the publication of _TomJones_ in 1749, Fielding produced no work of signal importance, and hispersonal history for the next few years is exceedingly obscure. We areinclined to suspect that this must have been the most trying period ofhis career. His health was shattered, and he had become a martyr togout, which seriously interfered with the active practice of hisprofession. Again, "about this time, " says Murphy vaguely, afterspeaking of the _Wedding Day_, he lost his first wife. That she wasalive in the winter of 1742-3 is clear, for, in the Preface to the_Miscellanies_, he describes himself as being then laid up, "with afavourite Child dying in one Bed, and my Wife in a Condition very littlebetter, on another, attended with other Circumstances, which served asvery proper Decorations to such a Scene, "--by which Mr. Keightley nodoubt rightly supposes him to refer to writs and bailiffs. It must alsobe assumed that Mrs. Fielding was alive when the Preface was written, since, in apologising for an apparent delay in publishing the book, hesays the "real Reason" was "the dangerous Illness of one from whom I_draw_ [the italics are ours] all the solid Comfort of my Life. " Thereis another unmistakable reference to her in one of the minor papers inthe first volume, viz. That _Of the Remedy of Affliction for the Loss ofour Friends_. "I remember the most excellent of Women, and tenderest ofMothers, when, after a painful and dangerous Delivery, she was told shehad a Daughter, answering; _Good God! have I produced a Creature who isto undergo what I have suffered!_ Some Years afterwards, I heard thesame Woman, on the Death of that very Child, then one of the loveliestCreatures ever seen, comforting herself with reflecting, that _her Childcould never know what it was to feel such a Loss as she then lamented_. "Were it not for the passages already quoted from the Preface, it mightalmost be concluded from the tone of the foregoing quotation and thefinal words of the paper, which refer to our meeting with those we havelost in Heaven, that Mrs. Fielding was already dead. But the use of theword "draw" in the Preface affords distinct evidence to the contrary. Itis therefore most probable that she died in the latter part of 1743, having been long in a declining state of health. For a time her husbandwas inconsolable. "The fortitude of mind, " says Murphy, "with which hemet all the other calamities of life, deserted him on this most tryingoccasion. " His grief was so vehement "that his friends began to thinkhim in danger of losing his reason. "

That Fielding had depicted his first wife in Sophia Western has alreadybeen pointed out, and we have the authority of Lady Mary Wortley Montaguand Richardson for saying that she was afterwards reproduced in_Amelia_. "Amelia, " says the latter, in a letter to Mrs. Donnellan, "even to her _noselessness_, is again his first wife. " Some of hertraits, too, are to be detected in the Mrs. Wilson of _Joseph Andrews_. But, beyond these indications, we hear little about her. Almost all thatis definitely known is contained in a passage of the admirable_Introductory Anecdotes_ contributed by Lady Louisa Stuart in 1837 toLord Wharncliffe's edition of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's _Letters andWorks_. This account was based upon the recollections of Lady Bute, LadyMary's daughter. 

"Only those persons (says Lady Stuart) are mentioned here of whom LadyBute could speak from her own recollection or her mother's report. Bothhad made her well informed of every particular that concerned herrelation Henry Fielding; nor was she a stranger to that beloved firstwife whose picture he drew in his Amelia, where, as she said, even theglowing language he knew how to employ did not do more than justice tothe amiable qualities of the original, or to her beauty, although thishad suffered a little from the accident related in the novel, --afrightful overturn, which destroyed the gristle of her nose. [Footnote:That any one could have remained lovely after such a catastrophe isdifficult to believe. But probably Lady Bute (or Lady Stuart)exaggerated its effects; for--to say nothing of the fact that, throughout the novel, Amelia's beauty is continually commended--in thedelightfully feminine description which is given of her by Mrs. James inBook xi. Chap. I. , pp. 114-15 of the first edition of 1752, although sheis literally pulled to pieces, there is no reference whatever to hernose, which may be taken as proof positive that it was not an assailablefeature. Moreover, in the book as we now have it, Fielding, obviously indeference to contemporary criticism, inserted the following specificpassages:--"She was, indeed, a most charming woman; and I know notwhether the little scar on her nose did not rather add to, than diminishher beauty" (Book iv. Chap, vii. ); and in Mrs. James's portrait:--"Thenher nose, as well proportioned as it is, has a visible scar on oneside. " No previous biographer seems to have thought it necessary to makeany mention of these statements, while Johnson's speech about "That vilebroken nose, _never cured_, " and Richardson's coarsely-malignantutterance to Mrs. Donnellan, are everywhere industriously remembered andrepeated. ] He loved her passionately, and she returned his affection;yet led no happy life, for they were almost always miserably poor, andseldom in a state of quiet and safety. All the world knows what was hisimprudence; if ever he possessed a score of pounds, nothing could keephim from lavishing it idly, or make him think of tomorrow. Sometimesthey were living in decent lodgings with tolerable comfort; sometimes ina wretched garret without necessaries; not to speak of the spunging-houses and hiding-places where he was occasionally to be found. Hiselastic gaiety of spirit carried him through it all; but, meanwhile, care and anxiety were preying upon her more delicate mind, andundermining her constitution. She gradually declined, caught a fever, and died in his arms. "

As usual, Mr. Keightley has done his best to test this statement to theutmost. Part of his examination may be neglected, because it is basedupon the misconception that Lord Wharncliffe, Lady Mary's greatgrandson, and not Lady Stuart, her granddaughter, was the writer of the foregoingaccount. But as a set-off to the extreme destitution alleged, Mr. Keightley very justly observes that Mrs. Fielding must for some timehave had a maid, since it was a maid who had been devotedly attached toher whom Fielding subsequently married. He also argues that "living in agarret and skulking in out o' the way retreats, " are incompatible withstudying law and practising as a barrister. Making every allowance, however, for the somewhat exaggerated way in which those of high rankoften speak of the distresses of their less opulent kinsfolk, it isprobable that Fielding's married life was one of continual shifts andprivations. Such a state of things is completely in accordance with hisprofuse nature [Footnote: The passage as to his imprudence is, oddlyenough, omitted from Mr. Keightley's quotation. ] and his precariousmeans. Of his family by the first Mrs. Fielding no very materialparticulars have been preserved. Writing, in November 1745, in the _TruePatriot_, he speaks of having a son and a daughter, but no son by hisfirst wife seems to have survived him. The late Colonel Chester foundthe burial of a "James Fielding, son of Henry Fielding, " recorded underdate of 19th February 1736, in the register of St. Giles in the Fields;but it is by no means certain that this entry refers to the novelist. Adaughter, Harriet or Harriot, certainly did survive him, for she ismentioned in the _Voyage to Lisbon_ as being of the party whoaccompanied him. Another daughter, as already stated, probably died inthe winter of 1742-3; and the _Journey from this World to the Next_contains the touching reference to this or another child, of whichDickens writes so warmly in one of his letters. "I presently, " saysFielding, speaking of his entrance into Elysium, "met a little Daughter, whom I had lost several Years before. Good Gods! what Words can describethe Raptures, the melting passionate Tenderness, with which we kiss'deach other, continuing in our Embrace, with the most extatic Joy, aSpace, which if Time had been measured here as on Earth, could not havebeen less than half a Year. "

From the death of Mrs. Fielding until the publication of the _TruePatriot_ in 1745 another comparative blank ensues in Fielding's history;and it can only be filled by the assumption that he was stillendeavouring to follow his profession as a barrister. His literary workseems to have been confined to a Preface to the second edition of hissister's novel of _David Simple_, which appeared in 1744. This, whilerendering fraternal justice to that now forgotten book, is memorable forsome personal utterances on Fielding's part. In denying the authorshipof _David Simple_, which had been attributed to him, he takes occasionto appeal against the injustice of referring anonymous works to his pen, in the face of his distinct engagement in the Preface to the_Miscellanies_, that he would thenceforth write nothing except over hisown signature; and he complains that such a course has a tendency toinjure him in a profession to which "he has applied with so arduous andintent a diligence, that he has had no leisure, if he had inclination, to compose anything of this kind (i. E. _David Simple_). " At the sametime, he formally withdraws his promise, since it has in no wiseexempted him from the scandal of putting forth anonymous work. Fromother passages in this "Preface, " it may be gathered the immediate causeof irritation was the assignment to his pen of "that infamous paultrylibel" the _Causidicade_, a satire directed at the law in general, andsome of the subscribers to the _Miscellanies_ in particular. "This, " hesays, "accused me not only of being a bad writer, and a bad man, butwith downright idiotism, in flying in the face of the greatest men of myprofession. " It may easily be conceived that such a report must beunfavourable to a struggling barrister, and Fielding's anxiety on thishead is a strong proof that he was still hoping to succeed at the Bar. To a subsequent collection of _Familiar Letters between the PrincipalCharacters in David Simple and some others_, he supplied another prefacethree years later, together with five little-known epistles which, nevertheless, are not without evidence of his characteristic touch. 

A life of ups and downs like Fielding's is seldom remarkable for itsconsistency. It is therefore not surprising to find that, despite hisdesire in 1744 to refrain from writing, he was again writing in 1745. The landing of Charles Edward attracted him once more into the ranks ofjournalism, on the side of the Government, and gave rise to the _TruePatriot_, a weekly paper, the first number of which appeared inNovember. This, having come to an end with the Rebellion, was succeededin December 1747 by the _Jacobite's Journal_, supposed to emanate from"John Trott-Plaid, Esq. , " and intended to push the discomfiture ofJacobite sentiment still further. It is needless to discuss these mainlypolitical efforts at any length. They are said to have been highlyapproved by those in power: it is certain that they earned for theirauthor the stigma of "pension'd scribbler. " Both are now very rare; andin Murphy the former is represented by twenty-four numbers, the latterby two only. The _True Patriot_ contains a dream of London abandoned tothe rebels, which is admirably graphic; and there is also a propheticchronicle of events for 1746, in which the same idea is treated in alighter and more satirical vein. But perhaps the most interestingfeature is the reappearance of Parson Adams, who addresses a couple ofletters to the same periodical--one on the rising generally, and theother on the "young England" of the day, as exemplified in a veryoffensive specimen he had recently encountered at Mr. Wilson's. Otherminor points of interest in connection with the _Jacobite's Journal_, are the tradition associating Hogarth with the rude woodcut headpiece (aScotch man and woman on an ass led by a monk) which surmounted itsearlier numbers, and the genial welcome given in No. 5, perhaps notwithout some touch of contrition, to the two first volumes, then justpublished, of Richardson's _Clarissa_. The pen is the pen of animaginary "correspondent, " but the words are unmistakably Fielding's:--

"When I tell you I have lately received this Pleasure [i. E. Of reading anew master-piece], you will not want me to inform you that I owe it tothe Author of CLARISSA. Such Simplicity, such Manners, such deepPenetration into Nature; such Power to raise and alarm the Passions, fewWriters, either ancient or modern, have been possessed of. My Affectionsare so strongly engaged, and my Fears are so raised, by what I havealready read, that I cannot express my Eagerness to see the rest. Surethis Mr. _Richardson_ is Master of all that Art which _Horace_ comparesto Witchcraft

 --Pectus inaniter angit, Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus implet Ut Magus. --"

Between the discontinuance of the True Patriot and the establishment ofits successor occurred an event, the precise date of which has beenhitherto unknown, namely, Fielding's second marriage. The account givenof this by Lady Louisa Stuart is as follows:--

"His [Fielding's] biographers seem to have been shy of disclosing thatafter the death of this charming woman [his first wife] he married hermaid. And yet the act was not so discreditable to his character as itmay sound. The maid had few personal charms, but was an excellentcreature, devotedly attached to her mistress, and almost broken-heartedfor her loss. In the first agonies of his own grief, which approached tofrenzy, he found no relief but from weeping along with her; nor solace, when a degree calmer, but in talking to her of the angel they mutuallyregretted. This made her his habitual confidential associate, and inprocess of time he began to think he could not give his children atenderer mother, or secure for himself a more faithful housekeeper andnurse. At least this was what he told his friends; and it is certainthat her conduct as his wife confirmed it, and fully justified his goodopinion. "

It has now been ascertained that the marriage took place at St. Bene't's, Paul's Wharf, an obscure little church in the City, at presentsurrendered to a Welsh congregation, but at that time, like Mary-le-boneold church, much in request for unions of a private character. The datein the register is the 27th of November 1747. The second Mrs. Fielding'smaiden name, which has been hitherto variously reported as Macdonnell, Macdonald, and Macdaniel, is given as Mary Daniel, [Footnote: See noteto Fielding's letter in Chap. Vii. ] and she is further described as "ofSt Clement's Danes, Middlesex, Spinster. " Either previously to thisoccurrence, or immediately after it, Fielding seems to have taken tworooms in a house in Back Lane, Twickenham, "not far, " says the Rev. Mr. Cobbett in his _Memorials_, "from the site of Copt Hall. " In 1872 thishouse was still standing, --a quaint old-fashioned wooden structure;[Footnote: Now (1883) it no longer exists, and a row of cottagesoccupies the site. ]--and from hence, on the 25th February 1748, wasbaptized the first of the novelist's sons concerning whom any definiteinformation exists--the William Fielding who, like his father, became aWestminster magistrate. Beyond suggesting that it may supply a reasonwhy, during Mrs. Fielding's life-time, her husband's earliest biographermade no reference to the marriage, it is needless to dwell upon theproximity between the foregoing dates. In other respects thecircumstance now first made public is not inconsistent with LadyStuart's narrative; and there is no doubt, from the references to her inthe _Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon_ and elsewhere, that Mary Daniel didprove an excellent wife, mother, and nurse. Another thing is made clearby the date established, and this is that the verses "On Felix; Marry'dto a Cook-Maid" in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for July 1746, to whichMr. Lawrence refers, cannot possibly have anything to do with Fielding, although they seem to indicate that alliances of the kind were notunusual. Perhaps _Pamela_ had made them fashionable. On the other hand, the supposed allusion to Lyttelton and Fielding, to be found in thefirst edition of _Peregrine Pickle_, but afterwards suppressed, receivesa certain confirmation. "When, " says Smollett, speaking of the relationsof an imaginary Mr. Spondy with Gosling Scrag, who is understood torepresent Lyttelton, "he is inclined to marry his own cook-wench, hisgracious patron may condescend to give the bride away; and may finallysettle him in his old age, as a trading Westminster justice. " That, looking to the facts, Fielding's second marriage should have gained theapproval and countenance of Lyttelton is no more than the upright andhonourable character of the latter would lead us to expect. 

The _Jacobite's Journal_ ceased to appear in November 1748. In the earlypart of the December following, the remainder of Smollett's programmecame to pass, and by Lyttelton's interest Fielding was appointed aJustice of the Peace for Westminster. From a letter in the _BedfordCorrespondence_, dated 13th December 1748, respecting the lease of ahouse or houses which would qualify him to act for Middlesex, it wouldseem that the county was afterwards added to his commission. He musthave entered upon his office in the first weeks of December, as upon theninth of that month one John Salter was committed to the Gatehouse byHenry Fielding, Esq. , "of Bow Street, Covent Garden, formerly Sir Thomasde Veil's. " Sir Thomas de Veil, who died in 1746, and whose _Memoirs_had just been published, could not, however, have been Fielding'simmediate predecessor. 

CHAPTER V. 

TOM JONES. 

Writing from Basingstoke to his brother Tom, on the 29th October 1746, Joseph Warton thus refers to a visit he paid to Fielding:--

"I wish you had been with me last week, when I spent two evenings withFielding and his sister, who wrote David Simple, and you may guess I wasvery well entertained. The lady indeed retir'd pretty soon, but Russelland I sat up with the Poet [Warton no doubt uses the word here in thesense of 'maker' or 'creator'] till one or two in the morning, and wereinexpressibly diverted. I find he values, as he justly may, his JosephAndrews above all his writings: he was extremely civil to me, I fancy, on my Father's account. " [Footnote: i. E. The Rev. Thomas Warton, Vicarof Basingstoke, and sometime Professor of Poetry at Oxford. ]

This mention of _Joseph Andrews_ has misled some of Fielding'sbiographers into thinking that he ranked that novel above _Tom Jones_. But, in October 1746, _Tom Jones_ had not been published; and, from theabsence of any reference to it by Warton, it is only reasonable toconclude that it had not yet assumed a definite form, or Fielding, whowas by no means uncommunicative, would in all probability have spoken ofit as an effort from which he expected still greater things. It isclear, too, that at this date he was staying in London, presumably inlodgings with his sister; and it is also most likely that he lived muchin town when he was conducting the _True Patriot_ and the _Jacobite'sJournal_. At other times he would appear to have had no settled place ofabode. There are traditions that _Tom Jones_ was composed in part atSalisbury, in a house at the foot of Milford Hill; and again that it waswritten at Twiverton, or Twerton-on-Avon, near Bath, where, as the Vicarpointed out in _Notes and Queries_ for March 15th, 1879, there stillexists a house called Fielding's Lodge, over the door of which is astone crest of a phoenix rising out of a mural coronet. This lattertradition is supported by the statement of Mr. Richard Graves, author ofthe _Spiritual Quixote_, and rector, _circa_ 1750, of the neighbouringparish of Claverton, who says in his _Trifling Anecdotes of the lateRalph Allen_, that Fielding while at Twerton used to dine almost dailywith Allen at Prior Park. There are also traces of his residence at Bathitself; and of visits to the seat of Lyttelton's father at Hagley inWorcestershire. Towards the close of 1747 he had, as before stated, rooms in Back Lane, Twickenham; and it must be to this or to someearlier period that Walpole alludes in his _Parish Register_ (1759):--

 "Here Fielding met his bunter Muse And, as they quaff'd the fiery juice, Droll Nature stamp'd each lucky hit With unimaginable wit;"--

a quatrain in which the last lines excuse the first. According to Mr. Cobbett's already-quoted _Memorials of Twickenham_, he left that placeupon his appointment as a Middlesex magistrate, when he moved to BowStreet. His house in Bow Street belonged to John, Duke of Bedford; andhe continued to live in it until a short time before his death. It wassubsequently occupied by his half-brother and successor, Sir John, [Footnote: In the riots of '80--as Dickens has not forgotten to note in_Barnaby Rudge_--the house was destroyed by the mob, who burned SirJohn's goods in the street (Boswell's _Johnson_, chap. Lxx. )] who, writing to the Duke in March 1770, to thank him for his munificent giftof an additional ten years to the lease, recalls "that princely instanceof generosity which his Grace shewed to his late brother, HenryFielding. "

What this was, is not specified. It may have been the gift of the leasesof those tenements which, as explained, were necessary to qualifyFielding to act as a Justice of the Peace for the county of Middlesex;it may even have been the lease of the Bow Street house; or it may havebeen simply a gift of money. But whatever it was, it was somethingconsiderable. In his appeal to the Duke, at the close of the lastchapter, Fielding referred to previous obligations, and in hisdedication of _Tom Jones_ to Lyttelton, he returns again to his Grace'sbeneficence. Another person, of whose kindness grateful but indirectmention is made in the same dedication, is Ralph Allen, who, accordingto Derrick, the Bath M. C. , sent the novelist a present of L200, beforehe had even made his acquaintance, [Footnote: Derrick's Letters, 1767, ii. 95. ] which, from the reference to Allen in _Joseph Andrews_, probably began before 1742. Lastly, there is Lyttelton himself, concerning whom, in addition to a sentence which implies that heactually suggested the writing of _Tom Jones_, we have the expressstatements on Fielding's part that "without your Assistance this Historyhad never been completed, " and "I partly owe to you my Existence duringgreat Part of the Time which I have employed in composing it. " Thesewords must plainly be accepted as indicating pecuniary help; and, takingall things together, there can be little doubt that for some yearsantecedent to his appointment as a Justice of the Peace, Fielding was instraitened circumstances, and was largely aided, if not practicallysupported, by his friends. Even supposing him to have been subsidised byGovernment as alleged, his profits from the _True Patriot_ and the_Jacobite's Journal_ could not have been excessive; and his gout, ofwhich he speaks in one of his letters to the Duke of Bedford, must havebeen a serious obstacle in the way of his legal labours. 

_The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling_, was published by Andrew Millaron the 28th of February 1749, and its appearance in six volumes, 12mo, was announced in the _General Advertiser_ of that day's date. There hadbeen no author's name on the title-page of _Joseph Andrews_; but _TomJones_ was duly described as "by Henry Fielding, Esq. , " and bore themotto from Horace, seldom so justly applied, of "_Mores hominum multorumvidit. _" The advertisement also ingenuously stated that as it was"impossible to get Sets bound fast enough to answer the Demand for them, such Gentlemen and Ladies as pleased, might have them sew'd in BluePaper and Boards at the Price of 16s a Set. " The date of issuesufficiently disposes of the statement of Cunningham and others, thatthe book was written at Bow Street. Little more than the dedication, which is preface as well, can have been produced by Fielding in his newhome. Making fair allowance for the usual tardy progress of a bookthrough the press, and taking into consideration the fact that theauthor was actively occupied with his yet unfamiliar magisterial duties, it is most probable that the last chapter of _Tom Jones_ had been pennedbefore the end of 1748, and that after that time it had been at theprinter's. For the exact price paid to the author by the publisher onthis occasion we are indebted to Horace Walpole, who, writing to GeorgeMontagu in May 1749, says--"Millar the bookseller has done verygenerously by him [Fielding]: finding Tom Jones, for which he had givenhim six hundred pounds, sell so greatly, he has since given him anotherhundred. "

It is time, however, to turn from these particulars to the book itself. In _Joseph Andrews_, Fielding's work had been mainly experimental. Hehad set out with an intention which had unexpectedly developed intosomething else. That something else, he had explained, was the comicepic in prose. He had discovered its scope and possibilities only whenit was too late to re-cast his original design; and though _JosephAndrews_ has all the freshness and energy of a first attempt in a newdirection, it has also the manifest disadvantages of a mixed conceptionand an uncertain plan. No one had perceived these defects more plainlythan the author; and in _Tom Jones_ he set himself diligently to perfecthis new-found method. He believed that he foresaw a "new Province ofWriting, " of which he regarded himself with justice as the founder andlawgiver; and in the "prolegomenous, or introductory Chapters" to eachbook--those delightful resting-spaces where, as George Eliot says, "he seems to bring his arm-chair to the proscenium and chat with us inall the lusty ease of his fine English"--he takes us, as it were, intohis confidence, and discourses frankly of his aims and his way of work. He looked upon these little "initial Essays" indeed, as an indispensablepart of his scheme. They have given him, says he more than once, "thegreatest Pains in composing" of any part of his book, and he hopes that, like the Greek and Latin mottoes in the _Spectator_, they may serve tosecure him against imitation by inferior authors. [Footnote:Notwithstanding this warning, Cumberland (who copied so much) copiedthese in his novel of _Henry_. On the other hand, Fielding's French andPolish translators omitted them as superfluous. ] Naturally a great dealthey contain is by this time commonplace, although it was unhackneyedenough when Fielding wrote. The absolute necessity in work of this kindfor genius, learning, and knowledge of the world, the constantobligation to preserve character and probability--to regard variety andthe law of contrast:--these are things with which the modern tiro(however much he may fail to possess or observe them) is now supposed tobe at least theoretically acquainted. But there are other chapters inwhich Fielding may also be said to reveal his personal point of view, and these can scarcely be disregarded. His "Fare, " he says, followingthe language of the table, is "HUMAN NATURE, " which he shall firstpresent "in that more plain and simple Manner in which it is found inthe Country, " and afterwards "hash and ragoo it with all the high_French_ and _Italian_ seasoning of Affectation and Vice which Courtsand Cities afford. " His inclination, he admits, is rather to the middleand lower classes than to "the highest Life, " which he considers topresent "very little Humour or Entertainment. " His characters (asbefore) are based upon actual experience; or, as he terms it, "Conversation. " He does not propose to present his reader with "Modelsof Perfection;" he has never happened to meet with those "faultlessMonsters. " He holds that mankind is constitutionally defective, and thata single bad act does not, of necessity, imply a bad nature. He has alsoobserved, without surprise, that virtue in this world is not always "thecertain Road to Happiness, " nor "Vice to Misery. " In short, having beenadmitted "behind the Scenes of this Great Theatre of Nature, " he paintshumanity as he has found it, extenuating nothing, nor setting down aughtin malice, but reserving the full force of his satire and irony foraffectation and hypocrisy. His sincere endeavour, he says moreover inhis dedication to Lyttelton, has been "to recommend Goodness andInnocence, " and promote the cause of religion and virtue. And he has allthe consciousness that what he is engaged upon is no ordinaryenterprise. He is certain that his pages will outlive both "their owninfirm Author" and his enemies; and he appeals to Fame to solace andreassure him--

"Come, bright Love of Fame, "--says the beautiful "Invocation" whichbegins the thirteenth Book, --"inspire my glowing Breast: Not thee Icall, who over swelling Tides of Blood and Tears, dost bear the Heroe onto Glory, while Sighs of Millions waft his spreading Sails; but thee, fair, gentle Maid, whom _Mnesis_, happy Nymph, first on the Banks of_Hebrus_ didst produce. Thee, whom _Maeonia_ educated, whom _Mantua_charm'd, and who, on that fair Hill which overlooks the proud Metropolisof _Britain_, sat, with thy _Milton_, sweetly tuning the Heroic Lyre;fill my ravished Fancy with the Hopes of charming Ages yet to come. Foretel me that some tender Maid, whose Grandmother is yet unborn, hereafter, when, under the fictitious Name of _Sophia_, she reads thereal Worth which once existed in my _Charlotte_, shall, from hersympathetic Breast, send forth the heaving Sigh. Do thou teach me notonly to foresee, but to enjoy, nay, even to feed on future Praise. Comfort me by a solemn Assurance, that when the little Parlour in whichI sit at this Instant, shall be reduced to a worse furnished Box, Ishall be read, with Honour, by those who never knew nor saw me, and whomI shall neither know nor see. "

With no less earnestness, after a mock apostrophe to Wealth, he appealsto Genius:--

"Teach me (he exclaims), which to thee is no difficult Task, to knowMankind better than they know themselves. Remove that Mist which dimsthe Intellects of Mortals, and causes them to adore Men for their Art, or to detest them for their Cunning in deceiving others, when they are, in Reality, the Objects only of Ridicule, for deceiving themselves. Strip off the thin Disguise of Wisdom from Self-Conceit, of Plenty fromAvarice, and of Glory from Ambition. Come thou, that hast inspired thy_Aristophanes_, thy _Lucian_, thy _Cervantes_, thy _Rabelais_, thy_Moliere_, thy _Shakespear_, thy _Swift_, thy _Marivaux_, fill my Pageswith Humour, till Mankind learn the Good-Nature to laugh only at theFollies of others, and the Humility to grieve at their own. "

From the little group of immortals who are here enumerated, it may begathered with whom Fielding sought to compete, and with whom he hopedhereafter to be associated. His hopes were not in vain. Indeed, in onerespect, he must be held to have even outrivalled that particularpredecessor with whom he has been oftenest compared. Like _Don Quixote_, _Tom Jones_ is the precursor of a new order of things, --the earliest andfreshest expression of a new departure in art. But while _Tom Jones_ is, to the full, as amusing as _Don Quixote_, it has the advantage of agreatly superior plan, and an interest more skilfully sustained. Theincidents which, in Cervantes, simply succeed each other like the scenesin a panorama, are, in _Tom Jones_, but parts of an organised andcarefully-arranged progression towards a foreseen conclusion. As thehero and heroine cross and re-cross each other's track, there isscarcely an episode which does not aid in the moving forward of thestory. Little details rise lightly and naturally to the surface of thenarrative, not more noticeable at first than the most everydayoccurrences, and a few pages farther on become of the greatestimportance. The hero makes a mock proposal of marriage to LadyBellaston. It scarcely detains attention, so natural an expedient doesit appear, and behold in a chapter or two it has become a terribleweapon in the hands of the injured Sophia! Again, when the secret ofJones' birth [Footnote: Much ink has been shed respecting Fielding'sreason for making his hero illegitimate. But may not "The History of TomJones, a _Foundling_, " have had no subtler origin than the recentestablishment of the Foundling Hospital, of which Fielding had writtenin the _Champion_, and in which his friend Hogarth was interested?] isfinally disclosed, we look back and discover a hundred littlepremonitions which escaped us at first, but which, read by the light ofour latest knowledge, assume a fresh significance. At the same time, itmust be admitted that the over-quoted and somewhat antiquated dictum ofColeridge, by which _Tom Jones_ is grouped with the _Alchemist_ and_OEdipus Tyrannus_, as one of the three most perfect plots in the world, requires revision. It is impossible to apply the term "perfect" to awork which contains such an inexplicable stumbling-block as the Man ofthe Hill's story. Then again, progress and animation alone will not makea perfect plot, unless probability be superadded. And although it cannotbe said that Fielding disregards probability, he certainly strains itconsiderably. Money is conveniently lost and found; the naivestcoincidences continually occur; people turn up in the nick of time atthe exact spot required, and develop the most needful (but entirelycasual) relations with the characters. Sometimes an episode is soinartistically introduced as to be almost clumsy. Towards the end of thebook, for instance, it has to be shown that Jones has still some powerof resisting temptation, and he accordingly receives from a Mrs. Arabella Hunt, a written offer of her hand, which he declines. Mrs. Hunt's name has never been mentioned before, nor, after this occurrence, is it mentioned again. But in the brief fortnight which Jones has beenin town, with his head full of Lady Bellaston, Sophia, and the rest, weare to assume that he has unwittingly inspired her with so desperate apassion that she proposes and is refused--all in a chapter. Imperfections of this kind are more worthy of consideration than some ofthe minor negligences which criticism has amused itself by detecting inthis famous book. Such, among others, is the discovery made by a writerin the _Gentleman's Magazine_, that in one place winter and summer cometoo close together; or the "strange specimen of oscitancy" which another(it is, in fact, Mr. Keightley) considers it worth while to recordrespecting the misplacing of the village of Hambrook. To such trifles asthese last the precept of _non offendar maculis_ may safely be applied, although Fielding, wiser than his critics, seems to have foreseen thenecessity for still larger allowances:--

"Cruel indeed, " says he in his proemium to Book XI. , "would it be, ifsuch a Work as this History, which hath employed some Thousands of Hoursin the composing, should be liable to be condemned, because someparticular Chapter, or perhaps Chapters, may be obnoxious to very justand sensible Objections. . . . To write within such severe Rules as these, is as impossible as to live up to some splenetic Opinions; and if wejudge according to the Sentiments of some Critics, and of someChristians, no Author will be saved in this World, and no Man in thenext. "

Notwithstanding its admitted superiority to _Joseph Andrews_ as a workof art, there is no male character in _Tom Jones_ which can compete withParson Adams--none certainly which we regard with equal admiration. Allworthy, excellent compound of Lyttelton and Allen though he be, remains always a little stiff and cold in comparison with the "veinedhumanity" around him. We feel of him, as of another impeccablepersonage, that we "cannot breathe in that fine air, That pure severityof perfect light, " and that we want the "warmth and colour" which wefind in Adams. Allworthy is a type rather than a character--a faultwhich also seems to apply to that Molieresque hypocrite, the youngerBlifil. Fielding seems to have welded this latter together, rather thanto have fused him entire, and the result is a certain lack ofverisimilitude, which makes us wonder how his pinchbeck professions andvamped-up virtues could deceive so many persons. On the other hand, hisfather, Captain John Blifil, has all the look of life. Nor can there beany doubt about the vitality of Squire Western. Whether the germ of hischaracter be derived from Addison's Tory Foxhunter or not, it is certainthat Fielding must have had superabundant material of his own from whichto model this thoroughly representative, and at the same time, completely individual character. Western has all the rustic tastes, thenarrow prejudices, the imperfect education, the unreasoning hatred tothe court, which distinguished the Jacobite country gentleman of theGeorgian era; but his divided love for his daughter and his horses, hisgood-humour and his shrewdness, his foaming impulses and his quicksubsidings, his tears, his oaths, and his barbaric dialect, are allessential features in a personal portrait. When Jones has rescuedSophia, he will give him all his stable, the Chevalier and Miss Slouchexcepted; when he finds he is in love with her, he is in a frenzy to"get _at un_" and "spoil his Caterwauling. " He will have the surgeon'sheart's blood if he takes a drop too much from Sophia's white arm; whenshe opposes his wishes as to Blifil, he will turn her into the streetwith no more than a smock, and give his estate to the "_zinking_ Fund. "Throughout the book he is _qualis ab incepto_, --boisterous, brutal, jovial, and inimitable; so that when finally in "Chapter the Last, " weget that pretty picture of him in Sophy's nursery, protesting that thetattling of his little granddaughter is "sweeter Music than the finestCry of Dogs in _England_, " we part with him almost with a feeling ofesteem. Scott seems to have thought it unreasonable that he should have"taken a beating so unresistingly from the friend of Lord Fellamar, " andeven hints that the passage is an interpolation, although he wiselyrefrains from suggesting by whom, and should have known that it was inthe first edition. With all deference to so eminent an authority, it isimpossible to share his hesitation. Fielding was fully aware that eventhe bravest have their fits of panic. It must besides be remembered thatLord Fellamar's friend was not an effeminate dandy, but a military man--probably a professed _sabreur_, if not a salaried bully like CaptainStab in the _Rake's Progress_; that he was armed with a stick andWestern was not; and that he fell upon him in the most unexpectedmanner, in a place where he was wholly out of his element. It isinconceivable that the sturdy squire, with his faculty for distributing"Flicks" and "Dowses, "--who came so valiantly to the aid of Jones in hisbattle-royal with Blifil and Thwackum, --was likely, under any but veryexceptional circumstances, to be dismayed by a cane. It was theexceptional character of the assault which made a coward of him; andFielding, who had the keenest eye for inconsistencies of the kind, knewperfectly well what he was doing. 

Of the remaining _dramatis personae_--the swarming individualities withwhich the great comic epic is literally "all alive, " as Lord Monboddosaid--it is impossible to give any adequate account. Few of them, ifany, are open to the objection already pointed out with respect toAllworthy and the younger Blifil, and most of them bear signs of havingbeen closely copied from living models. Parson Thwackum, with hisAntinomian doctrines, his bigotry, and his pedagogic notions of justice;Square the philosopher, with his faith in human virtue (alas! poorSquare), and his cuckoo-cry about "the unalterable Rule of Eight and theeternal Fitness of Things;" Partridge--the unapproachable Partridge, --with his superstition, his vanity, and his perpetual _Infandum regina_, but who, notwithstanding all his cheap Latinity, cannot construe anunexpected phrase of Horace; Ensign Northerton, with his vague anddisrespectful recollections of "Homo;" young Nightingale and ParsonSupple:--each is a definite character bearing upon his forehead the markof his absolute fidelity to human nature. Nor are the female actors lessaccurately conceived. Starched Miss Bridget Allworthy, with her pinchedHogarthian face; Miss Western, with her disjointed diplomatic jargon;that budding Slipslop, Mrs. Honour; worthy Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Fitzpatrick, Mrs. Waters, Lady Bellaston, --all are to the full as real. Lady Bellaston especially, deserves more than a word. Like Lady Booby in_Joseph Andrews_, she is not a pleasant character; but the picture ofthe fashionable demirep, cynical, sensual, and imperious, has never beendrawn more vigorously, or more completely--even by Balzac. Lastly, thereis the adorable Sophia herself, whose pardon should be asked for namingher in such close proximity to her frailer sister. Byron calls her(perhaps with a slight suspicion of exigence of rhyme) too "emphatic;"meaning, apparently, to refer to such passages as her conversation withMrs. Fitzpatrick, etc. But the heroine of Fielding's time--a time whichmade merry over a lady's misadventures in horsemanship, and subjectedher to such atrocities as those of Lord Fellamar--required to bestrongly moulded; and Sophia Western is pure and womanly, in spite ofher unfavourable surroundings. She is a charming example--the first ofher race--of an unsentimentalised flesh-and-blood heroine; and Time hashated no jot of her frank vitality or her healthy beauty. Herdescendants in the modern novel are far more numerous than the familywhich she bore to the fortunate--the too fortunate--Mr. Jones. 

And this reminds us that in the foregoing enumeration we have left outHamlet. In truth, it is by no means easy to speak of this handsome, butvery un-heroic hero. Lady Mary, employing, curiously enough, the veryphrase which Fielding has made one of his characters apply to Jones, goes so far as to call him a "sorry scoundrel;" and eminent critics havedilated upon his fondness for drink and play. But it is a notableinstance of the way in which preconceived attributes are graduallyattached to certain characters, that there is in reality little ornothing to show that he was either sot or gamester. With one exception, when, in the joy of his heart at his benefactor's recovery, he takes toomuch wine (and it may be noted that on the same occasion the CatonicThwackum drinks considerably more), there is no evidence that he wasspecially given to tippling, even in an age of hard drinkers, while ofhis gambling there is absolutely no trace at all. On the other hand, heis admittedly brave, generous, chivalrous, kind to the poor, andcourteous to women. What, then, is his cardinal defect? The answer liesin the fact that Fielding, following the doctrine laid down in hisinitial chapters, has depicted him under certain conditions (in which, it is material to note, he is always rather the tempted than thetempter), with an unvarnished truthfulness which to the pure-minded isrepugnant, and to the prurient indecent. Remembering that he too hadbeen young, and reproducing, it may be, his own experiences, he exhibitshis youth as he had found him--a "piebald miscellany, "--

 "Bursts of great heart and slips in sensual mire;"

and, to our modern ideas, when no one dares, as Thackeray complained, "to depict to his utmost power a Man, " the spectacle is discomforting. Yet those who look upon human nature as keenly and unflinchingly asFielding did, knowing how weak and fallible it is, --how prone to fallaway by accident or passion, --can scarcely deny the truth of Tom Jones. That such a person cannot properly serve as a hero now is rather aquestion of our time than of Fielding's, and it may safely be set aside. One objection which has been made, and made with reason, is thatFielding, while taking care that Nemesis shall follow his hero's lapses, has spoken of them with too much indulgence, or rather withoutsufficient excuse. Coleridge, who was certainly not squeamish, seems tohave felt this when, in a MS. Note [Footnote: These notes werecommunicated by Mr. James Gillman to _The Literary Remains of SamuelTaylor Coleridge_, published by H. N. Coleridge in 1836. The book inwhich they were made, (it is the four volume edition of 1773, and hasGillman's book-plate), is now in the British Museum. The abovetranscript is from the MS. ] in the well-known British Museum edition, hesays:--

"Even in this most questionable part of Tom Jones [i. E. The LadyBellaston episode, chap. Ix. Book xv. ], I cannot but think afterfrequent reflection on it, that an additional paragraph, more fully &forcibly unfolding Tom Jones's sense of self-degradation on thediscovery of the true character of the relation, in which he had stoodto Lady Bellaston--& his awakened feeling of the dignity and manlinessof Chastity--would have removed in great measure any just objection, atall events relating to Fielding himself, by taking in the state ofmanners in his time. "

Another point suggested by these last lines may be touched _en passant_. Lady Bellaston, as Fielding has carefully explained (chap. I. Bookxiv. ), was not a typical, but an exceptional, member of society; andalthough there were eighteenth-century precedents for such alliances(e. G. Miss Edwards and Lord Anne Hamilton, Mrs. Upton and GeneralBraddock, ) it is a question whether in a picture of average English lifeit was necessary to deal with exceptions of this kind, or, at allevents, to exemplify them in the principal personage. But the discussionof this subject would prove endless. Right or wrong, Fielding hascertainly suffered in popularity for his candour in this respect, sinceone of the wisest and wittiest books ever written cannot, withouthesitation, be now placed in the hands of women or very young people. Moreover, this same candour has undoubtedly attracted to its pages many, neither young nor women, whom its wit finds unintelligent, and itswisdom leaves unconcerned. 

But what a brave wit it is, what a wisdom after all, that is containedin this wonderful novel! Where shall we find its like for richness ofreflection--for inexhaustible good-humour--for large and liberalhumanity! Like Fontenelle, Fielding might fairly claim that he had nevercast the smallest ridicule upon the most infinitesimal of virtues; it isagainst hypocrisy, affectation, insincerity of all kinds, that he wageswar. And what a keen and searching observation, --what a perpetualfaculty of surprise, --what an endless variety of method! Take thechapter headed ironically _A Receipt to regain the lost Affections of aWife_, in which Captain John Blifil gives so striking an example of Mr. Samuel Johnson's just published _Vanity of Human Wishes_, by dyingsuddenly of apoplexy while he is considering what he will do with Mr. Allworthy's property (when it reverts to him); or that admirable scene, commended by Macaulay, of Partridge at the Playhouse, which is none theworse because it has just a slight look of kinship with that otherfamous visit which Sir Roger de Coverley paid to Philips's _DistrestMother_. Or take again, as utterly unlike either of these, thatburlesque Homeric battle in the churchyard, where the "sweetly-windingStour" stands for "reedy Simois, " and the bumpkins round for Greeks andTrojans! Or take yet once more, though it is woful work to offer bricksfrom this edifice which _has_ already (in a sense) outlived theEscorial, [Footnote: The Escorial, it will be remembered, was partiallyburned in 1872. ] the still more diverse passage which depicts thechanging conflict in Black George's mind as to whether he shall returnto Jones the sixteen guineas that he has found:--

"_Black George_ having received the Purse, set forward towards theAlehouse; but in the Way a Thought occurred whether he should not detainthis Money likewise. His Conscience, however, immediately started atthis Suggestion, and began to upbraid him with Ingratitude to hisBenefactor. To this his Avarice answered, 'That his conscience shouldhave considered that Matter before, when he deprived poor _Jones_ of his500l. That having quietly acquiesced in what was of so much greaterImportance, it was absurd, if not downright Hypocrisy, to affect anyQualms at this Trifle. '--In return to which, Conscience, like a goodLawyer, attempted to distinguish between an absolute Breach of Trust, ashere where the Goods were delivered, and a bare Concealment of what wasfound, as in the former Case. Avarice presently treated this withRidicule, called it a Distinction without a Difference, and absolutelyinsisted, that when once all Pretensions of Honour and Virtue were givenup in any one Instance, that there was no Precedent for resorting tothem upon a second Occasion. In short, poor Conscience had certainlybeen defeated in the Argument, had not Fear stept in to her Assistance, and very strenuously urged, that the real Distinction between the twoActions, did not lie in the different degrees of Honour, but of Safety:For that the secreting the 500l. Was a Matter of very little Hazard;whereas the detaining the sixteen Guineas was liable to the utmostDanger of Discovery. 

"By this friendly Aid of Fear, Conscience obtained a compleat Victory inthe Mind of _Black George_, and after making him a few Compliments onhis Honesty, forced him to deliver the Money to _Jones_. "

When one remembers that this is but one of many such passages, and thatthe book, notwithstanding the indulgence claimed by the author in thePreface, and despite a certain hurry at the close, is singularly even inits workmanship, it certainly increases our respect for the manly geniusof the writer, who, amid all the distractions of ill-health and poverty, could find the courage to pursue and perfect such a conception. It istrue that both Cervantes and Bunyan wrote their immortal works in theconfinement of a prison. But they must at least have enjoyed theseclusion so needful to literary labour; while _Tom Jones_ was writtenhere and there, at all times and in all places, with the dun at the doorand the wolf not very far from the gate. [Footnote: Salisbury, in theneighbourhood of which _Tom Jones_ is laid, claims the originals of someof the characters. Thwackum is said to have been Hele, a schoolmaster;Square, one Chubb, a Deist; and Dowling the lawyer a person namedStillingfleet. ]

The little sentence quoted some pages back from Walpole's letters issufficient proof, if proof were needed, of its immediate success. AndrewMillar was shrewd enough, despite his constitutional confusion, and heis not likely to have given an additional L100 to the author of any bookwithout good reason. But the indications of that success are not veryplainly impressed upon the public prints. The _Gentleman's Magazine_ for1749, which, as might be expected from Johnson's connection with it, contains ample accounts of his own tragedy of _Irene_ and Richardson'srecently-published _Clarissa_, has no notice of _Tom Jones_, nor isthere even any advertisement of the second edition issued in the sameyear. But, in the emblematic frontispiece, it appears under _Clarissa_(and sharing with that work a possibly unintended proximity to a sprigof laurel stuck in a bottle of Nantes), among a pile of the books of theyear; and in the "poetical essays" for August, one Thomas Cawthornbreaks into rhymed panegyric. "Sick of her fools, " sings thisenthusiastic but scarcely lucid admirer--

 "Sick of her fools, great _Nature_ broke the jest, And _Truth_ held out each character to test, When _Genius_ spoke: Let _Fielding_ take the pen! Life dropt her mask, and all mankind were men. "

There were others, however, who would scarcely have echoed the laudatorysentiments of Mr. Cawthorn. Among these was again the excellentRichardson, who seems to have been wholly unpropitiated by the olivebranch held out to him in the _Jacobite's Journal_. His vexation at theindignity put upon _Pamela_ by _Joseph Andrews_ was now complicated by atwittering jealousy of the "spurious brat, " as he obligingly called _TomJones_, whose success had been so "unaccountable. " In thesecircumstances, some of the letters of his correspondents must have beengall and wormwood to him. Lady Bradshaigh, for instance, under her _nomde guerre_ of "Belfour, " tells him that she is fatigued with the veryname of the book, having met several young ladies who were for evertalking of their Tom Jones's, "for so they call their favourites, " andthat the gentlemen, on their side, had their Sophias, one having gone sofar as to give that all-popular name to his "Dutch mastiff puppy. " Butperhaps the best and freshest exhibition (for, as far as can beascertained, it has never hitherto been made public) of Richardson'sattitude to his rival is to be found in a little group of letters in theForster collection at South Kensington. The writers are Aaron Hill andhis daughters; but the letters do not seem to have been known to Mrs. Barbauld, whose last communication from Hill is dated November 2, 1748. Nor are they to be found in Hill's own Correspondence. The ladies, itappears, had visited Richardson at Salisbury Court in 1741, and weregreat admirers of _Pamela_, and the "divine _Clarissa_. " Some monthsafter _Tom Jones_ was published, Richardson (not yet having broughthimself to read the book) had asked them to do so, and give him theiropinion as to its merits. Thereupon Minerva and Astraea, who despitetheir names, and their description of themselves as "Girls of anuntittering Disposition, " must have been very bright and lively youngpersons, began seriously "to lay their two wise heads together" and"hazard this Discovery of their Emptiness. " Having "with much ado gotover some Reluctance, that was bred by a familiar coarseness in the_Title_, " they report "much (masqu'd) merit" in the "whole six volumes"--"a double merit, both of Head, and _Heart_. "

Had it been the latter only it would be more worthy of Mr. Richardson'sperusal; but, say these considerate pioneers, if he does spare it hisattention, he must only do so at his leisure, for the author "introducesAll his Sections (and too often interweaves the _serious_ Body of hismeanings), with long Runs of bantering Levity, which his [Fielding's]Good sense may suffer by Effect of. " "It is true (they continue), heseems to wear this Lightness, as a grave Head sometime wears a_Feather_: which tho' He and Fashion may consider as an ornament, Reflection will condemn, as a Disguise, and _covering_. " Then follows abrief excursus, intended for their correspondent's special consolation, upon the folly of treating grave things lightly; and with delightfulsententiousness the letter thus concludes:--

"Mean while, it is an honest pleasure, which we take in adding, that(exclusive of one wild, detach'd, and independent Story of a _Man of theHill_, that neither brings on Anything, nor rose from Anything that wentbefore it) All the changefull windings of the Author's Fancy carry on acourse of regular Design; and end in an extremely moving Close, whereLives that seem'd to wander and run different ways, meet, All, in aninstructive Center. 

"The whole Piece consists of an inventive Race of Disapointments andRecoveries. It excites Curiosity, and holds it watchful. It has just andpointed Satire; but it is a partial Satire, and confin'd, too narrowly:It sacrifices to Authority, and Interest. Its _Events_ reward Sincerity, and punish and expose Hypocrisy; shew Pity and Benevolence in amiableLights, and Avarice and Brutality in very despicable ones. In every PartIt has Humanity for its Intention: In too many, it _seems_ wantoner thanIt was meant to be: It has bold shocking Pictures; and (I fear)[Footnote: The "pen-holder" is the fair Astraea. ] not unresembling ones, in high Life, and in low. And (to conclude this too adventurous Guess-work, from a Pair of forward Baggages) woud, every where, (we think, )_deserve_ to please, --if stript of what the Author thought himself mostsure to _please by_. 

"And thus, Sir, we have told you our sincere opinion of _Tom Jones_. . . . 

"Your most profest Admirers and most humble Servants, "Astraea and Minerva Hill. 

"PLAISTOW the 27th of July 1749. "

Richardson's reply to this ingenuous criticism is dated the 4th ofAugust. His requesting two young women to study and criticise a bookwhich he has heard strongly condemned as immoral, --his own obviousfamiliarity with what he has not read but does not scruple to censure, --his transparently jealous anticipation of its author's ability, --allthis forms a picture so characteristic alike of the man and the timethat no apology is needed for the following textual extract:--

"I must confess, that I have been prejudiced by the Opinion of Severaljudicious Friends against the truly coarse-titled Tom Jones; and so havebeen discouraged from reading it. --I was told, that it was a ramblingCollection of Waking Dreams, in which Probability was not observed: Andthat it had a very bad Tendency. And I had Reason to think that theAuthor intended for his Second View (His _first_, to fill his Pocket, byaccommodating it to the reigning Taste) in writing it, to whiten avicious Character, and to make Morality bend to his Practices. WhatReason had he to make his Tom illegitimate, in an Age where Keeping isbecome a Fashion? Why did he make him a common--What shall I call it?And a Kept Fellow, the Lowest of all Fellows, yet in Love with a YoungCreature who was traping [trapesing?] after him, a Fugitive from herFather's House?--Why did he draw his Heroine so fond, so foolish, and soinsipid?--Indeed he has one Excuse--He knows not how to draw a delicateWoman--He has not been accustomed to such Company, --And is tooprescribing, too impetuous, too immoral, I will venture to say, to takeany other Byass than that a perverse and crooked Nature has given him;or Evil Habits, at least, have confirm'd in him. Do Men expect Grapes ofThorns, or Figs of Thistles? But, perhaps, I think the worse of thePiece because I know the Writer, and dislike his Principles both Publicand Private, tho' I wish well to the _Man_, and Love Four worthy Sistersof his, with whom I am well acquainted. And indeed should admire him, did he make the Use of his Talents which I wish him to make, For theVein of Humour, and Ridicule, which he is Master of, might, if properlyturned do great Service to ye Cause of Virtue. 

"But no more of this Gentleman's Work, after I have said, That thefavourable Things, you say of the Piece, will tempt me, if I can findLeisure, to give it a Perusal. "

Notwithstanding this last sentence, Richardson more than once reverts to_Tom Jones_ before he finishes his letter. Its effect upon Minerva andAstraea is hest described in an extract from Aaron Hill's reply, datedseven days later (August the 11th):--

"Unfortunate _Tom Jones_! how sadly has he mortify'd Two sawcyCorrespondents of your making! They are with me now: and bid me tellyou, You have spoil'd 'em Both, for Criticks. --Shall I add, a Secretwhich they did not bid me tell you?--They, Both, fairly _cry'd_, thatYou shou'd think it possible they you'd approve of Any thing, in Anywork, that had an _Evil Tendency_, in any Part or Purpose of it. Theymaintain their Point so far, however, as to be convinc'd they say, that_you_ will disapprove this over-rigid Judgment of those Friends, whoyou'd not find a Thread of Moral Meaning in Tom Jones, quite independentof the Levities they justly censure. --And, as soon as you have Time toread him, for yourself, tis there, pert Sluts, they will be bold enoughto rest the Matter. --Mean while, they love and honour you and youropinions. "

To this the author of _Clarissa_ replied by writing a long epistledeploring the pain he had given the "dear Ladies, " and minutelyjustifying his foregone conclusions from the expressions they had used. He refers to Fielding again as "a very indelicate, a very impetuous, anunyielding-spirited Man;" and he also trusts to be able to "bestow aReading" on _Tom Jones_; but by a letter from Lady Bradshaigh, printedin Barbauld, and dated December 1749, it seems that even at that date hehad not, or pretended he had not, yet done so. In another of theunpublished South Kensington letters, from a Mr. Solomon Lowe, occursthe following:--"I do not doubt"--says the writer--"but all Europe willring of it [_Clarissa_]: when a Cracker, that was some thous'd hours a-com-posing, [Footnote: _Vide Tom Jones_, Book xi. Chap. I. ] will nolonger be heard, or talkt-of. " Richardson, with business-like precision, has gravely docketed this in his own handwriting, --"Cracker, T. Jones. "

It is unfortunate for Mr. Lowe's reputation as a prophet that, aftermore than one hundred and thirty years, this ephemeral firework, as hedeemed it, should still be sparkling with undiminished brilliancy, andto judge by recent editions, is selling as vigorously as ever. From thedays when Lady Mary wrote "_Ne plus ultra_" in her own copy, and LaHarpe called it _le premier roman du monde_, (a phrase which, by theway, De Musset applies to _Clarissa_), it has come down to us with analmost universal accompaniment of praise. Gibbon, Byron, Coleridge, Scott, Dickens, Thackeray, --have all left their admiration on record, --to say nothing of professional critics innumerable. As may be seen fromthe British Museum Catalogue, it has been translated into French, German, Polish, Dutch, and Spanish. Russia and Sweden have also theirversions. The first French translation, or rather abridgment, by M. DeLa Place was prohibited in France (to Richardson's delight) by royaldecree, an act which affords another instance, in Scott's words, of that"French delicacy, which, on so many occasions, has strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel" (e. G. The novels of M. Crebillon _fils_). LaPlace's edition (1750) was gracefully illustrated with sixteen plates byHubert Bourguignon, called Gravelot, one of those eighteenth-centuryillustrators whose designs at present are the rage in Paris. In England, Fielding's best-known pictorial interpreters are Rowlandson andCruikshank, the latter being by far the more sympathetic. Stothard alsoprepared some designs for Harrison's _Novelists Magazine_; but hisrefined and effeminate pencil was scarcely strong enough for the task. Hogarth alone could have been the ideal illustrator of Henry Fielding;that is to say--if, in lieu of the rude designs he made for _TristramShandy_, he could have been induced to undertake the work in the largerfashion of the _Rake's Progress_, or _The Marriage a la Mode_. 

As might perhaps be anticipated, _Tom Jones_ attracted the dramatist. [Footnote: It may be added that it also attracted the plagiarist. As_Pamela_ had its sequel in _Pamela's Conduct in High Life_, 1741, so_Tom Jones_ was continued in _The History of Tom Jones the Foundling, inhis Married State_, a second edition of which was issued in 1750. ThePreface announces, needlessly enough, that "Henry Fielding, Esq. , is notthe Author of this Book. " It deserves no serious consideration. ] In1765, one J. H. Steffens made a comedy of it for the German boards; andin 1785, a M. Desforges based upon it another, called _Tom Jones aLondres_, which was acted at the _Theatre Francais_. It was also turnedinto a comic opera by Joseph Reed in 1769, and played at Covent Garden. But its most piquant transformation is the _Comedie lyrique_ ofPoinsinet, acted at Paris in 1765-6 to the lively music of Philidor. Thefamous Caillot took the part of Squire Western, who, surrounded by_piqueurs_, and girt with the conventional _cor de chasse_ of the Gallicsportsman, sings the following _ariette_, diversified with trueFontainebleau terms of venery:--

 "D'un Cerf, dix Cors, j'ai connaissance: On l'attaque au fort, on le lance; Tous sont prets: Piqueurs & Valets Suivent les pas de l'ami Jone (_sic_). J'entends crier: Volcelets, Volcelets. Aussitot j'ordonne Que la Meute donne. Tayaut, Tayaut, Tayaut. Mes chiens decouples l'environnent; Les trompes sonnent: 'Courage, Amis: Tayaut, Tayaut. ' Quelques chiens, que l'ardeur derange, Quittent la voye & prennent le change Jones les rassure d'un cri: Ourvari, ourvari. Accoute, accoute, accoute. Au retour nous en revoyons. Accoute, a Mirmiraut, courons Tout a Griffaut; Y apres: Tayaut, Tayaut. On reprend route, Voila le Cerf a l'eau. La trompe sonne, La Meute donne, L'echo resonne, Nous pressons les nouveaux relais: Volcelets, Volcelets. L'animal force succombe, Fait un effort, se releve, enfin tombe: Et nos chasseurs chantent tous a l'envi: 'Amis, goutons les fruits de la victoire; 'Amis, Amis, celebrons notre gloire. 'Halali, Fanfare, Halali 'Halali. '"

With this triumphant flourish of trumpets the present chapter may befittingly concluded. [Footnote: See Appendix No. II. : Fielding and Mrs. Hussey. ]

CHAPTER VI. 

JUSTICE LIFE--AMELIA. 

In one of Horace Walpole's letters to George Montagu, already quoted, there is a description of Fielding's Bow Street establishment, which hasattracted more attention than it deserves. The letter is dated May the18th, 1749, and the passage (in Cunningham's edition) runs as follows:--

"He [Rigby] and Peter Bathurst [Footnote: Probably a son of PeterBathurst (d. 1748), brother of Pope's friend, Allen, Lord Bathurst. Rigby was the Richard Rigby whose despicable character is familiar inEighteenth-Century Memoirs. "He died (says Cunningham) involved in debt, with his accounts as Paymaster of the Forces hopelessly unsettled. "]t'other night carried a servant of the latter's, who had attempted toshoot him, before Fielding; who, to all his other vocations, has, by thegrace of Mr. Lyttelton, added that of Middlesex justice. He sent themword he was at supper, that they must come next morning. They did notunderstand that freedom, and ran up, where they found him banquetingwith a blind man, a whore, and three Irishmen, on some cold mutton and abone of ham, both in one dish, and the dirtiest cloth. He never stirrednor asked them to sit. Rigby, who had seen him so often come to beg aguinea of Sir C. Williams, and Bathurst, at whose father's he had livedfor victuals, understood that dignity as little, and pulled themselveschairs; on which he civilised. "

Scott calls this "a humiliating anecdote;" and both Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Keightley have exhausted rhetoric in the effort to explain it away. Astold, it is certainly uncomplimentary; but considerable deductions mustbe made, both for the attitude of the narrator and the occasion of thenarrative. Walpole's championship of his friends was notorious; and hisabsolute injustice, when his partisan spirit was uppermost, iseverywhere patent to the readers of his Letters. In the present case hewas not of the encroaching party; and he speaks from hearsay solely. Buthis friends had, in his opinion, been outraged by a man, who, accordingto his ideas of fitness, should have come to them cap in hand; and as anatural consequence, the story, no doubt exaggerated when it reachedhim, loses nothing under his transforming and malicious pen. Stripped ofits decorative flippancy, however, there remains but little that canreally be regarded as "humiliating. " Scott himself suggests, what ismost unquestionably the case, that the blind man was the novelist'shalf-brother, afterwards Sir John Fielding; and it is extremely unlikelythat the lady so discourteously characterised could have been any otherthan his wife, who, Lady Stuart tells us, "had few personal charms. "There remain the "three Irishmen, " who may, or may not, have beenperfectly presentable members of society. At all events, their merenationality, so rapidly decided upon, cannot be regarded as a stigma. That the company and entertainment were scarcely calculated to suit thesuperfine standard of Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Rigby may perhaps beconceded. Fielding was by no means a rich man, and in his chequeredcareer had possibly grown indifferent to minor decencies. Moreover, weare told by Murphy that, as a Westminster justice, he "kept his tableopen to those who had been his friends when young, and had impairedtheir own fortunes. " Thus, it must always have been a more or lessragged regiment who met about that kindly Bow Street board; but that thefact reflects upon either the host or guests cannot be admitted for amoment. If the anecdote is discreditable to anyone it is to that facileretailer of _ana_, and incorrigible society-gossip, Mr. Horace Walpole. 

But while these unflattering tales were told of his private life, Fielding was fast becoming eminent in his public capacity. On the 12thof May 1749 he was unanimously chosen chairman of Quarter Sessions atHicks's Hall (as the Clerkenwell Sessions House was then called); and onthe 29th of June following he delivered a charge to the WestminsterGrand Jury which is usually printed with his works, and which is stillregarded by lawyers as a model exposition. It is at first a littleunexpected to read his impressive and earnest denunciations ofmasquerades and theatres (in which latter, by the way, one Samuel Footehad very recently been following the example of the author of_Pasquin_); but Fielding the magistrate and Fielding the playwright weretwo different persons; and a long interval of changeful experience laybetween them. In another part of his charge, which deals with theoffence of libelling, it is possible that his very vigorous appeal wasnot the less forcible by reason of the personal attacks to which he hadreferred in the Preface to _David Simple_, the _Jacobite's Journal_, andelsewhere. His only other literary efforts during this year appear tohave been a little pamphlet entitled _A True State of the Case ofBosavern Penlez_; and a formal congratulatory letter to Lyttelton uponhis second marriage, in which, while speaking gratefully of his ownobligations to his friend, he endeavours to enlist his sympathies forMoore the fabulist who was also "about to marry. " The pamphlet hadreference to an occurrence which took place in July. Three sailors ofthe "Grafton" man-of-war had been robbed in a house of ill fame in theStrand. Failing to obtain redress, they attacked the house with theircomrades, and wrecked it, causing a "dangerous riot, " to which Fieldingmakes incidental reference in one of his letters to the Duke of Bedford, and which was witnessed by John Byrom, the poet and stenographer, inwhose _Remains_ it is described. Bosavern Penlez or Pen Lez, who hadjoined the crowd, and in whose possession some of the stolen propertywas found, was tried and hanged in September. His sentence, which wasconsidered extremely severe, excited much controversy, and the object ofFielding's pamphlet was to vindicate the justice and necessity of hisconviction. 

Towards the close of 1749 Fielding fell seriously ill with feveraggravated by gout. It was indeed at one time reported thatmortification had supervened; but under the care of Dr. Thomson, thatdubious practitioner whose treatment of Winnington in 1746 had givenrise to so much paper war, he recovered; and during 1750 was activelyemployed in his magisterial duties. At this period lawlessness andviolence appear to have prevailed to an unusual extent in themetropolis, and the office of a Bow Street justice was no sinecure. Reform of some kind was felt on all sides to be urgently required; andFielding threw his two years' experience and his deductions therefrominto the form of a pamphlet entitled _An Enquiry into the Causes of thelate Increase of Robbers, etc. , with some Proposals for remedying thisgrowing Evil_. It was dedicated to the then Lord High Chancellor, PhilipYorke, Lord Hardwicke, by whom, as well as by more recent legalauthorities, it was highly appreciated. Like the _Charge to the GrandJury_, it is a grave argumentative document, dealing seriously withluxury, drunkenness, gaming, and other prevalent vices. Once only, in anironical passage respecting beaus and fine ladies, does the authorremind us of the author of _Tom Jones_. As a rule, he is weighty, practical, and learned in the law. Against the curse of Gin-drinking, which, owing to the facilities for obtaining that liquor, had increasedto an alarming extent among the poorer classes, he is especially urgentand energetic. He points out that it is not only making dreadful havocin the present, but that it is enfeebling the race of the future, and heconcludes--

"Some little Care on this Head is surely necessary: For tho' theEncrease of Thieves, and the Destruction of Morality; though the Loss ofour Labourers, our Sailors, and our Soldiers, should not be sufficientReasons, there is one which seems to be unanswerable, and that is, theLoss of our Gin-drinkers: Since, should the drinking this Poison becontinued in its present Height during the next twenty Years, therewill, by that Time, be very few of the common People left to drink it. "

To the appeal thus made by Fielding in January 1751, Hogarth added hispictorial protest in the following month by his awful plate of _GinLane_, which, if not actually prompted by his friend's words, wascertainly inspired by the same crying evil. One good result of theseefforts was the "Bill for restricting the Sale of Spirituous Liquors, "to which the royal assent was given in June, and Fielding's connectionwith this enactment is practically acknowledged by Horace Walpole in his_Memoires of the Last ten Years of the Reign of George II_. The law wasnot wholly effectual, and was difficult to enforce; but it was not byany means without its good effects. [Footnote: The Rev. R. Hurd, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, an upright and scholarly, but formal andcensorious man, whom Johnson called a "word-picker, " and frankercontemporaries "an old maid in breeches, " has left a reference toFielding at this time which is not flattering. "I dined with him [RalphAllen] yesterday, where I met Mr. Fielding, --a poor emaciated, worn-outrake, whose gout and infirmities have got the better even of hisbuffoonery" (Letter to Balguy, dated "Inner Temple, 19th March, 1751. ")That Fielding had not long before been dangerously ill, and that he wasa martyr to gout, is fact: the rest is probably no more than the echo ofa foregone conclusion, based upon report, or dislike to his works. Hurdpraised Richardson and proscribed Sterne. He must have been wholly outof sympathy with the author of _Tom Jones_. ]

Between the publication of the _Enquiry_ and that of _Amelia_ there isnothing of importance to chronicle except Fielding's connection with oneof the events of 1751, the discovery of the Glastonbury waters. According to the account given in the _Gentleman's_ for July in thatyear, a certain Matthew Chancellor had been cured of "an asthma andphthisic" of thirty years' standing by drinking from a spring near ChainGate, Glastonbury, to which he had (so he alleged) been directed in adream. The spring forthwith became famous; and in May an entry in theHistorical Chronicle for Sunday, the 5th, records that above 10, 000persons had visited it, deserting Bristol, Bath, and other popularresorts. Numerous pamphlets were published for and against the newwaters; and a letter in their favour, which appeared in the _LondonDaily Advertiser_ for the 31st August, signed "Z. Z. , " is "supposed tobe wrote" by "J--e F--g. " Fielding was, as may be remembered, aSomersetshire man, Sharpham Park, his birthplace, being about threemiles from Glastonbury; and he testifies to the "wonderful Effects ofthis salubrious Spring" in words which show that he had himselfexperienced them. "Having seen great Numbers of my Fellow Creaturesunder two of the most miserable Diseases human Nature can labour under, the Asthma and Evil, return from _Glastonbury_ blessed with the Returnof Health, and having myself been relieved from a Disorder which baffledthe most skilful Physicians, " justice to mankind (he says) obliges himto take notice of the subject. The letter is interesting, more asshowing that, at this time, Fielding's health was broken, than asproving the efficacy of the cure; for, whatever temporary relief thewaters afforded, it is clear (as Mr. Lawrence pertinently remarks) thathe derived no permanent benefit from them. They must, however, havecontinued to attract visitors, as a pump-room was opened in August 1753;and, although they have now fallen into disuse, they were popular formany years. 

But a more important occurrence than the discovery of the Somersetshirespring is a little announcement contained in Sylvanus Urban's list ofpublications for December 1751, No. 17 of which is "_Amelia_, in 4books, 12mo; by Henry Fielding, Esq. " The publisher, of course, wasAndrew Millar; and the actual day of issue, as appears from the _GeneralAdvertiser_, was December the 19th, although the title-page, byanticipation, bore the date of 1752. There were two mottoes, one ofwhich was the appropriate--

 "_Felices ter & amplius Quos irrupta tenet Copula;_"

and the dedication, brief and simply expressed, was to Ralph Allen. Asbefore, the "artful aid" of advertisement was invoked to whet the publicappetite. 

"To satisfy the earnest Demand of the Publick (says Millar), this Workhas been printed at four Presses; but the Proprietor notwithstandingfinds it impossible to get them (_sic_) bound in Time, without spoilingthe Beauty of the Impression, and therefore will sell them sew'd atHalf-a-Guinea. "

This was open enough; but, according to Scott, Millar adopted a secondexpedient to assist _Amelia_ with the booksellers. 

"He had paid a thousand pounds for the copyright; and when he began tosuspect that the work would be judged inferior to its predecessor, heemployed the following stratagem to push it upon the trade. At a salemade to the booksellers, previous to the publication, Millar offered hisfriends his other publications on the usual terms of discount; but whenhe came to _Amelia_, he laid it aside, as a work expected to be in suchdemand, that he could not afford to deliver it to the trade in the usualmanner. The _ruse_ succeeded--the impression was anxiously bought up, and the bookseller relieved from every apprehension of a slow sale. "

There were several reasons why--superficially speaking--_Amelia_ shouldbe "judged inferior to its predecessor. " That it succeeded _Tom Jones_after an interval of little more than two years and eight months wouldbe an important element in the comparison, if it were known at alldefinitely what period was occupied in writing _Tom Jones_. All that canbe affirmed is that Fielding must have been far more at leisure when hecomposed the earlier work than he could possibly have been when fillingthe office of a Bow Street magistrate. But, in reality, there is a muchbetter explanation of the superiority of _Tom Jones_ to _Amelia_ thanthe merely empirical one of the time it took. _Tom Jones_, it has beenadmirably said by a French critic, "_est la condensation et le resume detoute une existence. C'est le resultat et la conclusion de plusieursannees de passions et de pensees, la formule derniere et complete de laphilosophie personnelle que l'on s'est faite sur tout ce que l'on a vuet senti_. " Such an experiment, argues Planche, is not twice repeated ina lifetime: the soil which produced so rich a crop can but yield apoorer aftermath. Behind _Tom Jones_ there was the author's ebullientyouth and manhood; behind _Amelia_ but a section of his graver middle-age. There are other reasons for diversity in the manner of the bookitself. The absence of the initial chapters, which gave so much varietyto _Tom Jones_, tends to heighten the sense of impatience which, it mustbe confessed, occasionally creeps over the reader of _Amelia_, especially in those parts where, like Dickens at a later period, Fielding delays the progress of his narrative for the discussion ofsocial problems and popular grievances. However laudable the desire(expressed in the dedication) "to expose some of the most glaring Evils, as well public as private, which at present infest this Country, " theresult in _Amelia_, from an art point of view, is as unsatisfactory asthat of certain well-known pages of _Bleak House_ and _Little Dorrit_. Again, there is a marked change in the attitude of the author, --a changenot wholly reconcilable with the brief period which separates the twonovels. However it may have chanced, whether from failing health orotherwise, the Fielding of _Amelia_ is suddenly a far older man than theFielding of _Tom Jones_. The robust and irrepressible vitality, thefull-veined delight of living, the energy of observation and strength ofsatire, which characterise the one give place in the other to a calmerretrospection, a more compassionate humanity, a gentler and morebenignant criticism of life. That, as some have contended, _Amelia_shows an intellectual falling-off cannot for a moment be admitted, leastof all upon the ground--as even so staunch an admirer as Mr. Keightleyhas allowed himself to believe--that certain of its incidents areobviously repeated from the _Modern Husband_ and others of the author'splays. At this rate _Tom Jones_ might be judged inferior to _JosephAndrews_, because the Political Apothecary in the "Man of the Hill's"story has his prototype in the _Coffee-House Politician_, whose originalis Addison's Upholsterer. The plain fact is, that Fielding recognisedthe failure of his plays as literature; he regarded them as dead; andfreely transplanted what was good of his forgotten work into the workwhich he hoped would live. In this, it may be, there was something ofindolence or haste; but assuredly there was no proof of decliningpowers. 

If, for the sake of comparison, _Tom Jones_ may be described as ananimated and happily-constructed comedy, with more than the usualallowance of first-rate characters, _Amelia_ must be regarded as a one-part piece, in which the rest of the _dramatis personae_ are whollysubordinate to the central figure. Captain Booth, the two Colonels, Atkinson and his wife, Miss Matthews, Dr. Harrison, Trent, the shadowyand maleficent "My Lord, " are all less active on their own account thanenergised and set in motion by Amelia. Round her they revolve; from herthey obtain their impulse and their orbit. The best of the men, asstudies, are Dr. Harrison and Colonel Bath. The former, who is asbenevolent as Allworthy, is far more human, and it may be added, morehumorous in well-doing. He is an individual rather than an abstraction. Bath, with his dignity and gun-cotton honour, is also admirable, but notentirely free from the objection made to some of Dickens's creations, that they are rather characteristics than characters. Captain WilliamBooth, beyond his truth to nature, manifests no qualities that cancompensate for his weakness, and the best that can be said of him is, that without it, his wife would have had no opportunity for the displayof her magnanimity. There is also a certain want of consistency in hispresentment; and when, in the residence of Mr. Bondum the bailiff, hesuddenly develops an unexpected scholarship, it is impossible not tosuspect that Fielding was unwilling to lose the opportunity ofpreserving some neglected scenes of the _Author's Farce_. Miss Matthewsis a new and remarkable study of the _femme entretenue_, to parallelwhich, as in the case of Lady Bellaston, we must go to Balzac; Mrs. James, again, is an excellent example of that vapid and colourlessnonentity, the "person of condition. " Mrs. Bennet, although apparentlymore contradictory and less intelligible, is nevertheless true to herpast history and present environments; while her husband, the sergeant, with his concealed and reverential love for his beautiful foster-sister, has had a long line of descendants in the modern novel. It is uponAmelia, however, that the author has lavished all his pains, and thereis no more touching portrait in the whole of fiction than this heroicand immortal one of feminine goodness and forbearance. It is needless torepeat that it is painted from Fielding's first wife, or to insist that, as Lady Mary was fully persuaded, "several of the incidents he mentionsare real matters of fact. " That famous scene where Amelia is spreading, for the recreant who is losing his money at the King's Arms, thehistoric little supper of hashed mutton which she has cooked with herown hands, and denying herself a glass of white wine to save the paltrysum of sixpence, "while her Husband was paying a Debt of several Guineasincurred by the Ace of Trumps being in the Hands of his Adversary"--ascene which it is impossible to read aloud without a certain huskinessin the throat, --the visits to the pawnbroker and the sponging-house, the robbery by the little servant, the encounter at Vauxhall, and someof the pretty vignettes of the children, are no doubt founded onpersonal recollections. Whether the pursuit to which the heroine isexposed had any foundation in reality it is impossible to say; and thereis a passage in Murphy's memoir which almost reads as if it had beenpenned with the express purpose of anticipating any too harshly literalidentification of Booth with Fielding, since we are told of the latterthat "though disposed to gallantry by his strong animal spirits, and thevivacity of his passions, he was remarkable for tenderness _andconstancy to his wife_ [the italics are ours], and the strongestaffection for his children. " These, however, are questions beside thematter, which is the conception of _Amelia_. That remains, and mustremain for ever, in the words of one of Fielding's greatest modernsuccessors, a figure

 "wrought with love. . . . Nought modish in it, pure and noble lines Of generous womanhood that fits all time. "

There are many women who forgive; but Amelia does more--she not onlyforgives, but she forgets. The passage in which she exhibits to hercontrite husband the letter received long before from Miss Matthews isone of the noblest in literature; and if it had been recorded thatFielding--like Thackeray on a memorable occasion--had here slapped hisfist upon the table, and said "_That_ is a stroke of genius!" it wouldscarcely have been a thing to be marvelled at. One final point inconnection with her may be noted, which has not always been borne inmind by those who depict good women--much after Hogarth's fashion--without a head. She is not by any means a simpleton, and it ismisleading to describe her as a tender, fluttering little creature, who, because she can cook her husband's supper, and caresses him with theobsolete name of Billy, must necessarily be contemptible. On thecontrary, she has plenty of ability and good sense, with a fund ofhumour which enables her to enjoy slily and even gently satirise thefine lady airs of Mrs. James. Nor is it necessary to contend that herfaculties are subordinated to her affections; but rather that conjugalfidelity and Christian charity are inseparable alike from her characterand her creed. 

As illustrating the tradition that Fielding depicted his first wife inSophia Western and in Amelia, it has been remarked that there is noformal description of her personal appearance in his last novel, herportrait having already been drawn at length in _Tom Jones_. But thefollowing depreciatory sketch by Mrs. James is worth quoting, not onlybecause it indirectly conveys the impression of a very handsome woman, but because it is also an admirable specimen of Fielding's lightermanner:--

"'In the first place, ' cries Mrs. James, 'her eyes are too large; andshe hath a look with them that I don't know how to describe; but I knowI don't like it. Then her eyebrows are too large; therefore, indeed, shedoth all in her power to remedy this with her pincers; for if it was notfor those, her eyebrows would be preposterous. --Then her nose, as wellproportioned as it is, has a visible scar on one side. [Footnote: Seenote on this subject in chapter iv. , and Appendix No. III. ]--Her necklikewise is too protuberant for the genteel size, especially as shelaces herself; for no woman, in my opinion, can be genteel who is notentirely flat before. And lastly, she is both too short, and too tall. --Well, you may laugh, Mr. James, I know what I mean, though I cannot wellexpress it. I mean, that she is too tall for a pretty woman, and tooshort for a fine woman. --There is such a thing as a kind of insipidmedium--a kind of something that is neither one thing or another. I knownot how to express it more clearly; but when I say such a one is apretty woman, a pretty thing, a pretty creature, you know very well Imean a little woman; and when I say such a one is a very fine woman, avery fine person of a woman, to be sure I must mean a tall woman. Now awoman that is between both, is certainly neither the one nor the other. "

The ingenious expedients of Andrew Millar, to which reference has beenmade, appear to have so far succeeded that a new edition of _Amelia_ wascalled for on the day of publication. Johnson, to whom we owe thisstory, was thoroughly captivated with the book. Notwithstanding that onanother occasion he paradoxically asserted that the author was "ablockhead"--"a barren rascal, " he read it through without stopping, andpronounced Mrs. Booth to be "the most pleasing heroine of all theromances. " Richardson, on the other hand, found "the characters andsituations so wretchedly low and dirty" that he could not get fartherthan the first volume. With the professional reviewers, a certainCriticulus in the _Gentleman's_ excepted, it seems to have fared butill; and although these adverse verdicts, if they exist, are now more orless inaccessible, Fielding has apparently summarised most of them in amock-trial of _Amelia_ before the "_Court of_ Censorial Enquiry, " theproceedings of which are recorded in Nos. 7 and 8 of the _Covent-GardenJournal_. The book is indicted upon the Statute of Dulness, and theheroine is charged with being a "_low_ Character, " a "_Milksop_, " and a"_Fool_;" with lack of spirit and fainting too frequently; with dressingher children, cooking and other "servile Offices;" with being tooforgiving to her husband; and lastly, as may be expected, with theinconsistency, already amply referred to, of being "a Beauty _without anose_. " Dr. Harrison and Colonel Bath are arraigned much in the samefashion. After some evidence against her has been tendered, and "a GreatNumber of Beaus, Rakes, fine Ladies, and several formal Persons withbushy Wigs, and Canes at their Noses, " are preparing to supplement it, agrave man steps forward, and, begging to be heard, delivers what must beregarded as Fielding's final apology for his last novel:--

"If you, Mr. Censor, are yourself a Parent, you will view me withCompassion when I declare I am the Father of this poor Girl the Prisonerat the Bar; nay, when I go further and avow, that of all my Offspringshe is my favourite Child. I can truly say that I bestowed a more thanordinary Pains in her Education; in which I will venture to affirm, Ifollowed the Rules of all those who are acknowledged to have writ beston the Subject; and if her Conduct be fairly examined, she will be foundto deviate very little from the strictest Observation of all thoseRules; neither Homer nor Virgil pursued them with greater Care thanmyself, and the candid and learned Reader will see that the latter wasthe noble model, which I made use of on this Occasion. 

"I do not think my Child is entirely free from Faults. I know nothinghuman that is so; but surely she doth not deserve the Rancour with whichshe hath been treated by the Public. However, it is not my Intention, atpresent, to make any Defence; but shall submit to a Compromise, whichhath been always allowed in this Court in all Prosecutions for Dulness. I do, therefore, solemnly declare to you, Mr. Censor, that I willtrouble the World no more with any Children of mine by the same Muse. "

Whether sincere or not, this last statement appears to have afforded thegreatest gratification to Richardson. "Will I leave you to CaptainBooth?" he writes triumphantly to Mrs. Donnellan, in answer to aquestion she had put to him. "Captain Booth, Madam, has done his ownbusiness. Mr. Fielding has overwritten himself, or rather _under_-written; and in his own journal seems ashamed of his last piece; and haspromised that the same Muse shall write no more for him. The piece, inshort, is as dead as if it had been published forty years ago, as tosale. " There is much to the same effect in the worthy little printer'scorrespondence; but enough has been quoted to show how intolerable tothe super-sentimental creator of the high-souled and heroic _Clarissa_was his rival's plainer and more practical picture of matronly virtueand modesty. In cases of this kind, _parva seges satis est_, and Ameliahas long since outlived both rival malice and contemporary coldness. Itis a proof of her author's genius, that she is even more intelligible toour age than she was to her own. 

At the end of the second volume of the first edition of her history wasa notice announcing the immediate appearance of the above-mentioned_Covent-Garden Journal_, a bi-weekly paper, in which Fielding, under thestyle and title of Sir Alexander Drawcansir, assumed the office ofCensor of Great Britain. The first number of this new venture was issuedon January the 4th, 1752, and the price was threepence. In plan, andgeneral appearance, it resembled the _Jacobite's Journal_, consistingmainly of an introductory Essay, paragraphs of current news, oftenaccompanied by pointed editorial comment, miscellaneous articles, andadvertisements. One of the features of the earlier numbers was aburlesque, but not very successful, _Journal of the present Paper War_, which speedily involved the author in actual hostilities with thenotorious quack and adventurer Dr. John Hill, who for some time had beenpublishing certain impudent lucubrations in the _London DailyAdvertiser_ under the heading of _The Inspector_; and also withSmollett, whom he (Fielding) had ridiculed in his second number, perhapson account of that little paragraph in the first edition of _PeregrinePickle_, to which reference was made in an earlier chapter. Smollett, always irritable and combative, retorted by a needlessly coarse andvenomous pamphlet, in which, under the name of "Habbakkuk Hilding, Justice, Dealer and Chapman, " Fielding was attacked with indescribablebrutality. Another, and seemingly unprovoked, adversary whom the_Journal of the War_ brought upon him was Bonnel Thornton, afterwardsjoint-author with George Colman of the _Connoisseur_, who, in aproduction styled _Have at you All; or, The Drury Lane Journal_, lampooned Sir Alexander with remarkable rancour and assiduity. Mr. Lawrence has treated these "quarrels of authors" at some length; andthey also have some record in the curious collections of the elderDisraeli. As a general rule, Fielding was far less personal and muchmore scrupulous in his choice of weapons than those who assailed him;but the conflict was an undignified one, and, as Scott has justly said, "neither party would obtain honour by an inquiry into the cause orconduct of its hostilities. "

In the enumeration of Fielding's works it is somewhat difficult (if dueproportion be observed) to assign any real importance to efforts likethe _Covent-Garden Journal_. Compared with his novels, they areinsignificant enough. But even the worst work of such a man is notablein its way; and Fielding's contributions to the _Journal_ are by nomeans to be despised. They are shrewd lay sermons, often exhibiting muchout-of-the-way erudition, and nearly always distinguished by some of hispersonal qualities. In No. 33, on "Profanity, " there is a character-sketch which, for vigour and vitality, is worthy of his best days; andthere is also a very thoughtful paper on "Reading, " containing a kindlyreference to "the ingenious Author of _Clarissa_, " which should havemollified that implacable moralist. In this essay it is curious tonotice that, while Fielding speaks with due admiration of Shakespeareand Moliere, Lucian, Cervantes, and Swift, he condemns Rabelais andAristophanes, although in the invocation already quoted from _TomJones_, he had included both these authors among the models he admired. Another paper in the _Covent-Garden Journal_ is especially interestingbecause it affords a clue to a project of Fielding's which unfortunatelyremained a project. This was a Translation of the works of Lucian, to beundertaken in conjunction with his old colleague, the Rev. WilliamYoung. Proposals were advertised, and the enterprise was duly heraldedby a "puff preliminary, " in which Fielding, while abstaining fromanything directly concerning his own abilities, observes, "I will onlyventure to say, that no Man seems so likely to translate an Author well, as he who hath formed his Stile upon that very Author"--a sentencewhich, taken in connection with the references to Lucian in _Tom Thumb_, the _Champion_ and elsewhere, must be accepted as distinctlyautobiographic. The last number of the Covent-Garden Journal (No. 72)was issued in November 1752. By this time Sir Alexander seems to havethoroughly wearied of his task. With more gravity than usual he takesleave of letters, begging the Public that they will not henceforthfather on him the dulness and scurrility of his worthy contemporaries;"since I solemnly declare that unless in revising my former Works, Ihave at present no Intention to hold any further Correspondence with thegayer Muses. "

The labour of conducting the _Covent-Garden Journal_ must have been themore severe in that, during the whole period of its existence, theeditor was vigorously carrying out his duties as a magistrate. Theprison and political scenes in _Amelia_, which contemporary criticsregarded as redundant, and which even to us are more curious thanessential, testify at once to his growing interest in reform, and hiskeen appreciation of the defects which existed both in the law itselfand in the administration of the law; while the numerous cases heardbefore him, and periodically reported in his paper by his clerk, affordample evidence of his judicial activity. How completely he regardedhimself (Bathurst and Rigby notwithstanding) as the servant of thepublic, may be gathered from the following regularly repeated notice:--

"To the PUBLIC. 

"All Persons who shall for the Future, suffer by Robbers, Burglars, &c. , are desired immediately to bring, or send, the best Description they canof such Robbers, &c. , with the Time and Place, and Circumstances of theFact, to Henry Fielding, Esq. ; at his House in Bow Street. "

Another instance of his energy in his vocation is to be found in thelittle collection of cases entitled _Examples of the Interposition ofProvidence, in the Detection and Punishment of Murder_, published, withPreface and Introduction, in April 1752, and prompted, as advertisementannounces, "by the many horrid Murders committed within this last Year. "It appeared, as a matter of fact, only a few days after the execution atOxford, for parricide, of the notorious Miss Mary Blandy, and might beassumed to have a more or less timely intention; but the purity ofFielding's purpose is placed beyond a doubt by the fact that he freelydistributed it in court to those whom it seemed calculated to profit. 

The only other works of Fielding which precede the posthumouslypublished _Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon_ are the _Proposal for Makingan Effectual Provision for the Poor_, etc. , a pamphlet dedicated to theRight Honble. Henry Pelham, published in January 1753; and the _ClearState of the Case of Elizabeth Canning_, published in March. The former, which the hitherto unfriendly _Gentleman's_ patronisingly styles an"excellent piece, " conceived in a manner which gives "a high idea of his[the author's] present temper, manners and ability, " is an elaborateproject for the erection, _inter alia_, of a vast building, of which aplan, "drawn by an Eminent Hand, " was given, to be called the County-house, capable of containing 5000 inmates, and including work-rooms, prisons, an infirmary, and other features, the details of which are toominute to be repeated in these pages, even if they had received anyattention from the Legislature, which they did not. The latter wasFielding's contribution to the extraordinary judicial puzzle, whichagitated London in 1753-4. It is needless to do more than recall itsoutline. On the 29th of January 1753, one Elizabeth Canning, a domesticservant aged eighteen or thereabouts, and who had hitherto borne anexcellent character, returned to her mother, having been missing fromthe house of her master, a carpenter in Aldermanbury, since the 1st ofthe same month. She was half starved and half clad, and alleged that shehad been abducted, and confined during her absence in a house on theHertford Road, from which she had just escaped. This house sheafterwards identified as that of one Mother Wells, a person of veryindifferent reputation. An ill-favoured old gipsy woman named MarySquires was also declared by her to have been the main agent in ill-using and detaining her. The gipsy, it is true, averred that at the timeof the occurrence she was a hundred and twenty miles away; but Canningpersisted in her statement. Among other people before whom she came wasFielding, who examined her, as well as a young woman called Virtue Hall, who appeared subsequently as one of Canning's witnesses. Fielding seemsto have been strongly impressed by her appearance and her story, and hispamphlet (which was contradicted in every particular by his adversary, John Hill) gives a curious and not very edifying picture of themagisterial procedure of the time. In February, Wells and Squires weretried; Squires was sentenced to death, and Wells to imprisonment andburning in the hand. Then, by the exertions of the Lord Mayor, Sir CrispGascoyne, who doubted the justice of the verdict, Squires was respitedand pardoned. Forthwith London was split up into Egyptian and Canningitefactions; a hailstorm of pamphlets set in; portraits and caricatures ofthe principal personages were in all the print shops; and, to useChurchill's words, "--_Betty Canning_ was at least, With _Gascoyne's_ help, a six months feast. "

In April 1754, however, Fate so far prevailed against her that sheherself, in turn, was tried for perjury. Thirty-eight witnesses sworethat Squires had been in Dorsetshire; twenty-seven that she had beenseen in Middlesex. After some hesitation, quite of a piece with the restof the proceedings, the jury found Canning guilty; and she wastransported for seven years. At the end of her sentence she returned toEngland to receive a legacy of L500, which had been left her by anenthusiastic old lady of Newington-green. [Footnote: So says the _AnnualRegister_ for 1761, p. 179. But according to later accounts (_Gent. Mag. _ xliii. 413), she never returned, dying in 1773 at Weathersfield inConnecticut. ] Her "case" is full of the most inexplicablecontradictions; and it occupies in the _State Trials_ some four hundredand twenty closely-printed pages of the most curious and picturesqueeighteenth-century details. But how, from the 1st of January 1753 to the29th of the same month, Elizabeth Canning really did manage to spend hertime is a secret that, to this day, remains undivulged. 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE TO LISBON. 

In March 1753, when Fielding published his pamphlet on ElizabethCanning, his life was plainly drawing to a close. His energies indeedwere unabated, as may be gathered from a brief record in the_Gentleman's_ for that month, describing his judicial raid, at four inthe morning, upon a gaming-room, where he suspected certain highwaymento be assembled. But his body was enfeebled by disease, and he knew hecould not look for length of days. He had lived not long, but much; hehad seen in little space, as the motto to _Tom Jones_ announced, "themanners of many men;" and now that, prematurely, the inevitable hourapproached, he called Cicero and Horace to his aid, and prepared to meethis fate with philosophic fortitude. Between

 _"Quem fors dierum cunque dabit, lucro Appone, "_

and

 _"Grata superveniet, quae non sperabitur, hora, "_

he tells us in his too-little-consulted _Proposal for the Poor_, he hadschooled himself to regard events with equanimity, striving above all, in what remained to him of life, to perform the duties of his officeefficiently, and solicitous only for those he must leave behind him. Henceforward his literary efforts should be mainly philanthropic andpractical, not without the hope that, if successful, they might be themeans of securing some provision for his family. Of fiction he had takenformal leave in the trial of _Amelia_; and of lighter writing generallyin the last paper of the _Covent-Garden Journal_. But, if we may trusthis Introduction, the amount of work he had done for his poor-lawproject must have been enormous, for he had read and considered all thelaws upon the subject, as well as everything that had been written on itsince the days of Elizabeth, yet he speaks nevertheless as one overwhose head the sword had all the while been impending:--

"The Attempt, indeed, is such, that the Want of Success can scarce becalled a Disappointment, tho' I shall have lost much Time, andmisemployed much Pains; and what is above all, shall miss the Pleasureof thinking that in the Decline of my Health and Life, I have conferreda great and lasting Benefit on my Country. "

In words still more resigned and dignified, he concludes the book:--

His enemies, he says, will no doubt "discover, that instead of intendinga Provision for the Poor, I have been carving out one for myself, [Footnote: Presumably as Governor of the proposed County-house. ] andhave very cunningly projected to build myself a fine House at theExpence (_sic_) of the Public. This would be to act in direct Oppositionto the Advice of my above Master [i. E. Horace]; it would be indeed

 Struere domos immemor sepulchri. 

Those who do not know me, may believe this; but those who do, willhardly be so deceived by that Chearfulness which was always natural tome; and which, I thank God, my Conscience doth not reprove me for, toimagine that I am not sensible of my declining Constitution. . . . Ambitionor Avarice can no longer raise a Hope, or dictate any Scheme to me, whohave no further Design than to pass my short Remainder of Life in someDegree of Ease, and barely to preserve my Family from being the Objectsof any such Laws as I have here proposed. "

With the exception of the above, and kindred passages quoted from thePrefaces to the _Miscellanies_ and the Plays, the preceding pages, asthe reader has no doubt observed, contain little of a purelyautobiographical character. Moreover, the anecdotes related of Fieldingby Murphy and others have not always been of such a nature as to inspireimplicit confidence in their accuracy, while of the very few lettersthat have been referred to, none have any of those intimate and familiartouches which reveal the individuality of the writer. But from themiddle of 1753 up to a short time before his death, Fielding has himselfrelated the story of his life, in one of the most unfeigned and touchinglittle tracts in our own or any other literature. The only thing which, at the moment, suggests itself for comparison with the _Journal of aVoyage to Lisbon_ is the letter and dedication which Fielding'spredecessor, Cervantes, prefixes to his last romance of _Persiles andSigismunda_. In each case the words are animated by the sameuncomplaining kindliness--the same gallant and indomitable spirit; ineach case the writer is a dying man. Cervantes survived the date of hisletter to the Conde de Lemos but three days; and the _Journal_, saysFielding's editor (probably his brother John), was "finished almost atthe same period with life. " It was written, from its author's account, in those moments of the voyage when, his womankind being sea-sick, andthe crew wholly absorbed in working the ship, he was thrown upon his ownresources, and compelled to employ his pen to while away the time. ThePreface, and perhaps the Introduction, were added after his arrival atLisbon, in the brief period before his death. The former is a semi-humorous apology for voyage-writing; the latter gives an account of thecircumstances which led to this, his last expedition in search ofhealth. 

At the beginning of August 1753, Fielding tells us, having taken theDuke of Portland's medicine [Footnote: A popular eighteenth-centurygout-powder, but as old as Galen. The receipt for it is given in the_Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. Xxiii. , 579. ] for near a year, "the effectsof which had been the carrying off the symptoms of a lingering imperfectgout, " Mr. Ranby, the King's Sergeant-Surgeon [Footnote: Mr. Ranby wasalso the friend of Hogarth, who etched his house at Chiswick. ] (to whomcomplimentary reference had been made in the Man of the Hill's story in_Tom Jones_), with other able physicians, advised him "to go immediatelyto Bath. " He accordingly engaged lodgings, and prepared to leave townforthwith. While he was making ready for his departure, and was "almostfatigued to death with several long examinations, relating to fivedifferent murders, all committed within the space of a week, bydifferent gangs of street robbers, " he received a message from the Dukeof Newcastle, afterwards Premier, through that Mr. Carrington whomWalpole calls "the cleverest of all ministerial terriers, " requestinghis attendance in Lincoln's-Inn Fields (Newcastle House). Being lame, and greatly over-taxed, Fielding excused himself. But the Duke sent Mr. Carrington again next day, and Fielding with great difficulty obeyed thesummons. After waiting some three hours in the antechamber (no unusualfeature, as Lord Chesterfield informs us, of the Newcastle audiences), agentleman was deputed to consult him as to the devising of a plan forputting an immediate end to the murders and robberies which had becomeso common. This, although the visit cost him "a severe cold, " Fieldingat once undertook. A proposal was speedily drawn out and submitted tothe Privy Council. Its essential features were the employment of a knowninformer, and the provision of funds for that purpose. 

By the time this scheme was finally approved, Fielding's disorder had"turned to a deep jaundice, " in which case the Bath waters weregenerally regarded as "almost infallible. " But his eager desire to breakup "this gang of villains and cut-throats" delayed him in London; and aday or two after he had received a portion of the stipulated grant, (which portion, it seems, took several weeks in arriving), the wholebody were entirely dispersed, --"seven of them were in actual custody, and the rest driven, some out of town, and others out of the kingdom. "In examining them, however, and in taking depositions, which oftenoccupied whole days and sometimes nights, although he had thesatisfaction of knowing that during the dark months of November andDecember the metropolis enjoyed complete immunity from murder androbbery, his own health was "reduced to the last extremity. "

"Mine (he says) was now no longer what is called a Bath case, " nor, ifit had been, could his strength have sustained the "intolerable fatigue"of the journey thither. He accordingly gave up his Bath lodgings, whichhe had hitherto retained, and went into the country "in a very weak anddeplorable condition. " He was suffering from jaundice, dropsy, andasthma, under which combination of diseases his body was "so entirelyemaciated, that it had lost all its muscular flesh. " He had begun withreason "to look on his case as desperate, " and might fairly haveregarded himself as voluntarily sacrificed to the good of the public. But he is far too honest to assign his action to philanthropy alone. Hischief object (he owns) had been, if possible, to secure some provisionfor his family in the event of his death. Not being a "tradingjustice, "--that is, a justice who took bribes from suitors, like JusticeThrasher in _Amelia_, or Justice Squeez'um in the _Coffee HousePolitician_, --his post at Bow Street had scarcely been a lucrative one. "By composing, instead of inflaming, the quarrels of porters and beggars(which I blush when I say hath not been universally practised) and byrefusing to take a shilling from a man who most undoubtedly would nothave had another left, I had reduced an income of about L500 a year ofthe dirtiest money upon earth to little more than L300, a considerableproportion of which remained with my clerk. " Besides the residue of hisjustice's fees, he had also, he informs us, a yearly pension from theGovernment, "out of the public service-money, " but the amount is notstated. The rest of his means, as far as can be ascertained, werederived from his literary labours. To a man of his lavish disposition, and with the claims of a family upon him, this could scarcely have beena competence; and if, as appears not very clearly from a note in theJournal, he now resigned his office to his half-brother, who had longbeen his assistant, his private affairs at the beginning of the winterof 1753-54 must, as he says, have "had but a gloomy aspect. " In theevent of his death his wife and children could have no hope except fromsome acknowledgment by the Government of his past services. 

Meanwhile his diseases were slowly gaining ground. The terrible winterof 1753-54, which, from the weather record in the _Gentleman's_, seems, with small intermission, to have been prolonged far into April, wasespecially trying to asthmatic patients, and consequently wholly againsthim. In February he returned to town, and put himself under the care ofthe notorious Dr. Joshua Ward of Pall Mall, by whom he was treated andtapped for dropsy. [Footnote: Ward appears in Hogarth's _Consultation ofPhysicians_, 1736, and in Pope--"Ward try'd on Puppies, and the Poor, his Drop. " He was a quack, but must have possessed considerable ability. Bolingbroke wished Pope to consult him in 1744; and he attended GeorgeII. There is an account of him in Nichols's _Genuine Works of Hogarth_, i. 89. ] He was at his worst, he says, "on that memorable day when thepublic lost Mr. Pelham (March 6th);" but from this time, he began, underWard's medicines, to acquire "some little degree of strength, " althoughhis dropsy increased. With May came the long-delayed spring, and hemoved to Fordhook, [Footnote: It lay on the Uxbridge Road, a littlebeyond Acton, and nearly opposite the subsequent site of the EalingCommon Station of the Metropolitan District Railway. The spot is nowoccupied by "commodious villas. "] a "little house" belonging to him atEaling, the air of which place then enjoyed a considerable reputation, being reckoned the best in Middlesex, "and far superior to that ofKensington Gravel-Pits. " Here a re-perusal of Bishop Berkeley's _Siris_, which had been recalled to his memory by Mrs. Charlotte Lennox, "theinimitable author of the _Female Quixote_, " set him drinking tar-waterwith apparent good effect, except as far as his chief ailment wasconcerned. The applications of the trocar became more frequent: thesummer, if summer it could be called, was "mouldering away;" and winter, with all its danger to an invalid, was drawing on apace. Nothing seemedhopeful but removal to a warmer climate. Aix in Provence was at firstthought of, but the idea was abandoned on account of the difficulties ofthe journey. Lisbon, where Doddridge had died three years before, wasthen chosen; a passage in a vessel trading to the port was engaged forthe sick man, his wife, daughter, and two servants; and after somedelays they started. At this point the actual _Journal_ begins with awell-remembered entry:--

"_Wednesday, June 26th_, 1754. --On this day, the most melancholy sun Ihad ever beheld arose, and found me awake at my house at Fordhook. Bythe light of this sun, I was, in my own opinion, last to behold and takeleave of some of those creatures on whom I doated with a mother-likefondness, guided by nature and passion, and uncured and unhardened byall the doctrine of that philosophical school where I had learnt to bearpains and to despise death. 

"In this situation, as I could not conquer nature, I submitted entirelyto her, and she made as great a fool of me as she had ever done of anywoman whatsoever: under pretence of giving me leave to enjoy, she drewme to suffer the company of my little ones, during eight hours; and Idoubt not whether, in that time, I did not undergo more than in all mydistemper. 

"At twelve precisely my coach was at the door, which was no sooner toldme than I kiss'd my children round, and went into it with some littleresolution. My wife, who behaved more like a heroine and philosopher, tho' at the same time the tenderest mother in the world, and my eldestdaughter, followed me; some friends went with us, and others here tooktheir leave; and I heard my behaviour applauded, with many murmurs andpraises to which I well knew I had no title; as all other suchphilosophers may, if they have any modesty, confess on the likeoccasions. "

Two hours later the party reached Rotherhithe. Here, with the kindlyassistance of his and Hogarth's friend, Mr. Saunders Welch, HighConstable of Holborn, the sick man, who, at this time, "had no use ofhis limbs, " was carried to a boat, and hoisted in a chair over theship's side. This latter journey, far more fatiguing to the suffererthan the twelve miles ride which he had previously undergone, was notrendered more easy to bear by the jests of the watermen and sailors, towhom his ghastly, death-stricken countenance seemed matter formerriment; and he was greatly rejoiced to find himself safely seated inthe cabin. The voyage, however, already more than once deferred, was notyet to begin. Wednesday, being King's Proclamation Day, the vessel couldnot be cleared at the Custom House; and on Thursday the skipperannounced that he should not set out until Saturday. As Fielding'scomplaint was again becoming troublesome, and no surgeon was availableon board, he sent for his friend, the famous anatomist, Mr. Hunter, ofCovent Garden, [Footnote: This must have been William Hunter, for in1754 his more distinguished brother John had not yet become celebrated. ]by whom he was tapped, to his own relief, and the admiration of thesimple sea-captain, who (he writes) was greatly impressed by "the heroicconstancy, with which I had borne an operation that is attended withscarce any degree of pain. " On Sunday the vessel dropped down toGravesend, where, on the next day, Mr. Welch, who until then hadattended them, took his leave; and, Fielding, relieved by the trocar ofany immediate apprehensions of discomfort, might, in spite of hisforlorn case, have been fairly at ease. He had a new concern, however, in the state of Mrs. Fielding, who was in agony with toothache, whichsuccessive operators failed to relieve; and there is an unconsciouslytouching little picture of the sick man and his skipper, who was deaf, sitting silently over "a small bowl of punch" in the narrow cabin, forfear of waking the pain-worn sleeper in the adjoining state-room. Of hissecond wife, as may be gathered from the opening words of the _Journal_, Fielding always speaks with the warmest affection and gratitude. Elsewhere, recording a storm off the Isle of Wight, he says, "My dearwife and child must pardon me, if what I did not conceive to be anygreat evil to myself, I was not much terrified with the thoughts ofhappening to them: in truth, I have often thought they are both toogood, and too gentle, to be trusted to the power of any man. " With whata tenacity of courtesy he treated the whilom Mary Daniel may be gatheredfrom the following vignette of insolence in office, which can be takenas a set-off to the malicious tattle of Walpole:--

"Soon after their departure [i. E. Mr. Welch and a companion], our cabin, where my wife and I were sitting together, was visited by two ruffians, whose appearance greatly corresponded with that of the sheriffs, orrather the knight-marshal's bailiffs. One of these, especially, whoseemed to affect a more than ordinary degree of rudeness and insolence, came in without any kind of ceremony, with a broad gold lace upon hishat, which was cocked with much military fierceness on his head. Aninkhorn at his button-hole, and some papers in his hand, sufficientlyassured me what he was, and I asked him if he and his companions werenot custom-house officers; he answered with sufficient dignity that theywere, as an information which he seemed to consider would strike thehearer with awe, and suppress all further inquiry; but on the contrary Iproceeded to ask of what rank he was in the Custom house, and receivingan answer from his companion, as I remember, that the gentleman was ariding surveyor; I replied, that he might be a riding surveyor, butcould be no gentleman, for that none who had any title to thatdenomination would break into the presence of a lady, without anyapology, or even moving his hat. He then took his covering from hishead, and laid it on the table, saying, he asked pardon, and blamed themate, who should, he said, have informed him if any persons ofdistinction were below. I told him he might guess from our appearance(which, perhaps, was rather more than could be said with the strictestadherence to truth) that he was before a gentleman and lady, whichshould teach him to be very civil in his behaviour, tho' we should nothappen to be of the number whom the world calls people of fashion anddistinction. However, I said, that as he seemed sensible of his error, and had asked pardon, the lady would permit him to put his hat on again, if he chose it. This he refused with some degree of surliness, andfailed not to convince me that, if I should condescend to become moregentle, he would soon grow more rude. "

The date of this occurrence was July the 1st. On the evening of the sameday they weighed anchor and managed to reach the Nore. For more than aweek they were wind-bound in the Downs, but on the 11th they anchoredoff Hyde, from which place, on the next morning, Fielding despatched thefollowing letter to his brother. Besides giving the names of the captainand the ship, which are carefully suppressed in the _Journal_, [Footnote: Probably this was intentional. Notwithstanding the statementin the "Dedication to the Public" that the text is given "as it camefrom the hands of the author, " the Journal, in the first issue of 1755, seems to have been considerably "edited. " "Mrs. Francis" (the Rydelandlady) is there called "Mrs. Humphrys, " and the portrait of themilitary coxcomb, together with some particulars of Fielding's visit tothe Duke of Newcastle, and other details, are wholly omitted. ] it isespecially interesting as being the last letter written by Fielding ofwhich we have any knowledge:--

"On board the Queen of Portugal, Rich'd Veal at anchor on theMother Bank, off Ryde, to the Care of the Post Master of Portsmouth--this is my Date and yr Direction. 

"July 12 1754. 

"Dear Jack, After receiving that agreeable Lre from Mess'rs Fielding andCo. , we weighed on monday morning and sailed from Deal to the Westward. Four Days long but inconceivably pleasant Passage brought us yesterdayto an Anchor on the Mother Bank, on the Back of the Isle of Wight, wherewe had last Night in Safety the Pleasure of hearing the Winds roar overour Heads in as violent a Tempest as I have known, and where my onlyConsideration were the Fears which must possess any Friend of ours, (ifthere is happily any such) who really makes our Wellbeing the Object ofhis Concern especially if such Friend should be totally inexperienced inSea Affairs. I therefore beg that on the Day you receive this Mrs. Daniel [Footnote: It will be remembered that the maiden-name ofFielding's second wife, as given in the Register of St. Bene't's, wasMary Daniel. "Mrs. Daniel" was therefore, in all probability, Fielding'smother-in-law; and it may reasonably be assumed that she had remained incharge of the little family at Fordhook. ] may know that we are justrisen from Breakfast in Health and Spirits this twelfth Instant at 9 inthe morning. Our Voyage hath proved fruitful in Adventures all whichbeing to be written in the Book, you must postpone yr. Curiosity--As theIncidents which fall under yr Cognizance will possibly be consigned toOblivion, do give them to us as they pass. Tell yr Neighbour I am muchobliged to him for recommending me to the Care of a most able andexperienced Seaman to whom other Captains seem to pay such Deferencethat they attend and watch his Motions, and think themselves only safewhen they act under his Direction and Example. Our Ship in Truth seemsto give Laws on the Water with as much Authority and Superiority as youDispense Laws to the Public and Examples to yr Brethren in Commission. Please to direct yr Answer to me on Board as in the Date, if gone to bereturned, and then send it by the Post and Pacquet to Lisbon to

"Yr affect Brother

"H. FIELDING

"To John Fielding Esq. At his House in

"Bow Street Covt Garden London. "

As the _Queen of Portugal_ did not leave Ryde until the 23d, it ispossible that Fielding received a reply. During the remainder of thisdesultory voyage he continued to beguile his solitary hours--hours ofwhich we are left to imagine the physical torture and monotony, for hesays but little of himself--by jottings and notes of the, for the mostpart, trivial accidents of his progress. That happy cheerfulness, ofwhich he spoke in the _Proposal for the Poor_, had not yet deserted him;and there are moments when he seems rather on a pleasure-trip than aforlorn pilgrimage in search of health. At Ryde, where, for change ofair, he went ashore, he chronicles, after many discomforts from the mostdisobliging of landladies (let the name of Mrs. Francis go down toposterity!), "the best, the pleasantest, and the merriest meal, [in abarn] with more appetite, more real, solid luxury, and more festivity, than was ever seen in an entertainment at White's. " At Torbay, heexpatiates upon the merits and flavour of the John Dory, a specimen ofwhich "gloriously regaled" the party, and furnished him with a pretextfor a dissertation on the London Fish Supply. Another page he devotes tocommendation of the excellent _Vinum Pomonae_, or Southam cyder, suppliedby "Mr. Giles Leverance of Cheeshurst, near Dartmouth in Devon, " ofwhich, for the sum of five pounds ten shillings, he extravagantlypurchases three hogsheads, one for himself, and the others as presentsfor friends, among whom no doubt was kindly Mr. Welch. Here and there hesketches, with but little abatement of his earlier gaiety and vigour, the human nature around him. Of the objectionable Ryde landlady and herhusband there are portraits not much inferior to those of the Tow-wousesin _Joseph Andrews_, while the military fop, who visits his uncle thecaptain off Spithead, is drawn with all the insight which depicted thevagaries of Ensign Northerton, whom indeed the real hero of the_Journal_ not a little resembles. The best character sketch, however, inthe whole is that of Captain Richard Veal himself (one almost feelsinclined to wonder whether he was in any way related to the worthy ladywhose apparition visited Mrs. Bargrave at Canterbury!), but it is ofnecessity somewhat dispersed. It has also an additional attraction, because, if we remember rightly, it is Fielding's sole excursion intothe domain of Smollett. The rough old sea-dog of the Haddock and Vernonperiod, who had been a privateer; and who still, as skipper of amerchant-man, when he visits a friend or gallants the ladies, decorateshimself with a scarlet coat, cockade, and sword; who gives vent to akind of Irish howl when his favourite kitten is suffocated under afeather bed; and falls abjectly on his knees when threatened with thedreadful name of Law, is a character which, in its surly good-humour andsensitive dignity, might easily, under more favourable circumstances, have grown into an individuality, if not equal to that of SquireWestern, at least on a level with Partridge or Colonel Bath. There arenumbers of minute touches--as, for example, his mistaking "a lion" for"Elias" when he reads prayers to the ship's company; and his quaintasseverations when exercised by the inconstancy of the wind--which showhow closely Fielding studied his deaf companion. But it would occupy toolarge a space to examine the _Journal_ more in detail. It is sufficientto say that after some further delays from wind and tide, the travellerssailed up the Tagus. Here, having undergone the usual quarantine andcustom-house obstruction, they landed, and Fielding's penultimate wordsrecord a good supper at Lisbon, "for which we were as well charged, asif the bill had been made on the Bath Road, between Newbury and London. "The book ends with a line from the poet whom, in the _Proposal for thePoor_, he had called his master:--

 "--hic finis chartaeque viaeque. "

Two months afterwards he died at Lisbon, on the 8th of October, in theforty-eighth year of his age. 

He was buried on the hillside in the centre of the beautiful Englishcemetery, which faces the great Basilica of the Heart of Jesus, otherwise known as the Church of the Estrella. Here, in a leafy spotwhere the nightingales fill the still air with song, and watched bythose secular cypresses from which the place takes its Portuguese nameof _Os Cyprestes_, lies all that was mortal of him whom Scott called the"Father of the English Novel. " His first tomb, which Wraxall found in1772, "nearly concealed by weeds and nettles, " was erected by theEnglish factory, in consequence mainly--as it seems--of a proposal madeby an enthusiastic Chevalier de Meyrionnet, to provide one (with anepitaph) at his own expense. That now existing was substituted in 1830, by the exertions of the Rev. Christopher Neville, British Chaplain atLisbon. It is a heavy sarcophagus, resting upon a large base, andsurmounted by just such another urn and flame as that on Hogarth's Tombat Chiswick. On the front is a long Latin inscription; on the back thebetter-known words:--

LUGET BRITANNIA GREMIO NON DARI FOVERE NATUM. [Footnote: The fifth wordis generally given as "datum. " But the above version, which has beenverified at Lisbon, may be accepted as correct. ]

It is to this last memorial that the late George Borrow referred in his_Bible in Spain:_--

"Let travellers devote one entire morning to inspecting the Arcos andthe Mai das agoas, after which they may repair to the English church andcemetery, Pere-la-chaise in miniature, where, if they be of England, they may well be excused if they kiss the cold tomb, as I did, of theauthor of "Amelia, " the most singular genius which their island everproduced, whose works it has long been the fashion to abuse in publicand to read in secret. "

Borrow's book was first published in 1843. Of late years the tomb hadbeen somewhat neglected; but from a communication in the _Athenaeum_ ofMay 1879, it appears that it had then been recently cleaned, and theinscriptions restored, by order of the present chaplain, the Rev. Godfrey Pope. 

There is but one authentic portrait of Henry Fielding. This is the pen-and-ink sketch drawn from memory by Hogarth, long after Fielding'sdeath, to serve as a frontispiece for Murphy's edition of his works. Itwas engraved in _facsimile_ by James Basire, with such success that theartist is said to have mistaken an impression of the plate (without itsemblematic border) for his own drawing. Hogarth's sketch is the solesource of all the portraits, more or less "romanced, " which are prefixedto editions of Fielding; and also, there is good reason to suspect, ofthe dubious little miniature, still in possession of his descendants, which figures in Hutchins's _History of Dorset_ and elsewhere. More thanone account has been given of the way in which the drawing was produced. The most effective, and, unfortunately, the most popular, version has, of course, been selected by Murphy. In this he tells us that Hogarth, being unable to recall his dead friend's features, had recourse to aprofile cut in paper by a lady, who possessed the happy talent whichPope ascribes to Lady Burlington. Her name, which is given in Nichols, was Margaret Collier, and she was possibly the identical Miss Collierwho figures in Richardson's _Correspondence_. Setting aside the factthat, as Hogarth's eye-memory was marvellous, this story is highlyimprobable, it was expressly contradicted by George Steevens in 1781, and by John Ireland in 1798, both of whom, from their relations withHogarth's family, were likely to be credibly informed. Steevens, afterreferring to Murphy's fable, says in the _Biographical Anecdotes ofWilliam Hogarth_, "I am assured that our artist began and finished thehead in the presence of his wife and another lady. He had no assistancebut from his own memory, which, on such occasions, was remarkablytenacious. " Ireland, in his _Hogarth Illustrated_, gives us as thesimple fact the following:--"Hogarth being told, after his friend'sdeath, that a portrait was wanted as a frontispiece to his works, sketched this from memory. " According to the inscription on Basire'splate, it represents Fielding at the age of forty-eight, or in the yearof his death. This, however, can only mean that it represents him asHogarth had last seen him. But long before he died, disease had greatlyaltered his appearance; and he must have been little more than theshadow of the handsome Harry Fielding, who wrote farces for Mrs. Clive, and heard the chimes at midnight. As he himself says in the _Voyage toLisbon_, he had lost his teeth, and the consequent falling-in of thelips is plainly perceptible in the profile. The shape of the Roman nose, which Colonel James in _Amelia_ irreverently styled a "proboscis, "would, however, remain unaltered, and it is still possible to divine acurl, half humorous, half ironic, in the short upper lip. The eye, apparently, was dark and deep-set. Oddly enough, the chin, to the lengthof which he had himself referred in the _Champion_, does not appearabnormal. [Footnote: In the bust of Fielding which Miss Margaret Thomashas been commissioned by Mr. R. A. Kinglake to execute for the SomersetValhalla, the Shire-Hall at Taunton, these points have been carefullyconsidered; and the sculptor has succeeded in producing a work which, while it suggests the mingling of humour and dignity that is Fielding'schief characteristic, is also generally faithful to Hogarth'sindications. From these, indeed, it is impossible to deviate. Not onlyis his portrait unique; but it was admitted to be like Fielding byFielding's friends. The bust was placed in the Shire Hall, 4th September1883. ]

Beyond the fact that he was above six feet in height, and, until thegout had broken his constitution, unusually robust, Murphy adds nothingfurther to our idea of his personal appearance. 

That other picture of his character, traced and retraced (often withmuch exaggeration of outline), is so familiar in English literature, that it cannot now be materially altered or amended. Yet it isimpossible not to wish that it were derived from some less prejudiced ormore trustworthy witnesses than those who have spoken, --say, forexample, from Lyttelton or Allen. There are always signs that Walpole'smalice, and Smollett's animosity, and the rancour of Richardson, havehad too much to do with the representation; and even Murphy and LadyMary are scarcely persons whom one would select as ideal biographers. The latter is probably right in comparing her cousin to Sir RichardSteele. Both were generous, kindly, brave, and sensitive; both wereimprovident; both loved women and little children; both sinned often, and had their moments of sincere repentance; to both was given thatirrepressible hopefulness, and full delight of being which forgets to-morrow in to-day. That Henry Fielding was wild and reckless in his youthit would be idle to contest;--indeed it is an intelligible, if not anecessary, consequence of his physique and his temperament. But it isnot fair to speak of him as if his youth lasted for ever. "Critics andbiographers, " says Mr. Leslie Stephen, "have dwelt far too exclusivelyupon the uglier side of his Bohemian life;" and Fielding himself, in the_Jacobite's Journal_, complains sadly that his enemies have traced hisimpeachment "even to his boyish Years. " That he who was prodigal as alad was prodigal as a man may be conceded; that he who was sanguine attwenty would be sanguine at forty (although this is less defensible) mayalso be allowed. But, if we press for "better assurance than Bardolph, "there is absolutely no good evidence that Fielding's career after hismarriage materially differed from that of other men struggling for alivelihood, hampered with ill-health, and exposed to all the shifts andhumiliations of necessity. If any portrait of him is to be handed downto posterity, let it be the last rather than the first;--not theFielding of the green-room and the tavern--of Covent Garden frolics and"modern conversations;" but the energetic magistrate, the tender husbandand father, the kindly host of his poorer friends, the practicalphilanthropist, the patient and magnanimous hero of the _Voyage toLisbon_. If these things be remembered, it will seem of minor importancethat to his dying day he never knew the value of money, or that heforgot his troubles over a chicken and champagne. And even hisimprovidence was not without its excusable side. Once--so runs thelegend--Andrew Millar made him an advance to meet the claims of animportunate tax-gatherer. Carrying it home, he met a friend, in evenworse straits than his own; and the money changed hands. When the tax-gatherer arrived there was nothing but the answer--"Friendship hascalled for the money and had it; let the collector call again. " Justice, it is needless to say, was satisfied by a second advance from thebookseller. But who shall condemn the man of whom such a story can betold?

The literary work of Fielding is so inextricably interwoven with what isknown of his life that most of it has been examined in the course of theforegoing narrative. What remains to be said is chiefly in summary ofwhat has been said already. As a dramatist he has no eminence; andthough his plays do not deserve the sweeping condemnation with whichMacaulay once spoke of them in the House of Commons, they are not likelyto attract any critics but those for whom the inferior efforts of agreat genius possess a morbid fascination. Some of them serve, in ameasure, to illustrate his career; others contain hints and situationswhich he afterwards worked into his novels; but the only ones thatpossess real stage qualities are those which he borrowed from Regnardand Moliere. _Don Quixote in England_, _Pasquin_, the _HistoricalRegister_, can claim no present consideration commensurate with thatwhich they received as contemporary satires, and their interest ismainly antiquarian; while _Tom Thumb_ and the _Covent-Garden Tragedy_, the former of which would make the reputation of a smaller man, canscarcely hope to be remembered beside _Amelia_ or _Jonathan Wild_. Norcan it be admitted that, as a periodical writer, Fielding was at hisbest. In spite of effective passages, his essays remain far below thework of the great Augustans, and are not above the level of many oftheir less illustrious imitators. That instinct of popular selection, which retains a faint hold upon the _Rambler_, the _Adventurer_, the_World_, and the _Connoisseur_, or at least consents to give themhonourable interment as "British Essayists" in a secluded corner of theshelves, has made no pretence to any preservation, or even anywinnowing, of the _Champion_ and the _True Patriot_. Fielding's papersare learned and ingenious; they are frequently humorous; they are oftenearnest; but it must be a loiterer in literature who, in these days, except for antiquarian or biographical purposes, can honestly find itworth while to consult them. His pamphlets and projects are morevaluable, if only that they prove him to have looked curiously andsagaciously at social and political problems, and to have striven, asfar as in him lay, to set the crooked straight. Their import, to-day, ischiefly that of links in a chain--of contributions to a progressiveliterature which has travelled into regions unforeseen by the author ofthe _Proposal for the Poor_, and the _Inquiry into the Causes of thelate Increase of Robbers_. As such, they have their place in thatlibrary of Political Economy of which Mr. McCulloch has catalogued theriches. It is not, however, by his pamphlets, his essays, or his playsthat Fielding is really memorable; it is by his triad of novels, and thesurpassing study in irony of _Jonathan Wild_. In _Joseph Andrews_ wehave the first sprightly runnings of a genius that, after muchuncertainty, had at last found its fitting vein, but was yet doubtfuland undisciplined; in _Tom Jones_ the perfect plan has come, with theperfected method and the assured expression. There is an inevitable lossof that fine waywardness which is sometimes the result of untrainedeffort, but there is the general gain of order, and the full productionwhich results of art. The highest point is reached in _Tom Jones_, whichis the earliest definite and authoritative manifestation of the modernnovel. Its relation to De Foe is that of the vertebrate to theinvertebrate: to Richardson, that of the real to the ideal--one mightalmost add, the impossible. It can be compared to no contemporaryEnglish work of its own kind; and if we seek for its parallel at thetime of publication we must go beyond literature to art--to themasterpiece of that great pictorial satirist who was Fielding's friend. In both Fielding and Hogarth there is the same constructive power, thesame rigid sequence of cause and effect, the same significance ofdetail, the same side-light of allusion. Both have the same hatred ofaffectation and hypocrisy--the same unerring insight into character. Both are equally attracted by striking contrasts and comic situations;in both there is the same declared morality of purpose, coupled with thesame sturdy virility of expression. One, it is true, leaned morestrongly to tragedy, the other to comedy. But if Fielding had paintedpictures, it would have been in the style of the _Marriage a la Mode_;if Hogarth had written novels, they would have been in the style of _TomJones_. In the gentler and more subdued _Amelia_, with its tender andwomanly central-figure, there is a certain change of plan, due toaltered conditions--it may be, to an altered philosophy of art. Thenarrative is less brisk and animated; the character-painting lessbroadly humorous; the philanthropic element more strongly developed. Totrace the influence of these three great works in succeeding writerswould hold us too long. It may, nevertheless, be safely asserted thatthere are few English novels of manners, written since Fielding's day, which do not descend from him as from their fount and source; and thatmore than one of our modern masters betray unmistakable signs of a formand fashion studied minutely from their frank and manly ancestor. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

A few particulars respecting Fielding's family and posthumous works canscarcely be omitted from the present memoir. It has been stated that byhis first wife he had one daughter, the Harriet or Harriot whoaccompanied him to Lisbon, and survived him, although Mr. Keightleysays, but without giving his authority, she did not survive him long. Ofhis family by Mary Daniel, the eldest son, William, to whose birthreference has already been made, was bred to the law, became a barristerof the Middle Temple eminent as a special pleader, and ultimately aWestminster magistrate. He died in October 1820, at the age of seventy-three. He seems to have shared his father's conversational qualities, [Footnote: _Vide_ Lockhart's _Life of Scott_, chap. 1. ] and, like him, to have been a strenuous advocate of the poor and unfortunate. Southey, writing from Keswick in 1830 to Sir Egerton Brydges, speaks of a meetinghe had in St. James's Park, about 1817, with one of the novelist's sons. "He was then, " says Southey, "a fine old man, though visibly shaken bytime: he received me in a manner which had much of old courtesy aboutit, and I looked upon him with great interest for his father's sake. "The date, and the fact that William Fielding had had a paralytic stroke, make it almost certain that this was he; and a further reference bySouthey to his religious opinions is confirmed by the obituary notice inthe _Gentleman's_, which speaks of him as a worthy and pious man. Thenames and baptisms of the remaining children, as supplied for thesepages by the late Colonel Chester, were Mary Amelia, baptized January 6, 1749; Sophia, January 21, 1750; Louisa, December 3, 1752; and Allen, April 6, 1754, about a month before Fielding removed to Ealing. Allthese baptisms took place at St. Paul's, Covent Garden, from theregisters of which these particulars were extracted. The eldestdaughter, Mary Amelia, does not appear to have long survived, for thesame registers record her burial on the 17th December 1749. AllenFielding became a clergyman, and died, according to Burke, in 1823, being then vicar of St. Stephen's, Canterbury. He left a family of foursons and three daughters. One of the sons, George, became rector ofNorth Ockendon, Essex, and married, in 1825, Mary Rebecca, daughter ofFerdinand Hanbury-Williams, and grandniece of Fielding's friend andschool-fellow Sir Charles. This lady, who so curiously linked thepresent and the past, died not long since at Hereford Square, Brompton, in her eighty-fifth year. Mrs. Fielding herself (Mary Daniel) appears tohave attained a good old age. Her death took place at Canterbury on the11th of March 1802, perhaps in the house of her son Allen, who is statedby Nichols in his _Leicestershire_ to have been rector in 1803 of St. Cosmus and Damian-in-the-Blean. After her husband's death, her childrenwere educated by their uncle John and Ralph Allen, the latter of whom--says Murphy--made a very liberal annual donation for that purpose; and(adds Chalmers in a note), when he died in 1764, bequeathed to the widowand those of her family then living, the sum of L100 each. 

Among Fielding's other connections it is only necessary to speak of hissister Sarah, and his above-mentioned brother John. Sarah Fieldingcontinued to write; and in addition to _David Simple_, published the_Governess_, 1749; a translation of Xenophon's _Memorabilia_; a dramaticfable called the _Cry_, and some other forgotten books. During thelatter part of her life she lived at Bath, where she was highly popular, both for her personal character and her accomplishments. She died in1768; and her friend, Dr. John Hoadly, who wrote the verses to the_Rake's Progress_, erected a monument to her memory in the Abbey Church. 

 "Her unaffected Manners, candid Mind, Her Heart benevolent, and Soul resign'd; Were more her Praise than all she knew or thought Though Athens Wisdom to her Sex she taught, "--

says he; but in mere facts the inscription is, as he modestly styles it, a "deficient Memorial, " for she is described as having been born in 1714instead of 1710, and as being the second daughter of General _Henry_instead of General _Edmund_ Fielding. John Fielding, the novelist'shalf-brother, as already stated, succeeded him at Bow Street, though thepost is sometimes claimed (on Boswell's authority) for Mr. Welch. Themistake no doubt arose from the circumstance that they frequently workedin concert. Previous to his appointment as a magistrate, John Fielding, in addition to assisting his brother, seems to have been largelyconcerned in the promotion of that curious enterprise, the "Universal-Register-Office, " so often advertised in the _Covent-Garden Journal_. Itappears to have been an Estate Office, Lost Property Office, Servants'Registry, Curiosity Shop, and multifarious General Agency. As amagistrate, in spite of his blindness, John Fielding was remarkablyenergetic, and is reported to have known more than 3000 thieves by theirvoices alone, and could recognise them when brought into Court. Adescription of London and Westminster is often ascribed to him, but hedenied the authorship. He was knighted in 1761, and died at BromptonPlace in 1780. Lyttelton, who had become Sir George in 1751, was raisedto the peerage as Baron Lyttelton of Frankley three years afterFielding's death. He died in 1773. In 1760-5 he published his _Dialoguesof the Dead_, profanely characterised by Mr. Walpole as "DeadDialogues. " No. 28 of these is a colloquy between "Plutarch, Charon, anda Modern Bookseller, " and it contains the following reference toFielding:--"We have [says Mr. Bookseller] another writer of theseimaginary histories, one who has not long since descended to theseregions. His name is Fielding; and his works, as I have heard the bestjudges say, have a true spirit of comedy, and an exact representation ofnature, with fine moral touches. He has not indeed given lessons of pureand consummate virtue, but he has exposed vice and meanness with all thepowers of ridicule. " It is perhaps excusable that Lawrence, like Roscoeand others, should have attributed this to Lyttelton; but the prefacenevertheless assigns it, with two other dialogues, to a "differenthand. " They were, in fact, the first essays in authorship of thatillustrious blue-stocking, Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu. 

Fielding's only posthumous works are the _Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon_and the comedy of _The Fathers; or, The Good-Natur'd Man_. The _Journal_was published in February 1755, together with a fragment of a Comment onBolingbroke's _Essays_, which Mallet had issued in March of the previousyear. This fragment must therefore have been begun in the last months ofFielding's life; and, according to Murphy, he made very carefulpreparation for the work, as attested by long extracts from the Fathersand the leading controversialists, which, after his death, werepreserved by his brother. Beyond a passage or two in Richardson's_Correspondence_, and a sneering reference by Walpole to Fielding's"account how his dropsy was treated and teased by an innkeeper's wife inthe Isle of Wight, " there is nothing to show how the _Journal_ wasreceived, still less that it brought any substantial pecuniary relief to"those innocents, " to whom reference had been made in the "Dedication. "The play was not placed upon the stage until 1778. Its story, which isrelated in the _Advertisement_, is curious. After it had been set asidein 1742, [Footnote: _Vide_ chap. Iv. P. 94. ] it seems to have beensubmitted to Sir Charles Hanbury Williams. Sir Charles was just startingfor Russia, as Envoy Extraordinary. Whether the MS. Went with him or notis unknown; but it was lost until 1775 or 1776, when it was recovered ina tattered and forlorn condition by Mr. Johnes, M. P. For Cardigan, froma person who entertained a very poor and even contemptuous opinion ofits merits. Mr. Johnes thought otherwise. He sent it to Garrick, who atonce recognised it as "Harry Fielding's Comedy. " Revised and retouchedby the actor and Sheridan, it was produced at Drury Lane, as _TheFathers_, with a Prologue and Epilogue by Garrick. For a few nights itwas received with interest, and even some flickering enthusiasm. It wasthen withdrawn; and there is no likelihood that it will ever be revived. 

APPENDIX No I. 

FIELDING AND SARAH ANDREW. 

By the courtesy of the editor of the _Athenaeum_, the following letter ishere reprinted from that paper for 2d June 1883:--

75 Eaton Rise, Ealing. 

In 1855, when Mr. Frederick Lawrence published his _Life of HenryFielding_, he thus referred (ch. Vii. P. 67) to an "early passage" inthe novelist's career: "On his [Fielding's] return from Leyden heconceived a desperate attachment for his cousin, Miss Sarah Andrews[_sic_]. That young lady's friends had, however, so little confidence inher wild kinsman, that they took the precaution of removing her out ofhis reach; not, it is said, until he had attempted an abduction orelopement. . . . His cousin was afterwards married to a plain countrygentleman, and in that alliance found, perhaps, more solid happinessthan she would have experienced in an early and improvident marriagewith her gifted kinsman. Her image, however, was never effaced from hisrecollection; and there is a charming picture (so tradition tells) ofher luxuriant beauty in the portrait of Sophia Western, in _Tom Jones_. "Mr. Lawrence gave no hint or sign of his authority for this unexpectedand hitherto unrecorded incident. But the review of his book in the_Athenaeum_ for 10th November 1855 elicited the following notes on thesubject from Mr. George Roberts, some time mayor of Lyme, and author ofa brief history of that town. "Henry Fielding, " wrote Mr. Roberts, "wasat Lyme Regis, Dorset, for the purpose of carrying off an heiress, MissAndrew, the daughter of Solomon Andrew, Esq. , the last of a series ofmerchants of that name at Lyme. The young lady was living with Mr. Andrew Tucker, one of the corporation, who sent her away to Modbury, inSouth Devon, where she married an ancestor of the present Rev. Mr. Rhodes, an eloquent preacher of Bath, who possesses the Andrew property. Mr. Rhodes's son married the young lady upon his return to Modbury fromOxford. The circumstances about the attempts of Henry Fielding to carryoff the young lady, handed down in the ancient Tucker family, weredoubted by the late head of his family, Dr. Rhodes, of Shapwick, Uplyme, etc. Since his decease I have found an entry in the old archives of Lymeabout the fears of Andrew Tucker, Esq. , the guardian, as to his safety, owing to the behaviour of Henry Fielding and his attendant, or man. According to the tradition of the Tucker family, given in my _History ofLyme_, Sophia Western was intended to pourtray Miss Andrew. " To Mr. Roberts's communication succeeded that of another correspondent--one "P. S. "--who gave some additional particulars: "There is now, at Bellair, inthe immediate neighbourhood of Exeter the portrait of 'Sophia Western'[Miss Andrew]. Bellair belongs to the Rhodes family, and was theresidence of the late George Ambrose Rhodes, Fellow of Caius College, and formerly Physician to the Devon and Exeter Hospital. He himselfdirected my attention to this picture. In the board-room of the abovehospital there is also the three-quarter length portrait of Ralph Allen, Esq. , the 'Squire Allworthy' of the same novel. " No further contributionappears to have been made to the literature of the subject. The late Mr. Keightley, in his articles on Lawrence's book in _Fraser's Magazine_ forJanuary and February 1858, did, as a matter of fact, refer to the storyand Mr. Roberts's confirmation of it; but beyond pointing out that MissAndrew could not have been the original of Sophia Western, who isdeclared by Fielding himself (_Tom Jones_, bk. Xiii. Ch. I. ) to havebeen the portrait of his first wife, Charlotte Cradock, he added nothingto the existing information. 

When I began to prepare the sketch of Fielding recently included in Mr. John Morley's series of "English Men of Letters, " matters stood at thispoint, and I had little hope that any supplementary details could beobtained. I was, indeed, fortunate enough to discover that Burke's_Landed Gentry_ for 1858 gave the year of Miss Andrew's marriage as1726; and inquiries at Modbury, though they did not actually confirmthis, practically did so, by disclosing the fact that a child of Mr. AndMrs. Ambrose Rhodes was baptized at that place in April 1727. It becameclear, therefore, that instead of being subsequent to Fielding's "returnfrom Leyden" in 1728, as Lawrence supposed, the date of the reportedattempt at elopement could not have been later than 1725 or the earlypart of 1726--so far back, in fact, in Fielding's life that I confess tohaving entertained a private doubt whether it ever occurred at all. Thatdoubt has now been completely removed by the appearance of some new andwholly unlooked-for evidence. 

After the publication in 1858 of his _Fraser_ papers, Mr. Keightleyseems to have continued his researches with the intention of writing afinal biography of Fielding. In this, which was to include a reprint ofthe _Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon_ and a critical examination ofFielding's works, he made considerable progress; and by the courtesy ofhis nephew, Mr. Alfred C. Lyster, his MSS. Have been placed at mydisposal. Much that relates to Fielding's life has manifestly thedisadvantage of having been written more than twenty years ago, and itreproduces some aspects of Fielding which have now been abandoned; butin the elucidation and expansion of the Sarah Andrew episode Mr. Keightley leaves little to be desired. His first step, apparently, wasto communicate with Mr. Roberts, who furnished him (6th May 1859) withthe following transcript or summary of the original record in the_Register Book_ of Lyme Regis:--

"John Bowdidge, Jun. , was Mayor when Andrew Tucker, Gent. , one of thecorporation, caused Henry Fielding, Gent. , and his servant or companion, Joseph Lewis--both now and for some time past residing in the borough--to be bound over to keep the peace, as he was in fear of his life orsome bodily hurt to be done or to be procured to be done to him by H. Fielding and his man. Mr. A. Tucker feared that the man would beat, maim, or kill him. 14th November 1725. "

We thus get the exact date of the occurrence, 14th November 1725 (_i. _. When Fielding was eighteen), the fact that he had been staying for sometime in Lyme at that date, and the name of his servant. In a furtherletter of 14th May 1859, Mr. Roberts referred Mr. Keightley to Mr. JamesDavidson, a Devon antiquary, in whose _History of Newenham Abbey_, Longmans, 1843 (surely a most out-of-the-way source of information!), hefound the following, derived by the author from the Rhodes family (pp. 165, 166):

"The estate [of Shapwick, near Axminster] continued but a short time theproperty of the noble family of Petre, being sold by William the fourthbaron, on the 10th of November 1670, to Solomon Andrew of Lyme Regis, agentleman, who possessed a considerable property obtained by hisancestors and himself in mercantile affairs. From him it descended tohis only son, who died at the age of twenty-nine years, leaving two sonsand a daughter, the latter of whom, by the decease of her brothers, became heiress to the estate. This young lady was placed under theguardianship of Mr. Rhodes of Modbury, and her uncle, Mr. Tucker ofLyme, in whose family she resided. At this time Henry Fielding, whosevery objectionable but once popular works have placed his name high onthe list of novel-writers, was an occasional visitor at the place, andenraptured with the charms and the more solid attractions of MissAndrew, paid her the most assiduous attention. The views of herguardians were, however, opposed to a connection with so dissipated, though well-born and well-educated a youth, who is said to have inconsequence made a desperate attempt to carry the lady off by force on aSunday, when she was on her way to church. The residence of the heiresswas then removed to Modbury, and the disappointed admirer foundconsolation in the society of a beauty at Salisbury whom he married. "

There are some manifest misconceptions in this account, due, no doubt, to Mr. Davidson's ignorance of the exact period of the occurrence asestablished by the above record in the Lyme archives. In the firstplace, it must have been four or five years at least before Fieldingconsoled himself with Miss Charlotte Cradock, and nearly ten (accordingto the received date) before he married her. Again, in saying that hewas "dissipated, " Mr. Davidson must have been thinking of hisconventional after-character, for in 1725 he was but a boy fresh fromEton, and could scarcely have established any reputation as a rake. Noris there anything in our whole knowledge of him to justify us insupposing that he was at any time a mere mercenary fortune-hunter. Finally, according to one of Mr. Roberts's letters to Mr. Keightley, timorous Mr. Tucker of Lyme had a very different reason from hispersonal shortcomings for objecting to Fielding as a suitor to his ward. "The Tucker family, " says Mr. Roberts, "by tradition consider themselvestricked out of the heiress, Miss Andrew, by Mr. Rhodes of Modbury, Mr. Andrew Tucker intending the lady for his own son. " Nevertheless, thesereservations made, Mr. Davidson's version, although _ex parte_, suppliescolour and detail to the story. From a pedigree which he gives in hisbook, it further appears that Mrs. Rhodes died on the 22d of August1783, aged seventy-three. This would make her fifteen in 1725. Thereremained Lawrence's enigmatical declaration that she was Fielding'scousin. Briefly stated, the result of Mr. Keightley's inquiries in thisdirection tends to show that Miss Andrew's mother was connected with thefamily of Fielding's mother, the Goulds of Sharpham Park; and as Mr. Lawrence does not seem to have been aware of the existence of Davidson'sbook, or to have had any acquaintance with the traditions or archives ofLyme, Mr. Keightley surmises, very plausibly, that his unvouched datamust have been derived, directly or indirectly, from the Rhodes family. 

Mr. Keightley also ingeniously attempts to connect Fielding's subsequentresidence at Leyden (1726-28?) [Footnote: See Peacock's _Index toEnglish-speaking Students who have graduated at Leyden University_, 1883(p. 35), where Fielding's name occurs under date of 16th March 1728, and_Cornhill Magazine_ for November 1863--"A Scotchman in Holland. "] withthis affair by assuming that he was despatched to the Dutch university, instead of Oxford or Cambridge, in order to keep him out of harm's way. This is, however, to travel somewhat from the realm of fact into that ofromance. At the same time, it must be admitted that the materials forromance are tempting. A charming girl, who is also an heiress; apusillanimous guardian with ulterior views of his own; a handsome andhigh-spirited young suitor; a faithful attendant ready to "beat, maim, or kill" in his master's behalf; a frustrated elopement and a compulsoryvisit to the mayor--all these, with the picturesque old town of Lymefor a background, suggest a most appropriate first act to HarryFielding's biographical tragi-comedy. But to do such a theme justice wemust

 "call up him that left half-told"

the story of _Denis Duval_. 

APPENDIX No. II. 

FIELDING AND MRS. HUSSEY. 

At pp. 124-5, vol. I. , of J. T. Smith's _Nollekens and his Times_, 1828, occurs the following note:--

"Henry Fielding was fond of colouring his pictures of life with theglowing and variegated tints of Nature, by conversing with persons ofevery situation and calling, as I have frequently been informed by oneof my [i. E. J. T. Smith's] great-aunts, the late Mrs. Hussey, who knewhim intimately. I have heard her say, that Mr. Fielding never sufferedhis talent for sprightly conversation to mildew for a moment; and thathis manners were so gentlemanly, that even with the lower classes, withwhich he frequently condescended particularly to chat, such as Sir Rogerde Coverley's old friends, the Vauxhall watermen, they seldom outsteppedthe limits of propriety. My aunt, who lived to the age of 105, had beenblessed with four husbands, and her name had twice been changed to thatof Hussey: she was of a most delightful disposition, of a retentivememory, highly entertaining, and liberally communicative; and to her Ihave frequently been obliged for an interesting anecdote. She was, afterthe death of her second husband, Mr. Hussey, a fashionable sacque andmantua-maker, and lived in the Strand, a few doors west of the residenceof the celebrated Le Beck, a famous cook, who had a large portrait ofhimself for the sign of his house, at the north-west corner of Half-moonStreet, since called Little Bedford Street. One day Mr. Fieldingobserved to Mrs. Hussey, that he was then engaged in writing a novel, which he thought would be his best production; and that he intended tointroduce in it the characters of all his friends. Mrs. Hussey, with asmile, ventured to remark, that he must have many niches, and thatsurely they must already be filled. 'I assure you, my dear madam, 'replied he, 'there shall be a bracket for a bust of you. ' Some timeafter this, he informed Mrs. Hussey that the work was in the press; but, immediately recollecting that he had forgotten his promise to her, wentto the printer, and was time enough to insert, in vol. Iii. P. 17 [bk. X. Ch. Iv. ], where he speaks of the shape of Sophia Western--'Suchcharms are there in affability, and so sure is it to attract the praisesof all kinds of people. '--'It may, indeed, be compared to the celebratedMrs. Hussey. ' To which observation he has given the following note: 'Acelebrated mantua-maker in the Strand, famous for setting off the shapesof women. '"

There is no reason for supposing that this neglected anecdote should notbe in all respects authentic. In fact, upon the venerated principle that

 "there it stands unto this day To witness if I lie, "--

the existence of the passage and note in Tom Jones is practicallysufficient argument for its veracity. This being so, it surely deservessome consideration for the light which it throws on Fielding'scharacter. Mrs. Hussey's testimony as to his dignified and gentlemanlymanners, which does not seem to be advanced to meet any particularcharge, may surely be set against any innuendoes of the Burney andWalpole type as to his mean environment and coarse conversation. And thesuggestion that "the characters of all his friends"--by which must beintended rather mention of them than portraits--are to be found in hismasterpiece, is fairly borne out by the most casual inspection of _TomJones_, especially the first edition, where all the proper names are initalics. In the dedication alone are references to the "princelyBenefactions" of John, Duke of Bedford, and to Lyttelton and RalphAllen, both of whom are also mentioned by name in bk. Xiii. Ch. I. Thenames of Hogarth and Garrick also occur frequently. In bk. Iv. Ch. I. Isan anecdote of Wilks the player, who had been one of Fielding's earliestpatrons. The surgeon in the story of the "Man of the Hill" (bk. Viii. Ch. Xiii. ) "whose Name began with an _R_, " and who "was Sergeant-Surgeonto the King, " evidently stands for Hogarth's Chiswick neighbour, Mr. Ranby, by whose advice Fielding was ordered to Bath in 1753. Again, heknew, though he did not greatly admire, Warburton, to whose learningthere is a handsome compliment in bk. Xiii. Ch. I. In bk. Xv. Ch. Iv. Isthe name of another friend or acquaintance (also mentioned in the_Journey from this World to the Next_), Hooke, of the _Roman History_, who, like the author of _Tom Jones_, had drawn his pen for Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough. Bk. Xi. Ch. Iv. Contains an anecdote, real orimaginary, of Richard Nash, with whom Fielding must certainly havebecome familiar in his visits to Bath; and it is probable that Square'smedical advisers (bk. Xviii. Ch. Iv. ), Dr. Harrington and Dr. Brewster, both of whom subscribed to the _Miscellanies_ of 1743, were well-knownBathonians. Mr. Willoughby, also a subscriber, was probably "JusticeWilloughby of Noyle" referred to in bk. Viii. Ch. Xi. Whether the use ofHandel's name in bk. Iv. Ch. V. Is of any significance there is noevidence; but the description in bk. Iv. Ch. Vi. Of Conscience "sittingon its Throne in the Mind, like the LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR of this Kingdomin his Court, " and fulfilling its functions "with a Knowledge whichnothing escapes, a Penetration which nothing can deceive, and anIntegrity which nothing can corrupt, " is clearly an oblique panegyric ofPhilip Yorke, Lord Hardwicke, to whom, two years later, Fieldingdedicated his _Enquiry into the late Increase of Robbers_, etc. Besidesthese, there are references to Bishop Hoadly (bk. Ii. Ch. Vii. ), Mrs. Whitefield, of the "Bell" at Gloucester, and Mr. Timothy Harris (bk. Viii. Ch. Viii), Mrs. Clive, and Mr. Miller of the _Gardener'sDictionary_ (bk. Ix. Ch. I. ); and closer examination would no doubtreveal further allusions. Meanwhile the above will be sufficient to showthat the statement of the "celebrated mantua-maker in the Strand"respecting Fielding's friends in _Tom Jones_ is not without foundation. 

APPENDIX No. III. 

AMELIA'S ACCIDENT. 

In addition to the alterations mentioned at p. 109 _n_. , Fieldinginserted the following paragraph in the _Covent-Garden Journal_, No. 3, for 11th January 1752:--

"It is currently reported that a famous Surgeon, who absolutely curedone Mrs. Amelia Booth, of a violent Hurt in her Nose, insomuch, that shehad scarce a Scar left on it, intends to bring Actions against severalill-meaning and slanderous People, who have reported that the said Ladyhad no Nose, merely because the Author of her History, in a Hurry, forgot to inform his Readers of that Particular, and which, if thoseReaders had any Nose themselves, except that which is mentioned in theMotto of this Paper, they would have smelt out. "

The motto is the passage from Martial (Ep. I. 4. 6) in which he speaksof the _nasus rhinocerotis_. 

APPENDIX No. IV. 

FIELDINGIANA. 

The three foregoing Appendices were added to the second edition of 1889. In this Appendix, No. IV. , I propose to bring together a few dispersedfragments of information, which, either in the way of fresh particulars, or in correction of hitherto-accepted statements made in the body of thebook, have come to light during the interval. Much that is absolutelynew cannot, at this date, be reasonably anticipated. But the unexpectedalways happens; and the unexpected in the present instance has beenproductive of two or three items which are not unworthy of brief record. 

The first relates to that famous "eulogy of Gibbon" mentioned in thesecond sentence of the book. The connexion of Fielding's family with theHapsburgs is now no longer asserted. In April 1894, the question wasexhaustively examined in the _Genealogist_ (New Series) by Mr. J. HoraceRound, who came to the conclusion that such a claim could not beestablished; and that, consequently, any picturesque conjunction betweenthat "exquisite picture of human manners" (as Gibbon called _Tom Jones_)[Footnote: _Autobiographies of Edward Gibbon_, 1896, p. 419. ] and the"Imperial Eagle of the house of Austria" must henceforth be abandoned. Mr. Round has since reprinted his paper at pp. 216-49 of his _Studies inPeerage and Family History_, 1901; and in a final paragraph he announcesthat his arguments, at first hotly contested, have now been accepted byBurke, from whose records the story has been withdrawn. 

The next matter is the exact period of Fielding's residence at Leyden(p. 8). This, although somewhat developed, long remained obscure. In1883, in the absence of other data, I accepted, as my predecessors haddone, Murphy's statement that Fielding "went _from Eton to Leyden_, andthere continued to show an eager thirst for knowledge, and to _study thecivilians_ with a remarkable application for _about two years_, when, remittances failing, he was obliged to return to London, _not then quitetwenty years old_ [i. E. Before 22nd April 1727]. " [Footnote: Fielding's_Works_, 1762, i. 8. The italics are mine. ] When the "Sarah Andrew"episode was conclusively traced to November 1725 (Appendix I. P. 200), it seemed only reasonable to suppose that it was succeeded by the Leydenexpatriation, especially as Fielding's first play was produced inFebruary 1728. Nor was this supposition seriously disturbed by theappearance of further information. Among Mr. Keightley's MSS. I foundreference to a paper in the _Cornhill Magazine_ for November 1863, entitled "A Scotchman in Holland" (I believe it to have been by JamesHannay). In this the writer stated that he had been allowed to inspectthe Album of the University of Leyden, and had there, under 1728, foundthe entry, "Henricus Fielding, Anglus, Ann. 20. Stud. Lit. " Further, that Fielding was living at the Hotel of Antwerp. It will be noted thatthis account was derived from the Album itself; and that Fielding isstyled "Stud. Lit. " Twelve years after the _Cornhill_ article, theUniversity published their list of students from 1575 to 1875; and in1883 Mr. Edward Peacock, F. S. A. , compiled from it, for the "IndexSociety, " an _Index to English speaking Students who have graduated atLeyden University_. At p. 35 of this appears "Fielding, Henricus, _Anglus_, 16 Mart. 1728. [col. ] 915. " This, it will be observed, addsthe month and day, but reveals nothing as to the class of study. As Ihave implied, neither of these entries was seriously inconsistent withMurphy's statement, except as regards "studying the civilians. " But in1906, Mr. A. E. H. Swaen printed in the _Modern Language Review_[Footnote: Vol. I, pp. 327-8 (July 1906, No. Iv. )] what was apparentlythe fullest version of the inscription. From col. 915 (the column givenby Mr. Peacock), he copied the following:--"Febr. 16 1728: RectoreJohanne Wesselio, Henricus Fielding, Anglus. 20, L. " Mr. Swaen held thatthis meant that, on the date named, Fielding was _entered as litterarumstudiosus_ at Leyden. In this case, it would follow that his stay inHolland must have been subsequent to February 16, 1728; and Mr. Swaenwent on to suggest that as Fielding's "first play, _Love in SeveralMasques_, was staged at Drury Lane in February 1728, and his next play, _The Temple Beau_, was produced in January 1730, " the barren interval orpart of it, may have been filled by residence at Leyden. 

The fresh complications imported into the question by this new aspect ofit will be at once apparent. Up to 1875 there had been but one Fieldingon the Leyden books; so that all these differing accounts werevariations from a single source. In this difficulty I was fortunateenough to enlist the sympathy of Mr. Frederic Harrison, who most kindlyundertook to make inquiries on my behalf at Leyden University itself. Inreply to certain definite queries drawn up by me, he obtained from thedistinguished scholar and Professor of History, Dr. Pieter Blok, thefollowing authoritative particulars. The exact words in the original_Album Academicum_ are:--"le Martii _1728_ Henricus Fielding, Anglus, annor. 20 Litt. Stud. " He was then staying at the "Casteel vanAntwerpen"--as related by "A Scotchman in Holland. " His name only occursagain in the yearly _recensiones_ under the 22nd February 1729, as"Henricus Fieldingh, " when he was domiciled with one Jan Oson. He must, consequently, have left Leyden before the 8th February 1730, --the 8thFebruary being the birthday of the University, after which all studentshad to be annually registered. The entry in the _Album_ (as Mr. Swaenaffirmed) is an admission entry; there are no leaving entries. Asregards "studying the civilians, " Fielding might, in those days--Dr. Blok explains--have had private lessons from the professors, but couldnot have studied in the University without being on the books. To sumup:--After producing _Love in Several Masques_ at Drury Lane, probablyon the 12th February 1728, [Footnote: Genest, iii. 209. ] Fielding wasadmitted a "Litt. Stud. " at Leyden University on 16th March; was stillthere in February 1729; and left before 8th February 1730. Murphy istherefore in fault in almost every particular. Fielding did _not_ gofrom Eton to Leyden; he did _not_ make any recognised study of thecivilians "with remarkable application" or otherwise; and he did _not_return to London before he was twenty. But it is by no means improbablethat the proximate cause of his coming home was the failure ofremittances. 

Another of the hitherto-unsolved difficulties in Fielding's life hasbeen the date of his first marriage (p. 38). Lawrence gave the year as1735; and Keightley suggested the spring of that year. This, as Swiftwould say, is near the mark, though confirmation has been slow incoming. In a letter dated 18th June 1906, Mr. Thomas S. Bush announcedin the _Bath Chronicle_ that the desired information was to be found ina register (not at Salisbury, where search had been fruitlessly made, but) at the tiny church of St. Mary, Charlcombe, a secluded parish aboutone and a half miles north of Bath. Here is the record:--"November ye28, 1734. --Henry Fielding, of ye Parish of St. James in Bath, Esq. , andCharlotte Cradock, of ye same Parish, spinster, were married by virtueof a license from ye Court of Wells. " All Fielding lovers owe a debt ofgratitude to Mr. Bush, whose researches also revealed the fact thatSarah Fielding, the novelist's third sister, was buried, not in BathAbbey, where Dr. John Hoadly [Footnote: Bishop Hoadly is sometimes saidto have written her epitaph. In this case it must have been (like Dr. Primrose's on his Deborah) anticipatory, for Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, Bishopof Winchester, died in 1761. ] raised a mural memorial to her, but "in yrentrance of the chancel [of Charlcombe Church] close to yr Rector'sseat, " 14th April 1768. These are not the only fresh traces of theconnexion of the Fieldings with the old "Queen of the West. " In Junelast a tablet to Fielding and his sister was placed on the wall of YewCottage, now Widcombe Lodge, Church Street, Widcombe, where they oncelived. 

Sarah Fielding figures frequently in Richardson's _Correspondence_; andit is with Richardson as much as with Fielding that the next jotting isconcerned. Previously to 1900, although second-hand booksellers had, Ibelieve, occasionally attributed to Fielding the pamphlet known as _AnApology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews_, April 1741, no one haddevoted much attention to that unworshipful performance. But when MissClara Thomson began to prepare her excellent and careful life ofRichardson (1900), it became a part of her task to examine into thisquestion. She found, first, that Richardson had himself ascribed_Shamela_ to Fielding in a letter to "Mrs. Belfour" (Lady Bradshaigh);[Footnote: _Correspondence_, 1804, iv. P. 286. ] and she was acute enoughto discover, in the pamphlet itself, which appeared some months before_Joseph Andrews_, the suggestive, though not conclusive, fact that "Mr. B. " was provisionally transformed into "Mr. Booby. " When, in 1902, I wasengaged upon my own Memoir of Richardson for the "Men of Letters"series, I was naturally indisposed to connect this undoubtedly clever, but also unquestionably gross production with Fielding, already"unjustly censured, " as he complained in the "Preface" to the_Miscellanies_ of 1743, for much that he had never written (p. 72). ButI must honestly confess that for the present it has been my ill-fortuneto discover only corroborative evidence. To a document at SouthKensington, in which _Shamela_ is mentioned, I found that Richardson hadappended, in the tremulous script of his old age:--"Written by Mr. H. Fielding"; and since the publication of my book on Richardson, Mr. Frederick Macmillan has drawn my attention to the fact that a letterwritten in July 1741, by Mr. T. Dampier, afterwards Sub-Master of Etonand Dean of Durham, to one of the Windhams, contains the following:--"The book that has made the greatest noise lately in the polite world is_Pamela_, a romance in low life. It is thought to contain such excellentprecepts, that a learned divine at London [Footnote: This enables me tocorrect an error at p. 74. As Miss Thomson points out (_SamuelRichardson_, 1900, p. 31) it was Dr. Benjamin Slocock of St. Saviour's, Southwark, and not Dr. Sherlock, who praised _Pamela_ from the pulpit. The mistake seems to have originated with Jeffrey, and was freelyrepeated. ] recommended it very strongly from the pulpit. . . . Thededication [of Conyers Middleton's _Life of Cicero_] to Lord Hervey hasbeen very justly and prettily ridiculed by Fielding in a dedication to apamphlet called _Shamela_ which he wrote to burlesque the fore-mentionedromance. " [Footnote: Hist. MSS. Commission, 12th Report, Appendix, PartIX. , p. 204. ] This shows unmistakably that _Shamela_ was attributed toFielding by contemporary gossip. But then so was The _Causidicade_ (p. 112), and _The Apology for the Life of Mr. The' Cibber_, _Comedian_ (p. 72). I still cling to the hope that Fielding was _not_ the author of_Shamela_. The matter is examined at some length at pp. 42-45 of the"Men of Letters" Memoir of Richardson; and it is plain that, if Fieldinghad wished to father it, he would have included it in the _Miscellanies_of 1743. 

The remaining points which call for notice are little more thandispersed adversaria. To the _amende honorable_ which Fielding made toRichardson in the _Jacobites Journal_ (pp. 113-14) should be added afurther passage from the later _Covent-Garden Journal_, No. 10--_Pleasantry_ (as the ingenious Author of _Clarissa_ says of a Story)"_should be made only the Vehicle of Instruction_. " Among other placesconnected with the composition of _Tom Jones_ (p. 118) may be mentionedWidcombe House, Bath (then Mr. Philip Bennet's), a Palladian villa closeto the road from Widcombe Hill to Prior Park; and, if we are to believe_Rambles round Edge Hills_, 1896, p. 17, Fielding actually read thatwork in MS. To Lyttelton and Lord Chatham in the dining-room of RadwayGrange in Warwickshire (Mr. Miller's). It should also be added that theagreement for _Tom Jones_ (p. 121), dated 5th March 1749, together withFielding's antecedent receipt for the money, dated 11th June 1748, ofwhich in 1883 I could obtain no tidings, are (or were lately) in theHuth collection. But perhaps the most important item which has come tolight since 1883 is the Will discovered in the Prerogative Court ofCanterbury by Mr. George A. Aitken. It is undated, though it wasevidently executed at Ealing in the novelist's last days, and runs asfollows:--

"In the name of God Amen. I Henry Fielding of the Parish of Ealing inthe County of Middlesex do hereby give and bequeath unto Ralph Allen ofPrior Park in the County of Somerset Esq. And to his heirs executorsadministrators and assigns for ever for the use of the said Ralph hisheirs, &c. All my estate real and personal and whatsoever and do appointhim sole executor of this my last will Beseeching him that the whole(except my share in the Register Office) may be sold and forthwithconverted into money and annuities purchased thereout for the lives ofmy dear wife Mary and my daughters Harriet and Sophia and whatproportions my said executor shall please to reserve to my sons Williamand Allen shall be paid them severally as they shall attain the age oftwenty and three. And as for my shares in the Register or UniversalRegister Office I give ten thereof to my aforesaid wife seven to mydaughter Harriet and three to my daughter Sophia my wife to be put inimmediate possession of her shares and my daughters of theirs as theyshall severally arrive at the age of twenty one the immediate profits tobe then likewise paid to my two daughters by my executor who is desiredto retain the same in his hands until that time. Witness my hand HenryFielding. Signed and acknowledged as his last will and testament by thewithin named testator in the presence of Margaret Collier, Richd. Boor, Isabella Ash. "

"On the 14th November 1754, " comments Mr. Aitken, "administration (withthe will annexed) of the goods, &c. , of Henry Fielding, at Lisbon, deceased, was granted to John Fielding, Esq. , uncle and guardianlawfully assigned to Harriet Fielding, spinster, a minor, and SophiaFielding, an infant, for the use and benefit and of the minor and infantuntil they were twenty one; Ralph Allen, Esq. , having renounced as wellthe execution of the will as administration of the goods, &c. ; and MaryFielding, the relict, having also renounced administration of the goodsof the deceased. " [Footnote: _Athenaeum_, February 1, 1890. A portrait ofMary Fielding by Cotes, described by one who knew it as "a very finedrawing of a very ugly woman, " was sold not many years since atChristie's. ]

The Register Office, above mentioned, is that referred to at p. 194. What was the amount of the property so disposed of is not known. But inmaking inquiries in connexion with an edition of the _Journal of aVoyage to Lisbon_ issued by the Chiswick Press in 1892, [Footnote: Thisconsiderably elaborates the first note at p. 179. ] I discovered thatFielding died possessed of a considerable library (653 lots), which wassold in February 1755, "for the Benefit of his Wife and Family, " bySamuel Baker of York Street, Covent Garden, realising L364:7:1, or aboutL100 more than the public gave in 1785 for the books of Johnson. Anaccount of this collection, rich particularly in law, classics, poetryand drama, is given in the third series of my _Eighteenth CenturyVignettes_, 1896, pp. 164-178. 

A few words, in supplement to those in the "Postscript" (pp. 191-2), maybe devoted to Fielding's family. Concerning the daughter Harriet, orHarriot, mentioned in the foregoing will, I am indebted to Colonel W. F. Prideaux for pointing out to me that in Burke's _Landed Gentry_, 1875, vol. Ii. P. 938, it is stated that she afterwards became the second wifeof Colonel James Gabriel Montresor. As his first wife died in March1761, when he was more than fifty-eight; and as he afterwards marriedfor the third time, a widow, Mrs. Kemp of Teynham, Kent, it is probablethat, as Keightley says, Harriet Montresor was not long-lived. [Footnote: According to Thomas Whitehead's _Original Anecdotes of thelate Duke of Kingston and Miss Chudleigh_, 1792, p. 95 (for reference towhich I am also indebted to Col. Prideaux), Miss Fielding was, at thedate of her marriage, "in a deep decline, "--a circumstance which lends atouch of chivalry to Col. Montresor's devotion. She is said by Whiteheadto have been of "a sweet temper, and great understanding. "] Of the otherchildren spoken of at p. 192, Louisa died in May 1753, being buried froma house in Hammersmith. And this brings me to a final question as toFielding's sisters. Richardson speaks in August 1749 of being "wellacquainted" with _four_ Miss Fieldings; and Murphy and Lawrence bothrefer to a Catherine and an Ursula of whom Mr. Keightley could learnnothing. With Colonel Prideaux's help, and the kind offices of Mr. Samuel Martin of the Hammersmith Free Library, the matter has now beenset at rest. In 1887 the late Sir Leslie Stephen had suggested to methat Catherine and Ursula were probably born at Sharpham Park. This musthave been the case, though Keightley had failed to establish it. At allevents Catherine and Ursula existed, for they both died in 1750. TheHammersmith Registers at Fulham record the following burials:--1750July 9th, Mrs. Catherine Feilding (_sic_). 

1750 Nov. 12th, Mrs. Ursula Fielding. 

1750[-1] Feby. 24th, Mrs. Beatrice Fielding. 

1753 May 10th, Louisa, d. Of Henry Fielding, Esq. 

The first three, with Sarah, make up Richardson's "Four worthy Sisters"(p. 140); and the final entry renders it probable that, in May 1753, Fielding was staying in the house at Hammersmith then occupied by hissurviving sister, Sarah. 

No well-authenticated likeness of Fielding has yet superseded Hogarth'soutline (pp. 184-5), nor, if Murphy's statement (_Works_, 1762, i. P. 47) that "no portrait of him had ever been made" previously, beaccurate, can any new likeness be looked for. Nevertheless, both at theGuelph (1891) and Georgian (1906) exhibitions, the Hon. Gerald Ponsonbyexhibited a portrait of Fielding; and another is included in the pictureattributed to Hogarth (also shown at the latter exhibition, and latelybelonging to Sir Charles Tennant), of the "Green Room, Drury Lane. "There is also a bust (posthumous) by W. F. Woodington at Eton. And thisreminds me that no more fitting tail-piece to this Appendix can beconceived than the compact and penetrating lines which the late JamesRussell Lowell composed as an inscription for the bust of Henry Fieldingat Taunton:--

 "He looked on naked nature unashamed, And saw the Sphinx, now bestial, now divine, In change and re-change; he nor praised nor blamed, But drew her as he saw with fearless line. Did he good service? God must judge, not we. Manly he was, and generous and sincere; English in all, of genius blithely free: Who loves a Man may see his image here. "

A. D. 

_March_ 1907.