University of Virginia Library

WHO EDITED FIELDING'S JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE TOLISBON (1755)? THE CASE FOR ARTHUR MURPHY AND A NEW FIELDING ESSAY

by Martin C. Battestin

IN a masterly essay on the authority of the two versions of the Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon that were published posthumously in 1755, the late Hugh Amory came close to solving the most perplexing textual problem in Fielding studies—as close, that is, as bibliographical analysis and circumstantial evidence allow.[1] Two distinct editions were printed by William Strahan in January 1755: the "Francis" version (so-called after the name of the innkeeper whom Fielding satirizes), which, though printed first, was published later; and the "Humphrys" version (the name under which Mrs. Francis's identity is hidden in the second edition), which, though printed later, was published first. The two versions were first noticed by Austin Dobson in 1883;[2] a generation later, further analysis was undertaken by a trio of Fielding scholars—F. S. Dickson, J. P. de Castro, and Wilbur Cross, Fielding's biographer—who were joined by the eminent bibliographer A. W. Pollard.[3] In his biography Cross accounted for the two versions by attributing the "Humphrys" to the unfortunate, if well intentioned, meddling of Fielding's blind half-brother. John Fielding, he supposed, having become aware of certain potentially offensive passages in the first edition, attempted to purge them from the second while adding revisions of his own, and so Mrs. Francis became Mrs. Humphrys.

Until the dawn of the new century, Cross's theory prevailed among Fielding scholars, myself included—though the thought that the work had been edited by a blind man remained troublesome. Even now, however—though Amory refuted the notion of editorial meddling in "Humphrys" by arguing,

cogently, that both versions descend directly from Fielding's heavily revised autograph manuscript—he preferred to regard John as editor of the work, not so much meddling as deciding which of his brother's words, phrases, passages—Fielding's first thoughts or his second ones—would be preserved. Referring to a statement in the Dedication, Amory illustrates by a metaphor from cinema the process that resulted in the two texts:

Perhaps Amory was right in seeing John behind the texts as we have them; there can be no certainty in the matter. But there are reasons—some of them quite compelling, I believe—why we might prefer another candidate:namely, Arthur Murphy. The case for Murphy rests principally on the question of who wrote the "Dedication to the Public" that is prefixed to both the "Francis" and the "Humphrys" versions. It reads as follows:

In 1916 de Castro, who noticed a "similarity of rythym [sic] and diction" between the prose of the Dedication and that of Murphy's "Essay on the

Life and Genius" of Fielding prefixed to his edition of the Works (1762), first proposed Murphy's authorship in a letter to Dickson, who found merit in the "sage suggestion," as did Cross,[4] and indeed every editor of the Journalsince then.[5]

But there is more than the similarity of rhythm and diction to link the dedication to Murphy's essay. In his remarks on Fielding's state of health and its damaging effects on the literary quality of the Journal, and in his praise of Fielding's defense of religion in the "Fragment" of an answer to Bolingbroke appended to the Journal, there are striking correspondences of thought and metaphor. Consider, for example, the following parallels:

(1) The dedicator begins by appealing to the reader's "candour" (in the sense of fairness, kindliness [OED 3-4]) to overlook the defects of the work. Murphy, moving from his account of the Journal to reflect on Fielding's character flaws and physical infirmities, similarly appeals to "the candid reader", and "every candid mind."[6]

(2) The dedicator reminds the reader of the obligation he owes to Fielding: "a genius that has long been your delight and entertainment." Murphy,after referring to the generosity of John Fielding and Ralph Allen in providing for Fielding's children, similarly reminds the reader that their father was "the writer, whose works have afforded such exquisite entertainment" (p. 46).

(3) Especially striking, however, is the metaphor the dedicator develops in the opening paragraph. He describes the "genius" of the author, "struggling" against the debilitating effects of a fatal illness, in terms of "a lamp almost burnt out" giving off a "light . . . wavering" instead of "blaz[ing]" as before, yet, even so, at times "dart[ing] a ray as bright as ever." In the "Essay," Murphy employs this same metaphor as he evokes an image of Fielding struggling against illness, trying to make the Journal a work worthy of the "genius" he once had: "Even in this distressful condition, his imagination still continued making its strongest efforts to display itself; and the last

gleams of his wit and humour faintly sparkled in the account he left behind him of his voyage" (p. 46).

(4) In his second paragraph, the dedicator stresses the ruined state of Fielding's health at the time he wrote the work, wherein the reader will find "traces of a weaken'd and decay'd life," and can imagine "a true picture, in that of a hand trembling in almost its latest hour, of a body emaciated with pains, yet struggling for your entertainment." The Journal, he concludes, is "a work begun in pain, and finished almost at the same period with life." Murphy presents the same picture: "our author's whole frame of body was so entirely shattered by continual inroads of complicated disorders, and the incessant fatigue of business in his office [as magistrate]" that he was ordered to leave England for his health. "In this his last sketch," Murphy concludes, "he puts us in mind of a person, under sentence of death, jesting on the scaffold; for his strength was now quite exhausted; and in about two months after his arrival at Lisbon, he yielded his last breath" (pp. 45-46).

brother, Sir John Fielding" (pp. 48-49).

(5) In his final paragraph the dedicator commends "the principles and spirit," as well as the design, of the "Fragment of a Comment on Bolingbroke's Essays," Fielding's unfinished answer to the attack on religion in the philosopher's posthumous Works (1754). So, too, in the penultimate paragraph of his "Essay" Murphy commends Fielding's principles: "The interests of virtue and religion he never betrayed; the former is amiably enforced in his works; and, for the defence of the latter, he had projected a laborious answer to the posthumous philosophy of Bolingbroke; and the preparation he had made for it of long extracts and arguments from the fathers and the most eminent writers of controversy, is still extant in the hands of his brother, Sir John Fielding" (pp. 48-49).

If Murphy wrote the Dedication, as these parallel passages suggest he did, he would also be the most likely person for Millar to have employed as editor of the Journal. As such, as de Castro saw, their collaboration in this project would lead to the agreement between them, announced in May 1759, that resulted in the production of Fielding's Works (1762).[7] There, in his "Essay," Murphy describes their relationship, referring to Millar as "the Proprietor" of the work and to himself as "the Editor," assuring readers that it was only "after communicating with the ablest and best of the Author's friends" that he had proceeded in the selection of materials. As his acknowledgments make clear, the most helpful of those friends, besides of course Millar himself, was John Fielding. In the present case of the Journal, the evidence of the Dedication points to a similar collaboration between these three: John, who possessed his brother's manuscript and who transferred it to Millar in partial payment of the enormous debt Fielding owed him (£1,892),[8] and Murphy, a professional writer

and friend of Fielding, whom Millar employed to edit the heavily revised manuscript.

Amory, it should be said, could not accept the possibility that Murphy had anything to do with the Journal. Referring to the generally held view that Murphy may have been the author of the Dedication, he offered the following objections:

But the reasons Amory offers for doubting Murphy's involvement in the edition clearly misrepresent the facts of the matter. As we have seen, the case for Murphy's authorship of the Dedication rests on internal evidence far more persuasive than what a mere "allusion" to it in the "Essay" could possibly amount to. What is more, the assertion that Murphy was not personally known to Fielding is mistaken, whatever his sister may have thought.[9] Though Bertrand Goldgar has discredited the view that Murphy began his literary career by assisting Fielding with The Covent-Garden Journal, [10] Fielding's friendship with Murphy—and with Murphy's friend Christopher Smart—had certainly formed by the autumn of 1752, when they all three took sides with Garrick and the troupe at Drury Lane in a literary and

theatrical "war" provoked by the fulminations of Dr. John Hill, who in the London Daily Advertiser supported the inane entertainments of John Rich at Covent Garden.[11]

During this period Fielding had no more vocal admirer in London than Murphy. As Fielding was writing the last numbers of The Covent-Garden journal, Murphy took over authorship of The Craftsman on 28 October 1752, giving it the subtitle Gray's-Inn Journal and, taking Fielding's paper as his model, transformed The Craftsman from a partisan political organ into a forum for the witty discussion of literature and manners. Beginning with the numbers for 11 and 18 November 1752, when he paid Fielding the compliment of appropriating for his own journal Fielding's feature of the "Court of Censorial Enquiry," and in a leader chose Fielding to represent "those whose Writings are likely to live," Murphy, throughout the two-year run of The Gray's-Inn Journal, would extol his idol, "the immortal author of Jonathan Wild, Joseph Andrews, and Tom Jones" (9 December).[12] Indeed, in a letter dated 21 December but published later with Smart's satire The Hilliad (February 1753), Murphy paid Fielding one of the handsomest tributes he ever received:

Concluding his Introduction to the Wesleyan Edition of The Covent-Garden Journal, Goldgar remarks on Murphy's admiration for Fielding as a journalist as well as novelist. In The Gray's-Inn Journal (30 December 1752)—after puffing Fielding's plan (abortive as it proved) to publish a translation

of Lucian[14] —Murphy freely acknowledged his debt to Fielding's periodical while regretting Fielding's decision, announced in the final number, not "to hold any further Correspondence with the gayer Muses."[15] Goldgar, who quotes the passage in full, observes: "These comments not only give us a glimpse of Murphy's earliest views of Fielding; they also have the air already of a biographer, of reflections by an admirer on a writer whose major accomplishments are over."[16] He notes in Murphy's words "the tone of a final tribute," of regret at witnessing the twilight of Fielding's genius. Later this would also be the tone, though darker, that one hears in the Dedication to the Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon and in Murphy's "Essay."

Considering the correspondences between the manner in which the dedicator and Murphy treat the circumstances in which Fielding wrote the Journal and the effect they had on his performance, and considering the esteem in which Murphy held Fielding as friend and author, Amory's last objection—that Murphy "seems a priori an unlikely candidate to dedicate our author's dying legacy"—seems frivolous. His own favored candidates for Millar's choice of an editor of the heavily revised manuscript Fielding left behind are patently unsuitable. John, a blind man, would have been lost among a textual thicket of false starts, cancellations, and second thoughts scrawled between the lines and in the margins. There is no reason to suppose Sarah, at Bath, knew anything of Millar's plans for the work; or to think that Harris at Salisbury, or Lyttelton at Hagley Park, or Ralph Allen at Prior Park—or Garrick, in the midst of the theatrical season at Drury Lane—would have offered themselves to undertake such a difficult job of editing even if Millar or John had presumed to propose it. Murphy, on the other hand, was at the beginning of a long and prolific career as a professional writer; and, burdened with a debt of £300, he needed money. On 21 September 1754, with the fifty-second number,[17] he brought The Gray's-Inn Journal to a close. Little more than a fortnight later, Fielding died in Lisbon. Murphy engaged himself to act for a season at Covent Garden; but though hemet with success, even as late as the following April it had not been enough to satisfy his creditors.[18]

The question of who edited the Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, that last sad testament of Fielding's life, cannot be answered with certainty. But,

clearly, de Castro's hunch was right: there is a case to be made for Arthur Murphy. Murphy, who was twenty years Fielding's junior, had taken him as his model in his début as an author. In a sense he was Fielding's protégé;and there is reason to believe that in the early days of the Gray's-Inn Journal—when Fielding had the time and his health allowed—he returned the favor of the public adulation Murphy bestowed on him by assisting him as a contributor.

In the leader that concluded the run of the journal, Murphy modestly apologized to his readers for the inadequacies he felt as "so young a Writer" and graciously expressed his thanks to certain unnamed contributors—one of whom is the subject of the following paragraph:

On the face of it, the "ingenious Gentleman" whom Murphy acknowledges as having contributed two essays and "some occasional Strokes of Humour" in the department of his journal called "True Intelligence," couldbe Fielding—or any other witty author. The pool of possible candidates narrows, however, when Murphy represents him as a particularly gifted writer, one whose contributions were capable of "raising the Estimation of this Paper much higher." And the pool narrows farther still when we are told that he is Murphy's good friend, one who would have wished to do more to help the paper succeed had not matters "of more Consequence" not only to "himself," but also to "the Public, demanded the Exertion of his excellent Abilities in another Way." On all counts, Fielding fits this profile perfectly. Indeed, Murphy's last sentence repeats Fielding's own explanation, in the final number of The Covent-Garden Journal (25 November 1752), as to why he chose to follow his friends' advice and "lay down" his paper: "that I might employ my Pen much more to the Honour of myself, and to the Good of the Public" (p. 380). At the time he wrote these words, Fielding had been serving the public for four years as principal magistrate of the metropolis, and was engaged in drafting an ambitious treatise designed to alleviate a serious social problem: his Proposal for Making an Effectual Provision for the Poor would be published on 29 January 1753.

That Fielding was in fact the "ingenious Gentleman" who contributed the two leaders to which Murphy refers, should be evident from the articles themselves: the one—No. 16 (3 February 1752 [for 1753]—a "Paper" entitled

in the list of Contents, "On Imitation in Writing"; the other—No. 27 (21 April 1753)—an "Essay" entitled "On the Standards of modern Criticism."

I. On Imitation in Writing

This "Paper," as Murphy calls it, was not written by Fielding, but by Murphy in the guise of Charles Ranger, Esq, author of The Gray's-Inn Journal.The credit for it, however, goes to the "ingenious Gentleman" because not only the topic in general, but, for much of the paper, the specific treatment of the topic and the phrasing was his—that is, was Fielding's, as will be seen.

Murphy, who throughout the journal reminds readers that he is a mere tyro in the writing profession, opens the paper with a conversation between Ranger and Mr. Candid, an older, wiser man who warns that the fame the young journalist enjoys as a new writer will, with familiarity, turn to indifference. This advice leads Ranger "to throw together a few Reflections upon what may be term'd Novelty in Writing" (i. 106). These reflections, however, are not so much Murphy's as they are, essentially, Fielding's: they are borrowed without open acknowledgment—though, by his allusions to Fielding, Murphy winks at his friend and source—from the introductory essay to Book XII of Tom Jones: "Shewing what is to be deemed Plagiarism in a modern Author, and what is to be considered lawful Prize." The debt is most obvious in the paragraphs at the beginning and end of Murphy's remarks on the topic of literary imitation, where Fielding is first complimented as the model for aspiring comic novelists, and later (implicitly) invoked as Ranger's "humourous Acquaintance," with whom plagiarism is a favorite subject. The relevant passages are these:

II. On the Standards of Modern Criticism

Fielding was only the source of Murphy's reflections on "Imitation"; but the essay "On the Standards of modern Criticism" is wholly his, and it is one of the best of his humorous pieces of this kind. Opening with a favorite observation—that "Character" is determined by a ruling passion that "gives a casting Weight to the Genius" of a person—he regrets that there has been no objective means of measuring the force and efficacy of the particular passion necessary to produce the man of "Wit" or of "Hour," or, indeed, to produce Nature's masterpiece, "the modern Critic." Fielding had long made the latter the target of ridicule, most recently, for example, in the introductory essays to Tom Jones (Book X: "Containing Instructions very necessary to be perused by modern Critics"; and Book XI: "A Crust for the Critics")and in The Covent-Garden Journal, Nos. 3 (11 January 1752) and 46 (9 June 1752).

Here, it appears to have been a particular modern critic whose taste and judgment required the correction of being laughed at. Samuel Foote, actor and mimic at the Covent-Garden Theatre, and a man Fielding despised (Life,pp. 435-39), had belittled the gifts of David Garrick, the greatest actor of the age—and, as the author of the essay calls him, "my little Friend of Drury Lane": Foote was publicly arguing that Garrick at 5′6″ was physically too short to be convincing in the role of a hero (see below, note 14). Affecting to agree with Foote's premise, the solution Fielding proposes to the problem of subjectivity when judging the pretensions of authors and critics is reminiscent of the "physico-logical" schemes of Swift: having "shewn to a Demonstration" that the qualifications of writers are entirely dependent on "the Height and Stature of the Body"—a Wit is 5′6″, a Humorist is 5′8″, a practical Joker 5′10″, a Critic 6′—it follows that a yardstick in future must be "the only infallible Criterion."

As I believe the evidence attests,[22] de Castro's "suggestion" of nearly

ninety years ago was as "sage" as Dickson judged it to be. Arthur Murphy was not only Fielding's good friend but, as Fielding's contributions to the Gray's-Inn Journal make clear, his protégé as well; he is the most likely author of the Dedication to The Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon. And if he was author of the Dedication, Murphy, a professional writer and experienced editor of manuscripts, would certainly be the most likely person to have been employed by Millar to see through to publication the "perplexed autograph manuscript" that Amory has described. And, to repeat de Castro's words, "If that be so one can understand why Millar should have turned to him when requiring an editor for the `Complete' Works" of 1762.

The complete text of the essay follows below, the copy text being the only extant source: The Gray's-Inn Journal, No. 27 (21 April 1753), in the 1756 reprint, i. 174-179. The footnotes chiefly illustrate correspondences of topics and phrasing with Fielding's known writings; an asterisk before a note signals a particularly striking parallel. Notes followed by the letter "R" were contributed by Dr. Frederick G. Ribble, who read this essay in typescript.

References to Fielding's works are to the Wesleyan Edition (Middletown, CT, and Oxford: Wesleyan University Press and Oxford University Press, 1966/67- ), as follows in alphabetical order: Amelia, ad. M. C. Battestin (1983); Contributions to The Champion and Related Writings, ad. W. B. Coley (2003); The Covent-Garden Journal and A Plan of the Universal Register-Office, ad. Bertrand A. Goldgar (1988); The Jacobite's Journal and Related Writings, ad. W. B. Coley (1975); Joseph Andrews, ad. M. C. Battestin (1966/67); Miscellanies, Volume One, ad. Henry Knight Miller (1972), Volume Two and Volume Three, ad. Bertrand A. Goldgar and Hugh Amory (1993 and 1997); Tom Jones, ad. M. C. Battestin and Fredson Bowers, 2 vols. (1974/75), 2nd edn. paperback (Wesleyan UP, 1975); The True Patriot and Related Writings, ad. W. B. Coley (1987). For Familiar Letters see Fielding's Complete Works, ad. W. E. Henley, vol. 16 (1903); for The Masquerade, see The Female Husband and Other Writings, ad. Claude E. Jones (Liverpool University Press, 1960); for Shamela, see Joseph Andrews and Shamela, ad. M. C. Battestin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961); for The Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, ad. Tom Keymer (Penguin Books, 1996).

In the notes to the text, the following abbreviations are used:

• Am = Amelia (1751)

• CGJ = Covent-Garden Journal (1752)

• C-H = Chadwyck-Healey online database Eighteenth-Century Fiction (Cambridge, England: Chadwyck-Healey Ltd., 1996).

• Ch = The Champion (1739-1740)

• DGA = A Dialogue between a Gentleman of London . . . and an Honest Alderman (1747)

• EC = "Essay on Conversation" (1743)

• FL = Familiar Letters (1747)

• HF = Henry Fielding

• JA = Joseph Andrews (1742)

• JW = Jonathan Wild (1743)

• JVL = Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon

• JWN = Journey from This World to the Next (1743)

---

226





• KCM = "Essay on the Knowledge of the Characters of Men" (1743)

• Misc i, ii, iii = Miscellanies (1743), vols. 1, 2, 3

• OED = Oxford English Dictionary

• Sh = An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews (1741)

• TE = The Twickenham Edition of the Poems of Alexander Pope, ad. John Butt et al., 11 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961-68).

• TJ = Tom Jones (1749)

• TP = True Patriot (1745-1746)

THERE are few Terms which are applied with greater Impropriety, than those characteristical Appellations, which Men usually bestow on their Acquaintance, or on others, in whose Company and Conversation they may at any Time have been casually engaged. Every Character, indeed, is formed by the Prevalence of some particular Passion,[2] which influences the Temper, and gives a casting Weight to the Genius of the Person in whom it subsists.[3] But no Rules that I know of, have been yet laid down,[4] nor is there any certain Standard which should fix the Degree of Elevation, to which the ruling Passion must necessarily rise, before it can have Strength sufficient to determine the Character.

The Reader must, however, be informed, that I am not speaking of those moral Qualifications, or Endowments of the Heart, which speculative Writers have taken so much idle Pains[5] to adorn and recommend; and which Men of Sense, or Men of the World, have unanimously agreed in rejecting, as unworthy of their serious Notice. The Qualities I mean are pure Virtues of the Head or Face; Properties, which enable the Possessor to assume a solemn Aspect[6] at Incidents, which set the rest of the Table on a Roar;[7] or to interrupt what is truly serious and grave, by impertinent Questions of Levity and Mirth; or lastly, to condemn and cavil,[8] when all the World sees the highest Reasons for Applause and Admiration. The Effects which these Causes produce in Life, however various and complicated in their Appearance, may be reduced to the three general Sources of Wit, Hour, and Criticism, and as the Pretenders to these several Qualities are infinite in Number,[9] I have determined on a certain Standard, in order to regulate and adjust their Claims. The Method I propose is, to decide their different Pretensions by the Height and Stature of the Body.

And lest this should be considered as a wild chimerical Design,[10] I must beg Leave to assure my Reader, that the Theory I am forming is built upon the latest Discoveries, and most uncontroverted Principles of true Philosophy. It is possible however, that Persons of an over-refining Curiosity,[11] may be able to raise some Objections to what I am going to advance, but as everyThing is liable to be called in Question by those who are disposed to cavil, they will give me but little Pain upon that Head.[12] The plainest Truths have been disputed, and the most extravagant Opinions have been fortunate

enough to meet with their Advocates and Admirers. Now, I would have such People recollect what are the general Apprehensions arising in the Mind, on the Sight of an uncommon Stature; and how favourable, withal, even the Notions of the Vulgar[13] are to an unusual Height of Person. Is it not commonly supposed, that Men of this superior Eminence possess as superior Parts, and extraordinary Degrees of Merit. From this Principle, my little Friend of Drury-Lane is universally censured, as falling short of a true Hero, by near half a Foot;[14] whilst his more aspiring Antagonist is allowed to have all the necessary Dimensions, required both by ancient and modern Precedents, to constitute the heroic Character.

It is an Axiom in Philosophy,[15] which few, I hope, will be so hardy as to deny,[16] that the Soul is all and all in every Part. From hence it is obvious, that the Body which is a Covering only for the Ætherial Particle that is lodged within it, must necessarily receive its Dimensions from the Vigour of the Spirit, which actuates the exterior Frame. The greater Portion of Fire this Spirit is endued with, its elastic Qualities will be proportionably stronger;and the Dimensions of the Body will be protruded to a Size, exactly of the same Dimensions with the Soul which informs it. On this simple Hypothesis, which I imagine cannot be easily disproved, I proceed to settle the respective Qualifications of the different Pretenders, who have been mentioned above.

In the first Place, those who, with gentle William in the Play,[17] boast themselves not on Account of their Wisdom, but as they have a pretty Wit,do not exceed the lowest Degree of our appointed Standard. It is not in Nature, that such Persons can rise in their Stature, above the Height of five Feet and six Inches.[18] For Wit, which is merely an Exercise of the Tongue, doth[19] not require the same Bulk and Dimensions, which are essential to Qualifications of a superior Order. It is evidently a much less Exertion of the interior Faculties, than what are productive of that Talent which we call Hour. Hence we must advance a little in our Standard; and can admit no one to be a Man of real Hour, who does not come up to the full Height of five Feet and eight Inches; and this small Progression is the more allowable, as a considerable Part of Hour is frequently expressed by such Feats of Body, as require some little Degree of Size and Strength.[20] Giving a Friend a violent and unexpected Slap on the Back, or the dexterous Leaping over Chairs and Tables, have been often regarded as so many undoubted Signs of genuine Hour;[21] and are generally agreed to denote a most facetious Vein of Pleasantry,[22] in the Authors of such exquisite Jokes.[23] It will sometimes further happen, that these two Qualities may be blended in the same Person;as I doubt not but many of my Readers can recollect several of their Acquaintance, who are your only Men of Wit and Hour. Now, this Conjunction manifestly implies a much superior Energy of Soul;[24] and consequently, a still higher Advancement in our Scale of characteristic Excellencies. These Candidates for Fame will accordingly rise two Inches above those who are mentioned last; and none are to pass under the Denomination for the future, but whose Height is five Feet ten. For these Qualities, when thus united, will

frequently exert themselves in Strokes[25] of Gallantry and Mirth, which are so much the more honourable as they are dangerous to the Person or the Purse of the ingenious Artist, who has the Courage or Curiosity to attempt the Experiment. The demolishing Windows, knocking down of Watchmen, bilking[26] of Waiters at Places of Entertainment, with other Instances of the like Kind, are very laudable and convincing Proofs of these compound Qualities, residing together in the same Habitation.[27] The last Quality, which greatly overtops the rest, and is indeed the Crown and Perfection of all, is the wonderful[28] and most ingenious Faculty of modern Criticism. And as this is, in the most exalted Manner, the Gift of Nature, whoever has the Happiness to be born a true Critic, is at least six Feet complete. A Critic is the Master-piece and noblest Work of Nature;[29] and may justly be expected to bear about him[30] some distinguishing Tokens,[31] which will enable a Spectator, at the first View, to acknowledge and revere his Merits. Hence she has bestowed on him a more than ordinary Portion of the Daring and Tremendous; [32] and these would appear to very little Effect in a Person of less Dimensions, than those which we have here assigned him. The Wit may be pert and sanguine;[33] the Man of Hour confident or overbearing; but it is the Critic alone, who glares horribly terrific. His every Look freezes the young Author's Blood;[34] and at the Sound of his Voice, the rooted Seats have been known to be torn from the Ground, and hurled violently through the Air, in furious and wild Commotion.[35] Phænomena,[36] like these, can only be produced by that iron Strength of Lungs,[37] and brazen Audacity of Figure, which Nature has so liberally imparted to the modern Critic.

It will be necessary to obviate[38] an Objection arising from popular Prejudice, that the Science of Criticism[39] being to examine into the Merit of all Productions of Genius and Learning, it does not seem to demand the Size and Dimensions which I have made essential to the Character; but the Objectors, I apprehend, are mistaken in the End of modern Criticism; and have not perhaps duly reflected on[40] the necessary Qualities to discharge the Province[41] they are desirous of allotting it. To execute that Task,[42] would require a moderate Portion of Sense, Taste and Judgment, under the Direction of Modesty and Candour; Talents so little practised by those who have taken up the Occupation of a a [sic] Critic, that they appear on all Occasions not to have the least Conception of them. Whoever will give himself Leave to consider, that the Character of a Critic, a Wit, and Man of Hour, in the present Estimation of the World, is supported[43] wholly by Mechanical Operations,[44] in which the Understanding has no Manner of Share,[45] he will easily agree with me, that the surest Method to discover those Characters, must be taken from that Part which is principally concerned; and as we can truly judge from outward Appearances alone, I have shewn to a Demonstration that the Stature of a Person is the only infallible Criterion, by which we can decide, on the Justness of his Pretensions; and that no one for the future can have any Right to either of those Characters, but whose Dimensions will exactly tally with the Measures of this Standard.