University of Virginia Library

WHO EDITED FIELDING'S JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE TO
LISBON (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 Journal
since 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 CoventGarden
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 he
met 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," could
be 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 "Humour," 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, ed. M. C. Battestin
(1983); Contributions to The Champion and Related Writings, ed. W. B.
Coley (2003); The Covent-Garden Journal and A Plan of the Universal
Register-Office, ed. Bertrand A. Goldgar (1988); The Jacobite's Journal and
Related Writings, ed. W. B. Coley (1975); Joseph Andrews, ed. M. C. Battestin
(1966/67); Miscellanies, Volume One, ed. Henry Knight Miller (1972),
Volume Two and Volume Three, ed. Bertrand A. Goldgar and Hugh Amory
(1993 and 1997); Tom Jones, ed. M. C. Battestin and Fredson Bowers, 2 vols.
(1974/75), 2nd edn. paperback (Wesleyan UP, 1975); The True Patriot and
Related Writings, ed. W. B. Coley (1987). For Familiar Letters see Fielding's
Complete Works, ed. W. E. Henley, vol. 16 (1903); for The Masquerade, see
The Female Husband and Other Writings, ed. Claude E. Jones (Liverpool
University Press, 1960); for Shamela, see Joseph Andrews and Shamela, ed.
M. C. Battestin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961); for The Journal of a
Voyage to Lisbon, ed. 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, ed.
  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,[24] which influences the Temper,
and gives a casting Weight to the Genius of the Person in whom it subsists.[25]
But no Rules that I know of, have been yet laid down,[26] 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[27] 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[28] at Incidents, which set the rest of the Table on a Roar;[29] or to interrupt
what is truly serious and grave, by impertinent Questions of Levity and
Mirth; or lastly, to condemn and cavil,[30] 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, Humour, and Criticism, and as
the Pretenders to these several Qualities are infinite in Number,[31] 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,[32] 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,[33] may be
able to raise some Objections to what I am going to advance, but as every
Thing is liable to be called in Question by those who are disposed to cavil,
they will give me but little Pain upon that Head.[34] 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[35] 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;[36] 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,[37] which few, I hope, will be so hardy as to
deny,[38] 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,[39] 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.[40] For Wit, which is merely an Exercise of the Tongue,
doth[41] 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
Humour. Hence we must advance a little in our Standard; and can admit
no one to be a Man of real Humour, 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 Humour is frequently expressed by such Feats
of Body, as require some little Degree of Size and Strength.[42] 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 Humour;[43] and are generally agreed to denote a most facetious Vein
of Pleasantry,[44] in the Authors of such exquisite Jokes.[45] 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 Humour. Now, this Conjunction
manifestly implies a much superior Energy of Soul;[46] 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[47] 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[48] 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.[49] The last Quality, which
greatly overtops the rest, and is indeed the Crown and Perfection of all, is
the wonderful[50] 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;[51] and may justly be expected
to bear about him[52] some distinguishing Tokens,[53] 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;[54]
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;[55] the Man of Humour confident or overbearing; but it is
the Critic alone, who glares horribly terrific. His every Look freezes the young
Author's Blood;[56] 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.[57] Phænomena,[58] like these, can only be produced
by that iron Strength of Lungs,[59] and brazen Audacity of Figure, which
Nature has so liberally imparted to the modern Critic.

It will be necessary to obviate[60] an Objection arising from popular Prejudice,
that the Science of Criticism[61] 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[62] the necessary Qualities to discharge the
Province[63] they are desirous of allotting it. To execute that Task,[64] 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 Humour, in
the present Estimation of the World, is supported[65] wholly by Mechanical
Operations,[66] in which the Understanding has no Manner of Share,[67] 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.