University of Virginia Library

The Case for Fielding's Authorship of An Address to the Electors of Great Britain (1740) Reopened
by
Thomas R. Cleary

Though it has been repeatedly suggested that a lengthy political tract, An Address to the Electors of Great Britain, was written by Henry Fielding, the attribution has not gained general acceptance. In the 1920's Frederick S. Dickson and Gerard E. Jensen pondered this possibility, and, more recently, A. Leroy Greason Jr. expanded their hesitant suggestions into a full-scale argument in favor of Fielding's authorship. Though Greason's argument seemed reasonably strong, it was seriously questioned by William B. Coley, and Fielding's claim has not been advanced again. Not all of Coley's objections are cogent or material, however, and this paper will show that there is sufficient external and stylistic evidence to justify a reasonably firm attribution of the Address to Fielding.

The evidence for this attribution has emerged gradually. The original suggestion was made by Frederick S. Dickson in a note (dated March 19, 1923) on the fly-leaf of a copy of the pamphlet he donated to the Yale University library.[1] Dickson erroneously suggests that the pamphlet is a reprint of one published in London in August, 1739, and offers no real evidence for his attribution, but declares his conviction "that Henry Fielding wrote this paper." Gerard E. Jensen published Dickson's note and cursorily examined the external evidence for and against his conclusion. On the positive side, he observes that word usage and the "almost unvaried use of 'hath', 'doth', 'shew', 'whilst'" tempt the reader to say, "This is Fielding", and that Fielding's name is connected with the pamphlet in an inserted notice on page 56: "The Author is industriously conceal'd, tho' the Daily Gazetteer, in a mad Fit of Anger, ascribes it to Mr. Fielding." As corroboratory evidence, he cites allusions to Lord Coke, Harrington, Cambden, Bracton, Hale, Eachard, Matthew Paris, Locke, Rapin, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Montaigne "and other authorities in Fielding's Library", two uses of the word "Champion", characteristic satiric references to "great men" and Jonathan Wild, and an attack on Walpole that is "persuasively suggestive of Fielding the political reformer." On the negative side, he

wonders whether six references to Algernon Sidney are matched by references in Fielding's authentic works, asks (surprising as it may seem) whether the use of the word "nay" on eight occasions stirs "any remembrance in the lovers of Fielding", and notes that certain spellings are not in accordance with Fielding's orthographic habits. More materially, he finds occasional lapses in style bothersome, citing one terribly inept sentence and questioning whether Fielding was capable of writing it. On balance, however, he concurs with Dickson's attribution mainly because "in general style and usage it is markedly characteristic of our author."[2]

Dickson presents no argument and Jensen's discussion is often far from impressive, or even informed, but Greason's revival of Fielding's claim is another matter. He expanded upon Jensen's stylistic argument, stressing that the consistent use of "hath" and "doth", the frequent employment of "nay" and such phrases as "thro' thick and thin", "in a word", "in plain English", "great Men" and "I say" are consistent with Fielding's stylistic habits. He solidifies the argument from content by, among other things, locating an essay (Champion, May 8, 1740) in which Fielding anticipates an assault in the Address on Walpole's post of Prime Minister as a destructive excrescence on the fabric of the Constitution and another essay (Champion, December 4, 1739) in which he alludes to Algernon Sidney. Most importantly, he points out that the Address was first published as a lengthy series of essays in the Champion beginning on November 1, 1740. This discovery not only allows him to correct the false impression that the pamphlet is a reprint of one published in 1739, but obviously provides strong circumstantial support for the attribution to Fielding. Other evidences of his authorship take on new authority in the light of the initial appearance of the Address in a journal dominated by Fielding, and Greason concludes that this new evidence all but absolutely confirms Fielding's claim.[3]

Despite its obvious strengths, Greason's attribution has not, however, won general acceptance because of objections raised by William B. Coley.[4] Coley does not deny that Fielding may have written the Address, but suggests that Greason's evidence is too ambiguous to justify its acceptance into his canon. He divides Greason's evidence into three categories—external evidence, stylistic evidence, and the evidence of content—and questions the strength of each in turn. Such a procedure does less than justice to a case that depends on mutually corroborative points, but a rebuttal of Coley's objections must perforce follow it, considering the cogency of his objections category by category.

To give Coley his due, one can only support his rejection of Greason's argument from content. Of all approaches to the problem of attributing anonymous works, the tracing of parallels in thought is the most dubious unless the ideas in question and the allusions or metaphors are strikingly individual or undeniable verbal parallels extensively support the impression that the same mind is at work. In the case of the Address, no one familiar with the literature produced by the opposition to Walpole in the decade preceding its publication can doubt that Coley is correct in describing its "reasoning" and "many of [its] allusions" as "stock anti-ministerial journalism" and in maintaining that, on the grounds of content alone, Fielding's claim to its authorship is neither stronger, nor weaker than James Ralph's.[5] The Address is a most impressive work, matching, at its best, the pamphlets of Carteret, Pulteney, and Lyttleton in its perspicacity and rhetorical energy, but its arguments are wholly derivative. Once accepted as authentic, its length and its serious and (by the journalistic standards of the day) temperate and scholarly examination of the potential dangers to the Constitution of Walpole's assumption of the unconstitutional role of Prime Minister[6] and use of the funds and patronage placed at his disposal

to insure his continued control of the House of Commons[7] would make it an addition to Fielding's canon of great interest and importance. It would have to be regarded as the most important early statement of his political principles, one standing out from and illuminating the occasional, witty, ironical, ad hoc satire that was his specialty as an opposition author; it would provide the first glimpse of the side of his genius manifested in the moral and social cum political tracts produced after his elevation to the magistracy. But its familiar arguments and predictable allusions can provide no reliable evidence for or against its attribution to Fielding.

Fortunately, the external and stylistic evidence for such an attribution endures Coley's scrutiny far better. Here again, certain of his objections are valid, but other crucial ones are not sufficiently relevant or convincing to justify disregarding the compelling nexus of mutually corroboratory external and stylistic evidences of Fielding's authorship of the Address. Greason's facts can be more effectively marshalled behind his attribution than they are in his discussion (which is as concerned with fixing the original publication date of the Address as defending the attribution), and certain items of evidence not previously applied to the problem considerably strengthen Fielding's claim.

Coley begins his critique of the external evidence by very correctly censuring as optimistic Greason's conclusion that "the only objection to the initial appearance of the pamphlet in the Champion as proof that Fielding was the author is the absence of Fielding's signature, a 'C' or an 'L'." This single item of external evidence undeniably does not "constitute conclusive grounds" for the assignment, though "it reinforces the claim that the Champion group was in some way connected with the publication of this pamphlet" (p. 488). The problem, as Coley accurately diagnoses it, is to prove that Fielding and not another regular or occasional contributor

to the Champion was its author, and he finds the available external evidence unacceptably vague. He notes that the only concrete external indication cited by Jensen and Greason is the ambiguous notice inserted in the Edinburgh pamphlet: "The Author is industriously conceal'd, tho' the Daily Gazetteer, in a mad Fit of Anger, ascribes it to Mr. Fielding." Coley does not question that this ironical notice is intended to suggest that Fielding wrote the Address, for he correctly describes it as an "obvious Puff" (i.e., an attempt to attract readers by hinting that it is indeed the work of the well-known London journalist). He also rounds out Greason's evidence by citing the original attribution, made by Ralph Courteville under his pen-name, "Freeman", in the Daily Gazetteer for November 14, 1740:

This specific ascription by a knowledgeable adversary would seem to considerably strengthen Greason's case; Coley admits that it seems "at first glance . . . a circumstantial and unequivocal account of the appearance of the Address" (p. 489). Nonetheless, he insists that it be regarded as suspect, offering, though his arguments are not always clear, three justifications for his dubiety (pp. 489-490). He never questions that Courteville means to attribute the Address specifically to Fielding, but attempts repeatedly to depict his testimony as untrustworthy. He first terms Courteville's statement "a typically partisan utterance of the paper war of politics." This is obviously true (the statement is vitriolic and Courteville had long been an enemy), but Coley does not explain further and his remark hardly seems a cogent argument against accepting the ascription. Coley may mean that Courteville is lying, but, if he does, his failure to say so clearly underlines the total lack of concrete evidence to support such an accusation and the extreme unlikelihood that so clever a political infighter would risk so "circumstantial and unequivocal" a lie.

Though Coley's second point is more specific, it seems irrelevant to the question of Fielding's authorship of the Address. He identifies the "few crude sentences on the same subject" that Courteville says were written by an "Occasional Scribbler" as a letter "To the Freeholders and Electors of Great Britain", signed "Philopatriae", that appeared in the Champion

for September 20 and 23, 1740. He notes that while one contemporary source, an Edinburgh journal called the Patriot, agrees with Courteville in ascribing these essays and the Address to different authors, the former are attributed to "Vinegar" in the Political Calendar for September, 1740. This discrepancy regarding the authorship of the "Philopatriae" essays appears to Coley, "together with the tone of the entire 'Freeman' account," to cast doubt on the validity of Courteville's ascription of the Address. It is difficult, however, to fathom how it does so. Coley admits that the Political Calendar may be using "Vinegar" as a synecdoche for the Champion, rather than specifically attributing the essays to Fielding. If true, this eliminates the discrepancy Coley stresses. Moreover, even if one assumes that an attribution to Fielding was intended, it is best regarded as simple error. Coley does not suggest that the style of the earlier essays provides the slightest excuse for ascribing them to Fielding and the Political Calendar is a notoriously inaccurate and hurriedly prepared medley, though its convenient summary of events, month by month, has made it a popular short-cut for modern scholars. In short, Coley's argument serves, at most, as an implicit warning that all contemporary sources are not equally trustworthy and that ascriptions to "Vinegar" may be ambiguous, and while such a warning might, in other circumstances, be useful, the fact of the "two conflicting ascriptions" of the "Philopatriae" essays seems purely a "red herring" with reference to the question of the validity of Courteville's ascription.

Coley's third and final point is that the date of the statement in the Gazetteer (November 14) shows that it was not made in the light of the signature that may or may not have been appended to the final essay in the original series and, thus, corroborates the Edinburgh edition's claim that "the Author is industriously conceal'd." (The last of the seven extant installments was published on November 15, but Greason conjectures that the series ran through the issue for November 29.) This is true, but it again seems doubtfully relevant or material. It seems unlikely that Courteville would have needed the evidence of a signature to determine the authorship of the series; such a secret would in all likelihood have been penetrable by so canny and experienced a denizen of the small, not notably honourable, world of London journalism. It seems even more unlikely that the original series was signed at all, and almost inconceivable that it bore a signature that would have identified Fielding (or, indeed, any regular contributor to the Champion) as its author. The lack of a signature in the Edinburgh reprint, which is remarkably faithful as far as the extant original issues allow comparison,[8] strongly suggests that none was appended to the final issue. Moreover, a series of advertisements for the Address published during September and November, 1740, suggests that Courteville

investigated the pre-publication history of the Address with some care before making his attribution and lends credence to his claim that the Champion was trying to pass off a series by "Captain Vinegar" as the work of an outside contributor. If such an imposture was being attempted, a signature intended to clarify rather than obscure the true authorship of the series would have been unthinkable, and the close adherence of Courteville's account to the other circumstances surrounding its publication lends authority to his identification of its author.

Coley speaks of the impression of "circumstantiality and unequivocality" made by Courteville's account, but seems unaware of the precision with which it fits certain facts. Except for a slight understatement of the length of the delay, Courteville is precisely accurate in his recollection that "some Weeks ago . . . the Champion . . . threatened us with a Series of Papers on the Elections, written by a distinguish'd Hand, and Care was taken to prepossess the Town that this distinguish'd Person was a Man of great Parts, and also of great Quality." The Address was first advertised, thus, on September 6, 9 and 11:

Equally accurate is Courteville's complaint that the public was then made to "dance a long Attendance; now these Letters were to be inserted this time, now that; nay, a Sort of Running Footman, an Occasional Scribbler, was despatch'd before him to stop People's Mouths with a few crude Sentences on the same Subject, till this distinguish'd Hand was at leisure." On September 20 and 23, the "crude Sentences" (the "Philopatriae" essays) appeared, and almost simultaneously (September 23 and 25) a delay was announced: "Our Readers are desired to take Notice, that the Papers, relating to the Elections, lately promised in the Champion, will be published in the Beginning of next Month." And this promise too was premature, for October came and passed without a mention of the papers until it was accurately announced on October 30 that "On Saturday next we shall begin to publish the promis'd Address to the Electors of Great Britain." An attempt in the opening sentence of the first issue (November 1) to brazen out an embarrassing situation ("This Address, tho' long since propos'd, comes earlier to you, than my first intention . . .") only underscores the obvious fact that something had gone wrong with the original plan for the series.

Courteville certainly wrote his satiric ascriptions with the advertisements in mind or in hand. The series of delays, together with the surprising and almost certainly significant avoidance of any mention of the "Eminent Hand" after the first boasting advertisement, might well have confirmed his suspicion that the style of the first six installments suggested Fielding's

hand. The advertisements form a pattern strongly suggesting that the series was initially promised by an outside contributor (presumably an important opposition figure), who repeatedly delayed and finally reneged, forcing a member of the Champion's regular staff to write the series in diplomatic silence in the vain hope that the embarrassing substitution would not be noticed.[9]

The external evidence is, then, not seriously shaken by Coley's objections, each of which misses the mark. It is, indeed, far stronger than Greason's discussion makes it seem, for he failed to locate the original ascription in the Gazetteer and every indication that Courteville's ascription was a considered one renders his testimony more compelling. The external evidence alone—its original appearance in the Champion, Courteville's "circumstantial and unequivocal" attribution, together with the evidence of the advertisements, and the "Puff" in the Edinburgh pamphlet—might be viewed as a strong, if finally not quite sufficient, basis for assigning the Address to Fielding. But, fortunately, its style provides the final corroboration that Fielding, and not another staff member, was the substitute forced to fill in for the mysterious "Eminent Hand". Jensen and Greason, as noted, regard the frequent and consistent use of "hath" and the less frequent, but equally consistent use of "doth", rather than "has" and "does", as very strong indications of Fielding's hand. This old-fashioned preference was, as Coley notes, recognized as a consistent peculiarity of his style during his own lifetime and has been considered an important "test" of his authorship of anonymous works since the publication in 1858 of Thomas Keightley's essay "On the Life and Writings of Henry Fielding".[10] Nonetheless, Coley strikes at the heart of the stylistic argument by questioning whether the Address's passage of this "test" is a reliable basis for an attribution. His argument has definite merits. Modern scholars place limited confidence in this traditional method of determining Fielding's authorship since Fielding was not the only writer of his day to prefer the obsolescent usages, and, in this instance, Coley points out that certain later works by James Ralph, Fielding's assistant on the Champion, exhibit the "hath" usage (pp. 490-491). But though indiscriminate dependence on the "hath" test can lead to error (a case in point being the attribution by some of the almost surely spurious The Crisis: A Sermon to Fielding[11]) and Ralph's occasional use

of "hath" is disturbing, Coley's dismissal of the stylistic argument as inconclusive seems unjustified. Ralph never uses "doth" as far as I can determine and does not use "hath" in Champion essays or indeed anywhere else until after 1740. Coley suggests that his eschewing of "hath" in the Champion "may have been part of a deliberate separation of styles, designed to create the impression that there were several distinct contributors to the journal" (p. 490), but ignores the obvious unlikelihood that Ralph would have used "hath" (for the first time in a year of writing Champion essays) and "doth" (for the first and only time in his career) in a series of essays being passed off as the work of an outside contributor. More importantly, Coley's rejection of this stylistic indicator appears justified only because he considers it in isolation from the external evidence. Logic requires that heavy stress be laid on this usage in literally dozens of instances in a work originally published in the Champion and ascribed to Fielding by as informed and intelligent a contemporary as Ralph Courteville.

Coley's strictures are not confined to the usage "test". He very reasonably rejects as evidence the "verbal mannerisms" stressed by Greason ("thro' thick and thin", "in a word", "in plain English", "great Men", and "I say") since they are used in Champion essays not by Fielding. More importantly, but less convincingly, Coley also suggests that a "certain thickening of style" in the Address, a heavy dependence on "parallelisms, repetitions, and series [constructions]" and "the aggregative use of colons to lengthen sentences" are more typical of Ralph's style than Fielding's and conjectures that this "may have been in back of Jensen's candid admission that there was much in the pamphlet that did not have the ring of true Fielding about it" (p. 491). His judgment does not, however, stand close scrutiny.

Jensen does not express the broad misgivings Coley attributes to him. He merely questions whether one horrendous sentence on p. 93 of the Address could have been written by Fielding. It is as difficult to imagine either James Ralph or Fielding writing such a sentence under normal circumstances as it is easy to imagine either writer doing so under the conditions that must have prevailed. No other sentence in the lengthy pamphlet equals it in ineptitude, and the very few sentences resembling it in the pamphlet all occur in its closing section, where the fatigue resulting from the need to produce three closely-reasoned, scholarly essays a week might well have betrayed Fielding into occasional clumsiness, particularly since (as external evidence indicates) the Address was hurriedly huddled together when the "Eminent Hand" of the advertisements failed to fulfill his promise.

Coley's contention about the "certain thickening of style" combines a questionable subjective impression with certain objective, but inconclusive

evidence. Its central basis is his impression that the style of the Address is generally more reminiscent of Ralph's Champion essays than Fielding's. But there seems to be no general stylistic pattern in the Address that renders Fielding's authorship less plausible. Though it may not quite reproduce the easy, droll flow of his best comic and satiric contributions to the Champion, its prose recalls that of his "serious" political essays in the later runs of the True Patriot and the Jacobite's Journal, as well as of the formal moral and social essays in the Miscellanies of 1743. The differences between Fielding's normal Champion style and the style of the Address are slight and readily explicable as the result of different aims and subject matter, rather than different authorship.

The specific characteristics that Coley cites as more typical of Ralph's style add little solidity to his general impression. First, though the "aggregative use of colons to lengthen sentences" is somewhat more frequent in Ralph's prose, Fielding elsewhere employs this technique with fair frequency and my examination of the Address has not revealed a high enough incidence of sentences so elongated to prove anything. Second, Fielding employs "parallelisms, repetitions, and series [constructions]" with great frequency (as often as they are used in the Address) in his earlier Champion essays and indeed throughout all of his prose writings. Ralph may use them slightly more often (though my comparison of their Champion essays and other work has not definitely revealed such a pattern), but no striking divergence of the kind that would lend cogency to Coley's argument is apparent. In fact, the most impressive analysis of the structure of Fielding's prose[12] (one not available to Coley), specifically and accurately stresses the extreme importance in the formal essays in the Miscellanies (which are more comparable in length and tone to the Address than Fielding's Champion essays) of parallel and series constructions, repetition, suspensive constructions (which are numerous in the Address) and a variety of sentence-elongating devices. Coley's stylistic argument is based on a relatively imprecise conception of the structure of Fielding's prose, and seems most dubious in the light of a clearer understanding of its characteristics.

The combined external and internal evidence supporting the attribution of the Address to the Electors to Fielding is far stronger and the objections to such an attribution far weaker than has been thought. Gerard E. Jensen prefaces his attribution of the Address to the Electors of Great Britain to Fielding with the humble observation, "Very likely I am too easily persuaded." Perhaps he was premature in judging on the basis of very incomplete evidence and erroneous assumptions. But much has since been learned, and, at a time when the Wesleyan-Oxford edition of Fielding's

complete works is in the process of eliminating so many of the bibliographical puzzles that have deviled Fielding studies, it is to be hoped that the merits of his claim to the Address will finally assure its inclusion among his authentic works.

Notes