University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  
  

collapse section01. 
collapse section 
 I. 
 II. 
  
  
collapse section02. 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
 A. 
 B. 
 C. 
 D. 
 E. 
  
  
collapse section 
 I. 
 II. 
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
collapse section 
WHO EDITED FIELDING'S JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE TOLISBON (1755)? THE CASE FOR ARTHUR MURPHY AND A NEW FIELDING ESSAY
 I. 
 II. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


215

Page 215

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,


216

Page 216
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:

Neither "Francis" nor "Humphrys" . . . is what "came from the hands of the author", entirely. Rather, . . . they represent two editorial views of the composition of a perplexed autograph manuscript—two clippings of the unedited "rushes" of the same film, so to speak—by Andrew Millar, who owned the copyright, and by John Fielding, as the chief representative of Fielding's "friends".

(p. 183)

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:

YOUR candour is desired on the perusal of the following sheets, as they are the product of a genius that has long been your delight and entertainment. It must be acknowledged that a lamp almost burnt out does not give so steady and uniform a light, as when it blazes in full vigour; but yet it is well known that, by its wavering, as if struggling against its own dissolution, it sometimes darts a ray as bright as ever. In like manner, a strong and lively genius will, in its last struggles, sometimes mount aloft, and throw forth the most striking marks of its original lustre.

Wherever these are to be found, do you, the genuine patrons of extraordinary capacities, be as liberal in your applauses of him who is now no more, as you were of him whilst he was yet amongst you. And, on the other hand, if in this little work there should appear any traces of a weaken'd and decay'd life, let your own imaginations place before your eyes 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;and let this affecting picture open each tender heart, and call forth a melting tear, to blot out whatever failings may be found in a work begun in pain, and finished almost at the same period with life.

It was thought proper, by the friends of the deceased, that this little piece should come into your hands as it came from the hands of the author; it being judged that you would be better pleased to have an opportunity of observing the faintest traces of a genius you have long admired, than have it patch'd by a different hand;by which means the marks of its true author might have been effac'd.

That the success of this last written, tho' first published volume, of the author's posthumous pieces, may be attended with some convenience to those innocents he hath left behind, will, no doubt be a motive to encourage its circulation through the kingdom, which will engage every future genius to exert itself for your pleasure.

The principles and spirit which breathe in every line of the small fragment begun in answer to Lord Bolingbroke will unquestionably be a sufficient apology for its publication, altho' vital strength was wanting to finish a work so happily begun and so well designed.

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


217

Page 217
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


218

Page 218
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


219

Page 219
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:

The identification of the dedicator rests chiefly (I believe solely) on an allusion to the Dedication in Murphy's "Essay", prefixed to Fielding's 1762 Works (vol. 1, p. 46, 4to). Murphy had no personal acquaintance with Fielding or his family, pace Cross (History, vol. 3, p. 85; but see The Correspondence of Henry and Sarah Fielding, ed. Martin C. Battestin and Clive T. Probyn, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993, p. 172). He seems a priori an unlikely candidate to dedicate our author's dying legacy—John or Sarah Fielding, James Harris, George Lyttelton, Ralph Allen, or David Garrick are equally if not more eligible—and the allusion in itself proves little enough.

(p. 199 n. 7)

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


220

Page 220
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:

Through all Mr. Fielding's inimitable comic Romances, we perceive no such thing as personal malice, no private character dragged into light; but every stroke is copied from the volume which nature has unfolded to him; every scene of life is by him represented in its natural colours, and every species of folly or humour is ridiculed with the most exquisite touches. A genius like this is perhaps more useful to mankind, than any class of writers; he serves to dispel all gloom from our minds, to work off our ill-humours by the gay sensations excited by a well directed pleasantry, and in a vein of mirth he leads his readers into the knowledge of human nature; the most useful and pleasing science we can apply to.[13]

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


221

Page 221
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,


222

Page 222
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:

A Paper upon what may be called Imitation in Writing, and an Essay towards fixing the Standard of modern Criticism, together with some occasional Strokes of Humour in the true Intelligence,[19] were the Contributions of another ingenious Gentleman, whose Friendship, I am convinced, would have inclined him to do something towards raising the Estimation of this Paper much higher, had not Avocations of more Consequence to himself and the Public, demanded the Exertion of his excellent Abilities in another Way.[20]

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


223

Page 223
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:

I think then that judicious Imitation either of antient or modern Standards ought not to be stigmatised as Larceny in an Author. He is certainly at Liberty to draw from any excellent Model, whom he chuses to copy; and that without incurring the ignominious Appellations of a Plagiary or Transcriber. Universal Custom will justify the Practice. All the imitative Arts may be more particularly termed so, as the several Masters have frequently work'd after a Plan, that was first sketched out by some eminent Example. The same Design, diversified indeed with newer Decorations, as Genius or Invention prompted, may be traced in the different Performances of subsequent Artists; sometimes extended by the Addition of Circumstances, which naturally grew out of the Work; or contracted, by pruning the luxuriant Branches, and retrenching what appeared superfluous and unnecessary.

This general and distant Imitation, it will be readily owned, is allowable and just; is what cannot perhaps be easily avoided, where the Subject is treated with Propriety, and according to the Rules of Art. Thus Virgil followed Homer; thus Addison will always be regarded as the Pattern either of grave, or of humourous Speculation; and Fielding will ever be a faithful Guide to the Adventurer in comic Romance. (i. 106-107)

* * * * *

An humorous Acquaintance, who often talks to me on this head, lays it down as an indisputable Principle, that Composition is only the Art of Stealing wisely: And indeed, as Matters are usually managed by our worthy Fraternity of Authors, if


224

Page 224
we strike out the last Word, his definition is perfectly unexceptionable. I make then no Scruple to declare, that I look on all the Wit, and all the Hour in ancient or modern Languages, as good and lawful Prize; and that I shall freely convert them to my own Use, and the Public Emolument. . . . (i. 109)[21]

 
[21]

With Murphy's last sentence in the quotation, cf. Fielding: "nor shall I ever scruple to take to my self any Passage which I shall find in an ancient Author to my Purpose, without setting down the Name of the Author from whence it was taken. Nay, I absolutely claim a Property in all such Sentiments the Moment they are transcribed into my Writings, and I expect all Readers hence forwards to regard them as purely and entirely my own"; that is, to use the phrase Murphy found in the heading to Fielding's chapter, such passages are to be regarded as "lawful Prize" (Tom Jones, ad. M. C. Battestin and F. Bowers [Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1975], p. 621).

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


225

Page 225
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

    Page 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)

Numb. 27. Gray's-Inn, Saturday, April 21, 1753.

Ingrediturque solo, & caput inter nubila condit.

Virgil. [1]

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


227

Page 227
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


228

Page 228
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.

 
[22]

In addition to the evidence for Fielding's authorship presented in this essay, I report the conclusion of Michael and Jill Farringdon, who have conducted a computer-assisted analysis: "Attribution analysis using the cusum technique—and taking for comparison material from Fielding's Joseph Andrews and Nicholas Amhurst's The CraftsmanNo. 396—shows the whole essay is indistinguishable from Fielding's material and clearly separates from Armhurst's material." On the cusum technique, see Jill M. Farringdon, Analysing for Authorship: A Guide to the Cusum Technique (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996).

[1]

Aeneid, x. 767: the tyrant Mezentius "walks the ground with head hidden in the clouds" (trans. H. Rushton Fairclough, Loeb Library, 1916).

[2]

"the Prevalence of some particular Passion": Cf. JA (I. xviii) "the latter Passion was far more prevalent" (p. 88). —R

[*3]

"Every Character . . . subsists": The theory that character is determined by a dominant passion is fundamental to HF's view of human nature. Cf. KCM, where he comments: "that immense Variety of Characters . . . could hardly exist, unless the Distinction had some original Foundation in Nature itself," and then declares that "among all these, there subsists . . . so manifest and extreme a Difference of Inclination or Character, that almost obliges us to acknowledge some unacquired, original Distinction, in the Nature or Soul of one Man, from that of another" (Misc i. 153-154). Also CGJ No. 55 (18 July 1752), where he explains the "Notion of Hour" (i.e. a ruling passion) as "nothing more than a violent Bent or Disposition of the Mind to some particular Point" (p. 300).

[*4]

"no Rules . . . yet laid down": C-H cites 49 instances in HF's fiction of "Rules" in the sense of a set of principles or regulations governing conduct, an art or science, etc. With the phrasing here, cf. EC, where HF will "lay down some general Rules" on the subject of "Good Breeding" (Misc i. 128); also TJ (V. i) "we have laid it down as a Rule"; "to lay down dogmatical Rules in any Art or Science" and "the Rules . . . laid down by those great Judges" (pp. 209, 210, 211); Am (IV. iii) "to lay down any fixed and certain Rules" (p. 161); JVL "lay down only one general rule" (p. 6); "my own rule laid down in my preface" (p. 15).

[*5]

"idle Pains": C-H cites 34 instances of "idle" in HF's fiction, 8 of which are in the present sense of "without purpose, meaningless": e.g. JWN (I. ii) "idle Opinions" (Misc ii.10); JW (III. ii) "as vain and idle, as to bid the . . . River to cease to run" (Misc iii. 95); TJ (IV. i) "idle Romances" (p. 150); (XII. v) "idle Trumpery" (p. 639); (XII. vi) "idle shows" (p. 641); (XV. iii) ("idle Stories") (p. 790).

[*6]

"assume a solemn Aspect": C-H cites 27 instances in HF's fiction of "Aspect" referring to the appearance of a person or situation: in the present context cf., especially, TJ (VIII. vi), where Partridge the barber/surgeon explains to Jones: "`You can't imagine, Sir, of how much Consequence a grave Aspect is to a Grave Character. A Barber may make you laugh, but a Surgeon ought to make you cry' " (p. 423). Also (I. xii), where Captain Blifil affects "great Gravity of Aspect" (p. 69).

[7]

"set the Table on a Roar": C-H cites 34 instances in HF's fiction of the verb "roar," including TJ (VII. iv), Squire Western's "extraordinary Degree of roaring Mirth" (p. 339).

[8]

"to . . . cavil": C-H cites 4 instances of "cavil" in HF's fiction, 2 as a noun and 2 as a verb, e.g. TJ (I. i) "Nor do I fear that my sensible Reader . . . will start, cavil, or be offended, because I have named but one Article" (p. 32); (V. i) "I have been surprized that Horace should cavil at this Art in Homer" (p. 214).

[*9]

"infinite in Number": These two words were among HF's favorites. C-H cites 77 instances in HF's fiction of "infinite/infinitely" and 130 of "number/numberless" denoting quantity (not a numeral). Used together, cf. JWN (I. viii) "infinite Numbers of Spirits" (Misc ii. 36).

[*10]

"chimerical Design": The adjective "chimerical" was a particular favorite of HF's: cf. Ch (26 Jan. 1739/40) "chimerical System" (p. 142); (3 May 1740) "a chimerical Good," "so chimerical a Reward," "chimerical Expectations" (pp. 298-299); TP (26 Nov. 1745) "chimerical" concerns (p. 139); (24 Dec. 1745) "chimerical" apprehensions (p. 163); (6-13 May 1746) "such chimerical Good" (p. 288); DGA "chimerical Enterprizes" and "Grievances" (pp. 49, 57, 59). In addition to these examples and the 4 citations in C-H of "chimerical" and "Chimera" in HF's fiction, a further 9, at least, occur in his works from The Modern Husband (1732) to the posthumous Fragment of a Comment on Bolingbroke.

[*11]

"an over-refining Curiosity": Beginning with the opening line of his earliest extant publication—The Masquerade (1728): "Some call Curiosity an evil"—HF was fascinated by the fact of human inquisitiveness; C-H cites 112 instances of "Curiosity" in the fiction alone.

[12]

"upon that Head": A favorite locution of HF's: e.g. JA (III. ii) "the utmost Perfection on that Head" (p. 199); TJ (IV. xiv) "be silent on that Head" (p. 206); Am (I. vii) "susceptible of Flattery on that Head" (p. 49); (V. ix) "my Assurances on that Head" (p. 228); (VII. viii) "to comfort me on that Head" (p. 298).

[*13]

"the Notions of the Vulgar": C-H cites 85 instances in HF's fiction of "vulgar" or "vulgarly." With the idea expressed by the present phrase, cf. JA (Preface) "in vulgar Opinion" (p. 5); (III. iii) "that vulgar Opinion" (p. 214); JW (I. v) "the vulgar erroneous Estimation of Things" (p. 23); TJ (XVII. i) "Mythology . . . more firmly believed by the Vulgar" (p. 876); XVIII. iii) "the vulgar Observation" (p. 933); A (II.i) "the vulgar Opinion of the Fatality of Marriage" (p. 67); (VII. x) "no greater vulgar Error" (p. 306).

[*14]

"my little Friend . . . half a Foot": In A Treatise on the Passions (1747), Samuel Foote complained that HF's close friend David Garrick, rival to Spranger Barry at Covent Garden, was too small in stature to be effective in heroic roles: "And as the Eye is the Scence [sic] first gratified, or disgusted, it may not be improper to enquire what kind of Prepossession arises in the Mind, from the Appearance of Mr. G's Figure, and here I am afraid frail Nature has been a little unkind, and tho' I must own I have very distinct Ideas of big and great, yet such is the Folly of the Million, that they expect a more than ordinary Appearance from a Man, who is to perform extraordinary Actions; it it is in vain, to tell them, that Charles of Sweden, was but five-feet five, or Alexander the Great, a very little Man" (p. 14). In TJ (XVI. v) HF (who was himself tall, "rising above six feet," as Murphy remembered in his Essay) rebuts this criticism by having Partridge, with Jones watching Hamlet at Drury Lane, twice refer to Garrick in the title role as a "little Man" (p. 854); yet, however unimpressive his stature, Garrick's acting when confronting the ghost has most effectively terrified him.

[15]

"an Axiom of Philosophy": cf. JWN (I. xix) "an Axiom of indubitable Truth" (Misc ii. 84).

[16]

"few . . . will be so hardy as to deny": Cf. JWN (I. v) "will any of you be so insensible or ungrateful, as to deny" (Misc ii. 27); Am (XI. i) "Why will you be so barbarous to deny" (p. 454). —R

[17]

"gentle William in the Play": Referring to Fribble the fop, a part played by Garrick (see above, n. 14) in his popular farce, Miss in Her Teens (1747), which was staged at Drury Lane for the first time this season on 28 April 1753, a week after this essay was published. In Act II, scene I, Fribble reads a poem entitled, "William Fribble, Esq; to Miss Biddy Bellair," in which he assures her "No brutal passion fires my breast, . . . But one of harmless, gentle kind, / Whose joys are centred—in the mind." When asked her opinion of the verses, Biddy replies: "I swear they are very pretty—but I don't quite understand 'em" (Eighteenth Century Drama: Afterpieces, ad. Richard W. Bevis [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970], p. 96).

[*18]

Garrick, the author's "little Friend of Drury-Lane" (above, n. 14), who acted the part of "gentle William" the fop in Miss in Her Teens (above, n. 17), is said to have been 5′6″.

[*19]

"doth": This is the sole occurrence in the essay of HF's characteristic preference for the archaic forms doth and hath; subsequently, does occurs twice and has five times. Since Murphy throughout the journal prefers does and has, it is tempting to suppose that the compositor began setting the type by following the reading of the manuscript before, in the seven subsequent instances, imposing the house style on HF's archaisms—such was in fact the case with a contribution HF made to Common Sense in 1738, where the manuscript hath was systematically changed to has (see M. C. with R. R. Battestin, "A Fielding Discovery, with Some Remarks on the Canon," Studies in Bibliography 33 [1980], p. 135). On the uncertain usefulness of hath and doth as a stylistic test of HF's writing, see W. B. Coley, TP, Appendix VI.

[*20]

"require some little Degree of Size and Strength": Cf. TJ (IX. i) "require some little Degree of Learning and Knowledge" (p. 489); JVL "acquired some little degree of strength" (p. 17). Also TJ (III. vi) "no little Degree of Inveteracy" (p. 138); (XI. iii) "she had . . . some little Degree of natural Courage" (p. 579); Am (IV. ix) "to introduce some little Degree of Love or Friendship" (p. 192). —R

[*21]

"a considerable Part . . . Signs of genuine Hour": Cf. KCM, where HF, on the causes of laughter, quotes Pope's Dunciad: "Gentle Dulness ever loves a Joke. / i.e. one of her own Jokes. These are sometimes performed by the Foot; as by leaping over Heads, or Chairs, or Tables, Kicks in the B—ch, &c. sometimes by the Hand; as by Slaps in the Face, pulling off Wigs, and infinite other Dexterities" (Misc i. 161). And in EC, recalling the sort of buffoonery practised on Parson Adams by the followers of the "roasting" squire (JA III. vii), he writes of "that Kind of Raillery . . . which is concerned in tossing Menout of their Chairs, tumbling them into Water, or any of those handicraft Jokes" (Misci. 150).

[22]

"a most facetious Vein of Pleasantry"; Cf. Dr. Harrison in Am (IX. v), who possessed "a Vein of Cheerfulness, Good-humour and Pleasantry" (p. 377); C-H records 12 instances in HF's fiction of "facetious" as various parts of speech: e.g. TJ (VIII. viii) "a most facetious Grin" (p. 432).

[23]

"exquisite Jokes": Cf. above note 21. In KCM introducing the line from the Dunciadabout Dulness loving a "Joke," HF admires Pope's "exquisite Pleasantry."

[*24]

"Energy of Soul": Dr. Ribble reminds me that " `Energy' is a distinctive, semi-technical term in Fielding's moral psychology, based on Aristotle's notion of energeia" and refers to his article, "Aristotle and the `Prudence' Theme of Tom Jones," Eighteenth-Century Studies 15 (1981), p. 38, which includes these references: FL "all the energies of love" (p. 51); TJ (XIII. i) "those strong Energies of a good Mind" (p. 687); Am (III. v) "the . . . Energies of that Passion" (p. 115); (VIII. x) "an Energy, a Habit, as Aristotle calls it" (p. 351); CGJ (14 March 1752) "the Energies of Benevolence" (p. 142 and n. 1); "that Compassion which is the constant Energy of these good Hearts" (p. 143); (11 April 1752)" In the Energy itself of Virtue (says Aristotle) there is great Pleasure" (p. 185). —R

[*25]

"Strokes": A favorite locution of HF's. C-H records the following 6 instances in the fiction: Sh (To Miss Fanny) "you have . . . brightened many strokes in this work" (p. 301); JA (I. ix) "some Strokes which every one will not truly comprehend" (p. 42); (III. x) "there are . . . manly Strokes . . . in your last Tragedy" (p. 261); TJ (I. iii) "There were some Strokes in this Speech" (p. 41); (IX. i) "the nicest Strokes of a Shakespear" (p. 493); Am (III. xi) "Thus she ran on, and after many bitter Strokes upon her Sister" (p. 142). Also JVL "we acknowledge the strokes of nature" (p. 8).

[26]

"bilking": Cf. TJ (XIV. iv) " `I don't intend to bilk my Lodgings' " (p. 753). —R

[*27]

"compound Qualities . . . in the same Habitation": In the fourth paragraph of the essay, "the Body" is defined as "a Covering only for the Ætherial Particle [i.e. the "Soul" or "Spirit"] that is lodged within it." The "compound Quality" that defines the Man of Wit and Hour gives him "a much superior Energy of Soul," and that soul resides in a body 5′ 10″ tall, its "Habitation." In JWN, HF had the spirits of the dead use the same conceit: the narrator speaks of his life on earth as "my Habitation in the Body"; his companion, who died of a violent fever, speaks of his body as "the inflamed Habitation I am lately departed from" (Misc ii. 8, 10). HF often refers to the dwelling places of his characters as their "Habitations": C-H records 20 instances in the fiction alone (including the two quoted).

[*28]

"wonderful": For this sarcastic use of the word, see TJ (XIV. i) "by the wonderful Force of Genius only" (p. 739). Also JA (II. vii) "a wonderful Capacity" (p. 130); (III. i) "the wonderful Extent of human Genius" (p. 187); JW (I. i) "those wonderful Productions of Nature called Great Men" (p. 7); (II. xi) "The Great and wonderful Behaviour of our Hero" (p. 80); TJ (VI. i) "certain Philosophers, among many other wonderful Discoveries" (p. 268); Am (VIII. vi) "by his own Account, he was the Author of most of the wonderful Productions of the Age" (p. 332). —R

[29]

"the Master-piece and noblest Work of Nature": Cf. JW (I. x) "Individuals . . .who do not seem intended by Nature as her greatest Master-piece" (Misc iii. 35). Also Misc i "A perfect Work! the Iliad of Nature!" (i. 12); JA (III. ii) "the Iliad, his noblest Work" (p. 198). —R

[30]

"to bear about him": Cf. TJ (IV. ix) "yet did he bear about him some thing of what the Antients called the Irascible" (p. 186). —R

[*31]

"some distinguishing Tokens": HF often used "Token" as a synonym for "sign"; C-H lists 13 instances in the fiction: e.g. TJ (III. v) "deficient in outward Tokens of Respect" (p. 133); (III. vi) "gave Tokens of that Gallantry of Temper" (p. 139); (XIII. x) "showed . . . the utmost Tokens of Surprize" (p. 727); (XVII. ii) "gave Tokens of Submission" (p. 879); Am (I. vii) "I gave him too undeniable Tokens [of infatuation]" (p. 51); (II. vi) "gave the strongest Tokens of Amazement" (p. 85). —R

[*32]

"the Daring and Tremendous": In his literary criticism HF liked to propose terms for generic types by placing the definite article before an adjective, thus making it into a substantive: e.g. "the Ridiculous," and "the Monstrous" (JA Preface); "the Marvellous" (TJ VIII. i). Here the terms characterizing the "modern Critic," who "glares horribly terrific," freezing "the young Author's Blood," suggest Pope's characterization of John Dennis (1657-1734) in the Essay on Criticism (1711): "Appius reddens at each Word you speak, /And stares, Tremendous! with a threatning Eye, / Like some fierce Tyrant in Old Tapestry!" (TE, ll. 585-587). From the Preface and notes to The Tragedy of Tragedies (1731), where Dennis is ridiculed as hidebound and priggish, to CGJ (9 June 1752), where he is referred to as being "of acutely austere Memory" (p. 258), Dennis might well be thought to represent for HF the very type of the "modern Critic."

[*33]

"pert and sanguine": HF was fond of both these words. C-H lists 10 occurrences of "pert/pertly/pertness" in the fiction—e.g. Sh "as pertly as I could," "pert again" (p. 311); "the pert Jade" (p. 339); JA (I. ix); "answered . . . very pertly"; (IV. i) "whom no Pertness could make her Mistress . . . part with" (p. 280); TJ (II. iii) "very pert and obstinate" (p. 85); (IV. xiii) "would be Pertness in a Woman" (p. 202); (XVII. iii) "Pertness, or what is called Repartee" (p. 882); Am (IV. vi) "answered pertly enough" (p. 178). Especially relevant in the present context is CGJ (19 May 1752), "A TREATISE on the Confidentand Pert, A modern Improvement in Writing" (pp. 231-233, continued pp. 255-259).—For "sanguine" C-H also lists 10 instances in the fiction—e.g. in TJ "sanguine" modifies "Expectations" (p. 106); "Assurance" (p. 221); "Friend" (p. 440); "Temper" and "Disposition of Mind" (p. 708); in Am, "Temper" (pp. 163, 499); "Persons" (p. 289); "Hopes" (p. 368). Also JVL "sanguine hopes" (pp. 19, 45). —R

[34]

"freezes the young Author's Blood": Cf. TJ (XI. vi) "These Words almost froze up the Blood of Sophia" (p. 593). —R

[35]

"the Sound of his Voice . . . furious and wild Commotion": Cf. Pope's complaint in the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot (1734/35), recalling Dennis's attacks on his early poetry: "Yet then did Dennis rave in furious fret" (TE, l. 153).

[36]

"Phænomena": Cf. TJ (VII. xiii) "often attended with worse Phænomena" (p. 380); Am (I. i) "all the ordinary Phenomena" (p. 16); JVL "so extraordinary a phænomenon" (p. 50). —R

[*37]

"iron Strength of Lungs"; Cf. Am (XII. vi) "one of the sturdiest and forwardest of the Mob . . . who by a superior Strength of Body, and of Lungs, presided" (p. 519).

[38]

"obviate": C-H cites 5 occurrences of "obviate" in HF's fiction: JA (III. i) "to obviate some Constructions" (p. 188); TJ (III. iv) "to obviate some Misconstructions" (p. 128); (XI. i) "Criticism I here intend to obviate" (p. 569); (XII. i) "to obviate all such Imputations" (p. 620); Am (Dedication) "to obviate any Criticisms" (p. 3). Also JVL "to obviate some censures" (p. 11).

[39]

"the Science of Criticism": Cf. TJ (IX. i) "all the Arts and Sciences (even Criticism itself" (p. 489).

[40]

"have not . . . duly reflected on": Cf. TJ (IX. v) "hath duly reflected on these many Charms" (p. 510). —R

[*41]

"discharge the Province": HF often uses this geographical metaphor to refer to prescribed responsibilities, spheres of intellectual endeavor, or mental faculties. See JA (Preface) "within its proper Province" (p. 6); "The Ridiculous only . . . falls within my Province" (p. 7); (III. iv) "my Beer, which falls to my Province" (p. 227); TJ (II. i) "Founder of a new Province of Writing" (p. 77); (II. iv) "it is our Province to relate Facts" (p. 87); (IX. i) "the undisputed Province of Judgment" (p. 491); (XIV. i) "a Writer whose Province is Comedy" (p. 743); (XVI. vi) "within the Province of Cunning" (p. 859). —R

[42]

"execute that Task": C-H cites 82 instances in HF's fiction alone of "execute," the great majority in this sense of "to carry out, accomplish."

[43]

"Character . . . is supported": Cf. TJ (III. vi) "Persons of such Characters as were supported by Thwackum" (p. 137). —R

[*44]

"Mechanical Operations": The phrase evokes two of HF's favorite comic authors:Samuel Butler in Hudibras (1680), III. i. 1497-8: "The Tools of working out Salvation /By meer Mechanick Operation" (ad. John Wilders [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967], p. 231); and Jonathan Swift in The Mechanical Operation of the Spirit (1704), in which Swift ironically explains things spiritual in terms of mechanistic bodily functions. The author of the present essay has proceeded in this same vein, insisting that literary and intellectual faculties are proportionable to bodily height and stature.

[45]

"in which the Understanding has no Manner of Share": Cf. TJ (I. vi) "Nature . . .had given her a very uncommon Share of Understanding" (p. 48). —R


229

Page 229

230

Page 230

231

Page 231

232

Page 232

233

Page 233

234

Page 234
 
[1]

See Hugh Amory, "The Authority of the Two Versions of Fielding's Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon," in The Culture of the Book: Essays from Two Hemispheres in Honour of Wallace Kirsop, ed. David Garrioch, Harold Love, Brian McMullin, Ian Morrison, and Meredith Sherlock (Melbourne: Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand, 1999), 182-200.

[2]

Austin Dobson, Fielding (London and New York: Macmillan, 1883), p. 168 n.

[3]

Frederick S. Dickson, "The Early Editions of Fielding's `Voyage to Lisbon,' " The Library, 3rd ser., 8 (1917), pp. 24-35; J. Paul de Castro, "Henry Fielding's Last Voyage," ibid., pp. 145-159; A. W. Pollard, "The Two 1755 Editions of Fielding's `Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon,' " ibid., pp. 160-162; and Wilbur L. Cross, The History of Henry Fielding (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1918), 3 vols., iii. 83-92.

[4]

See Dickson, p. 29, and Cross, iii. 88.

[5]

In his letter to Dickson, dated 14 October 1916, de Castro from his chambers at the Temple, wrote:

I am very glad to hear that you will undertake an account of the Chronology of the Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon for N. & Q. I am sure it will be most useful, and may perhaps lead to a discussion.

I am of opinion that the Dedication was written by Arthur Murphy. Read the Dedication through and then turn to his "Life & Genius of Henry Fielding" and I think you will be struck by a similarity of rythym [sic] and diction, and also that the`hath' occurs in both though sparingly. If that be so one can understand better why Millar should have turned to him when requiring an editor for the "Complete" Works.

The Dedication has always seemed to me an excellent piece of English and in a style not unfamiliar to me, but it is only recently that I fancied I had run its author to earth. (Frederick S. Dickson Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscripts Library, Yale University)

[6]

Fielding's Works, ed. Arthur Murphy, 4 vols. (1762) 4°, i. 46-47. References are to this edition.

[7]

In the London Chronicle (17-19, 24 May 1759) Millar published proposals for a five-volume subscription edition of Fielding's Works "with Annotations upon such Passages as require Illustration; and an Essay on the Life and Genius of the Author. By Arthur Murphy, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq."

[8]

See Hugh Amory, "Andrew Millar and the First Recension of Fielding's Works (1762)," Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 8 (1981), p. 63; and M. C. with R. R. Battestin, Henry Fielding: A Life (London and New York: Routledge 1989), pp. 581 and 683 n. 364.

[9]

Amory refers to Sarah Fielding's letter to James Harris of 4 March 1762, in which, shocked at learning that Millar had engaged Murphy rather than Harris to write the introductory "Essay" to Fielding's Works, she declared that Murphy "knew little or nothing of my Brother" and that he "had his strange Information from Bow-Street"—i.e. from John Fielding. But it was Sarah, not Murphy, who knew little of Fielding's affairs during the last years of his life. After his marriage to Mary Daniel in November 1747 she left his household and soon became one of the coterie of clever women who circled round Richardson. By June 1754 she was residing at Bath, too ill to attend Fielding as he prepared to leave for Lisbon; from that time on she remained at Bath (or Bathwick or Walcot), far from the literary life of London. Indeed she was so ill informed in this regard that she was unaware of Murphy's appointment as editor of the Works until a month before publication, even though Millar had announced the fact nearly three years earlier in the London Chronicle (17-19 May 1759). Forty years later, HF's son, the Revd. Allen Fielding, echoed his aunt's words when, replying to an inquiry of the Dorset antiquarian Thomas Rackett, he assured him that "Murphy himself knew nothing of my father" (Correspondence,p. 190). But Allen himself, who was two months old when his father embarked for Lisbon, could have known nothing of the matter.

[10]

The Covent-Garden Journal and A Plan of the Universal Register-Office, ed. Bertrand A. Goldgar (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1988), p. xxxi and n. 2.

[11]

See Battestins, Life, pp. 561-564.

[12]

References to issues of The Craftsman; or, Gray's-Inn Journal from 21 October to 30 December 1752, which Murphy wrote under the pseudonym "Joseph D'Anvers, Esq;" are to the unique run of the paper for the period 7 October 1749-30 December 1752 in the John Dawson Collection, Archives Department, Rose Lipman Library, Hackney Public Library. Unless otherwise noted, references to the Gray's-Inn Journal, written by Murphy as "Charles Ranger, Esq;" from January 1753 to the final issue, No. 104 of 12 October 1754 [for No. 52 of 21 September 1754 of the original folio], will be to the facsimile of the 1756 reprint, 2 vols., ed. Donald D. Eddy (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1979).

Compliments to Fielding also occur in the number for 3 February 175[3] ("Fieldingwill ever be a faithful Guide to the Adventurer in comic Romance" [i. 107]); 3 March 1753 ("the Stile of Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones" [i. 131]); 10 March 1753 ("Mr. Justice Fielding" [i. 142]); 7 July 1753 ("the inimitable Mr. Fielding . . . a Man of exquisite Humour" [i. 243]); 27 April 1754 ("soothed . . . by reading Fielding's Joseph Andrews" [ii. 179]);8 June 1754 (Fielding will be elected to Parnassus [ii. 215-216]); 17 August 1754 (Preface to Joseph Andrews on "Ridicule" [ii. 278]); 24 August 1754 ("Burlesque" illustrated by Parson Adams and a note to Tom Thumb [ii. 284-285]).

[13]

In C. Smart, The Hilliad: an Epic Poem (1753), p. viii.

[14]

In a dream vision Murphy meets the author: "I told Lucian, that the excellent Mr. Fielding has promised us a Translation of his Performances into the English Tongue, which gave the old Grecian great Pleasure, as he did not doubt but the Author of Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones would give the whole [t]he true Spirit of Humour."

[15]

Covent-Garden Journal, p. 380.

[16]

Goldgar, p. liv.

[17]

In the 1756 reprint, this final issue of the paper became No. 104 and is dated 12 October 1754. Fielding died in Lisbon on 8 October, but his death was not known in London until announced in the Public Advertiser on 28 October; indeed, since that paper on 16 October had reported that Fielding was "surprisingly recovered," the news would have been unexpected. (See Battestins, Life, p. 605.)

[18]

See Howard Hunter Dunbar, The Dramatic Career of Arthur Murphy (New York:Modern Language Association of America; London: Oxford University Press, 1946), pp. 8-11.

[19]

A regular feature of Murphy's journal was a section called "True Intelligence," which consisted of brief "Articles of News," chiefly from the coffee-houses and theaters, and often submitted by contributors.

[20]

Quoted from the original issue. The text is the same in the 1756 reprint (ii. 336) except for the addition of "the" before "fixing" in the first sentence.