THE MISCELLANIES--JONATHAN WILD.
In March 1742, according to an article in the _Gentleman's Magazine_,
attributed to Samuel Johnson, "the most popular Topic of Conversation"
was the _Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Dutchess of Marlborough,
from her first coming to Court, to the Year 1710_, which, with the help
of Hooke of the _Roman History_, the "terrible old Sarah" had just put
forth. Among the little cloud of _Sarah-Ads_ and _Old Wives' Tales_
evoked by this production, was a _Vindication_ of her Grace by Fielding,
specially prompted, as appears from the title-page, by the "late
_scurrilous_ Pamphlet" of a "noble Author." If this were not
acknowledged to be from Fielding's pen in the Preface to the
_Miscellanies_ (in which collection, however, it is not reprinted), its
authorship would be sufficiently proved by its being included with _Miss
Lucy in Town_ in the assignment to Andrew Millar referred to at the
close of the preceding chapter. The price Millar paid for it was L5 5s,
or exactly half that of the farce. But it is only reasonable to assume
that the Duchess herself (who is said to have given Hooke L5000 for his
help) also rewarded her champion. Whether Fielding's admiration for the
"glorious Woman" in whose cause he had drawn his pen was genuine, or
whether--to use Johnson's convenient euphemism concerning Hooke--"he
was acting only ministerially," are matters for speculation. His father,
however, had served under the Duke, and there may have been a
traditional attachment to the Churchills on the part of his family. It
has even been ingeniously suggested that Sarah Fielding was her Grace's
god-child; [Footnote: _Memoirs of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough_, etc.,
by Mrs. A. T. Thomson, 1839.] but as her mother's name was also Sarah,
no importance can be attached to the suggestion.
_Miss Lucy in Town_, as its sub-title explains, was a sequel to the
_Virgin Unmask'd_, and was produced at Drury Lane in May 1742. As
already stated in chapter ii., Fielding's part in it was small. It is a
lively but not very creditable trifle, which turns upon certain
equivocal London experiences of the Miss Lucy of the earlier piece; and
it seems to have been chiefly intended to afford an opportunity for some
clever imitation of the reigning Italian singers by Mrs. Clive and the
famous tenor Beard. Horace Walpole, who refers to it in a letter to
Mann, between an account of the opening of Ranelagh and an anecdote of
Mrs. Bracegirdle, calls it "a little simple farce," and says that "Mrs.
Clive mimics the Muscovita admirably, and Beard Amorevoli tolerably."
Mr. Walpole detested the Muscovita, and adored Amorevoli, which perhaps
accounts for the nice discrimination shown in his praise. One of the
other characters, Mr. Zorobabel, a Jew, was taken by Macklin, and from
another, Mrs. Haycock (afterwards changed to Mrs. Midnight), Foote is
supposed to have borrowed Mother Cole in _The Minor_. A third character,
Lord Bawble, was considered to reflect upon "a particular person of
quality," and the piece was speedily forbidden by the Lord Chamberlain,
although it appears to have been acted a few months later without
opposition. One of the results of the prohibition, according to Mr.
Lawrence, was a _Letter to a Noble Lord_ (the Lord Chamberlain) ...
_occasioned by a Representation ... of a Farce called "Miss Lucy in
Town."_ This, in spite of the Caveat in the Preface to the
_Miscellanies_, he ascribes to Fielding, and styles it "a sharp
expostulation ... in which he [Fielding] disavowed any idea of a
personal attack." But Mr. Lawrence must plainly have been misinformed on
the subject, for the pamphlet bears little sign of Fielding's hand. As
far as it is intelligible, it is rather against Miss Lucy than for her,
and it makes no reference to Lord Bawble's original. The name of this
injured patrician seems indeed never to have transpired; but he could
scarcely have been in any sense an exceptional member of the Georgian
aristocracy.
In the same month that _Miss Lucy in Town_ appeared at Drury Lane,
Millar published it in book form. In the following June, T. Waller of
the Temple-Cloisters issued the first of a contemplated series of
translations from Aristophanes by Henry Fielding, Esq., and the Rev.
William Young who sat for Parson Adams. The play chosen was _Plutus, the
God of Riches_, and a notice upon the original cover stated that,
according to the reception it met with from the public, it would be
followed by the others. It must be presumed that "the distressed, and at
present, declining State of Learning" to which the authors referred in
their dedication to Lord Talbot, was not a mere form of speech, for the
enterprise does not seem to have met with sufficient encouragement to
justify its continuance, and this special rendering has long since been
supplanted by the more modern versions of Mitchell, Frere, and others.
Whether Fielding took any large share in it is not now discernible. It
is most likely, however, that the bulk of the work was Young's, and that
his colleague did little more than furnish the Preface, which is partly
written in the first person, and betrays its origin by a sudden and not
very relevant attack upon the "pretty, dapper, brisk, smart, pert
Dialogue" of Modern Comedy into which the "infinite Wit" of Wycherley
had degenerated under Cibber. It also contains a compliment to the
numbers of the "inimitable Author" of the _Essay on Man_.
This is the second compliment which Fielding had paid to Pope within a
brief period, the first having been that in the _Champion_ respecting
the translation of the _Iliad_. What his exact relations with the author
of the _Dunciad_ were, has never been divulged. At first they seem to
have been rather hostile than friendly. Fielding had ridiculed the
Romish Church in the _Old Debauchees_, a course which Pope could
scarcely have approved; and he was, moreover, the cousin of Lady Mary,
now no longer throned in the Twickenham Temple. Pope had commented upon
a passage in _Tom Thumb_, and Fielding had indirectly referred to Pope
in the _Covent Garden Tragedy_. When it had been reported that Pope had
gone to see _Pasquin_, the statement had been at once contradicted. But
Fielding was now, like Pope, against Walpole; and _Joseph Andrews_ had
been published. It may therefore be that the compliments in _Plutus_ and
the _Champion_ were the result of some _rapprochement_ between the two.
It is, nevertheless, curious that, at this very time, an attempt appears
to have been made to connect the novelist with the controversy which
presently arose out of Cibber's well-known letter to Pope. In August
1742, the month following its publication, among the pamphlets to which
it gave rise, was announced _The Cudgel; or, a Crab-tree Lecture, To the
Author of the Dunciad_. "By Hercules Vinegar, Esq." This very mediocre
satire in verse is still to be found at the British Museum; but even if
it were not included in Fielding's general disclaimer as to unsigned
work, it would be difficult to connect it with him. To give but one
reason, it would make him the ally and adherent of Cibber,--which is
absurd. In all probability, like another Grub Street squib under the
same pseudonym, it was by Ralph, who had already attacked Pope, and
continued to maintain the Captain's character in the _Champion_ long
after Fielding had ceased to write for it. It is even possible that
Ralph had some share in originating the Vinegar family, for it is
noticeable that the paper in which they are first introduced bears no
initials. In this case he would consider himself free to adopt the name,
however disadvantageous that course might be to Fielding's reputation.
And it is clear that, whatever their relations had been in the past,
they were for the time on opposite sides in politics, since while
Fielding had been vindicating the Duchess of Marlborough, Ralph had been
writing against her.
These, however, are minor questions, the discussion of which would lead
too far from the main narrative of Fielding's life. In the same letter
in which Walpole had referred to _Miss Lucy in Town_, he had spoken of
the success of a new player at Goodman's Fields, after whom all the
town, in Gray's phrase, was "horn-mad;" but in whose acting Mr. Walpole,
with a critical distrust of novelty, saw nothing particularly wonderful.
This was David Garrick. He had been admitted a student of Lincoln's Inn
a year before Fielding entered the Middle Temple, had afterwards turned
wine-merchant, and was now delighting London by his versatility in
comedy, tragedy, and farce. One of his earliest theatrical exploits,
according to Sir John Hawkins, had been a private representation of
Fielding's _Mock-Doctor_, in a room over the St. John's Gate,
Clerkenwell, so long familiar to subscribers of the _Gentleman's
Magazine_; his fellow-actors being Cave's journeymen printers, and his
audience Cave, Johnson, and a few friends. After this he appears to have
made the acquaintance of Fielding; and late in 1742, applied to him to
know if he had "any Play by him," as "he was desirous of appearing in a
new Part." As a matter of fact Fielding had two plays by him--the _Good-
natured Man_ (a title subsequently used by Goldsmith), and a piece
called _The Wedding Day_. The former was almost finished: the latter was
an early work, being indeed "the third Dramatic Performance he ever
attempted." The necessary arrangements having been made with Mr.
Fleetwood, the manager of Drury Lane, Fielding set to work to complete
the _Good-natured Man_, which he considered the better of the two. When
he had done so, he came to the conclusion that it required more
attention than he could give it; and moreover, that the part allotted to
Garrick, although it satisfied the actor, was scarcely important enough.
He accordingly reverted to the _Wedding Day_, the central character of
which had been intended for Wilks. It had many faults which none saw
more clearly than the author himself, but he hoped that Garrick's energy
and _prestige_ would triumphantly surmount all obstacles. He hoped, as
well, to improve it by revision. The dangerous illness of his wife,
however, made it impossible for him to execute his task; and, as he was
pressed for money, the _Wedding Day_ was produced on the 17th of
February 1743, apparently much as it had been first written some dozen
years before. As might be anticipated, it was not a success. The
character of Millamour is one which it is hard to believe that even
Garrick could have made attractive, and though others of the parts were
entrusted to Mrs. Woffington, Mrs. Pritchard, and Macklin, it was acted
but six nights. The author's gains were under L50. In the Preface to the
_Miscellanies_, from which most of the foregoing account is taken,
Fielding, as usual, refers its failure to other causes than its inherent
defects. Rumours, he says, had been circulated as to its indecency (and
in truth some of the scenes are more than hazardous); but it had passed
the licenser, and must be supposed to have been up to the moral standard
of the time. Its unfavourable reception, as Fielding must have known in
his heart, was due to its artistic shortcomings, and also to the fact
that a change was taking place in the public taste. It is in connection
with the _Wedding Day_ that one of the best-known anecdotes of the
author is related.
Garrick had begged him to retrench a certain objectionable passage. This
Fielding, either from indolence or unwillingness, declined to do,
asserting that if it was not good, the audience might find it out. The
passage was promptly hissed, and Garrick returned to the green-room,
where the author was solacing himself with a bottle of champagne. "What
is the matter, Garrick?" said he to the flustered actor; "what are they
hissing now?" He was informed with some heat that they had been hissing
the very scene he had been asked to withdraw, "and," added Garrick,
"they have so frightened me, that I shall not be able to collect myself
again the whole night"--"Oh!" answered the author, with an oath, "they
HAVE found it out, have they?" This rejoinder is usually quoted as an
instance of Fielding's contempt for the intelligence of his audience;
but nine men in ten, it may be observed, would have said something of
the same sort.
The only other thing which need be referred to in connection with this
comedy--the last of his own dramatic works which Fielding ever witnessed
upon the stage--is Macklin's doggerel Prologue. Mr. Lawrence attributes
this to Fielding; but he seems to have overlooked the fact that in the
_Miscellanies_ it is headed, "_Writ_ and Spoken by Mr. Macklin," which
gives it more interest as the work of an outsider than if it had been a
mere laugh by the author at himself. Garrick is represented as too busy
to speak the prologue; and Fielding, who has been "drinking to raise his
Spirits," has begged Macklin with his "long, dismal, Mercy-begging
Face," to go on and apologise. Macklin then pretends to recognise him
among the audience, and pokes fun at his anxieties, telling him that he
had better have stuck to "honest _Abram Adams_," who, "in spight of
Critics, can make his Readers laugh." The words "in spite of critics"
indicate another distinction between Fielding's novels and plays, which
should have its weight in any comparison of them. The censors of the
pit, in the eighteenth century, seem to have exercised an unusual
influence in deciding whether a play should succeed or not; [Footnote:
Miller's _Coffee-House_, 1737, for example, was damned by the Templars
because it was supposed to reflect on the keepers of "Dick's."--(_Biog.
Dramatica_.)] and, from Fielding's frequent references to friends and
enemies, it would almost seem as if he believed their suffrages to be
more important than a good plot and a witty dialogue. On the other hand,
no coterie of Wits and Templars could kill a book like _Joseph Andrews_.
To say nothing of the opportunities afforded by the novel for more
leisurely character-drawing, and greater by-play of reflection and
description--its reader was an isolated and independent judge; and in
the long run the difference told wonderfully in favour of the author.
Macklin was obviously right in recommending Fielding, even in jest, to
stick to Parson Adams, and from the familiar publicity of the advice it
may also be inferred, not only that the opinion was one commonly
current, but that the novel was unusually popular.
The _Wedding Day_ was issued separately in February 1743. It must
therefore be assumed that the three volumes of _Miscellanies_, by Henry
Fielding, Esq., in which it was reprinted, and to which reference has so
often been made in these pages, did not appear until later. [Footnote:
By advertisement in the _London Daily Post and General Advertiser_, they
would seem to have been published early in April 1743.] They were
published by subscription; and the list, in addition to a large number
of aristocratic and legal names, contains some of more permanent
interest. Side by side with the Chesterfields and Marlboroughs and
Burlingtons and Denbighs, come William Pitt and Henry Fox, Esqs., with
Dodington and Winnington and Hanbury Williams. The theatrical world is
well represented by Garrick and Mrs. Woffington and Mrs. Clive.
Literature has no names of any eminence except that of Young; for Savage
and Whitehead, Mallet and Benjamin Hoadly, are certainly _ignes
minores_. Pope is conspicuous for his absence; so also are Horace
Walpole and Gray, while Richardson, of course, is wanting. Johnson, as
yet only the author of _London_, and journeyman to Cave, could scarcely
be expected in the roll; and, in any case, his friendship for the author
of _Pamela_ would probably have kept him away. Among some other well-
known eighteenth century names are those of Dodsley and Millar the
booksellers, and the famous Vauxhall _impresario_ Jonathan Tyers.
The first volume of the _Miscellanies_, besides a lengthy Preface,
includes the author's poems, essays _On Conversation_, _On the Knowledge
of the Characters of Men_, _On Nothing_, a squib upon the transactions
of the Royal Society, a translation from Demosthenes, and one or two
minor pieces. Much of the biographical material contained in the Preface
has already been made use of, as well as those verses which can be
definitely dated, or which relate to the author's love-affairs. The
hitherto unnoticed portions of the volume consist chiefly of Epistles,
in the orthodox eighteenth century fashion. One--already referred to--is
headed _Of True Greatness_; another, inscribed to the Duke of Richmond,
_Of Good-nature_; while a third is addressed to a friend _On the Choice
of a Wife_. This last contains some sensible lines, but although Roscoe
has managed to extract two quotable passages, it is needless to imitate
him here. These productions show no trace of the authentic Fielding. The
essays are more remarkable, although, like Montaigne's, they are
scarcely described by their titles. That on _Conversation_ is really a
little treatise on good breeding; that on the _Characters of Men_, a lay
sermon against Fielding's pet antipathy--hypocrisy. Nothing can well be
wiser, even now, than some of the counsels in the former of these papers
on such themes as the limits of raillery, the duties of hospitality, and
the choice of subject in general conversation. Nor, however threadbare
they may look to-day, can the final conclusions be reasonably objected
to:--"First, That every Person who indulges his Ill-nature or Vanity, at
the Expense of others; and in introducing Uneasiness, Vexation, and
Confusion into Society, however exalted or high-titled he may be, is
thoroughly ill-bred;" and "Secondly, That whoever, from the Goodness of
his Disposition or Understanding, endeavours to his utmost to cultivate
the Good-humour and Happiness of others, and to contribute to the Ease
and Comfort of all his Acquaintance, however low in Rank Fortune may
have placed him, or however clumsy he may be in his Figure or Demeanour,
hath, in the truest sense of the Word, a Claim to Good-Breeding." One
fancies that this essay must have been a favourite with the historian of
the _Book of Snobs_ and the creator of Major Dobbin.
The _Characters of Men_ is not equal to the _Conversation._ The theme is
a wider one; and the end proposed,--that of supplying rules for
detecting the real disposition through all the social disguises which
cloak and envelop it,--can scarcely be said to be attained. But there
are happy touches even in this; and when the author says--"I will
venture to affirm, that I have known some of _the best sort of Men in
the World_ (to use the vulgar Phrase,) who would not have scrupled
cutting a Friend's Throat; and _a Fellow whom no Man should be seen to
speak to_, capable of the highest Acts of Friendship and Benevolence,"
one recognises the hand that made the sole good Samaritan in Joseph
Andrews "a Lad who hath since been transported for robbing a Hen-roost."
The account of the Terrestrial Chrysipus or Guinea, a burlesque on a
paper read before the Royal Society on the Fresh Water Polypus, is
chiefly interesting from the fact that it is supposed to be written by
Petrus Gualterus (Peter Walter), who had an "extraordinary Collection"
of them. He died, in fact, worth L300,000. The only other paper in the
volume of any value is a short one _Of the Remedy of Affliction for the
Loss of our Friends_, to which we shall presently return.
The farce of _Eurydice_, and the _Wedding Day_, which, with _A Journey
from this World to the Next_, etc., make up the contents of the second
volume of the _Miscellanies_, have been already sufficiently discussed.
But the _Journey_ deserves some further notice. It has been suggested
that this curious Lucianic production may have been prompted by the
vision of Mercury and Charon in the _Champion_, though the kind of
allegory of which it consists is common enough with the elder essayists;
and it is notable that another book was published in April 1743, under
the title of _Cardinal Fleury's Journey to the other World_, which is
manifestly suggested by Quevedo. Fielding's _Journey_, however, is a
fragment which the author feigns to have found in the garret of a
stationer in the Strand. Sixteen out of five-and-twenty chapters in Book
i. are occupied with the transmigrations of Julian the Apostate, which
are not concluded. Then follows another chapter from Book xix., which
contains the history of Anna Boleyn, and the whole breaks off abruptly.
Its best portion is undoubtedly the first ten chapters, which relate the
writer's progress to Elysium, and afford opportunity for many strokes of
satire. Such are the whimsical terror of the spiritual traveller in the
stagecoach, who hears suddenly that his neighbour has died of smallpox,
a disease he had been dreading all his life; and the punishment of Lord
Scrape, the miser, who is doomed to dole out money to all comers, and
who, after "being purified in the Body of a Hog," is ultimately to
return to earth again. Nor is the delight of some of those who profit by
his enforced assistance less keenly realised:--"I remarked a poetical
Spirit in particular, who swore he would have a hearty Gripe at him:
'For, says he, the Rascal not only refused to subscribe to my Works; but
sent back my Letter unanswered, tho' I'm a better Gentleman than
himself.'" The descriptions of the City of Diseases, the Palace of
Death, and the Wheel of Fortune from which men draw their chequered
lots, are all unrivalled in their way. But here, as always, it is in his
pictures of human nature that Fielding shines, and it is this that makes
the chapters in which Minos is shown adjudicating upon the separate
claims of the claimants to enter Elysium the most piquant of all. The
virtuoso and butterfly hunter, who is repulsed "with great Scorn;" the
dramatic author who is admitted (to his disgust), not on account of his
works, but because he has once lent "the whole Profits of a Benefit
Night to a Friend;" the parson who is turned back, while his poor
parishioners are admitted; and the trembling wretch who has been hanged
for a robbery of eighteen-pence, to which he had been driven by poverty,
but whom the judge welcomes cordially because he had been a kind father,
husband, and son; all these are conceived in that humane and generous
spirit which is Fielding's most engaging characteristic. The chapter
immediately following, which describes the literary and other
inhabitants of Elysium, is even better. Here is Leonidas, who appears to
be only moderately gratified with the honour recently done him by Mr.
Glover the poet; here is Homer, toying with Madam Dacier, and profoundly
indifferent as to his birthplace and the continuity of his poems; here,
too, is Shakespeare, who, foreseeing future commentators and the "New
Shakespere Society," declines to enlighten Betterton and Booth as to a
disputed passage in his works, adding, "I marvel nothing so much as that
Men will gird themselves at discovering obscure Beauties in an Author.
Certes the greatest and most pregnant Beauties are ever the plainest and
most evidently striking; and when two Meanings of a Passage can in the
least ballance our Judgements which to prefer, I hold it matter of
unquestionable Certainty that neither is worth a farthing." Then, again,
there are Addison and Steele, who are described with so pleasant a
knowledge of their personalities that, although the passage has been
often quoted, there seems to be no reason why it should not be quoted
once more:--
"_Virgil_ then came up to me, with Mr. _Addison_ under his Arm. Well,
Sir, said he, how many Translations have these few last Years produced
of my _AEneid_? I told him, I believed several, but I could not possibly
remember; for I had never read any but Dr. _Trapp's_. [Footnote: Dr.
Trapp's translation of the AEneid was published in 1718.]--Ay, said he,
that is a curious Piece indeed! I then acquainted him with the Discovery
made by Mr. _Warburton_ of the _Eleusinian_ Mysteries couched in his 6th
book. What Mysteries? said Mr. _Addison_. The _Eleusinian_, answered
_Virgil_, which I have disclosed in my 6th Book. How! replied _Addison_.
You never mentioned a word of any such Mysteries to me in all our
Acquaintance. I thought it was unnecessary, cried the other, to a Man of
your infinite Learning: besides, you always told me, you perfectly
understood my meaning. Upon this I thought the Critic looked a little
out of countenance, and turned aside to a very merry Spirit, one _Dick
Steele_, who embraced him, and told him, He had been the greatest Man
upon Earth; that he readily resigned up all the Merit of his own Works
to him. Upon which, _Addison_ gave him a gracious Smile, and clapping
him on the Back with much Solemnity, cried out, _Well said, Dick._"
After encountering these and other notabilities, including Tom Thumb and
Livy, the latter of whom takes occasion to commend the ingenious
performances of Lady Marlborough's assistant, Mr. Hooke, the author
meets with Julian the Apostate, and from this point the narrative grows
languid. Its unfinished condition may perhaps be accepted as a proof
that Fielding himself had wearied of his scheme.
The third volume of the _Miscellanies_ is wholly occupied with the
remarkable work entitled the _History of the Life of the late Mr.
Jonathan Wild the Great_. As in the case of the _Journey from this World
to the Next_, it is not unlikely that the first germ of this may be
found in the pages of the _Champion_. "Reputation"--says Fielding in one
of the essays in that periodical--"often courts those most who regard
her the least. Actions have sometimes been attended with Fame, which
were undertaken in Defiance of it. _Jonathan Wyld_ himself had for many
years no small Share of it in this Kingdom." The book now under
consideration is the elaboration of the idea thus casually thrown out.
Under the name of a notorious thief-taker hanged at Tyburn in 1725,
Fielding has traced the Progress of a Rogue to the Gallows, showing by
innumerable subtle touches that the (so-called) greatness of a villain
does not very materially differ from any other kind of greatness, which
is equally independent of goodness. This continually suggested affinity
between the ignoble and the pseudo-noble is the text of the book.
Against genuine worth (its author is careful to explain) his satire is
in no wise directed. He is far from considering "_Newgate_ as no other
than Human Nature with its Mask off;" but he thinks "we may be excused
for suspecting, that the splendid Palaces of the Great are often no
other than _Newgate_ with the Mask on." Thus _Jonathan Wild the Great_
is a prolonged satire upon the spurious eminence in which benevolence,
honesty, charity, and the like have no part; or, as Fielding prefers to
term it, that false or "Bombast greatness" which is so often mistaken
for the "_true Sublime_ in Human Nature"--Greatness and Goodness
combined. So thoroughly has he explained his intention in the Prefaces
to the _Miscellanies_, and to the book itself, that it is difficult to
comprehend how Scott could fail to see his drift. Possibly, like some
others, he found the subject repugnant and painful to his kindly nature.
Possibly, too, he did not, for this reason, study the book very
carefully, for, with the episode of Heartfree under one's eyes, it is
not strictly accurate to say (as he does) that it presents "a picture of
complete vice, _unrelieved by any thing of human feeling_, and never by
any accident even deviating into virtue." If the author's introduction
be borne in mind, and if the book be read steadily in the light there
supplied, no one can refrain from admiring the extraordinary skill and
concentration with which the plan is pursued, and the adroitness with
which, at every turn, the villainy of Wild is approximated to that of
those securer and more illustrious criminals with whom he is so seldom
confused. And Fielding has never carried one of his chief and
characteristic excellences to so great perfection: the book is a model
of sustained and sleepless irony. To make any extracts from it--still
less to make any extracts which should do justice to it, is almost
impracticable; but the edifying discourse between Wild and Count La Ruse
in Book i., and the pure comedy of that in Book iv. with the Ordinary of
Newgate (who objects to wine, but drinks punch because "it is no where
spoken against in Scripture"), as well as the account of the prison
faction between Wild and Johnson, [Footnote: Some critics at this point
appear to have identified Johnson and Wild with Lord Wilmington and Sir
Robert Walpole (who resigned in 1742), while Mr. Keightley suspects that
Wild throughout typifies Walpole. But the advertisement "from the
Publisher" to the edition of 1754 disclaims any such "personal
Application." "The Truth is (he says), as a very corrupt State of Morals
is here represented, the Scene seems very properly to have been laid in
Newgate: Nor do I see any Reason for introducing any allegory at all;
unless we will agree that there are, without those Walls, some other
Bodies of Men of worse Morals than those within; and who have,
consequently, a Right to change Places with its present Inhabitants."
The writer was probably Fielding.] with its admirable speech of the
"grave Man" against Party, may all be cited as examples of its style and
method. Nor should the character of Wild in the last chapter, and his
famous rules of conduct, be neglected. It must be admitted, however,
that the book is not calculated to suit the nicely-sensitive in letters;
or, it may be added, those readers for whom the evolution of a purely
intellectual conception is either unmeaning or uninteresting. Its place
in Fielding's works is immediately after his three great novels, and
this is more by reason of its subject than its workmanship, which could
hardly be excelled. When it was actually composed is doubtful. If it may
be connected with the already-quoted passage in the _Champion_, it must
be placed after March 1740, which is the date of the paper; but, from a
reference to Peter Pounce in Book ii., it might also be supposed to have
been written after _Joseph Andrews_. The Bath simile in chapter xiv.
Book i., makes it likely that some part of it was penned at that place,
where, from an epigram in the _Miscellanies_ "written _Extempore_ in the
Pump Room," it is clear that Fielding was staying in 1742. But, whenever
it was completed, we are inclined to think that it was planned and begun
before _Joseph Andrews_ was published, as it is in the highest degree
improbable that Fielding, always carefully watching the public taste,
would have followed up that fortunate adventure in a new direction by a
work so entirely different from it as _Jonathan Wild_.
A second edition of the _Miscellanies_ appeared in the same year as the
first, namely in 1743. From this date until the publication of _Tom
Jones_ in 1749, Fielding produced no work of signal importance, and his
personal history for the next few years is exceedingly obscure. We are
inclined to suspect that this must have been the most trying period of
his career. His health was shattered, and he had become a martyr to
gout, which seriously interfered with the active practice of his
profession. Again, "about this time," says Murphy vaguely, after
speaking of the _Wedding Day_, he lost his first wife. That she was
alive in the winter of 1742-3 is clear, for, in the Preface to the
_Miscellanies_, he describes himself as being then laid up, "with a
favourite Child dying in one Bed, and my Wife in a Condition very little
better, on another, attended with other Circumstances, which served as
very proper Decorations to such a Scene,"--by which Mr. Keightley no
doubt rightly supposes him to refer to writs and bailiffs. It must also
be assumed that Mrs. Fielding was alive when the Preface was written,
since, in apologising for an apparent delay in publishing the book, he
says the "real Reason" was "the dangerous Illness of one from whom I
_draw_ [the italics are ours] all the solid Comfort of my Life." There
is another unmistakable reference to her in one of the minor papers in
the first volume, viz. that _Of the Remedy of Affliction for the Loss of
our Friends_. "I remember the most excellent of Women, and tenderest of
Mothers, when, after a painful and dangerous Delivery, she was told she
had a Daughter, answering; _Good God! have I produced a Creature who is
to undergo what I have suffered!_ Some Years afterwards, I heard the
same Woman, on the Death of that very Child, then one of the loveliest
Creatures ever seen, comforting herself with reflecting, that _her Child
could never know what it was to feel such a Loss as she then lamented_."
Were it not for the passages already quoted from the Preface, it might
almost be concluded from the tone of the foregoing quotation and the
final words of the paper, which refer to our meeting with those we have
lost in Heaven, that Mrs. Fielding was already dead. But the use of the
word "draw" in the Preface affords distinct evidence to the contrary. It
is therefore most probable that she died in the latter part of 1743,
having been long in a declining state of health. For a time her husband
was inconsolable. "The fortitude of mind," says Murphy, "with which he
met all the other calamities of life, deserted him on this most trying
occasion." His grief was so vehement "that his friends began to think
him in danger of losing his reason."
That Fielding had depicted his first wife in Sophia Western has already
been pointed out, and we have the authority of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu
and Richardson for saying that she was afterwards reproduced in
_Amelia_. "Amelia," says the latter, in a letter to Mrs. Donnellan,
"even to her _noselessness_, is again his first wife." Some of her
traits, too, are to be detected in the Mrs. Wilson of _Joseph Andrews_.
But, beyond these indications, we hear little about her. Almost all that
is definitely known is contained in a passage of the admirable
_Introductory Anecdotes_ contributed by Lady Louisa Stuart in 1837 to
Lord Wharncliffe's edition of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's _Letters and
Works_. This account was based upon the recollections of Lady Bute, Lady
Mary's daughter.
"Only those persons (says Lady Stuart) are mentioned here of whom Lady
Bute could speak from her own recollection or her mother's report. Both
had made her well informed of every particular that concerned her
relation Henry Fielding; nor was she a stranger to that beloved first
wife whose picture he drew in his Amelia, where, as she said, even the
glowing language he knew how to employ did not do more than justice to
the amiable qualities of the original, or to her beauty, although this
had suffered a little from the accident related in the novel,--a
frightful overturn, which destroyed the gristle of her nose. [Footnote:
That any one could have remained lovely after such a catastrophe is
difficult to believe. But probably Lady Bute (or Lady Stuart)
exaggerated its effects; for--to say nothing of the fact that,
throughout the novel, Amelia's beauty is continually commended--in the
delightfully feminine description which is given of her by Mrs. James in
Book xi. chap. i., pp. 114-15 of the first edition of 1752, although she
is literally pulled to pieces, there is no reference whatever to her
nose, which may be taken as proof positive that it was not an assailable
feature. Moreover, in the book as we now have it, Fielding, obviously in
deference to contemporary criticism, inserted the following specific
passages:--"She was, indeed, a most charming woman; and I know not
whether the little scar on her nose did not rather add to, than diminish
her beauty" (Book iv. chap, vii.); and in Mrs. James's portrait:--"Then
her nose, as well proportioned as it is, has a visible scar on one
side." No previous biographer seems to have thought it necessary to make
any mention of these statements, while Johnson's speech about "That vile
broken nose, _never cured_," and Richardson's coarsely-malignant
utterance to Mrs. Donnellan, are everywhere industriously remembered and
repeated.] He loved her passionately, and she returned his affection;
yet led no happy life, for they were almost always miserably poor, and
seldom in a state of quiet and safety. All the world knows what was his
imprudence; if ever he possessed a score of pounds, nothing could keep
him from lavishing it idly, or make him think of tomorrow. Sometimes
they were living in decent lodgings with tolerable comfort; sometimes in
a wretched garret without necessaries; not to speak of the spunging-
houses and hiding-places where he was occasionally to be found. His
elastic gaiety of spirit carried him through it all; but, meanwhile,
care and anxiety were preying upon her more delicate mind, and
undermining her constitution. She gradually declined, caught a fever,
and died in his arms."
As usual, Mr. Keightley has done his best to test this statement to the
utmost. Part of his examination may be neglected, because it is based
upon the misconception that Lord Wharncliffe, Lady Mary's greatgrandson,
and not Lady Stuart, her granddaughter, was the writer of the foregoing
account. But as a set-off to the extreme destitution alleged, Mr.
Keightley very justly observes that Mrs. Fielding must for some time
have had a maid, since it was a maid who had been devotedly attached to
her whom Fielding subsequently married. He also argues that "living in a
garret and skulking in out o' the way retreats," are incompatible with
studying law and practising as a barrister. Making every allowance,
however, for the somewhat exaggerated way in which those of high rank
often speak of the distresses of their less opulent kinsfolk, it is
probable that Fielding's married life was one of continual shifts and
privations. Such a state of things is completely in accordance with his
profuse nature [Footnote: The passage as to his imprudence is, oddly
enough, omitted from Mr. Keightley's quotation.] and his precarious
means. Of his family by the first Mrs. Fielding no very material
particulars have been preserved. Writing, in November 1745, in the _True
Patriot_, he speaks of having a son and a daughter, but no son by his
first wife seems to have survived him. The late Colonel Chester found
the burial of a "James Fielding, son of Henry Fielding," recorded under
date of 19th February 1736, in the register of St. Giles in the Fields;
but it is by no means certain that this entry refers to the novelist. A
daughter, Harriet or Harriot, certainly did survive him, for she is
mentioned in the _Voyage to Lisbon_ as being of the party who
accompanied him. Another daughter, as already stated, probably died in
the winter of 1742-3; and the _Journey from this World to the Next_
contains the touching reference to this or another child, of which
Dickens writes so warmly in one of his letters. "I presently," says
Fielding, speaking of his entrance into Elysium, "met a little Daughter,
whom I had lost several Years before. Good Gods! what Words can describe
the Raptures, the melting passionate Tenderness, with which we kiss'd
each other, continuing in our Embrace, with the most extatic Joy, a
Space, which if Time had been measured here as on Earth, could not have
been less than half a Year."
From the death of Mrs. Fielding until the publication of the _True
Patriot_ in 1745 another comparative blank ensues in Fielding's history;
and it can only be filled by the assumption that he was still
endeavouring to follow his profession as a barrister. His literary work
seems to have been confined to a Preface to the second edition of his
sister's novel of _David Simple_, which appeared in 1744. This, while
rendering fraternal justice to that now forgotten book, is memorable for
some personal utterances on Fielding's part. In denying the authorship
of _David Simple_, which had been attributed to him, he takes occasion
to appeal against the injustice of referring anonymous works to his pen,
in the face of his distinct engagement in the Preface to the
_Miscellanies_, that he would thenceforth write nothing except over his
own signature; and he complains that such a course has a tendency to
injure him in a profession to which "he has applied with so arduous and
intent a diligence, that he has had no leisure, if he had inclination,
to compose anything of this kind (i.e. _David Simple_)." At the same
time, he formally withdraws his promise, since it has in no wise
exempted him from the scandal of putting forth anonymous work. From
other passages in this "Preface," it may be gathered the immediate cause
of irritation was the assignment to his pen of "that infamous paultry
libel" the _Causidicade_, a satire directed at the law in general, and
some of the subscribers to the _Miscellanies_ in particular. "This," he
says, "accused me not only of being a bad writer, and a bad man, but
with downright idiotism, in flying in the face of the greatest men of my
profession." It may easily be conceived that such a report must be
unfavourable to a struggling barrister, and Fielding's anxiety on this
head is a strong proof that he was still hoping to succeed at the Bar.
To a subsequent collection of _Familiar Letters between the Principal
Characters in David Simple and some others_, he supplied another preface
three years later, together with five little-known epistles which,
nevertheless, are not without evidence of his characteristic touch.
A life of ups and downs like Fielding's is seldom remarkable for its
consistency. It is therefore not surprising to find that, despite his
desire in 1744 to refrain from writing, he was again writing in 1745.
The landing of Charles Edward attracted him once more into the ranks of
journalism, on the side of the Government, and gave rise to the _True
Patriot_, a weekly paper, the first number of which appeared in
November. This, having come to an end with the Rebellion, was succeeded
in December 1747 by the _Jacobite's Journal_, supposed to emanate from
"John Trott-Plaid, Esq.," and intended to push the discomfiture of
Jacobite sentiment still further. It is needless to discuss these mainly
political efforts at any length. They are said to have been highly
approved by those in power: it is certain that they earned for their
author the stigma of "pension'd scribbler." Both are now very rare; and
in Murphy the former is represented by twenty-four numbers, the latter
by two only. The _True Patriot_ contains a dream of London abandoned to
the rebels, which is admirably graphic; and there is also a prophetic
chronicle of events for 1746, in which the same idea is treated in a
lighter and more satirical vein. But perhaps the most interesting
feature is the reappearance of Parson Adams, who addresses a couple of
letters to the same periodical--one on the rising generally, and the
other on the "young England" of the day, as exemplified in a very
offensive specimen he had recently encountered at Mr. Wilson's. Other
minor points of interest in connection with the _Jacobite's Journal_,
are the tradition associating Hogarth with the rude woodcut headpiece (a
Scotch man and woman on an ass led by a monk) which surmounted its
earlier numbers, and the genial welcome given in No. 5, perhaps not
without some touch of contrition, to the two first volumes, then just
published, of Richardson's _Clarissa_. The pen is the pen of an
imaginary "correspondent," but the words are unmistakably Fielding's:--
"When I tell you I have lately received this Pleasure [i.e. of reading a
new master-piece], you will not want me to inform you that I owe it to
the Author of CLARISSA. Such Simplicity, such Manners, such deep
Penetration into Nature; such Power to raise and alarm the Passions, few
Writers, either ancient or modern, have been possessed of. My Affections
are so strongly engaged, and my Fears are so raised, by what I have
already read, that I cannot express my Eagerness to see the rest. Sure
this Mr. _Richardson_ is Master of all that Art which _Horace_ compares
to Witchcraft
--Pectus inaniter angit,
Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus implet
Ut Magus.--"
Between the discontinuance of the True Patriot and the establishment of
its successor occurred an event, the precise date of which has been
hitherto unknown, namely, Fielding's second marriage. The account given
of this by Lady Louisa Stuart is as follows:--
"His [Fielding's] biographers seem to have been shy of disclosing that
after the death of this charming woman [his first wife] he married her
maid. And yet the act was not so discreditable to his character as it
may sound. The maid had few personal charms, but was an excellent
creature, devotedly attached to her mistress, and almost broken-hearted
for her loss. In the first agonies of his own grief, which approached to
frenzy, he found no relief but from weeping along with her; nor solace,
when a degree calmer, but in talking to her of the angel they mutually
regretted. This made her his habitual confidential associate, and in
process of time he began to think he could not give his children a
tenderer mother, or secure for himself a more faithful housekeeper and
nurse. At least this was what he told his friends; and it is certain
that her conduct as his wife confirmed it, and fully justified his good
opinion."
It has now been ascertained that the marriage took place at St.
Bene't's, Paul's Wharf, an obscure little church in the City, at present
surrendered to a Welsh congregation, but at that time, like Mary-le-bone
old church, much in request for unions of a private character. The date
in the register is the 27th of November 1747. The second Mrs. Fielding's
maiden name, which has been hitherto variously reported as Macdonnell,
Macdonald, and Macdaniel, is given as Mary Daniel, [Footnote: See note
to Fielding's letter in Chap. vii.] and she is further described as "of
St Clement's Danes, Middlesex, Spinster." Either previously to this
occurrence, or immediately after it, Fielding seems to have taken two
rooms in a house in Back Lane, Twickenham, "not far," says the Rev. Mr.
Cobbett in his _Memorials_, "from the site of Copt Hall." In 1872 this
house was still standing,--a quaint old-fashioned wooden structure;
[Footnote: Now (1883) it no longer exists, and a row of cottages
occupies the site.]--and from hence, on the 25th February 1748, was
baptized the first of the novelist's sons concerning whom any definite
information exists--the William Fielding who, like his father, became a
Westminster magistrate. Beyond suggesting that it may supply a reason
why, during Mrs. Fielding's life-time, her husband's earliest biographer
made no reference to the marriage, it is needless to dwell upon the
proximity between the foregoing dates. In other respects the
circumstance now first made public is not inconsistent with Lady
Stuart's narrative; and there is no doubt, from the references to her in
the _Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon_ and elsewhere, that Mary Daniel did
prove an excellent wife, mother, and nurse. Another thing is made clear
by the date established, and this is that the verses "On Felix; Marry'd
to a Cook-Maid" in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for July 1746, to which
Mr. Lawrence refers, cannot possibly have anything to do with Fielding,
although they seem to indicate that alliances of the kind were not
unusual. Perhaps _Pamela_ had made them fashionable. On the other hand,
the supposed allusion to Lyttelton and Fielding, to be found in the
first edition of _Peregrine Pickle_, but afterwards suppressed, receives
a certain confirmation. "When," says Smollett, speaking of the relations
of an imaginary Mr. Spondy with Gosling Scrag, who is understood to
represent Lyttelton, "he is inclined to marry his own cook-wench, his
gracious patron may condescend to give the bride away; and may finally
settle him in his old age, as a trading Westminster justice." That,
looking to the facts, Fielding's second marriage should have gained the
approval and countenance of Lyttelton is no more than the upright and
honourable character of the latter would lead us to expect.
The _Jacobite's Journal_ ceased to appear in November 1748. In the early
part of the December following, the remainder of Smollett's programme
came to pass, and by Lyttelton's interest Fielding was appointed a
Justice of the Peace for Westminster. From a letter in the _Bedford
Correspondence_, dated 13th December 1748, respecting the lease of a
house or houses which would qualify him to act for Middlesex, it would
seem that the county was afterwards added to his commission. He must
have entered upon his office in the first weeks of December, as upon the
ninth of that month one John Salter was committed to the Gatehouse by
Henry Fielding, Esq., "of Bow Street, Covent Garden, formerly Sir Thomas
de Veil's." Sir Thomas de Veil, who died in 1746, and whose _Memoirs_
had just been published, could not, however, have been Fielding's
immediate predecessor.