The appearance which Fielding makes is no doubt the most modest of the four. He has not Shakespeare’s absolute universality, and in fact not merely the poet’s tongue, but the poet’s thought seems to have been denied him. His sphere is not the ideal like Milton’s. His irony, splendid as it is, falls a little short of that diabolical magnificence which exalts Swift to the point whence, in his own way, he surveys all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory or vainglory of them. All Fielding’s critics have noted the manner, in a certain sense modest, in another ostentatious, in which he seems to confine himself to the presentation of things English. They might have added to the presentation of things English—as they appear in London, and on the Western Circuit, and on the Bath Road.
But this apparent parochialism has never deceived good judges. It did not deceive Lady Mary, who had seen the men and manners of very many climes; it did not deceive Gibbon, who was not especially prone to overvalue things English, and who could look down from twenty centuries on things ephemeral. It deceives, indeed, I am told, some excellent persons at the present day, who think Fielding’s microcosm a “toylike world,” and imagine that Russian Nihilists and French Naturalists have gone beyond it. It will deceive no one who has lived for some competent space of time a life during which he has tried to regard his fellow-creatures and himself, as nearly as a mortal may, sub specie æternitatis.
As this is in the main an introduction to Fielding’s four great novels, the justification in detail of the estimate just made or hinted of the novelist’s genius will be best and most fitly made by a brief discussion of the four as presented; and, indeed, it is not fanciful to perceive in each book a somewhat different presentment of the author’s genius, though in no one of the four is any one of his masterly qualities absent. There is tenderness even in Jonathan Wild; there are touches in Joseph Andrews of that irony of the Preacher, the last echo of which is heard amid the kindly resignation of the Journey to Lisbon, in the sentence, “Whereas envy of all things most exposes us to danger from others, so contempt of all things best secures us from them.” But on the whole it is safe to say that Joseph Andrews best presents Fielding’s mischievous and playful wit; Jonathan Wild his half-Lucianic, half-Swiftian irony; Tom Jones his unerring knowledge of human nature, and his constructive faculty; Amelia his tenderness, his mitis sapientia, his observation of the details of life. And first of the first.
The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and his Friend Mr. Abraham Adams was, as has been said above, published in February 1742. In the agreement between author and publisher, it is not uninteresting to observe that the witness, William Young, is none other than the asserted original of the immortal Mr. Adams himself. He might, on Balzac’s plea in a tolerably well-known anecdote, have demanded half of the £183 11s. Of the other origins of the book we have a pretty full account, partly documentary. That it is “writ in the manner of Cervantes,” and is intended as a kind of comic epic, is the author’s own statement—no doubt as near the actual truth as is consistent with comic-epic theory. That there are resemblances to Scarron, to Le Sage, and to other practitioners of the Picaresque novel is certain; and it was inevitable that there should be. Of directer and more immediate models or starting- points one is undoubted; the other, though less generally admitted, not much less indubitable to my mind. The parody of Richardson’s Pamela, which was little more than a year earlier (November 1740), is avowed, open, flagrant; nor do I think that the author was so soon carried away by the greater and larger tide of his own invention as some critics seem to hold. He is always more or less returning to the ironic charge; and the multiplicity of the assailants of Joseph’s virtue only disguises the resemblance to the long-drawn dangers of Pamela from a single ravisher. But Fielding was also well acquainted with Marivaux’s Paysan Parvenu, and the resemblances between that book and Joseph Andrews are much stronger than Fielding’s admirers have always been willing to admit. This recalcitrance has, I think, been mainly due to the erroneous conception of Marivaux as, if not a mere fribble, yet a Dresden-Shepherdess kind of writer, good at “preciousness” and patch-and-powder manners, but nothing more. There was, in fact, a very strong satiric and ironic touch in the author of Marianne, and I do not think that I was too rash when some years ago I ventured to speak of him as “playing Fielding to his own Richardson” in the Paysan Parvenu.
Origins, however, and indebtedness and the like, are, when great work is concerned, questions for the study and the lecture-room, for the literary historian and the professional critic, rather than for the reader,