THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
BY
SIR ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR
KNT. CENSOR or GREAT BRITAIN
(HENRY FIELDING)
EDITED BY
GERARD EDWARD JENSEN
VOLUME I
NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS MDCCCCXV
PR 34.
C5
ni
v. I
COPYRIGHT, 1915
BY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
First printed, December, 1915, 500 copies
TO
MY FATHER AND MY MOTHER AND IN MEMORY OF E. R. R.
PREFACE
In this edition of Henry Fielding's contributions to his Covent-Garden Journal I have omitted two book- reviews which are very obviously not his, but have reprinted all of the leading articles irrespective of their authorship. The accentuation and punctuation of the original have been followed throughout; and with the exception of the substitution of the modern s for the older form and of the separate Greek char acters in place of ligatures, no changes have been made in the original text. The presence of rotograph prints of the entire Journal in the Yale Library and the publication of these volumes, now for the first time make a complete text readily available.
The most important service which I have rendered to students of the Journal is the discovery of all the folio numbers missing in the British Museum. Another gratifying discovery is the evidence that Fielding was generous with his money at a time when he is supposed to have been in financial distress — witness his support of the Lying-in Hospital on Brownlow Street. In gathering the material which has a direct bearing on the Newspaper- War, I have been able to do another slight service in a relatively unimportant field. Finally, I believe that I have definitely proved that the Z. Z. signature commonly supposed to be Fielding's is not his.
My thanks are due to Messrs. Henry W. Thompson, of London, and F. F. Norcross, of Chicago, for obtain ing access to the collection of the late John Henry
viii PREFACE
Wrenn, of Chicago, in whose library is a complete file of the numbers of this Journal. I am indebted espe cially to Professor W. L. Cross, of New Haven, for his companionship and suggestions during the prepa ration of this work, but I can make no adequate acknowledgment of my debt here.
G. E. J. Philadelphia, Pa.
CONTENTS
Introduction : PAGE
Origin of the Journal ...... 1
General Character of the Journal ... 8
The Newspaper- War ...... 29
Fielding's Word-Usage and Signatures . . 99
Fielding's Style as Drawcansir .... 105
Texts and Editions 120
Appendix ....... 125
Text of the Journal:
No. 1. Drawcansir 's Introductory Editorial . 133
A Journal of the War .... 137
No. 2. Contemporary Morals .... 139
A Journal of the War .... 145
No. 3. Rules for Critics 147
A Journal of the War .... 151
No. 4. A Modern Glossary .... 153
A Journal of the War .... 157
No. 5. A Review of the Paper- War ... 160
First Sitting of the Censorial Court . . 164
No. 6. The Destruction of Works of Learning . 167
No. 7. Letters to the Author .... 172
The Trial of Amelia .... 178
No. 8. The Robinhoodians in Debate ... 181
The Trial of Amelia, concluded . . 186
No. 9. The Robinhoodians in History . . 187
Proceedings at the Court . . . 192
No. 10. Taste in Books and Reading . . . 193
Trial of Mr. Mossop .... 197
No. 11. Means of Providing for the Poor . . 199
Prints and Print-Sellers on Trial 204
x CONTENTS
PAGE
No. 12. Posterity's Lying Historians . . . 205
Miss Molly Blandy's Portrait ... 211
No. 13. Letters to the Author .... 213
No. 14. Slander and Murder .... 219
_ No. 15. The Theatrical State . ... 224
Trial of B— T— 229
No. 16. Letters from Axylus and Z. Z. . . 231
No. 17. The Incredible in History ... 238
•^ No. 18. The Perry and Champagne of Literature . 243
No. 19. An Essay on Humour .... 248
No. 20. Axylus' Second Letter .... 253
No. 21. lago's Reply to Axylus . ... 258
No. 22. The Story of Astulpho and Jucundo . 264
No. 23. The Literary Commonwealth . . . 269
No. 24. "Vain Curiosity and Diligence in Trifles" 274
Review of the Female Quixote . . 279
No. 25. A Letter on the Force of Public Executions 282
-No. 26. Hearers at the Play-House ... 287
No. 27. An Essay on 'Betters' . . . . 293
No. 28. An Elegy on the late Prince of Wales . 298
Letters from Eugenio and Z. Z. . 300
Mr. Havard's Benefit .... 304
No. 29. Axylus' Third Letter .... 305
No. 30. A Dialogue at Tunbridge Wells . . 310
No. 31. A Reconstruction of the Text of Hamlet . 315
No. 32. Letters to the Author .... 320
No. 33. An Essay on Profanity . . . . 326
No. 34. The Profession of Acting ... 332
No. 35. Misargurus' Letter on Money . . 336
No. 36. Every-Body's Letter .... 340
No. 37. People of Fashion 344
No. 38. Benevolus' Letter 349
--No. 39. An Essay on Charity .... 354
No. 40. A Treatise on the Pert, and Two Letters 359
No. 41. Letters by No-Body and Benevolus . 364
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
View of Covent Garden (about 1720) . Frontispiece
A title-page of the Journal ..... 10
A fourth page of the Journal ..... 12
A Night Scene at Ranelagh 72
Le Malade Imaginaire ...... 74
The Robin Hood 182
Miss Molly Blandy 204
Mrs. Charlotte Lennox 280
THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
INTRODUCTION.
THE ORIGIN OF THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL.
At the time when he was planning to issue his Covent-Garden Journal, in November, 1751, " Henry Fielding, Esq.," who had attained great prominence as a novelist and as a writer on legal subjects, was at the highest point of his career. In the law, after a long apprenticeship, he had procured, in 1748, a position much beneath his powers, but one which paid him a very necessary income — the office of Justice of the Peace for Westminster ; and in 1749 his jurisdiction was extended to the County of Middlesex. In this office he acted as a kind of police-court magis trate, giving to it more time and more arduous labor than he was really fit to give, and had gained therein some distinction and no little notoriety. There he had conducted his duties most efficiently and honestly (unlike his predecessors), and had gone far beyond what was required of him in an attempt to reform the corrupt methods of administering justice and to remedy defects in the laws themselves. He had already published his Increase of Robbers, and had in mind other schemes for ridding London of its large horde of criminals and for providing for its poor.1
As a novelist Fielding had already accomplished his
i See London Daily Advertiser, No. 229, Nov. 25, 1751, and Notes on No. 36, I. 341. 27.
2 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
greatest work with the publication, in 1749, of Tom, Jones; and in November, 1751, he was preparing for the press his last novel, Amelia, a book which brought him a substantial reward and gave him renewed prominence in the literary world. But in his own day, Fielding seems never to have gained that just and full measure of appreciation and praise which later gen erations have given him. Yet in the rapid sale of his novels and in the praise of a few worthy critics, Field ing must have found no little satisfaction, even in the face of numerous hostile criticisms; for whatever degree of success he had won was due to his own natural talents and his unceasing labor. Some credit, however, must be given to the encouragement and assistance which had come from his friends — men who continued their support in his new venture: Henry Pelham, the Prime Minister; the Duke of Bedford, whose "princely benefactions » n to Fielding may have included the rental of the Bow-Street house in which Fielding lived with his second wife ; Kalph Allen,2 who continued to assist the Fielding family even after Henry's death; George Lyttleton, to whose influence he owed his appointment to the office of Justice ; and such associates as Garrick and Hogarth.3
One naturally wonders why Fielding, at this point in his career, contemplated writing a paper which he must have realized, from previous experiences,4 would bring a swarm of enemies about him, even though it might well serve his purpose. His main motive seems to have been unselfish— a whole-hearted desire to
iDobson's Life (N. Y. 1900), p. 164. 2 The patron of Amelia.
No 21 2 °' 3> L 151' M; f°r Hogarth> Notes on
* The Champion, Jacobite's Journal, and True Patriot.
INTRODUCTION 3
reform the manners and morals of the age, and to remedy the defects in the administering of justice to those whom the pernicious influences of the age had perverted.1 In analyzing other possible motives, we must reject the idea that Fielding intended to make his paper a political sheet for the support of the party then in power, for we find him expressly denying any such intention in his first issue, and faithfully adher ing to his word thereafter. It is also certain that Fielding, in his first plan, had no intention of con ducting a paper-war which was to be waged chiefly with abusive personal attacks ; for at the time he was ignored by most of his enemies, and was on good terms with his arch-enemy, John Hill, the * Inspector/ Indeed, after delaying the publication of his Journal to a time when he might well have found cause to retaliate bitterly for his enemies7 abuse of Amelia, it is evident that he had no intention of doing this, even in printing the account of the mock Paper-War in his early issues. For in this "jocose war," begun in friendly conflict with Hill, there was to be no per sonal abuse, merely gentle ridicule of the Grub-Street publications — as Fielding puts it, "vice and folly, not particular men" were to be ridiculed; but he did not foresee that Hill would use forbidden weapons and that he would have to be fought with personal ridicule. Closely connected with his program of reform, there was in Fielding's mind a very strong desire for giving publicity to his work and plans in his office of Justice of the Peace — his attempts to reconstruct the legal machinery with which he worked. But we must not overlook another very probable motive, one, however, which certainly was not uppermost in Fielding's mind.
i See Nos. 4 and 5.
4 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
This was his very earnest desire to add to his insuffi cient income, and to provide for his family's welfare in the days when he knew he would be prostrated by his chronic illness. Since early in the forties, Fielding had been suffering from the gout; and now, after a very serious attack in 1749, was somewhat better, but still going about on crutches.1 He refers to himself in his Journal as an old man,2 though he had not yet begun his forty-sixth year ; and his unkind contempo raries speak of him as in his decline, in a physical and mental dotage;3 but the spirit of the man was by no means old or broken as yet. Indeed, it was two years before he finally gave in to his disease and took, as a last resort, a sea-voyage to Lisbon, where he died of a complication of disorders. In this condition, with a wife and children on his hands and two homes to keep up, one in Bow Street and the other near Baling, Fielding's expenses must have exceeded the slender income received from his regular employment, a sum "little more than £300, a considerable portion of which remained with my clerk . . ."* It is also apparent that the £700 received from his Tom Jones, and the £1000 from his Amelia were insufficient to tide him over any great length of time; for at the beginning of the winter of 1753, his private affairs, to quote his own words, "had but a gloomy aspect. "5 Even with the assistance of his wealthy friends, his total income
1 See Old England, Dec. 2, 1752, on p. 91, below.
2 See No. 8, I. 186. 34.
s See extract from Old England, on p. 40, below, and Smollett 's Faith ful Narrative, Henley Edit., XII. 175. In this last Fielding is represented as old and failing. Smollett mentions his having lost all of his teeth, and this seems to be borne out in Hogarth's portrait of Fielding.
* Journal of a Voyage, Henley Edit., XVI. 190.
5 Hid., p. 189.
INTRODUCTION 5
seems to have been inadequate ;x it is no wonder, there fore, that he undertook his Covent-Garden Journal as a possible new source of income. From the sale of this paper and from the advertisements therein he certainly must have derived some profit; no such venture would have weathered eleven months unless it had paid Fielding some slight return. Then by inserting in his Journal the advertisements of the Universal Register Office, an employment bureau founded by John and Henry Fielding in 1749, Fielding may have increased the business of this concern, and may have realized a better return on his twenty shares in it.
Preceding Fielding's Covent-Garden Journal there had been a paper by the same name, one which may have suggested to Fielding the title for his own paper :
The Covent-Garden JOURNAL. No. I.
To be publish' d Once every Month-, during the present WESTMINSTER ELECTION
By PAUL WRONGHEAD, of the Fleet, Esq:
TUESDAY, December 5, 1749. Printed for T. Smith, R. Webb, and 8. Johnson . . .
This is a single folio,2 printed on one side only, and is an ephemeral political sheet directed at Lord Trentham ; but, beyond the suggestiveness of its name, has no more connection with Fielding's paper than has the Covent-Garden Journal of 1810, or the Covent- Garden Magazine of 1774.
1 See extract from Spring-Garden Journal on p. 95, below.
2 In the British Museum.
6 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
The first announcement of Henry Fielding's venture came in the London Daily Advertiser, Friday, Novem ber 1, 1751, in a paragraph immediately following an advertisement of his Universal Register Office, and reads as follows:
At this OFFICE
On Saturday the 23d instant will be published (Price Three-Pence)
The Covent-Garden JOURNAL A Paper of ENTERTAINMENT By Several EMINENT HANDS
To be continued every Tuesday and Saturday in the Morning.
All Persons who are pleased to subscribe their Names and Places of Abode at the said Office, will be supplied with this Paper at their Houses.
This announcement, however, was premature, for Fielding did not publish his new paper on the date which he had set ; and when that date had passed, gave no notice of postponing publication until December 18th, of that same year, the day on which he published his Amelia. In the second volume of this book, at the end, . there is an advertisement of the Universal Register Office, and, following it, this notice :
All Persons, who intend to take in THE COVENT- GARDEN JOURNAL, which will be certainly published on Saturday the 4th of January next, Price 3d. are desired to send their Names, and Places of Abode, to the above Office, opposite Cecil-Street in the Strand. And the said Paper will then be delivered at their Houses.
INTRODUCTION 7
On the same day, the London Daily Advertiser con tains the following advertisement:
On Saturday January 4 will be Published,
Price Three-pence (And to be continued every Tuesday and Saturday)
The Covent-Garden JOURNAL
By Sir Alexander Drawcansir, Knight,
CENSOR of Great Britain.
Those Gentlemen and Ladies who are willing to take in this Paper . . . [the rest slightly varied from the wording of the previous notice].
Herein we discover the date to which Fielding had postponed his first issue, but no explanation of the delay ; and, secondly, the new heading under which his paper might be expected to appear, and under which it did make its appearance on the date advertised. On the face of things, Fielding had changed his first plan of issuing a paper by Several Eminent Hands, and was now about to act in solitary grandeur as Knight-Censor. The significance of this change is somewhat uncertain,1 but the delay in publication is readily explained here by stating that the labor involved in the publication of Amelia, in addition to the burden of Fielding 's other work, made the earlier publication of his Journal impossible. Subsequent to this date, Fielding advertised his paper in the London Daily Advertiser on the 19th, 23d, and 31st of Decem ber, and in the Whitehall Evening Post on the 24th of December and the 4th of the next month, the day on which his paper first appeared.
i See pp. 99 ff ., below, for signatures and tests for Fielding 's contri butions.
8 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE JOURNAL.
The Covent-Garden Journal was published during eleven months of 1752, and went through seventy-two issues, all uniform in general appearance, each number containing four three-column pages measuring 10% inches by 16*4 inches. Throughout its career this paper was issued regularly from the press of Mrs. Dodd, at the Peacock, Temple-Bar. Beginning on January 4, 1752, as a bi-weekly, the Journal was issued on Tuesdays and Saturdays until July 4th (No. 53) ; and thereafter was issued on Saturdays only, the final number appearing on November 25th. There is an apparent gap of two weeks between the sixty-first number, on August 29th, and the sixty-second, on September 15th, but as a matter of fact only five days elapsed between these two issues; for under the pro visions of the Calendar Act,1 September 2d was reckoned as September 14th, eleven days being dropped in order to bring England's reckoning up to the Gregorian computation then generally adopted on the Continent. During the year the headquarters of this Journal were at Fielding's Universal Register Office, opposite Cecil Street in the Strand; but Mrs. Dodd acted also as his agent in taking in advertise ments and Letters to the Author, and in selling the paper.
In its own day the Covent-Garden Journal was some what unique in form and contents, and in the style of its leading articles resembled the earlier types more closely than the contemporary. Indeed, the whole
1 1751.
INTRODUCTION 9
sheet smacks less of purely business interests, and has a stronger personal atmosphere than any other of the bona fide newspapers which were then being issued. In format it was slightly smaller than the other news- sheets, and was on better paper and better printed — in appearance a superior sheet and in price unusually high, bringing in threepence an issue.1 Fielding speaks of this superiority in format, and contends,2 in a humorous vein, that the unusual excellence of its contents also warranted his charging an unusual rate for subscriptions. To be sure, his leaders are not extraordinarily excellent essays, but in that period they certainly were quite out of the ordinary, and if not more highly regarded in his own day than those of his contemporaries, are now of especial value to students of Fielding.
These leaders and the contributed articles, which sometimes took their place, usually occupied the three columns of the first page and several of the second, but rarely ran over five columns in all. The rest of the columns was given up to a pageful, more or less, of news, — Modern History, Foreign Affairs, stock- quotations, news from Fielding's Covent-Garden Office, and legal notices — which ran over pages two, three, and four; and to paid advertisements, which usually filled the last page, or were divided between pages two and four. In addition to this, there ap peared in the first four numbers a Journal of the Paper-War, and in the following twenty-four issues3 occasional reports of the Proceedings of his Censorial Court.
1 Each number, however, bore a paper-tax stamp of a halfpenny.
2 In No. 1, I. 136. 19.
3 There is one isolated case in No. 72.
10 THE COVERT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Every number was headed by the title1 which is herein shown in facsimile facing p. 8, and each of the seventy-two leaders, excepting that in No. 63,2 begins with an appropriate motto. The greater number of these leaders are essays from Fielding's pen and are signed with his pen-initials. But there are also many contributed articles in prose and verse; and in some cases we find bits of verse contributed probably by Fielding himself. All of these leaders, together with most of the reports from the Censorial Court, are herein reprinted entire, with notes, for the first time. The other parts (a facsimile of the last page faces p. 12, below) need a brief description here.
The news, both foreign and domestic, was taken bodily from the current newspapers and arranged under the week-days which had elapsed since the last issue. For the first fifty-three numbers due acknowl edgment was made to those papers by suffixing to the items the initials of the papers from which they had been borrowed — L. D. A. indicating the London Daily Advertiser; L. G., the London Gazetteer, etc.; but thereafter the custom was dropped. This was a most convenient and inexpensive system — no reporters were required, merely a pair of scissors and a paste- pot. His Modern History (London and country news) in the first sixteen issues was enlivened Cum Notis Variorum, serious or humorous comments on the home news of the day, in spirit sharply sarcastic, sympathetic, or burlesque. Take for instance this gem:3
1 Unchanged except for dates and the insertion of 3d. beginning with No. 5.
2 See Notes on 63, II. 97. 6. a From No. 1 (p. 2, c. 3).
The Covent- Garden Journal.
By Sir ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR, Knt. Cenfor of CHEAT BRITAIN. Price 3d.] . SATURDAY, JUNE a/, 1752. NUMB. 51
To be continued every TUESDAY and SATUI
Hands. This was formerly an inconfidc- ture of which, is extremely eafy, as well
iiti trwit aria "- rablc Bufinefs, and very few got their as extremely lucrative. The Principal
Bread by it ; but fome ingenious Per- of thefe, are Blafphemy, Treafon, B.W-
Vl*°- fons have of la;t fo greatly extended it. dry and Scandal. For in the making
0 . that there are at prefent almoft as many up of all thefe, the Qmlifieations above-
• m»Jt beyturgtldm Rulei. Print-Shops, as there arc Bakers in this mentioned, together with that Modefty.
Metropolis. which is infeparab|e from them, would
This Improvement hath been owing to be rather an Incumbrance than of any
a deep Penetration into human Nature, real ufe.
by which it hath been difcovered, that .. No fooner were thefe new fafhioned there are two Sights which the Gcncrali- Warts brought to Market, than the Pa ly of Mankind do hunger after, with lit- per Merchants, commonly culled Book- tic kfs Avidity, than after their daily tellers, found fo immcnfc a Demand for fiderable Improve- Bread. The one is to behold ceitain them, that their Bufinefs was to find ments of late Years, pirts which are (trendy common to one Hands juffirknt to fyflj tbt Watts ef than the Manufacture of Paper. To fuch half of the Species exhibited to View, in tbt PMii. In this however, they had no Perfeaion is this brought at prefent, the moft amiable and inviting Manneri great Difficulty, as the Work was la ex- that it almoft promifes to rival die great the other is to fee certain Faces, which tremely eafy, that no Talents whatever ftaple Commodity of this Kingdom. bclong'to Individuals, t-xpt-fed in a ridi- (except that of being able to write) not ', .The two principal Branches of this culous and contemptible Light. By even the Capacity of Spelling ; w«e rc- - : carried on by Painting feeding both which Appetites the Print- ouilkr.
To what a Degree of makers' have very plentifully fed them- The Methods however which have
\rtifts are arrived in the fclves. been ufcd by the Paper- Merchant* to
former, I need not mention. Our paint- I come now to the fecond Branch of- make thefc new falhioned Wares univer-
ed Paper is fc«rce diftinguifhablc from Printing, namely to that which- is per- (ally known, are very ingenious and wof-
Ihc fioeft Silk i and there is fcarce a mo- formed at the Letter-prefs, and which thy our \otke.
dern Houfc, which hath not one or mote confifts of -Books, Pamphlets. Papers, Tlie firft of thefe Methods was for the
Rooms lined with this Furniture. tec. ' The flourifhing State of this Ma- Mrrchim himfelf to mount in the moft
But however valuable this Branch nufafture needs no Kind of Pro.f. It public Part of di: Tovn into a wooden
may be, it » by no Means equal io that i, indeed certain, th»t more Paper i, now Machine e.-,llcd ;hc Pillory, where ht
which is carried on by Printing. Of confumed this Way in » Week, thin flood for the Spaa, of an Hour prorhim-
fuch Confequence indeed to the' Public was formerly- the Confumption of a ing his Goods to all tMst paft that Way.
may this Part of the Paper Manufacture Year. This was praclifar with much Succefs by
be made, that I doubt not but that with To this notable Encreafe, nothing per- the late Mr. Curl, Mr. Mift and others
proper Care, it would he capable of find- haps hath more contributed, than the who never Mtd of felling fcvcr.l large
mg an ample Provifion for the Poor, new Invention of writing without the Bale, of Goods in this Manner.
To which Purpofe il fcems better adapt- Qualifications of any Genius or Learn- Notwithllanding however the Profits
• ' i which I ing. The firft- Printers, podlbly miflcd •rifinit from this Method i ' ~
edthan any other, fora Kcafon which I ing. The firft; Printers, poffibly mifled arifingfrora this Method of Publication,
ftiall prefemly afllgn. by an1 old Precept in one Horace, fcrm it w.is not without Objraions ; for fevcral
Of Printing likewifr, there are two to have imagined, that both thofe in- wanton Perfons among the Mob, were
Kinds •, that of the Rolling, and that of gredients were ncceflary in the Writer, ufcd on fuch Occafions to divert thcm-
the Letter Prcfs, —or perhaps I (halt be and accordingly we find they employed f.-lvts by pelting the M;ich:,nt while Ip
fcttter'underftood by moft of my Readers, themfc-lves on fuch Samples only, as flood expofcd on the PuiLiSMixe-
by die Terms Prints and Books. * were produced by Men, in whom Gc- STOOL, with rotten Eggs ami other mif-
The Former (though of infinitely the nius and Learning concurred ; but mo- chk»ous Implements, by which Means,
Itfs Confcquencc) hath bten of late much dern Times have difcovcred, that (he he often came off much bedawbtd, and
improved-, and though it doth not con- Trade is very well to be carried on with Ibmedmn not without bodily Hurt,
fume a great Quantity of Paper, doth out either; and this by introducing (eve- Some of the more cunning ther.fore
however employ a great Number of ral new Kin 1 of Wares, the Manufcc- among du Merchants began to decline
No*, flat Pafer is to it bad at the Univcrfal Regiftcr Office, MCA/ tit Cwntr of Bilhonfg»te.fticet. Coruhill.
A TITLE-PAGE OF THE JOURNAL
INTRODUCTION 11
"We are assured there will be no Ode performed in the Great Council Chamber at St. James's this Day [Wed. Jan. 1st], as has been usual on New Year's Day. Id. — // this Fact be true, the Town will have this Year escaped both the annual Odes; and the true Lovers of the Muses may hope, that the Laureate will, for the future, make a Sine Cure of his Office."
This was, of course, directed against Fielding 's old enemy, Colley Gibber, then Laureate, whose wretched Odes were perpetrated upon the town at regular intervals.1 But after No. 16, Fielding abandoned adding these comments, and gradually increased the quantity of his news ; until, at the last, especially when the paper was issued on Saturdays only, nearly one- half of the entire paper was filled solid with home and foreign news.
Newsgathering in those days was particularly diffi cult in all matters which went on outside of London, but of the city news there was an easy and abundant supply. Most of the country and foreign news came by letter, often from special correspondents situated in the larger cities. One reads with great interest of Benjamin Franklin 's electrical experiments in Philadelphia, of troubles in India and other colonial possessions :
"By a Letter from Fort St. George, dated the 24th of October last [1751], we have an Account that Trichonopoly is closely besieged, as is also Arcot. The former is defended by Gingeus, the other by Clive. Sindarsack's Army, with the French, are very numer ous, and all Communications are cut off from both Places. L. D. A." — Covent-Garden Journal, March 10th.
i See Notes on No. 1, I. 135. 29.
12 TEE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Then in addition to the petty chronicles of London, life, there loomed up large the topics of the smallpox plague, military affairs, murders, robberies, and hang ings. One's life then hung by a very slender thread:
"Some Weeks past the Grave-Digger at Chelwood, in Somersetshire, open'd a Grave, wherein a Man who died of the Small-Pox had been interr'd about thirty Years ago — By the Deceased's Desire, he was buried in an Oak Coffin, which was now so firm, that it might have been taken out whole : but the Grave-Digger not chusing that, forc'd his Spade through the Lid, when there came forth such a Stench, that he never smelt the like be fore. — It being a Person of Credit that was to be buried in the Grave, the whole Village attended the Funeral, as well as many People from the neighbouring Villages; and a few Days after, fourteen Persons were seized in one Day with the usual Symptoms of the Small-Pox, and in three Days more every Soul, but two, in the whole Village, who had not had it, were seized in the like Manner. — Their Disorder proved to be that Disease, and was so favourable that no more than two Persons died of the whole Number, which was about Thirty; and one of them was a Woman who came down Stairs when the Pock was at the Height, and died the same Night. — The same Disorder was carried all round the Villages, by the Country People who attended the Funeral, and proved very favourable every where." — Covent-Garden Journal, April 18th.
In these columns we read also of the social whirl in London, in Bath, and Tunbridge Wells ; of the Gunning sisters1 who took London society by storm and during the year "set in great Houses "; of nobility, even royalty, in their goings and comings between London
i See Notes on No. 12, I. 210. 22.
Neck, and wa. obliged to <K l«p they had continued Cone Time in Devoaon, S« aflced Leave to falute Mif, Jeffrie., but fhe ref ed him that Favour, which (he granted to
Quarter after Tw«. Swan wi, taker. Hurdle into the Can, where Mrf. Jrfrie, .gam hinted away upon puttwg &e Rop= «bo« her N«k, and wagged _» * f'K^0d0n S± t Die' ref.f. *& (he granted to the
cy mutually (orgaveone
anothet Mit Jeffrie, had two Handkerchief, tied aboat her Head and Face after her Bo«Kt wt-^enotbotftekeptonherCapachu,. A. ^urteen Minute, after thVee the Cart wu daw. from under them, anj they were hung very low. the two End. Of one long Rope fen-ing them both, »hich in the Middle wa, twilled about the .pper Beam of the Gibbet. The Length «f the Rope occaf.oned them both to twift round, and her Head Ml into Swan'. Bofom, in which Man-
3&3i Ml&£K4!'~S BOARDING-SCHOOL
of herP»Tiiia in Acgu» !?$>•
To whieh will he added. An Appendix containing feveral ongmil Let- ten, nowln Pofleffion of the Editor.
A true a»d faithful Accoun't of her Behaviour wlilft under Sentence of Death, with a Copy of K i. Dac-LAa ATIOH (he intend, to bring with her to the Place of Ejceculxw.
Printed for A. Millar in the Strand.
•„• All other Narrative, and Account, of what
raffed between Mif. Blandy and Mr. Cranftoun
will be fpuriou, ; and Mif, Blandy will anthen-
_.,.»_.*- , ricate the Pamphlet here mentioned, in the moft
ner (he expired. The Executioner behaved very ggg^ M^ ^ dtcUrillf [n« Whole to •Bfcilfully. and a fad to have been hired pu/- ^ ^ ^ , WM,,cn ,„,, lr.!x dlc. pofelr by Mifs Jeffrie., and to be one who h: utoj , j^^afl inp^mcc Of two Clergymen
of Reputation, who will atten rhi..
ANDREW MILLAR.
i he wa. re-
_ i";m d«" Cart to the Eagle at Snarelhrook, n airier to be hung in Chain,. Id.
frtftmri /. ("•> " t<T*"
vntt itt »'•»/ Sivirit} rftki Lfui.
(Price One Shilling)
SOME REMARKS
Infpcr!tor. General of Great Britain.
In a Serfc, of Letter, from a Gentleman inTowt to Ut Friend in the Cowtry, with occa&onal Him. relatrra to a parallel Performance of a certain noble
Mr. HOGARTH
Propoffi to Publijb by SUBSCRIPTION,
A ttort Tra« in Quarto, called THE
ANALYS I S of B EAUTY.
Prints, fcrioul and comical
Two explanatory Prints, fcrioul and comica engraved « Urge Copper-PUte.. 6t to frame for
r.w shii
of'th'eDrloeiandPrir,n. .ftej the SuMaiptioa S. over.
.jsgK^A-*^
Work, bound or oAcrwaji.
Mi.hk* •/ A. Millar, « i*r StnmJ.
THE Twelve following valuable Work..
1. Jac. Aurufli THUANI HiAoriz fui Temp*.
i.'riw Wnb of tin Hon. ROBERT BOYLE,
,. VHeVorki of Lord BACON, 4 "I. 1 The Work, of JOHN LOCK, TL!a> j vol. I! TheProfeWork.of JOHN MILTON, » vol i. The Oceana, and other Work, of JAMES
HARR1NTON. 7. N. BACON, ot «h« Goremni** tad Liw. «f
B.^?e"work. of EDMUND LUDLOW. E% . ALGERNON SIDNEY1. Difcourfe. on Ge-
rOUTH are ctrcfuily boarded
and educated in all Branchei of ufefui ind
public Office., orCompting-Houfcj :. \ particu larly aught the Cr«k and Latin Ciaffic. |»ith their Antiquities and moft beautiful Palfegck judi. cioufly explained and applied) the molt ufcful Bt.nche.of d.«M.them.Z,. Geography an.,,* and modem, French, F.nglilh. Writmg. Ari.h. j, metic in all it, Part,, MochaM. Accolpu, tc, at reaibnablc Kate., by
^NBAS BAYNES, A.B. And proper ACfiann.
The Temper, a, well a, Genins of Youth are carefully ftuaicd, the ftrifteH Regard had to t!-.eir Moral., and the French Languiw Ln,ve,faUy talked in the Family. The Houfe pU^fant and comrnodiou* The Air temperate , and good Cold.
N. B. There are fepantte genteel Ap
for fingle Gentlemen or for >nung Noblemen, Gentlemen and, heir Tutor,, With prop.' Conve- nieoces and good ag«cable Ccmpany.
MUSEUM
CR-fECUM & -rEGYPTIACUM.
CONTAINING,
Twenty PRINTS
or, VIEWS and ANTIQUITIES
i N GREECE and EGYPT }
Amonglt which are
Large View, of Con&utinoDle, the Grotto at Antipww, andtheF>-nu»id,.
Seetjons of the two Pyramid, that are open ; their
•aMM&NI given, with human Figure! drawn therein, to g.ve an immediate Idea ef their fe-
Engraved from. Draw ing. taken on the Spot, bjr
.t M>. D.lton-., >t Mr. D.fr,-'. I* 0«"t Ii- Si. JUM.-.J «W .t M». brifia't, ta fto-
dy » bedeUTered to (ie SoWcribcn.
LONDON: Printed and 8oM by Mr.. Do»p, M the Pttcick.'Itmpk-Bv, wd.t the OFFICE woofue Ceeil-Strta, in the S/rW, where ABT»|TISEMEJ<T. and LETT
d.t the UNIVERSAL REGISTER ERS » the AUTHOR are
A FOURTH PAGE OF THE JOURNAL
INTRODUCTION 13
and the country; of drums, routs, levees, and other entertainments; of the activities of the infant Royal Society; of shipping and trade; and of such soul- stirring spectacles as that of Slack the Butcher's knocking out Falkener in twenty-seven and one-half minutes at Broughton's Amphitheatre. One notices that there were no columns reserved for Births, Mar riages, and Deaths,1 as there are today; such notices were mixed in with incongruous companion items, and obviously comprised only a small portion of the vital statistics of the day.
In his advertisements Fielding seems to have been quite fortunate, especially in his earlier issues; for seldom an issue appeared, up to No. 53, without a full page of advertisements. And, curiously enough, Fielding seems to have exercised some care in his acceptance of copy for this section ; indeed, we do not find in his paper any such objectionable advertise ments as those found in other contemporary papers, conspicuous among which were those contributed by the notorious Dr. Richard Rock.2 But Fielding did not draw the line on all specifics and panaceas, for he did take in advertisements of Dr. James' Fever Powders5 and Dr. Greenough's Tinctures. The great bulk of his advertisements, however, came from the booksellers; but in accepting these Fielding seems to have refused advertisements of scurrilous and inde cent Grub-Street publications, even if he did permit a few notices to creep in which advertised such pamphlets as Hill 's Letters to a Lady,4" Some Remarks5
1 These were usually tabulated in the current magazines.
2 See Notes on No. 38, I. 349. 10.
3 See Notes as above. * See p. 37, below.
» See p. 70, below.
14 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
by Kennedy, and Pasquin turn'd Drawcansir1 by Macklin.
By taking Millar's advertisements, Fielding neces sarily advertised his own novels and pamphlets ; and, similarly, in advertising the Universal Register Office, Fielding puffed his own enterprise. Since 1749, when John and Henry Fielding founded this office, the busi ness had increased rapidly, even in the face of oppo sition from P. Dullwin2 at the Public Register Office, and from another rival which had sprung up in imitation of the Fieldings'. A branch office was opened during the year,3 and the business was ex tended in scope. It no longer served merely as an employment bureau, but undertook to rent and sell land and houses, to manage estates, to dispose of curios (from bullfinches to pocket pistols), and to act as selling agent for such a company as that in Glaston- bury which sold life-giving spring water from the ' blood-spring' near the Abbey, a miraculous spring dating back to the days when Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to have come to this Isle of Avalon, bringing with him in a sacred vessel the blood of Christ.4
Glastonbury- Water.
LAST Night came to the Universal Register Office, opposite Cecil-street in the Strand, a fresh Parcel of
1 See p. 71, below.
2 See pp. 32 ff., below. The other rival was the General Eegister Office, s On Bishopsgate Street in London. A Dublin branch was in operation
also during the year; see p. 121, below.
* Fielding knew Glastonbury from his boyhood days at Sharpham Park, and may have had an interest in the company which sold this water. But it is very doubtful if, in this connection, he wrote the Z. Z. letter which various biographers have taken as his work; see p. 102, below.
INTRODUCTION 15
Glastonbury- Waters, to be sold at the usual Price, viz. One shilling a Bottle, and the Bottle to be returned.
The Diseases in which these Waters have been, and continue to be, remarkably efficacious, are in Asthmatic and all Kinds of Scrophulous Cases.
They give great Spirits and Appetite.
Both of the theatres took space in his paper; and a few numbers contain advertisements of other amuse ments — Concerts of MusicJc and Lectures, and other respectable diversions. And then, occasionally, one finds such interesting advertisements as those repro duced in facsimile facing p. 12: Hogarth's Analysis of Beauty, and a very amusing advertisement of a Kensington boarding school. One reads with much delight of the feats which Paul Jullion promised to perform upon his victims :
At the Two Heads in Coventry-Street, between Piccadilly and Leicester-Fields, all Persons of what Age, Sex, or Condition soever, who have had the Misfor tune of losing their Teeth, or only Part of them, but more particularly their Front ones, by any accidental Blow or Fall, or thro' Decay of their Teeth or Gums, to the great Disfigurement of their Mouth, and Interruption of their Speech and Pronunciation, may have such Defi ciencies replaced with artificial ones, so admirably adapted as to serve every Use of natural ones, and no way painful or discernable, they being made, fitted, and set after an entire new Method, never before put in Practice by any other than Paul Jullion, Operator for the Teeth, at the above Place, who is the only and sole Inventor of them . . -1
When his paper had reached its thirtieth issue, the advertising began to fall off gradually; and when the
i See p. 56, below, and No. 31 (p. 4, c. 2).
16 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Journal became a weekly and refused to accept any advertisements for less than three shillings, the quantity decreased rapidly to a point where some issues had scarcely an advertisement. But this may have been due, also, to the increase in the quantity of news which was concentrated into one issue a week.
Beginning with the second number of his Journal, Fielding introduced a feature which runs through nearly the entire series. This was a column or more of news from the Bow-Street Court contributed by Fielding himself and by his clerk, Joshua Brogden1 — 'chronicles of crime/ one might call them. Fielding >s Court-Room, where he acted as Justice of the Peace, was on the site of the present Police Court, and was probably a lower room in the house where he resided.2 At all hours of the day and night, Fielding was on hand to issue warrants, to act as a notary, to make examinations of culprits, to hold them under bail for trial in the higher courts, or to commit minor offenders to prison or to a madhouse. One can picture him, aroused in the dead of night, coming down to examine some thief brought in by the firm hand of Saunders Welch.3 It was a part of Fielding's duty to see to it that a proper force of efficient constables was
1 Dobson's Notes to Henley Edit, of Fielding's WorTcs, XVI. 288.
2 In his Journal Fielding asks that notices of robberies be sent to him "at his House in Bow-Street," and writes of examinations made before him at his house, etc.
s ' ' One of the best officers who was ever concerned in the execution of justice." — Fielding, Henley Edit., XIII. 284. Welch was a good friend of his, and, upon his recommendation, was later made a Justice, but not to succeed Fielding. Welch, after Henry Fielding's death, became a partner of John Fielding's in the Universal Eegister Office. — See WorTcs, Henley Edit., XVI. 291; Boswell's Johnson (Oxfd. 1908), II. 165 and 470; Godden's Memoir (Lond. 1910), p. 279; Dobson's Life (N. Y. 1900), p. 271.
INTRODUCTION 17
always on hand in his district to preserve law and order by day and night; his burden was therefore doubly irksome. Under Covent-Garden Fielding regularly printed brief reports of his examinations, .-sometimes with comments from his own pen. The record is very interesting reading, sordid as the accounts may be; for in this chronicle we discover much about Fielding's daily life, his efficiency in his office, and his plans for legal reform.
In reading over the essays printed in this Journal, one notices that Fielding divides his space between those essays which are purely literary studies and those which we may call essays of purpose. Indeed, one is tempted to suspect that Fielding's desire to reform the age was much stronger than his desire to create real literature ; he denies1 any wish on his part to contribute solely to the amusement of his readers, and in his papers very often makes his literary instinct subservient to the demands of his program of social reform. And believing that examples of what he wished to remedy, or to approve, would serve his end better than any precepts which he might preach, he filled his columns — his leaders, news, advertisements, and Proceedings of the Censorial Court — with concrete examples of what he had in mind. Ridicule was his favorite weapon in criticising that which he wished to exterminate ; and, in many instances, his comments are extremely mordant ; but where no comment seemed advisable he presented his examples either as emi nently worthy of emulation or as most horrible instances of that which men should fear and shun in their own lives.
On every side Fielding saw with real consternation
i In No. 5, I. 163. 4.
18 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
a growing degeneracy which was permeating all classes of society. Men were abandoning their faiths and fears, and were turning into profligate courses. The amusements of all classes were tending to become degrading; the presses groaned with indecent books and prints; the theatres were catering to a depraved taste; and men were growing more and more intem perate in their drinking, in their gaming, and in their passions. The streets swarmed with beggars and criminals; the brothels and halls were crowded with unruly mobs ; robberies and murders were very openly performed and often went unpunished ; and when cul prits were caught, the mob took a holiday and went off to enjoy a hanging or two. Indeed, London social conditions at that time might be compared with those of Eome or Corinth in its worst days, although, as Fielding ironically remarks,1 London was then some what better off.
Fielding's interest in this appalling condition was that of a God-fearing, sober-minded citizen who daily came into close contact with the problem in his official duties as magistrate. Ever since his appointment as Justice, the subject had been vitally interesting to him ; and to arouse a general public interest in reform, he had taken up the problem in two pamphlets dealing with the causes and the remedy. The first of these was his Charge to the Grand Jury, in 1749, wherein he deals briefly with the matter, but in a manner which shows that he had already diagnosed the source of the prevailing corruption and had in mind plans for improving the situation. In the second pamphlet, his Increase of Robbers (1751), he had made an exten sive and brilliant exposition of the entire problem.
i See No. 2, I. 139 ff., and No. 16, I. 231 ff.
INTRODUCTION 19
Therein he traces the prevailing evils back to their first cause and suggests remedies. Centuries of trade, he states, had revolutionized the social conditions among all classes; for with trade had come a vast increase of wealth in which all classes now had their share ; and with wealth had come luxury, an evil which lay at the roots of all others. The luxury of the rich had inevitably worked its way downward to the poor, so that the mob, in imitation of their betters, spent their slender means in degrading extravagancies and in excesses of all kinds. In the wake of debauchery had come disability, then poverty, and finally, crime. The streets were unsafe to walk in, the jails were overcrowded with vagabonds and criminals, and the hospitals with idiots and lunatics.
This problem Fielding was attacking in two different ways : by attempting to remove the causes which underlay this degeneracy, and by endeavoring to reform the current methods of dealing with the victims of this social condition. In this attempt he was admir ably equipped, for on the one hand, he had a practical knowledge of the statutes and the power to enforce them — a splendid law library and a good training back of him, and unhampered jurisdiction over his district — and on the other, the press, in which he was able to give publicity to what he was accomplishing and what he planned to do. In his own Journal, not content merely with recording his work as Justice, Fielding employed a great part of his leaders, and most of the Proceedings of his Court of Censorial Enquiry, in ridiculing the manners and morals of his contempo raries — to turn the dissolute in the direction of virtuous living, and to arouse men of moral stamina and true worth to a full realization of the importance
20 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
of dangers which confronted them and of the imme diate need of combining in an attempt to exterminate them.
As a Justice of the Peace he tried to measure pun ishment to all offenders, and to intimidate those who had not yet come under his notice, by making capital punishment a really awful example. By providing some scheme for prison reform he hoped to turn those nurseries of vice and crime into places of confinement where men with vicious tendencies might be made to do regular work, and eventually might be made over into decent, industrious citizens. In a similar manner he planned to present a method of employing the poor and thereby to reduce the horde of beggars and petty criminals which lived in utter dependence on the town.
The record of what he desired to accomplish and did accomplish in these eleven months in 1752 is inter esting to review. In most of the issues of his Journal Fielding printed the following notice against robbers, with the hope that the public might be stimulated to cooperate with him in his work:
To the PUBLIC
All Persons who shall for the Future suffer by Robbers, Burglars, &c. are desired immediately to bring, or send, the best Description they can of such Robbers, &c. with the Time and Place, and Circumstances of the Fact, to Henry Fielding, Esq., at his House in Bow-Street.
His Increase of Robbers had stirred the public to a serious consideration of the matter,1 and Parliament to the point where, in March, 1752, an Act was passed
i Several pamphlets appeared after Fielding's: A Method to prevent the many Robberies in London (Nov., 1751), A Scheme to prevent Bob beries (Jan., 1752), etc.
INTRODUCTION 21
for the licensing of public amusement halls, in an attempt to remove from the criminal class their common meeting-places. Fielding's own efforts were extraordinarily successful, and he was extremely active in rounding up highwaymen and pickpockets. His Covent-Garden news abounds in reports of exami nations and commitments; and we know from Field ing's own word1 that, by the winter of 1753, he had almost completely cleaned out the swarm of criminals which had infested London.
In addition to his crusade against gaming,2 gin- drinking,3 duelling,4 much space in his Journal is de voted also to the * Social Evil. ' It was one of his duties to enforce the laws against disorderly houses ; but for a long time he was almost without power to attack this vice, because, as he frequently remarks in his news-comments, adultery was no crime by the laws of England. He regarded this evil as ineradicable,5 but felt that it was the duty of every magistrate to suppress the practice as far as it was possible. The subject is threshed out in several leaders and in one letter;6 and during the year Fielding, supported by a new Act of Parliament, passed early in that year, succeeded in closing up those bagnios which ran in open defiance of the law, and in generally suppressing the worst of the traffic.
In spite of the vigilance of the London magistrates and frequent hangings, the crimes of robbery and murder seemed, then, to be on the increase. One
1 Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, Henley Edit., XVI. 188.
2 See Notes on No. 17, I. 239. 32.
3 See Notes on No. 11, I. 201. 16. * See Notes on No. 4, I. 156. 16.
s Charge to the Grand Jury (1749), Henley Edit., XIII. 213. e In No. 50, II. 38 ff.
22 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
particularly atrocious case is reported in Fielding's Journal, under the news for Friday, January 17th :
''Wednesday Night, Mr. George Gary, a Higgler, who lived near Epping, on his Return home from Leaden- hall-market, was robbed and murdered by three Footpads near the Windmill, which is within half a Mile of his own House: They likewise shot his Son, who was in the Cart with him, but his Wound is not likely to prove mortal. Mr. Gary was an honest, industrious Man, and has left a Wife and five Children."1
The affair was taken up with unusual expedition, and popular interest was aroused to an extreme. One can follow the events of the case in other numbers2 of Fielding's paper. Parliament arose to the occasion and passed an Act providing for a more speedy trial and execution of those guilty of such a crime.3 In April Fielding published his Examples of the Inter position of Providence in the Detection and Punish ment of Murder; and in one instance,4 at least, dis tributed copies gratis for the purpose of further intimidating the mob. Other pamphlets followed,5 but nothing very much seems to have been accomplished in that year. Fielding himself was somewhat dis couraged over the failure of the new Act, for he believed that murder could not be effectually held in check until the execution of criminals could be made an awe-inspiring and horrible example to the mob, by hanging every offender, and always in private. In his
1 In No. 5, Jan. 18th (p. 3, c. 2).
2 In Nos. 8, 13, 18, etc. s In March.
4 See No. 30 (p. 2, c. 3).
s Methods for putting a Stop to Murder (April, 1752), A Warning Piece (June, 1752).
INTRODUCTION 23
Covent-Garden Journal of July 18th is found this news -item :
"On Monday last [July 13th] eleven Wretches were executed at Tyburn, and the very next Night one of the most impudent Street-Robberies was committed near St. James 's Square ; an Instance of the little Force which such Examples have on the Minds of the Populace . . ."
Taking the matter up in other issues, Fielding con tributes a parable on the subject of public hangings in his leader No. 25,1 and in the same number makes
further comment:2
\
"The real Fact at present is, that instead of making the Gallows an Object of Terror, our Executions con tribute to make it an Object of Contempt in the Eye of the Malefactor; and we sacrifice the Lives of Men, not for the Reformation, but the Diversion of the Populace."
Another topic which takes up much space in Field ing's Journal is that of the poor-laws. Fielding had long been planning a workhouse scheme for providing for the employment and reformation of beggars and unfortunates. In November, 1751, rumor3 had it that he laid before Henry Pelham a plan for solving the problem ; but if this was the first draft of his Proposal for Making an Effectual Provision for the Poor, it did not get into print until January, 1753. During 1752, however, he kept the subject continually before his readers in his essays4 and news-items. Indiscriminate alms-giving he decried, although he was himself quick
1 March 28th.
2 Under Covent-Garden (p. 2, c. 3).
s London Daily Advertiser, Nov. 25, 1751; see Notes on No. 36, I. 341. 31.
* See Notes on No. 36, as above.
24 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
to help a needy brother. Indeed, we know that during the year he established a fund for a burned-out baker by the name of Peirce,1 giving one guinea out of his own pocket, and a similar fund for an unfortunate man by the name of Redman.2 Then in connection with his plea for hospital reform,3 we know that he gave his support to the Foundling Hospital, and that he gave both of his money and time to the founding and maintenance of the Lying-in Hospital on Brownlow Street. It was possibly owing to his activity that, in April, Parliament passed a new Act for providing for the poor. Other letters and pam phlets had come out with poor-law schemes;4 but no great success seems to have attended any of the efforts to solve this problem.
In order to arrest this flood-tide of crime, Fielding necessarily had to attack it at the source ; but to com pletely eradicate the luxurious habits of those men whose example had been such a powerful force in degrading the lower classes, was impossible. The most he could do was to get at his reading public, men of means and education, and to make them realize the seriousness of their own plight, and that of those men who were below them in the social scale and were imitating their betters in their follies and vices, but not their virtues. On his peers, at least, Fielding might hope to have a wholesome influence.
To ridicule the degeneracy of the moral and spirit ual being of these men, Fielding lays much stress on the prevailing lack of religious faith. It was,
1 Recorded in No. 39 (p. 2, c. 3).
2 Recorded in No. 13 (p. 2, c. 3). a See Notes on No. 44, II. 13. 28.
* Alcock's Observations on the Defects in the Poor Laws (Jan., 1752), in particular.
INTRODUCTION 25
indeed, the fashion in France and England, at this time, to profess a dwindling faith or none at all. Deism and atheism had gained great headway in England; and grievous consequences had followed. Here is a bit of contemporary opinion on the matter:
"What shocking robberies, murders, duels, &c., are constantly in the papers ! does not that too plainly show the growth of infidelity?"1
The freethinkers had formerly come under Fielding 's whip; and now, as representatives par excellence of these odious "political philosophers, " the Robin- hoodians2 are held up to ridicule and effectively pilloried. Fielding felt that true religion, like Greek, had "gone to the dogs,"3 and that with it had gone men's moral stamina. Believing in an after life4 and in salvation by good works, Fielding had a natural antipathy for the doctrines of the new schools of thought, and continually ridicules their infallible guides, reason and the 'rule of right,' which led them to no good end here, or hereafter.
In many of his contemporaries he saw the gradual decay of true ability and real worth, and the growth of an odious affectation — hypocrisy and vanity. The great man is held up to ridicule as a scoundrel in the disguise of an honest man. Greatness and goodness5 were no longer compatible in any man; and the aver age man of prominence was but a Jonathan Wild at heart and in deed. The commonplace man he pictures
iMrs. Delany's letter to Mrs. Dewes, March 27, 1752, in her Auto biography (Lond. 1861), Ser. 1, III. 105. 2 In Nos. 8 and 9. a See Notes on No. 1, I. 139. 3. * See Notes on No. 69, II. 130. 13. 5 See Notes on No. 2, I. 144. 22.
26 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
for us as utterly vain and frivolous, and more often an affected coxcomb like the rideout in No. 33. Throughout his essays he holds up to ridicule those men and women who spent their lives in idle amuse ments, in slavery to fashion — in dress and manners — and who swore, drank, and gambled their lives away.
Intellectually and artistically men were degenerate. The education of the day, he tells us, produced, on one hand, dissolute men of fashion, and on the other, second-rate artists and men of letters, incompetent and scurrilous critics, petty scholars employed in the pedantry of etymology and text-editing, and in vain scientific pursuits, and men with knowledge but no wisdom. The schools1 he describes as nurseries of vice where men were trained not in the old classical methods, but in the new metaphysical, and then were turned loose upon the world either to be corrupted further or to spread corruption. He devotes whole leaders2 to the anarchy in the kingdom of letters and in the kingdom of critics, and goes so far as to declare war on Grub-Street and to set up, thereafter, a Court of Censorial Enquiry to help regulate the current publications. The scholarship and the scientific pur suits of the men of that generation also come in for criticism in burlesque samples of text-editing,3 etymological derivations, and historical and scientific treatises.
The stage also receives its share of criticism at his hands at different times during the year. He censures the prevailing craze for pantomime,4 and tries to sway
1 See Notes on No. 42, II. 3. 23.
2 See Notes on No. 23, I. 269 ff.
3 See Notes on No. 4, I. 156. 25. * See Notes on No. 3, I. 152. 5.
INTRODUCTION 27
popular taste back towards a real liking for Shake spearean drama. Throughout his paper he supports Garrick in his efforts to curb this degenerate taste, and sides with him against Rich and the town, particularly in the Theatre-War which came early in November. And, during the year, he attempts also to reform the manners of the audience, and to suppress the first- night damnations and riots.
Interspersed among his essays of purpose, however, one finds a large number of essays on perennial topics in which the note of reform is less pronounced, and, if discernible at all, is to be regarded as quite detached from his main program. There are, for instance, several papers on the l fourth-estate/ or the 'mob,'1 tracing the history of mob-rule, and showing up this order in its virtues and vices. Then there are essays on slander, impudence, self-praise, contempt, and other human foibles and failings. There are two or three essays on the ' theatrical state,'2 and, in this connec tion, one excellent essay on the choice of a profession. And apart from his criticism of the scurrility of the press, there are several essays on wit and humor,3 the 'itch for writing,' pertness, dullness, and disdainful ness in authors, the unities in the drama, and even an essay on printing and booksellers. Here and there we find occasional verse, such as the Elegy on the Prince of Wales' death, a translation of one of Tibullus' elegies, an imitation of Chaucer's ballad verse, and a song to Jenny Weston. Rarely do we find among the many letters to the author, a genuine communication on some topic of the day; for most of these effusions
1 Nos. 27, 47, and 49.
2 Nos. 15, 34, and 71.
s Especially Nos. 55 and 56.
28 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
were composed by the author and were introduced by him to lure his readers into perusing what would have been distasteful to them in any other form. And, finally, one finds a few isolated essays, such as the account of the intended publication of Lucian's Works, the prose version of the story of Astulpho and Jucunda, and an essay, quite satirical, on ants.
THE NEWSPAPER-WAR.
The Paper-War, whose events are recorded in the first few issues of Fielding's Journal, was begun and ended within two short weeks ; but the general warfare between Fielding and his various opponents continued throughout the whole year. In this a battle to the death was inevitable; for so long as Fielding should employ his Journal to reform the age, just so long would the age refuse to be reformed; and finally one or the other would have to give in. Indeed, before hostilities were actually begun, Fielding's enemies were forewarned and ready to do their worst ; and two weeks before the first issue of his Journal, Fielding had paved the way for much hostile criticism by pub lishing Amelia. This book had been turned over to "A. Millar, in the Strand," and even before Fielding had written his preface (dated December 12, 1751) had been very vigorously and cleverly advertised for the 18th of that month. Take, for example, the note appended to an advertisement in the Whitehall Even ing Post of December 5th:
*% To satisfy the earnest Demand of the Public, this Work is now printing at four Presses ; but the Proprietor notwithstanding finds it impossible to get them bound in Time, without spoiling the Beauty of the Impression, and therefore will sell them sewed at Half a Guinea a Sett.
This reminds one of a similar device of Millar's in publishing Tom Jones.1 The canny Millar, according
i See General Advertiser, March 4, 1749.
30 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
to Sir Walter Scott,1 withheld this issue as likely to sell very rapidly, and gave no discount to the trade, whereupon the entire output was bought up at once — in one day, if we may believe Mrs. Piozzi !2 The suc cess of this ruse proved to be a fruitful source of abusive criticism; but even more delightful to the critics' eye was an unfortunate slip which Fielding made early in the history of his Amelia, whereby his heroine was presented to the world as a noseless beauty. For we read in the first edition, I. 95, that by the overturning of a chaise her " lovely Nose was beat all to Pieces, " and on p. 98, following, that she was "without any Nose at all." That Fielding altered these passages in his second edition, restoring to Amelia her injured member, is good evidence that the vituperation of his critics cut him to the quick.
Prominent among these critics were Richardson and Smollett, neither of whom was disposed to forgive Fielding his success as a rival novelist. Richardson's part in the Paper-War is, however, negligible, even though he had never forgiven Fielding his Joseph Andrews and had rejected his overtures towards a peacemaking.3 In his letters to his friends Richardson did express his animosity by sneering at Amelia; but beyond this there is nothing else to indicate bad feeling on his side. Fielding was apparently not aware of Richardson 's attitude towards Amelia, for he went out of his way to speak well of his old enemy in the tenth number of his Journal.* Smollett's part in the War, however, is considerable, for he was the aggressor in a one-sided passage at arms between these two men.
1 Lives of the Novelists, Fielding.
2 Anecdotes of Johnson (Lond. 1786), p. 221.
3 Jacobite 's Journal, No. 5. * See I. 193. 29.
INTRODUCTION 31
Early in 1751, in the first edition of Peregrine Pickle, Smollett attacked both Lyttleton and Fielding, the former as ' Gosling Scrag' and the latter unnamed. The insertion of a slur on Fielding's character was due to Smollett's envy of the success of his rival, and to the fact that Lyttleton had given Fielding the patronage which Smollett himself had been refused. In this passage, Smollett ridicules Fielding's having taken as his second wife, in 1747, the maid of his first wife, and, also, his having accepted from Lyttleton the office of Justice. His second marriage had been frowned upon by some of his best friends, and so, too, had his acceptance of the office of ' trading magistrate' ; but no one had as yet ventured to indulge in any such criticism as this of Smollett's:
". . . when he is inclined to marry his own cook- wench, his gracious patron may condescend to give the bride away; and finally settle him in his old age, as a trading Westminster justice. ' '
To this abuse Fielding never made any reply; but in a playful humor, he did include Smollett among his enemies in his " jocose war," and thereby stimulated him to renewed activity.
Another foe, destined to appear soon after the open ing of this War, was Bonnell Thornton (1724-1768), who is now remembered as a witty member of the Nonsense Club, and as the author of a burlesque Ode on St. Cecilia's Day1 which amused Dr. Johnson to an unusual degree. Thornton was humbly born, the son of an apothecary, but was educated at Westminster School and at Oxford. At the latter he received his B.A. in 1747, his M.A. in 1750, and his M.B. in 1754.
i Published in 1763.
32 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
By instinct he was a scribbler, and, as a student, had associated with Christopher Smart in periodical effu sions. In 1752 he burlesqued Fielding's Journal in his own Drury-Lane Journal and Spring-Garden Journal, and thereafter continued to be associated with other periodicals, gaining a wide reputation as a wit. There is no doubt but that he was clever ; but he was also abusive and scurrilous in his writings, especially in his relations with Fielding.
It is generally believed that Thornton was the author of these two periodicals directed against Fielding. The British Museum Catalogue and the Bodleian Catalogue ascribe these to him ; Boswell1 names him as a contributor to the Drury-Lane Journal; Alexander Andrews2 assigns this paper to him; but, strangely enough, the Gentleman's Magazine* repeats common rumor, or chance hearsay, attributing the above paper to Mrs. Midnight [Christopher Smart]. That both of these papers are largely directed against Fielding is a fact which cannot be entirely explained; but it is my theory that Thornton was hired to publish the first of these papers by one Dullwin, who had recently started the Public Register Office to rival Fielding's Universal Register Office. We learn from a letter of John Fielding's in the London Daily Advertiser4' that this fellow, who is described as a "Traveling Frenchman," had been registered with this office for employment, had later joined the office force, and after becoming fully familiar with their methods, had suddenly disappeared in September and
iBoswelPs Johnson (Lond. 1908), II. 147, note.
2 History of British Journalism (Lond. 1859), I. 160.
3 Jan., 1752, p. 29. * Nov. 4, 1751.
INTRODUCTION 33
had erected a rival office. Dull win, or P. D'Halluin as lie signs himself, replied to these charges in the same paper, two days afterward,1 claiming "hard usage " at Mr. Folding's hands, but asserting that one of his two partners (both Englishmen) was really the originator of this type of office. At this new office the Drury-Lane Journal had its headquarters. It is from these facts that I assume that Dullwin influenced Thornton to publish his paper in rivalry with Field ing's Journal, in order that he might ridicule the business methods of the Universal Eegister Office, and divert its patrons to the rival office. Now if we assume that he was merely a hired scribbler, we may also offer the assumption that Thornton probably had no per sonal animosity towards Fielding; for at his worst he shows that he is carried away by his own cleverness in burlesquing his rival, rather than by any bad feeling towards him.
There was also in the field at this time ' Jonathan Free/ the author of Old England, a political sheet of uncertain authorship which struck the first blow against Fielding's Journal. According to Lawrence2 this paper had been started in February, 1743, and "had many contributors; of whom William Guthrie . . . was the principal." Its earliest title was Old England; or the Constitutional Journal by Jeffrey Broadbottom of Covent-Garden, Esq., but beginning with the issue of January 3, 1747, it bore a new sub title, The Broadbottom Journal by Argus Centoculi, Inspector-General of Great Britain. Fielding had come to blows with Old England's author during the period in which the Jacobite's Journal had been run-
1 London Daily Advertiser, Nov. 6, 1.751.
2 Life of Fielding (Lond. 1855), p. 226, note.
34 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
ning,1 and now, at the commencement of his Covent- Garden Journal, had to meet the attacks of the new author of this same sheet, which now bore the title, Old England: or the National Gazette by Jonathan Free of the Duchy of Cornwall, Esq.2 This was pub lished once a week on Saturday, and was a four-page affair similar to the general type of newspapers then published. Its author offers himself as a champion of the cause of Liberty and the Constitution, and is plainly of the Opposition faction. Its career under this management came to a close with No. 135, Satur day, January 27, 1753, when its title was changed commencing with February 24, 1753, to Old England's Journal, by J. Freeman and the Antigallican Society. This * Jonathan Free/ who was apparently a hire ling of the Opposition, may possibly have been William Kenrick,3 a hack writer, and, later, an open enemy of Fielding's in the Paper- War. Kenrick (1725M779) was the son of a mechanic and had been brought up as a scale-maker; but in his early life had turned to scribbling. He was a notorious libeler and a drunken and violent follower of the muse. Ascribed to him, among other varied works, are three distinctly anti-
1 In Nov., 1748. See Alex. Andrews, History of British Journalism (Lend. 1859), I. 155, and Lawrence's Life (Lond. 1855), pp. 226 ff.
2 Since April 6, 1751.
3 Kenrick 'a Pasquinade (Lond. 1753) is bound up in a volume of Remarkable Satires (Lond. 1760), most of which bear the pseudonym 'Porcupinus Pelagius,' whom Fielding named, in 1748, as the author of Old England; see Lawrence's Life (Lond. 1855), pp. 226 ff. It is also a great temptation to attribute this later Old England (1751-1753) to Smollett; but in Anderson's Life of Smollett, 4th edit. (Edinb. 1803), p. 116, there is a statement that this paper was " conducted by Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Kalph." Nathan Drake in his Essays (Lond. 1805), I. 91, mentions Wm. Guthrie as the chief contributor, and Chesterfield as an early contributor; Alex. Andrews repeats this statement in his History of British Journalism (Lond. 1859), I. 155.
INTRODUCTION 35
Fielding pamphlets: the Old Woman's Dunciad, pub lished in 1751 and hostilely dedicated to Fielding, though mainly directed at Smart; Fun (1752), and the Pasquinade (1753), the former a burlesque skit on the Hill-Fielding controversy, and the latter a general review of all the literary quarrels of 1752.
Conspicuous among all the leaders of the Grub- Street Army was John Hill, M.D., who styled himself at this time, Acad. Reg. Sclent. Burd. etc. Soc.,1 and after his receiving the Order of Vasa2 from the King of Sweden, Sir John Hill, etc. He was born at Peter borough in 1716, and was a clergyman's son (whence possibly his Saturday's sermons in his Inspector). He began his career (1716-1775) as an apothecary and studied botany as a side issue. Not satisfied with his trade, he tried acting and made a grievous failure of it. In 1738 he sent Rich a copy of one of his attempts at play writing, Orpheus, and when this was refused, violently assailed him in print. From this time on, to his old age, he produced with great frequency a strange variety of books, pamphlets, and essays, most of which were mere trash, although his botanical studies were considered quite valuable in his day. We are concerned chiefly with his periodical publica tions, so mention here his first attempt — the British Magazine, begun in 1746 and continued to December, 1750. His next attempt was his Inspector, the leading article contributed to the London Daily Advertiser, And Literary Gazette, beginning in March, 1750, and continuing far beyond the period with which we are concerned. This paper was a four-page daily news-
1 See A Short Account of the Life, Writings, and Character of the Late Sir John Hill (Lond. 1779), title-page.
2 In 1775.
36 TEE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
paper containing the usual leader, news, and advertise ments. Its subtitle of Literary Gazette was dropped after November 23, 1751; and during 1752 the paper appeared under this abbreviated title. The daily Inspector, apparently written with great ease and with no small degree of literary skill, has been characterized by Disraeli1 as "a light scandalous chronicle all the week with a seventh day sermon. "2 In these essays, on all imaginable subjects, are recorded the events of his quarrels with Fielding, Brown, Kennedy, Smart, Woodward, etc. ; and extracts from several are herein offered for inspection. From these one gains a con fused idea of the personality of the ' Inspector '; for his rascality and hypocrisy are pretty well concealed beneath his rhetoric. His contemporaries, however, had no such difficulty; take, for instance, this epi grammatic judgment :3
What H — 11 one day says, he the next does deny, And candidly tells you, — 'tis all a damned lie: Dear Doctor, — this candour from you is not wanted, For why shou'd you own it? — 'tis taken for granted.
Turning now to other contemporary characteriza tions of the * Inspector/ we find abundant evidence
1 Calamities and Quarrels of Authors, p. 367. — Diet. Nat. Biog.
2 Dr. Kennedy, one of Hill's many opponents, printed the following description of these Inspectors (paraphrased here) :
"A Eeceipt for the Writing of Inspectors/' Monday- — self praise.
Tuesday — "an old woman's Canterbury story." Wednesday—' < a panygyrical oration on Grub-Street ballads." Thursday — "microscopic observations on any insect." Friday — "on scurrility, scandal and calumny." Saturday — "a welch sermon."
[See Whipping Eods (Lond. 1752), p. 32.]
sKenrick's Pasquinade (Lond. 1753).
INTRODUCTION 37
that Hill was one of the most conspicuous and peculiar figures of the time, being notorious for the oddities of his private life and the squabbles of his literary career. In personal appearance he was a handsome, well-dressed coxcomb, and in his manner of living very luxurious and elegant. His home, we learn from the Spring-Garden Journal? was near Bloomsbury; but his headquarters, towards which he rolled daily in his emblazoned chariot, were at the Bedford Coffee-House, in Covent Garden. This was then kept by Stacie2 and was frequented by Foote, Woodward, Murphy, Field ing, and Hogarth; and there Hill daily rubbed elbows with his friends, and became the central figure of the place. In his private life, as the Monthly Review3 expresses it, the Doctor doubtless had his faults — his untruthfulness, his vanity (his ruling passion, accord ing to the author of Some Remarks* on HilPs life), and his passion for one ' Diamond/ who is celebrated as his mistress in his Letters from the Inspector to a Lady.5 One is not surprised to find that Hill could publish an Inspector on chastity one day, and on the next his Letters to a Lady!
In his literary pursuits, although he always was worsted in his controversies, fortune smiled upon him; and his income in 1752 approached the alarming sum of £1500 ! His success was due to his great skill as an advertiser of his wares; and this he contrived to effect by making his name town-talk. His method was as follows: rebuffed as an actor he faced the
i No. 1, p. 21.
2Timb's Club Life (Lond. 1866), II. 76. 3 April, 1752, p. 310.
* Some Bemarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. J — H — (Lond. March, 1752), p. 22. 5 Lond., Jan., 1752.
38 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
ridicule with The Actor, A Treatise on the Art of Playing;1 refused membership in the Royal Society, he addressed to them a humorous, but indecent pamphlet, Lucina sine Concubitu,2 and then published in 1751 a Review of their works in a very scathing tone of criticism; stirred to action by the success of Smollett's introduction of Lady Vane's Memoirs in Peregrine Pickle, Hill brought out, in imitation, his History of a Woman of Quality, Lady Frail;3 and then, in 1752, various 'racy' works such as the above Letters to a Lady,4 Adventures of a Valet* and Adventures of Mr. Loveill* To bring prominence to his Inspectorial labors, Hill preempted Steele's Lion's Head, a carved wooden head of a lion, designed by Hogarth, which was intended to serve as a receptacle for letters and contributions, and set it up at the Bedford as a letter box for his Inspector. The date of this event seems to have been November 12, 1751, for Hill makes this statement in his Inspector the day following:
"The Lion of my honoured Predecessors made his public Entry Yesterday into the Bedford Coffee-house, and has taken his Post in the most conspicuous Part of the Room."
Two days later, the Inspector speaks of the Golden Lion (evidently gilded over anew) and announces the " first Roarings" of this creature for the 18th; and on schedule time the Terrible Leo5 began to roar, attracting great attention on all sides.
From this time on, throughout the year, Hill was in
1 Lond., 1750.
2 Third edit., Lond., 1750. s Lond., March, 1751.
* Lond., Jan., 1752.
B Of. the Masquerade, No. 1, p. 21.
INTRODUCTION 39
constant warfare with his associates, but previous to the Paper- War seems to have been on good terms with Henry Fielding (and his brother). We know that these men were never intimate friends; but certainly there had been good feeling between them as far back as March 15, 1751, when Hill1 speaks of Fielding's works as " inestimable. " Then on October 31st, Hill writes in unstinted praise1 of Fielding's Register Office; and, finally, on November 25th, he speaks1 in high terms of Fielding's poor-law plan as laid before Henry Pelham, the Prime Minister. Further evidence of good feeling is to be found in Fielding's account of the origin of the Paper-War, in the third issue of his Journal, January 11, 1752, and in Hill's version, in his Inspector of January 9th preceding. Certainly there was no open hostility until some time after the Paper-War had been begun.
Before hostilities were actually declared, Old Eng land, on December 21, 1751, takes occasion to gloat over "the almost lifeless Corpse of a poor, wretched, departing Novel [Amelia]," and prepares the public to expect "a true and faithful Account of her de bauched Life, Amours, &c. in the Covent-Garden Journal, ushered into the World by Goody Trotplaid, Justice Quid,2 and several other good Wives and eminent3 Gossips." There follows an unsavory estimate of what the public may expect from <Draw- cansir's' pen:
"Here the Debauched, the Diseased, the Rotting and
1 In his Inspector of this date.
2 Fielding 's pseudonym in his Jacobite 's Journal was John Trott- Plaid. He is frequently represented as chewing a quid of tobacco; see p. 46, 1. 24, below.
s See p. 6, above, for first advertisement of this Journal as by several ' ' Eminent Hands. ' '
40 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Rotten, may be instructed and amused, if not cured and reformed: Here will be seen the quaint Device; the old Badger preaching Continence to the young Wolf, — the Type of Impotence correcting Vice I ..."
And then some cumbrous burlesque on Fielding's Rating-piece' to Amelia, in which he is represented as writing:
"I once thought, and almost still think, Tom Jones (which had all my Wit and Humour) my great Master piece: But the SALE however not answering my Book seller's Expectation, I am now persuaded . . . to say the same of Amelia ..."
Following this is an ironically expressed hope that Fielding will attempt not only to continue to benefit learning, but also to settle all the political troubles of the Nation. Evidently 'Jonathan Free' hoped to find in Fielding a champion of the Pelham forces on whom he might vent his wrath as a defeated member of the Opposition ; but his expectation was not fulfilled. In fact, ' Jonathan Free,' failing to drag 'Drawcansir' into political matters, seems to abandon his enemy, except on a few occasions when every small scribbler let loose his puny wrath in imitation of those above him. In his next paper1 he is content with inserting a passing slur on Fielding's pet Wit and Humour, and then remains silent for two weeks.
On Saturday, January 4, 1752, in his first issue,2 Fielding enters the field of battle and arrays his forces. He ironically asks room for his new paper, and asserts that he does not purpose to deal in politics or personal abuse, but, rather, intends to correct and reform the
1 Old England, Dec. 28, 1751.
2 The form and contents, etc., are described on pp. 8 ff., above.
INTRODUCTION 41
age in an impersonal, good-humored spirit. In order to create a demand for his paper, Fielding evidently had desired to employ some striking device which would immediately appeal to the general public, one which would interest and amuse them not merely for amusement's sake, but rather, for the purpose of making them laugh at the folly of their Grub-Street favorites. In planning this burlesque Paper-War, Fielding had hit upon the very thing which he wanted, and, forewarning Hill of his intention of attacking his ' Lion, ' now began to marshal his troops, expecting that Hill would defend himself in an equally jocose spirit. The Introduction to the Journal of the Paper- War contains no hint of any personal animosity on Fielding's part, even if it does have a serious under current of ridicule directed at what Fielding later1 calls " those base and scandalous Writings, which the Press hath lately poured in such a Torrent upon us," and a hint of his desire to restore "Religion, Virtue, Modesty, and Decency."
With this in view, he sets his army on the march toward Covent Garden, and, in his second paper, gives an amusing account of a small skirmish with 'Peeragrin Puckle' and ' Roderick Random,' in which he shows no real resentment against Smollett for his vicious attack early in 1751.3 Equally good-natured is his account of his besieging Hill's 'Lion,' a "strange mixed Monster," at the Bedford, and his insinuation that this creature more closely resembled an ass; certainly no personal abuse is here intended. Hill, himself, in taking up the War in his Inspector, on the
1 Covent-Garden Journal, No. 5; see I. 163. 19.
2 Covent-Garden Journal, No. 5 ; see I. 163. 22. a See p. 31, above.
42 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
8th of January, the day after Fielding 's second paper had been issued, is quite as good-humored. To be sure, he refers to a certain heroine who " could charm the World without the Help of a Nose ' ' ; but his mood is merry in this and in the following hoax, which he prints under London news :
"We hear from the Bedford Coffee-House in Covent- Garden, that an unhappy Gentleman of that Neighbor hood, having Yesterday Morning in Wantonness, thrust his Head into the Mouth of the Lion that resides there, felt the Jaws unexpectedly close upon him: On this, enquiring with a hollow Voice, whether he shook his Tail, and being answered in the Affirmative, he begged the By-Standers to pray for him. A terrible Crash was immediately after heard, and notwithstanding the un common Resistance of the Skull, it is credibly reported, that the Teeth had met through it. He ivas immediately after conveyed Home, but his Surgeons are afraid the Wounds will prove mortal."
Everyone knew, of course, that the "unhappy Gentle man " was intended for Fielding; and in the laugh which was occasioned by this notice Fielding must have joined heartily.
On January 9th, however, in his next Inspector, Hill becomes seriously abusive, and accuses Fielding of underhanded work and deceptive methods in conduct ing the War. Here are his own words :
''The Author of Amelia, whom I have only once seen, told me at that accidental Meeting, he held the present set of Writers in the utmost Contempt, and that in his Character of Drawcansir he should treat them in a most unmerciful Manner. He assured me, with great Civility, that he had always excepted me from the general Cen sure; and after honouring me with some Encomiums
INTRODUCTION 43
which, as I neither desired nor deserved, I shall not repeat, told me he hoped we should always be upon good Terms. He proceeded to mention a Conduct which would be, he said, useful to both: This was the amusing our Readers with a Mock-fight ; giving Blows that would not hurt, and sharing the Advantage in Silence.
I hold the Public in too great Respect to trifle with it in so disingenuous a Manner; and hope I shall always retain a better Sense of the Obligations I have to it, than to return them with such an insolent Deceit. I told him, that had he published his Paper ever so long without mentioning mine, it would never have appeared from me that any such thing had an Existence ; but as he has now made so formidable an Attack upon me, it may be under stood as a Concession if I am silent.
Whom I slighted as an Associate, I cannot fear as an Adversary: And as the World generally expects my Opinion of any new Attempt of Consequence in this Way, I shall take the Occasion he has forced upon me, to do what perhaps I should have otherwise avoided, and deliver my Sentiments of his. ..."
There follows a passage in faint praise of Fielding's humorous animadversions on the paragraphs of news which he reprinted from other papers, and an insinua tion that Fielding is past his usefulness as an essayist, and then:
"I am sorry to insult the departed Spirit of a living Author ... I drop a Tear . . . when I see the Author of Joseph Andrews doting in the Covent-Garden Journal ..."
He warns him that "a Legion of Puns and Misspell ings " cannot "defend the once impenetrable Fortress of his Head against a second Crash " of Ms Lion's jaws j1 and, with mock seriousness, belittles the alleged
i Eef erring to his hoax of the day previous ; see p. 42, above.
44 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
success of Fielding's forces in the War, and refuses to quarrel with him over the " particular Orthography of the Word Blockade/" There follows a repetition of the insinuation that Fielding is anxious to continue the War indefinitely for the money that might be in it ; and, in closing, he says :
' ' An Antagonist may be necessary to him, but it is not to me: Abuse may be his Talent, but however pressed for one Day into the Service, it is not mine."
Even though he knew the reputation of his adver sary for vanity and hypocrisy, the tone of this number of the Inspector must have surprised Fielding not a little. His reply to this paper (found in the third part of his Journal of the War)2 is brief and somewhat bitter. Therein he brands Hill as the betrayer of a private treaty, and denies that this treaty was made for the sole purpose of filling his pockets with the receipts from the increased sale of his paper. What his real motives were in this good-humored, mock War, is explained at length in the fifth issue, and has already been commented upon.3 In referring to Hill as both a fool and a liar, and as the "vilest fellow that ever wore a Head," Fielding is merely repaying his enemy equally bitter vituperation. Contemporary opinion of the matter is quite divergent, for in the Memoirs of the Bedford Coffee-House (Lond. 1763) we find a version of this quarrel wrhich completely reverses the situation and represents Hill as endeavoring to buoy up his paper by prolonging the Paper-War, a proposal to
1 Fielding speaks of " Blockheading ' ' the Bedford, in Covent-Garden Journal, No. 2.
2 In No. 3, Jan, llth, I. 151 ff. s See pp. 3 ff.
INTRODUCTION 45
which Fielding would not submit. But in Smart's Hilliad1 we find a more correct version :
"Upon the commencement of the Covent-Garden Journal, Mr. Fielding declared an humorous war against this writer ... in order to contribute to the entertain ment of the town. It is recent in every bodies memory, how the INSPECTOE behaved upon that occasion. Con scious that there was not an atom of humour in his composition, he had recourse to his usual shifts, and instantly disclosed a private conversation; by which he reduced himself to the alternative mentioned by Mr. POPE; 'and if he lies not, must at least betray.' "
Smart sides thus with Fielding partly because he was his friend and partly because he was an ardent enemy of Hill's.2 The fact that he ascribes to Fielding such a motive in taking up the War is interesting because it goes directly against Fielding's own statements.
In the London Daily Advertiser of the 9th, there is a flank attack from an unexpected source, in the advertisement of the rival Public Register Office, with which Fielding had had trouble previously. In the first edition of Amelia, I. 170, Fielding bad written, "Many other Materials of a private nature were com municated by one of the Clerks of the Universal Eegister Office ..." Quoting this very sentence, the rival office takes occasion, at this time, to advertise that ' ' Gentlemen and Ladies may rely upon it that this Office can never possibly furnish Hints for Novels, Fictitious Lives, or Romances . . .", and concludes with the assertion that such conduct as that of the "great Author of Bow-Street" is like that of a mad man! On the following day, January 10th, Hill pub-
1 See p. 78, footnote, below.
2 See p. 79, footnote, below.
46 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
lishes, apart from his leader, a particularly indecent and scurrilous burlesque on Fielding as Justice of the Peace, and reprints it in the next issue l i at the earnest desire of the Public." This was labeled:
The genuine Trial of Mary, late Cook-Maid to Sir Simon Pride, Knight, before the worshipful Mr. Justice Feeler, for lying a-bed in a Morning, &c. &c.
and reports an imaginary examination held before a Justice who is obviously meant to be a caricature of Fielding. Sir Simon makes his complaint against his servant; whereupon the Justice, "assuming a Countenance most terrible to behold, and a Tone of Voice most horrible to hear," says, " Hussy, what Pretence can you make for being so impudent . . . Have you any Bail ready!" Mary produces the desired sum; whereupon the Justice's face loses some of its sternness ; and ' ' softening his Tone a little, ' ' he permits the prisoner to explain herself. This she does in vulgar dialect, asserting that her master damned her and called her foul names without just cause, and adds, "I am sure I ha' read in your Worship's Book, that female Woman won't be called unnatural Names. ' ' — After some small deliberation, his Worship wags his lower Jaw, "not a little incumbred with a huge Quid of Tobacco," scolds the girl severely, and after giving her the wages due her, dismisses them all, congratulating himself on the wisdom and equity of his decision. Here we have heaped up a mass of ridicule on Fielding's personal appearance and habits, on his methods of conducting his office, and indirect ridicule of his Register Office. It is, moreover, no mere coincidence that this particular cook-maid should bear the name of Mary, for this was the Christian
INTRODUCTION 47
name of his second wife, his first wife's maid. It is quite possible, therefore, that the use of this name in this Trial is intended as an insult of the worst kind; yet possibly not, for the title 'Mary the Cook-Maid/ apt as it was for this application, had come ready- made to the author from the scribblings of his predecessors.1
At this point Hill withdraws from the War, but Fielding on January llth, in his third issue, reports further progress on the part of his army, and takes occasion to give Hill the lie for his paper of January the 9th. In this same number, also, under Covent- Garden, Fielding makes his first retort to the criticisms on his noseless heroine in Amelia:
"It is currently reported that a famous Surgeon, who absolutely cured one Mrs. Amelia Booth, of a violent Hurt in her Nose, insomuch, that she had scarce a scar left on it, intends to bring Actions against several ill meaning and slanderous People, who have reported that the said Lady had no Nose, merely because the Author of her History, in a Hurry, forgot to inform his Readers of that Particular, and which, if those Readers had had any Nose themselves, except that which is mentioned in the Motto of this Paper, they would have smelt out."
This is the first hint of his intended defense of his "favourite Child " which is found in Nos. 7 and 8, and is a direct answer to such criticism as that of Hill's in his Inspector of January the 8th.
Simultaneous with this third number of Fielding's Journal, Old England comes out with a fresh attack on Harry Foolding, "a bawdy Novelist" in his dotage and metamorphosed "into the proper Form of a
i See An Answer to the Cook-maid's Tragedy (Lond. 1690), Brit. Mus.
48 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
superannuated Virago, now called Goody Drawcan- sir." An inordinate desire for Fame, the author alleges, has led Foolding too far, so that now he is infamous in his works and in his influential friends. To represent this "delectable scene " the author presents the fragment of a "Farce not intended for the Press, tho' now acting." In this, Harry Peg 'em1 appears in great disorder and quite distracted over the political troubles of his government. Littlebones2 enters and calms Peg 'em somewhat by assuring him that he has found a way to keep the public in ignorance of the true state of affairs —
Peg. O ! — what the old Practice ? But who can you find fit for the purpose. The last Fellow3 will never have the Impudence to appear again, since the People hiss'd down his Jacobite Buffoonery.
Lit. Pray don't you judge the Man's Abilities without knowing them. I know them very well, and I know too he has the Impudence to do anything — I had sent for him before I saw you, foreseeing the Necessity of some public Amusement. I've appointed him to be here, and expect him every — 0 here he comes —
SCENE IV. Enter Foolding, with a Chaw of Tobacco in his Mouth.4
Foolding. With humble Submission (spitting out the Tobacco which embarrassed his Speech) — You need but tell your Servant your Commands, and they are done.
Lit. "Will you resume your old Calling?
1 Henry Pelham, Prime Minister.
2 George Lyttleton, Fielding >s patron.
s Henry Fielding, who had supported the Pelham side in his Jacobite '* Journal.
* As in the Trial of Mary the Cook-Maid, above.
INTRODUCTION 49
Foolding. Which of them? Not Puppet-showing,1 I hope.
Lit. No — the Quill — Some Reasons require another Literary Campaign. You shall have double the Ap pointments you had before, as an Encouragement; but you must do double the Duty too, or you will not pro portion it to the Occasion.
Fool. You know, Gentlemen, I am all Obedience. — The Purse-keepers are Masters, all over the World.
Peg. Well, Mr. Foolding, you know the Business. Verbum sat — Mr. Littlebones and I will leave you to manage the rest, while we employ ourselves in another urgent Business.
SCENE V. Foolding solus.
Hum! Another Journal twice a Week. — Rare Sport!
My B r2 shall take Care of my Shop — It comes
very seasonably — my Revenues were but so, so — But let's see what I shall call this new Journal (Takes a little Book out of his Pocket) Let's turn to my Title Hints. Reads — The Bitch in Breechesf an heroic Poem. Turn Cat-in-Pan} a Panegyric. Humour in Mourning, an Epithalamium,3 by Tim Grul, Poo, none of these will do. Let's see — 0 now I have it. Reads again. — The Covent-garden Journal, by Sir Alex. Drawcansir, Censor of Great Britain, Knt. — That will do by—
Here the Fragment ends.
As an Opposition sheet, Old England naturally per sists in believing, or at least asserting, that Fielding's
i Beferring to the puppet-show, The Pleasures of the Town, in Field ing 'B The Author's Farce.
2B[rothe]r: John Fielding who ran his Shop — the Eegister Office. sEefers probably to Fielding's second marriage; see p. 31, above.
50 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
real motive in publishing his Journal was to further the cause of the Pelham forces. This Fielding had denied; but here was a rare chance to represent this "doating" foe of Old England's in a most miserable plight, and with something of the truth to base it on. The public knew of Fielding's dependence on these men, and would readily believe that he was hired to strengthen the Government.
This abuse apparently had no effect on Fielding, for he appears in his fourth number with unruffled good humor. In this issue of the 14th of January, he pub lishes several articles of a peace concluded between the two armies, and includes a promise of a new feature in his paper, a ' Court of Censorial Enquiry.' Evidently he had been disgusted with Hill's conduct and was unwilling to fight the enemy any longer with his own weapons of abuse. But as a parting shot, he prints in this issue the following contributions, very obviously directed against " [Hill] and his Brethren ":
COVENT GARDEN, Jan. 13.
Of several Letters we have received, for which we kindly thank our Correspondents, we hope the Eeader will not impute to Vanity, that we have published the two following.
To the Author of the Covent-Garden Journal.
Sir,
"WALKING lately in Islington, I saw the following Lines written under the Sign of the Moon with a Parcel of Curs barking under it.
Ye little silly Dogs, why bark ye so ; When I'm so high, and ye so very low?
INTRODUCTION 51
This, Sir, I believe every Reader of Taste in the Kingdom, will agree to be the Case between yourself, and* , and his Brethren.
I am, &c.
A. B.
To the Censor of Great Britain.
WHEN once a Genius soars above The Vulgar, as if born t 'improve Mankind, and writes with Flame; Whole Crowds of nibbling Critics rise, All Grub-Street takes th 'alarm, and tries To damp his growing Fame.
So, in the hottest Summer Days, When Sol with irresistless Blaze Shines out in all his Pow'r, What Swarms of Insects cloud the Sky, Buzz, nutter for a while, then die, And plague the World no more !
* Here was inserted a Name, with which we scorn to stain our Paper.
On the day following, there appeared a vicious insult from Smollett's pen. Resenting Fielding's good-humored reference to his Peregrine Pickle and Roderick Random, and rankling with the same feeling that led him to attack Fielding in his last-published novel, Peregrine Pickle, Smollett had written a bur lesque diagnosis of Fielding's mental and physical state when he undertook his new Journal. The .v«-vS.
(y \
London Daily Advertiser, January 15, 1752, adver tises for "This Day at Noon":
•y w
A FAITHFUL NARRATIVE of the base and in human Arts that were lately practised upon the Brain of Habbakuk Hilding, Justice, Dealer, and Chapman, who now lies at his own House in Covent-Garden, in a
52 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
deplorable State of Lunacy; a dreadful Monument of false Friendship and Delusion.
By DRAWCANSIR ALEXANDER
Fencing-Master, and Philomath.
This pamphlet, which sold for sixpence at the shop of J. Sharp, contains twenty-eight pages of very biting satire. It is generally attributed to Smollett, on inter nal evidence, and on the word of the Gentleman's Magazine? which says that this is "supposed to be written by the author of Peregrine Pickle." Henley reprints this in volume twelve of his edition of the Works, but here is a brief account of it.
The author begins with a mock-serious denial of a public rumor to the effect that he had helped to bring about Hilding 's distemper, and professes profound concern at his dreadful condition, asserting that for some time past he had been on friendly terms with Hilding, who had " quitted all the vicious and aban doned courses of his former life, ' ' and was but now a "sober subject and vigilant magistrate,'7 even if he did have occasional fits of disordered imagination. The cause of Hilding's present state of lunacy he attributes to the act of a long and lanky visitor, Gosling Scrag,2 who had recently paid a secret visit to Hilding, and had attempted to persuade Hilding to enter into a paper-war against their separate and common enemies, especially against that "rascal Peregrine Pickle, who hath brought us both to ridicule and shame. " Hilding had protested vigorously, but had been drugged by Scrag into a condition wherein he promised to do everything that was wanted of him.
1 Jan., 1752, p. 29.
2 George Lyttleton, the ' Gosling Scrag ' in Peregrine fickle.
INTRODUCTION 53
In this state of frenzy he had assumed the title of Sir Alexander Drawcansir, and had proceeded to Covent Garden, where he was now conducting a paper- war. Several skirmishes are described in which Hild- ing, in company with several of the characters in his novels, runs across some of Smollett's characters; there is much excitement, and Hilding, on meeting Trunnion, apologizes for having wronged his nephew Pickle and Pickle's cousin Random. Smollett makes it very evident that he wishes to accuse Fielding of having stolen several characters from his novels. Miss Matthews, in Amelia, he implies, is a copy of Miss Williams, in Roderick Random; and Partridge, in Tom Jones, his own Strap, in Random. In addition to this, he takes occasion to ridicule the bastard Jones and the noseless Amelia, and to brand Fielding's Register Office as a "Scandal Shop."
As in almost every other instance, Fielding remained outwardly unperturbed in the face of this attack. Had he wished to retaliate, however, for each new assault, he would have found his task too great, for on the very same day, January 15th, an attack, in mockery of Millar's ruse in selling Amelia, had come from another source. In the London Daily Advertiser1 of this date, the publisher of the third edition of the Apology for the Life of Mr. Bampfylde Moore Carew, a book hostile to Fielding, advertised this as "very proper to be read at this Juncture," and, in ridicule of Millar's method, added this note:
"The great Demand for this Book continuing, it is impossible to get them bound, without spoiling the Beauty
i A similar notice is in the General Advertiser of Jan. 1, 1752. See also the Whitehall Evening Post, Nov. 7-9, 1751, for another advertise ment of this book.
54 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
of the Impression, it will therefore continue to be sold for 2s. 8d. sewed."
And on the next day another new enemy made his first appearance with the first number of the Drury-Lane Journal? January 16th. This bore the title:
HAVE AT YOU ALL
OR, THE
DRURY-LANE
JOURNAL
By Madam ROXANA TERMAGANT
Address 'd to Sir ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR
Author of the Covent-Garden Journal
and came out once a week, on Thursday, in the form of an "Octavo Pamphlet, " selling for threepence at the Public Eegister Office, in King Street, Covent Garden. It made no pretense to be a real newspaper, and was quite devoid of genuine news and paid advertisements. Each issue contained a leader and a series of bur lesques, which took up nearly twenty-five pages. There were twelve issues in all, the last bearing the number thirteen and the date, April 9, 1752. The issue of the 2d of April, which would have been No. 12, was omitted, but from number to number there is an unbroken, consecutive pagination.
The first issue contains a leader which is a running comment on Fielding's previous issues of his Journal. Thornton refers therein to his having set up his head quarters at the Public Eegister Office, in imitation of Fielding; and gives a dig at Fielding's reference to
1 See p. 33, above, for Thornton 's reasons for bringing out this paper.
INTRODUCTION 55
the Universal Eegister Office in Amelia? In addition to ridiculing his style as ' Drawcansir, ' Thornton in a very vulgar and cheap-witted manner burlesques Fielding 's conduct in office. The Journal of the Rout, which follows, is a parody on Fielding's account of the Paper-War, and includes a reprint of the state ments of both Hill and Fielding. In the same spirit of burlesque, Thornton inserts an advertisement of Shamelia:2
This Day is published,
(In four Volumes Duodecimo, with the help of Dedication, Introductory Chapters, long Digressions, short Repetitions, polite Expletives of Conversation, genteel Dialogues, a wide margin, and large Letter, Price but 12s.)
SHAMELIA, a Novel. Printed for the MAJOR GENERAL.
where may be had, The Works of HERCULES VINEGAR, Esq;
-^TOHN TROTPLAID, Esq; The TRUE PATRIOT.
N. B. These are proper to be bound with the Lucubra tions of Sir ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR.
Likewise,
Several d-mn'd Farces.
A Bundle of Political Pamphlets, by the same hand, pick and chuse for a Penny.
The Complete JUSTICE OF PEACE.
1 See p. 45, above.
2 In ridicule of the format and style of Amelia and of Fielding's career.
56 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
There are, also, in this number advertisements in parody on those in Fielding's Journal, conspicuous among which are a burlesque on the advertisement of Paul Jullion,1 the dentist, and a take-off on the adver tisements of the curios on sale at the Universal Reg ister Office. Then, in ridicule of Fielding's variorum notes to his news-items,2 this burlesque item is included :
"On Monday last four Malefactors were executed at Tyburn. — As one was a Woman, they weren't all of them Male-factors. ' '
Amidst these varied attacks, Fielding was not with out champions of his cause; take, for instance, a belated bit of verse which appeared in the General Advertiser, Saturday, January 18, 1752. This bears the mystifying title :
Epigram ly C. D. F. R. S*
To prop the tott'ring Credit of his own,
H — I roars out, F g's Spirit's dead and gone.
What hear we now, astonish 'd Readers cry, No Spirit in the Scenes of Amely! Where Wit with Sense, Instruction with Delight, Keeps pace ; where Virtue shines in purest white : Where keenest Satire plays the justest Part; Stings deep, and only stings the guilty Heart ; No Spirit there ! Quoth Clencher, by my troth, He's thinking on his own dear Idol Froth.
On the same day, however, when Fielding issued his fifth paper reviewing the War at length, Old England burst forth in further criticism of Fielding. The writer belittles the success of the Journal, laughs in scorn at
1 See p. 15, above.
2 See p. 10, above.
30. D. Fellow of the Eoyal Society (?).
INTRODUCTION 57
the " irascible Humour " of the Censor, and takes him to task for not speaking out the truth about the foreign policy of the present administration — one more evi dent attempt to drag Fielding into a political discus sion. The paper closes with a statement not unlike Smollett's in his Faithful Narrative, that Fielding is frothing at the mouth in a hopeless state of "Ideotcy." Fielding's self-restraint throughout this War is nowhere better seen than in his leader of January 18th;1 but his moderation seems to have egged on his enemies to fresh efforts. On January 20th, some un known person advertised the following in the General Advertiser:
This Day at Noon, will ~be publish' d, Price Three Pence
THE COVENT GARDEN JOURNAL EXTRAORDINARY
By Sir ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR, Knt,
Censor of Great Britain
He must needs go whom the Devil drives.
Printed for J. Sharp, near Temple Bar
Precisely what this was no one seems to know, for the work is probably not extant; but certainly it was not a friendly bit of work, even if it may have been entirely humorous. Another possible attack on Field ing, in the same newspaper, one day later, is recorded in Wright's Caricature History.2 It is in the nature of a hoax, and advertises that the celebrated Doctor
1 No. 5, I. 160 ff.
2 Lond. n. d., p. 232. I have been unable to verify this account.
58 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Benimbe Zammanpoango will perform several mar velous operations at the little Playhouse in the Hay- market, one of which is to be the opening of the head of a Justice of the Peace, taking out his brains, and supplying in succession those of a beau, an ass, a bully, and a sheep. If this victim was meant to represent Fielding, the intention is obvious.
Two days later there came out the second number of the Drury-Lane Journal. This includes criticism on Fielding's paper, and burlesques once more the style of Amelia. Mrs. Termagant also takes occasion to gloat over her assumed triumph over the "tongue- doughty giant Sir Alexander ' ' : "I am all transport — stand away — make room — give me time to breath . . . I have triumphed — 0 the rapturous thought !" Harm less sort of stuff this ! And then on the 25th, a mild outburst from Old England, which places Fielding beneath its contempt, and thereafter, with occasional references, neglects him until his final retirement in November of this year.
Although Fielding remained almost silent in the face of this accumulated ridicule, he does attempt to defend his Amelia in a Court of Enquiry running in Nos. 7 and 8, January 25th and 28th.1 There is in this defense scarcely a touch of bitterness, but, rather, real pathos. Certainly he must have felt the injustice of it all most keenly. His enemies, however, would give him no peace ; and on the very next day after he had finished his defense of Amelia, there appeared in the London Daily Advertiser, January 29th, the advertisement of a curious pamphlet, which I have never seen, but whose general character is obvious :
1 1. 178 ff., and I. 186 ff.
INTRODUCTION 59
Now you have all settled it, Have among you, my Masters ! This Day is Published, Price 6 d. The MARCH Of The LION Or The
Conclusion of the War between Dunce and the Dunces "Written with all the Blackguardism of Justice1 BOBBADILL, all the Politeness of the INSPECTOR, all the Wit of the FOOL,2 and all the Smartness of MARY MIDNIGHT.3
And Containing
The Progress of the GOLDEN SAVAGE from the Bed ford Coffee-house, in search of new Quarters.4
At length you Ve rous 'd the Lion in his Den ; He stalks abroad, and the wide Forest trembles at his Roar.
Printed for M. Cooper, at the Globe, in Pater-noster Row.
John Hill had, indeed, withdrawn some time since from the scene of his defeat (a purely imaginary defeat), but Fielding 's other foes were still active. In Drury-Lane Journal, No. 3, January 30th, were printed the following advertisements, in further ridicule of Amelia:
ADVERTISEMENTS.
Whereas it has been reported by the sharp-nos'd Gentlemen, the Critics, that AMELIA has no nose, because her Biographer has inform 'd us, in the begin-
1 Fielding.
2 The Author of the London Gazetteer.
3 Christopher Smart 's pseudonym.
* The inference is that Hill 's ' Lion ' had found the siege too hot for him.
60 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
ning of her History, that her lovely nose was beat all to pieces; This is to certify that the said Report is mali cious, false, and ill grounded; and that the said Author has taken care to obviate it, by telling us, in the said History, when the Cherry Brandy was pour'd over poor Mrs. Atkinson, that AMELIA'S delicate nose soon smelt it out.
Whereas the Author of a TASTELESS, aequivocal mungrel, hermaphroditical kind of Play, between a Farce and a Comedy, has thought fit to sneer the NOSELESS AMELIA by his NOSELESS HEAD from Herculaneum of the Venus of Paphos. This is to assure him, that HE IS HIMSELF THE VILEST FELLOW THAT EVER WORE AN NOSE, as witness my HAND,
Sir ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR.
The first is a parody on Fielding's notice1 in the third number of his Journal, and the second is a perversion of an unintentional slur in Footers Taste, recently published, which makes fun of the taste of those men who won't accept any statue of Venus except that by Praxiteles, which lacks a nose:
1 'Their Venus must be old, and want a nose."2
To give variety to his lucubrations, Thornton, in Drury-Lane Journal, No. 4, February 6, 1752, pub lishes AN INSPECTOR NUMBER 66666, in which he adopts a device used by the ' Inspector,' and com pares the prominent players of the two theatres to instruments in an orchestra. Fielding is let off lightly in this number; but in the next, on February 13th, Thornton gives burlesque samples of l Drawcansir 's ' style; and in comment on Fielding's known political
1 See pp. 47 ff., above.
2 See the Prologue, Works (Lond. 1830), I. 59.
INTRODUCTION 61
bias, assures us that Fielding, the biographer of Jonathan Wild ("a lying Novel"), was helplessly "sous'd over head and ears, and hurried down the strong torrent of Politics." There is also in this number an epigram on the Fielding-Hill controversy:
An EPIGRAM,
Occasioned by a DISPUTE between two MODERN AUTHORS.
WHEN H— LL declares the Censor dull, "Who thinks that H — LL deceives him?
When F LD— NG calls th' Inspector fool,
What mortal but believes him ?
Some merit then we must admit,
To both our authors due ; For though devoid of Sense or Wit,
All own their writings— TRUE. D.
To offer one more insult to the "defenseless Amelia," Thornton prints what he calls A NEW CHAPTER IN AMELIA, a very vulgar burlesque on the fireside scenes in Amelia, wherein Booth is represented as coming home drunk to a fond and foolish wife, whose nose is conspicuously "beat to pieces"; a brawl ensues in which Mrs. Atkinson and Booth damage their noses; and peace is restored with a bucket of water.
At this juncture the town was promised rare amuse ment for the 13th of February. In the General Adver tiser of February 10th appears this advertisement:
By Order of the TOWN, A Grand Composition of
FUN and MUSICK, Will be exhibited at the Castle-Tavern,
62 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
In Pater-noster Row, on Thursday next; particularly A Decision of the Match so long depending between Sir Alexander Drawcansir Knt. and their Lownesses of Grub- street, on which large Bets depending, it is thought the Knowing-Ones will be greatly taken in.
A Piece of Witchcraft from Macbeth. A Town and a Country Piece between a Blood and a Blockhead. A curious Examination before Mr. Justice Bobadil. A Phaenomenon of High Humbug. A Piece from the Brazen Head. A Solo on a very uncommon Instrument imported from the Antipodes, by Mynheer eht suomaf dna deifiton reddalb dna gnirts saila Len Hoop, An Apparition of a Ghost. A barbarous, cruel, bloody and inhuman — committed by the Man Mountain and Boxy Termagant in a new Taste.
To conclude with
A Dying Fall, and the Birth, Parentage and Education of FUN. None to be admitted without Tickets, which will be delivered at the Pope 's Head Tavern in Cornhill ; St. Dunstan 's Coffee-house, Fleet-street ; and at the Place of Performance, at 2s. 6d. each.
The Roarings of the Lion disturbing some of the Inhabitants of Covent-Garden, his Leonic Majesty has adjudged it necessary to remove from that End of the Town to the Place of Performance.
To begin at Seven o 'Clock.
This is repeated in the issue of February 12th, in shorter form, followed by a denial from Mary Mid night that she is the Author of this entertainment, as common rumor would have it. But this performance never came off; for, as we learn from the issue of March 7th, it was suppressed by the Lord Mayor. The town had been greatly excited over this promised performance ever since early in February, when the
INTRODUCTION 63
first hint was given in an advertisement in the General Advertiser of February 1st; and to atone for their disappointment, the skit was brought out in book form on March 7th of that year. The General Advertiser of that date prints this :
This Day is published, Price 1 s. FUN. A Parodi-tragi-comical SATIRE.
As it was to have been performed at the Castle-Tavern in Pater-noster-Row, on Thursday, February 13, 1752, but suppress 'd by a special Order from the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen.
Sold by F. Stamper, in Pope's-Head Alley, Cornhill; and all Booksellers in London and Westminster.
Note. The Publication of this Piece would not have been so long delay 'd, but for the Expectation of per forming it, as at first intended, which, however, by the same indefatigable Opposition, was still frustrated . . .
A copy of this book is in the Yale Library, and is, to quote the Monthly Revieiv for March, 1752, "a mixture of low humor and scurrility . . . which may entertain such readers as are fond of this kind of satire ..." This is generally attributed to William Kenrick,1 and is a forty-page pamphlet with a Preface, Prologue, and eight Scenes. The greater part of this is devoted to the quarrels between Fielding and his two chief enemies, Hill and Thornton; but several scenes are taken up with other matter which does not concern us here. As a parody on Macbeth and as a burlesque on contemporary events, it is really clever, and, if very vulgar in spots, is extremely funny.
iln Drury-Lane Journal, Feb. 27th, Thornton identifies the author of Fun as the author of Kapelion, a work known to be Kenrick 's.
64 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
The first scene discovers three Witches — Hecate enters :
1st Witch. How now Hecate? You seem pleas M. Hec. Have I not Reason? Drawcansir is ours: He yields again to Dulness' magic Powers.
To make sure of their victim, the Witches circle about a cauldron "to form a Charm that ever shall remain," and one by one, throw in the Virtue of Pamela, and Clarissa;* the Sense of Pasquin, the Body of Tom Thumb;2 Valet, Loveill, and Creole;3 Pickle,* Mother Midnight's Magazine;5 A Journal Jacobite9 —
1st Witch. To add to these and make a pois'nous
Stench, Here take 4 Ounces of a noseless Wench.7
Whereupon Drawcansir enters demanding of the Witches a seat upon the Throne of Wit ; they summon up the departed spirits of Vinegar and Trotplaid, before whom Drawcansir quakes in remembrance of his having inhabited their earthly bodies in his earlier days. A Ghost arises and makes this prophecy:
Gh. Be vain, be insolent, and take no Care, Who writes, who rails, or who the Critics are : Drawcansir never shall be vanquished, 'till To fight against him, rise a mighty Hill ; 'Till the fierce Lion leaves the Afric Shores And in a Coffee-house unregarded roars, 'Till Sexes change, and then thy arm oppose.
The apparitions vanish; a servant enters and warns
1 Eichardson 'a first two novels.
2 Fielding 's plays.
3 Abbreviated titles of Hill's novels. * Smollett's P. fickle.
5 Smart 's periodical.
6 Fielding 's Jacobite 's Journal.
i Amelia, the noseless heroine, is of course here meant.
INTRODUCTION 65
Drawcansir that the powers of Grub-Street are all up in arms against him ; whereat he says :
Bring me my Pen and Ink, my Sword and Shield, My BACCO BOX,1 and onward to the Field.
The second scene introduces the characters of the underplot; then in the third we are presented with a view of Doctor Mountain (John Hill), reading a Paper.
Moun. The Covent-garden Journal ! Death and Hell ! This, this will ruin my best labour 'd Scheme. *********
I hate Drawcansir ; for, on single Sheets
He wants to do my Office; and beside
His Works are read, while mine neglected die.
To hold his influence as ' Inspector/ he resolves to defame Amelia:
A Maid that parallels Description and wild Fame,
One that excels the Quirks of blazoning Pens :
Suppose I tell him she's upon the Town,
A common Prostitute despis'd by all,
She wants a Nose, and that's a smooth Dispose
To make her be suspected.
Drawcansir enters, muttering :
It was a False Alarm — Fast in their Tents Sleep on the Powers of Grub-street —
I'll therefore to my Love —
Excellent Wench . . . Oh my Amelia I
Then Dr. Mountain tells Drawcansir that his Amelia has ruined him; words follow; Drawcansir strikes Mountain ; they fight. Suddenly Drawcansir proposes a truce and suggests to Mountain that they hum the Town with a mock-war; Mountain rejects the sugges tion, and they make their exit fighting.
In the fourth scene we have a bit of satire on Orator
i See p. 48, footnote 4, above.
66 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Henley,1 Mrs. Midnight,2 and Eoxana Termagant ;3 and in the fifth scene a burlesque on Fielding as a Justice. Mountain appears before Justice Bobadil to make complaint against one File for having robbed him; and Mrs. Brindle against Lord Riot for having rav ished her. The whole scene is based on an actual robbery4 in which Hill was the victim and Fielding the Justice who tried the case, and on another case against the same man, also tried before Fielding. His disposal of these cases is made utterly untrue to the facts and quite ridiculous, especially where he shows evidence of venality.
In the sixth scene Eoxana Termagant enters con scious of her triumph over Drawcansir, but saddened by a secret passion for him:
Drawcansir trembles at the Name of me, My Ranks in King-Street5 shine — but oh my Heart ! I 'm sick of Love, and for my mortal Foe ; Drawcansir 's Charms have pierc'd my tender Breast.
Mountain enters; Eoxana confesses her love for Drawcansir ; and Mountain is jealous, for he had tried to win her for himself:
1 thought that I alone possess 'd her Heart — Have I not told her twice ten thousand Lies?
But he promises to assist her, and secretly plans to make her loathe the name of Drawcansir.
iSee Lawrence's Fielding (Lond. 1855), pp. 23-26.
2 Christopher Smart; see p. 72, footnote 1, below.
3 Thornton 's pseudonym.
4 See the London Evening Post for Jan. 9-11, 11-14, 1751, which tells of the commitment of one John Smith to Newgate for robbing Dr. John Hill of ' ' one Gold Watch, one Gold Eing, one Picture set with Diamonds, and about Twenty Shillings in Silver. " Smith had been previously held for rape on an old woman who turned out to be his wife.
s Thornton 's headquarters.
INTRODUCTION 67
In the seventh scene there is some horse-play which doesn't concern the plot proper ; and then in the eighth scene the finale, presenting
Drawcansir solus — reading at a Table.
He reads aloud a passage from Covent-Garden Journal No. 3: "It being reported that a HILL must be levell'd ... a little paultry Dunghill . . ." He falls asleep; an apothecary (meant for John Hill) enters and empties a phial in his ear, and withdraws. Draw cansir awakes; a Ghost appears and gives him final warning of impending disaster.
Then Eoxana and Mountain enter; Roxana addresses Drawcansir as "my dear lov'd Lord"; but Mountain's phial has hardened his heart, and he spurns her love. Eoxana in a rage cries out: "Then shall he die — shout Dulness and fall on!"
Dr. Hold — hold — in vain you draw your threatning Sword,
I bear a charmed Life, and cannot die
Till Sexes change, Hills rise, and Lions roar unfear'd. E. Ter. Despair thy Charm, for know I was a Man.1 Moun. I am a Mountain, and a Lion keep
To roar at thee. Dr. Accursed be the Tongues that tell me so;
For it hath cow 'd my better Part of Man :
Mountain and Drawcansir fight; Drawcansir falls; Mountain and Eoxana Termagant exeunt; then —
Dr. How are the Mighty fallen ! — I am down, 0 now farewell — farewell ungrateful Town. Tobacco stops my Throat,2 my Race is run, And now in Death I'm punish 'd with a Pun.
Exit dying.
1 Thornton used this feminine pseudonym.
2 See p. 48, footnote 4, above.
68 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Not long after the failure of the performance of Fun, Old England and the Drury-Lane Journal renewed hostilities. On February 15th, the former casts a passing slur on the noseless Amelia; and the latter paper, on February 20th, burlesques Fielding's leader on slander1 and his advertisements of the Universal Eegister Office. A week later, Thornton, in the same vein, has a fling at the Grlastonbury Water2 which Fielding sold at his Register Office, and burlesques his variorum comments on the news-items in his Covent- Garden Journal:
"On the 4th instant, the honour of Knighthood was conferred on Alexander Drawcansir of Covent-Garden, Esq; — We may indeed truly say, that his Honour is BENIGHTED/'
There is in this number, also, a long article attack ing ' Drawcansir' for puffing the work of Justice Field ing — self-praise. Thornton reprints therein a news- item found in Covent-Garden Journal, No. 15, Feb ruary 25th (an item in dispraise of Justice Fielding, reprinted from the Daily Gazetteer with a word of self- defense), and then makes all manner of fun of Field ing's comment upon this item.
In order to fill up his issue of March 5th, Thornton divides his attention between Hill and Fielding. The Inspector is burlesqued at length, and Hill is repre sented as being in a wild state of infatuation for Miss Bellamy3 — in an "extatic tendre" for this actress. Fielding is let off lightly with a running comment on his misspellings and other peculiarities of style —
1 See Notes on No. 14, I. 219 ff.
2 See pp. 14 and 15, above.
3 See Notes on No. 3, I. 151. 27.
INTRODUCTION 69
deliberate punning and emvoweling. On the twelfth of this month, however, Thornton harks back to a timeworn subject, ridiculing Millar 's canny method in disposing of Amelia? "Six presses, we were told, were set to work at the same time for Amelia and the Life of Bampfylde Moore Carew" — and then suggests that this method of book-puffing had been carried beyond what the public would stand for. But in this number Thornton does not confine his attention to Fielding alone. Somewhat worked up over the intro duction of Roxana Termagant into the recently pub lished Fun, Thornton takes occasion to ridicule the book, and rejoices that its author had his head broken for intruding in the Paper-War. One feels sure, how ever, that Thornton is never really serious in his ridicule, and that his vindictive spirit is but on the surface. He seems to have delighted in clever bur lesque; but often falls short of his aim and descends, in spite of himself, to mere scurrility. At this time particularly, his interest seems to have abated, for his last three issues are very dull. That of the 19th of March contains a very weak and humorless bur lesque, The Covent-Garden Journal Extraordinary No. HI; and that of the 26th following is very unin teresting.
Although the original quarrel between Hill and Fielding continued to be a source of amusement until after the Covent-Garden Journal had ended its career, from this time on, most of the enemies of Fielding became inactive, except for a general sortie at the last ; and thereafter Hill was the centre of attraction for the critics. Indeed, one may say that the tide of events turned in Fielding 's favor, for by the end of
i See pp. 29 and 53, above.
70 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
the year he seems to have worsted his adversary. On March 31st of this year some friend of Fielding's, probably Dr. John Kennedy,1 published a caustic pamphlet against Dr. Hill, Some Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. J — H — , in which the author praises Amelia as ' ' a most finished Performance ' ' and condemns the low wit of Hill in ridiculing Fielding for his unfortunate slip, and suggests that the mistake will be remedied in a second edition.
Fielding himself seems to have had a change of heart since his touch of bitterness early in the War, and now appears in support of the fun-making at the expense of both Hill and himself. Although he doubt less suffered from the unfair criticisms of Amelia, certainly he must have been amused at the outcome
iDied 1760. Author of A Dissertation on Oriuna, 1751, and a col lector of coins. The reply to Some Remarks attributes this pamphlet to Kennedy; but in his Whipping Rods, Kennedy asserts tKat he did not write Some Remarlcs. This first pamphlet, modeled on Orrery's Swift, is in the form of a series of letters. It rehearses the events of Hill's life, ridiculing his birth, his early employment, his attempts at acting, his marriages, and his literary pursuits. Particular stress is laid on his association with ' Diamond,' a courtesan; his Lucina sine Concubitu (converted into Concubitus sine Lucina!}} and his infatuation for Miss Bellamy, whom he evidently regarded as a luscious wench. In May following there appeared an answer to this pamphlet, Some Observations on the Writers of the Present Age, which extravagantly praises Hill. This is dedicated to Dr. K — y as the author of the preceding pamphlet, and defends the 'Inspector' against his charges. In this the author ridicules the puffing and padding of Amelia, but does not mention Fielding. Shortly after there appeared a burlesque (which I have not seen), Some Remarlcs on the Bruisers of the Present Age; and in November, Kennedy's Whipping Rods for Trifling, Scurrhill Scribblers, attributed to Dr. Kennedy in Spring-Garden Journal, No. 1. In this Kennedy replies to several attacks made by Hill in his Inspectors, par ticularly one on April 10th in which 'Major England,' Hill's imaginary body-guard, is reported to have punished the author of the first Some Remarks. Kennedy accuses Hill of having written Some Observations, ridicules his 'Lion,' and tears his character to shreds.
INTRODUCTION 71
of his Paper- War, for it was not in his nature to sulk and resent being twitted. The comical side of the affair evidently came home to him very quickly, for in his Journals previous to the 8th of April we find him printing advertisements of a burlesque skit on his quarrel with Hill, — Pasquin turn'd Drawcansir. The advertisement in the London Daily Advertiser of March 30th, similar to those in Fielding's Journal, reads as follows :
For the Benefit of MR. MACKLIN
At the Theatre Royal in COVENT-GARDEN on Wednesday the 8th of April, will be presented a COMEDY call'd
The PROVOK'D HUSBAND:
After which will be exhibited, A New Dramatic Satire, of Two Acts, call'd
COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE :
Or, PASQUIN turn'd DRAWCANSIR
CENSOR of GREAT BRITAIN
Written on the Model of the Comedies of Aristophanes, and the Pasquinades of the Italian Theatre in Paris.
With Choruses of the People, after the Manner of the Greek Drama.
The Parts of the Pit, the Boxes, the Galleries, the Stage, and the Town
To be performed by THEMSELVES, for their Diver sion.
The Parts of several dull disorderly Characters, in and about St. James's To be performed by Certain Persons, for Example.
72 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
And the Part of Pasquin Drawcansir to be performed
By his CENSORIAL HIGHNESS, for his Interest. The Satire to be introduced by an Oration, and to con clude by a Peroration; Both to be spoken from the Rostrum, in the Manner of certain Orators,1 by Slg. Pasquin.
Boxes 5s. Pit. 3s. First Gall. 2s. Upper Gal. Is. To begin exactly at Six o 'Clock. Vivat Rex. Tickets to be had of Mr. Macklin, at his Lodg ings, in Bow-Street, Covent-Garden ; and of Mr. Page, at the Stage-Door, of whom Places for the Boxes may be taken.
Macklin is supposed to have written this farce;2 but precisely what took place on the stage is not known. The only review which I have found is very unsatis factory, and is to be read in Drury-Lane Journal, No. 13, April 9th. In this the Town writes in Damna tion of the New Farce, but doesn't include one word of description! All that can be learned from this is that the play was acted on the 8th according to sched ule, and that it was long drawn out.
In another month's time John Hill was embroiled in a fresh quarrel occasioned by his public caning at Kanelagh3 — a comical affair which neither Hill nor his critics could soon forget. The ' Inspector, ' in Ms paper of April 30th, had published a fictitious letter from
1 Orator Henley (see p. 66, footnote 1, above) possibly; more probably the performers in Mary Midnight 's Old Woman's Oratory, a burlesque staged under Christopher Smart's direction. See the Inspector, No. 544, Dec. 7, 1752; Gent. Mag., Jan., 1752 (p. 43); and Smart's Midwife, Nov., 1751. Smart's Oratory was intended as a banter on Henley's; see Mod. Lang. Notes, April, 1915.
2 Dibdin, History of the Stage, V. 156. The Inspector in the Shades (see p. 76, below) also attributes this to Macklin.
s See Notes on No. 32, I. 325. 25.
V NIGHT SCKM:;.I RANKLAGH ..n w.-,jn.-r,i:iv t»*.ofMa
INTRODUCTION 73
Clody, in which the writer naively reveals his ridicu lous character — a caricature of a person whom every reader recognized as Mountefort Brown, a young buck about town. In a great state of excitement, Brown had sent a letter to the ' Inspector' asking for an apology or a retraction, and, also, an interview the next morning. An hour had been set, and after miss ing Hill, Brown, finally, had bearded the 'Lion' in his den, and had threatened Hill with publishing some thing against him if he refused to retract. This Hill had flatly refused to do. Then, on the evening of May 6th, Brown had approached him at Eanelagh, pulled off his wig, caned and kicked him. In his Inspector of the next day, Hill gave a garbled account of the assault ; and in his Inspector of the 8th reported that Brown, who had really gone out of town 'on business,' had escaped arrest by hiding in a coal-hole, but that his examination was imminent. On the 9th, the 'Inspector' suddenly discovered that he really had been seriously hurt, and wrote :
''The Stream of Life which I lose in greater and greater Quantities, brings the King of Silence towards me with hastier Step."
and two days later Hill reported that his four physicians had diagnosed his case and feared an Empyema1 — a term which his enemies ridiculed at every opportunity.
By continuing to issue daily bulletins of his condi tion Hill won — not public sympathy, but derision, and became the laughing stock of the town.2 In the mean-
1 See No. 71, II. 140. 9.
2 The two prints reproduced to face pp. 72 and 74 and described in the Appendix came out during the same month.
74 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
time Brown and his friends had been busy telling their side of the story and giving Hill the lie; and on the 9th Brown surrendered himself to Justice Henry Fielding for examination. In his Journal of Tuesday, May 12th, Fielding reported that Brown had appeared before him on the Saturday, the 9th, and that he had admitted him to bail awaiting the outcome of HilPs injuries. The trial, however, never came off, for upon HilPs recovery, Brown was discharged at Hick's Hall for lack of a prosecution.1
In addition to the cartoons which came out, there appeared, on May 16th, a pamphlet in satire on the whole affair. This bore the title Libitina Sine Con- flictu, named in parody on HilPs Lucina Sine Concu- bitu,2 and is possibly the work of Arthur Murphy.3 In this Dr. Atall (Hill) is represented as having died on the 13th; and an account is given of his struggle to stem the rapidly ebbing "Stream of Life." There follows a mock Will, an appropriate Epitaph, and the account of a post-mortem examination, which revealed AtalPs Empyema to have been merely an inflamma tion of the bowels. Finally, there is an accusation, in the same spirit of burlesque, charging Fielding with having protected HilPs Murderers, and asserting that he had conspired to set up, in place of Hill, an im postor, who was then carrying on the Inspector and deceiving the public!
To this Hill made no reply; and, for once in his career, he seems to have been somewhat humbled. In
1 Account in Old England, May 30, 1752. But Hill in his Inspector of the same day threatens that the prosecution will be taken up at the Court of the King's Bench.
2 See p. 38, above.
3 So ascribed in the handwriting of some former owner of the copy which is now in the Yale Library, but without citing any authority.
INTRODUCTION 75
his Inspector of the 26th, he even offered to withdraw the prosecution of Brown if an apology was forth coming. Later in the year1 he began to bluster and rant on the subject; and his enemies, in turn, to ridi cule him. In June, there appeared a pamphlet in defense of Brown's conduct, A Narrative of the Affair between Mr. Brown and the Inspector; and in Decem ber of this year, the affair came to an end with a poetical effusion, The Inspector's Rhapsody or Solil oquy on the Loss of his Wig in a Scuffle with some Irish Gentlemen at Ranelagh. Therein one reads some very amusing satire on Hill, who bewails the loss of
"That bright addition to my walnut phiz" and after reviewing the events of his life, says :
For fame let Fielding scratch his pensive head, Fame I despise, I scribble but for bread; Let him his labours polish and retouch, He may write better, but not near so much !
"Tho call'd a coxcomb, frothy, pert, and dull, Still rolls my chariot, and my belly's full.
Nearly a month and a half after this assault took place, some unknown enemy of Fielding's advertised in the General Advertiser of June 27th —
A Speech made in the Censorial Court
of ALEX. DRAWCANSIR, Monday, 6th June, 1752, concerning a late Act of Parliament.
Nearly all trace of this is lost, but it seems certain that this was not by Fielding's pen;2 for in the Monthly
1 See, for instance, Inspectors of Aug. 18th and Nov. 20th.
2 See Miss Godden's Memoir (Lond. 1910), p. 259.
76 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Review, July, 1752, we read that this was "A dirty, loose, idle attempt to ridicule the late act of parlia ment, against bawdy-houses. " Certainly Fielding would not have written in such a vein.
When Fielding, on July 4th, turned his paper into a weekly, Hill, after having ignored Fielding since January llth, broke forth into ridicule against him1 for having "declined one half his Office/' insinuating that Fielding's failure in his Journal was imminent. In revenge for this, Fielding, or some of his friends, published on the 13th2 —
The INSPECTOR in the SHADES A NEW DIALOGUE in the Manner of LUCIAN
Printed for T. Swan . . . E. Cooke . . .
The Monthly Review (a magazine favorable to Hill) calls this "An ill-natured satire upon the author of the . . . LSTSPECTOK ; who is here represented as an empty, vain, illiterate scribbler : so ignorant as to con found Ovid, Horace, and Virgil together as one person. " This twenty-two page pamphlet is filled with lively, if somewhat dirty, burlesque on the ' Inspector,' who is represented as having descended to the realm of shadows, and having succeeded in forcing an entrance into the "Regions of Wit and Genius." There he cringes and fawns before Lord Orrery — the only Lord he ever knew — but behaves very pertly on meeting Swift, Pope, Dryden, and others.
1 See Notes on No. 53, II. 50. 19. Hill 's attack is found in his Inspec tor of July 7th.
2 Advertised in the London Daily Advertiser, July 16th. Because this is in imitation of Lucian's style and directed against Hill, it seems probable that the inspiration, at least, may have come from Fielding; see Notes on No. 52, II. 47. 7.
INTRODUCTION 77
He tells these gentlemen that their stuff is now re garded as ancient and worthless, and informs them that his own works have supplanted theirs. To Addison he recommends his own Inspectors as samples of really fine essay-writing; to Ben Jonson he recom mends Footers Plays and Macklin's Pasquin turn'd Drawcansir as infinitely better than his Asper. Shakespeare also is button-holed by the l Inspector ' and given sound advice! On seeing Sappho, he mis takes her for Mrs. Pilkington;1 but when set aright, discusses the classics with her. When these shades begin to tire of their amusing guest, and when his dismissal is imminent, Swift proposes that the ' Inspector ' be allowed to remain, on condition that he will submit to a very indecent treatment — and Hill accedes!
From under this castigation, however, John Hill bobs up serene and as aggressive as ever. Indeed, it was not long before he perpetrated his greatest stroke of misdirected genius. On August 13th he published,2 anonymously, the following pamphlet, advertising it thus:
Yesterday was Published
Beautifully printed on a Sheet and a Half of Writing
Paper.
To be continued every Thursday, Price Twopence,
Number I. of THE IMPERTINENT
Reposez vouz done mollement sur le doux coussinet de 1'ignorance, ou se plaissent tant de tetes bien faites,
iLetitia Pilkington (1700-1750), a literary adventuress.
2 Advertised as above in the London Daily Advertiser of the 14th.
78 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
vous n'en serez que plus tranquille, plus gras, et plus hereux.1
Printed for J. Bouquet, at the White-Hart, in Pater- Noster Row.
In this sheet Hill, not content with criticising Smart and Fielding, comes out in abuse of his own * Inspec torial ' character. His desire for notoriety had led him to this preposterous act; and therefrom he got just what he wanted, for he was now once more the central figure in this warfare. This paper has not come down to us, but extracts printed therefrom have been pre served. The following is taken from Smart's Hilliad:2
EXTRACT FROM A
PAPER called the IMPERTINENT. Published Aug. 13, 1752. Written by Dr. HILL.
There are men who write because they have wit ; there are those who write because they are hungry; There are some of the modern authors who have a constant fund of both these causes; and there are [some?] who will
1 The editor has not attempted to supply missing accents in this or any other passage from the original texts.
2 The quarrel between Hill and Smart, begun at this time, is pro longed into the next year. Previously (April 14, 1752) Hill had called Smart "a person of real and great genius, " but for some reason turned against him in the Impertinent. Smart resented the insult on his own name and on Fielding's — "a particular friend of mine" (Gentleman's Magazine, 1752, p. 600), and immediately planned to get even with Hill. Before the reply came out, Hill renewed his attacks on Smart in the Inspectors of Dec. 6th and 7th, 1752, in which he tells his readers that he had introduced Smart into the literary circle and was afraid he had made a great mistake in so doing; and had attacked him also in the Monthly Review. Smart's reply came out in Jan., 1753, in the form
INTRODUCTION 79
write, although they are not instigated either by the one or by the other. The first are all spirit; the second are all earth; the third disclose more life, or more vapidity, as the one or the other cause prevails; and for the last, having neither the one nor the other, principle for the cause, they shew neither the one nor the other character in the effect: But begin, continue, and end; as if they had neither begun, continued, nor ended at all.
Of the first, one sees an instance in Fielding; Smart with equal right stands foremost among the second; of the third, the mingled wreath belongs to Hill; and for the fourth, none who has been curious enough to read the college oration in tyonour of physic, and in defama tion of quacks and quackery, will dare to dispute the pre-eminence with Sir William Brown.
Those of the first rank are the most capricious, and the most lazy of all animals: The monkey genius would rarely exert itself, if even idleness innate did not give way to the superior love of mischief. The ass that char acters the second is as laborious, and as dull, and as indefatigable as he is empty: Stranger to the caprice of genius, he knows none of its risings or its fall; but he wears a ridiculous comicalness of aspect, that makes people smile when they see him at a distance : His mouth opens, because he must be fed ; and the world often joins with the philosopher in laughing at the insensibility and obstinacy that make him prick his lips with thistles.
of a Hilliad, an Epiclc Poem. In this he addresses Hill as ' ' Pimp ! Poet ! 'Pothecary ! Play 'r ! " and proceeds to tear his character to shreds, and closes :
Cervantes, Fielding, Lucian, Swift shall reign ******
So long in flat stupidity's extreme, Shall —11 the AECH DUNCE remain o'er
every dunce supreme.
Hill's reply, The Smartiad, appeared in Feb., 1753, but is not worth reviewing here. Kenrick's Pasquinade (1753) also takes up this quarrel.
80 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
To carry out the deception, Hill pretended to be very indignant over the Impertinent 's insults, and in his Inspector of the 25th made his protest against the continuance of this sheet. The Impertinent, accord ingly, died with its first issue, but not without having aroused Fielding — the one man whom Hill desired to draw out. In his issue of the 22d, Fielding had in serted some broadly humorous passages in ridicule of Hill's experience at Eanelagh; but in these Hill got more than he bargained for. Indeed, Hill was now fair game for every one; witness this epigram1 from the Gentleman's Magazine, September, 1752, by an unknown hand :
On the New Stile, an EPIGRAM to the Inspector.
A change in our stile, our wise laws now decree ;
A hint, Great Inspector! to you! One line then of Sense, and we all will agree,
That your stile is entirely new.
Bedford Coff. SIMPLEX.
A month later we find Hill embroiled in fresh diffi culties ; for, during the last few months, he had been laying about him rather generally, and had aroused new enemies. Among these we find Arthur Murphy, who comes out in support of his friend Henry Field ing, and in his own defense, on October 21st, in the first number of the Gray's Inn Journal. Hill had aspersed Murphy's name in his Inspector of August 10th; and now, in imitation of Fielding's Journal, Murphy begins a paper in which he revives old ridicule
i The Calendar Act went into force on the 2d of September, and on the 15th, after eleven days had been dropped, Hill had an Inspector on "The New Stile," which is herein referred to.
INTRODUCTION 81
of Hill. In his fourth number, on November llth, Murphy indicts Hill in a Court of Censorial Enquiry, much as Fielding does in his paper of the 25th :
". . . the Inspector, alias Doctor Bobadil, Acad. Reg. Scien. Burd. &c, Socius, was brought to the Bar upon an Indictment, for that he, not having a due Regard to Decency, hath presumed to rail with all the Vehemence of a Billingsgate Orator, against Mr. Christopher Smart . . .'^
It reports, further, that Counsellor Truewit found Hill guilty on this score, but that Hill pleaded his belly (Empyema!) and was let off. Murphy's paper, which continued to run some time after the Paper- War was over, in the period which concerns us, de votes much space to ridiculing Hill. In addition to the above indictment, there is in the next issue (on the 18th of November) a passage charging Hill with fomenting trouble in the Theatre-War (described below). Then in the issue of December 2d there is a capital burlesque on the assault at Eanelagh, in which Hill and his assailants are represented as dogs. A resplendent dog, Pompey2 by name (Hill), is repre sented as being attacked by five vicious curs (the five hypothetical assailants of Hill's account) and as receiving so severe an injury that he is found to be in danger of an Empyema! Before Murphy had come out with his indictment, another new enemy had arisen against Hill. On November 1st, the author of the Masquerade attacks Hill in the first issue of this
1 See footnote on pp. 78 and 79, above.
2 Keminiscent of Pompey the Little (Lond. 1751), by Francis Cov entry; dedicated, in a friendly spirit, to Fielding. In this "our Eng lish Hillario," possibly meant for John Hill, is represented in a very ridiculous light; see 1st edit., pp. 14 ff.
82 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
paper, printing therein The Last Will and Testament of Terrible Leo, a rather dull satire on Hill's deeds and character, with a passing reference to Fielding. In reply, Hill speaks contemptuously of the Mas querade, in his Inspectors of November 16th and 24th, but seems to have been but little perturbed by reading Leo 's Will.
Two new periodicals were now in the field, and on November 16th appeared another, with this title:
THE
SPRING-GARDEN JOURNAL
BY
Miss PRISCILLA TERMAGANT (A near Relation of the late Mrs. Roxana)
Addressed to the Writers of the Age, but more particu larly to
Sir ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR Author of the COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Imagine now you see a splendid Feast, The Question is, At whose Expence 'tis drest?
Dry den's Juv.
Continued every THURSDAY LONDON
Printed: And Sold at Mr. Meyer's Library in May's- Buildings, St. Martin 's-Lane ; where Letters to the Authoress are taken in.
This paper, like its predecessor, The Drury-Lane Journal, was an octavo pamphlet which appeared on
INTRODUCTION 83
Thursdays, price 3d. It ran for only four issues, however, ending with the issue of December 7th ; and, like its predecessor, had consecutive pagination from number to number. Leveled chiefly at Fielding, this sheet contains comments on his Journal, a burlesque Covent-Garden Journal Extraordinary, and also three numbers of The New Female Spectator. The entire production is generally ascribed to Bonnell Thornton ; and certainly its style is very close to that of the Drury-Lane Journal; witness this selection from Spring-Garden Journal, No. 1 :
"My late Predecessor and Sir Alexander Drawcansir have established their small Wares each at a Register Office; but I flatter myself, I am more than upon an Equality with them, for my Standard is fixed at a Publick Library . . . there is some small Reason to imagine, that the Materials for a Work of this Kind may more easily be collected hence than from the Records of Tom Sullen, Footman, &c. . . . And a Work of Genius may more properly be introduced into the World from Mr. Meyer, than from Mr. John Fielding-, but of this quantum sufficit."
Take, also, from the same number the following :
"It is currently reported, that Sir A. Drawcansir, Knight, was last Week married to a young Lady of great Beauty, but no Fortune; and that he was seen to buy . . . [Hill's Lucina sine Concubitu]1 a few Days afterwards. Verbum Sapienti sat est . . ."
This is pretty low humor; but therein Thornton kills two birds with one stone — Hill and Fielding — against both of whom this new Journal is directed.
i See p. 38, above.
84 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
In the midst of all this renewed periodical warfare, there had suddenly arisen a topic which quite over shadowed the petty rivalries of the authors of these papers. This was the reopening of hostilities between Garrick's Drury-Lane Theatre and Rich's Covent- Garden Theatre, an open set-to which culminated in a concerted riot at the Drury-Lane. A capital account of the origin and development of this rivalry is found in Fielding's Covent-Garden Journal, No. 71 j1 but here it is well to reprint other contemporary versions, and to speak of the part which Fielding and Hill played in the controversy which followed. The account in the Gentleman's Magazine, November, 1752, is cautiously worded and fair in spirit :
"The town has been allured to Covent Garden by a wire dancer,2 and some strange animals, which the manager brought together from Sadler's Wells and the Fair. Mr. Garrick ridiculed this perversion of theatrical entertainment by exhibiting a mock entertainment of the same kind.3 At this the town was offended, and a party went one evening4 determined to damn it; a person of some distinction,5 who was very busy in this laudable attempt, threw an apple at Woodward,6 and hit him. Woodward resented the blow by some words, which by the gentleman's account implied a challenge, but by Woodward's no such thing. Woodward's account is confirmed by the affidavits7 of many; that of the gentle man, only by his own, tho' the box in which he sat was
1 Nov. 18th ; see Notes on II. 136 ff.
2 Maddox from Sadler >s Wells ; see Notes on 71, II. 138. 28. s From Nov. 6th to 14th.
4 Nov. 9th.
5 Eichard Fitzpatrick.
e Henry Woodward the Comedian, and Harlequin in Harlequin Eanger. t See p. 86, below.
INTRODUCTION 85
full. The Inspector^ espoused the cause of the gentle man ; and the Covent-Garden Journalist2 of the comedian, and in a humorous account, which he gives of the quarrel between the houses in military terms, he says, that Garrick's forces took the enemy's trumpeter prisoner, who having an empyema in his side, and many dangerous bruises in his breech, could not make off ; of this invidious reflection the Inspector has avoided the force by observ ing in a note to his next essay,3 that the hurt which he received from Mr. Brown was not in his breech but his side."
Previous to the riot of the 9th, Hill had shown an impartial spirit in reviewing the situation. In his Inspector of that date he comments upon the rivalry, mentioning that the manager of the Drury-Lane, by introducing a scene in mockery of Rich's Ostriches, Wild Beasts, and Wire Dancer, had at a single stroke burlesqued and bantered half the incidents that had given success to the forces of the other house. The 1 Inspector' grants that Garrick's burlesque has merit and humor, but asks :4
"What farther Success can Mr. Garrick expect; what farther Success can he wish, than what he has? He is allowed the first Actor, and the best Manager in the World; is this not sufficient Praise? His House is always full ; is this not sufficient Reward ? ' '
The paper continues in this spirit and mildly censures Garrick for abusing his rival.
In defiance of his enemies, especially in defiance of the "Shadow of a formidable Antagonist Fielding,"
1 See p. 86, below.
2 Covent-Garden Journal, No. 71.
3 Inspector of Nov. 20th. * Inspector of Nov. 10th.
86 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
the "Virulence of a Thornton,"1 and the "Dulness of a Kennedy,"2 Hill publishes in his Inspector of the 14th an inflammatory article against Woodward, in which he expresses his real respect for Garrick, but in which he condemns his employment of Woodward in a farce that had merited public disapproval and had turned the Town against him. In this he definitely lays all the blame for the riot on Woodward. The Town was, however, divided on the matter, for we read in Gray's Inn Journal of the 10th a commendation of Garrick 's conduct in ridiculing Rich's "Smithfield Muses ' ' and his ' ' Monster-Breeding Beast. ' ' Then, in the Adventurer3 of the 14th, we find a burlesque on the "late Squabble at the Drury-Lane Theatre, on Account of the additional Scene in Harlequin Ranger, designed to expose Mr. Rich's Fair, and the famous Wire- Dancer, at the other Theatre" — a purely humorous take-off on the affair.
Woodward had resented Hill's misrepresentation of the matter in the Inspector of the 14th, and had published in the General Advertiser of the 16th a signed statement denying the charge of the l Inspector, ' and asserting that his conduct under trying conditions had been courteous and gentlemanly. It is at this point that Fielding enters the controversy, for the statement was sworn before him on the 15th, and signed H. Fielding. Hill then comes out in violent support of Fitzpatrick, in his Inspector of the 17th, calling Woodward one of the "meanest of Mankind," and giving him the lie in regard to his sworn state-
1 In his Spring -Garden Journal.
2 In his Whipping Bods.
s By John Hawkesworth ; No. 1 came out on Nov. 7, 1752. In the Inspector of Nov. 24th Hill endeavors to belittle the success of this paper.
INTRODUCTION 87
ment. In this, however, Hill still professes admiration for Garrick, and denies any motive of partiality for Kich.1 This same issue contains a letter from Fitz- patrick in which he denies the facts alleged in Woodward's statement, but in which he offers no sworn statement. Following this action of Fitz- patrick's, Woodward renewed his assertions in the General Advertiser of the 18th; and Fitzpatrick, in the London Daily Advertiser of the same day, con tributes Ms statement sworn before Justice T. Lediard on the 17th. Fielding's interest was now aroused to a publishing point ; and on the 18th he prints a paper in support of the Drury-Lane Theatre. In reply comes Hill's Inspector of the 21st, in which he again gives Woodward the lie, commends Garrick 's having withdrawn his burlesque on the 14th, and ineffectually attempts to turn Fielding's ridicule against the "Drawcansir of the Age" and those who sided with him, consigning Fielding to the regions of contempt and obloquy.
Two days later, on November 23d, Thornton joined in the fray, rather vigorously, with a long review of the whole affair, poking fun at Hill and offering a sage bit of advice to the public. But even at this late date the hubbub did not subside, for in December there appeared A Letter from Henry Woodward, Come dian, . . . to Dr. John Hill . . . "This Pamphlet," according to some unknown hand which inscribed this note in ink on the last leaf of the second edition in the Yale Library, "is suppos'd to have been wrote by Mr. Garrick and Mr. Fielding." Very possibly,
i Hill and Kich had quarreled some years before and were not on good terms now. In his Inspector of Nov. 9th, Hill allows Eich his merit, but speaks of him as one beneath his notice.
88 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
although the word-usage therein is not Fielding's.1 The pamphlet is given up almost entirely to personal abuse, and contains, also, a burlesque Inspector by Dr. Bobathill. In ridicule of Woodward's Letter, on the llth of December, there appeared A Letter from Sampson Edwards . . . to Mr. Henry Woodward, Comedian; and in January, 1753, the following pam phlets: An Answer to Henry Woodward, Comedian (in vindication of Hill), A Letter to Mr. Henry Wood ward, Comedian . . . ~by Simon Partridge (in abuse of Hill), and A Lick at 'em All (in vindication of Hill) ;2 then the quarrel was dropped.
Fielding's last word in the year's Paper-War comes on November 25th, in his last number of his Journal. In this he indicts John Hill for an old offense, in a tone which is plainly abusive and revengeful. There follows a farewell to his readers, in which it is very evident that Fielding's experiment had cost him much labor of body and spirit, and that he regretted his having entered upon a field where he had been sub jected to much unjust treatment. The rest of his paper is given over to a series of notices to the public, advertising that the Public Advertiser* had taken over the Covent-Garden Journal's good will — it would henceforth take care of Fielding's subscribers and advertisers, and would publish his legal notices and other similar features; and that his clerk, Mr. Brog- den, and his Register Office were to act as agents for
1 See pp. 99 ff., below.
2 In December, previous, there had also appeared a satire on Hill, called An Essay on the Rationality of Brutes (Codghill and Mango).
s On Dec. 1, 1752, the General Advertiser was enlarged and took the title above. In 1743 H. S. Woodfall had purchased one-tenth of the London Daily Post from Theophilus Gibber, and had named this sheet The London Daily Post and General Advertiser.
INTRODUCTION 89
this new paper. This transfer was effected on December 1st, as promised; and in the first issue of the Public Advertiser one finds a notice from Fielding asking that advertisements of things stolen or lost be sent in to Mr. Brogden, together with notices of robberies, for publication in this new sheet. Alexander Andrews1 states that Woodfall, who had formerly run the General Advertiser, had charge of this new paper and that in this venture Garrick was a shareholder.
Henry Fielding's connection with this Public Advertiser is uncertain. With the discontinuance of his own Journal, it is very natural that he should have desired another medium for publishing his legal notices. I have found no record to prove that Field ing's interest was actually purchased, so it seems probable that he simply exchanged his shares in the Covent-Garden Journal for shares in the Public Advertiser. This theory is indirectly substantiated in an article in the Monthly Review, February, 1753,2 which advertises the following pamphlet:
A scheme for a new PUBLIC ADVERTISER, with a list of the present subscribers. Folio 3d. Printed for Justice Fail-paper, in Arrow-Street, and sold by Benj. Brobdignag, in Pater-noster-row.
The Review says of this: "It is intended to ridicule Mr. Fielding, and others ; who are said to be concerned in a daily news-paper, entitled the public-advertiser." It is very unlikely, however, that Fielding was the author of this new paper ; for in his last leader in the Covent-Garden Journal he expressly asserts that he
1 History of British Journalism (Lond. 1859), I. 188.
2 Pp. 144 ff.
90 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
will not indulge in any further " correspondence with the gayer Muses. 'n
With the cessation of Fielding's Journal, however, the warfare did not cease on his enemies ' side ; nor did Hill and his other foes come to terms. In his Inspector of November 27th, Hill2 pokes fun at the illiteracy of the author of the Spring-Garden Journal; and Thorn ton, on the 30th, replies in a very sarcastic vein. In Thornton's issue of that date comes, also, the first comment on Fielding's having given up his Journal. In a Covent-Garden Journal Extraordinary, Thornton represents Fielding, now retired, as looking back over his career as ' Drawcansir, ' and as analyzing for the benefit of posterity the causes of his tremendous success as a journalist. The satire is dull and unin teresting, but is not in any degree so unkind as that which followed in other papers. The first of these vicious ' obituaries ' came in Old England, on December 2d, in the form of a letter to the Author:
ALEC was born early in the year of our Lord 1752, the very year which is now almost in its wane . . . Alec was young and old too in as few months.
The place of his nativity has been variously related. Some have fixed it in the Mint, others at Hockley in the Hole,3 and not a few at Bethlem, commonly called Bedlam ;4 but the far greater part are positive in opinion, he first breathed in that more celebrated place known to us now, and will be to all posterity, by the immortal name of GRUBSTREET : at least, whether he was born
1 No. 72, II. 141. 20. There is evidence that John Fielding was later connected with this paper; see Andrews' History of British Journalism (Lond. 1859), I. 190-193.
2 In a letter signed The Trunk-Maker.
3 A sporting centre.
4 See Notes on No. 35, I. 336. 11.
INTRODUCTION 91
here or not, his admirers, through a common frailty, are willing he should be allowed the distinction of such a famous nativity, weakly judging that no little fame would thence redound to their hero.
However uncertain the place of his birth may be, there is still more conjecturing about his parents. People who indulge themselves in viewing the satirical side of things, have called him a bastard; said his father was an incor rigible debauchee, and his mother a notorious harlot. But I shall give not greater countenance to this slander, than to another of a more extraordinary kind; to wit, that he had no parents at all. The obscurity of his birth and parentage has already raised some fictions as extrava gant as the birth of Hercules, or as the Bear-nurse of Romulus and Remus. Some tell us, he suckled a wolf, others says it was a fox, and a third sort believe he got his ' ' milk of human kindness ' ' by sucking a vulture. The absurdity and ignorance of such pretended relations sufficiently refute them; for but to read, is to discredit, them. These important points must therefore remain unsettled for me: They may be the search of future biographers, and may afford matter for volumes yet unthought of, or at least unwrit . . .
The very week our hero was born, he appeared abroad, not upon his own proper legs indeed ; but upon crutches1 which he used with great dexterity. He had the bulk of a common soldier even at this age, and it was well for those near him he had not the strength too; for he affected a military genius, and was very fond of stiling himself ' ' his excellency the general, ' ' &c. He levied war (as he called it) upon the powers of GRUBSTREET, his countrymen, because he said he loved to fight against father and mother, and that there was something sweeter in that ingratitude which was the most forbidden. He threw dirt about him profusely, but having no great
i On account of the gout ; see p. 4, above.
92 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
share of courage he left honour and the field to his vic torious adversaries, who, tho' he did not know it, were many of them total strangers to his Gruboean wilds . . .
ALEC became a knight errant at a time when other infants nibble the breasts of their nurses; tho' it is said he SUCKED1 plentifully enough of what he liked. Some say he sucked like a Leech, some, like a Lecher: the truth is hard to come at, and when found very insignificant . . .
ALEC had no Rosinante,2 nor yet a Sancho Pancha; but he must have both, for he could never knight-errant it on foot, or rather on crutch, nor could he mount his beast without help. What was to be done in this extremity, that it might not continue so? In the neigh borhood of Grub-street, where Alec lived, there lived a dealer in asses. Alec seeing this man driving some of these creatures, conceived a thought that gave him imme diate relief. — To be brief, he struck a bargain with the man, bought an ass, and immediately with the help only of his crutches mounted, and trotted forth in search of adventures, his crutches being all he had to rely on, either for convenience or defence.
I forgot to say he had knighted himself for this mighty purpose, and that he called himself "Censor of Great Britain." The whole time of his birth, life and death are so short, that there is the less necessity of strict dates to the events, as they all happened in a few months . . .
Passing this, let us look after our Quixote. Alec, delighted with his new servant, gives the creature its head to go which way it chuses. It carried him towards Coldbath-fields, where it may be supposed it usually grazed. When it came to Lord Cobham's, Alec beheld a strange monster at the door, resembling a LION.3 He
1 In reference to his dependence on Lyttleton, Pelham, etc.
2 In ridicule of his fondness of Quixotic literature, s Hill's 'Lion' at the Bedford.
INTRODUCTION 93
stood gazing at it awhile, afraid tho' wishing to attack it. At length however encouraged by the still position of the enemy, and thinking him asleep, he advances closer. At this instant the base of the organ, with the noise of the people, formed such a roar, as startled our poor knight off his ass, and laid him prostrate in the dirt. He was helped up however by the crowd the oddity of his appearance had brought with him, and again re mounted. He hopes1 now to signalize his courage before the people, who fell into his humour and encouraged it, and intrepidly rose up to his horrible antagonist. He lifted up his crutch, and the mob groans.1 Poor Alec is again extended in the mire, and grievously hurt, to the great diversion of the cruel spectators. They set him up again, but no persuasion could induce a third essay, 'till they had convinced him it was only a log of wood cut in the shape of a lion : then he very courageously broke one of his crutches on the wooden monster, for having put him into such bodily fear.
This put an end to his knight-errantries, before he had performed any: but a more extravagant whim took him than ever knight-errant conceived. He intended to trans late GRUBSTREET to COVENT-GARDEN !
He was indefatigable in the execution of this wild project. He worked week after week, and shewed the amazing power of industry. He was far advanced in this hopeful business, when his other crutch failed him under the loads of rubbish he would oppress himself with. This broke his gall, disappointed his darling transportation, and overwhelmed him with despair.
Instead of taking Christian comfort, his evil genius prompted him to lay violent hands on himself, and what was worse threw a halter in his way. He fairly did the hangman's business; but first wrote these lines to leave behind him:
i As in the original.
94 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
"I shall here lay down a DESIGN I have neither ability or inclination to carry on any longer."1
"Many of my graver friends have chid me for not dropping it long ago; indeed for undertaking it at all. They have been pleased to think it was BELOW my character; and some have been kind enough to tell me, that I might have employed myself more to the honor of myself, and to the good of the public."
"It is never too late to grow wise; I lay down my design and life together. ' '
Nov. 25. ALEX. DRAWCANSIR.
Thus lived and thus died the Censor of Great Britain ! A prodigy in nature, and an example, hung up in gibbets of ridicule, to the suicide and sot.
* See the last Covent-garden Journal. VERUS.
Hill, however, was not so quick to gloat over the fall of his enemy; but in his Inspector of December 6th, he printed the following notice :
"Of Fielding I had spoken nothing; I had only thought that he was contemptible : My Tenderness for a decayed Brother would have preserved the Secret in my own Breast for ever: It was he who compelled me to divulge it : Nor is he to be blamed for it, if his own After- Writings induced the World to be of my Opinion. But he is departed. The Proverb reminds me, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, that concerning dead Persons we are to say nothing, except we speak good. And in this Case there is no obeying the Precept, but by Silence. ' '
We find very little of the old vicious spirit of John Hill as we have known him ! Indeed, this last word of his, although intended to be mock-pathetic, is scarcely
i His own words in No. 72.
INTRODUCTION 95
characteristic of the person whom Fielding so viciously indicts in his final issue of the Journal.
Thornton, however, devoted the expiring issue of his Journal, December 7th, to his customary long- winded satire, as follows :
The Death of Sir Alexander Drawcansir has made a great Impression upon me; and as I can pay no other Mark of Gratitude to his Memory, than by all the out ward Signs of Woe and Despair, I will forbear repeat ing the Affliction, and adding one Load of Sorrow to another, by inserting his last Will and Testament, which is an Emblem of his real Wit and Humour when living.
Priscilla Termagant.
The last Will and Testament, &c.
IN the Name of God, Amen. I Sir Alexander Draw cansir Knight, being of sound Mind and Memory, do make this my last Will and Testament, in Manner following, hereby revoking all former Will or Wills whatsoever.
I resign, &c. and humbly intreat that my Body may have all decent Interment; but that Frugality and Parsimony be observed throughout.1
My Disposition of all my worldly Concerns, is as follows :
Imprimis, I leave to my dear Wife all the Money in my Bureau.
I direct that all my Manuscripts (except as hereafter excepted) be burnt, as not being of any other important Use than to make a good warm Christmas Fire.
I am willing that all my Covent-Garden Journals be made a present of to the Societies of Lincoln's Inn and
i A reference to his impecunious pocket.
96 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
the Temple, to serve the necessary Purposes of every Diamerdis, who may chance to frequent certain Places allotted for the most urgent Occasions; and that my Paper upon Adultery1 be pasted up against the Door of each necessary House, by way of Remonstrance to the mettlesome Blades of the several Inns of Court.
My Manuscript of Joseph Andrews I leave to Parson Y ,2 my Chaplain and Quotation-hunter.
I direct, and it is my Will, that the Jacobite Journal be committed to the safe Custody of / — ns, for the Emolument of the Independent Electors of Westminster.
My Tom Jones I leave to the Foundling Hospital, as a Token of Gratitude and Respect.
I leave the Compleat Justice of Peace to my sworn Brother of Westminster, with Notes of Practise, and marginal References.
All my Miscellaneous Works, to John F g,s with
some additional Hints upon a certain Office;4 and with several Receipts to get Money, and how to spend it.
My Book upon the Interposition of Providence,5 &c. to my Chaplain, which, properly husbanded, will supply him with Subjects for a Series of Sermons for one Year.
To my Friend M the B r« I would have
given a Manuscript intitled,7 A Treatise upon the Art of Quibbling, and the true Formation of Margins; with Directions to all Bibliopolas how to swell an Octavo into a Quarto, and a Quarto into a Folio.
Having disposed of my Manual Effects, I come now to my Mental ones.
I do order and direct, that all and every Part of my
1 In Covent-Garden Journal, No. 67.
2 Eev. Wra. Young; see No. 52, p. 455.
3 John Fielding.
* Universal Eegister Office.
5 Published early in 1752.
e Millar the Bookseller.
7 In satire on the format of Amelia.
INTRODUCTION 97
Virtue be presented to Dr. J — n H — II,1 as a Man needful of the same.
To the Fool,2 a small Parcel of Wit, which will be a tolerable large Estate to him.
To all minor Poets, Dablers in Prose, and periodical "Writers, my Stock of Assurance, to be equally divided, in order to counter-balance his Inspectorship.
To my Successor in Business, all my Goodwill and Benevolence, which will recommend him to the Love of every Fellow-Citizen.
To the young Sparks of the B rd3 the two
Cardinal Virtues, Faith and Charity ; as they live chiefly upon Hope, I leave that Virtue to the other Dependents of both Sexes.
I direct my Honour to [be] buried, with my Body, in the Dust, for certain private Reasons.
I am desirous that my Scurrility be committed to the same Place, tho' as this is Dirt, it will be carrying Coals to Newcastle.
To Dr. J — n H — II I leave my Wife — a real Estate! who may perhaps have no Use for his Lucina* unless his Empyema5 has been of any real Injury to him.
Item, My impenetrable Coat of Male, which, as he has got so many Holes in his own Coat,5 will be of signal Service.
Item, An excellent brown Cloak,6 which will cover many Infirmities, and conceal him from open Insults.
Item, My Coat of Arms,7 which will decorate his Chariot much more than the initial Letters of his Name :
1 John Hill.
2 See footnote 2 to p. 59.
3 The Bedford Coffee-House.
4 John Hill's Lucina sine Concubitu; see p. 38, above.
5 See p. 73, above.
« Possibly a cloak which Fielding usually wore.
i Fielding was of noble descent and had a right to his Coat of Arms ; Hill used a 'cypher.'
98 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
These Articles comprehending all and every Part of my personal Estate.
And then as a parting shot, the last in the War, this epitaph :
EPITAPH
UPON Sir ALEXANDER DRAWCANSIR.
Bite him good Worm, for he was us'd to Bite, Eat, Drink, devour to gratify his Spight, Lie heavy on him, then, kind Earth, for 0 It is Due; no more than Blow for Blow.
FIELDING'S WORD-USAGE AND SIGNATURES IN HIS JOURNAL.
It is certain that Henry Fielding was the 'Draw- cansir' of this paper, and that he wrote the greater part of the literary matter which is contained therein. Here is one bit of contemporary evidence1 in support of this statement:
"Mr. H y F Id g, after having failed in the
Champion, the True Patriot, and the Jacobite Journal, has this month made another attempt to establish a news paper, by prefixing an essay, and interspersing occasional pieces of humour.
This paper ... is intitled the COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL. The author has called himself Sir ALEX ANDER DRAWCANSIR, and in this character assumes great dignity and performs several feats, for no other apparent reason than that which is given by the illus trious personage2 whose name he has appropriated 'All this I do because I dare.' }
There are, indeed, a great many leaders which bear certain definitely known signatures of Fielding's. When we test these from another direction we find that those leaders which are manifestly his work have, in almost every case, his signatures, and that those
1 Gentleman's Magazine, Jan., 1752, under Literary News. See also the heading of the Dublin issue of the Journal on p. 121, below.
2 Drawcansir in Buckingham's Eehearsal; see IV. 1:
I drink, I huff, I strut, look big and stare; And all this I can do, because I dare.
100 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
which are quite as obviously not from his pen, have none of his own signatures, unless it be at the end of a series of contributed articles which he sanctions by his initial.
The signature which he most frequently uses is the initial A. This is used in each of the first six numbers, all of which are unquestionably Fielding's work, and is very clearly the initial of his title Alexander. In the third number, indeed, we find both A and his fully written-out name, Alexander Draivcansir. In all, thirty leaders are thus signed ; and in nearly all cases, even where other signatures are present, the leaders have a word-usage and peculiarities of style which are distinctly Fielding's. Of these leaders Murphy re printed, in the first collected edition,1 only seventeen; but Henley, in his edition, reprinted all but four of the thirty, as the work of Fielding. Further evidence for assuming that this signature was used exclusively by Fielding is found in cross-references between papers bearing this signature, such, for instance, as the phrase, "My Sixth Paper," used in No. 8 with a proprietary sense which Fielding alone would have assumed.
The next most frequently used signature of Field ing's is one which he used also in the Champion,2 the initial C. This is found in nineteen leaders, of which Murphy, and Henley also, reprinted only seven as by Fielding's pen. In nearly every case, including variorum notes to news-items,3 the text has Fielding's word-usage and other marks of his style; and in No. 47, a leader signed C, we find a cross-reference to "my
1 See pp. 120 ff., below, for editions of this Journal.
2 See Lawrence's Life (Lond. 1855), p. 115.
s See Notes on No. 11, I. 201. 16, for an example.
INTRODUCTION 101
next Saturday's Paper, " also signed C. In* this phrase we find the same proprietary connotation as we did above, and can assert that Fielding used this signature exclusively as his own. There are, however, a few cases where leaders signed either A or C cannot be definitely assigned to Fielding, especially where one finds a series of letters, all or a part of which are sanctioned by these initial signatures. In such cases each portion is tested separately, and the results are recorded in the Notes.
Another signature, which occurs in four numbers only, is one which is appended to several variorum notes to news-items which are unmistakably Field ing's by other tests. This is the initial M; and while it is certainly Fielding's, it seems to have been used chiefly to give sanction to contributed articles which certainly are not his work. The matter is taken up in detail in the Notes1 to those numbers, and my con clusions are best set forth therein. Still another initial signature is P, which occurs in two numbers only. Both of these leaders seem to be Fielding's work.2 Then there is one case3 where 8 is used, and one where J4 is used. The former seems to be Field ing's, and the latter is possibly his. Besides these there are some sixteen leaders, or parts thereof, which are without any of Fielding's initial signatures. Most of these are made up of letters which bear various signatures — fictitious names, and initial signa tures — and have to be tested solely by internal evidence.
1 See Notes on Nos. 7, 13, 28, and 33.
2 See Notes on Nos. 15 and 22. s See Notes on No. 26.
* See Notes on No. 30.
102 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
Fielding, of course, kept up the pretense1 of having numerous real correspondents, because he wanted to make his paper appear to be a lively sheet, and because there were many things which he wished to write, him self, under the cover of a pseudonym. Such a corre spondent as 'Benevolus,' in Nos. 38 and 41, seems to be a genuine contributor; but such as 'Zara Grande- monde' and i Humphrey Gubbin' are obviously ficti tious persons, and usually are Fielding's creatures. Among these there are one or two signatures which deserve comment. That of Axylus2 is one used several times by Fielding as a pseudonym in his essays on the perilous subject of good nature and kindliness. The signature Misotharsus (in two numbers)3 is also a pen-name of Fielding's assumed to permit a very free-handed satire on the pert scribblers of the day. Finally there is one signature which has generally been taken as Fielding's. This is the Z. Z. signature found in two numbers4 of this Journal and in two places in the London Daily Advertiser5 of the year before this. The style and word-usage of all four of these letters bearing this signature are certainly not Henry Fielding's; but in view of the fact that two of these letters puff the Fieldings' Eegister Office and the Glastonbury Water which they sold there, it seems very likely that John Fielding, who had every reason to do so, wrote all of these Z. Z. letters ; for unlike his brother Henry, John Fielding employed a compara tively modern word-usage such as that found in these four letters.
1 See Notes on Nos. 5, 7, etc.
2 See Notes on No. 16, I. 233. 26.
3 Nos. 40 and 46.
4 See Notes on Nos. 16 and 28.
5 See Notes on No. 16, I. 236. 17.
INTRODUCTION 103
Another portion of Fielding's paper has to be tested almost solely from internal evidence; this is the Proceedings of the Censorial Court, in which there are no signatures to help us out. One would assume that the Censor wrote all these Proceedings, but such is not the case; for Fielding turned over two of his book reviews (not reprinted herein) to another hand. All of these have been tested separately, and the results are recorded in the Notes. Similarly, the news from Co vent Garden (omitted in this edition) has to be tested by word-usage, although, in one case at least,1 we find a signature, and in others, evidence that Fielding's clerk2 contributed much of this matter.
In looking about for some test for Fielding's style so that his contributions might be definitely identified, it was necessary to examine his word-usage, and to compare this with that of those men who might possibly have been contributors to his Journal. There is one marked peculiarity in Henry Fielding's vocabu lary which Keightley noted in his essay in Eraser's Magazine, February, 1858.3 This is his almost inva riable usage of hath and doth in place of the customary usage of his age. Indeed, Keightley went so far as to assert that this usage occurred in no other writer of the Eighteenth Century; but this is going too far. It is true, however, that most of his contemporaries, especially those who may have been contributors to his Journal, generally used the more modern forms, and that Fielding's usage is consistently distinct from theirs. Therefore, in testing the leaders in this Journal, the presence of the forms hath and doth in
1 See Notes on No. 50, II. 38. 20.
2 See p. 105, below.
3 Page 217.
104 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
place of the usual forms is taken as evidence strongly in favor of Fielding's having written them.1
The editor has examined the earliest editions of Amelia and the Increase of Robbers for Fielding's usage in this period, and has found an almost unvaried usage of hath and doth, whilst and durst, etc. ; and in those leaders in the Covent-Garden Journal which are unmistakably his, has found the same usage prevail ing. Indeed, if we accept the leader in No. 48, signed C, as Fielding's — on grounds other than the word- test — we find in this a convincing proof of his strong tendency to use hath in place of has, for in quoting from memory a passage in Hudibras he alters the original has found in each line to hath.2 Among his contemporaries, especially those closely in touch with him, we find an almost unvaried usage of has and does. Gar rick, in his letters ; Lyttleton, in his Works; James Ealph, in the Dedication to his Miscellaneous Poems and in his Protester; John Fielding, in his Dedication to The Fathers and in advertisements of the Eegister Office which are very probably his; Murphy, in his Essay on Fielding and in his Gray's Inn Journal (excepting one instance) ;3 Smart, in his Midwife and his Hilliad; Thornton, in his periodicals; Hill, in his Inspector; Old England; the Magazine of Magazines, etc., all generally employ has and does. There are, however, exceptions to this, for William Mason uses hath in his Letters in Elfrida; and Smollett, in bur lesque on Fielding in his Faithful Narrative, and in dialogue in his novels, uses hath and other archaic
1 The editor feels that this test is of real value, but will not be prepared to give accurate statistics until he has examined early editions of the works of all of Fielding's contemporaries.
2 See Notes on No. 48, II. 27. 4. s See p. 81, above.
INTRODUCTION 105
forms, but, in general, lias and does.'1 Finally, Joshua Brogden, in imitation of Fielding, seems to be fond of these peculiar forms; but it is very difficult to deter mine whether or not Fielding used Brogden 's name as a cloak for his own expression of opinion in commenting on the news from Covent Garden.2
The most probable contributor to this paper, outside of a few unknown persons who sent in letters to the Author, was Arthur Murphy, and after him John Fielding. The editor has, however, no means of definitely pointing out their contributions; for when he finds an essay or letter which does not have Field ing 's usage, he can say merely that either of these men, who employed a different word-usage, may have written the article in question, especially if the subject and general style give evidence of this possibility. One also suspects Ralph and Lyttleton of having contributed, and even Garrick himself; but nothing definite can be asserted for or against this theory. Certain it is, however, that Fielding wrote the greater portion of the Journal.
FIELDING'S STYLE AS DRAWCANSIR.
The periodicals of the age in which Fielding pub lished his Covent-Garden Journal can be divided into three general types: the newspaper proper, which devoted most of its space to news and advertisements ; the political newspaper, which was given up chiefly to party news and discussions ; and the literary periodi-
1 See Henley Edit., Peregrine Pickle, I. 6, for an instance of his double usage.
2 In No. 20 (not here printed) Fielding comments on a note which he says Mr. Brogden wrote, but possibly he is merely commenting on one of his own notes, for the entire passage uses hath instead of has.
106 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
cal, an essay-sheet which often had neither news nor advertisements. Fielding's Journal, like Hill's Inspector, cannot be definitely classed under any one of these heads. Unlike Old England, the Covent- Garden Journal has no political bias, but like the other news-sheets of the day, such as the Daily Advertiser, contains a large proportion of both news and adver tisements. In its leaders, however, the Journal belongs distinctly to the Rambler type, In so far as it contains essays from an Author who is master of a real literary style.
The literary form of Fielding's Journal is very similar to that of his previous ' failures ' ; and the type can be traced back to earlier experiments in periodical literature such as the Spectator and its successors. In following this model, most of the mid-century imitators assumed pseudonyms, and setting up as observers of the life of the times, recorded in a polite, conversational tone the impressions which they re ceived, embellishing their lucubrations with witty comments and enlivening them by introducing Letters to the Author. Fielding retained the literary devices which Addison and Steele used ; but he was not always polite in his wit, or restrained in his observations. In a much more vigorous manner than the ' Spectator' and his unworthy successor, the 'Inspector,' the 'Drawcansir' of 1752 assumed, also, the right of censorship over his contemporaries — a right to ridicule and criticise them. In his earlier periodicals he had assumed the same privilege, had vigorously cham pioned several causes, chiefly political, and in dealing with the follies and vices of his contemporaries had worn a mask of seriousness beneath which lay much severity but, also, much merriment of spirit. His last
INTRODUCTION 107
journal, however, champions no petty cause, and is begun in a spirit of censorship which is on the surface burlesque, but which is serious underneath. Indeed, when we realize his true aim, we are inclined to criti cise Fielding for displaying, at the outset, an extrava gant sense of humor; but this feeling wears off when we find dignified ridicule supplanting broad humor.
When he assumed this censorship over the manners and morals of the age, Fielding did not have to seek far for an appropriate censorial title, since the name, Drawcansir, was then a byword1 for the comic role which he wished to fill. Indeed, Fielding had already been branded by Colley Gibber2 as a "Drawcansir in wit, who spared neither friend nor foe"; and had seemed to take pleasure in using this name as a term in literary criticism.3 In this role of comic, conquering hero, Fielding at once engaged the enemy, after the manner of Swift in his Battle of the Books, but soon became disgusted with the conduct of the enemy, and made his peace. If Hill, however, had played fair, the warfare might have been continued in the same merry vein of wit in which it was begun, and without employ ing abusive methods. A certain amount of horse-play was inevitable in such a burlesque ; yet in this, and in all of his other satires in this periodical, we find only a few instances in which Fielding became somewhat vulgar and even abusive.
Immediately after he abandoned his Paper-War, Fielding set up a new feature in which he might con tinue his censorship over the Grub-Street forces, but
1 See p. 99, above.
2 In his Apology (2d edit., Lond. 1740), p. 232; see Notes on No. 15, I. 225. 28.
s Prologue to the Author's Farce, and Jonathan Wild, II. &
108 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
without any reference to their periodicals. This was his Court of Censorial Enquiry, a device borrowed from his Jacobite's Journal and his Champion.* In form, this was original with Fielding, and in employ ing this he had the advantage of his professional training as well as his skill in writing. Twelve years before he had used his Court very effectively against Colley Gibber and others, and now he turned it against his new enemies. In his Covent-Garden Journal, however, he employed his Censorial Court with the especial purpose of reviewing books and prints, and watching over the amusements of the day. Among the reviews of new books, his defense of Amelia2 is peculiarly excellent; for, in spite of Field ing's very obvious fondness for his "favourite Child," and his consciousness of having been unfairly treated, this review is fair-minded and is a clever refutation of the current hostile criticism. The undercurrent of pathos cannot be taken for self-pity; it was not in Fielding's nature to whimper. His defense is, indeed, spirited and vigorous; and, for the time being, his critics are made to appear utterly ridiculous. Of the other book reviews the best executed is Fielding's review of the Female Quixote.8 He knew his Cervantes thoroughly and was imbued with the comic spirit of Don Quixote; consequently his review of Mrs. Lennox's very clever imitation of this type is sympathetic, acute, and even brilliant. The rest of the reviews are somewhat dull, and although they bear the stamp of his approval, are obviously not Fielding's work.
1 In the Champion, May 17, 1740, we find the same phraseology as that employed in his Covent-Garden Journal: Proceedings at a Court of Censorial Enquiry, etc.
2 In Nos. 7 and 8. s In No. 24.
INTRODUCTION 109
In his other reports of the Proceedings of his Court he examines, indicts, and tries offenders; and recom mends to public notice those persons who deserve favor. His trial of Mossop1 is couched in the usual cumbrous law jargon, but is filled with a spirit of dry humor. Similarly, the trial of B — T — ,2 which is repeatedly postponed, seems to be purposely long drawn out, but is permeated with a spirit of witty satire. Finally, Fielding's indictment of John Hill3 is, by virtue of its incongruous legal phraseology, one of the most enjoyable bits of ridicule in the whole series.
The groundwork for Fielding's extensive literary resources had been laid, in his early days, at Eton. There he had begun his remarkable education in the literature of Greece and Rome ; and in the lean years of his apprenticeship at the drama and at the law, he had continued to build on this foundation, reading extensively and deeply in the law, in the literature of antiquity, in history, and in theology. In his C event-Garden Journal the evidence of real learning is found scattered profusely throughout his essays — in his mottoes, quoted often from memory or directly from the familiar pages of the texts which he owned; in his other quotations, citations, and paraphrases, derived also from an intimate knowledge of the books in his own library; and in his air of general culture. We are fortunate in having access to a catalogue4 of those books which were sold from his library after his
1 In Nos. 9 and 10.
2 See No. 15, I. 225. 28, for a similar trial of Gibber, a In No. 72.
* In the British Museum. See Dobson's Eighteenth Century Vignettes (N. Y. 1896), Ser. 3, p. 163 and Notes on No. 1, I. 139. 3, and No. 38, I. 243. 25.
110 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
death, for in this we find further substantiation of our impressions concerning his breadth and depth of learning. Indeed, when Fielding began his Champion (in 1739), he was already the master of a large fund of knowledge, and in his essays in this paper seems scarcely less well read in the humanities than he does in his last periodical.
In his contributions to the Covent-Garden Journal, Fielding is at his best. Therein are the most witty of his satirical essays and the most spirited of his serious discussions. Even if we do detect a diminishing vivacity of spirit towards the end of the series, we find no marked deterioration in style. Indeed, throughout these lucubrations there is an uniformly high level of literary workmanship. Despite the fact that Fielding wrote his leaders almost solely for his own times and with a purpose which more closely concerned his contemporaries than it does us, there are in this collection many essays which will appeal at once to any reader as exceedingly humorous, and several in a serious vein which will immediately hold his attention. When, moreover, one knows the condi tions under which Fielding wrote, he discovers in these essays a wealth of new material concerning the author and his environment which is particularly valuable. In speaking of the historical value of Fielding's works, Thackeray has written (as if he were one of the Eighteenth Century) i1 "I think that Mr. Hogarth and Mr. Fielding will give our children a much better idea of the manners of the present age [the Eighteenth Century] . . . than the Court Gazette' '; and in this instance, this dictum is espe cially appropriate.
i Henry Esmond, Introductory Chapter to Bk. 1.
INTRODUCTION 111
One of the most striking traits in Fielding's char acter is his steady optimism — a trait peculiar to the once born, which was formed when he most keenly felt the exuberant joy in living, and was afterwards finely tempered by the cold waters of adversity. Through out his life Fielding had that fine joy of spirit which goes with a "happy constitution " j1 and even when he had become a chronic invalid, could "forget every thing when he was before a venison pasty, or over a flask of champagne "j1 but he had, also, that unselfish love of humanity which leads a man to give up his life for the good of his fellow beings. Fielding saw both the good and the bad in his contemporaries ; and despite his close contact with the dregs of London society, he did not regard human nature as utterly depraved, and courageously went about doing good and attempting a reformation in which success seemed quite possible. The expression of this optimism and courage is found not only in his deeds, but in his written works ; and when we once understand the man, we find him to be consistently admirable and amiable.
For convenience' sake, Fielding's essays may be divided into several fairly distinct types — essays in satire, serious discussions, and essays of entertain ment. In the Champion Fielding had employed all of these types, but had laid most of his emphasis on the serious discussion of occasional and perennial topics, even going over, in some instances, into sermonizing, as in his Apology for the Clergy.2 In his Covent- Garden Journal, however, there is a stream of satire which flows on almost without interruption. It is difficult, therefore, to stamp any one essay as purely
iMrs. Montagu's Letter to the Countess of Bute, Sept. 22, 1755. 2 In several issues, beginning with that of March 29, 1740.
112 THE COVENT-GARDEN JOURNAL
humorous or as quite serious. When he employs the satirical method Fielding is always at his best, for he had gained the mastery of his "darling Wit and Humour " long before this time. In such essays one rarely finds an offensive note, and never any deep bitterness of feeling. When he ridicules the follies and vices of the age, rarely does Fielding laugh sardonically at his contemporaries, but, rather, laughs sympathetically with them. The true ridiculous, he believed, springs from affectation, and affectation from vanity and hypocrisy. To root out these cardinal failings, Fielding allied himself closely with Lucian, Cervantes, and Swift; and filled his pages with ' laughing satire/ in ridicule of that which seemed obnoxious in his contemporaries. Ridicule was his favorite weapon because he believed in the force of example, and because he felt that examples of what men should shun were much mo.re effective than examples of what men should follow.
One of the best of Fielding's essays in satire is his Glossary.1 This is superb in its irony, but is not un pleasantly sarcastic. One is reminded at once of Fielding's method in Jonathan Wild, but detects in this an undercurrent of good nature which is lacking in Wild. His next best satire is, perhaps, his bur lesque reconstruction of a portion of Hamlet.2 Field ing had long abhorred pedantry, and in this parody on Shakesperean text-editing, ridiculed contemporary scholarship in the same vein of mockery in which he had written his humorous annotations to his own Tom Thumb. Similarly, in his elaborate presentation and discussion of the fragment containing the account of
1 In No. 4.
2 In No. 31.
INTRODUCTION 113
the Robinhoodians,1 and in his pedantic examination of the word Fashion,2 Fielding ridiculed the hair splitting scholarship of the age and of the past few generations. His papers on the Eobinhoodians are permeated, also, with his antipathy for the free thinkers, and are enlivened with local color, with dialect, and with the finest of his wit and humor. His paper on Fashion is even better than his burlesque etymological study of Mney3 in the Champion, and is good satire. Then there is his lively account4 of the warfare between Garrick and Eich, which is written after the manner of his burlesque account of the Paper-War, but in a vein of good-humored satire which is far more spirited and witty. Finally, his mock-historical essays5 deserve especial notice, because in them Fielding makes merry over contemporary events, many of which were in themselves ridiculous and humorous.
It is only occasionally that Fielding drops his satirical manner and comes out frankly and seriously. In his papers on the poor,6 serious as they are in pur pose, he closely approaches in style the witty sermons of Dr. South. There are three papers on the ' Social Evil'7 which are very frankly written, and have the same shrewd analysis, wealth of illustration, and forcefulness that distinguish all of Fielding's legal writings. There are three excellent papers in which he takes up a serious discussion of his own theory of
1 In Nos. 8 and 9.