5084. Robert Browning, Sr. to RB
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 30, 91–93.
Paris–
June 5th 1862
Dear Robert–
I enclose a few remarks, [1] as they occurred to me, when reading the work I sent you– [2] I am not capable of forming a correct judgement upon it– But I shall certainly abide by your opinion–
Your affectionate father
R Browning
Miss Haworth has promised to deliver this—which would cost more postage than it is worth——
Address, on integral page: Robert Browning Esqr / favord by Miss Haworth.
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Armstrong Browning Library.
Enclosure:
Occasional remarks, upon a work (with Henry Fielding’s name on the Title page) entitled,—“The History of Sir Harry Herald & Sir Edward Haunch”--
_________
The enquiry I am engaged in is merely to gratify my own curiosity.– I am not—ambitious of adding another Poem to those of Rowley, or to insert an additional Letter into the next edition of Junius, but having accidentally met with a work, attributed to so celebrated a writer as Fielding, & which (to me) carries strong marks of probability along with it—I am naturally desirous of obtaining some information about it-- I must confess, I cannot find the slightest trace, of such a work, ever having been written by Fielding– It could not have been a literary forgery, for these were not then in fashion; (Chatterton was born 1752 & dd 1770) nor does it look like an imitation, for then there would have been more of Joseph Andrews & Tom Jones mixed up with it–
The title page (though evidently of the same type with the rest of the work) is carefully pasted over a blank leaf– All it contains is “The History of &c by Henry Fielding Esqr”– There is neither publisher nor printer’s name nor is any place or date mentioned on it– But the binding of the Book is evidently of that kind which was then commonly used– At the end of the Volume is a “list of Books printed & sold by James Hoey, at the Mercury in Skinner Row” (I presume, the present Skinner Street)[.] This printer appears to have been one of little importance, his books being mostly designed for children—& the highest priced one is marked only four & fourpence.– Now this affords something like a date; for it was about the year 1753—that signs were ordered to be removed in London–
The only circumstance in the work itself, which can help us to fix something like a date, may be found in page 196, where mention is made of the generosity of the D____ of M__nt__u (Duke of Montagu)[.] Now from his giving no more than the initial letters—a strong probability arises that the Duke was still in existence, especially as the uninteresting narrative in which it is introduced, seems to me, a downright piece of flattery, for which there would have been no occasion had the Duke been alive [sic]– By referring to Debrett, I find, amongst the extinct peerages, the following notices—“1621—Montagu of Boughton (Baron)—1689—Montagu (Earl)=1705 Montagu (Duke) Title extinct 1749”—& it was not resumed til 1762—(Fielding died 1754)[.] The Duke alluded to was the same that in 1749 (the year of his death) played off the celebrated “hoax” of the Bottle conjurer, at the Haymarket Theatre; and this affords an additional proof, that the Book must have been printed during Fielding’s life time.–
Before I venture to make any remarks upon the work itself permit me to say a few words about the leading character mentioned in it– These are very few, & such as would naturally fall under the observation of Fielding—to whom the scene (being in part of England with which he was well acquainted) must have been quite familiar–
The first character brought under our notice, is that of Sr Harry himself—A Country Gentleman, who seems to consider a long unbroken line of Ancestry, one of the highest honours that could be conferred upon a human being– In this opinion he is quite Quixotic; but though very humourously drawn, it must be confessed that it is considerably overcharged.– Indeed I should have thought it quite as unnatural, as Smollett’s “Sir Launcelot Greaves” had I not recollected reading in Macauley’s [sic] History of England, the description given of a Country Gentleman in the time of Charles 2d—“his family pride was beyond that of a Talbot or a Howard.– He knew the Genealogies & coats of arms of all his neighbours, & could tell, which of them had assumed supporters without any right; & which were so unfortunate as to be Grandsons of Aldermen”– This perfectly coincides with the character & feelings of Sir Harry, who, as I hinted before is described with no small share of exaggeration.–
The next character, I notice, is his Brother, whose veneration for money, is as great & as ridiculous as that of the other for Genealogy. It seems, in early life he had been guilty of a most dishonourable action, which though carefully concealed from every other human being, had ever since preyed upon his own mind, & upon the circumstances connected with it, the “nodus” of the work depends.– Secluding himself, in consequence, very much from the world; he has suffered his penurious habits to encrease upon him, to such a degree as to render him almost such another, as Elwes himself or Daniel Dancer.– Yet he can hardly be called a contrast to his Brother—for though the peculiar tendencies of each diverge in an opposite direction, you cannot but observe a brotherly feeling between them.– One estimating a person’s worth by the antiquity of his family; the other by the money he may happen to be possessed of.
Next comes Sir Edward Haunch.– A thorough Squire Western, without any of his disgusting vulgarities– He is neither a drunkard, nor a swearer, nor has he the least trait of blackguardism about him– He has his oddities, it is true, but these are all confined to his dogs & his horses.– With a little more pains, his character might have been most admirably carried out.– This shews that Fielding had not then so thoroughly studied men & manners, as when, at a later period, he produced his more popular compositions.–
The Sons of Sr Harry have too great a similarity to each other, for producing an agreeable effect, in the composition of a novel.– One has travelled, & the other has not, And this forms the only apparent difference between them– There is nothing peculiarly striking in either of their characters:—they are very affectionate to each other, & very amiable: this alone interests the reader in their welfare.–
Much the same may be said of the two young ladies.– One is rich & the other poor; but they love each other like sisters– And whatever slight variations may be discovered in their dispositions, the difference is so small, that the reader can scarcely percieve [sic] it.
The rest of the personages mentioned scarcely deserve any particular notice; they are at best but sketches that need much correction & finishing.–
I come, now, to the most difficult part of my undertaking, which is, to make a few reflexions on the work itself– What I shall present you with, is nothing but a few remarks which will readily occur to any other person that may peruse the work– I have read but very few novels, except those of Fielding, but I can see when characters are drawn, as they exist in real life, & when events are brought about in a probable, though romantic manner—(these are merely my own opinions)[.]
The Book seems written by one, taking his first steps in an untried path of literature;—One, whom we should suppose to have formerly made some attempts at dramatic composition;—& One, who must have written under circumstances of apparent distress & pecuniary embarrassment– These coincide with the account handed down to us by Fielding’s biographers; but I should be very glad to find myself mistaken.–
It is evidently got up in haste; for the former part is written with an attention to composition, which we do not find in the subsequent pages, & are considerably below the Standard, which the name of Fielding now invariably carries with it.– There is matter enough in it to have furnished out 2 or 3 modern volumes, & very probably Richardson would have made 9 or 10 of it–
The Style & method, particularly the headings of the chapters, are very much like Fielding– Saying this, I am not carried away with the feelings of a writer who fancies he has discovered a fresh author for Juns, or asserts without fear of contradiction, that he has brought to light the “Masque au fer”––I merely wish to ascertain, whether, or not, a book which I picked up in Paris, bearing the name of Henry Fielding on the Title page is a genuine production of his– Possessing very limited means of satisfying myself—you may probably be enabled to give me every needed information– If it should turn out what I wish, so much the better– If not—why then I am only 4 sous out of Pocket.–
One thing I must remark– The work does not wind up in the usual manner of modern novels– The heroine (a foundling) is never made acquainted with what & who she is– The reader is left in possession of the secret, with all the particulars, but the party interested, never is–
The dialogue stands in need of great correction & is rather heavy;—luckily there is but little of it.– And the occasional attempts at wit (Fielding's talent was humour, & not wit) are insipid–
The dull story of Captain Worthy, might have been omitted altogether, & never have been missed– It adds no interest to the Story,—& is unconnected with any material circumstance in it.– As it seems inserted merely to pay an extravagant compliment to the Duke—I should like to ascertain—whether there was any connexion, between his grace & the writer–
The various incidents are brought about in a very awkward manner—but notwithstanding all these imperfections, it certainly possesses much merit– The writer is evidently used to the stage;—& perhaps this, at first, was merely a hint for the drama—as the incidents are brought about rather too abruptly for a novel–
I think, if the plot were properly worked out it might take its proper place by the side of Joseph Andrews, Tom Jones or Amelia—but in this I am speaking with regard to my opinion which cannot be regulated by experience– In spite of all efforts at impartiality, I cannot help feeling a strong bias, towards believing that Fielding is the writer– Upon which I shall merely remark, that I heartily wish some competent person could prove it.--
1. See enclosure. The manuscript containing these “few remarks,” which consists of 14 pages, is at ABL (see Reconstruction, J104).
2. The History of Sir Harry Herald and Sir Edward Haunch. “By Henry Fielding, Esq.” (Dublin, 1755), “Printed by James Hoey, at the Mercury in Skinner-Row.” The British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books lists this work under the title (first word “Herald”) without an author, published by F. Noble in London, 1755, but adds: “An edition was published in Dublin, the same year, as ‘By Henry Fielding, Esq.’”
___________________
