Mr. Keightley also ingeniously attempts to connect Fielding’s subsequent residence at Leyden (1726-28?) [Footnote: See Peacock’s Index to English-speaking Students who have graduated at Leyden University, 1883 (p. 35), where Fielding’s name occurs under date of 16th March 1728, and Cornhill Magazine for November 1863— “A Scotchman in Holland.”] with this affair by assuming that he was despatched to the Dutch university, instead of Oxford or Cambridge, in order to keep him out of harm’s way. This is, however, to travel somewhat from the realm of fact into that of romance. At the same time, it must be admitted that the materials for romance are tempting. A charming girl, who is also an heiress; a pusillanimous guardian with ulterior views of his own; a handsome and high-spirited young suitor; a faithful attendant ready to “beat, maim, or kill” in his master’s behalf; a frustrated elopement and a compulsory visit to the mayor — all these, with the picturesque old town of Lyme for a background, suggest a most appropriate first act to Harry Fielding’s biographical tragi-comedy. But to do such a theme justice we must
“call up him that left half-told”
the story of Denis Duval.
APPENDIX No. II.
FIELDING AND MRS. HUSSEY.
At pp. 124-5, vol. i., of J. T. Smith’s Nollekens and his Times, 1828, occurs the following note: —
“Henry Fielding was fond of colouring his pictures of life with the glowing and variegated tints of Nature, by conversing with persons of every situation and calling, as I have frequently been informed by one of my [i.e. J. T. Smith’s] great-aunts, the late Mrs. Hussey, who knew him intimately. I have heard her say, that Mr. Fielding never suffered his talent for sprightly conversation to mildew for a moment; and that his manners were so gentlemanly, that even with the lower classes, with which he frequently condescended particularly to chat, such as Sir Roger de Coverley’s old friends, the Vauxhall watermen, they seldom outstepped the limits of propriety. My aunt, who lived to the age of 105, had been blessed with four husbands, and her name had twice been changed to that of Hussey: she was of a most delightful disposition, of a retentive memory, highly entertaining, and liberally communicative; and to her I have frequently been obliged for an interesting anecdote. She was, after the death of her second husband, Mr. Hussey, a fashionable sacque and mantua-maker, and lived in the Strand, a few doors west of the residence of the celebrated Le Beck, a famous cook, who had a large portrait of himself for the sign of his house, at the north-west corner of Half-moon Street, since called Little Bedford Street. One day Mr. Fielding observed to Mrs. Hussey, that he was then engaged in writing a novel, which he thought would be his best production; and that he intended to introduce in it the characters of all his friends. Mrs. Hussey, with a smile, ventured to remark, that he must have many niches, and that surely they must already be filled. ‘I assure you, my dear madam,’ replied he, ‘there shall be a bracket for a bust of you.’ Some time after this, he informed Mrs. Hussey that the work was in the press; but, immediately recollecting that he had forgotten his promise to her, went to the printer, and was time enough to insert, in vol. iii. p. 17 [bk. x. ch. iv.], where he speaks of the shape of Sophia Western— ‘Such charms are there in affability, and so sure is it to attract the praises of all kinds of people.’— ‘It may, indeed, be compared to the celebrated Mrs. Hussey.’ To which observation he has given the following note: ‘A celebrated mantua-maker in the Strand, famous for setting off the shapes of women.’”
There is no reason for supposing that this neglected anecdote should not be in all respects authentic. In fact, upon the venerated principle that
”there it stands unto this day
To witness if I lie,” —
the existence of the passage and note in Tom Jones is practically sufficient argument for its veracity. This being so, it surely deserves some consideration for the light which it throws on Fielding’s character. Mrs. Hussey’s testimony as to his dignified and gentlemanly manners, which does not seem to be advanced to meet any particular charge, may surely be set against any innuendoes of the Burney and Walpole type as to his mean environment and coarse conversation. And the suggestion that “the characters of all his friends” — by which must be intended rather mention of them than portraits — are to be found in his masterpiece, is fairly borne out by the most casual inspection of Tom Jones, especially the first edition, where all the proper names are in italics. In the dedication alone are references to the “princely Benefactions” of John, Duke of Bedford, and to Lyttelton and Ralph Allen, both of whom are also mentioned by name in bk. xiii. ch. i. The names of Hogarth and Garrick also occur frequently. In bk. iv. ch. i. is an anecdote of Wilks the player, who had been one of Fielding’s earliest patrons. The surgeon in the story of the “Man of the Hill” (bk. viii. ch. xiii.) “whose Name began with an R,” and who “was Sergeant-Surgeon to the King,” evidently stands for Hogarth’s Chiswick neighbour, Mr. Ranby, by whose advice Fielding was ordered to Bath in 1753. Again, he knew, though he did not greatly admire, Warburton, to whose learning there is a handsome compliment in bk. xiii. ch. i. In bk. xv. ch. iv. is the name of another friend or acquaintance (also mentioned in the Journey from this World to the Next), Hooke, of the Roman History, who, like the author of Tom Jones, had drawn his pen for Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough. Bk. xi. ch. iv. contains an anecdote, real or imaginary, of Richard Nash, with whom Fielding must certainly have become familiar in his visits to Bath; and it is probable that Square’s medical advisers (bk. xviii. ch. iv.), Dr. Harrington and Dr. Brewster, both of whom subscribed to the Miscellanies of 1743, were well-known Bathonians. Mr. Willoughby, also a subscriber, was probably “Justice Willoughby of Noyle” referred to in bk. viii. ch. xi. Whether the use of Handel’s name in bk. iv. ch. v. is of any significance there is no evidence; but the description in bk. iv. ch. vi. of Conscience “sitting on its Throne in the Mind, like the LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR of this Kingdom in his Court,” and fulfilling its functions “with a Knowledge which nothing escapes, a Penetration which nothing can deceive, and an Integrity which nothing can corrupt,” is clearly an oblique panegyric of Philip Yorke, Lord Hardwicke, to whom, two years later, Fielding dedicated his Enquiry into the late Increase of Robbers, etc. Besides these, there are references to Bishop Hoadly (bk. ii. ch. vii.), Mrs. Whitefield, of the “Bell” at Gloucester, and Mr. Timothy Harris (bk. viii. ch. viii), Mrs. Clive, and Mr. Miller of the Gardener’s Dictionary (bk. ix. ch. i.); and closer examination would no doubt reveal further allusions. Meanwhile the above will be sufficient to show that the statement of the “celebrated mantua-maker in the Strand” respecting Fielding’s friends in Tom Jones is not without foundation.
APPENDIX No. III.
AMELIA’S ACCIDENT.
In addition to the alterations mentioned at p. 109 n., Fielding inserted the following paragraph in the Covent-Garden Journal, No. 3, for 11th January 1752: —
“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 any Nose themselves, except that which is mentioned in the Motto of this Paper, they would have smelt out.”
The motto is the passage from Martial (Ep. i. 4. 6) in which he speaks of the nasus rhinocerotis.
APPENDIX No. IV.
FIELDINGIANA.
The three foregoing Appendices were added to the second edition of 1889. In this Appendix, No. IV., I propose to bring together a few dispersed fragments of information, which, either in the way of fresh particulars, or in correction of hitherto-accepted statements made in the body of the book, have come to light during the interval. Much that is absolutely new cannot, at this date, be reasonably anticipated. But the unexpected always happens; and the unexpected in the present instance has been
productive of two or three items which are not unworthy of brief record.
The first relates to that famous “eulogy of Gibbon” mentioned in the second sentence of the book. The connexion of Fielding’s family with the Hapsburgs is now no longer asserted. In April 1894, the question was exhaustively examined in the Genealogist (New Series) by Mr. J. Horace Round, who came to the conclusion that such a claim could not be established; and that, consequently, any picturesque conjunction between that “exquisite picture of human manners” (as Gibbon called Tom Jones) [Footnote: Autobiographies of Edward Gibbon, 1896, p. 419.] and the “Imperial Eagle of the house of Austria” must henceforth be abandoned. Mr. Round has since reprinted his paper at pp. 216-49 of his Studies in Peerage and Family History, 1901; and in a final paragraph he announces that his arguments, at first hotly contested, have now been accepted by Burke, from whose records the story has been withdrawn.
The next matter is the exact period of Fielding’s residence at Leyden (p. 8). This, although somewhat developed, long remained obscure. In 1883, in the absence of other data, I accepted, as my predecessors had done, Murphy’s statement that Fielding “went from Eton to Leyden, and there continued to show an eager thirst for knowledge, and to study the civilians with a remarkable application for about two years, when, remittances failing, he was obliged to return to London, not then quite twenty years old [i.e. before 22nd April 1727].” [Footnote: Fielding’s Works, 1762, i. 8. The italics are mine.] When the “Sarah Andrew” episode was conclusively traced to November 1725 (Appendix I. p. 200), it seemed only reasonable to suppose that it was succeeded by the Leyden expatriation, especially as Fielding’s first play was produced in February 1728. Nor was this supposition seriously disturbed by the appearance of further information. Among Mr. Keightley’s MSS. I found reference to a paper in the Cornhill Magazine for November 1863, entitled “A Scotchman in Holland” (I believe it to have been by James Hannay). In this the writer stated that he had been allowed to inspect the Album of the University of Leyden, and had there, under 1728, found the entry, “Henricus Fielding, Anglus, Ann. 20. Stud. Lit.” Further, that Fielding was living at the Hotel of Antwerp. It will be noted that this account was derived from the Album itself; and that Fielding is styled “Stud. Lit.” Twelve years after the Cornhill article, the University published their list of students from 1575 to 1875; and in 1883 Mr. Edward Peacock, F.S.A., compiled from it, for the “Index Society,” an Index to English speaking Students who have graduated at Leyden University. At p. 35 of this appears “Fielding, Henricus, Anglus, 16 Mart. 1728. [col.] 915.” This, it will be observed, adds the month and day, but reveals nothing as to the class of study. As I have implied, neither of these entries was seriously inconsistent with Murphy’s statement, except as regards “studying the civilians.” But in 1906, Mr. A. E. H. Swaen printed in the Modern Language Review [Footnote: Vol. i, pp. 327-8 (July 1906, No. iv.)] what was apparently the fullest version of the inscription. From col. 915 (the column given by Mr. Peacock), he copied the following:— “Febr. 16 1728: Rectore Johanne Wesselio, Henricus Fielding, Anglus. 20, L.” Mr. Swaen held that this meant that, on the date named, Fielding was entered as litterarum studiosus at Leyden. In this case, it would follow that his stay in Holland must have been subsequent to February 16, 1728; and Mr. Swaen went on to suggest that as Fielding’s “first play, Love in Several Masques, was staged at Drury Lane in February 1728, and his next play, The Temple Beau, was produced in January 1730,” the barren interval or part of it, may have been filled by residence at Leyden.
The fresh complications imported into the question by this new aspect of it will be at once apparent. Up to 1875 there had been but one Fielding on the Leyden books; so that all these differing accounts were variations from a single source. In this difficulty I was fortunate enough to enlist the sympathy of Mr. Frederic Harrison, who most kindly undertook to make inquiries on my behalf at Leyden University itself. In reply to certain definite queries drawn up by me, he obtained from the distinguished scholar and Professor of History, Dr. Pieter Blok, the following authoritative particulars. The exact words in the original Album Academicum are:— “le Martii 1728 Henricus Fielding, Anglus, annor. 20 Litt. Stud.” He was then staying at the “Casteel van Antwerpen” — as related by “A Scotchman in Holland.” His name only occurs again in the yearly recensiones under the 22nd February 1729, as “Henricus Fieldingh,” when he was domiciled with one Jan Oson. He must, consequently, have left Leyden before the 8th February 1730, — the 8th February being the birthday of the University, after which all students had to be annually registered. The entry in the Album (as Mr. Swaen affirmed) is an admission entry; there are no leaving entries. As regards “studying the civilians,” Fielding might, in those days — Dr. Blok explains — have had private lessons from the professors, but could not have studied in the University without being on the books. To sum up: — After producing Love in Several Masques at Drury Lane, probably on the 12th February 1728, [Footnote: Genest, iii. 209.] Fielding was admitted a “Litt. Stud.” at Leyden University on 16th March; was still there in February 1729; and left before 8th February 1730. Murphy is therefore in fault in almost every particular. Fielding did not go from Eton to Leyden; he did not make any recognised study of the civilians “with remarkable application” or otherwise; and he did not return to London before he was twenty. But it is by no means improbable that the proximate cause of his coming home was the failure of remittances.
Another of the hitherto-unsolved difficulties in Fielding’s life has been the date of his first marriage (p. 38). Lawrence gave the year as 1735; and Keightley suggested the spring of that year. This, as Swift would say, is near the mark, though confirmation has been slow in coming. In a letter dated 18th June 1906, Mr. Thomas S. Bush announced in the Bath Chronicle that the desired information was to be found in a register (not at Salisbury, where search had been fruitlessly made, but) at the tiny church of St. Mary, Charlcombe, a secluded parish about one and a half miles north of Bath. Here is the record:— “November ye 28, 1734. — Henry Fielding, of ye Parish of St. James in Bath, Esq., and Charlotte Cradock, of ye same Parish, spinster, were married by virtue of a license from ye Court of Wells.” All Fielding lovers owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Bush, whose researches also revealed the fact that Sarah Fielding, the novelist’s third sister, was buried, not in Bath Abbey, where Dr. John Hoadly [Footnote: Bishop Hoadly is sometimes said to have written her epitaph. In this case it must have been (like Dr. Primrose’s on his Deborah) anticipatory, for Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, Bishop of Winchester, died in 1761.] raised a mural memorial to her, but “in yr entrance of the chancel [of Charlcombe Church] close to yr Rector’s seat,” 14th April 1768. These are not the only fresh traces of the connexion of the Fieldings with the old “Queen of the West.” In June last a tablet to Fielding and his sister was placed on the wall of Yew Cottage, now Widcombe Lodge, Church Street, Widcombe, where they once lived.
Sarah Fielding figures frequently in Richardson’s Correspondence; and it is with Richardson as much as with Fielding that the next jotting is concerned. Previously to 1900, although second-hand booksellers had, I believe, occasionally attributed to Fielding the pamphlet known as An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews, April 1741, no one had devoted much attention to that unworshipful performance. But when Miss Clara Thomson began to prepare her excellent and careful life of Richardson (1900), it became a part of her task to examine into this question. She found, first, that Richardson had himself ascribed Shamela to Fielding in a letter to “Mrs. Belfour” (Lady Bradshaigh); [Footnote: Correspondence, 1804, iv. p. 286.] and she was acute enough to discover, in the pamphlet itself, which appeared some months before Joseph Andrews, the suggestive, though not conclusive, fact that “Mr. B.” was provisionally transformed into “Mr. Booby.” When, in 1902, I was engaged upon my own Memoir of Richardson for the “Men of Letters” series, I was naturally indisposed to connect this undoubtedly clever, but also unquestionably gross production with Fielding
, already “unjustly censured,” as he complained in the “Preface” to the Miscellanies of 1743, for much that he had never written (p. 72). But I must honestly confess that for the present it has been my ill-fortune to discover only corroborative evidence. To a document at South Kensington, in which Shamela is mentioned, I found that Richardson had appended, in the tremulous script of his old age:— “Written by Mr. H. Fielding”; and since the publication of my book on Richardson, Mr. Frederick Macmillan has drawn my attention to the fact that a letter written in July 1741, by Mr. T. Dampier, afterwards Sub-Master of Eton and Dean of Durham, to one of the Windhams, contains the following:— “The book that has made the greatest noise lately in the polite world is Pamela, a romance in low life. It is thought to contain such excellent precepts, that a learned divine at London [Footnote: This enables me to correct an error at p. 74. As Miss Thomson points out (Samuel Richardson, 1900, p. 31) it was Dr. Benjamin Slocock of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, and not Dr. Sherlock, who praised Pamela from the pulpit. The mistake seems to have originated with Jeffrey, and was freely repeated.] recommended it very strongly from the pulpit…. The dedication [of Conyers Middleton’s Life of Cicero] to Lord Hervey has been very justly and prettily ridiculed by Fielding in a dedication to a pamphlet called Shamela which he wrote to burlesque the fore-mentioned romance.” [Footnote: Hist. MSS. Commission, 12th Report, Appendix, Part IX., p. 204.] This shows unmistakably that Shamela was attributed to Fielding by contemporary gossip. But then so was The Causidicade (p. 112), and The Apology for the Life of Mr. The’ Cibber, Comedian (p. 72). I still cling to the hope that Fielding was not the author of Shamela. The matter is examined at some length at pp. 42-45 of the “Men of Letters” Memoir of Richardson; and it is plain that, if Fielding had wished to father it, he would have included it in the Miscellanies of 1743.
Complete Fictional Works of Henry Fielding Page 441