1...! . $35.21.. .1...\: .
1. r. <

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

   

 

 

; , itih‘ZCny: (i

_ \« INN.- A “until. 7.} «r it
I ‘ . ., ‘ , , , V .zm‘naka .r.

_ . 3:52 1.1‘ IL. (.1338

..h.u .111, $59.4. ‘33

an

MQLLETT . A .,

S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

THESIS

0-169

——‘———— — -m—b—m » —-.————~. -——~

rllflmllllllzllfllfllll Wu ll‘l‘lll

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

Smollett and the Critical Review:
Criticism of the Novel

presented bg
Philip J. Klukoff

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhD English

 

degree in

WWW

Major‘ professor

Date 1:, Novenber, 1965

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

SMOLLETT AND THE CRITICAL REVIEW:
CRITICISM OF THE NOVEL

By Philip J. Klukoff

The purpose of this study is in part to determine
the extent of Smollett's influence on the criticism of the
novel in the Critical Review, but more importantly to deter-
mine the critical foundations upon which both the Critical
and Smollett formulated their conception of the novel as a
distinct literary genre capable of development along artis-
tic principles. Because there is little evidence that
Smollett personally directed critical policy, I have found
it valuable to examine the similarities in critical tastes
and preferences between Smollett and the Critical which

Suggest the possibility of his influence.

Such examination indeed uncovers more questions than
answers, and yet it is precisely the questions which need to
be uncovered. They are questions which have heretofore re-
mained unasked by Smollett scholarship, the answers to which
are vital to a more comprehensive understanding of the
author who from the eight—year period l756~l763 emerged as

one of the most versatile men of letters in the century.

 

 

Philip J. Klukoff

They are questions which originate in a study of Smollett's
Scottish cultural heritage and literary associations, and in
a study of the critical tastes of the Critical Review which
he edited from 1756—1763. Where the former study defines
Smollett's intellectual propensity toward the aesthetic of
eighteenth-century psychological criticism, so uniformly ac-
credited by the Scottish renaissance, the latter discovers

that aesthetic as a unifying critical base for the Review.

Because he was personally and culturally involved
with and aware of the movement toward a psychological aes-
thetic in Scotland, it would be difficult to imagine that his

and the Critical's affirmative reSponse to that aesthetic was

 

coincidental, since Smollett's dominating personality was, in
a sense, an organic part of the Review's. Certainly, the
possible presence of Smollett’s pen in reviews of important
novels between l759~l763, and the reflection of his own ethi-
cal preferences and critical point of view in other reviews
between those years and in some earlier reviews, clearly
Suggest this stature in terms of the general reSponse of the
periodical. It is, again, a reSponse which I feel cannot be
divorced from Smollett's awareness of those attitudes pre- l
vailing north of the Tweed which received attention in England
during the second half of the eighteenth-century. Where

{ Smollett echoed Hutcheson's sentiments of universal benevolence

I based on a community of men whose nature was essentially good,

l th°ugh many times disguised by self-interest, the Critical

 

‘ l
xsi i#___—_.— A

 

 

Philip J. Klukoff

also asked the novelist as a "painter" of society not to
distort the nature of humanity by representing it in a "false
light," but to evoke a sympathy for society and its repre-
sentatives through the novel's organic presentation, which at
once unified the novel as a work of art and directed the
reader's sensibility toward moral awareness through imagina-

tive reSponse.

Both Smollett and the Critical accepted the Hutche-
sonian principle of sympathy as the foundation for a theory
of morals, and agreed with Gerard's thesis of imaginative or

intuitive reSponse. Both viewed the sympathetic emotion as

 

a source of judgment, and the comprehensiveness of the imagi-
nation as a source of perception and conception, thus affirm-
ing the psychological fusion of the innate "moral sense" and
aesthetic sense as the source of ethical and epistemological
awareness. Indeed, in the reviews of 1759 we can begin to

discern the critical context into which the Critical Review

 

placedthe novel as an organic genre through which the princi-
ple of universal benevolence urged men to sympathize with the
feelings of others regardless of self-interest, and taught
the reader simple ethical principles without setting up any
intellectual barrier to thwart the right kind of imaginative

reaponse.

 

 

 

 

SMDLLETT AND THE CRITICAL REVIEW:

 

CRITICISM OF THE NOVEL

BY
Philip J. Klukoff

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1965

 

 

 

To my parents, wife and sister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...what absurd judgments we form in viewing
objects through the falsifying mediums of

prejudice and passion."

Humphry Clinker

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

Introduction 0..U.CI.0.0.0.0...O0.0.0.0...00000000000000 1

Chapter I
mo ett and the Critical Review:
Literary Associations OOOOOOOOOII-OOOOOICOCOOOOOOOOOOOOC 6

Chapter I;
Premises Of Taste; Critical Response.‘OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 31

Chapter III
mo lett and the NoveIOOO...OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCO... 58

Chapter I!
The Critical Review and the novel;

1756-1763000...00000.0ooooooocoooocoooO'o'ooooooooocoooo 88
Conclusion.............................................. 140

Bibliographi00....ICC...0.......0..OOOOOICOOOOOOIIOOOOOI 159

iv

 

 

 

APPENDICES

A endix A
NoveIs reviewed in the Critical Review
1756-1763 0.0.0.0..0.0IQOOOOOCOCOOOOOOOCI...00.0.0...

 

Appendix §
Reviews written by and attributed to
Smollett in the Critical and Monthly Reviews.........

143

152

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The purpOSe of this study is in part to determine
the extent of Smollett's influence on the criticism of the

novel in the Critical Review, but more importantly to deter-

 

mine the critical foundations upon which both the Critical
and Smollett formulated their conceptibn of the novel as a
distinct literary genre capable of development along artis-
tic principles. Because there is little evidence that

Smollett personally directed critical policy, I have found

it valuable to examine these similarities in critical tastes

 

and preferences between Smollett and the Critical which sug-

gest the possibility of his influence.

Such examination indeed uncovers more questions than
answers, and yet it is precisely the questions which need to
be uncovered. They are questions which have heretofore re-
mained unasked by Smollett scholarship, the answers to which
are vital to a more comprehensive understanding of the author
who from the eight-year period 1756-1763 emerged IS one of

the most versatile men of letters in the century.

 

—_

1It was during this time that Smollett produced A
Compendium pf Authentic gpg Entertaining Vo a es (1756);-A
Complete ‘stor pf En land, whic e began in 755 and f3-
vised in I753; the Mbdern Part of An Universal History(1759_
1766); the Continuation of phg Complete History 93 En land
(1760—1761); The fie risaI: a farce produced in 1757 at the

sac-—

Theatre Ro al. He e ed launch the British Ma azin l
in which his Sir Launcglot Greaves appeared—s ein7ggg1

the Briton (1762), a political organ in defense of the Bute ’
ministry, and in 1756 began the Critical Review with Archi~
bald Hamilton and Dr. John Armstrong.

l

 

1—f————lv7

2

They are questions which originate in a study of Smollett’s
Scottish cultural heritage and literary associations, and in
a study of the critical tastes of the Critical 32122! which
he edited from 1756-1763. Where the former study defines
Smollett's intellectual propensity toward the aesthetic of
eighteenth-century psychological criticism, so uniformly ac-
credited by the Scottish renaissance, the latter discovers

that aesthetic as a unifying critical base for the Review.

Neither the scholarship dealing with the journal’s
critical tastes nor any of the major studies of Smollett

have attempted to discuss the extent of Smollett’s influence

 

on the critical policy of the Critical during the years of

his editorship. In fact, scholars have neglected to study
Smollett's career as a novelist in any apparent critical con-
text, though Morris Goldberg's work on the Scottish school's
influence on Smollett, deSpite its faults, has opened up a‘
fruitful area of study for scholars interested in the author's

critical milieu.2

There have been but three discussions of the criti-
cism of the novel in the Critical Review, two of which are

articles by Claude Jones.3 The first is a cursory note on

 

 

 

2Smollett gpd the Scottish School (Albuquerque, 1959).

3s e "The tCritical Review's First Thirty Years(l756-
1735)," ppg, CCI (1956), 70-78 and "The English Novel: A
Critical iew (1756-1785)," Mké: XIX (1958): 147'159; 213-22h~

 

fl

3

the "criteria" by which the Critical judged the novel (mor-

 

ality, instruction, its appeal to reason, sentiment, melan-
choly, and interest in human nature). The second article
devotes much of its early discussion to the Critical's atti-
tude toward the novel-reading public, the publishers of
novels, their "warehouses," and the circulating libraries.
Jones suggests that the five features of the novel which re-
ceived the most attention during the period from 1756-1785
were morality, sentimentality, characterization, probability,
and the introduction of romantic love as motivation. He ar-
gues that each critic "concocted" his own scale of values

founded on his own "common sense," and that basic critical

 

standards did appear because the reviewers realized the
novel's influence on its readers, many of whom were women
who patronized the circulating libraries. Both articles are
rather sketchy and general. Jones not only neglects to
probe beyond the obvious and proven, but fails to consider
the novel as a serious literary genre, organic in its con-

ception.

An unpublished Princeton doctoral dissertation by
Philip Benjamin is somewhat more thorough. In his chapter
on the Critical's treatment of the novel, Benjamin de-

lineates its criteria of a "good novel" in terms of the

 

eighteenth-century division into fable, plot, characters,
Sentiment, and diction. He describes the merits of a good

novel as one with a simple narrative or plot moving

 

z.

steadily toward its denouement, and aided by incidents

that were natural and not stale; characters drawn from
nature with all their different and contradictory qualities,
diSplaying genuine passions that arouse a real sympathy in
the reader, and do not play upon mawkish sentimentalism;

the ability to arouse the interest of the reader in such a
way that he will enjoy innocent amusement, and a pleasure
that is not made subservient to moral instruction; and an

elegant and flowing style}P

Because Benjamin dissects the novel in this manner,
he too cannot view the Critical's reSponse to the genre as
an organic one. The Critical considered the novel as an
artistic unit complete in itself, in which the moral or
ethic was dependent upon a structure designed to appeal to
the reader's imagination through which he could sympatheti-
cally identify with the action of the hero, and reach a

simultaneous moral and aesthetic awareness.

In the following discussion I hope to prove that
although there is little evidence of Smollett's personal

direction, the general critical reSponse of the Critical

 

o

Rev1ew, including its reSponse to the novel, was consistent

 

with Smollett's own preferences as articulated in his pre—

faces to Roderick Random, Ferdinand Count Fathom, and in re-

 

Iihp Critical Review, 1256-1220, A Study. (l93h).

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

views which can be attributed to him with some certainty.
Central to this study is the fact that both Smollett and the

Critical reaponded affirmatively to the psychological prin-

 

ciples current in eighteenth-century philosophy and criticism,
and that both organized their conception of the novel as a
serious artistic genre in terms of these principles. If
Smollett did influence the criticism of the novel in the
Critical Review, it was through his early reSponse to those

principles both in theory and practice, a reSponse which

 

found voice in the critical organ he established.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

SMDLLETT Any Egg "CRITICAL REVIEW:"
LITERARY ASSOCIATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

SMOLLETT AND TEE "CRITICAL REVIEW:"
LITERARY ASSOCIATIONS

The first we hear of Smollett's involvement with the
Critical Review is in his frequently quoted letter to Dr.
John Moore from Chelsea, August 3, 1756:

By your asking if I am engaged in any new
performance, and immediately after mentioning

the 'Critical Review,’ I conclude you have been

told I am concerned in that work: Your informa-

tion has been true; it is a small branch of an
vextensive Plan which I last year projected for

a sort of academy of belles lettres; a Scheme

which will one day, I hope be put into Execution

to its utmost extent. In the meantime the

'Critical Review' is conducted by four gentlemen

of approved abilities and meets with a very

favourable reception.1
This letter has presented two problems to Smollett scholar-
Ship, one of which has recently been solved by Professor
Derek Roper.2 Pencilled annotations in copies of Volumes
I and II of the Critical Review in the library of the Uni-
versity of Oregon reveal that the "four gentlemen of ap—
prOVed abilities" were Dr. John Armstrong, Thomas Francklin,
Patrick Murdoch, and Samuel Derrick. However, though noth-

ing Specific is known of Smollett's scheme for an academy of

 

 

1Edward S. Noyes, The Letters 2: Tobias Smpllett
(Cambridge, 1926), p, 39, "'

2"Smollett's Four Gentlemen: The First Contributors
to the 'Critical Review," RES, x (1959), 38-“.

 

PI c-Mn-p F

 

 

 

7

belles lettres, except a reference to it in Joseph Reed's

it is clear from what evidence does exist, that Smollett
launched the Critical as essentially a literary enterprise
to revive "the Spirit of criticism" and contribute towards

the formation of a public taste, a function which the academy

 

3The full title of Reed's pamphlet was A S92 in the
Egg £9; a Physical Critick: in A Letter t9 2;; Smollett, 2g-
casion'd by _ riticism 2n aflate Mbck Tra ed , caIl'd
Madri al and TruIetta. By a Halter Maker iLondon, I759). On
page E of‘tfie pampHIet the following attack on Smollett ap-
peared:

In the close of the year 1755, a certain
Caledonian Quack, by the Curtesy of England,
call'd a Doctor of Physick, whose real, or
assum'd Name was FERDINANDO MAC FATHOMLESS,
form'd a Project for initiating and perfecting
the Male-Inhabitants of this island, in the Use
and Management of the linguary Weapon, by the
Erection of a Scolding Amphi-theatre. For this
Purpose, he selected, and engag'd, on weekly
Salary, about a Dozen of the most eminent Pro-
fessors of Vociferation in this Academy: but,
after he had been at a considerable Expence,
the unfortunate Empiric could not get his Pro-
ject licenc'd.

The Doctor was greatly mortified at his
unexpected Disappointment, but being resolved
that his own, and the Sisterhood's Talents
should not be lost to the World, he set about
publishing a periodical Werk, called the Hyper-
Critical Review.

Quoted in Lewis Knapp, Tobias Smollett, Doctor 9;
”Len. fl Manners (Princeton, 1949 , pp. 7- . """’

 

 

 

[.9

 

8

would have served through meetings for the purposes of oral'
literary debates.h Professor ROper has successfully refuted
the charge that the Critical was launched as a political
organ "established under Tory and Church patronage" in oppo-
sition to the Whig Monthl , a periodical instituted by Ralph
Griffiths in 1711.9.5 Roper argues that there is no basis in
fact for attributing the antagonism between the Critical and
Monthly to political differences, since Smollett was at this
time moving away from the Whig tradition in which he had
been brought up, and because he seems to have had no contact
with politicians of the period nor was known to be a party
man. In fact, the political content of the Critical Review
was confined to its criticism of controversial books and
pamphlets, and until 1760 no occasion arose for the expres-'
sion of Tory principles. Criticism of literature occupied

more than one-fifth of the Critical's material, and the

 

 

ll’See "Proposals for Publishing Mbnthly the Progress
or Annals of Literature and the Liberal Arts," in the Public
Advertiser December 30, 1755. A month later, on February
?: I755, the same newspaper was republished with the follow-
lhg revision; "The Progress or Annals of Literature and the
Liberal Arts" was changed to "The Critical Review, or Annals
of Literature."

5"The Politics of the Critical Review, 1756-1817,"
9.1131132 University Journal, LIII (1961), 117—122.

 

 

 

 

9
Monthly Catalogue and foreign articles still another one-

fifth.6

Smollett's role in launching the journal is still
somewhat uncertain. Even though he affirms in his letter
that the Critical was a part of a larger scheme which he
had projected, Dr. Moore suggests in his prefatory memoir

to Smollett's works that the latter was "prevailed on to

 

undertake the conducting" of the Review.7 John Nichols'
memoir gives credence to the argument that Archibald ‘
Hamilton was the prime mover of the Critical in 1756. He
records that "with the assistance of Dr. Smollett and other
literary friends, heCHamiltonjcommenced the Critical fig;
Xififli"8 Indeed in the Spring of 1770 Percival Stockdale

refers to Hamilton as the "redoubted chieftan" of the

 

6The Monthly Catalogue first appeared in the number
of June, 1756 (p. 480), ostensibly to admit criticism of the
Many minor publications. Thomas Francklin, who wrote the
introduction to the first Monthly Catalogue justified its
inclusion:

We must desire our readers to consider our
Mbnthly Catalogue as the impedimental exercitus,
or baggage of oru army, which may be found useful,
though a little heavy: We shall for the most part
reserve it for the minor poets and writers of
every class, though we may now and then, for want
of room in our main body, be obliged to crowd into
it some of our best forces. We shall endeavour,
however, always to execute this part of our work
with equal care and assiduity as the rest of it,
and submit the whole to the candour and judgment of
our readers.

7Quoted in Knapp, Tobias Smollett, p. 175

8Literary Anecdotes 9; Egg Eighteenth Century(Londom
1812) III, figg'."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10
Critical when Hamilton asked him to replace William Guthrie
as its editor.9 But the title pages of the first four vol—
umes carry the name of Ralph Baldwin rather than that of
Hamilton, a fact which supports James Hannay's argument for

Baldwin as the force behind its origin as an organ for Lon-

10

don booksellers. The first issue for Hamilton was in 1758.

Dr. Armstrong's revealing letter to John Wilkes on
January 6, 1756 identifies Smollett as the originator of the
project.

...I am just going to take the step you so very
kindly push me on to, and which I should have ven—
tured upon nine years ago if it had not been for
that State of Spirits which has made me set about
it with some reluctance now, as it is an attempt
to plunge deeper into a Business which upon some
Occasion fills me with insupportable Anxiety the
cause of a thousand Reveries and Blunders which
you have often seen me ashamed of. Smollett im-
agines he and I may both make our fortunes by this
project of his; I'm afraid he is too sanguine, but
if it should turn out according to his hopes fare-
well Physick and all its Cares for me and welcome
dear Tranquility and Retirement.

9The Memoirs of Percival Stockdale (London, 1809) II,

1
O"Tobias Smollett," Quarterly Review,103 (1858), 82.

 

11Quoted in Lewis Knapp, "Dr. John Armstrong, Litter—
ateur, and Associate of Smollett, Thomson, Wilkes, and other
Celebrities," PMLA, LIX (1944), 1033.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

That "project of his" Knapp correctly conjectures was either
the academy for belles lettres or "the small branch thereof,"

the Critical Review. The latter is the more likely in that

 

the scheme for the projected academy must have failed some—
time during 1755, since the "Proposals" for publishing the
Critical Review do not mention the periodical as a branch of
any larger organized body. Indeed the evidence of Smollett's
pen in the "PrOposals," the editorial prefaces12 and some -

sixty-six articles he contributed to Volumes I and II during

 

12See also the editorial prefaces to Vols. I, II, III.

A com arison of the preface to Volume XI for
January, 1761 with a ortion from Smollett's letter
to Thomas Bontein on Becember 10, 1759, and a pass-
age from Chapter two of Roderick Random is particu-
larly striking. Using the editorial third person,
Smollett wrote in the preface:

He has not only felt the rod of persecution and
prosecution for Opinions which he really broached,
but he has been insulted in public abuse, and tra-
duced in private calumny, by obscure authors whom he
did not know, for criticism he had not written on
performances he never saw.

To Bontein, he wrote:

I have been abused, reviled, and calumniated,
for satires I never saw; I have been censured for
absurdities of which I could not possibly be guilty....

Roderick records that:

I was often inhumanely scourged for crimes I
did not commit;....I have been found guilty of robbing
orchards I never entered, of killing cats I never
hurted, of stealing gingerbread I never touched, and
of abusing old women I never saw.

 

 

 

 

||||IIIIIIIII:::::-----------f------------r-----—-—-—-——————*

12
.13 . r
1755, and the ev1dence of his editorial function of Solict-
ing articles, clearly indicate his personal influence and

direction of the Critical from its very inception.

It is tempting to agree with Professor Knapp that
Smollett's editorial powers and reviews increased as the
years passed.lh But although he complained to John Wilkes
in 1759 of being unable to "snatch...a momentary ReSpite
from reading dull books & writing dull Commentaries," Smol-
lett clearly eased his labors in 1761.15 When he wrote
to Richard Smith in 1763 that he was reSponsible for "a
great part of the Critical Review," he was referring pri-
marily to the years 1756-1761, for when he wrote to Dr.
Moore on August 16, 1762 that he was "now proprietor of that
work," he also admitted to having long resigned "the labor-
ious part of authorship."17 And it indeed sems likely that
_because of his continuing physical and mental exhaustion
Smollett shared his proprietorship with Hamilton, who appoint-

ed as editors Guthrie in 1763 and Stockdale in 1770. In

 

l3Roper, "Smollett's Four Gentlemen," 41-43.

lI'I'Knapp, Tobias Smollett, p. 176.

 

l
5Noyes, Letters, p. 61.

16Noyes, Letters, p. 81.

 

l7Edward Noyes, "Another Smollett Letter," MIN XLII
(1927), 232-233.

 

 

 

 

New

"Sun

bel

 

13
November, 1762, Boswell recorded in his journal that
"Smollett...writes now very little in the Critical Review.
Mr. Francklin, Greek professor at Cambridge, and Mr. Camp-

bell, Son to a Principal Campbell of St. Andrews write in
it."18

We would also err in arguing that the Critical was
primarily conceived as an avowed antagonist to the Monthly
to satisfy the personal rancor Smollett held for Ralph
Griffiths. Benjamin Nangle has clearly disposed of the
theory that Smollett seceded from the Monthly and estab-
lished the Critical because of his resentment at a review
by Mrs. Carter of his translation of 29p Quixote. Nangle
argues that Smollett's final review in the Monthly, that
of Smellie's Theory gig Practice 9; Midwifer ,9 appeared
three years before the review of 223 Quixote, which was in
fact written by Griffiths himself and not by Mrs. Carter.20
Again, with'the exception of William Kenrick's review of
Smollettfs edition of Voltaire, all of Smollett's works,

from Th2 Regicide in 1749 to the Qgg t9 Independence in

 

18Quoted in Claude Jones, "Smollett Studies " Univer-
_i_t_v_ o__f_ California Publications _i_n English, 9 (191.2), 90.

:Monthly Review, V (1751), 465-466.

Monthl Review First Series l;&2-1Z8g, Indexes 2;
Contributors and Articles (Oxford, I 934 , p. A

 

 

 

 

1773

the

 

 

1h
1773, receigid courteous if sometimes adverse treatment from

the Monthly.

Though Smollett held Griffiths in contempt as an"un-
distinguishing bookseller,“22 the antagonism between the
Monthly and Critical Reviews broke out into open warfare
with Owen Ruffhead's attack on Shebbeare's Thg Occasional

Critic in the Monthly for 1757. Ruffhead maintained that

 

although The Occasional Critic exposed its author‘s inde-

cency and lack of judgment in attacking the Critical review-

 

ers, it had in many instances stumbled upon the truth. He
declared that Shebbeare and the reviewers for the Critical
were "physicians without practice, authors without learning,
men without decency, gentlemen without manners, and...if
their critical merit is no greater than his...the public
will, probably be ready to add-~Critics without judgment."
Smollett, who had previously told the Hggthly that he would
not diSpute with "any low-bred, pedantic Syntax-monger, re-

tained as a servant or associate to any bookseller, or book-

 

21 . . . .
Rev1ews of Smollett's works in the Monthly Review,
VIII, 203; XIII, 196; XLIX, 500 (Ralph Griffitfisr
XVIII, 289; XXVIII, 219, 359. (Owen Ruffhead) I,
59; IV, 355. (John Cleland).

XI, Ahl. (John Hawkesworth)
XVI, 530 (Oliver Goldsmlth)
XXXIV, 419. (John Berkenhout)

22 ' h'n Monthly the Progress
See "Pro osals For Publls 1 g
or Annals of Litegature and the Liberal Arts."

23Monthly Review, XVII (October, 1757), 367-374.

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

"2h answered Ruffhead in the November number

seller's wife,
of the Critical. In an article addressed "To the Old Gen-
tle-woman who directs the Monthly Review," Smollett pro-
fessed to believe that it was Mrs. Griffiths, not Ruffhead,
who had "Squirted Malevolence at the authors of the Critical
Review." Smollett argued that he could have demonstrated
that with the exception of press errors and one or two slips
of the pen, every assertion of Egg Occasiongl Critic was
false, frivolous, or absurd. After arguing against any

similarities between Shebbeare and the Critical reviewers,

 

he suggests that Mrs. Griffiths should have employed some
sensible person to write the article.25 It is noteworthy
that both Ruffhead and Shebbeare later joined Smollett on

the staff of the Briton.

But behind the malevolence of personal antagonism,
the battle of the reviews was based on shrewd and practical
journalistic warfare. The "Proposals" of 1755 promised
readers impartiality of treatment, accuracy, justified can-
sure, and the inclusion of foreign articles, the last of
which Professor Eugene Joliat quite correctly suggests was

Smollett’s personal innovation.26 This was no doubt the

 

 

21"Critical Review, I (April, 1756), 287-288.
25Critical Review, IV (November, 1757), 469.

26Smollett gg 1g France (Paris, 1935), pp. 159-160.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16
case, since the first foreign articles were written by
Smollett's friend Patrick Murdoch, who was abroad in 1756.
In fact, the Critical's "Foreign Articles" section ran
through all numbers, and never relinquished its regularity
until November, 1762, shortly before Smollett left the jour-

nal.

The Critical thus forced the Monthly into a financial
rivalry which was so successful that by 1761, Griffiths was
forced to sell a one-quarter share in his periodical to
Benjamin Collins, and to change the format, scope, and size
of the Monthly. Although the Monthly had earlier used arti-
cles on foreign books, the journal announced in an adver-
tisement appended to the volume for the second half of 1756
that it was acquiescing in the demands of its readers, and
that with the beginning of the February, 1757 number would
give "a succinct account of foreign publications." The
Monthly even borrowed the section on "Painting and Engraving"

from the Critical.27

Smollett appears then to have been either the ori—
ginal projector or, certainly at least, one of the founders

of the Critical Review and its editor and guiding force until

___

 

27
Robert Donald Spector, "The Monthly and its Rival,"
My; 2; the New York Public Librar , LXIV (1960), 160.

 

17
1763, when his ill health forced him to give up "all con-

nection" with it.28

But Smollett’s role and influence upon
its critical policy are problems which have remained essen-
tially untouched or inadequately treated. In order to be
solved, they must be reexamined in the context of Smollett's
own literary heritage. It was a heritage profoundly colored
by the cultural renaissance in his native Scotland, a heri-
tage with which he was both personally and culturally in-
volved and quick to defend, and a heritage for which John
Shebbears chose to damn the Critical as a "Scotch Tribunal."29
That Smollett condemned English taste in his History and
letterSBO suggests that he might indeed have looked north

of the Tweed, where the Scottish renaissance in aesthetic
theory and philosophy gained momentum in the hands of
Francis Hutcheson, Alexander Gerard, David Hume, Lord Kames,
Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith, Hugh Blair, William Robertson,and

others.

 

28
Noyes, Letters, p. 96.

2
9Dr. John Shebbeare's The Occasional Critic, or

Ehg Decrees g; the Scotch Tribunal Rejudged (1757) attacked
the Critical for condemning his Third Letter T9 the People

2; England.
30 .
See Histor of En land (London 1790) . 381
and Smollett's letter EB IIexanEer Carly e of Margh 1, ’
175h, "New Smollett Letters," TLS (July 31, 1943), p. 372.

 

r--------———-—————————-——-—--————--———-———-—---—-———————---—r
18

James Hannay records that when Smollett left Scot-
land in 1739, there had "hardly been a sign" of Scottish
literature. Literary Scots like Thomson and Mallett could
only satisfy themselves by moving to London. But after
Smollett's departure, a sufficient taste for letters arose
and generated a native authorship "of a nonprofessional
character" in such men as Hume, Kames, Ferguson, Smith, and
Thomas Reid.31 Professor Goldberg argues correctly that
Smollett emerged from the same "forces" erupting in Scot-
land which produced these men.32 He was educated at Glas-
gow, where it is more than likely that he came under the
tutelage of Francis Hutcheson, then Professor of Moral Philo-
Sophy, and he was on friendly terms with Adam Smith, who
succeeded Hutcheson. Smollett later obtained his medical
degree from Marischal College, Aberdeen, where he probably
struck up his friendship with Dr. John Gregory, whom Knapp
suggests he visited in 1753. But Goldberg fails to locate
the Specific forces with which Smollett himself was actively
concerned, and by placing Smollett in the mainstream of the
Scottish Common Sense school, Goldberg severely limits him-
Self, and his study results in overgeneralization, over-
simplification, and superfluous categorization. By failing

to study carefully the aesthetic and critical dicta which

 

 

 

 

31

32Smollett 33g Egg Scottish School (Albuquerque,
1959), p. .

Hannay, "Tobias Smollett," p. 81.

 

 

l9
Smollett himself approved and pursued, much of his discus-\

sion remains ingenious, though hardly thorough.

Smollett was both personally and intellectually
involved with his Scottish heritage. During the emergence
of the Scottish renaissance, the Select Society at Edin-
burgh and the Philosophical Society at Aberdeen became
centers of intellectual camaraderie. The Select Society
was formed by a group of intellectuals as a kind of Scot-
tish Academy in 1754. They met in the Advocate's library
(of which Hume was a keeper), and in 1755 they called them-
selves the "Edinburgh Society for Encouraging Arts, Sciences,
Manufactures, and Agriculture in Scotland." They launched

1 the short-lived Edinburgh Review as their official organ.

 

The Philosophical Society was formed in Aberdeen in 1758 and
lasted until 1773. The members met in taverns for papers

and discussions, and included Dr. Gregory and Thomas Reid.

Smollett in London maintained his personal and cul-
tural Scottish allegiance. He could not fail to recognize
and be attracted by Edinburgh’s "hot-bed of genius" of which
Matthew Bramble writes, for though in London, he was much a
part of their Spirit. Through his correSpondence with
Alexander Carlyle and Home, he was made aware of their acti-
vities and, of course, when he returned to Scotland in 1753
Spent time in Edinburgh with such friends as John Hume and

Mansfield Cardonnel, who two years later were active members

 

 

 

20
of the Select Society. When Smollett visited Edinburgh in

1766, he met with Hume, Home, Robertson, Blair, Carlyle,

Robert Cullen, and Alexander and John Monro, all of whom
33

were members of the Society.

Smollett held the Select Society in high esteem. In
his review of Essays and Observationg, Physical and Literary
in the Critical for June, 1756, he wrote that

Such a community composed of persons endowed
with learning and probity, will constitute to the
improvement of philosophy, not only by their own
hints and discoveries; but also by exciting and
diffusing a Spirit of inquiry and emulation among
people who without their example, would never have
dreamed of expressing their faculties in these pur-
suits, or of publishing the remarks they might have
made in the course of their observations. While
other learned societies, honoured with the counte-
nance of royalty and encouraged by exclusive pri-
vileges, are employed in praising dead and perse-
cuting living merit; or engaged in delineating
reptiles, and classing cockle shells; this little,
private band of true philosophers exert their
talents in those pursuits which tend to the ease,
conveniencg and real advantage of their fellow
creatures. 4

Smollett's letter to Carlyle on March 1, 1754 Sheds
significant light on his attitude toward English taste and

toward Scotland and his friends in the years preceding the

launching of the Critical Review.

 

33Hannay, "Tobias Smollet," p. 101.

 

34
Critical Review, I (June, 1756), 409-410.

 

 

21

I do not think I could enjoy life with
greater relish in any part of the world than
in Scotland among you and your friends, and
I often amuse my imagination with schemes for
attaining that degree of happiness, which how-
ever is altogether out of my reach-—I am heartily
tired of this land of indifference and phlega
where the finer sensations of the soul are not
felt,--and felicity is held to consist in stupe-
fying port and overgrown buttocks of Beef--where
Genius is lost, learning undervalued, Taste
altogether extinguished, and Ignorance prevail...
Goodly criticism has been delirious a long time
but now she is quite betrayed....Te11 Jack Hume
I think he might find leisure to write me in
fieleted in penci1)a letter--make my compliments
of Mr. Cardonnel and the honest Parsons towhom
you introduced me, I mean Jardaanardige in
penciIL Logan, Blair, and Hepburn....

In that same letter he voices his approval of Dr. Arm-
Strong's Eggpg, and suSpects "that Armstrong has stole it
upon the public by which it is neglected."

Armstrong, who left Scotland and arrived in London
sometime during 1735 joined the circle of literary Scotsman
which included Thomson, Mallett, Andrew Millar, and Murdoch,
with whom he became intimate. It was no doubt Armstrong who
introduced Smollett to their company when he began to prac-
tice medicine in London in 1744. Professor Knapp establishes
the relationship between Armstrong and Smollett on the evi-
dence that they were both Scotsmen; both moved in medical
circles; both were well known in literary groups by 1748;

and both liked tavern life. Their friendship remained stead-

 

35TLS (July 31, 1943), 372.

 

 

 

 

 

22
fast until Smollett's death in 1771.36

Carlyle recorded his recollections of Smollett and
Armstrong during or about 1758, the time at which Arm-
strong's Sketches was published:

As soon as my sister got into her house in
Aldermansbury, Dr. Dickson and she gave a dinner
to my friends with two or three of his. There
were Doctors Pitcairn, Armstrong, Smollett, and
Orme, together with Dr. Robertson, John Blair,
Home and myself. We passed an exceedingly
pleasant day, although Smollett had given Arm-
strong a Staggering blow at the beginning of
dinner, by asking him some questions about his
nose, which was still patched, on account of his
having run it through the Side-glass of his
chariot when somebody came up to Speak to him.
Armstrong was naturally glumpy, and this, I was
afraid, would have Silenced him all day, which
it might, had not Smollett called him familiarly
John soon after the joke on his nose; but he
knew that Smollett loved and respected him, and
soon recovgred his good humour, and became
brilliant. 7

Through Armstrong, Smollett was undoubtedly intro-
duced to James Thomson's circle of Collins, Lyttelton,
Mallett, Quin, Millar, and Forbes. Thomson himself, while
in Edinburgh, was on intimate terms with Murdoch, John
Wilson, and John Cranston. He retained Murdoch's friend-
ship in London. It is thus probable that Smollett met
Murdoch through these associations; Mallett and Murdoch were,

Of course, future contributors to the Critical.

 

36Knapp, ""Dr. John Armstrong, Litterateur," p. 1020.

37Knapp, "Dr. John Armstrong, Litterateur," p. 1036,

 

 

 

23
The historian William Robertson, one of the

original members of the Select Society and a president of

the group, also became a friend of Smollett's. Carlyle re-

corded their meeting in 1758 with himself, Adam Smith, and
Hume.

Robertson had never seen Smollett, and was
very desirous of his acquaintance. By this time
the Doctor had retired to Chelsea, and came sel-
dom to town. Home and I, however, found that he
came once a week to Forrest's Coffeehouse, and
sometimes dine there; so we managed an appoint—
ment with him on his day, when he agreed to dine
with us. He was now become a great man, and
being much of a humourist, was not to be put out
of his way. Home, Robertson, and Smith and I
met him there, when he had several of his minions
about him, to whom he prescribed tasks of trans-
lation, compilation, or abridgment, which, after
he had seen, he recommended to the booksellers....

We passed a very pleasant day and joyful
evening. When we broke up, Robertson expressed
great surprise at the polished and agreeable man—
ners and the great urbainity of his conversation.
He had imagined that a man's manners must be a
likeneness to his books, and as Smollet has de-
scribed so well the characters of ruffians and
profligates, that he must, of course, resemble
them. This was not the first instance we had of
the rawness, in reSpect of the world, that sggll
blunted our sagacious friend's observations.

Smollett and Robertson quickly began to correSpond. In
fact, one of the most important documents that sheds light
on Smollett's position on the Critical Review is a letter
of March 15, 1759, in which Robertson introduces him to
Lord Kames.

38
The Autobio ra h pf Alexander Carlyle (London
and Edinburgh, 9 0 , pp. 355-355-

 

 

 

24

Th h have r at reason to eturn ou
thanks f3? tge gentée and favourable treazment

I have met with from the Critical Reviewers, and
which has been, indeed,no other than I expected
from your friendship; yet this is not the chief
occasion of my troubling you just now. There was
published a few weeks ago a book called "Historical
Law Tracts." The author of it is Lord Kames, one
of our judges, a man of great knowledge and worth,
and the friend of every person in Scotland to whom
you wish well. I intended (in consequence of a
permission which you granted your Scotch friends in
your last letter to Carlyle) to have drawn up an
article for his book, to be inserted in the Critical
Review;....May I beg that you will either delay
this book till next month, with some general com-
pliment upon it, and it shall then be considered at
large; or if such a delay be now improper, let me
entreat of you to look at the book, and the article
prepared for it, yourself, and to see justice done
to the merit of t 5 performance, which I can assure
you is very great.

The phrase "in consequence of a permission granted your
Scotch friends" immediately suggests that Smollett solicited
reviews from the north where he retained his friendships.
The most famous of these reviews was Hume's favourable re—
Sponse to the second edition of Wilkie's Epigoniad in April,

1759, which had been condemned by the Critical the year before.

One of those to whom he "granted a permission" was
Joseph Campbell of Edinburgh. Campbell worked with Smollett
on the modern part of the Univerggl History in 1760, and in
November, 1762, Boswell wrote in his journal that Campbell

0
was a writer on the CriticalfP Smollett's Scotch patronage

¥

39Quoted by Lewis Ben amin, The Life §_1'1_£1_ Letters of
Tobias Smollett (Boston, 1927?, pp. I7E-I76. ’“

#0

 

Jones, "Smollett Studies," p. 90.

 

 

25
‘is evident again in his reevaluation of William Guthrie, a
notorious political writer who was editor and, according to
Stockdale, the "chief contributor" to the Critical around
1770, and who is referred to as "Captain Guthrie" in a satire
on the Review in that year entitled A ypgg 32 Egg Wigg. A
Poetical Egggg, gggp reSpectfully addressed 39 Egg Critical
Reviewers yggg gfl Apology pg Egg Ingenuity 2: My. Hggg Kgiiy
£93 Egg Eiglg 9; Egg nggg. Guthrie, like Campbell, defended
the Bute ministry in Smollett's B31323. Though Smollett's
footnote in Advice (11. 201-202) labeled him as a "political
writer noted for gall," this was deleted when ggyggg and

Reproof were published together in 1748, a fact which sug-

l
gests that Smollett came to like Guthrie better.h

But we would err, I think, in concluding that the
Critical was primarily a Scottish organ functioning largely
on Scottish patronage. Certainly Smollett treated his friends

favorably, but in Spite of his influence, the Critical Review

 

was not unduly partial to the Scots. Wilkie and Home were
furious at the condemnation of the Epigoniad and Dogglas. A
great part of this misconception lies in John Shebbeare's

damnation of the Critical as a "Scotch Tribunal" and by the

 

scotticisms employed by the anonymous author of the Battle 2;

 

 

l
h Knapp, Tobias Smollett, p. 68.

 

 

 

 

ls—t

[.121

’J-

 

I: —v

26
Egg Reviews (1760) in reference to the editorial staff of
the Critical]:2 Shebbeare's attack was aimed primarily at
Smollett, Hamilton, and the Splenetic Armstrong, who in
1756 were known to be identified with the Critical, though
he was concerned chiefly with Smollett, whom he correctly
thought to be the reviewer of his nggg ngggg 32 Egg
People 2f England. But to try to identify that "tribunal"
in 1757 would be sheer conjecture because there are no
marked copies of the Critical, and because Smollett answered
Shebbeare in October, 1757, that "of five persons engaged
in writing the Critical Review only one is a native of Scot-
land,"h3 an answer which implies that Armstrong and Murdoch

had given up authorship after 1756, and disavows Hamilton's

participation as a contributor.

BecauSe it was common knowledge that Smollett was
closely connected with the journal, he became the target
for attack from disgruntled authors who were exposed to the
lash of condemnation. We need look no further than Charles
Churchill's attack on Smollett in the Apology. Churchill
took offense at the severe review of his Rosciad in March,
1761, which he incorrectly attributed to Smollett, and lashed

out at him and Hamilton:

 

~—_—

hzThe anon ous author of The Battle 2: the Reviews
describes in mock eroic Style the strlfe Between e ”
Critical and Monthly reviewers.

h3Critica1 Review, IV (October, 1757), 333.

 

 

CO

011

th

Of

St

I‘G'

0n

 

 

 

 

 

27
Who ever read the Regicide but swore
The author wrote as man ne‘er wrote before?
Others for plots and under-plots may call,
Here's the right method-~have no plot at all.
Smollett answered him in the Critical for May, 1761, and
confirmed that he "had no hand in reviewing" the Rosciad,

and that Hamilton "never in the course of his life wrote

one single article in the Critical Review."

It would be fallacious to argue that Smollett held
a tight rein on reviewing procedure. He himself admitted
that he did not see the review of Wilkie's Epigoniad nor
wrote the reviews of Home's Douglas or Churchill's Rosciad.45
0f value are his remarks to Samuel Richardson concerning
Samuel Derrick's review of a novel, The Supposed Daughter,
which appeared in the Critical for April, 1756. Derrick's
review contained the following allusion to Richardson;

"This at least we can say in his the author

of the nove151favour, that his incidents come

thick upon you; his relations are told with brevity;

and had the writer of Sir Charles Grandison been

to have worked upon his materials, he would efigily

have swelled them into twenty folio volumes."

On August 10, 1756, Smollett wrote to Richardson:

 

hkcritical Review, XI (May, 1761), 411.

 

hsNoyes, Letters, p. 51.

A6Critical Review, I (April, 1756), 261.

 

 

 

II[::::—————————————————————————————‘—————‘——‘————————————————————————————————————————'

28
Sir

I was extremely concerned to find myself
suSpected of a Silly, mean Insinuation
against Mr. Richardson's Writings, which
appeared some time ago in the Critical Re—
view: and I desired my friend Mr. Miller to
assure you in my name that it was inserted
without my privity or concurrence....I never
once mentioned Mr. Richardson's name with
disreSpect, nor ever reflected upon him or
his writing by the most distant hint or al-
1usion; & that it is impossible I Should
ever mention either as a writer or a man,
without Expgessions of Admiration and Ap-
p1ause....

This letter argues against Smollett’s close control of edi-
torial procedure. Articles need not have passed through his
hands--indeed many did not. However he did take steps to
appease his friends. He allowed Hume to write the review of
the second edition of Wilkie's Epigoniad and he must cer-
tainly have influenced Derrick's review of Egg Egggg 9f

Virtue Delineated, an abridgment of Richardson's novels, in

 

' May, 1756. Derrick wrote, "The author must certainly have
secured by themiRichardson's novelsjthe esteem of every good
friend to virtue and religion; and we are glad to find them

now reduced to such a Size as may fit them for every hand."48

...In subsequent reviews through 1763, the author of Clar-

 

issa and Pamela is treated with a reSpect bordering on vener-

ation.

 

h7Noyes, Letters, p. 40.

 

A8Critical Review, I (May, 1756), 345-

 

 

 

29
It is clear, however, that Smollett's chief duties
appear to have included the soliciting of outside contria
butions. With few exceptions, no original material or
unsolicited contributions were printed. On January 20,
1759, he wrote to Philip Miller, his neighbor in Chelsea:

Dear Sir

If you are at Leisure I should beg
as an addition to all your favours, your
opinion of this late Performance of Hill's,
which I Send with the bearer, together with
your Essay on the Papyrus: your other Book
I shall transmit one of these days. If we
could have your Thoughts on the method of
producing double Flowers from Single, in a
few days, so that they could be inserted in
the number for this month, it would be a
double obligation on

Sir
Your obliged humble servt

TS Smollett!+9

Later that year, in December, he wrote to Dr. MacAulay,
I wish you would get me an article for the next number of

, "50
the Review, on Painting, statuary, or engrav1ng.

To determine the extent of Smollett's influence on

the critical policy of the Critical Review, more particular-

 

1y on the criticism of the novel, I must extend our sights

beyOnd editorial intrigue. I have attempted thus far to

¥

49Lewis Knapp, "Smollett's Letter to Philip Miller,"

TLS. (June 24, 1944), 312.

50Noyes, Letters, p. 65.

 

 

 

 

 

30
establish Smollett's personal attachment to his Scottish
contemporaries, and to outline his role in directing the
periodical from its inception. By examining the avowed
critical reSponSes of the Review and those of Smollett him-
self, we can discern as well his intellectual kinship with
the critical concerns of the Scottish renaissance. They
were concerns which affirmed a psychological basis for the
aesthetic possibilities of the novel, and which found cur-

rency in the critical posture of the Critical Review.

 

CHAPTER II

 

 

3,

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

PREMISES 91:; TASTE: ggITICAL RESPONSE

Between 1756-1763 the Critical Review clearly
appears to have been influenced by the psychological
principles current in eighteenth-century philosophy and
criticism. The leading exponents of these principles were
the writers of the Scottish school who stressed the close
connection between man's moral and aesthetic internal
sense as well as the principle of sympathetic identifica-
tion as an epistemological and ethical agent. The premises
that experience of concrete phenomena could be intuitively

. known and that the faculties of judgment and imagination
worked simultaneously were, of course, primary critical

tenets of the second half of the century. These premises
were formulated and deve10ped since the end of the seven-
teenth-century in the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Addison,
Hutcheson, Hume, Ballie, and Hartley. After 1750, they

were commonplace in the works of Burke, Smith, Gerard and

Kames.

The underlying assumption of these critics was the
principle that all mental content originates in sensation.
Because the cognitive powers of the mind can deal only with
materials given by the senses, all our mental life depends
upon our experience. In terms of criticism, this meant that

the critic must attempt to understand the science of human

31

 

 

 

 

 

32
’nature if he was adequately to explain and evaluate

literary experience. Art, these critics believed, was pri-
marily a communication of emotion, and must be analyzed and
discussed in terms of its effect on the minds and emotions
of the audience. Consequently, the critic, through an em—
pirical examination of experience, must understand the ways
in which emotions and ideas are formed, and describe quali-
ties of reSponse to art in terms of the association of

ideas assembled from experience. The critical tastes re-
sulting from this type of analysis are applied to such
specific literary problems as characterization, rules of
drama and poetry, etc. For the critic, then, the concept

of literary form changed from a concern with external con-
ventions to the intrinsic potential of the material. He
placed value on the correctness of detail and novelty of
experience, and Stressed the emotional-intellectual re-

Sponse to the work of art.1

These critics assumed a close connection between
man's moral sense and aesthetic sense. The source of
ethical awareness and moral judgment was internal and emo-

tional--in"feeling" or sympathy--and since one of the func-

 

1Gordon McKenzie, "Critical Reaponsiveness: A
Study of the Psychological Current in later Eighteenth-
Century Criticism," University 2; California Publications
$3 English. XX (194 , .

 

 

 

 

 

33

tions of literature was to instruct, it must be emotionally
reSponded to. Beattie wrote that "Literary instruction
comes from whatever tends to raise those human affections
that are favourable to truth and virtue, or to repress the
Opposite passions...."2 Feeling transcended reason as an
agent for response because it offered a more Spontaneous
vitality of realization; it was aware of significances and
interrelationships to which logic was impervious, and stimu-
lated dormant ideas in our memory.3 Gerard reconciled
literature and morals on the grounds that taste, our judging
faculty, depends upon the imagination, and thus the affec—
tions or passions with which taste is intimately concerned
must also depend upon the imagination. Therefore, as we
discipline our taste and imagination, we discipline our emo-
tional life and learn to reSpond by habit to experience.
Moreover, the Specificness of literature enhances the vivid-
ness of impressions whose ultimate force is moral.LP An
important early Statement of this idea is found in the
Spectator papers on the "Pleasures of the Imagination."
Addison, who accepted Locke's distinction between the primary
and secondary qualities of perception, defines the secondary

pleasures of the imagination as those which flow from ideas of

 

2Beattie's works, (Philadelphia, 1809) Vol. 5, 172.

 

. 3Walter Jackson Bate, "Imagination in English Criti-
cism," ELH, XII (1945), 159.

hSee McKenzie, "Critical ReSponSiveness," p. 289.

 

 

 

 

3h

objects which are "called up into our memories, or formed

into agreeable visions of things that are either absent or

fictitious."5

In an essay of the series he stated that

...any single circumstance of what we have
formerly seen often raises up a whole scene of
imagery, and awakens numberless ideas that be—
fore slept in the imagination; such a particular
colour is able to fill the mind, on a Sudden,
with the Picture of the fields or gardens where
we first met with it, and to bring up into view
all the variety of images that once attended it.
Our imagination takes the hint, and leads us
unexpectedly into cities or theatres, plains or
meadows. We may further observe, when the fancy
thus reflects on the scenes that have passed in it
formerly, those which were at first pleasant to
behold appear more so upon reflection, and that
the memorg heightens the delightfulness of the
original.

In Spectator No. #18, Addison writes that

...when we read of torments, wounds, deaths,
and the like dismal accidents, our pleasure does
not flow so properly from the grief which such
melancholy descriptions give us, as from the
secret comparisons which we make between ourselves
and the person who suffers. Such representations
teach us to set a just value upon our own condi-
tion, and make us prize our good fortune which
exempts us from the like calamities. This is,
however, such a kind of pleaSure as we are not
capable of receiving, when we see a person actually
lying under the tortures that we meet with in a
description; because, in this case, the object
presses too close upon our senses, and bears so
hard upon us, that it does not give us time for
leisure to reflect on ourselves. Our thoughts

VI 72 5§R§£EEE£I ##11, June 21, 1712 (London, 1893),

VI 102 6Spectator ##17, June 28: 1712 (London, 1893)’
,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35
are so intent upon the misery of the sufferer,

that we cannot turn them upon our own happiness.

Whereas, on the contrary, we consider the mis-

fortunes we read in history or poetry either as

past, or as fictitious, so that the reflection
upon ourselves rises in us insensibly, and over-
bears the sorrow we conceive for the sufferings

of the afflicted.

Addison's assumptions here are two-fold: that the
imagination imposes a form or design on experience, and
that sympathy can and does act as an eSpitemological and
ethical agent through an imaginative perception of exper-
ience. The former implies that imagination depends upon
the vividness of a remembered impression which stimulates
the relevant associations from other areas of experience,8
while the latter assumption is based on the idea that all
our experience, which is known through our internal senses,
affects our conduct and therefore has moral implications
and results. Thus our interest and sympathy with characters
and actions is closely connected with our moral sense.9 The
following four psychological principles current in eighteenth-
century philosophy and criticism are based on these above
assumptions: (1) human nature is the most essential part of

"nature;" (2) there is a natural and instinctive sympathy

for one's fellow man, whether it comprises the fundamental

 

7June 30, 1712, (London, 1893), VI, 107.

3McKenzie, Critical Reaponsiveness", 189.

9McKenzie, "Critical ReSponsiveness", p. 287-289.

 

 

 

 

 

 

36
impulse of morality or not; (3) we sympathize with what we

see rather than what we hear intellectually delineated; (4)
because of its primary importance in the constitution of
man, identification by sympathy, which is achieved through
the imagination, characterizes the highest moral and aes-
thetic exertion.lo By such sympathetic identification, the
imagination perceives the fundamental reality of the pecu-
liar nature of an object and unifies our perception of ex-

perience.

Francis Hutcheson, with whom it is likely Smollett
may have studied, and whose theoretical influence on the
later Scottish writers was so marked, accepted Addison's
"Pleasures of the Imagination" often as a substitute for his
own term, "Internal sense of Beauty," and defined and ex-
tended the notion of sympathy as an aesthetic and ethical
agent. In his Egggy 2g Egg Passions, Hutcheson wrote, "I
have examined Addison's papers on the Imagination carefully
and compared his ideas with my own in my essay on Beauty; I
find that we are talking about the same thing: his Pleasures
of the Imagination are equivalent to my pleasures perceived

11
by the Internal Senses." Hutcheson aligned himself with

 

loBate, "Imagination in English Criticism," p. 159.

11Quoted in Clarence Thorpe, "Addison and Hutcheson
ggBthe Imagination," Egg (November, 1935), Vol. 2, No. 3,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37
Locke and Addison in repudiating the Shaftesburian doctrine
of innate ideas. He recognized sensation and reflection as
the ultimate sources of all knowledge, whereby our internal
sense (imagination) is excited to reSponse through experience
and reflection. These aesthetic principles common to psy-
chological criticism were extended by Scottish writerssuch
as Smith, Hume, Gerard, and Kames in the middle of the cen—
tury, three of Whom were known either personally by, or

corresponded with, Smollett.

Adam Smith, Francis Hutcheson's successor to the
Glasgow chair of Moral Philosophy, regarded sympathy as man's
internal monitor, and considered it the all-embracing prin—
ciple of moral feeling and action. In Th2 Thgggy 2f M233;

Sentiments, Smith argued that moral judgment involved sympa-

 

thetic participation with those other than the individual
himself, who would be affected by the external consequences
of an act; it necessitated even more a sympathetic awareness
with the agent of the act, both of the intention or affection
of the heart from which the act proceeds, and of the specific
situation which prompts that intention. Smith did not identi-
fy his internal monitor with the imagination, but his did
Stress the complete inability of sympathy to function without
the aid of the imagination. Thus he was careful to state at
the outset that almost all knowledge of the inner nature and
feelings of others must come through the imagination. He
argued that because we cannot immediately experience what

other men feel, we cannot form any idea of the manner in

 

 

 

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIT__________________________________________________————'“'7

38
Which they are affected. We can, however, conceive what we
ourselves should feel under like circumstances through our
own imaginative projection. Smith continued, "Though our
brother is upon the rack, as long as we ourselves are at our
ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers.
They never did and never can carry us beyond our persons,
and it is by the imagination only that was can form any
conception of what are his sensations....By the imagination

. . . . 12
we place ourselves in his s1tuation."

 

As a disciple of Hutcheson, Smith based his argu-
ments on the Hutchesonian version of the humanitarian doc-
trine of the Cambridge neo-platonists which posited that the
sharing of others' emotions might give pleasure, and Hume,
Kames, Blair, Beattie, and others all admitted that a man
might feel joys and sorrows with his neighbors no less acute-
ly than on his own account. Smith argued that all moral
distinctions are founded upon immediate sense and feeling,
and he relates moral judgment to pleasure and pain by con—
Sidering each to be the greatest objects of desire and aver-
Sion which are distinguished by immediate sense and feeling
rather than by reason. It is the function of reason to dis-
cern our pattern of conduct in light of general rules of

justice and in terms of approbation and disapprobation which

12222 Theory 2; Moral Sentiments (London, 1875),
pp' 3‘40

 

 

 

   

 

 

39

regulate our desires and aversions arrived at from our per-

ception of pleasure and pain.

Because it is simultaneously a source of judgment,
the imagination appropriates some of the powers which the
empiricists relegated to the senses as well as appropriating
some of the powers of the understanding. Consequently, our
ideas of justice and propriety result when they are in har-
mony with the sympathetic emotions of the Spectator, while
concepts of injustice and impropriety arise when there is no
coincidence between what one feels and the causes which ex-

cit the feeling. Smith wrote,

When the original passions of the person
principally concerned are in perfect concord
with the sympathetic emotions of the Spectator,
they necessarily appear to this last just and
proper, and suitable to their objects; and on
the contrary, when, upon bringing the case home
to himself, he finds that they do not coincide
with what he feels, they necessarily appear to
him unjust and improper, and unsuitable to the
causes which excite them. To approve of the
passions of another, therefore, as suitable to
their objects, is the same thing as to observe
that we entirely sympathize with them; and not
to approve of them as such, is the same thing
as to observe thig we do not entirely sympa-
thize with them.

Beattie's definition of "instruction" in his Essay
2g Poetry, published.seventeen years later, exemplifies the
way in which the Scottish school tried to combine the aes-

thetic and moral offices of literature in their efforts to

 

13
Th2 Theory pf Mbral Sentiments, p. 14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

#0

'diSCOVer a general criterion on which valid aesthetic judge
ments could be made. Instruction meant not only the com-
munication of fresh knowledge, but also that "...which
awakens our pity for the sufferings of our fellow creatures;
promotes a taste for the beauties of nature; makes vice ap-
pear the object of indignation and ridicule; inculcates a
sense of our dependence upon heaven; fortifies our minds
against the evils of life; or promotes the love of virtue
and wisdom, either by delineating their native charms, or by
setting before us in suitable colours, the dreadful conse-

quences of impudent and immoral conduct."

One of the most insistent stresses on the intuitive
nature of the imagination's dependence upon the passions
through a sympathetic sensibility comes from Alexander Gerard

9

one of the members of the Select Society. In his Essay 23

 

Taste (1759), Gerard Speaks of an instinctive "sensibility of
heart" by means of which we become interested in some of the
persons represented in poetry and drama, and sympathize with
every change in their condition. This faculty "fits a man
for easily being moved" and "for readily catching, as by in-

15

fection, any passion that a work is fitted to excite."

 

1“Quoted in A.M. Kinghorn, "Literary Aesthetics and
the Sympathetic Emotion. A Main Trend in 18th Century
Scottish Criticism," Studies ip Scottish Literature, I
(July, 1963), 1.1-1.2. ......__ “""‘"" W

15 .
An Essa 2p Tast ed. Welter J. Hipple Jr.
(GainesvilIE, 196%), p. .’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41

‘He continues that "a man who is destitute of sensibility of‘

heart must be a very imperfect judge of themfworks of taste,"
and thus a great sensibility of taste is generally accom—
panied with lively passions and is dependent upon the imagin—
ation.16
Gerard expanded this contention in his later Egggy
9Q Genius (177A). He argued that the creative imagination,
under the influence of a passion prompted in the post by
sympathetic identification, comprehended and then fused into
a concrete totality all that gave birth to that passion, and
served as vent to it. Thus there were "some ideas intimately
connected with a passion, as the object of the passion, its
cause, what is fit for supporting it, or what gratified it.
Every passion has a strong tendency‘to suggest such ideas, to

force them into our view...."17

Gerard believed that abruptness of thought tends to
characterize the progress of every passion when a sufficiently
high pitch is attained; and this the imagination, controlled
by the passion with which it has been sympathetically "in-
fected," will appreciate and reveal. If different ideas are

connected with the passion, "in different reSpects, but with

 

légg Essay 9g TaSte, p. 81.
17

 

Bate, "Imagination in English Criticism", p. 154.

 

 

 

 

 

#2

almost equal closeness," the passion introduces them with
inevitable naturalness. Thus a passion or Strongly dominant
association bestows an organic unity and immediacy upon
thought. If the result of the control of the imagination by
a passion is "comprehensiveness"--—the actual number of
ideas culled from this wide extent is determined by the na-
turalness of their relevance. When the imagination is under
the dominion of a passion which it has sympathetically
caught, "the passion directs its view to things closely con-

; nected with it, so powerfully and so constantly, that the

) imagination is drawn backward to repeated conceptions of

them;" it engrosses us wholly in the prSSent subject, and

 

) "preserves us from attending to foreign ideas, which would
confound our thoughts and retard our progress;" and when an
object is brought into the mind by a passion to which it is
related, "it receives a tincture from that passion, it ex-
erts power of association only in such ways and so far as
the passion permits it...it introduces no long train of
ideas, but Suffers the mind to return quickly to the concep-
\ tion of itself, or of some other object as intimately con—
nected to the passion....But it has no tendency...to lead
the imagination into a remote or more extensive wandering."l8
Gerard, then, viewed the imagination as a governor of in-
nate sensibility which had the powers of association and

conception.

 

 

18Bate, "Imagination in English Criticism," p. 155.

 

1 1‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

1+3

Beattie, who was influenced by Gerard and Hutcheson,
also stressed the inventive power of the imagination which
selected and arranged into new forms those ideas culled from
experience. Gerard wrote in his Egggy pg Eggpg that "As
the magnet selects, from a quantity of matter, the ferri-
ginous particles which happen to be scattered through it,
without making an impression on other substances; so imagin-
ation, by a similar sympathy, equally inexplicable, draws out
from the whole compass of nature such ideas as we have 00-
casion.for, without attending to any others; and yet presents
them with as great propriety, as if all possible conceptions
had been explicitly exposed to our View, and subjected to our
choice."19 The imagination was then capable of more than
invention. In certain cases, it enabled us to judge, "be-
cause qualified to form distinct ideas of those things in
nature, art, and science, which exercise our reason, or call

20
forth our affections."

Beattie reasons, then, that the person of taste must
possess the following qualities: "first, a lively and cor-
rect imagination; secondly, the power of distinct appre—
hension; thirdly, the capacity of being easily, strongly,
and agreeably affected, with sublimity, beauty, harmony, ex-

act imitation, etc.; fourthly, Sympathy, or Sensibility of

 

 

19_A_n_ Essay 9__n Taste, pp. 163-161..

 

20Beattie, Works, I, 212.

 

 

 

 

 

Ah
the heart; and fifthly, Judgment, or Good Sense, which is
the principle thing, and may not very improperly be said to
comprehend all the rest.“21 The function of the individual
is not only to apprehend, but to judge; not only to employ
the language of enthusiasm and express those passions agi-
tating the soul, but to adjust and correct. "The greatest
liveliness of imagination will...avail but little, if it is
not 'corrected' and regulated by the knowledge of nature,
,both external or material, and internal or moral. Without
this, there cannot be Taste; because one cannot discern

22
whether the productions of art...be good or bad."

Lord Kames also insists upon deriving a taste for
the fine arts from the human heart and the sensitive part
of our nature. He insists on it "with entire satisfaction,
that no occupation attaches a man more to his duty than that
of cultivating a taste in the fine arts. A just relish of
what is beautiful, prOper, elegant, and ornamental, in writ-

‘ ing or painting, in architecture or gardening, is a fine
preparation for discerning what is beautiful, elegant, or

23
magnanimous, in character and behaviour."

 

2
lBeattie, works, I, 243.

\ 22Beattie, works, I, 246.

 

 

23Elements 2: Criticism (New York, 1829), p. xiii.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1+5
Kames' application of the principles of the psycho-

logical School on the manner in which fiction operates on
the mind is important to this study. He writes that through
memory, a thing formerly seen may be recalled to the mind
with different degrees of accuracy. When one is introduced
to an interesting object or event which makes a strong im-
pression, the mind ruminates on every circumstance. Kames'
theory of "ideal presence" is based on the idea that the
imagination draws upon associational instincts which are
broadened and matured by the reader's experience, and in
which an order or design arises out of the associational in-
terplay of uniformity and regularity, eliciting a sympa-
thetic bond between the individual and society without in-
tellectual delineation:

When I recall the event so distinctly as to
form a complete image of it, either by words,
painting, or representation on the stage, I per-
ceive it ideally, as passing in my presence: and
this ideal perception is an act of intuition,
into which reflection enters not more than into
an act of vision. But real presence, vouched
by eye-sight, commands my belief, not only during
the direct perception, but in future reflection
upon the object. However, the idea of memory and
of Speech produces fainter emotions than the ori-
ginal or real perception. Our sympathy notwith-
standing is in the same manner engaged, and it
signifies not whether the relation be true or
false, provided images are called up to engage
our passions, and banish reflection on our pre-
sent situation.

When ideal presence is complete, we perceive
every object as in our sight; and the mind, totally
occupied with an interesting event, finds no
leisure for reflection of any sort....

 

1 [ill

 

 

 

46

Upon this ideal presence of objects is founded
that extensive influence which language hath over
the heart; an influence which, more than any other
means, strengthens the bond of society, and attracts
individuals from their private system to exert them-
selves in acts of generosity and benevolence. With-
out it the finest Speaker or writer would in vain
attempt to move our passions: our sympathy would
be confined to objects that are really present, and
language would lose entirely that astonishing power
it possesseth of making us sympathize with beings 2
removed at the greatest distance of time and place. A

 

Reviews of the following documents published in the

Critical between 1756-1763 reveal the journal's reSponse to

 

these premises: Burke's A Philosophical Inguiry into the

2;; Moral Sentiments (1759), Gerard's Essay gr} Taste (1759),

 

Dr. Armstrong's Sketches (1758), published under the pseudonym
Launcelot Temple, John Gilbert Cooper’s Letters Concerning
I§§£g (1757), and Lord Kames' Elements 2f Criticism(l762).
After having carefully examined these reviews and Smollett's
reviews for 1756, as well as having examined the Smollett
canon, I am led to believe that he reviewed at least the first
four works and possibly that of Kames. If my arguments prove
correct, Smollett's role in directing the critical policy of
the periodical is evident in his affirmative reSponse to,

and acceptance of the primary tenets of the psychological
school. I will, however, delay my attributions until a later

chapter.

 

 

24Quoted in the Critical Review,XIII (March, l762),212

 

 

 

47
The review of Burke's Enguiry argues from the

position of Hutcheson and Smith. Though calling it"a per-
formance superior to the common level of literary produc-

tions," the reviewer disagrees with Burke's discussion of

sympathy. He argues against Burke's premise that sympathy
in the misfortunes of others is attended with a degree of

delight. Instead, he believes that:

The very meaning of sympathy is fellow
feeling; how then can we suffer the miseries
of others, and yet be happy ourselves: The
sympathizing mind indeed, may have recourse
to comparison, when the sensation becomes too
keen, and this will afford relief; but a posi-
tive pain still continues. We cannot think
that nature excites in any person a sense of
pleasure, at feeling the sufferings of a fellow
creature. We rather shun such spectacles with
horror, except when there is something great
or astonishing in the event; then we are in-
terested and attracted by curiosity and ambi-
tion. The novelty of the occurence strikes
the imagination: we are seized with an in-
stantaneous desire of acquiring a new and
great idea: we grow ambitious of signalizing
our fortitude and address, where there is an
appearance of danger and difficulty; and we
become as it were parties to the important
scene which is transacting....It is not pleas-
ure that impels him; but he is hurried on by an
ambitious curiosity mingled witg horror, which
produces a very painful effect. 5

Like Hutcheson, Smith, and their Scottish adherents, the
reviewer argues that the imagination, through sympathetic

intuition can identify with an object, and spontaneously

and vitally perceive the existing reality of that object,

 

2SCritical Review, III (April, 1757), 362.

 

 

 

 

 

48
and that sympathy carries a pain superior to pleasure,
that "misery alone observed is the cause of misery only."
Hutcheson wrote that:

...there is a natural impulse implanted
for the kindest reasons, forcing us to such
Spectacles of misery, which generally brings
relief to the sufferers. And we can restrain
this impulse where we foresee that it can do
no good. Let none be surprised at such im-
pulses where no pleasure is in view, or any
removal of our own pain: do we not observe
after the death of a dear friend, when we can
serve him no more, nor enjoy any sympathetic
pleasure with him, the tormenting thoughts
of his dying agonies and groans are for many
weeks, and months, and years recurring to our
minds....Can that sensation have superior
pleasure which upon reflection we shun to re-
tain, and guard against as a torment; which in
tendeggr constitutions turns into bodily sick-
ness?

The same internal reSponse has its counterpart in our atti-
tude toward tragedy. Hutcheson continued, "Our sympathetic
feelings indeed of every kind are exercised; and compassion
and terror are gently raised upon distresses which we know

are feigned. Can one say that terror has superior pleasure
in it; and yet we sometimes court such stories as terrify

ourselves?27

The review of Smith’s Theory pf Mbral Sentiments

 

 

illustrates the reviewers' attitude toward the importance and

 

 

 

26A System pf Mbral Philosophy (London, 1755), pp.

 

145—146 .

27g System 2f Moral Philosophy, p. 146.

 

 

 

 

 

g____w,ii,,

49
functions of the "sympathetic emotion" as a first principle

in ethics. The reviewer comments, "It is sufficient to his
rSmith'Squrpose, if sympathy, whence ever it proceeds, be
allowed to be a principal in human nature, which surely,

without the greatest obstinacy, cannot be diSputed. This

 

Spring, this movement, this power, is the chief foundation
of his system. By means of it he hopes to explain all the
Species of approbation or disapprobation, which are excited
by human action or behaviour. It is indeed the principle
which runs through all his theory of morals."28 The review—
er, agreeing with Smith’s thesis, adds that the Critical
reviewers "may venture to give him the preference above all

. , . 2
writers who have made an attempt on this subject." 9

The review of Armstrong's Sketches is highly lauda-
tory, recommending it to "all those who love the ggllgg
Lettres."3O In his Sketches, Armstrong argues in terms of
Shaftesbury's connection of taste and morality and Hutche-
son's fusion of the "moral sense" and aesthetic internal
sense. He restates the popular argument that taste and
morality are psychologically dependant upon each other, that
they augment each other's growth and delicacy, and that de-

cline in one necessarily precipitates decline in the other.

28Critical Review, VII (May, 1759), 385.
29

 

Critical Review, VII (May, 1759), 386.

 

 

30Critical Review, V (May, 1758), 380-

 

 

 

50

The reviewer agrees with Armstrong’s thesis, but
disagrees with the Doctor's definition of "genius." Arm-
strong argued that genius was constituted by that sensi—
bility which perceives and distinguishes the good, bad,
beautiful, and deformed, both in the natural and moral world,
and that sensibility was governed both by "a sound head and
a good heart" as well as a lively imagination. True genius,
he said, consisted "of a perfect polish of soul, which re-
ceives and reflects the images that fall upon it, without
warping or distortion." This fine polish of soul was, he
believed, "constantly attended with what philosophers call

31
the moral truth."

The reviewer, on the other hand, considered genius
as "something more than the faculty of reflecting images."
He argued that "There is a creative power in genius: this
indeed we consider as its criterion and essence, without
which it cannot exist. If common understanding be a source
of original ideas, distinct from sense and reflection, how
much more is that generative power inherent in genius, which
is a divine faculty of creating....We would add, taste is

3
merely passive: genius is active."

Once again the reviewer, probably Smollett himself,

3 draws on common assumptions of the Scottish school. Genius,

 

 

31"Sketches " in the Au ustan Re rint S ’ ‘
E 001ety publl-
cation No. 30. (Los’Angeles, I95I}, 134— 35.
. 32Critical Review, V (May, 1758), 381.

 

 

   

 

said Ger:
a great
called g
Sprang f
was eitl
genius.
senses--
cule, a1
largest
tion to
wholly
It deri
mind; h

unless

Commeni

1y ref:

 

Page t:
"COinc
taking
circle

ing by

 

 

 

 

51
,said Gerard, was the faculty of invention which consisted in
a great extent of cemprehensiveness of imagination. He
called genius the "Grand Architect,” whose inventive power
Sprang from the imagination. Taste was "passive" because it
was either an essential part of, or a necessary attendant to
genius. For Gerard, taste was an aggregate of particular
senses---novelty, sublimity, beauty, harmony, imitation, ridi-
cule, and virtue. The best taste called up and combined the
largest number of these powers. Indeed, Gerard's introduc-
tion to his Egggyflgg Egggg defines taste as being "neither
wholly the gift of nature, nor wholly the effect of art."33
It derives its origin from certain powers material to the
mind; but these powers cannot attain their full perfection

unless they are assisted by proper culture.

I stress Gerard's argument because the Critical's
comments on his Essay 9g Taste reflect an attitude consistent-

ly reflected in its own criticism. The reviewer, in his eight-

 

page treatment of the work, admitted that Gerard's ideas

"coincide with our own" and congratulated the Critical upon
taking issue with him. ”There cannot, perhaps in the whole
circle of letters be a more pleasing employment than examin-

ing by the test of criticism the productions of a fine genius.

—.—_.

> 33
3.11. Essay 2;; Taste, p. l.

 

It is a spa
stowed upon
Spired to t
treatment c
ing," and t
for critics
author has
cernment ix
with a Vig<
from them 1
whole dist:

his judgme:

Wh.
tude tom
PerSonal r
"I can See
that can a
x

34

35

on Taste (
m°\ Partic
facts fOI‘
10h our
cannot be
:he dgreate

nk °rrec

.52
It is a Species of self adulation, by which the praiSe be-

stowed upon the author is secretly and imperceptibly tran-

3h

spired t0 the critic." The reviewer adds that Gerard's
treatment of taste is handled with "depth, genius, and feel-
ing," and then utilizes Gerard's own terminology and criteria
for critical evaluation in judging the work: "...where the
author has disclosed his general principles with a nice dis-
cernment in the principles of human nature, combined them
with a vigorous power of the abstracting faculty, inferred
from them with a capacity for correct induction; and upon the
whole distinguished himself no less for his sensibility than

his judgment."35

What is most revealing is the reviewer's own atti-
tude toward the individual's perception of phenomena, and his
personal reaction toward what is ”sublime." He writes that
"I can see nothing in the abstract and nature of proportion,

that can at all satisfactorily account for my feelings; and

__‘

”We; series, VII (May, 1759), the-441.

3SCritical Review, VII (May, 1759), hhl. In.§g‘Essax
on Taste (pp. 170-1715, Gerard wrote that “Taste perceives
the particular beauties and faults, and thus supplies the
facts for which we are to account, and the experiments from
which our conclusions may be deduced. But these conclusions
cannot be fonmed without a vigorous abstracting faculty, the
the greatest force of reason, a capacity for ghglmost careful
and ggrrect induction, and a deep knowledge of the principles
Ef'human nature." (my emphasis)

 

 

 

 

‘I sit down
ing than in
of art, and

The
Cooper's g
its defense
pamphlet, C
Sense, and
taste. The
taste, know
elegant des
imagination
est reader;
311, some i
the natural
which the a

nele di st

The

C°°per from

em,
3&4

\

36E
3
7a

 

 

53
.I sit down fully convinced, that the fault lies in the build-
ing than in us, who judge by the prejudices and narrow rules

- 36
of art, and not by intuitive feeling and sensibility."

The review of the third edition of John Gilbert

Cooper's Letters Concerning Taste is particularly striking in

 

its defense of intuition, feeling, and imagination. In this
pamphlet, COOper accepted the Hutchesonian thesis of internal
sense, and went on to discuss the personal ecstatic effect of
taste. The reviewer commended the work as having "....much
taste, knowledge, and Spirit, some very judicious criticisms,
elegant descriptions, a warmth of fancy, and strokes of
imagination, which cannot fail to please and animate the cold-
est reader; together with what is still more valuable than
all, some indiSputable signs of a liberal and ingenious mind,
the natural effects of that philanthropy and benevolence for
which the author is known by his private friends to be emi-

nently distinguished."37

The importance of this review lies in its defense of
Cooper from an attack in a pamphlet entitled An Essay, ig
Egg arts, 23 the Necessity and Eggm 22 a figyal Academy £93
Paintin , Sculpture, egg Architecture (1755) which we now

 

 

36Critical Review, VII (May, 1759), 443. (my emphasis)

3
7Critical Review, III (1757), #22.

 

 

 

know to hav
same Nesbit‘
borated wit}
quotes Lette
and discusse
stantaneous
frame, and s
the intellec

of the mind

Nesbi'
Who wrote thr
argued, "By 1
his taste to
account, reae
to be the Ver

to more capri

The re
thesis, Which

COUI‘Se, this i

 

 

 

54
know to have been written by John Nesbitt. This is the

same Nesbitt whom Professor Knapp suggests to have colla—

borated with Smollett on this pamphlet.38 The review

quotes Letter I "To Euphemus," in which Cooper defines taste,

and discusses the effects of good taste as "...that in-
stantaneous glow of pleasure which thrills thro' our whole
frame, and seizes upon the applause of the heart, before
the intellectual power, reason, can descend from the throne

of the mind to ratify its approbation."39

Nesbitt, if he indeed was the "malevolent anonymous"
who wrote the pamphlet, attacked Cooper's position. He
argued, "By this definition our author has clearly proved
his taste to be very depraved; it is irrational by his own
account, reason being wholly excluded. Now I take reason
to be the very basis of good taste, otherwise it is reduced

to

to more Caprice, whim, and enthusiasm."

The reviewer's arguments are in accord with Cooper’s
thesis, which like Armstrong's, Gerard's, and Hutcheson's
insisted upon a felt reSponse to a work of art. It is, of

course, this notion that characterized the transition from

38See Knapp, Tobias Smollett, p. 168. Because of the
Very assumptions of the pamphlet, it is doubtful Smollett
had a hand in its authorship.

390ritical Review,III (1757), #22.

hOCritical Review,III (1757, 422.

 

classic to
that Smolle
tions had h
tures. In
wrote, "Let
on paper, i
insipid, tk
while the c

force of e:

0m
develops t}
With the p,
Elites e

StraCt of I

 

’i——i '

55
classic to romantic premises of taste. I might add here
that Smollett would hardly have agreed with Nesbitt's assump-
tions had he had a hand in that pamphlet, as Knapp conjec-
tures. In his review of Warton's Egggy‘gg‘ggpg, Smollett
wrote, "Let two writers, for example, produce the same image
on paper, in verse; the one shall be awkward, lifeless, and
insipid, tho' exhibited in proper language and studied cadence:
while the other shall strike the imagination with all the

force of eXpression and all the fire of enthusiasm."

 

One of the most vital documents that projects and
develOps the theories of Hutcheson and Gerard in a concern
with the psychological analysis of taste is Lord Kames'
Elements 9; Criticism. In a forty-nine page review and ab-
stract of Kames' work, the reviewer wrote:

The present age hath not furnished a more
striking instance of the union of a refined
philosophical genius, with an exquisite taste
for the arts, than in the production now under
consideration....

 

Critical inquiries into the principles of
the arts, improve the heart while they enlarge
the understanding, and have a beautiful effect
on moderating the selfish affections. Our
author regards a fine taste as an excellent an-
tidote against pride, and other disgustful
selfish passions, as it tends greatly to sweeten
and harmonize the temper. He likewise thinks
that justness and delicacy of taste contribute
to invigorate the social affections, by height-
ening our sensibility of pain and pleasure, and
.of course, our sympathy, which is the source of

 

1
Critical Review, I (October, 1756), 228.

 

 

 

 

eve:

dedi

the
The reviews
thetic emot
the author
by an ingen
nature, and

human natur

for a di sci

In
firmativelj
critical t;
SYMpathy a
agreed wit
Spouse. I
judgment,
5°ch of
Ch°1°gical

T11
that art :1
\-

t2

 

56

every social passion. But the greatest advantage

deducible from the criticism here ggntioned is,

that it greatly supports morality.
The reviewer approved of Kames' discussion of the sympa-
thetic emotions excited by virtuous action, and added that
the author derived all the rules of taste "from the heart,
by an ingenious investigation of the sensitive part of our
nature, and accurate remarks on our feelingslil”3 By studying

human nature, Kames had arrived at the valid basis and source

for a discussion of criticism.

 

In summary, then, the Critical Review reSponded af-
firmatively toihe attitudes of contemporary psychological
critical taste. It accepted the Hutchesonian principle of
sympathy as the foundation for a theory of morals, and

agreed with Gerard's thesis of imaginative or intuitive re-

 

Sponse. It viewed the sympathetic emotion as a source of
judgment, and the comprehensiveness of the imagination as a
source of perception and conception, thus affirming the psy-

chological fusion of the innate "moral sense" and aesthetic

 

sense as the source of ethical and epistemological awareness.

 

The Critical affirmed these basic assumptions: (1)

that art is a communication of emotion characterized by its

hzggigigglpfigyigw, XIII (March, 1762), 205-206.

”M W. XIII (March. 1762), 207.

 

 

 

form or des
by the form
perience; (
achieved in

union which

I v
and practi<
fluence on
the above 1

views whic]

 

 

 

57
form or design; (2) that associational reSponse is elicited
by the formal presentation of ideas familiar through ex-
perience; (3) and that through a sympathetic identification
achieved imaginatively we can discern the moral and aesthetic

union which characterizes the end of art.

I will now examine Smollett's own critical standards
and practice, and attempt to discern the extent of his in-
fluence on the Criticism of the novel from his reSponse to

the above principles in his theory of the novel and in re-

 

views which I attribute to him in the Critical.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

 

SMOLLETT AND THE NOVEL

 

 

 

 

 

T
the tradit
of Italy a
the novel
reaction a
Ironically
reaction t
correctly
nearly all
eithteenth
literacy a
acted agai
decessors
ized 10Ve
I‘eal conce
Ernest Bak
the HOVel
that, there

caUSQ the ‘

\

l
1960) : V01:

2.

J
l

 

 

CHAPTER III

SMOLLFLTT AND 23;; NOVEL

The novel in the eighteenth-century grew out of
the tradition of the medieval romance and the courtly mode
of Italy and France. It would be more accurate to say that
the novel grew out of these traditions more as a realistic
reaction against, rather than as an extention of them.
Ironically, it extended their structural possibilities as a
reaction to their ethical milieu. Arnold Kettle maintains
correctly that "the great eighteenth-century novels are
nearly all anti-romances."l Because the pOpularityof the
eighteenth—century novel was determined by the growing
literacy and reading practices of the middle-class, it re~
acted against the non-realistic extravagances of its pre-
decessors whose concepts of chivalry, adventure, and idea-
ized love were a far remove from the critical attitudes and
real concerns of men and his commercial society. When
Ernest Baker argues that there was "no complete theory of
the novel accepted by both authors and critics,"2 he forgets
that there has never been a complete theory of the novel,be-

cause the very nature of the form is the expression of the

_.

1 . .
gn Introduction.tg Egg English Novel (New York
1960), Vol. I, 30. ’

ZHistory 9;; the Erglish Novel (London, 1934), V, 11,.

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dynamics 0:

are in con;

TI
as both an
cal of soc
experience
began the
that "The
tion Seems
life in it
daily happ
qualities
mankind...
by am me

wonder,"

 

59

dynamics of human society and human consciousness, which

are in constant revolution and change.

The novel, then, had to be placed in its context
as both an aesthetic and ethical vehicle, aware and criti-
cal of social values, functioning on the level of common
experience, and capable of giving pleasure. Dr. Johnson
began the fourth number of the Rambler in 1750 by remarking
that "The works of fiction, with which the present genera-

tion seems more particularly delighted, are such as exhibit

 

life in its true state diversified only by accidents that
daily happen in the world, and influenced by passions and
qualities which are really to be found in conversing with
mankind.....Its province is to bring about natural events
by easy means, and to keep up curiosity without the help of

wonder."

The years between 1740-1760 were a transition

period in the criticism of the novel; it was a period in

 

 

 

which old and new critical theories coexisted. Although the
critics began to view the novel as an aesthetic entity in
itself, as late as 1754, the anonymous author of Critical
Remarks gnԤig Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela com-
paredClarissa to the lligd, discussed Lovelace as a com-
bination of Achilles and Ulysses, and concluded by telling

Richardson, "You, Sir, are not Homer."3 It was, however,

_

57 3See Augustan Reprint Society #21 (Series IV, No.3),

 

 

 

from the 11
poetry the
ment of th
Bossu, and
moral effi
P°_etr1 (1:
w (1711
the critic
ported wit
character:
diction, ;
ful moral
action. }
J°seph Anc
their com
reviewed (
tuity in 1
imPOI‘tanc,
entertain:
uncommn;

indignant
and the 51
Plan is t(
criticks;

\

l

60

from the neo-classical theories of the drama and epic
poetry that critics borrowed most heavily in their treat-
ment of the novel. They drew upon Scudery, Boileau, Le
Bossu, and Du Bos in their emphasis on probability and
moral efficacy. Like Dennis in Egg Grounds pf Criticism in
Poetry (170k), Addison in the Spectator papers on Paradise
LQEE (1711), and POpe in his Preface to the lligg (1715),
the critics were interested in a well developed fable sup-

ported with a variety of surprising yet probable incidents,

 

characters drawn from nature, rational sentiments, elegant
diction, just reflections on men and manners, and some use-
ful moral which should be naturally resolved from the
action. Fielding uses the same order in his preface to
Joseph Andrews (1742), as did many critical reviewers in

their comments on individual novels. Even Smollett, who

 

reviewed Cleland's Memoirs gf‘g Coxcomb merely as a gra-
tuity in return for Cleland's flattering review of The

Regicide, wrote:"The story is well connected, and rises in

 

 

importance from the beginning to the end; the incidents are
entertaining and instructing; the reflexions judicious and
uncommon; the satire nervous, just, and fraught with laudable
indignation; the characters well contrasted and sustained,
and the stile Spirited and correct. Cn the other hand, the
plan is too thin for the intriguing taste of our modern

3 “1"

criticks; there is a total want of episodes

—_‘

“Monthly Review, v (1751), 386-387.

 

E

began to d

of the not
Sterne, Se
vidual cor
butes dist
ture. Ea<
Richardso:
work ratht

clusion o:

 

"editor 0:
a laudabl.
Who may t]
Praises, ;
1y distinJ
works of .
Should be

More nece‘

novels aI‘I

dramatic 1

imaginati-

\

I» (53,

 

 

61

But during this period the novelists realized and
began to discuss the distinct and individual possibilities
of the novel. Although Richardson, Fielding, Smollett,
Sterne, Sarah Fielding, and others differed in their indi-
vidual concepts of the genre, each assigned to it attri-
butes distinguishing the novel from.other forms of litera~
ture. Each mapped out for it certain modes of procedure.
Richardson, for example, emphasized the moral aims of his

work rather than its structure or technique. At the con-

 

clusion of the first part of ggmglg, he wrote that the
"editor of these sheets will have his end, if it inepires

a laudable emulation in the minds of any worthy persons,

who may thereby entitle themselves to the rewards, the
praises, and the blessings, by which Pamela was so deserved-
ly distinguished."5 Of Clarissa, he wrote that "in all
works of this, and of the Dramatic Kind, Story, or Amusement,

should be considered as little more than the Vehicle to the

 

O 6
more necessary Instruction."

Although his comments on the moral nature of his
novels are highly generalized, Richardson did realize the
dramatic possibilities of his didactic purpose in terms of

imaginative realism. In the preface to the continuation of

‘—

I 5Everyman's Library edition (New York, 1959),
. #53. »

6From Preface to 17L? edition, I, vi.

 

Eagle (11
this Part
all romant
machinery;
quisitefl‘
demonstrat
are censor
the Greek
The decisi
0f Lovelac
the ground
Conversior
bility, if
method was
essential]
cal veracj
narrative
in m
letters t0
epistolary
Convey“ n

in the P05
\
7

 

 

62
Pamela (1741), he wrote that "the Letters which compose
this Part will be found equally written to Nature, avoiding
all romantic flights, improbable surprises, and irrational
machinery; and that the passions are touched where re-

. 7
quislte-" The purpose of the postscript to Clarissa is to

 

demonstrate that the story and the manner of its narration
are consonant with both the high artistic standards set by
the Greek dramatists and with the facts of everyday life.
The decision not to conclude the story with the reformation
of Lovelace and his marriage to the heroine is defended on
the grounds that "the author...always thought, that sudden
Conversions...had neither Art, nor Nature, nor even Proba-
bility, in them." Richardson's use of the epistolary
method was, in fact, based on his belief that it was an
essentially dramatic vehicle which enhanced the psychologi-
cal veracity of his story, and was thus superior to the

narrative technique. Smollett was finally to realize this

 

in Humphry Clinker. Aaron Hill, in one of the introductory

letters to Pamela, argued that one of the best features of

 

epistolary technique was that the moral instruction was 1
conveyed "as in a kind of Dramatical Representation," while

in the postscript to Clarissa, Richardson described his

 

7
Everyman's Library edition (New York, 1959), II, v. )

novel as i
continued
Of this m1
moves on,
Book, intt

Reader' 5 1

1
principle
affirmed '

the comic

 

tended ac‘
He differt
declaring
than the ;
epic, he 2
33m in
diction.

the novel

Qufijflor

9%.
ntonsists c
\

E
#103, pp.

9
1" bani.

 

 

 

63

novel as a "History (or rather Dramatic Narrative)" He
continued, "we need not insist on the evident Superiority
of this method to the dry narrative; where the Novelist
moves on, his own dull Pace, to the End of his Chapter and
Book, interweaving impertinent Digressions, for fear the

8
Reader's.Patience should be exhausted...."

Fielding, on the other hand, Spoke openly of the
principles of composition. Like Le Bossu and Du Bos he
affirmed the possibility of a prose epic, and distinguished
the comic prose epic from comedy in that "it has more ex-
tended action, more incidents, greater variety of character."
He differentiated the comic epic from the serious epic by
declaring that the former dealt with the ridiculous rather
than the sublime.9 In accordance With the critics of the
epic, he appraised his sister's 2p; Adventures pf ngig
Simple in terms of its fable, characters, sentiments, and
diction. In the preface to his sister's work, he wrote that

the novel might consist of one action like‘gg Lutrin and the

 

~—

Dunciad or of a series of separate adventures such as Don
Quixote. The latter type, exemplified by David Simple

'bonsists of a series of separate adventures, detached from

 

8See "Samuel Richardson, Clarissa: Preface, Hints
of Prefaces, and Postscript," Augustan Reprint Society
103 ’ pp n iV'Vii o

p ‘i 9Joseph Andrews, Mbdern Library ed. (New York,l950L

 

 

and indep
great end
here, may
objection
praised Q
a deep ant
and labyr:
degree the
them. 1'10

I
tinguished
the comic
from the Jr
We can thi,
tinction b,
"aCtiongn
in the 0the
its chiirect
and Consequ
sets the hi,

DictiOH; by

10,
”We. NZ
UN
lam

 

64
and independent of each other, yet all tending to one
great end; so that those who should object to want of unity
here, may if they please, or they dare, fly back with their
objection, in the face of even the Odyssey itself." He

praised David Simple for "vast penetration into human nature,

 

a deep and profound discernment of all the mazes, winding,
and labyrinths, which perplex the heart of man to such a
degree that he is himself often incapable of seeing through

1
them." 0

In the preface to Joseph Andrews Fielding dis-

 

tinguished between the comic and serious romance in that in
the comic we should "confine ourselves strictly to nature
from the just imitation of which will flow all the pleasure
we can this way convey to the sensible reader."ll His dis-
tinction between the genres was in terms of "fable" and
"action:" "...that as in one these are grave and solemn, so
in the other are they light and ridiculous: it differs in
its characteristics by introducing Persons of Inferior Rank,
and consequently inferior Manners, whereas the grave Romance
sets the highest before us: lastly in its Sentiments and

12
Diction; by preserving the Ludicrous instead of the SublimeJ'

__

ah Fielding The Adventures of David Simple
(London, l72h), p. vi ii. ’

 

 

11Modern Library edition, p. xxxiii.

12Modern Library edition, p. xxxii.

l A

 

 

 

But Field:
dimension
reader's

ties as a
ethical f
Indeed PI
recogniti
as a too]
argues t1
tion to 1
was reas‘

effect" ,

been gen
cussions
Roam
knecht s

cI‘itical

 

65
But Fielding is concerned less with the psychological
dimensions of the novel as an ethical vehicle and the
reader's reSponse to it as such, than with its possibili-
ties as a literary form. He thus tends to separate the
ethical from the total aesthetic concern of the novel.
Indeed Professor MbKillOp finds "Fielding's most complete
recognition of humor as an aesthetic experience rather than
as a tool of didacticism,"13 and even though Homer Goldberg
argues that Fielding chose his literary subjects in rela-

tion to their emotional effects, he admits that Fielding

 

was reasoning primarily in terms of the intended "poetic

effect" of the work rather than its ethical consequences.l4

Smollett's comments on the novel are few, and have
been generally considered undistinguished. His main dis-
cussions of the novel as an art form are in the prefaces to
Roderick Random and Ferdinand QQBEEIEQEEQQ, Professor'Wagen-
knecht suggests that it was probably the influence of the
critical chapters with which Fielding opened every book of
Igg;ggg§§ that caused Smollett to begin both.§§nggm_and
£32292 with a discussion of his art. "But,“ wagenknecht

continues, "the discussion is not impressive, nor was he

____ A

13

101 Earlijasters 2; English Fiction (Lawrence, 1956),
p 0 o ‘

lI‘WComis Prose or Comic Romance: The Ar wment of
382 Preface to Joseph Andrews," :9, Vol. XLIII, ( pril,1964L

L i
7

 

ever notat
theoryfllfi
a thinker
gests that

"imprompt1

i
Smollett 1
philosophj
to reconc:
associati‘
I have Sm
Smollett -
(1725), w
Before th
majOr doo
°h°l°8Y 0
English t
”Few
of the In,

the,

M (17
Balliets
\

p~ 70.

66
ever notably successful in regulating his practice by his
theory."15 Professor Baker condemns Smollett as "neither
a thinker on life and art nor a serious novelist," and suge
gests that his preface to Ferdgnand ggggg Fathom is an

"impromptu bit of theorizing" not to be taken seriously.16

What Wagenknecht and Baker fail to realize is that
Smollett was aware of, and sympathetic to a larger body of
philOSOphy and criticism with which I believe he attempted
to reconcile his theory of the novel. Although his personal
association with Francis Hutcheson has not been established,
I have suggested that its likelihood exists. In any event,
Smollett would have been familiar with Hutcheson's popular
_i_—XI“ uir graham inal nmmmmmw
(1725), which ran into five editions within twenty years.
Before the publication of Roderick fiénggm in 1748, seven
major documents dealing entirely, or in part, with the psy-
chology of internal reSponse had already left their mark on
English thought. These were Locke's ggsgy‘gn‘thg HEEEE
finderstanding (1690), the Spectator papers on the "Pleasures
of the Imagination" (1712), Hutcheson's Inguirx (1725) and
Ag Egggy‘gg 22$ Eggggg and Conduct 2; the Passions and £3322-

tions (1728), Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature (1738), and

-W~m

 

Ballie's Essay 93 p.32 Sublime (171,7). It is difficult to

 

l5Cavalcade g; Egg English Novel (New York, 1954),

 

P- 70.

léflifigggz 2; Egg English Novel, IV, 216.

 

 

 

 

judge the
works be<
there is
Locke, H1
call tha1
mum
whom owe<
lectual 1
jecture t
critical
to M
Smollett
PremiSes
and to a;
desirable
knecht, 1
Strugglir
date and
Corned Wi
and able
Hess thro

emotion.

their Con

organic f

 

 

 

67
judge the extent of Smollett's familiarity with these
works because there is no record of his library, although
there is ample evidence in his work of his readings in
Locke, Hutcheson, Addison, and Hume. we might also re-
call that between the publication of Roderick Randmm and
Humphgy Clinker (1771) Smith, Gerard, and Kames, all of
whom owed their lights to Hutcheson, Spearheaded the intel-
lectual renaissance in Scotland. Although it would be con-
jecture to locate individual and specific influences on his
critical tastes, we can, however, discern in the prefaces

to Roderick Random and Ferdinand Count Fathom (1753) that

 

Smollett was attempting to restate the general critical
premises of psychological criticism in terms of the novel,
and to apply the Hutchesonian ethical system as the most
desirable course of human action. Unlike Baker and wagen-

knecht, I believe that Smollett was a serious novelist

struggling to find both a suitable form and hero to accomo
date and dramatize that ethic. we thus find Smollett con-
cerned with the novel as a genre characterized by its form
and able to evoke a simultaneous moral and aesthetic aware-

ness through the imaginative response of the sympathetic

emotion.

Smollett's few remarks on the novel are notable for
their concern with the creative process and the importance
of internal reSponse. They reflect his concern for an

organic fusion of structure and ethic, whereby the moral

 

assertio
tural in'
characte:
sists up<
associat:
is throng
efficacy
Smollett
novel whi

value.

foundatio
has a nor
the eSSen‘
intimatel:
are eithe;
aSSertiOm
HutCheson
within the
aPPI‘obatic
thus benev
benevoleno
feel tOWar
ness is th

0r tWard

 

 

 

68

assertion of the novel is effectively directed by a.struc-
tural intensity governed by the action of the principal
character. Because of the hero's importance, Smollett in-
sists upon a necessary rapport--a sympathetic reSponse or
association-~between the reader and that principal. And it
is through this reSponse that the novel's ethical or moral
efficacy is wrought. Like the psychological critics,
Smollett emphasizes the necessary emotional reSponse to the
novel which must be present if it is to have any ethical

value.

 

Hutcheson's ethical system appears to be at the
foundation of Smollett's work. Hutcheson posited that man
has a moral sense, and that disinterested benevolence is
the essence of moral goodness. These two propositions are
intimately related, since benevolence and the moral sense
are either emotions or emotional expressions, and the two
assertions together constitute an emotional theory of morals.
Hutcheson distinguished between natural good (contained
within the individual self) and moral good which procures
approbation and love (defined in terms of an onlooker), and
thus benevolence secured approbation and love. He associated
benevolence with sympathy, for if a person aids another we
feel toward him a sympathetic gratitude, and this felt good-
ness is the same whether we feel it because of good done us

or toward strangers, whose interests we may expect people in

general,

is descri

to produt

this acti
To be m01
toward re
produce t
produce t

then, my
Social gc
L and love.
u to the gc
antitheti

result fr

HutChe SOD
indiCe pr

Panes

 

 

69
general, as benevolent Spectators, to sympathize with.

The law of conduct implicit in Hutcheson's system
is described as the law of beneficence: always act so as

to produce the greatest amount of good for humanity. But

 

this action does not necessarily Spring from benevolence.

To be morally good, an action must flow from some "affection
toward rational agents"---which includes not only a will to
produce the happiness of particular persons, but a will to
produce the welfare of society as a whole. For Hutcheson,
then, men are good if their actions are consonant with
social good, and if their characters call forth "approbation
and love." But he reasons also that self-love is essential
to the good of society when one realizes that it is not
antithetical to social good, and that private happiness can

result from social benevolence.

Central to Smollett's concern in the novel is
Hutcheson's belief that benevolence divorced from all pre-
judice promotes universal happiness. In.§_System.2§ Moral

Philoso h , Hutcheson writes:

The other determination alleged is toward
the universal happiness of others. When the
soul is calm and attentive to the constitution
and powers of other beings, their natural ac-
tions and capacities of happiness and misery,
and when the selfish appetities and passions
and desires are asleep, 'tis alleged that there
is a calm impulse of the soul to desire the
greatest happiness and perfection of the larg-
est system within the compass of its knowledge.
Our inward consciousness abundantly testifies

 

 

 

 

In his c

tinues:

SCI‘ibes

Words.

 

70

that there is such an impulse or determination

of the soul, and that it is truly ultimate,
without reference to any sort of happiness of

our own. But here again, as few have considered

the whole system of beings knowable by men, we

do not find this determination exerted generally

in all its extent; but we find natural desires
of such individuals, or societies, or systems,
as we have calmly considered, where there has
intervened no prejudice against them, or notion
thatlpheir happiness is any way opposite to our
own.

In his chapter on "The Nature of Rights," Hutcheson con-

tinues:

But, altho' private justice, veracit ,o enness
of mind, com assion, are immediately approved,
Without reference to a system; yet we must not

imagine that any of these principles are destined
to control or limit that regard to the most ex-
tensive good which we shewed to be the noblest
principle of our nature. The most extensive
affection has a dignity sufficient to justify
the contracting any other diSposition: whereas
no moral agent can upon close reflection approve
himself in adhering to any special rule, or
following any other diaposition of his nature,
when he discerns, upon the best evidence he can
have, that doing so is contrary to the universal
interest or the most extensive happigess of the
system in the whole of its effects. .

In the preface to Roderick Random Smollett de-

scribes the reSponse of the sympathetic emotion in these

words.

The reader gratifies his curiosity in
pursuing the adventures of a person in distress;
his indignation is heated against the authors of
his calamity; the humane passions are inflamed;
the contrast between dejected virtue and insult-
ing vice appears with greater aggravation; and
every impression having a double force on the

18
Hutcheson, p. 255.

 

 

 

I revealin

 

The Simi.

Smith's .1

sympathy

 

71

imagination, the memory retains the circum-
stance, and the heart improves by example.
The attention is not tired with a bare cata-
logue of characters, but agreeably diverted
‘with all the variety of invention; and the
vicissitudes of life appear in their pecu-
liar circumstances, gpening up an ample field
for wit and humour.1

The similarity of sentiment with that of Smith is
revealing. Smith writes that

Our joy for the deliverance of those
heroes of tragedy or romance who interest
us, is as sincere as our grief for their
distress, and our fellowefeeling with their
misery is not more real than with their
happiness. ‘We enter into their gratitude
towards those faithful friends who did not
desert them in their difficulties; and we
heartily go along with their resentment
against those perfidious traitors who in-
jured, abandoned, or deceived them. In
every passion of which the mind of man is
susceptible, the emotions of the bystander
always correspond to what, by bringing the
case home to himself, he imaginfis should be
the sentiments of the sufferer.

 

The similarities of these two passages with Spectator paper
##18 are not unusual when we consider that Hutcheson,

Smith's precursor at GlaSgow, based his argument on Addison?l

Like Hutcheson and Smith, Smollett introduces

Sympathy as a first cause of our ideas of justice and pro-

 

19Everyman's Library edition (New York, 1956), p. 3.

20Theory of Moral Sentiments (London, 1875), p. 5.

21See above, p. 37-

 

 

 

priety.
tween t
Smith's
Burke's
ment is
Kames,

Spond t
that e)
and in:
indiffe
gravati
which e
"inflan

Vert ed

example
moral 5
tuous13
Kames,
heart a
Hutches
detemi
and to

I‘iédlize
\

 

72
priety. The similarity in tone, structure, and idea be-
tween this portion of the preface, the passage from
Smith's Theory 2f.MOral Sentiments, and the review of
Burke's Enguiry is striking enough.22 Smollett's state~
ment is consonant with the ideas of Gerard, and later
Kames, for he suggests here that the passions first re-
Spond to distress and calamity, and organize and unify
that experience—-—"the contrast between dejected virtue
and insulting vice,""modest merit confronting the base
indifference of mankind"---which appears with greater ag-
gravation, or with that immediacy of association with
which emotion reSponds. The imagination is controlled by
"inflamed" passions, and the "attention is...agreeably di-

verted with all the variety of invention." .

When Smollett writes that "the heart improved by i
example," he implies that it does so because our superior
moral sense limits notions of self-interest and acts vir-
tuously without incitement to its own advantage. Like
Kames, he argues that the sympathetic emotion directs the
heart and adds virtue to the force of habit, and like
Hutcheson and Smith, that we are affected because of our
determination to be pleased with the happiness of others
and to be uneasy at their misery. Smollett, like Beattie,

realized that literary instruction should awaken our pity

 

22
See above, pp. 48-49.

 

for the :
preface t

theory 01

same

‘ "internal

i process.
graph a n
tence use
analogy c

Smollett

{
l
I .

ceiving c
Which bec
function
the labyI

own impor

 

73

for the sufferings of our fellow men, and outlined in his
preface the novel's capability of communicating an emotional

(theory of morals.

In the much maligned preface to Ferdinand Count
Fathom, Smollett again fuses the moral sense and aesthetic
"internal" sense as inextricable powers in the creative
process. Scholars have erred in labeling the first para-
graph a mere echo of Fielding. The fact that the first sen-
tence uses the analogy of painting, and the second the
analogy of dramatic plotting suggests that not only was
Smollett concerned with the aesthetic gratification in con—
ceiving order or design, but with the reSponse to that order
which becomes manifest in the reSponse to the hero whose.
function it is to "unite the incidents, unwind the clue of
the labyrinth, and at last close the scene, by virtue of his
own importance." Smollett continues:

Almost all the heroes of this kind, who
have hitherto succeeded on the English stage,
are characters of transcendental worth, con-
ducted through the vicissitudes of fortune,
to that goal of happiness, which ever ought to
be the repose to extraordinary desert. Yet the
same principle by which we rejoice at the re-
muneration of merit, will teach us to relish
the disgrace and discomfiture of vice, which
is always an example of extensive use and in-
fluence, because it leaves a deep impression
of terror upon the minds of those who were
not confirmed in the pursuit of morality and
virtue, and, while the balance wavers, enables
the right scale to preponderate....

The impulse of fear, which is the most
violent and interesting of all the passions, re-
mains longer than any other upon the memory; and

 

 

Peregrin

| naturall
. cognizar
E fear anc
l
rehearse
cumstanc

cation.‘

an attez
Smollet
"same p
Spouse.
unmitig
of fear

Siensn
\

Vol. I]

 

71+

for one that is allured to virtue, by the con-

tem lation of that peace and happiness which

it estows, a hundred are deterred from the

practice of vice, by that infamy and punish-

ment to which it is liagle, from the laws and
regulations of mankind.

Smollett may have had in mind a passage from
Peregrine Pickle, in which he wrote that "The imagination
naturally magnifies every object that falls under its
cognizance, eSpecially those that concern the passions of

fear and admiration; and when the occurence comes to be

 

rehearsed, the vanity of the relater exaggerates every cir-

cumstance in order to enhance the importance of the communi-

2h

Y.uu------- ~—

cation."

Smollett, I feel, experimented with this work in

 

an attempt to mature as a novelist. Like the critics,
Smollett admitted the necessity of a "real" hero, but in
Ferdinand Count Fathom he emphasized a "principle"---that
"same principle"----which evoked immediate and lasting re-
Sponse. Ferdinand is conceived as the personification of
unmitigated malevolence, so that he can evoke the "impulses
of fear...the'most violent and interesting of all the pas-

sions" which "remain longer than any other upon the memory,"

23Shake8peare Head edition (Oxford, 1925), p. 4.

2
hEveryman's Library edition (New York, 1956),
Vol. II, 151.

 

While C
passion
not the
hero wh
approba

which m
that th.
Spectacl
or astor
it, "at
0f acqu;
cerned 1
the rea‘
from wh<
fiture (
the mim
moralitE
ure that
Very paj

\

 

75

While Count Melvil is presented to evoke the antithetical
passion of admiration. It is the principle that is real,
not the character. In this manner, Smollett presents a

hero who evokes the reader's antipathy, aversion, and dis-

approbation of the ethic he personifies.

Smollett again refers to the chain of reSponse in
which memory is influenced by the passions. We might recall
that the reviewer of Burke's Enguigy argued that we shun
Spectacles of horror except when there is something "great
or astonishing" in the event. We then become interested in
it, "attracted by a curiosity 32g ambition," with a desire
25

of acquiring a new idea. This is what Smollett is con-
cerned with in Ferdinand Qggpp EEEQQE- He is concerned with
the reader's reSponse to a totally malevolent individual
from whom he will learn to "relish the disgrace and discom-
fiture of vice...because it leaves a deep impression upon
the minds of those who are not confirmed in the pursuit of
morality and virtue." Smollett continues, "It is not pleas-
ure that impels him the reader but he is hurried on by an
ambitious curiosity, mingled with horror, which produces a

, 26
Very painful effect." Smollett, in fact, appears to have

constructed the novel on Hutcheson's sentiment that "we

2
5See above, p. 47. (my emphasis)

 

26
ShakeSpeare Head edition, p. h.(my emphasis)

 

sometime

is hardl
crude 51
out wit}
amen
practice
not evol
Smollett
being; i
malevole
Smollett
most Sue
and is 1
ble. Sn
allOWed
to depic
effect a
Present
Other me
confront

I‘esPOI'ISe
\-

 

—:: 7

 

76
v I 2
sometimes court such stories as terrify ourselves."

Smollett's preface to Ferdinand Count Fathom, then,

 

 

is hardly an "impromptu bit of theorizing," but rather a
crude statement of purpose which is theoretically consist-

ent with, though an inversion of, his earlier preface to

Roderick Random. But the preface never becomes realized in

practice because the length and diffusidn of the novel can—
not evoke a sustained emotional reSponse, and because
Smollett's hero is inadequate. Ferdinand is not a human
being; he is a vaguely conceived personification of active
malevolence, unreal, and thus an unsuccessful vehicle for
Smollett's "principle." It is noteworthy that Smollett's
most successful novel, Humphry Clinker, is his least diffuse,
and is built around his most successful hero, Matthew Bram-
ble. Smollett succeeds because his epistolary technique has
allowed him, as it did Richardson, a framework within which
to depict the internal motivations of his characters, and
effect an immediacy of rapport. Matthew, Jerry, and Tabby
present themselves and comment upon each other through no
other medium than their own reactions to the events which
confront them, thus allowing the reader a more concentrated

reSponse free from authorial interruption.

27See above, p. 48.

 

 

by 2931 E
nance a1
Smollett
ism he I
wished 1
and sym}
mind wh¢
the"vic:
and humc
Smollet‘
that it
and will
the worj
an ethi
with Sp
lence a
benevol
Sonian

to Sust
0f cont
Greaves
benevol

Credibl
\

77

By working in the picaresque tradition established
by 22g Quixote, Smollett fused the conventions of the ro-
mance and novel. This fusion was adequately suited for
Smollett's satire, but it could not sustain any sentimental-
ism he had hoped to elicit in favor of his hero. Smollett
wished to balance his satire and wit with emotional warmth
and sympathetic feeling, and it was this balance he had in
mind when he wrote in his preface to Roderick Random that
the"vicissitudes of life" would open up “ample field for wit
and humour." Alan D. MbKillop reasons correctly that
Smollett's indignant satire is inadequate to his practice,
that it is not flexible enough for the exigencies of life
and will not see the novelist through his variegated tour of
the world. McKillpp argues that Smollett uses his satire as
an ethical short-cut, a kind of inverted sentimentalism,
with Spontaneous indignation instead of Spontaneous benevo-
lence as the test of virtue.28 Smollett, however, desired
benevolence as the test of virtue, more particularly Hutche-
sonian benevolence: yet his form and hero were inadequate
to sustain it. Roderick and Perry are thrown into a world
of contradiction and contesting values, while Fathom.and
Greaves are personifications of malevolence and a quixotic
benevolence, who exist rather as tools of contrivance than

credible human beings. Greaves, particularly, becomes the

28EarlyiMasters pf English Fiction, pp. 151-152.

 

 

idealize

ditions

his crea

' benevole

‘ position

this pro

i his own

ethical

moral co
human ex
it is ow

which is
' I moral Se
phers,"2
conduct.
nOVelist
embody t]
love. H:
PI‘Oblem,
vanitY, a
benevoli1
Self as E

Bramble j
\

 

 

 

 

78
idealized hero who is disaffected with existing social con-
ditions and encourages reform. Smollett finally succeeds in
his creation of Matthew Bramble, in whom indignation and
benevolence are fused into a character whose malevolent dis-
position dnguises his active benevolence. It is through
this progression of Smollett's heroes that we can discern
his own progress as a novelist for whom the Hutchesonian
ethical system served as the most desirable pattern for
moral conduct. When Smollett writes "I, whose notions of
human excellence are not quite so sublime, am apt to believe
it is owing to that spirit of self-conseit and contradiction,
which is at least as universal, if not as natural, as the
moral sense so warmly contended for by those ideal philoso-
phers,"29 he is affirming the existence of two motives for
conduct within a human being. And Smollett's growth as a
novelist can be traced in his search for the hero in whom to
embody the compatible qualities_of self-love and social
love. His last three novels dramatically illustrate the“
problem. Fathom is a malevolist, for whom self-conceit,
vanity, and self-gratification motivate action: Greaves is a
benevolist whose social-love is incapable of sustaining it-
self as a successful ethical principle in a vicious world;

Bramble is a malevolent benevolist, in whom self-love and

 

 

29ShakeSpeare Head edition, p. 137.

 

 

socia
tion

not d
penta
the p

the m

for h
esque
ford

acqui
is th
faoul
dour

of a]
the a
his I
fictii
we mj
Unpre
happj
Melf(
lett‘

79

social love are inextricably fused. He is the personifica-
tion of complete ethical awareness. In this context, it is
not difficult to understand why Smollett introduces the re-
pentant (and now benevolent) Fathom in Humphry Clinker under
the pseudym "Grieve" in an obvious play on "Greaves." He is

the malevolent become benevolent.

In flumphry Clinker, Smollett found the precise form
for his social criticism, and defined his idea of the picar-
esque mode in terms of its archetypal journey. Jerry Mel-
ford writes that "Without all doubt, the greatest advantage
acquired in travelling and perusing mankind in the original,
is that of diSpelling those shameful clouds that darken the
faculties of the mind, preventing it from judging with can-
dour and precision."30 This idea appears to be at the root
of all Smollett's novels. It summarizes his attitude in
the apologue to Roderick Random and resolves the problem all
his heroes must face: how must one perceive experience,
actively participate in it, and secure happiness. Hutcheson,
we might recall, posited that benevolence functioning in an
unprejudiced mind promoted both individual and universal
happiness, and Smollett records this basic idea through Jerry
Melford. The passage is important as a statement of Smol-

lett's most vital realization of the organic fusion of ethic

_k

30Modern Library edition (New York, 1929), p. 404.

 

 

 

 

SBI

Stt

all

We]

COI
the

Se]

v 6.
hm P

 

80

and form. Humphry Clinker is important as Smollett's

achievement of that realization.

Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle succeed as
variegated pictures of life because their heroes are shown
in the process of maturing, in the process of acquiring the
values of self—love and social-love, of humanity and benevo-

lence, to sustain them in society. Ferdinand Count Fathom

 

and §i§ Launcelot Greaves fail as novels because their
heroes are shadows upon whom extreme values are superimposed.
Ferdinand's malevolence is never fully dispelled, and Laun-
celot’s quixotic benevolence is too improbably to be taken
seriously. Humphry Clinker presents the most concentrated
study, where the duality of self and social-love in Bramble
allow him to comment candidly on the follies of Bath, as
well as achieve an enlightened view of Scotland. It is his
concealed benevolence which suggests the Hutchesonian

thesis of man's intrinsic goodness.

Both Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle are con-
structed in terms of the conflicting and inherent powers of
Self interest and benevolence as they influence the two
heroes. In the former, the conflict is external and pre-
sented through the people withuhom Roderick comes into con-
tact; in the latter, the conflict is internal, based upon

Perry's own vanity and self-conceit. Roderick is exposed to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

a vicious world inhabited by Captain Okum, Dr. MacShane,
Crampley, Cringer, the cowardly Captain Weazel, and the af-
fectatious Captain Whiffle, as well as Strap, Morgan, Mrs.
Sagely, and of course Tom Bowling, of whom Roderick wrote,

"I always ascribed his benevolence to the dictates of a heart

as yet undebauched by a commerce with mankind."

The world of Roderick Random is one in which malice,

 

cowardice, stupidity, affectation, and brutality, are

pitted against generosity, honesty, benevolence, humanity,
sense, and courage. Human nature is described in its various
manisfestations in terms of Roderick's own perception of it,
whereas the omniscient narrator of Peregrine Pickle directs
his attention to Perry, who contains within himself the con-

flicting antithetical social and selfish passions common to

 

human nature. As Professor Goldberg points out, Perry is re-
vealed as "naturally generous," "naturally compassionate,"
with a "fund of good nature," "unlimited generosity," and
"natural benevolence." Yet he vacillates between these
natural, intrinsic human qualities and the selfish passions
he has acquired from his association with the "commerce of
mankind." He develops "pride...licentious conduct...and a

large proportion of insolence." He is described as having

 

 

31Everyman's Library edition, p. 27.

 

 

 

 

82
"vanity and self-conceit," "vanity and ambition," "self-
. 32
conceit and affectation of learning," "pride and ambition.“
It is when Peregrine is forced to remove himself to

the Fleet and strip himself of his pride, vanity, and ambi-

tion, that he secludes himself from all society. Perry has

 

come to realize that his selfish passions have alienated the
approbation and love of his fellows, and consequently that
his actions have alienated him from a society, which accord-
ing to Hutcheson affirms and recognizes the individual in
terms of its approbation and disapprobation of socially

beneficent or malevolent action.

 

He was conscious of his infirmity, and
found it incurable. He foresaw that by his
own industry he should never be able to de-
fray the expense of these occasions; and this
reflection sunk deep into his mind. The ap-
probation of the public, which he had earned
or might acquire, like a cordial often repeat-
ed, began to lose its effect upon is imagina-
tion; his health suffered by his sedentary
life and austere application; his eyesight
failed, his appetite forsook him, his Spirits
decayed; so that he became melancholy, listless,
and altogether incapable of prosecuting the
only means he had left for his subsistence; and
(what did not at all contribute to the allevia-
tion of these particulars) he was given to
understand by his lawyer, that he had lost his
cause, and was condemned in costs. Even this
was not the most mortifying piece of intelli-
gence he received; he at the same time learned
that his bookseller was bankrupt, and his
friend Crabtree at the point of death.

 

These were comfortable considerations to a
youth of Peregrine's diSposition, which was so

2
Smollett and the Scottish School (Albuquerque,
1959), p. 59.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

capricious, that the more misery increased,

the more haughty and inflexible he became.
Rather than be beholden to Hatchway, who

still hovered about the gate, eager for an
Opportunity to assist him, he chose to under-
go the want of almost every convenience of
life, and actually pledged his wearing apparel
to an Irish pawnbroker in the Fleet, for money
to purchase those things without which he must
have already perished. He was gradually irri-
tated by his misfortunes into a rancorous
resentment against mankind in general, and his
heart so alienated from the enjoyments of life,
that he did not care how soon he quitted his
miserable existence. Though he had shocking
examples of the vicissitudes of fortune con-
tinually before his eyes, he could never be
reconciled to the idea of living like his
fellow-sufferers, in the most abject degree of
dependence. If he refused to accept of favours
from his own allies and intimate friends, whom
he had formerly obliged, it is not to be supposed
that he would listen to proposals of that kind
from any of his fellow~prisoners, with whom he
had contracted acquaintance. He was even more
cautious than ever of incurring obligations; he
now shunned his former messmates, in order to
avoid disagreeable tenders of friendship. Im-
agining that he perceived an inclination in the
clergyman to learn the state of his finances, he
discouraged and declined the explanation, and at
length secluded himself from all society.3

 

 

 

Ferdinand Count Fathom and Sir Launcelot Greaves are
both experimental novels. In the former, Smollett attempted
to mature as a novelist, realized he had fallen short of the
mark, ant attempted to redeem himself with Greaves. The
preface to Fathom is evidence that he was concerned with
the novel as a serious form, as is the fact that he waited
nine years between both novels, and an additional nine be-

tween Greaves and Humphry Clinker. Both Fathom and Greaves

33Everyman's Library edition, Vol. II, 333-334.

8h
fail because of their extravagances. The former depicts the
effects of self-love and ambition, while the latter embodies
an unbalanced mixture of self-love and quixotic social con-
cern. Where Fathom is very much a part of the commerce of
mankind, GreaVes stands outside to voice ideal social poli-
tical, and ethical attitudes. He boasts, "I reasonwithout
Prejudice, can endure contradiction, and as the company per-
ceives, even hear impertinent censure without passion or
resentment."31F But Greaves is unreal. As a Spokesman for
Smollett, however, his social attitudes are quite consistent
with Smollett‘s own. Greaves supports the fact that Smollett
does present contradictions which are compatible and which
must exist together, just as Hutcheson posited the necessary
dual existence of social and self-love. In this context,
Sir Launcelot Greaves may possibly be viewed as one of Smol-
lett's most important novels. He defends the "Seven years
war," lashes out against political prejudice and faction,
attacks private madhouses and jails, and defends the policies
of George II. It is noteworthy that Critical Review also
defended the war and Georges II and III. Greaves, however,
is unaware of the value of the contradictions in his charac-
ter, and his egocentric extravagance overshadows the reality
of his statement which, as a result, also becomes unreal,
and thus a contradiction itself. Yet we must accept these

contradictions in terms of the author's attempt to reconcile

 

BhShakeSpeare Head edition (Oxford, 1926), p. 16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

85
them successfully if we are to accept Smollett as a serious

novelist.

The realized existence of the duality in man is
dramatized by Matthew Bramble, who like Bowling is "unde-
bauched by a commerce with mankind" and who as a result dis-
plays an enlightened benevolence and understanding of human
nature. Jerry Melford records Bramble's remarks to Mr.
Barton:

Of his grace I shall say nothing at present,

but that for thirty years he was the constant and
common butt of ridicule and execration. He was

generally laughed at as an ape in politics, whose
office and influence served only to render his
folly the more notorious; and the Opposition
cursed him, as the indefatigable drudge of a first
mover, who was justly stiled and stigmatized as
the father of corruption: but this ridiculous ape,
this venal drudge, no sooner lost the places he
was so ill qualified to fill, and unfurled the
banners of faction, than he was metamorphosed
into a pattern of public virtue; the very peOple
who reviled him before, now extolled him to the
skies, as a wise experienced statesman, chief
pillar of the Protestant succession, and corner
stone of English liberty. I should be glad to
know hOW’Mr. Barton reconciles these contradic-
tions, without obliging us to resign all title

to the privilege of common sense.

And, of course, Bramble himself is a contradiction, albeit
successful, because he is human and can elicit the reader's
Sympathetic reSponse through the reality and universality

of his nature. He accosts society without the aid of a

lance or suit of armor, and thus becomes an effective agent

35Modern Library edition, pp. 116-117.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I__—'

86
for Smollett's purposes. With an obvious debt to Hutcheson,
Smollett has Bramble remark: "The longer I live, I see more
reason to believe that prejudices of education are never
wholly eradicated, even when they are discovered to be er-
roneous and absurd. Such habits of thinking as interest the
grand passions, cleave to the human heart in Such a manner,
that though an effort of reason may force them from their
hold for a moment, this violence no sooner ceases, than they
resume their graSp with an increased elasticity and adhe-

"36

sion.

Smollett was clearly working in the ethical tradi-
tion of Hutcheson and his Scottish successors, and his
attempt to find a form and suitable hero to accommodate and
communicate that ethic may accurately describe his growth as
a novelist. More importantly, the prefaces to Roderick
Random and Ferdinand gppgp Fathom reflect his reSponse to the
aesthetic of the psychological school, though it appears that
his struggle to embrace that aesthetic in the novel was marr—
ed by his inability to reconcile the shafts of his satire
with the texture of the novel’s total effect: an effect pre-
dicated on the reader's response to action governed by the
hero’s own perception of experience. But if in practice,
Smollett only partially succeeded, he did conceive of the

novel as a genre characterized by its form: a form which

 

 

36Modern Library edition, p. 327. .

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

L’—

87
succeeded as both an aesthetic and ethical vehicle in terms
of its imaginative impact through sympathetic response.
Within this framework, Smollett attempted to dramatize the
conflict between human nature and social awareness, and to
awaken in the reader a realization of his own humanity in

terms of a common humanity. . an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

THE "CRITICAL REVIEW"
AND
THE NOVEL; lZfi6-lZéé

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER gy

THE "CRITICAL REVIEW"
AND

Egg NOVEL; 1156-1263

Much of the criticism of the novel in the Critical
Review took the form of digests and summaries such as those
in many of the earlier abstract journals and indeed in its
contemporary, the Gentlemen's Magazine. However, the re-
viewers did show a marked interest in the theory of the
novel, and a critical standard revealed itself in the re-

views of major novels.

We need remember that in 1756 no less than four-
fifths of the novels were reviewed by Samuel Derrick, who it
appears was assigned the task of "trash reader" and who may
well have been "the little Irishman" referred to by Smollett
in his letter to Dr. Moore of May, 1757.1 Smollett himself
did not review any novel in 1756, but rather concentrated his
efforts on historical and scientific documents, and wrote the
editorial prefaces and remarks. In the division of labor,
Dr. Armstrong shared with Smollett the reviewing of scienti-
fic and medical works, Francklin, who was Professor of Creek

at Cambridge, dealt with theological works, and Murdoch con-

 

1Edward S. Noyes, Thg Letters pf Tobias Smollett
(Cambridge, 1926), p. #6.

88

 

 

 

 

 

89

tributed the foreign articles from abroad. Derrick came to

his job well prepared. In 1754, he translated and wrote the

——~——_—

Cavalier, 22 Les Illustres Infortunes dg Notre Siecle, by the

 

Marquis d'Argens. His preface is hardly notable, for he
merely restates the traditional theories of the extravagances
of romance, and argues for reality and moral efficacy through
characters who were "remarkable in life" and "within the com—
pass of our acquaintance." Derrick carried these precepts
into his reviews, of which his comments on L'Empire dgg
Passions are illustrative: "This romance is like a play per-
formed by a strolling company in which there is a great deal
of tinsel and frippery without any taste, much declamation
and no nature; a variety of parts acted by the same player,
with no variation in his manner, and very little difference in
his dress. It moves no passion but contempt, because it is
not written from the heart, but from the imagination; the
characters are not copied from life, but drawn from crude
fancy, poorly furnished from antiquated novels."2 Derrick’s
comments reflect the traditional attitude toward "probability"
or the "realistic" presentation of character in the novel.
This critical concern which achieved a greater currency be-
tween 17hO-l765 was discussed by such writers as John Hawkes-

worth in the Adventurer for May 18, 1752, Frances Sheridan in

2Critical Review, I (January-February, 1756), 92.

 

 

 

 

 

90

her Memoirs pf Miss Sidney Bidulph (1761), John Leland in
Longsword, Earl 2f Salisbury (1761), and Arthur MUrphy in

his Essay 2n the Life and Genius 9f Henry Fielding (1762).

There is little reason to believe that Smollett
would have altered his reviewing policy after Derrick's de-
parture to Bath, where he-succeeded Beau Nash as Master of
Ceremonies, forcertainly until 1759 many of the reviews of
novels shared an almost undistinguishable anonymity. It is
not until April, 1759, with the review of Rasselas, that the
Critical clearly begins to set down its theory of narrative
writing, and it is in that same year that Smollett's pen be-
came prominent in the reviews of novels. It is likely, how;
ever, that he reviewed the novels out of necessity because,
as we might recall, he complained to Wilkes in that year of
"reading dull books & writing dull commentaries" without
having time to "snatch...a momentary reSpite."3 In the re-

views for 1759 we can begin to discern the critical context

into which the Critical Review placed the novel as an organic

genre through which the principle of universal benevolence
urged men to sympathize with the feelings of others regard-
less of self-interest, and taught the reader simple ethical
principles without setting up any intellectual barrier to

thwart the right kind of imaginative reSponse. Joseph Bunn

—_—._

3 .
NoyeS, Letters, p. 61.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

Heidler remarked that "Whereas the Monthly reviewers were
prone to judge the novels mostly on the basis of moral and
characterization alone,thoSe in the Critical endeavored to
judge intelligently not only their several component parts,
but also their total effect."AL "Effect" necessarily implies
response, and although Heidler never really defines "total
effect," he correctly suggests the Critical's emphasis on the

reader's reSponse to the novel's gestalt.

A word about the problem and method of attribution is
necessary. Admittedly, any attempt to attribute authorship
on the basis of internal evidence, more particularly amidst
the commonplaces of eighteenth-century style, too often runs
the risk of conjecture. Professor Martz, however, reminds
us that "style is a way of thinking, a method of presenting
ideas," and accordingly style cannot be divorced from those
ideas because it is their vehicle of expression. ConSequent-
ly, when we attempt to discern authorship through style, we
are in essence examining material from the author’s ideas,
mentality, and aim, and it follows that ideas expressed in
the given piece to be examined must be consonant with those
of the reputed author. Yet we must agree with Dr. Johnson

that by attributing authorship through internal evidence "we

 

4"The History, from 1700-1800, of English Criticism

of Prose Fiction," Universit 2f Illinois Studies lg Language
and Literature, No. I; (I923)

: p' 77'

 

 

 

 

 

 

91"

may discover the author with probability, though seldom with
certainty."5 The validity of Johnson's argument is attested
to by George Kahrl's erroneous attributions to Smollett of

reviews of Catharine and Petruchio and The Tempest, gg‘gpggg,

in the Critical for 1756 which are based upon the author's

 

apparegt fascination with, and frequent allusions to Shakes-
peare. Professor Kahrl erred by isolating an aSpect of
Smollett's concern which was unrelated to any central con-

text of ideas within which he worked. For my discusSion of

 

Smollett's probable authorship of reviews in the Critical,
I have carefully examined his prose works, including letters,

reviews known to be his in the Critical for 1756, and his

 

reviews in the Monthly. I have also examined selected but
pertinent documents of Francklin, Armstrong, and Derrick,

as well as their reviews in the Critical for 1756, in order
to isolate not only Smollett's particular verbal and stylis-
tic preferences, but more importantly his sentiments con-

7

cerning the novel and its function.

 

5The Later Career 9__;_E‘_ Tobias Smollett (New Haven,l9l+2),
p. 55. See or. thnson's first note on The Two Gentlemen 2:
Verona in his edition of Shakespeare, 1755.

6See "The Influence of ShakeSpeare on Smollett," in
Essays in Dramatic Literature: The Parrot Presentatigp

Volume '(‘Fr‘in'weeton W35 pp“? 3994.20. See Appendix B for
KahrI's Attributions. ’

7I have examined Francklin's plays and translations
for revealing prefatory material and notes, Armstrong's
Benevolence, $2.3 istle, Sketches,which includes Taste,_gn
Epistlg to.§ Young‘ ritic, and Derrick’s View 2; the Stage
and translation of the Memoirs of the Count de Beauval.

 

 

 

 

 

92

We have already observed that Smollett realized in
the novel its capability of effectively dramatizing the
virtues of a benevolent and unprejudiced perception of ex-
perience and human nature, which in turn affirmed the possi-
bility of universal happiness. This idea which is central
to Smollett's work and to his career as a novelist provides
a fundamental criterion for distinguishing Smollett's pen
from Francklin's or Armstrong's in a given review. ‘Franck-
lin particularly adhered to religious orthodoxy and rejected
"enthusiasm" of any kind. For example, in his review of
Thoughts 23 £22 gegeg 23 e egg, 222 Nature 2: Meg, egg BEE
Relation ef Meg £2 QEe Mekeg, Francklin writes: Every
illiterate visionary sets up for a philosopher, and a free-
thinker, indulges his genius for paradox and romance, and
publishes his Utopian System in hopes of forming some new
§eg§....The age we live in seems to be the age of ignorance
and enthusiasm...."8 Smollett, on the other hand, instills
in Matthew Bramble the following sentiment toward Humphry
Clinker's Methodism: "If there was anything like affecta-
tion or hypocriSy in this excess of religion, I would not
keep him in my service; but so far as I can observe, the
fellow's character is downright simplicity, warmed with a

kind of enthusiasm, which renders him very susceptible of

 

8
Critical Review, II (August, 1756), 51.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93
gratitude and attachment to his benefactors."9 Again, in
Peregrine Pickle, Smollett writes: "Though our young gentle-
man differed widely from them in point of politicafl princi-
ples, he was not one of those enthusiasts who look upon every
schism from the established articles of faith as d__nable,
and exclude the sceptic from every benefit of humanity and
Christian forgiveness. He could comprehend how a man of the
most unblemished morals might, by the prejudice of education,
or indiSpensible attachments, be engaged in such a blame-
worthy and pernicious undertaking."10 I might add that in
this last passage, Francklin's own brand of "enthusiasm" is

discredited by Smollett. Because the preceding aesthetic and

 

ethical concerns are peculiar to the Critical Review between
1756-1763, and because they are consistent with Smollett's
own conception of the novel, we would be mistaken in divorc-
ing the two. If it is difficult at times to discern Smol-
lett's pen in a given review, it is less a task to acknow-

ledge his influence_on its critical tenor.

The first clear statement of the Critical's attitude
toward the nature and function of the novel is found in the
review of Dr. Johnson's Rasselas (1759). The reviewer out-

lines the purposes and effectiveness of narrative writing:

 

9Modern Library edition (New York, 1929), p. 183.

loEveryman's Library edition (London, 1962), Vol. I.,

180.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9h

Those who employ their pens on moral
subjects, free from limited systems, narrow
prejudices and subtle disquisitions, culti-
vate a science of all others the most conducive
to private content and publick utility.

Narration has been justly deemed the most es-
sential and pleasant vehicle for this kind of
instruction, where the attention is fixed by

our solicitude for the event, and the precept
enforced by example. To convey knowledge by
insensible steps, to teach while you direct,

and make wisdom steal into the heart requires
execution, genius, and great address. For this
reason the laws of history prohibit tedious re-
flections, long dissertations, and laboured
diSquisitions either in morals or politicks;
such as only are permitted as they rise easily
from the subject, and illustrate without break-
ing the thread of the narrative. In this par-
ticular, our learned author may possibly be
thought to fail. He has in a simple, but elegant
tale, couched in the method of dialogue the most
important turths and profound Speculations. No
plot, character, or contiivance, is here used to
beguile the imagination.

Rasselas is judged as "unintelligible to the readers of novels"
because it fails to meet the artistic demands of the novel,
which include the reader's "solicitude for the event" through
imaginative reSponse. The reviewer commends it rather as "a
beautiful epitome of practical ethics." But there are two
ideas in this review that are important to my discussion:

the statement of the dramatic possibilities of the novel---"to
convey knowledge by insensible steps"--—a phrase which should
remind us of Kames' "ideal presence," and which importantly

emphasizes the relationship between structure and sympathetic

—__

ll
Qgitical Review, VII (April, 1759), 372-373.

 

 

 

 

95

reSponse; and, the reviewer's emphasis on an unprejudiced
mind "free from limited systems" reflecting sentiments most
econducive to "private content and publick utility," the
product of that vital union of the selfish and social pas-
sions. We can, in fact, find the same sentiment expressed
in the review of Kames' Elements of Criticism:

Upon this ideal presence of objects is
founded that extensive influence which language
hath over the heart; an influence which, more
than any other means, strengthens the bond of
society, and attracts individuals from their
private system to exert themselves in acts of
generosity and benevolence. Without it the
finest Speaker or writer would in vain attempt
to move our passions: our sympathy would be
confined to objects that are really present,
and language would lose entirely that astonish-
ing power it possesseth of making us sympathiZe
with beings rempged at the greatest distance of
time and place.

The reviewer implies that a natural series of events or plot
that rises "easily from the subject...without breaking the
thread of the narrative" will delight the reader aesthetical-
ly in terms of its coherence, and ethically in terms of im-
aginatively evoking our sympathy in favor of the well-being
of a common humanity. The concept of probability in fiction
is viewed not in terms of characters being true to "nature,"
but rather in terms of our internal reSponse to the entire
texture of the work.Smollett reflected this attitude in his
review of Maxims, Characters, and Reflections. He wrote that

12Critical Review, XIII (March, 1762), 213.

 

 

 

 

96.
the author's want of method resulted in the reader’s memory

being "left in perplexity and confusion. Had the maxims been
arranged in the manner of Le Bru ere, they would have made
much more distinct impressions on the mind, and we should
have known where to recur for any single reflection; which we

must now search for in an undistinguishedmedley.”13

The reviewer of Rasselas argued that narrative fiction
should inculcate the sentiments of virtue and honor through .
"insensible steps," proceeding through a variety of interest-
ing incidents toward the cataStrOphe without interruption or
digression. .Mbrality could be taught through a structurally
vivid representation rather than intellectual delineationgand
consequently, the representation should appeal to the feel-

ings and to the imagination rather than to our logical faculty.

Smollett, more than likely, wrote this review.Neither
his deference to his friend Johnson as the "learned and sensi-
ble author of the Rambler nor his pointed criticism of Reg-
§ele§ is surprising. In the February number of the Critical
for 1759, Smollett answered James Grainger's attack against
the reviewer (Smollett himself) who condemned his Tibullus,
and did not hesitate to remark that Johnson, whom Grainger
had taken as his authority for the translation, was “not in-

fallible."lh My evidence for attributing the review of

l3Critical Review, I (March, 1756), 221,

l“Noyes, Letters, pp. 180-181.

 

 

 

97
Rasselas to Smollett is based on its opening passage, which
closely correSponds both in idea and verbal preference to
passages in Smollett's known work.
Those who employ their pens on moral
subjects, free from limited systems, narrow
prejudices and subtle diSquisitions, cultivate

a science of all others the most conducive to
private content and public utility.

 

 

This idea, clearly consonant with the theme I have already
discussed as central to Smollett's work, is restated here in
terms of the function of the writer of narrative fiction,and
echoes sentiments expressed in Smollett's reviews of Warton’s
Eeeey pp pee Writings egg Genius pf Eepe and Hume's History

pf Great Britain. Smollett writes of Warton's work,

It breathes the spirit of true criticism,
unbiased py ordid prejudice and partiality. It

abounds in judicious remar s, delivered with an
air of candour and liberality.

and argues that although Hume has

a warm side towards those princes of the
Stuart family...we can perceive those prejudices
vanishing before 222 power pf historical credit,
operating upon ghe natural candour and good sense
of the author.1

Passages in Smollett's "Proposals" and preface to the first

number of the Critical further illustrate this attitude.

 

 

15Critical Review, II (October, 1756), 228.

16
Critical Review, II (November, 1756), 385.

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

They the reviewers have no Connexions to
warp their Integrity; they have pp Prejudices
to influence their judgment;...their favorite
Kim is to befriend Merit, dignifying the Liberal
Arts, and contribute towards the formation of a
public taste which is the best Patron of Genius
and Science.l7

 

Howsoever they the reviewers may have erred
in judgment, they have declared their thoughts
without prejudice, fear or affectation; and
strove to forget the author's person, ghile his
works fell under their consideration.1

 

 

I believe it is possible to attribute to Smollett on similar
evidence the reviews of Smith's Theory pf Moral Sentiments,

Gerard's Essay pp Taste, and Burke's Enquiry into the Origin

—-——--——..——m_

review of Smith's work is striking, particularly if we view
it in relation to the Opening passage of the review of

Rasselas.

————c—-——n——————.—

their merit, have often their sentiments warped

py innocent, because unavoidable prejudice ; and
aVing previously embraced some system of their

own...receive with reluctance...any attempt to
overturn those opinions.l

 

 

Again, the review of Gerard's Essay contains the following

passage:

 

 

l7See "Proposals for publishing monthly the Progress
or Annals of Literature and the Liberal Arts" in the Public
Advertiser, December 30, l755~

l8
l9

 

See preface to Volume I.

Critical Review, VII (May, 1759), 382.

 

 

 

99

I can see nothing in the abstract and nature
of proportion, that can at all satisfactorily ac-
count for my feelings; and I sit down fully con-
vinced, that the fault lies in the building than
in us, E29 judge py BEE re‘udices epe narrow
rules of e332 and not by intuitive feeling and

sensibility. 0
Burke's Enguiry is judged as

...a performance superior to the common level
of literary productions, as much as real in-
genuity is superior to superficial petulance,
and the fruit of nature study to the hasty
produce of crude conjecture. The author has
rejected all system ; he has descended into

himself, and diligently investigated his own

feelings upon which his philosophy is founded.21

In my preceding chapter I referred to the similarities be—
tween passages in the preface to Ferdinand Qpppp Fathom and
this review. But the evidence of a "produce" or "blossoming"
metaphor in the above passage also suggests Smollett's hand.
In his reviews for 1756, Smollett uses such a metaphor three
times, while Derrick, Francklin, Armstrong, and Murdoch did

not uSe it at all. The two following passages are illustra-

tive:

...they (reviewersjhave cherished with condemnation,
the very faintest bloom of genius, even when vapid
and unformed, in hopes of its being warmed into
favour, and afterwards producing agreeable fruits
by dint of proper care and culture;22

2OCritical Review, VII (May, 1759), 443.
2loriticel Review, III (April, 1757), 361.

22
See preface to Volume I.

 

 

 

 

 

100

Nothing is more unjust, than the common
observation that genius no longer blooms in
this degenerate age; that science expired with
Newton and poetry perished with Pope. Nature
is as vigorous as ever, and will be always
uniform in her productions; but, the fairest
flower will blow unregarded among people who
have no faculties of feeling, and no ideas of
beauty.

 

There is both a striking similarity and an important
difference between the Critical's and Monthly's review of
Rasselas. Owen Ruffhead's review for the Monthly began:

The method of conveying instruction under
the mask of fiction or romance has been justly
considered as the most effectual way of rendering
the grave dictates of morality agreeable to man—
kind in general. The diversity of character, and
variety of incidents, in a romance, keeps the
attention alive; and moral sentiments find access
to the mind imperceptibly, when led by amusement;
whereas dry, didactic precepts, delivered under a
sameness of character, Eoon grow tiresomato the
generality of readers.2

 

Although there is an apparent structural similarity with the
second paragraph of the Critical's review, the evident theo-
retical difference sharply distinguishes both reviews. The
Monthly attempted to fuse the aesthetic and ethical function
of fiction through a s0phisticated generalization of the
traditional "sugar—coated pill" idea; the "moral sentiments
find access to the mind imperceptibly, when led by amuse-
ment...." The Critical, on the other hand, began the review
with a statement of the function of that aesthetic and ethi-

cal fusion in fiction -—- "to cultivate a science...the most

2
3Critical Review, I (April, 1755), 276-

24Monthly Review, XX (May, 1759), 1.28.

 

IIIIIIIIlIE::::_____________________________“

lOl

conducive to private content and public utility" --- and
delineated how the organic structure of the work might psy-
chologically appeal to the reader's emotions as natural and
credible through his imaginative rapport with the content of
the narrative. The Monthl , I might add, called JohnSOn's
topics "so often handled they are grown threadbare," and
argued that his work has no "great tendency to the good of
society," nor does he “excite men to laudable pursuits," but
rather "tends to discourage them from all pursuits whatever;
and to confirm them in that supine indolence, which is the

parent of vice and folly."

The reviewer of A Description pf Millenium Hall also

restated the necessity of appealing to both the aesthetic

 

and moral sense through the imagination, which at once uni-
‘ fies the novel structurally and provides the medium for the
‘ reader’s sympathetic reSponse. The emphasis is, again, on

"total effect."

Morality conveyed in fiction, requires all
the powers of imagination to render it palatable.
If we sit down to a formal system of ethics, we
know what we are to expect, and are not disap-
pointed, because the passions are not gratified,
if the understanding be improved; but when we
enter upon a novel, the moral is only a Secondary
object; pleasure and amusement are principally
sought, without which we regard it as the most
insipid of all moral reflections. A writer of
romance, to answer the purpose of this species
of writing, ought eminently to possess the faculty
of pleasing by an exertion of the powers of the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102

imagination; a fruitful invention and a pro-
found knowledge of the human heart;....2

A comparison with the Monthly's review of Almoran
éfli.§§fl§£ might be useful to distinguish the theoretical
attitudes of the reviewers. This review, written by Ruff-
head, is probably the Mbnthly's most comprehensive statement
on the novel, although the theory was seldom consistent with

its reviewing practice.

Compositions of this kind[romanceL nevertheless,
when conducted by a writer of fine talents and ele-
gant taste, may be rendered as beneficial and delect-
able. They have this peculiar advantage, that, by
making a forcible impression on the imagination, they
answer the purposes of conviction and persuasion,
with the generality of mankind, much better than a
direct appeal to the judgment. Very few are diSposed
to relish the dry precepts of morality, or to con-
nect a lenghtened chain of reasoning; the majority
must be entertained with novelty, humoured with
fiction, and, as it were, cheated into instruction....

But, though Romance is, in fact, nothing more
than a poetical fiction, in the habit of prose,
yet it ought never to exceed the bounds of probability.
The writer may adorn the Probable, however, with every
incident to make it agreeable, and to charm and sur-
prize the Reader. We must c0py Nature, it is true;
but Nature in the most perfect and elegant form in
which conception can paint her.

It is not requisite, therefore, that his charac-
ters should bear resemblance to any known original.
It is sufficient that they are aggregates of those
qualities which lie scattered among the species.2

2
5Critical Review,XIV (December, 1762), #63.

2 .
6Monthly Review, XXIV (June, 1761), hl5-hl6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103
Although the Monthly argued here that the fiction must
forcibly impress the imagination, it separated the idea of
the imagination as a vehicle of conception and organization
from its function of making the whole work psychologically
credible by recalling the theory of probability voiced
earlier in the century which postulated that the writer not
merely copy nature, "but nature in the most perfect and
elegant form." This dissociation necessarily implies a
larger dissociation between structure and the sympathetic
reSponse to be evoked in the reader for a real person with
whom he could identify in a particular way. In short, this
dissociation defeated any attempt to achieve psychological

veracity.

The Critical reviewers, however, invariably asso-
ciated structure with sympathetic rapport. In his review of
Ipe Supposed Daughter, Derrick wrote: "Our author seems to
have been a stranger both to order and the art of touching
the passions; his books is crowded with adventures of dif-
ferent people, brought in without occasion, and dismissed in
the same manner. In perusing some of these, persons who
read only for amusement, may be gratified; but let nobody
pretend to look for a moral, it was what our author was un-

acquainted with; tho' he endeavours at something like it."27

 

27Critical Review, I (April, 1756), 260.

 

 

 

 

 

 

104
Though Derrick condemns, he does so within a critical context.
The Monthly reviewer merely dismissed the novel for its
"Poverty of writing, insipidity of narrative, and inutility
of design...which, thanks to the approach of summer, is the
last work of this sort, we are like to be troubled with, for

Some months at least."28

The reviewer of Elizabeth and Richard Griffith's
A Series pf Genuine Letters Between Henpy and Frances also
emphasizes the relation between structure and reSponse. He
comments that although the two-hundred and ninety-two letters
are interSpersed with moral and judicious reflections, they
are printed without regard to order or time, and thus do not
structurally guide the reader's attention and emotional re-
Sponse. "...it would have been more useful had those re-
flections been methodized; and more entertaining, had the
strokes of private history been such as could have interested
the passions of the reader."29 The Monthly while emphasizing
the general effect of the novel, fails to consider its dra-
matic relation to form. "...they afford many things fit to
instruct and entertain a sentimental Reader; who will be

equally affected and pleased with the frequent warm and natur-

 

2 fionthly Review, XIV (May, 1756), 1.53.

2
9Critical Review, III (iay, 1757), 432.

 

 

 

 

 

105

a1 expressions of conjugal tenderness, that are interfused

30

throughout the whole."

The Critical reviewer of The History‘pf Wilhelmina
Susannah Dormer more Specifically emphasizes the necessity

of vivid and credible characterization to evoke sympathetic

reSponse.

However, while the plot, thus morally con-
ducted, aims at pleasing the judgment, perhaps
it fails of captivating our affections; while
it instructs, it ceases to interest. we esteem
the characters, without being solicitous about
their success; and we find them happy in the
conclusion without sympathizing in the event.

 

All this might have been avoided, had the
author made his hero somewhat younger, or given
his hero a little more beauty; for an intrigue
entirely sentimental, must be intolerably frigid
to the young and gay, who are always for having
flesh and blood come in for a share of the cere-
mony. Novels are chiefly read by those whose
affections are stronger than their judgment; to
address such, therefore, with propriety, the
writer's chief aim should be to make them soli-
citous in the catastrOphe, even though faultless
monsters, as the poet expresses it, ladies all
beauty, and men all excellence become the objects
of their admiration. Strict morality may seem to
veil her rigid appearance: the reader is to be
.allured, as if in search of pleasure, and it is
the writer's fault, if he knows n t at least how
to surprize him into reformation. ,

—___

Again, where the Critical placed the novel within a given

30W new. XVII (November, 1757), 417.

31Critical Reyiew, VII (January, 1759), 67-68.

 

 

 

106

theoretical framework as organic, psychologically conceived
and perceived, and structurally aimed at the reader's identi-
fication with common eXperience through a natural association
of images and ideas, the Monthly made no attempt at a criti-
cal statement. It dismissed Susannah Dormer as”an unin—
telligible and romantic pamphlet," and added that "...whether
the whole tale is the work of his own absurd invention, we
are not enabled to say; nor does it seem worth any one's

32

while to enquire."

 

The Critical Review was not only aware of the demands
of the novel as a separate literary genre, but of the demands
of the modes within the genre. The reviewers distinguished
the novel from the drama by citing the difficulty of achiev-
ing a structural unity and intensity within the broad frame-
work of the novel. The reviewer of Frances Sheridan's The
Memoirs 9; Miss Sidney Bidulph commended her use of the epis-
tolary form and wrote that

...we must profess ourselves admirers of

this kind of dramatic writing; where every charac-

ter Speaks in his own person, utters his feelings, I

and delivers his sentiments warm from the heart. (

It admits of an infinity of natural moral reflec-

tions, which a true biographer cannot without

pedantry and seeking the occasions, introduce. To

sustain with prOpriety all the different person-
ages, to think, to act in their peculiar characters

2
3 Monthly Review, XX (January, 1759), 80.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

thro' a whole life, checquered with prOSperity
and adversity, requires a truly dramatic genius.
If the writer is not confined to the unities of
time and place, he labours under other incon-
veniencies, from which the strict dramatist is
exempted. He supports a character through life,
the other only through one particular action; he
observes probability in the transactions of possi—
bly half a century, the other only of a day; he
must rouse the passions, and engage the attention
through a variety of unconnected incidents, the
dramatist directs his whole strength only to one
object; in a word; the memoir writer must be
minute, without being tedious; he must study
variety, and yet be perfectly simple and natural;
he must extend without enervating his characters,
rise gradually to his catastrOphe, unfold his
design slowly, and after running a long geurse,
appear vigorous, fresh, and unexhausted.

After a ten and a half page sketch of the narrative, the re-

viewer concluded that

...the whole flows easy, chaste, natural,
simple, and beyond measure affecting and pa-
thetic. In a word, as we entertain the highest
opinion of the genius, delicacy, and good Sense
of Mrs. S , we cannot but wish she may
continue to exert those talents, so honourable
to herself, so useful, so entertaining to society,
and particularly so beneficial to the republic of
letters.

The reviewer recognized the possibility of the epistolary
technique to sustain emotion naturally through the immediacy
of sentiment. The Mbnthl , on the other hand, which rarely

extended its commentary on particular novels into a discus-

Sion of the genre and its possibilities, condemned the

33Critical Review, XI (March, 1761), 186.

3I‘PCriticafil, Review, XI (March, 1761), 197~198.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

"sentimentality" of Mrs. Sheridan's novel by denying its
aesthetic and moral efficacy. "...in the Romance now be-
fore us, the author seems to have had no other design than
to draw tears from the reader by distressing innocence and
virtue as much as possible. Now, tho' we are not ignorant
that this may be a true picture of human life, in some in~

stances, we are of the opinion, that such representations

are by no means calculated to encourage and promote virtue.35

It is probable that Smollett wrote the review of
Mrs. Sheridan's novel, since it is one of the few reviews in
which the epistolary form is commended. This particular re-
view commends it on the same criteria that Smollett used in
his History 9; England. In the Histopy, Smollett wrote that
the epistolary made was

...a Species of writing equally new and

extraordinary, where, mingled with much super-

fluity, we find a sublime system of ethics,

and amagéng knowledge and command of human

nature.
The reviewer wrote that the epistolary fornlwasa."species of
writing" which appears "prolix and redundant," but which

"admits of an infinity of natural moral reflections...."

 

35Monthly Review, XXIV (April, 1761), 260.

36 .
The Histor 9; England from the Revolution pp the
death _q_f_ G‘e"‘o'r‘g“‘f71e 1. London, 17903, —p. '331'. “"”“““

 

 

 

 

 

 

109

The epistolary form was, in fact, generally frowned‘
on by the Critical. In 1763, the reviewer of ppe Histories
of Lady Frances S_____ and Lady Caroline Sy____ wrote:
"The story is told after the manner of Clarissa, in a Series
of letters, a method, in our Opinion, liable to many objec-
tions; particularly that of involving the history in great
obscurity."37 And four years later, the reviewer of Tee
History eglMgee Emilia Breville remarked: "This novel is of
the epistolary kind; in a manner of writing which proves of
infinite service to scanty materials, and a confined inven—

tion."38

Other evidence which supports the probability of
Smollett's authorship of the review of Sidney Bidulph can be

found in the juxtaposition of "delicacy of sentiment" with

 

"prOpriety 0f conduct," and "delicacy" with "good sense."
Smollett frequently juxtaposed delicacy with some principle

of moral or aesthetic discipline, given the particular con-

 

 

 

 

 

text. In Sir Launcelot Greaves, he wrote that "decorum is
founded upon delicacy of sentiment and deportment," and
Jerry Melford comments that Lismahago thought the worship of
Cloacina "...a filthy Species of idolatry that outraged every

idea of delicacy and decorum."39 In reviews for the Critical

37Critical Review,XVI (August, 1763), 108.

Bagpipipel.fiey;ey, XXIV (October, 1767), 296.

393hake5peere Head edition (Oxford, 1926), p. 231.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

in 1756, Smollett united delicacy with precision, tenderness,

and taste, while Francklin juxtaposed delicacy with beauty,
#0

and Derrick, with wit and humor.

The review of The Perigrinations e; Jeremiah gpepp
distinguished the novel from the drama in terms of its struc-
tural possibilities in much the same way as the review of
Sidney Bidulph did. In this review, moreover, Smollett's
hand is clearly evident. It is particularly striking in its
verbal parallels to Smollett's preface to Ferdinand erpp

Fathom. In his preface, Smollett writes that

A novel is a large diffused_picture, compre-
handing the characters of life, disposed in dif-
ferent rou S, and exhibited in various attitudes,
for the purposes of a uniform plan, and general
occurence, to which every individual figure is
subservient. But this plan cannot be executdd
with prOpriety or success, without a principal
personage to attract the attention, unite the
incidents unwind the clue of the labyrinth, and
at close the scene by virtue of his own import-
ance.

 

The reviewer argues that

This kind of romance is a diffused comedy un-
restrained by the rules of the drama, comprehending
e gpeat variepy pf incident and character, referring
however, to one principle action and one particular
personage, whose importance must not only engage
our attention and esteem, but also unite the whole
concatenation of scenes and adventures. “He must

 

 

 

408ee Volume I, 387, 179; 123, 126; 431.

hlshakespeare Head edition, p. t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

still maintain his dignity, like the chief
figure in the foreground in a picture; and

the author, as the painter, must take care

to preserve a "keeping" in his performance;
that is, eg; the ether characters Shall pe.;p
some measure subservient pp ppe principal,

and kept from advancing forwards so far as to
rival the chie£ of the drama, in the attention
of the reader. 2

The similar use of the painting analogy and the similar logic
of the argument Suggests a Single author. Surely the con—
sonance of idea that the novel is a dramatic vehicle through

its emphasis on the importance Of the hero as the principle

medium through which the structural intensity and sympathetic

 

reSponse was sustained suggests Smollett as that author. It
is also possible to attribute this review to him on the basis
of the final paragraph. In his editorial capacity Smollett
would Surely have answered the author's malicious attack on
the reviewers. He writes:

So much for N . Grant's genius; we shall
now beg leave to say a word for his honesty.
In the course Of his adventures, he assumes the
character of a Reviewer; and declares, that the
individuals concerned in the Review are a parcel
Of venal grubs, under the direction and influence
of a bookseller, or booksellers, who employ them
to vilify or extol new performances, according
as the malice of self-interest of the said book-
sellers is affected; and that the Reviewers pros-
titute their praise for hire. is our author has
made no distinction between the Reviews, this
charge of corruption operates equally against
both, and indeed strikes a blow at their Vitals,
because such a work can no longer exist, when the
public loses their Opinion of its impartiality.

 

2
Critical Review, XV (January, 1763), 13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

reviews

112

The charge is therefore actionable; and

we may find it convenient to direct our
attorney to talk with Mr. Grant's pub—

lisher on this subject. In the meantime,

we not only declare the said charge to be

a false and malicious aSpersion; but we
hereby offer a reward of fifty guineas, to

be paid by the printer of this work, to

any person who shall prove that the 'Critical
Review' was ever under the direction or in-
fluence of any bookseller whatsoever; or that
any person concerned in this Review, from its
first institution, ever received any present
or bribe, or other unfair consideration, for
any article that it ever contained;—---we say
"unfair" consideration, because some of the
Reviewers have been honestly paid by the
proprietors for their labour; and a few books,
at their first publication, have been Sent as
presents, to one or other of the supposed
writers of the work. 1

 

The review continues in a vein that recalls the

of Rasselas and A Description pf Millenium Hall.

If the writer has any talent for wit,
humour, satire, and description, here he may
diSplay it to the best advantage, without
being obliged to polish high, or to sow his
pearls so thick, as we expect to find them in
the epic, the drama, or any Species of poetry.
A romance writer may slacken the reins of his
genius occasionally, without fear of offence,
and Sport with his subject in a careless manner,
which will relax the attention of the reader,
and agreeably prepare it for the more interest-
ing parts of the execution....It is the happy
faculty of genius to Strike off glowing images,
to seize the ridicule of character, to contrive
incidents that shall engage the passions and
affections of the reader, to support the Spirit
of the dialogue, and animate the whole narra-
tion. It is the province of taste to regulate
the morals of the piece, to conduct the thread
of the story, to make choice of airs and at-
titudes, to avoid impropriety, to reject every-
thing that is extravagant, unnatural, mean, and
disagreeable.4

 

43Critical Review, XV (January, 1763), 13.

 

(

 

 

 

—W———’

113
The reviewer argues that it is the necessary creative

faculty of the author's genius which creates and organizes
the incidents that engage the reader’s emotional reSponse.

We might remember Gerard’s definition of genius as the
"Grand Architecht" whose inventive power Springs from the
imagination as an example of the critical tradition in which
the reviewer is approaching his subject. Again where Beattie
wrote that "The greatest liveliness of the imagination will
...avail but little, if it is not 'corrected' and regulated
by the knowledge of nature....",hh‘ the reviewer argued

that it is the author’s taste which regulates the morals of

 

the performance, "to Conduct the thread of the story, to
make choice airs and attitudes, to avoid impropriety, to re-
ject everything that is extravagant, unnatural, mean, and
disagreeable." Genius and taste were, then inextricably

fused in the regulation and conduct of the novel.

 

The review ofers. Sheridan's novel anticipates

the review of geremiah Grant by arguing that the imaginative

 

faculty of genius must coexist with some principle of aes-
thetic and/or moral discipline. In the former, we might re-
call that the reviewer juxtaposed "genius" with "delicacy and
good sense." The reviewer of Armstrong's Sketches argued along

Similar lines in affirming that genius was a creative power

 

I,
See above, p. 43-

   

 

 

 

 

11h
O “A’s

while"taste is merely passive. Professor Knapp argues
correctly, I think, when he attributes the review of Sketches
to smollett on the basis of the reviewer's references to
food. The reviewer wrote: "We likewise beg leave to differ
from our author's Opinion, that mutton has a more delicious
flavour than venison; and flounder is preferable to turbut.
This, we conceive, is a downright solecism in eating, on
which we should be glad to hold a practical conference with
JMr. Launcelot Temple." Professor Knapp believes that Smol-
lett was amused by his friend's theory that one could tell a
person’s literary taste from his culinary preferences. In
fact, Knapp continues, Smollett preferred venison to mutton,
but conceded in Humphry Clinker, through Matthew Bramble,
that "five-year old mutton, fed on the fragrant herbage of

the mountains...might vie with venison in juice and flavour}r6

What is important is that the Critical was consistent
with a particular aesthetic, and placed the novel within an
organic context. In a good novel, structure, character, and
reSponse were indissoluble because they were the fruits of
both a genius which Sprang from and directed its efforts to-
'ward a creative imagination, and of a taste which regulated
and disciplined their moral effect. The Peregrinations e;

Jeremiah Grant obviously did not meet the critical standard,

hESee above, p. 50.
#6

See "Dr. John Armstrong, Litterateur, and Associate
other Celebrities," PMLA,

of Smollett, Thomson, Wilkes, an
LIX (19ah), 1037.

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

but the Monthly merely wrote it Off without critical stric-
ture: "The writer Of these peregrinaticns is an ignorant
pretender to wit, humour, and learning; whilst in reality, he
is totally destitute of the first; for the second, he only
shews a turn for ribaldry, such as would hardly pass for
humour with a bench of porters at an ale house door; and

for the third, he has not yet learned to Spell."l"7

It is interesting that the review of Sir Launcelot
Greaves argues for organic unity in terms of the principal

character of the novel. Although many reviews merely com-

 

mented generally on characters who were "well supported" or ‘
"well contrasted," the review of Smollett's novel elaborates

carefully on the hero's role in the total framework of the

novel. The reviewer argues against any separation or distinc-

tion between character and structure, but rather suggests a

 

fusion whereby the individual "singly is complete." His in-
dividual identity solicits our sympathetic response, and
because he governs the structure of the novel, we read with-
out "reflecting upon the contrivance" or contemplating the
catastrophe. He thus governs our perception of the novel as
an organic whole, and we are "insensibly" led to the author's

purpose by a hero who engages our passions.

 

1+7
Monthly Review, XXVIII (February, 1763), 162.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

Instances of the "vis comica" are so
rarely exhibited on the stage, or in the
productions of our novelists, that one is
almost induced to believe wit and humour
have taken their flight with public virtue.
The poets of these days aim at nothing more
than interesting the passions by the intri-
cacy of their plots; if a smile is accidently
raised upon the countenance, it rather pro-
ceeds from our finding the characters of the
drama in some ridiculous or unexpected situa-
tion, then from their having said or done
something characteristical. In novels es-
pecially, the historian thrusts himself too
frequently upon the reader. Take a single
chapter and it will appear egregiously dull,
because the whole joke consists in untying
some knot, or unravelling some mystery, and
is generally placed in the epigrammatic
fashion in the tail. It is the suSpense
merely, with reSpect to the issue, that en-
gages the reader's attention. Characters are
distinguished merely by their Opposition to
some other characters; remove that contrast,
and you annihilate the personages, just as
little wits in conversation are reduced to
mere inanimate figures, when you have taken
away the fool who drew forth their talents.
How different from this is the ridiculous
simplicity of Adams, the absurd vehemence of
Western, the boisterous generosity of Bowling,
the native humour of Trunnion, and the laugh-
able solemnity of Uncle Toby! Each of these
characters singly is complete; without rela-
tion to any other Object they excite mirth;
we dip with the highest delight into a chapter
and enjoy it without reflecting upon the con-
trivance of the piece, or once casting an eye
towards the catastrophe. Every sentence, and
every action, diverts by its peculiarity; and
hence it is that the novels in which these
characters are found, will furnish perpetual
amusement, while other which entertain merely
from the nature of the incidents, and the
conduct of the fable, are forever laid aside
after single perusal; an engaging story will
bear relating but once; a humpgrous character
will bear viewing repeatedly.

 

 

48Critical Review, XIII (May, 1762), 427.128.

 

 

 

 

 

117

This review is particularly interesting in light of Smol-
lett's attempt to invest Sir Launcelot with an extreme set

of values with which to confront the world. The review
curiously emphasizes the individuality of Adams, Bowling,
Commodore Trunnion, and Squire Western as "humours" charac-
ters in an effort to justify the conception of Launcelot.
What the reviewer fails to note is that the reality of Adams,
Bowling, Trunnion, and Western as individuals does not rely
on nightly vigils, jousts, and the frail trappings of knight
errantry. The review is also important because of its con—
sistency with previous reviews, and if placed along side
that of Tee Peregrinations pf Jeremiah geepp, Offers a re-
vealing commentary on the Critical’s perception of the novel
as an artistic genre capable of coming under serious critical

discussion.

The extravagances of Launcelot’s character make him
an incredible model of and for humanity. I have already
suggested that human nature was for Smollett as for Hutche-
son a fusion of Self-concern and social awareness and re-
sponsibility. At its root, human nature was inherently good
and contained a natural potentiality for sympathy towards
humanity, and remained undefiled by the prejudices of imposed
values. The Critical Review reflected this same view of hu-

man nature. The reviewer of Charles Johnstone's Chrysal, or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

The Adventures p§|e Guinea comments:

Had this author wrote more from nature, and
less from reflection, he might deserve a place in
the literary list above mediocrity. With solid
judgment and some genius, the author would be
more regarded had he viewed nature in a more
fashionable light. Traffic's character convinces
us that he is capable of high colouring; but we
are Shockced by the enormity of his crimes, so
monstrous and disgraceful to the human species.
The picture of the Jesuits is strong, but as it
exceeds what the utmost villany can effect, the
satyrist loses his aim. In a word, we hOpe for
the sake of humanity, that the writei has beheld
nature reflected by a false mirrour. 9

 

Similar sentiments are diSplayed in the review of The Memoirs

u——————-.——————-—-—_u—-

The stile seems to be formed on the grave
solemn manner of Cervantes, though the author
has animated it with the keen satirical stric—
tures which distinguish the works of Swift; nor
is it free from those saletes, or filthy cir-
cumstances in which the Dean but too much in-
dulged his imagination. There are also impuri-
ties which may be deemed so many outrages against
decency and decorum; but the most objectionable
part of the whole, is the ridicule which is every-
where employed against the modes and rites of
religious worship: for, although the scope of the
work is a satire on human nature in general, the
author seems to aim the shafts of his irony, with
peculiar pique, at the mysteries of our holy faith; 0
and so far we hold his book as profane and dangerous

 

 

It is probable that Smollett wrote these reviews. James

Foster argues that the author of The Adventures of an Atom

 

49Critical Review, IX (May, 1760), 119.

 

5°Critical Review, XV (May, 1763), 378.

 

 

 

 

 

119
was not only familiar with, but borrowed from Chrysal. The

Spirit of gold and the atom are similar structural vehicles,
both Speak once in a thousand years, gain their knowledge Of
persons intuitively, and terrify the wits out of the men to
whom they appear.51 Foster's argument may be valid. My own
investigation found that the scenes in which the guinea and
atom appear to each author were similar in structure and
tone. Each author is alone: the former, awaiting the birth
of his child, the latter, meditating. When the essence ap-
pears, each author thinks he is going mad. The guinea's
host remarks, "a holy terror curdled my blood," while the
author of the atom exclaims, "I was now thrown into a violent
perturbation of Spirit." After explaining the purposes of
their reSpective visits, each essence commands the perceiver
to mark his word. The guinea commands, "Listen then in mute
attention, nor let a breath disturb the mystick tale; the
atom bids his host, "Take up the pen, therefore, and write
what I shall unfold." Again, both essences have the power
of entering human beings. The gold has "a power of entering
into the hearts of the immediate possessors of our bodies,
and thus reading all the secrets of their lives," while the
atom was digested by a duck, who was in turn eaten by the
author's father, who in the process Of time, "expanded...

into thee, Nathaniel Peacock."

 

51

"Smollett and the Atom," mg, LXVIII(1953), 1032.

 

 

   

 

 

120
Of course, Smollett may have been familiar with

Johnstone's book without having reviewed it. However, the
reviewer's attitude toward human nature, and particularly
his remark on the depiction of the Jesuits suggests Smol-
lett's hand. In fact, this is the first review of a novel
in which a Jesuit appears that underplays and criticizes
the attack on that order. And this is the first review that
condemns an attack on any religious orthodoxy other than
that within the Protestant faith. In 1756, Armstrong wrote
in his review of the Memoirs pi E22 voluptuous conduct pf
pee Capuchins pp regard pf ppe fag; peg: "The author calls
himself a 'brother of the order* and indeed he seems to
breathe the genuine Spirit of that ’delicate' society. But
if he is really a strayed hog, he had best take care of
himself, for it is well known, by those who believe it, that
there is no safety even in London, for the most insignifi-

52

cant rascal that ever eloped from Rome." In March, 1759,
the reviewer of The Amorous Friars, or The Intrigues e; e

Convent remarked: "The best thing we can say of this col-

 

lection is, that the stories are so short, the reader cannot
be tired. It gives, however, such accounts of thOSe 'ter-
rible fellows' the friars, that we, who are Protestants, have

great reason to congratulate ourselves, that such vermin have

no opportunity of debauching our wives and daughters."53

520ritical Review, I (March, 1756), 144.

53Critiea1 Review, VII (March, 1759), 288.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

Though Smollett pokes fun at the priest in‘fiegey-
ieg'Random and the Capuchin in Peregrine Pickle, his attie
tude toward religious prejudice and-human nature is voiced
by his most admirable and knowledgable characters. 0f
Bramble, I have already Spoken. In Ferdinand Qpppp Fathom,
Don Diego comments on this subject in a vein which anti-
cipates Bramble: " 'YOu.mean,' answered the Castillian,
'the difference of religion, which I am resolved to remove
by adopting the Protestant faith; though I am fully satis-
fied that real goodness is of no particular perSuasion, and
that salvation cannot depend upon belief, over which the
‘will has no influence.' "5h The phrase "...real goodness is
of no particular persuasion" finds its pOIitical counterpart
in §l£ Launcelot Greaves, where Smollett argues that "true
patriotism is of no party."55 For all of Smollett's Sallies
on priests, his remarks on the abbes serve as a general rule
for his satire: "These worthy sons of every community shall
be sacred from my censure and ridicule; and while I laugh at
the folly of particular members, I can still honor and revere
the institution."56 In his preface to Roderick w,

Smollett emphasized that satire must "point out the follies

 

ShShakeSpeare Head edition (Oxford, 1925), Vol. II,

283.

SSShakSSpeare Head edition, p. 96.
56

ShakeSpeare Head edition, Vol. I, 130-131.

 

 

 

 

 

,1

122
of ordinary life" with "infinite humour and sagacity." In

other words, the satirist must operate within the realm of
probability or distort the object of his satire and lose
his desired effect. This sentiment is also expressed in

the review of Johnstone's work.

Similar evidence supports Smollett as the probable
reviewer of Tsonnonthouan. The ideas regarding human nature
and religious bigotry are consistent with his own, and the
style and tone Of the review is similar to reviews known to
be his. Professor Foster notes the kinship to the satire
appearing in the Appp, and argues that the chapter "Of the

Indian idiom of Speech" in Tsonnonthouan afforded Smollett

 

material for Humphry Clinker.57 Professor Kahrl, however,
suggests as sources for the account of Lismahago's life

with the Indians, the Histopy Bi Canada, a serial which ran

 

for over three years in the British Ma azine, and the Journal

92 e Voyage pp America by Charlevoix.58 Although Smollett

 

probably knew all these sources, I find no similarity be-
tween Lismahago's account of the Indian's ornaments and
‘method of punishment with that of Charlevoix's, though Lis-
mahago's account of the worship of the Indians does some-

what structurally resemble the French historian's.

 

 

57"A Forgotten Noble Savage, Tsonnonthouan," mpg,
XIV (December, 1953), 353-359.

58Tobias Smollett, Traveller, Novelist (Chicago,
l9h5), pp 138.

 

 

 

 

123

Lismahago revealed that the Indians

...in general, worship two contending
principles; one the fountain of all good,
the other the source of evil. The common
peOple there, as in other countries, run
into absurdities of superstition; but sen-
sible men pay adoration to a Supreme Begng,
who created and sustains the universe.

Charlevoix wrote that

Nothing is more certain than that the
Indians have an idea of a Supreme Being,
though nothing at the same time can be more
obscure. They all in general agree in look-
ing upon him as the first Spirit, and the
governor and creator of the world, but when
you press them a little close on this article,
in order to know what they understand by the
sovereign Spirit, you find no more than a
tissue of absurd imagination, of fables so
ill contriv , of systems so ill-digested and
50 Wild.... , I

 

This evidence is insufficient for attributing the source to 1
Charlevoix, and lends credence to Foster's argument, which

deserves further study.

Smollett is far more caustic in his comments on the

defamation of human nature in his review of Candide.

The incidents are a heap of crude
Galemathias, "vana insomnia," the ravings
of a delirious poet, strung together with-
out order, or the least Shadow of verisimi-
litude, invented and introduced with a view

59Modern.Library edition, p. 235.

 

0Journal 2:, a Voyage :92. death W (Chicago.
1923), p. 130.

 

 

 

—+

124

to disgrace human nature, by representing
her in a false light and distorted attitude:
just as if a ruffian, meeting with a paragon
Of beauty, should slit her nose, knock out
an eye, begrime her countenagie,and then re-
proach her as an ugly b--ch.

The word "Galemathias" is unusual, but Smollett used it in
an article known to be his in 1756 in an identical manner.
In his "Reply to a Letter in the General Evening Post," he
wrote:
‘We are assuredly grieved to see some
ill-natured wag has subscribed that yenerable
name to such a heap of galemathias.6
The similarities between Smollett's notes to his
edition of Candide and this review suggest that he wrote
the review himself, and supports Eugene Joliat's contention
that Smollett edited the prose of Voltaire while Francklin
edited the drama and poetry. A brief comparison between the
review and Smollett's notes are revealing. The reviewer
writes:
That restless genius...has now published
a satire upon the Creator of the Universe; for
such we take to be the design of this Optimisme,
if he had any design at all, in writing this per-

formance. Hls avowed inten ion is to ridicule
the maxim, "that everything happens for the best.

 

Smollett's first note to Candide reads:

—._

61 -
Critical Review, VII (June, 1759), 551.

62Critical Review, 11 (September, 1756), 189.

 

 

 

 

125

. The principal design of this performance,
If the author had any other design but that of
amusing his readers, is to ridicule that maxim
in ethics, that everything which happens, is
the best calculated to answer the wise ends of
providence; but it likewise contains a very
severe satire on the morals, manners, and cus-
toms of mankind.

Consistent with the review's sentiments concerning human

nature, Smollett writes:

This is too just a reproach upon those
Christian powers, who, for the thirst of lucre,
shamefully patronize, and supply the barbarians
of Africa with the means of gratifying their
rapacity, and of exercising cruelties which are
a disgrace to human nature.

There is a similarity between the review's condemnation of

Voltaire's exaggeration of plan and character and Smollett's

note in the edition of Candide. Smollett's note reads:

There is a Species of probability or
verisimilitude adapted for every sort of narra-
tion, the neglect of which renders a performance
disagreeable and disgusting to readers who have
any justness of taste or apprehenSIOn. These
accounts of Eldorado, of Candide's wealth and
simplicity, of the Skipper's villainy, and the
magistrate's extortion, are, 1n our oplnlon,
such extravagancies as rather shock than enter-
tain the imagination.

The reviewer comments:

There is not such a character in nature_
as that of his Candide who is the hero of thls
performance; and all the other personages that
that make any figures on the scene, are so ex-
travagantly delineated, that they are not like
unto anything in the heaven’s above, nor 1n

 

 

 

126

the earth beneath, nor in the waters under
the earth; they would not even Serve as
caricatures upon an Aegyptian temple.

Smollett also probably wrote the review for the 1761 trans-
lation of Candide, for it contains one of his pet phrases,

"the milk Of human kindness." The reviewer writes that

Nothing could be more cutting and Severe
than those sarcasms which he throws out against
the Jesuit authors of the Journal de Trevoux,
and other nibblers of his reputation; but we
could wish to see Mr. de Voltaire's wit season—
ed with a ggeater share of the "milk pf hpmgp

fl

kipgness.

In Ferdinand Count Fathom, Smollett writes:

...She abounded with the milk pf human
kindness, which f%owed plentifully among her
fellow creatures. 4

We find the following passage in his review of 5p Essay pp

Waters in 1756:

Such is the doctor's philanthropy or milk
of human kindness, that-he has celebrated the
Egreeable Molly Laurence, whose fair hands dif-
fuse the water to the drinkers in the pump—room
at Bath.

 

 

 

63Critical Review, XII (August, 1761), 138.

 

 

6"PShakespeare Head edition, Vol. I, 10.

65Critical Review, I (April, 1756), 34h-

 

 

 

 

127

And in his review of A Full Account pf the Siege of

 

 

Minorca in that same year, Smollett writes:

The author of this tract seems to have
been rather too impatient to appear in print’
but perhaps this impatience was the effect ,
his philanthropy or milk pg human kindness.gg

I believe that these remarks can be seen in a more compre-
hensive context when we consider Jerry Melford's contention
that "kindness" is the "essence of good nature and humanity,"
a point which supports my idea that Smollett was concerned

with, and reflected a consistent ethical system.

The review of Charles Johnstone's The Reverie, or

cise statement on "human nature" in terms of the satirist's
role of inSpiring the reader "with a contempt for individ-

uals, without diminishing his respect for the Species."

It is no easy matter for a writer of any
genius to represent human action in a ridicu-
lous light, that we are astonished our sensible
author did not resign the field to the buffoon,
whose sole talent consists in discovering the
ludicrous parts of the gravest characters. A
man of virtue ought besides to reflect, that to
render mankind dissatisfied with the Species, is
is to commit a real injury to society. To unmask
hypocrisy, and correct vice, we allow to be highly
useful; yet when a writer has all human nature be-
fore him, we should expect him to select examples
Of imitation as well as Objects of aversion. This
would preserve the balance, inSpire the reader

 

66Critical Review, 11 (October, 1756), 278.

 

 

 

128

with a contempt for individuals, without
diminishing his respect for the Species,
rouse his detestation of vice, and quicken
his sensibility to whatever is beautiful in
moral conduct. What especially gives disgust
in these 111 natured writings is, that they
convey an idea of the author's self suffi-
ciency, and supposed superiority, which few
are willing to confess without retaliation.
Hence it is, that we perceive general satir-
ists are universally detested and deSpised,

as vermin who breed in the sores of society,
or hypocrites who insinuate their own purity, 67
by aSpersing and defiling the rest of mankind.

This review reiterates the sentiments expressed in that of

Chrysal and in Smollett's preface to Roderick Random,and more

 

importantly emphasizes that the reader must be presented with
that which is admirable in humanity "and quicken his sensi—
bility to whatever is beautiful in moral conduct," just as
Smollett balanced Fathom with Melvil to achieve this goal.
Even Greaves, whose satiric barbs were levelled against a
malicious society, remarked to Aurelia that his services have

been "rather the duties of common humanity."

The reviewer's remarks on Johnstone's "self-suffi-
ciency and supposed superiority" are peculiarly Smollettian,
since Smollett invariably juxtaposed Self-conceit or self-
love with petulance, affectation or ostentation of learning. I
We find this amply illustrated in the reviews of Tristram !

Shand , which clearly appear to be Smollett's.

67Critical Review, XIV (December, 1762), 440.

 

 

 

 

 

129

A Spirit of petulance, and air of self-
conceit, and an affectation of learning, are
diffused through the whole performance, which
is likewise blameable for some gross expreggions,
impure ideas, and general want of decorum.

Here we find the same unconnected rhapsody,
the same rambling digression, the eccentric
humour, the peculiar wit, petulance, pruriency,
and ostentation of learning, by wh§ch the former
part was so happily distinguished. 9

We need look no further than Peregrine Pickle, Sir Launcelot

Greaves, and Ferdinand Count Fathom for similar references.

 

 

Dr. Pallett accuses the physician of "self-conceit and af-
fectation of learning,"70 while Aurelia Darnel deSpises
Sycamore for his strange combination of "rapacity and pro-
fusion, absurdity and good sense, bashfulness and impudence,
self-conceit and diffidence, awkwardness and ostentation
...."71 Ferdinand distinguishes between the templar and
the abbe: "...both are distinguished by an air of petulance
and self-conceit, which holds a middle rank betwixt the in-
solence of a first rate buck and the learned pride of a

supercillious pedant."72

Again, the reviewer's sentiments on the role of the

 

68Critical Review, XI (April, 1761), 317.

 

69Critical Review, XIIKJanuary, 1762), 66.

 

 

7OEveryman's Library edition, Vol. I, 2th.
71ShakeSpeare Head edition, p. 157.
72ShakeSpeare Head edition, I, 130.

 

 

 

130
buffoon are similarly treated in the review Of Tristram

Shandy and in Peregrine Pickle. The following passage ap-

pears in the former:

...grotesque and buffoonery...deserve to
be held illegitimate, because they either de-
sert nature altogether, in their exhibitions,
or represent her in a state of distortion.73

‘Smollett writes that Peregrine's

satirical diSposition was never more gratified
than when he had an Opportunity of exposing
grave characters in ridiculous attitudes.7

The reviewer combines both thoughts:

It is no easy matter for a writer of any
genius to represent human action in a ridicu-
lous light, that we are astonished our sensi-
ble author did not resign the field to the
buffoon, whose sole talent consists in dis-
covering the ludicrous parts of the gravest
characters.

 

The implications of the Critical's attitude toward
human nature are reflected in its comments on party pre-

judice and religious hypocrisy. The review of Charlotte

 

Lennox's Henrietta emphasizes that "Tho' the reputation of ‘
Henrietta is chiefly founded on her steady adherence to the

principles of the Protestant religion; that preference is I
given with a delicacy, that not the most bigotted Roman-

Catholic could be offended at; the heroine no where betrays

73Critice1 Review, x1 (April, 1761), 314.

 

7[*Everyman's Library edition, Vol. I, 105.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131
the rudeness of party, or the malevolence of religious
attachment."75 We need only recall the disguised priest
whom Roderick meets, Don Diego’s remark, and Sir Launcelot's
conviction that "true patriotism is of no party." This at-

titude is consonant with Smollett's and the Critical's own

 

impartial political policy between 1756-1763.76 In fact,
one Of Smollett's qualifications for managing the Briton

in 1762 was his freedom from party affiliation.

The Critica1{s most comprehensive position on such
matters is found in its review of Goldsmith's The Memoirs of

a Protestant Condemned to the Gallies of France for his re~

”mm—_c—m—“fl’

11 ion, which is clearly reminiscent of Roderick's argument
against absolute monarchy, and echoes once again Smollett's

sentiments against the prejudices of "narrow systems."

Those who have been deceived into an ad-
miration of an absolute monarchy, from the
magnificence and Splendor conSpicuous in.a
slavish court, may learn to correct their
false judgments, and to set up a high value
upon the inestimable blessing of liberty, from
a perusal of this performance, which in a
striking manner discovers the iron teeth of
deSpotic power. We are here presented with a
Sincere narrative of the most shocking bar-
barities, exercised upon innocents by a nation
that piques itself upon humanity and politeness....

75_Cfi_:§‘:i.tic:a1 B£X$2H3 V (February, 1758), 130.

76See Derek Roper, "The Politics of the 'Critical

Review;, 1756- 1817," Durham University Journal, L111 (1961),
7-12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

The attention of the reader is continually
kept up by the Variety of incidents, which

are narrated with great perSpecuity and modesty
by the author, whose chief design seems to have
been to expose the horrid nature of tyranny,
and unchristian Spirit of the Popish supersti-
tion.

I would like to conclude this chapter with a discus-
sion of one of the Critical’s most revealing commentaries on
a novel. In the lengthy reView of RousSeau's Eloisa, the
reviewer diSplays a liberality in condoning Rousseau's style
that looks ahead to the end of the century in its defense of
sentiment, feeling, and enthusiasm. He does not, however,
neglect the dramatic function of form in illustrating the
aesthetic principles which the Critical consistently adhered
to in its treatment of the genre. Though the Critical Review
generally condemned French novels because it thought them a
disgrace to English taste and an insult to English decency,
the reviewers occasionally recognized a novel's merit. For
the most part, insipid translations from theFrench were con-
demned in reviews in the "Foreign.Articles" Section, and the
warning often repeated that most translations might better

have been left in the original.

The first notice given Rousseau's Le Nouvelle
Heloise was in the "Foreign Articles" section for January,

1761. It was in an article which reviewed the French original,

_-

v

77
Critical Review, V (April, 1758), 300—301.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133

Lettres dg'gggg Amans in which the reviewer commented on
Rousseau's paradoxical existence---living as a philoSOphi—
cal recluse and as a painter of life with a luxuriant
imagination and bewitching art. Because Rousseau himself
admitted Richardson as his model, the reviewer concluded
with the following comparisons: "It is natural to compare
a c0pyist with the original; and do both justice, they
each separately excel. The Englishman is more natural be-
cause more simple; the philOSOpher of Geneva affects sim-

plicity, but we can see that it is affected. Our countryman

 

raises a stronger interest in the breast; his imitator, on
the contrary, excels in the art of unfolding his plot;

thinks more deeply, and reasons like a philOSOphertw8

In September of the same year came a longer, eight-
page review of the translation which extended the compari-
son between Rousseau and Richardson.79 Some idea of the

favor with which this article was received may be gained

 

from noting that the Journal Etranger, a French literary
miscellany, published in Paris from 1754-1762, printed in
translation all of the Critical's article, except for the
quotations and two short concluding paragraphs. The Journal

/
Etrange: republished the Critical Review article in its

 

__

78
Critical Review, XI (January, 1761), 65.

79Critical Review, XII (September, 1761), 203-211.

   

 

 

 

 

 

134

issue for December, 1761, and a month later the same maga-

zine printed Diderot's Eloge g9 Richardson.

The review of Eloisa is built upon an extensive

 

comparison between Rousseau and Richardson whom, as we have
seen, the Critical held in high regard. The reviewer ac-
knowledges the necessity of ideal presence for emotional
reSponse through association of ideas and the delineation of
human nature as intrinsically beneficent and worthy of es-

teem and sympathy.

Rousseau, the reviewer begins, "despises-the common
aids of plot, incident, and contrivance, and effects all his
purposes by more strength of genius and variety of colour-
ing." Although "his attitudes are common," they are
’painted" with such energy and grace, as cannot fail of
striking with all the force of novelty." The reviewer then
acknowledges resemblances between the distinguishing fea-

tures of Eloisa and Clarissa.

Eloisa is a less perfect Clarissa, Clara a
Miss Howe, as fervent in her friendship, as witty
and charming, but less humourous; merely because
the Swiss writer is an intire stranger to the
talent we express by the word humour. It is,
indeed, the highest ecomium on Mr. Richardson,
that he has been deemed worthy the imitation of
a writer of Rousseau's eminence, and that he
still remains unrivalled in copying nature,
though he may perhaps be greatly ecelled in
deep reflection, the finer tints that discrim-
inate genius, and certain magic powers peculiar
to Rousseau, of conjuring into a single expres-
sion the substance of volumes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

The reviewer argues that Rousseau furnished the more useful
instruction, because he has taught us "the means of re-
trieving the esteem of mankind, after a capital slip in con-
duct." Even though Richardson arms his heroine against
temptation, and thereby proposes a perfect pattern for the
imitation of her sex; Rousseau describes Eloisa as "subject
to human frailty, lest by elevating virtue too high, we
should be discouraged from attempting to climb the steep
ascent...." The reviewer finds Eloisa "infinitely more sen-
timental, animated, refined, and elegant," while Clarissa

is more "natural, interesting, variegated, and dramatic."
Thus he concludes that where Rousseau appeared the easy,
Richardson was the masterly, writer: "Rousseau raises your
admiration; Richardson solicits your tears; the former is

sometimes obscure, the latter too minute."

It is noteworthy that the reviewer acknowledges that
the relation between structure and reSponse to character can
be realized not only in terms of the psychological veracity
of that individual within the total design of the novel, but
that they are indissoluble in terms of their imaginative or-
ganization. He continues: "Richardson unfolds his charac-
ters by a variety of slight touches and circumstances, which
appear trivial unless your regard his design; while Rousseau,
by a felicity of genius, lays naked the heart at a single
Stroke, and interests you in the fate of his personages, be-
fore you can be said to know them. By a simple motion of

his pen, the whole group is assembled in the imagination,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

136
and engages the attention in prOportion as they are con-
nected with Eloisa." In this statement the reviewer clearly
argues in terms of a psychological foundation for the genre,
whereby the author's genius imaginatively creates a heroine
who governs the structure of the novel by her psychological
veracity as a human being, and who can thus evoke our
emotional reSponse to her cause. He adds, however, that
although the impression is strong, "...it is evanescent;
like the fleeting pictures of a dream. They strongly agi-
tate for a time, and are afterwards forgot; while those of
Richardson imprint the mind more durably, because the stroke
is more frequently reiterated." He argues here in terms of
the psychological theory of associational reSponse, whereby
the images called up to engage our passions must be strong
and affect our memory in order to banish reflection on the
formal presentation or other extraneous attractions which
are not germane to the organic texture of a unified work of
art. Indeed, he remarks that Richardson's "stroke" is re-
iterated through "strong ideas which arise by association,"
while Rousseau's ideas "flash like lightning, illuminate
every surrounding object," are original, rapid, impetuous,
unconnected, and scarce deducible from what preceded, or
the subject in question.” Smollett affirmed the aesthetic
efficacy of associational reSponse in his review of Fulke
and Francis Greville's Maxims, Characters, ggleeflections.
He wrote: "We are rationally delighted with those objects

on account of the association of ideas which they produce."

 

 

 

 

137

The Critical's review of Eloisa is, then, particu-
larly revealing in its commentary. The reviewer commends a
work"without a single interesting event," though one in
which "we are deeply engaged in every situation, and are
equally delighted with the narrative of the historian and
the lectures of the philosopher," because of the author’s
original genius which is "incapable of Speaking or thinking
in the common beaten track." This review is ample evidence
of the Critical's concern with the novel as a serious genre
which could Operate effectively within a given critical
framework based on the principles of psychological criticism.
No clearer illustration can be given than to compare this

review with the Monthly's reception of Rousseau's work.

 

William Kenrick and John Berkenhout's review in the Monthly
was essentially an abstract, with very few of the "critical
animadversions" which it promised. Following is a sampling

of its remarks:

There appears a barrenness of invention in
the story; nor are the adventures, simple as
they are, very happily chosen, or artfully con-
nected. The characters, again, are unequally
supported; nor are their sentiments and conduct

' always very natural, or consistent with their
possessed principles and known situation....
As to style and sentiment; the former is often
quaint and affected; and the latter too fre-
quently far-fetched and paradoxical.

...Rousseau has diSplayed great knowledge
of mankind, and treated a variety of interesting
subjects in an entertaining and instructive man—
ner. There prevails, also, an air of truth and
nature in the conduct of the work, which insen-
sibly engages the attention, and interests the
heart, of the reader.

 

 

 

 

 

138

In a word, though Mr. Rousseau falls
short in many reSpects of Mr. Richardson,
whose manner he has imitated, yet in others
he so far excels himself, as to appear him-
self an inimitable original....We will
ourselves venture to pronounce, that by
whomsoever the romance bearing that title
is read with profit 8r delight, this of Eloisa
will be no less $0.8

It is probable that Smollett wrete the review of
Eloisa for the Critigal. Certainly, the importance of the
document and the sophistication of the review itself im-
mediately suggest his hand. The one true echo from Smol-

lett's known work is the reviewer's allusion to the author

of Clarissa as the "amiable Hr. Richardson," and the refer-

 

ence to his "amiable simplicity." In his letter to Richard-
son on August 10, 1756, Smollett refers to the author's

\

"amiable Benevolence."81 I would, however, suggest that
the reviews of Eloisa and Memoirs pf Miss Sidngy Bidulph
were written by a single author. Where the reviewer of
Eloisa calls Richardson's work in Clarissa "natural, in-
teresting, variegated, and dramatic," the reviewer of Mrs.
Sheridan's novel outlines the merits of the epistolary form

82

on these same criteria.

But the probability or improbability of Smollett's

_. ..v

801‘~'Tonthly Review, XXV (October, 1761), 259-260.

81Noyes, Letters, p. #0

82
See above, pp. 106-107

 

 

 

 

 

 

139
hand in this review cannot overshadow the fact that the
very ideas at work here which forecast the romantic prin-
ciples later in the century were at once a part of his
personal and cultural ties with the Scottish moralists and

aestheticians, his response to shifting critical tastes, and

 

his own concept of the novel as an artistic genre. In the
preceding reviews which I have attributed to Smollett, or

in which I have suggested the probability of his hand, these
ideas are reiterated too consistently to allow denial of

the possibility of his authorship and/or influence. In these

terms, it is possible to suggest that Smollett's influence

 

on the criticism of the novel in the Critical Review was that
of establishing a critical context within which the novel 1
could be discussed as a serious aesthetic genre. This is

perhaps the most fruitful criterion for discerning his in-

fluence. It is rooted in his own work, and establishes an

evident theoretical relationship between his concept of the

novel and its ethical concern and that of the Critical

Review's during the years of his editorship.

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

It is now apparent that the Critical Review dis-
cussed the novel within a critical context which distinguish-
ed the periodical from its contemporaries, the MOnthly
Review and the Gentleman's Magazine, the latter of which mere-
ly listed new novels in its "Register of Books" or simply
summarized the contents of the work. The fact that the
critical context was psychological, and one which affords us
an observable link between neo-classic and romantic criticism,
provided the rationale by which the novel could be treated as
an aesthetic entity, socially, morally, and artistically com-
plete. Although the Monthly acknowledged Smith's moral
principles and the aesthetics of Gerard and Kames, it failed
to apply their ethical or aesthetic formulae in terms of Spe-
cific literary problems. The Monthly's refusal to commit
itself beyond generality is reflected in its comments on
Smith's Theory g§_Moral_Sentiments in the number for July,
1759. The reviewer writes: "The principle of sympathy, on
which he founds his system, is an unquestionable principle in
human nature; but whether his reasonings upon it are just and
satisfactory or not, we shall not take upon us to pronounce:

"1

000.

__.

l
. ‘Monthly Review, XXI (July, 1759), 2. The full re-
VleW'Of Smith's work runs from pages 1-18.

 

 

 

 

 

lhl

Smollett's influence on the critical policy of the
Review is also apparent. Because he was personally and cul-
turally involved with and aware of the movement toward a
psychological aesthetic in Scotland, it would be difficult to
imagine that his and the Critical's affirmative reSponse to
that aesthetic was coincidental, since Smollett's dominating
personality was, in a sense, an organic part of the Review‘S.
Certainly, the possible presence of Smollett's pen in re- ‘
views of important novels between 1759—1763, and the reflec~
tion of his own ethical preferences and criticalpoint of

view in other reviews between those years and in some earlier

 

reviews, clearly suggest his stature in terms of the general
reSponse of the periodical. It is, again, a reSponse which
I feel cannot be divorced from Smollett's awareness of those
attitudes prevailing north of the Tweed which received atten-
tion in England during the second half of the eighteenth-cen-
tury. Where Smollett echoed Hutcheson's sentiments of univer-

sal benevolence based on a community of men whose nature was

 

essentially good, though many times dnguised by self-interest,
the Critical also asked the novelist as a "painter" of society
not to distort the nature of humanity by representing it in a
"false light," but to evoke a sympathy for society and its
representatives through the novel's organic presentation,

which at once unified the novel as a work of art and directed

 

the reader's sensibility toward moral awareness through im-

aginative reSponse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX g

 

NOVELS REVIEWED i
min
'CRITICAL REVIEW.’ 1256—1263

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 142
In my introduction, I suggested that this discuSsion

might urge more questions than provide answers. They are
questions which may now lead to studies of Smollett as a
serious novelist with a profound concern for the artistic
possibilities of his craft, and toward an acknowledgment of
the Critical Review as a critical vehicle which looks ahead
to the end of the century in its emphasis on an artistic
order that is internal and imaginative rather than external
and functioning solely on the level of artifice. These
studies in themselves would not only continue to affirm the

ties between Smollett and the Critical Review, but establish

 

more precisely their achievement in the milieu of eighteenth-

century English literature.

 

 

 

 

_..___.< r

 

143

APPENDIX _i_
NOVELS REVIEWED IN THE 'CRITICAL REVIEW,‘ 1156-1163

mm".—

Vol. I

The Fortune Teller, or Footman Ennobled, (January-February),

53-55. (reviewed by Derrick).

L'Empire des Passions: Thg Empire 2; the Passions (January-
February), 92-93. (reviewed by Derrick).

Emil ; 9; The Histor g; a Natural Daughter (March), 122-125.
reviewed by Derrick).

The Adventures 9f Jack Smart (March), 125—129. (reviewed by
Derrick .

The Wife (March), 129-133. (reviewed by Derrick).
The Husband (March), 133—135. (reviewed by Derrick).

The Iistor' g: Henr Dumont Esg. and Miss Charlotte Evelyn
(March), 136-133. (reviewed’by Derrick).

The Affecting Story of Lionel and Arabella (April), 253-262.
(reviewed by Derrick .

The Supposed Dau hter, g; Innocent Imposter (April), 260-262.
reviewe y Derr1ck).

The Rational Being (April), 286. (reviewed by Derrick).

 

The Memoirs 9; the Countess 9f Berci (May), 312—314. (reviewed

by Derrick).

The Paths gf Virtue Delineated (May), 315-316. (reviewed by
Derrick

 

 

Vol. II

The Life and Memoirs pf My. E hraim Tristram Bates (September)
l3g—lh3. (reviewed by Derrick .

The Life of John Buncle Esg. (October), 219—227. (reviewed
by Francklin .

 

 

 

 

14h

.Memoirs pf the Noted Buckhorse (October), 275-276. (reviewed
by Francklin).

The Jilts; or, Female Fortune-Hunters (October), 276.

reviewed by Francklin .

 

Polydore and Julia (October), 283-28h. (reviewed by Derrick).
The Iistory pf Two Orphans (November), 340-343. (reviewed by
Derrick).

The Life and Sur risin Adventures pf Crusoe Richard Davis

(November):_BSl-357 . reviewed by Derrick).

The Juvenile Adventures pf David Ran er, Esg.(November),

379. (reviewed by Francklin .
Northern Memoirs; or, The History of a Scotch Family (Decem-

ber), 448-451. (reVIewed by Derrick).—

 

 

 

 

1251 4

Vol. III

 

The Apparition, 2; Female Cavalier (January), 31-34.

 

23 Plessis's Memoirs (February), 113-118.
Memoirs pf Miss Kitty N (February), 177.

The Bubbled Knights; or Successful Contrivances(February),

O

The Fortunate Villa er pp The Adventures pi Sir Andrew
_rg'i'g"; .

Thomson (February ,

Memoirs of a Young Lady 2: Quality, a Platonist (March),
252—258“.-

- . . {r N I he
Mem01rs of the Histor of Madame gg Maintenon, and pf t
Ta 51;" ng'TApriiT‘, 7117112361

A Series of Genuine Letters betwegp Henry and Frances (May),

428-432.

 

 

 

 

145
True Merit, True Happiness (May), 467-469.
The Life _o_f_ LII; John 313:; (May), 476.

Love and Friendshi , pp The Fair Fugitive (May), 476-477.
The Anti-Gallican (May), 477.

Vol. IV

The Mother in-Law, pp The Innocent Sufferer (July), 95.

The Fair Citizen, or The Real Adventures of Miss Charlotte

—————_——.———————.—_

Bellmour (July), 95.

T e School pf Friendship (L'Ecole de L'Amitie) (September),
274.

Memoirs of Sir Thomas Hughson and My. Joseph Williams

(November),‘460:46IT_

The Unfortunate Beauty; or, Memoirs pf Miss Anna Maria Soames
and Lord Bruce (November): 461.

b"

The History pf Cleanthes and Celemene (November), 461.

 

The Impetuous Lover, pp The Guiltless Parricide (November),
o .

 

The History 9: Two Modern Adventurers (November), 464.
Nine, a novel (December), 539-543.

Memoirs pf Sir Roger and his son Joe (December), 552.

.1123

Vol. V
The History pf Miss Sally Sable (January), 28-32.

 

Henrietta (February), 122-130.
Memoirs pf a Young Lady pf Family (February), 170.

i

 

 

 

146

The History pf Amanda (February), 172-173.
Chiron:.g§ The Mental Optician (March), 244-248.

The Memoirs pglg Protestant Condemned to phe GalliesMpf
F‘Fanmce for his religion (Apr"T"“_il , 300-3581

A Collection 9; Novels...containin (1) Fatal Charity,
‘T2) The Unfortunate Little French iastry Cook, (3)'Tp§
Comical Doctor, (4) The Professor: An Oriental Tale, (5)
SOpHia, pp The Double Escape (April), 349.

 

 

 

1252

Vol. VII

The History pf Wilhelmina Susannah Dormer (January), 65-68.

 

 

The Campaign (January), 78-79.

The Brothers (January), 79.

‘g Description p§_Mi11enium Hall (January), 81.

Memoirs pf the Celebrated Miss Fanny M (January), 87.
The Happy Orphans (February), 174-175.

Ihg_lntriguing Coxcomb (February), 184.

 

The Novitiatp of the Marquis De , pg1Thepgppreptice
turned Master (March), 278-279. "I

The Life and Real Adventures 9: Hamilton Murray (March),

 

The History p§_BenjaminLSt. Martin (March), 285.

 

The Adventurpp pf ngurk (March), 287.

 

The Amourous Friars, plehe Intrigues pf‘g Convent (March),
288.

 

The Cloister: or, The Amours pf Sainfroid, g Jesuip, and
EuIalia, a NunITMarch), 288.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147
*IEE Prince pi;Abys$ihia,g.Talp (April), 372-375.
The History 9; the Countess pf Delpyn (April), 377-378.
The Histopy pf Portia (April), 382.

 

The Bracelet; pp The Fortunate Discovepy (April), 382.
Tpijother; 2; Egg EEEEX Distress (May): 409-413.
Abbessai. pp Eastern prp; (May), 460.

IE2 Genuine History p§_Ambrose Guys (May), 463.
Candide (June), 550-554.

The Castle Builders, or The History of William Stephens

 

 

 

 

TfihneTI‘EBE. '“‘
The Juvenile Adventures pf Miss K y F r (August), 176.
Vol. VIII

 

Jemima and Louisa (August), 165-166.

 

Female Ba nishment;.g§, The Moman Hater (October), 302-307.

Agenor and Ismena; pnyhe Mar pf the Tender Passions (Novem-
berT, 408.

 

The Adventures 2£,§ Rake (November), 408.

 

The Auctipp (December), 452-458.

1760

Vol. IX

The Life and Opinions of Tristram Sandy Vols. I, II (Janu~
ary), 73- 74

Memoirs pf the Chevalier g3 *%4 (January), 77.

 

The History pf Ophelia (April), 318.
Louisa; pp Virtue pp Distress (April), 318-319.

E alanatory Remarks on the Life and Opinions of Tristram

4(ApriI), 3I9 -320.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

The Life and Heroic Actions of Balbe Berton, Chevalier de
Grillon “(May), 342-333.

Chrysal; pp The Adventures 2£|§ Guinea (May), 419.

Letters from Juliet Catesby pp her_friend Lady Henrietta
CampIey (May), 420.

The Life and Adventures pf'a Cat (May), 420.

 

The History p; Tom Fool (June), 494.

 

The Adventures pf‘g Black Coat (June), 499.

 

Vol. X

The Life and Opinions f Eh key Shandy (July), 72.

 

 

The Life and Opinions pf J_ remiah Kunastrokius, Doctor pf
Physic (July), 79-

The History of Sir Char1e_s Grandison Spiritualized in Part,
a—Vision (July), 79.

The Life and Opinions Bi Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, Vol. III
(SeptemberT, 237-238. ---—a fraud.

 

 

The Romance of a Dew; or, An Adventure in Greenwich Park Last

Easter (September, ZAI:2 427

Genuine Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Nancy_D_ 11
October), 327.

IEE,E§£§ pf Taste (October), 327.

 

The Imposter Detected; or The Life epf g Portugese (November),
405~

The Adyentures pi Sylvia Hughes (December), 486.

 

1261

Vol. XI

Lettres ppreux Amans (January), 65.

 

The Life and Adventures of an Animal; or The Secret History
of *the Count du.Ii p "n; etc. (January, 78.

 

 

 

 

 

149

Memoirs 9: Miss Sidney Bidulph (March), 186-198.

The Life and Opinions 2g Tristram Shandy, Vols. III, IV
(Kpril), 314-317.

Chrysal; 93 The Adventures gg‘g Guinea (April), 336.
Lycoris; 9;, The Grecian Courtezan (April), 338.

The Life and Opinions 2; DertramflMontfitchet (May), 393-395.

The Life 232M158 Fanny Brown (May), 418.
The History 9; James Lovegrove (May), 420.
Almoran and Hamet (June), 469-474.

Vol.XII

Candide (August), 131-138.

Eloisa (September), 201-209.

The Egpt Mistress (October), 310-311.

Memoirs 9: Lady Harriet ggglgg (November), 363—370.
Hau Kiou QQQQQ. The Pleasing History (November), 373-381.
£1m1;§_(December), 480.

Memoirs 9; mg, Charles Guilford (December), 480.

 

1262

The Life and 0 inions 9; Tristram Shandy, Vols. v VI
(January), 66~E§. ’ ’

”WWW“

§olvm§n and Almena (February), 148-154.

Letters between Emilia and Harriet (February), 159.

 

 

 

 

.1

150

Lo sword, Earl 23 Salisbury; fin Historical Romance (March),
252-258. ‘

The Adventur§§ 9; Sir Launcelot Greaves (May), 427-429.

Sephia (May) , 431-435 .

Vol. XIV

The Country Seat; 93, Summer-Evening Entertainments (August),
156. .

The Romance of a Night; 93, g Convent Garden Adventure
(October), 319.

The Reverie; 9;, 5 Flight 32 the Paradise 9; Fools (December),
440-445.

F.)

.162.

Vol. XV
The Peregrinations 9; Jeremiah Grant (January), 13-21.

Letters from So hia EgtMira; containing the Adventures ggwa
Lady (January), 77. .

The School for Wives (February), 130-135.

3%

Egg Adventures‘gg Mark Egg Rambler (April), 322.

The Dramatic History 2; Master Edward, Miss gag, figs.
Llwhuddwhydd, and others (May), 373-377.

Memoirs 9; the Life and Adventures 9; Tsonnonthuoan (May),

33

Vol. XVI

The Letters that Passed between Theodosius egg Constantia
(July), 11-16.

 

History 9; Lady Julia Mandeville (July), 41-45.

   

 

 

 

 

 

151

The Histories of Lady Frances S , and Lady Caroline S

“flu-mm-

Although not a "novel," I have included Rasselas because
of its importance to my discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX _3

 

REVVIEWS WRITTEN E; AND ATTRIBUVTED 3g SMOLLETT
_ng THE
CRITICAL. AND MONTHLY REVIEWS

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

h

 

REVIEWS WRITTEN _B_Y AND ATTRIBUTED E SMOLLETT
CRITICAL ANTMO‘N'T‘HLY REVIEWS

 

Reviews known to have been written by Smollett:

 

Marked copies of Volumes I and II of the Critical Review

 

in the University of Oregon Library reveal that Smollett

reviewed the following works.l

Vol. I: January-Julv, 1756

A. Cornelius Celsus, De Medicina, trans. James Grieve.
10-23 a

Thomas Birch, History 2; the Royal Society 2: London.
hl-53-

William Borlase, Observations on...the Islands 2; Scillx.

Arthur Murphy, The Apprentice, a Farce. 78-82.

Samuel Foote, The Englishman return'd from Paris. 83-85.

John Shebbeare, 5 Third Letter 32 the People 9; England.
88

Richard Rolt, A New...History 2; South America. 97-106.

Francis Home, Egperiments on Bleaching. 106-114.

Charles Marsh, The Winter's Tale...alter’d from Shakes-

peare. 144-145. .
H. Dell, The Spouter; or the Double Reveng . 146.

 

Charles Lucas, An Appeal to the Commons and Citizens g:
London. 16'9117o. "' “" ""' "

l ' ' ' ' '8 article

The follow1ng list appears in Derek Roper ,
"Smollett's Four Gentlemen: The first Contributors to the
'Critical Review'," RES, X (1959), 38-44.

152

 

 

 

 

153

A Fair Representation 2; his Majesty's Right he Nova
Scotia. .

Robert Taylor, Oratio Anniversaria ih Theatro Collegii Re--
galis Medicorum’Londinensium. 172- 175.

 

h Letter from Monsieur de Voltaire to the French Academy.
18

A Letter from an En lishman to the Authors of the Journal

Encyclopedigue. l 4- 85.

Fulke and Francis Greville, Maxims, Characters, and Re-
flections. 220-226.

Joseph garton, AnE ssay_ on the writings and Genius of Po ohe.
22 ~240

Sir Richard Manningham, Aphorismata Medica. 242-246.
Hyrons,.DisQutatio Medica. 246—248.

Letters eh Eh. Hume’s History 9; ghee; Britain. 248-253.
The Occasioneh Patriot. 258-259.

The Important Question Concerning Invasions. 259-260.
John Duncombe, Beehe. 262—263.

The Manner efi Securing...Buildings gheh Eigee. 263.
Deliberate Thoughts on...our hehe Treaties. 263-265.

An Address to the Great. 265-266.

—.——-——————-—_

 

fl

Frances Brooke, Vir inia, h Tragedy. 276—279.
Charles Lucas, eh Essay eh waters. 321—345.

Patrick Browne, Civil ehg Natural History 2; Jamaica. 389-

Essays ehg Observations, Physical ehg hghehehy. 409-419.
The Target. 438-443.
5 Plain Account 9; hhe Cause 2; Earthguake . 457-458.

M. Mooney, A Dissertation on...the Venereal Disease. 459-

 

 

 

 

154

Essays Pastoral and Elegaic. 482-483.

James Ferguson, Astronomy Ehplained upon Sir Isaac Newton's
Principles. 511-521.

Philosophical Transactions...for the Year 1255. 528-536.

Vol. II: August-December,,175é.

Philosophical Transactions, continued, 13-35.

5 Fourth Letter 32 the People 2; England. 35—44.

——-———————n—_.—————————.—

Ead- 97-109. '
h Serious Defence 9T §ehe hehe Measures. 121-126.
Philosophical Transactions, concluded. 126-135.
Thomas Rutherforth, Institues 2; Natural hey. 160-181.

Frederic L. Yorden, h Voyage he Egyht ehg Nubia. 186-188.

 

F—J

he Cadet, h Military Treatise. 244-251.
5 Letter...relative to the Case of Admiral Byng. 251-257.

P. J. Terrasse des Billons, Fabularuh Aesopiraruh Libri

guingue. 269-270.
The Grand Objections he Inoculation Considered. 278.
h Full Account 9T The Siege 2T Minorca. 278-279.

T Full and Particular Answer to...A Fourth Letter he 222
Peghle 2T England. 279-2 0.

 

The Sham Fight: or Political Humbug. 280.
h Letter from hey Jersey. 280—281.

George Thompson, An Account of what passed between hi. George
Thompson...and Eh. John—Burton. 281.

éfi Ahpeal he The People concerning Admiral Byng. 285.

 

 

 

 

155
9, Letter ”.62 Ad----l B--g. 285-286.

Thomas Rutherforth, Institutes eh Natural Law, continued.
299-315. ”

Four Pieces, containing e Full Vindication eh His
Prussian Majesty's Conduct. 315-326.

 

The Monitor: 23, British Freeholder. 343-348.
Charles Jenty, Structurae Humanae Demonstratio. 373-374.

A Letter he ...Willieh Pitt concerning Admiral Byng.
375-376.

The Conduct eh hhe Ministry Imeartially Examined. 376.
David Hume, History eh Great Britain, V01. 11. 385-404.
Malachy Postlethwayt, gheeh Britain's Thee System. 432-448-
The Genius eT Britain Te. TThh. he Iambic gee. 470-471.

he Address to the Electors eh England. 471-472.

Some Further Particulars concerning Admiral Byng.
472-h73-

"Demost", Three Letters relating he the Nayy, Gilbralter,
and Portmahon. 481.

11. h Chronological list eh reviews attributed he Smollett Th

the "Critical Review:"

Richard Rolt, h New...History eT South America. (March,
1756), 97—10 -
.Edward S. Noyes, The Letters eT Tobias Smollett
(Cambridge, 1926 .

 

The Winter’s Tale...alter'd from Shakespeare. (March,l756),
-145 _

Noyes, Letters.

George Kahrl, "The Influence of Shakespeare on

Smollett," Essays Th Dramatic Literature: The Parrott
(Princeton, 1935 .

 

 

 

 

156

 

Catharine and Petruchio...alter'd from Shakes eare's Tm wing
eh the Shrew. (March, 1756),145-146.

Kahrl, "The Influence of Shakespeare on Smollett. "

 

The Tem est, an Oeera. (March, 1756), 147-148.
Kafirl "Tfie Influence of Shakespeare on Smollett. "

Edmund Burke, A Philosophical In uir into7 the Ori in or
the Sublime and Beautiful. (Xprim 3 l- 374.
My attribution. See above pp. 99— 5100.

Jonas Hannay A Journal ofn Ei My Journe from Ports-
mouth t6 Kin ston-Uf ames. (July, 1%57), 1-7.
Kahrl, "The In uence of ShakeSpeare on Smollett. "

A Letter to the Author eh the Critical Review; (August,

17577_ 1&9-152
Kahrl, "The Influence of ShakeSpeare on Smollett. "

William Batgie, Treatise 9_n_ Madhe'se. (December, 1757).
5 - 0
Richard Hunter and Ida MacAlpine, "Smollett' 5
Reading in Psychiatry," Mbdern Language Review,LI
(1956), 409- 411.

John Monro, Remarks on Dr. Battie's Treatise on Madness.
(March, 1758), 224-228.
Hunter and MacAlpine, "Smollett's Reading in
Psychiatry."

John Armstrong, Sketches. (May, 1758), 380-386.

Lewis Knapp, 'Dr. John Armstrong, Litterateur, and
Associate of Smollett, Thomson, Wilkes, and other
Celebrities, " PMLA, LIX (1944), 1019-1058.

My attribution. See above p. 113-114

 

The Conduct of Admiral Knowles on the Late Egpedition_ set in
a true 1g ht. (May, 17 5S), —33§:ZB9

Noyes, Letters.

James Grainger, Translation of the E1egies~ of Tibullus.
(December, I738), ' "173-435." """""”'
Noyes, Letters.

A Letter he Tobias Smollett M.D....by'hh. Graingeg.

(February, 1759}, 151-158.
Noyes, Letters.

Kahrl, "The Influence of ShakeSpeare on Smollett."

 

157

A Scruting: 2% the Critics Criticised. (February, 1759).
l “'1 7o
Kahrl, "The Influence of ShakeSpeare on Smollett."

Samuel Johnson, Rasselas. (April, 1759), 372-375.
My attribution. See above pp. 9 -99.

Adam Smitg, The Theory 2; Mbral Sentiments. (May, 1759},
3 3-399-
my Attribution. See above p. 98.

 

Alexander Gerard, Essay on Taste. (May, 1759), 440-447.
My attribution. '3ee above pp. 98-99.

Voltaire Candide. (June 1759), 550— 554.
M attribution. See above pp. 123-126.

Charles Johnstone, Chrysal, gg‘ihg Adventures g; a Guinea.
My attribution. ee above pp. -22.
James Foster, "Smollett and the Atom," PMLA LXVIII
(1953),1032-1046.

Frances Sheridan The Memoirs of Miss Sidney Bidulph.
(March, l76l7, ”86-198
My attribution. See above pp. 108-110.

 

Archibald Bower, History 9; Egg Po es, V01. V. (March, 1761),
217-233.
Noyes, Letters.

Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy, Vols. III, IV.(April, 1761),
31A- 7-
My attribution. See above pp. 128-129.

Voltaire, Candide. 1761 translation. (August, 1761), 131-138.
My attribution. See above pp. 126-12 27.

Jean Jacque Rousseau, Eloisa. (September, 1761), 203- 211.
My attribution. See above p. 138.

Laurence6Sterne, Tristram Shandy, Vols. V. VI. (January, 1762),

My attribution. See above p. 129.

Florizel and Perdita; or, The Winter's Tale. (February, 1762),
157—158.
Noyes, Letters.
Kahrl, "The Influence of ShakeSpeare on Shollett."

The Quack Doctors. A Satire. (April, 1762), 363.
Kahrl, "T The Influence of ShakeSpeare on Smollett."

 

 

158

fig Epistle on Poetical Composition. (April 1762) 363.
Ka r1, "The Influence of akeSpeare on Smollett."
Charles Johnstone, The Reverie, or The Flight to the gara-

dise 9§|Fools.TfiEcember, l75§J:—ZAO-445. _—
my attribution. See above pp. 128-130.

The Perigrinations 9; Jeremiah Grant. (January, 1763), 13-21.
my attribution. See above pp. 110-112.

The Memoirs of the Life and Adventures 2: Tsonnonthuoan.

"" 7—May, 17637“, 3"??? — 88'7"
My attribution. See above pp. 122-123.
James Foster, "A Forgotten Noble Savage, Tsonnon-

thuoan," Egg, XIV (December, 1954), 348-359.

III. Reviews known tg'bg_3mollett's in the"Monthlz Reviewu"

John Cleland, memoirs gg‘a Coxcomb. Vol, V (October,
1751), 385-

William Smellie Theorx ang Practice ggiMidwiferv.
Vol. v (December, 1751)"‘6""‘6, 4 5-1. 6.

John Pringle Observations on the giseases g: the Army.
Vol. VII TJuiy, 17‘1““52 , 52"6-5 . “‘""

 

 

 

BI BLIOGRAP HY

 

527 R

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Addison, Joseph, The Spectator. 8 vols. London, 1893.

Armstrong, John. The Poetical Works of Armstron , Dyer, and

Green. ed. George Gilfillan. Edinburgh, 1853.

 

. "Sketches." Augustan Reprint Society
publication No. 30. Los Angeles, 1951.

 

The Autobiography 2; Alexander Carlyle. London and Edin-
burgh, 1910.

Baker, Ernest. The History of the English Novel. lO vols.

L'o—n-don, 1924—1939.

Ballie, John. "An Essay on the Sublime." Au ustan Re rint
Eociety publication No. 43. Los Ange es,
953-

Bate, Walter Jackson. From Classic to Romantic: Premises

9; Taste in EighteentE:Century England.
New York, 1961.

 

. "Imagination in English Criticism," ELH,

XII (1945), 144-164.

Beattie, James. The works 2; James Beattie. 5 vols. Phila-
delphia, IBOQ.

Benjamin, Lewis. The Life and Letters of Tobias Smollett.

Boston, 1927.
Benjamin Philip. The 'Critical Review ' 1756-1790 A Study.
, Unpuinshed PhD. thesis,’l934, Princeton
University Library.

Charlevoix, Pierre Francois Xavier de. Journal pi g Voyage
32 North America. Chicago, 1923.

Cooper, John Gilbert. "Letters Concerning Taste." Augustan
Re rint Society publication No. 30. Los
AngeIes, 1951.

"Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandisoné Clarissaélandt.
'Pamela." Au ustan Re rint ociet pu ica ion
No. 21 (Series , #3;. Los AngeIes, 1950.

Critical Review. Vols. l-XVI. London, 1756-1763.

159

160

‘Derrick Samuel. A_General View of the Sta e b Mr.Wilkes.
“ ’ pseud. London, I759. ’ ‘1'”-

{"Preface to d'Argens Memoirs of the Count
du Beuval." Augustan Reprint Society publi-
cation No. 32. _Los Angeles, 1952.

Fielding, Henry. Joseph Andrews. Modern Library edition.
New York, 1950.

Fielding, Sarah. The Adventures pg David Simpl . London,
1744-

Foster, James. "A Forgotten Noble Savage, Tsonnonthuoan,"
NLQ, XIV (December, 1954 , 3A8-359.

. History of the Pre-Romantic Novel ip Epge
land. New-YSFE7‘1919. ““““

. "Smollett and the Atom," PMLA, LXVIII
(1953) . 103 2-1046. ”"'

 

 

 

:

Francklin, Thomas; The Earl pi Warwick. Dublin, 1767.
.3 Matilda. A Tragedy. Dublin, 1775.

. The Plays pg SOphocles. London, New York,
“I' 1885.

Gentleman's Magazine. Vols. 26-33. London, 1756-1763.

 

Gerard Alexander. ‘Ap Essay on Taste. ed. Walter J. Hipple,
, Jr. GainesvilIE, I953.

Goldberg, Homer. "Comic Prose Epic or Comic Romance; The"
Argument of the Preface to.Joseph Andrews,

pp, XLIII (April, 1964), 193-215.

Goldberg, Morris. Smollett and the Scottish School. Al-
buquerque, 1959.

Hannai James. "Tobias Smollett," Quarterly Review.
1’ London, 1858, 66-108. “"""

'Walter J. The Beautiful The Sublime, and The Pic-
turesque ip Eighteenth-Century British

Aesthetic Theory. Carbondale, 1957.

Hipple,

Home, Henry (Loidzgames). Elements 9; Criticism. New York,
0 o

161

Hume, David. The Letters pg David Hume. ed. J.Y.T. Grieg.
2 vols. Oxford, 1932.

. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, 1955.

 

Hunter, Richard and MacAlpine, Ida. "Smollett's Reading in
PSychiatry," MLR, LI (1956), 409-411.

Hutcheson, Francis. Ap Essay on the Nature and Conduct of

the Passions and Affections. London, 172 .
. A System of Moral Philosophy. London, 1755.

Johnson, Samuel. The Rambler. 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1781.

Johnstone, Charles. Chrvsal; or The Adventures of a Guinea.

London3'1767. ‘” "" " """"' ‘

Joliat, Eugene. Smollett pp 1g France. Paris, 1935.

Jones, Claude. "The 'Critical Review's' First Thirty Years
(1756-1785)," mm , 78-80.

. "The En lish Novel: A Critical View,
(1756-1785?," “Lg, XIX (1958), 147-159;213-224-
. "Smollett Studies," University pi Cali-
fornia Publications ip Engliph. 9 (1942), 31-
133.

Kahrl, George. "The Influence of ShakeSpeare on Smollett,"

Essa s in Dramatic Literature: The Parrot
resentation Volume. Princeton, 1935. 399-420.

. Tobias Smollett, Traveler—Novelist. Chicago,
1935-

Kettle, Arnold. Ap Introduction pp Egg Egglégh Ngzgl- 2 V015-
New York, 19 O.

 

' r - . - . Emo _

Kin horn A. M. "Literar Aesthetics and the Sympathetic.

g ’ tion. A Wain Trend in 18th Century Scottish
Criticism," Studies ip Scottish Literature, I

(July 1963), 35—47
"An Important Smollett Letter," RES, KII(1936),
75-770

Knapp, Lewis.

 

i
i
1

 

 

 

 

 

162

. "Dr, John Armstrong, Litterateur, and
ASSOCiate of Smollett, Thomson Wilkes, and
pgggr Celebrities," PMLA, LIX (1944), 1019-

 

. "Smollett's Letter to Philip Miller," TLS,
(June 24, 1944), 312. '""’

. .Tobias Smollett, Doctor pg Men and Manners.
Princeton, 1949.

 

 

KcKenzie, Gordon. "Critical ReSponsiveness: A Study of the
Psychological Current in later Eighteenth-
Century Criticism," University of California
Publications ip English. 20 (1949).

McKillop, Alan. Early masters pf English Fiction. Lawrence,
1956}

Louis L. The Later Career of Tobias Smollett. New

Martz,
Haven, 1942.

 

Mayo, Robert D. The English Novels ip the Magazines, 1740-
Evanston, 19 2.

Meikle, Henry W. "New Smollett Letters," TLS, (July 31,
1943), 372-

The memoirs p§_Perciva1 Stockdale, 2 vols. London, 1809.

 

Monthly Review. Vols. XIV-XXIX, London, 1756-1763.

 

Nangle, Benjamin. Monthly RevieW'First Series 1749-1789;
Indexes pg Contributors and Articlep. Oxford,

1934-

Literary Anecdotes pf the Eighteenth-Century.

Nichols, John. ‘
3 vols. London, 1812.

Noyes, Edward S. "Another Smollett Letter,“ MLN, XLII (1927),

 

 

 

231-235.
_p. The Letterp_p£ Tobias Smollett. Cambridge,
1926.

"PrOposals for Publishing Monthly the Progress prPfippils of

Literature and the Liberal Arts-
Adverpiser. (December 30, 1755i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163

"Proposals for Publishing Monthly the Critical Review or
Annals of Literature," Public Advertiser.
February 2, 1756).

Richardson, Samueé.P "Clarissa; Preface, Hints of Prefaces,
an ostscript." Augustan Reprint Societ
publication No. 103. Los Angeles, I964.

Pamela. 2 vols. London, 1747.

 

... Pamela. 2 vols. Everyman's Library
edition. New York, 1959.

 

Roper, Derek. "The Politics of the 'Critical Review',
1756-1817," Durham Upiversipy Journal,LIII

(1961), 117-122.

. "Smollett's Four Gentlemen: The First Con-
tributors to the ’Critical Review,’ " RES, X

(1959), 38‘h4-
Smith, Adam. Theory pf Moral Sentiments. London, 1875.

 

 

Smollett, Tobias. The Adventures pf pp_Atom. ShakeSpeare
Head edition. Oxford, 1926.

. Ferdinand Count Fathom. 2 vols. Shakes-
peare Head edition. 0xford, 1925.

 

. The Histor pf En land from the Revolution
to the deat pbeeorge I_, 5 vols. London,

1 90-1793-

. Humphr Clinker. Modern Library edition.
New York, I929.

. Peregrine Pickle. 2 vols. Everyman's
Library edition. New York, 1956.

 

 

 

 

 

.1” . Roderick Random. Everyman's Library edition.
' New York, 195 .

. Sir Launcelot Greaves. ShakeSpeare Head
edition. Oxford, 92 .

 

Spector Robert D. "The Monthly and its Rival," Bulletin
’ V ‘9; the New very Public Library, LX1V‘T19667,

Stewart, Dugald. Biographical Memoirs p§ Adam Smith LL.D.,

William Robertson .D., T omas Reid, D.D.,
ed. Sir William Hamilton Bart. Edingurgh,

1858.

164

Thorpe, Clarence. "Addison and Hutcheson on the Imagina-
tion," ELH, II, 3 (November, 1935), 215-234.

Wagenknecht, Edward. Cavalcade pf the English Novel.
New York, 1954.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

"ITIAALWJ”MM '