Chapter 1

of Volumes I-IV was brought out in 1749. In 1751 a third edition of eight volumes in duodecimo and a fourth edition of seven volumes in octavo were published simultaneously.

For the third and fourth editions the author revised the text of the novel, rewrote his own Preface and Postscript, substantially expanding the latter, and dropped the Preface written by Warburton. The additions to the Postscript, like the letters and passages 'restored' to the novel itself, are distinguished in the new editions by points in the margin.

The revised Preface and Postscript, which in the following pages are reproduced from the fourth edition, constitute the most extensive and fully elaborated statement of a theory of fiction ever published by Richardson. The Preface and concluding Note to _Sir Charles Grandison_ are, by comparison, brief and restricted in their application; while the introductory material in _Pamela_ is, so far as critical theory is concerned, slight and incoherent.

The _Hints of Prefaces for Clarissa_, a transcript of which is also included in this publication, is an equally important and in some ways an even more interesting document. It appears to have been put together by Richardson while he was revising the Preface and Postscript to the first edition. Certain sections of it are preliminary drafts of some of the new material incorporated in the revised Postscript. Large portions of _Hints of Prefaces_, however, were not used then and have never previously appeared in print. Among these are two critical assessments of the novel by Philip Skelton and Joseph Spence; and a number of observations--some merely jottings--by Richardson himself on the structure of the novel and the virtues of the epistolary style. The statements of Skelton and Spence are unusual amongst contemporary discussions of _Clarissa_ for their brevity, lucidity, and sustained critical relevance. Richardson's own comments, though disorganized and fragmentary, show that he was attempting to develop a theory of the epistolary novel as essentially dramatic, psychologically realistic, and inherently superior to 'the dry Narrative',[2] particularly as exemplified in the novels of Henry Fielding.

It is impossible to determine how much of _Hints of Prefaces_ or of the published Preface and Postscript is Richardson's own work. All were to some extent the result of collaborative effort, and Richardson did not always distinguish clearly between what he had written and what had been supplied by other people.[3] The concluding paragraph of the Postscript, for example, appears in the first edition to be the work of Richardson himself, although in the revised version he indicates that it was composed by someone else. In this instance due acknowledgment may have been easy; but in many other places it may have been extraordinarily difficult for the author/editor to disentangle his own words and ideas from those of his friends.

In preparing the Preface and Postscript Richardson was faced with a genuine problem. He realised that his achievement in _Clarissa_ was of sufficient magnitude and novelty to demand some theoretical defence and explanation. But he realised also that he was himself inadequate to the task. 'The very great Advantage of an Academical Education, I have wanted,'[4] he confessed to Mr. D. Graham of King's College. He lacked that familiarity with literature and with the conventions of literary criticism which would have made it easy for him to produce the analysis of his novel which he felt was needed. No wonder he told Graham that 'of all the Species of Writing, I love not Preface-Writing;'[5] and it is not surprising that, both before and after the publication of _Clarissa_, he should have besieged his friends with requests for their opinions of the novel.

In making these requests he was not simply seeking flattery. What he needed were sympathetic critics who could clothe in acceptable language statements which he would recognise as expressing the truth about his masterpiece. _Hints of Prefaces_, especially if read in the context of the numerous replies Richardson received, reveals very plainly the extent to which he was aware of what he wanted from his correspondents. Most, unfortunately, were sadly incapable of producing a _critical_ account of the novel. In this company Skelton and Spence were brilliant exceptions; and Richardson's adoption of their statements, apparently to the exclusion of all others, indicates the soundness of his own critical intuitions. Equally interesting is his treatment of Warburton's Preface. Although he did not reprint this in the third and fourth editions, one paragraph from it is preserved in _Hints of Prefaces_.[6] Significantly, it is the only paragraph in Warburton's essay which has something to say about the distinctive qualities of _Clarissa_.

In formulating all these critical statements Richardson is concerned less with developing a theory of fiction for its own sake than with justifying his action in writing a novel. His main defence, of course, is that _Clarissa_ is morally valuable. The reader who expects it to be a 'mere _Novel_ or _Romance_'[7] will be disappointed; and, as 'in all Works of This, and of the Dramatic Kind, STORY, or AMUSEMENT, should be considered as little more than the _Vehicle_ to the more necessary INSTRUCTION'[8]--a dictum that Fielding was to quote with approval.[9]

The argument, though valid, is excessively laboured. In the Postscript, especially, Richardson is so preoccupied with demonstrating that _Clarissa_ is a Christian tragedy that he neglects to develop in any detail the other claims he makes for it. Yet _Hints of Prefaces_ shows that he had given considerable thought to what might be called the purely fictive qualities of his novel, and that at one stage he intended to present a much fuller account of them than he finally did. It is also clear that he realized that his didactic purposes could be achieved only if the novel succeeded first at the level of imaginative realism.

From the beginning Richardson claimed to be a realist: _Pamela_, it is announced on the title page, is a 'Narrative which has its Foundation in TRUTH and NATURE;' and the main purpose of the Postscript to _Clarissa_ is to demonstrate that the story and the manner in which it is told are consonant both with 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 _Probability_, in them;'[10] and in the passage in _Hints of Prefaces_[11] of which this is a condensation, he attempts to make out a case for the second part of _Pamela_ as a realistic study of married life. _Clarissa_ is stated to be superior to pagan tragedies because it dispenses with the old ideas of poetic justice and takes into account the continuance of life after death. (Richardson has his cake while eating it, however, for he points out that 'the notion of _Poetical Justice_ founded on the _modern rules_'[12] is strictly observed in _Clarissa_).

The claim that _Clarissa_ presents a generally truthful rendering of life is given its clearest expression by Skelton and Spence. Both emphasize that it is different from conventional romances and novels: 'it is another kind of Work, or rather a new Species of Novel,'[13] we have 'a Work of a new kind among us'.[14] _Clarissa_ is concerned with 'the Workings of private and domestic Passions', says Skelton, and '[not] those of Kings, Heroes, Heroines ... it comes home to the Heart, and to common Life, in every Line.'[15] The author, says Spence, has not followed the example of the writers of romances, but 'has attempted to give a plain and natural Account of an Affair that happened in a private Family, just in the manner that it did happen.'[16]

Richardson's decision not to include these two essays in the Postscript was perhaps influenced by the fact that he was able to use a similar testimonial which had the added virtue of being patently unsolicited. This is the 'Critique on the History of CLARISSA, written in French, and published at Amsterdam',[17] an English translation of which had been printed in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ of June and August, 1749. Published anonymously, but written by Albrecht von Haller,[18] this review must have been particularly attractive also to Richardson because of the singular praise it accords his Epistolary method'. It had already been asserted by de Freval, in the first of the introductory letters to _Pamela_, that with this way of writing 'the several Passions of the Mind must ... be more affectingly described, and Nature may be traced in her undisguised Inclinations with much more Propriety and Exactness, than can possibly be found in a Detail of Actions long past;'[19] and von Haller carries the charge even further by claiming not only that it allows the author a greater degree of psychological veracity but also that the convention itself is inherently more realistic than ordinary narrative: 'Romances in general ... are wholly improbable; because they suppose the History to be written after the series of events is closed by the catastrophe: A circumstance which implies a strength of memory beyond all example and probability in the persons concerned.'[20]

Richardson also believed that the epistolary method was superior to the narrative because it was essentially dramatic. Aaron Hill, in one of the introductory letters to _Pamela_, had maintained that 'one of the best-judg'd Peculiars of the Plan' was that the moral instruction was conveyed 'as in a kind of Dramatical Representation';[21] while in the Postscript to _Clarissa_ Richardson describes it as a 'History (or rather Dramatic Narrative)'.[22] The parallels which he draws between _Clarissa_ and Greek tragedy are directed mainly to illuminating the tragic rather than the specifically dramatic qualities of the novel. But it is clear that he regarded his work as being closer in every way to the drama than to the epic.

The basic distinction between drama and epic (or any other form of narrative) had been drawn by Aristotle:

The poet, imitating the same object ... may do it either in narration--and that, again, either by personating other characters, as Homer does, or in his own person throughout ... --or he may imitate by representing all his characters as real, and employed in the action itself.[23]

Le Bossu, in his _Treatise of the Epick Poem_, gives his own restatement of this, and amplifies it by pointing to the particular virtues of the drama: by presenting characters directly to the spectators drama 'has no parts exempt from the Action,' and is thus 'entire and perfect'. Fielding was familiar with the _Treatise_, and it is possible that Richardson had also looked at Le Bossu to prepare himself for dealing with the epic theory of his rival.[24]

There were also precedents for placing the novel in the dramatic rather than the epic tradition. Congreve, when he wrote _Incognita_ (1692), took the drama as his model. 'Since all Traditions must indisputably give place to the _Drama_,' he wrote in the Preface, 'and since there is no possibility of giving that life to the Writing or Repetition of a Story which it has in the Action, I resolved ... to imitate _Dramatick_ Writing ... in the Design, Contexture, and Result of the Plot. I have not observed it before in a Novel.'[25] The analogy with drama had also been drawn by Henry Gally in his _Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings_ (1725), who, after maintaining that 'the essential Parts of the Characters, in the _Drama_, and in _Characteristic-Writings_ are the same,' goes on to praise the _Tatler_ and the _Spectator_ for the 'excellent Specimens in the Characteristic-Way' that they offered their readers.[26] Such acknowledgments of the dramatic potentialities in prose fiction were, however, unusual. The romances were modelled on the epic (Fielding, in fact, describes _Joseph Andrews_ in his Preface as a 'comic Romance'); and the picaresque mode in which Smollett wrote had no obviously dramatic qualities. Richardson's advocacy of the novel in which action is presented rather than retailed seems, indeed, curiously modern: it is something Henry James would certainly have understood and approved.

In formulating his own theory of fiction Richardson had Fielding very much in mind. It would be surprising if he had not: the rivalry between the two novelists was open and recognised, although by the time _Clarissa_ was published it had assumed the appearance of friendliness. Sarah Fielding's association with Richardson probably had something to do with this; but the reconciliation was largely her brother's own work. His just and generous praise of _Clarissa_--publicly in the _Jacobite's Journal_ and privately in a letter to the author--[27] makes full and honourable amends for his mockery of Richardson in _Shamela_ and _Joseph Andrews_. If he had not published _Tom Jones_ all might have been well. But Richardson could not forgive his old enemy for achieving a triumph in his chosen field so soon after the publication of his own masterpiece. He abused Fielding covertly in letters to his friends; and his revisions of the Preface and Postscript were designed in part to counter the claims for the comic prose epic advanced in _Tom Jones_ and elsewhere. _Hints of Prefaces_ reveals this more clearly than the published versions of the Preface and Postscript: Richardson unfortunately lacked the courage and confidence to press home the attack.

_Hints of Prefaces_ bears no date, but there is evidence that it was assembled after the first edition of _Clarissa_ had appeared and, in part at least, after the publication of _Tom Jones_. Richardson refers directly at one point to 'this Second Publication',[28] and several sections in it are printed (either in full or in a condensed form) only in the revised Postscript. _Hints of Prefaces_ therefore cannot be a discarded draft of the Preface and Postscript to the first edition. The final volumes of this first edition came out in December 1748, and _Tom Jones_ was published in the following February. A letter from Skelton, dated June 10th, 1749,[29] which mentions an 'inclosed Paper' on _Clarissa_, indicates that his essay did not reach Richardson until after this date; and in the letter to Graham, from which I have already quoted, we find him in the May of 1750 still seeking assistance in the preparation of his Preface.

Apart from such evidence it is obvious that one section of _Hints of Prefaces_ is directed specifically at Fielding. In pages [12] and [13] of the manuscript Richardson seems to be answering, consciously and in sequence, arguments brought forward in the Preface to _Joseph Andrews_; the Prefaces contributed by Fielding to the second edition of _The Adventures of David Simple_ (1744), by his sister, Sarah, and its sequel, _Familiar Letters between the Principal Characters in David Simple_ (1747); and, of course, the introductory chapters in _Tom Jones_. Richardson begins this part of _Hints of Prefaces_ with a discussion of the three kinds of romance: those that offer us '_Ridicule_; or _Serious Adventure_; or, lastly, a _Mixture of both_'. He admits 'that there are some Works under the First of these Heads, which have their Excellencies,' but doubts 'whether _Ridicule_ is a proper basis ... whereon to build instruction.'[30] The reference here seems clearly to be to the Preface to _Joseph Andrews_ where Fielding presents his theory of the comic romance and the ridiculous. Richardson then proceeds to defend his epistolary method--a convention which Fielding had singled out for attack in his Preface to _Familiar Letters_, remarking that 'no one will contend, that the epistolary Style is in general the most proper to a Novelist, or that it hath been used by the best Writers of this Kind.'[31] Even if Richardson had not been a subscriber to Miss Fielding's small volume, he could scarcely have overlooked a challenge so unequivocal as this. In _Clarissa_ he knew that the challenge had been answered triumphantly: among other things it is a complete vindication of the epistolary technique:

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 Reader's Patience should be exhausted...[32]

_Tom Jones_, with its books, chapters, critical interpolations, and ironical apologies to the reader, is the target here; and Richardson clearly longed to inflict a defeat on its author in the realm of theory as resounding as the one he believed he had achieved over him in practice. His nerve failed him, however, and his defence of the epistolary method as it finally appears in the revised Postscript is cursory and deceptively restrained: 'The author ... perhaps mistrusted his talents for the narrative kind of writing. He had the good fortune to succeed in the Epistolary way once before.'[33]

After completing _Clarissa_ Richardson had a clear and conscious apprehension of the scope and unique qualities of his achievement. His ability to give an account of these things, however, was limited, though not so limited as he feared: for his theory of the novel to be fully understood, the final versions of his Preface and Postscript need to be read in conjunction with the hitherto unpublished _Hints of Prefaces for Clarissa_.

R. F. Brissenden Australian National University Canberra.

FOOTNOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

[1] See _Samuel Richardson: a bibliographical Record of his literary Career_, by William Merritt Sale (New Haven, 1936), pp. 49-50.

[2] _Hints of Prefaces for Clarissa_, p. [13], 13.

[3] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 370.

[4] Forster MSS., XV, f 84, May 3, 1750.

[5] Ibid., f 85.

[6] [6], ... Warburton's Preface is reproduced in _Prefaces to Fiction_, With an Introduction by Benjamin Boyce, Augustan Reprint Society Publication Number 32 (Los Angeles, 1952).

[7] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 367.

[8] Preface (first edition) Vol. I, vi.

[9] '_Pleasantry_, (as the ingenious Author of Clarissa says of a Story) _should be made only the Vehicle of Instruction_. _The Covent-Garden Journal_, Number 10, 4th February, 1752. 'If entertainment, as Mr. Richardson observes, be but a secondary consideration in a romance ... it may well be so considered in a work founded, like this, on truth.' _Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon_ (London, 1755), The Preface, pp. xvi-xvii.

[10] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 349.

[11] _Hints of Prefaces_, p. [2], 2.

[12] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 359.

[13] _Hints of Prefaces_, p. [8], 7.

[14] Ibid., p. [9], 8.

[15] Ibid., p. [8], 7.

[16] Ibid., p. [9], 8.

[17] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 366, footnote (a).

[18] See Lawrence Marsden Price, 'On The Reception of Richardson in Germany', _JEGP_, XXV (1926), 7-33.

[19] _Pamela_ (London, 1741), Vol. I, vii. See _Samuel Richardson's Introduction to Pamela_, edited by Sheridan W. Baker, Jr., Augustan Reprint Society Publication Number 48 (Los Angeles, 1954).

[20] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 366.

[21] _Pamela_ (London, 1741), second edition, Vol. I, xviii.

[22] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 351.

[23] _The Poetics_, I, iv, in _Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric_ (Everyman's Library) (London, 1953), p. 8.

[24] _Monsieur Bossu's Treatise of the Epick Poem_ (London, 1695), p. 114. Le Bossu's _Treatise_ was first published in France in 1675. Compare, for example, Richardson's use of the term 'episodes' (_Hints of Prefaces_, p. [4], 4) with the _Treatise_, Book II, chapters II-VI.

[25] Op. cit. The Preface to the Reader (unpaginated).

[26] _The Moral Characters of Theophrastus ... To which is prefix'd A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings_ (London, 1725), pp. 98-99. Reproduced, with an Introduction by Alexander H. Chorney, as Augustan Reprint Society Publication Number 33 (Los Angeles, 1952).

[27] _The Jacobite's Journal_, January 2, 1747 [in mistake for 1748]. Number 5. 'Such Simplicity, such Manners, such deep Penetration into Nature; such Power to raise and alarm the Passions, few Writers, either ancient or modern, have been possessed of ... Sure this Mr. _Richardson_ is Master of all that Art which Horace compares to Witchcraft ...' Also, March 5, 1748, Number 14. The letter, dated October 15, 1748, is reprinted in 'A New Letter from Fielding', by E. L. McAdam, Jr., _Yale Review_ (NS), XXXVIII (1948-49), 300-310.

[28] _Hints of Prefaces_, p. [12], 11.

[29] Forster MSS., Vol. XV, f 47.

[30] _Hints of Prefaces_, p. [12], 11.

[31] _Familiar Letters between the Principal Characters in David Simple_ (London, 1747), Vol. I, ix.

[32] _Hints of Prefaces_, p. [13], 13.

[33] Postscript (fourth edition), p. 365.

HINTS OF PREFACES FOR CLARISSA

_APPENDIX: Philip Skelton and Joseph Spence_

Philip Skelton (1707-1787) was an Irish divine who could well have served as a model for Parson Adams, for in his life he exhibited a vigorous combination of good humour, physical bravery, quixotic gallantry and practical Christianity. The article in the DNB records that 'he studied physic and prescribed for the poor, argued successfully with profligates and sectaries, persuaded lunatics out of their delusions, fought and trounced a company of profane travelling tinkers, and chastised a military officer who persisted in swearing.' During famine he gave liberally to sustain his poor parishioners, on one occasion selling his library to help them. _The Life of Philip Skelton_, by Samuel Burdy, first published in 1792, still makes entertaining and interesting reading. Richardson met Skelton when he visited London in 1748 to publish _Ophiomaches, or Deism Revealed_. On David Hume's recommendation Andrew Millar published the work; and Richardson also seems to have played some part in getting the book accepted (Forster MSS, XV, f 34).

The author of Spence's _Anecdotes_ needs no special introduction, although some aspects of his relationship with Richardson are of interest. He apparently first met the novelist late in 1747 or early in 1748. Richardson sought his opinion on _Clarissa_ before the final volumes of the first edition had appeared: his letter discussing the novel [_The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson_, edited by Anna Laetitia Barbauld (London, 1804), Vol. II, 319-327], which emphasizes Richardson's truth to 'Nature' and lack of 'Art', makes an interesting contrast with the more considered verdict delivered in his contribution to _Hints of Prefaces_. Before writing this he had almost certainly read _Tom Jones_. In a letter, dated April 15, 1749, he says: 'Tom Jones is my old acquaintance, now; for I read it, before it was publisht: & read it with such rapidity, that I began & ended with in the compass of four days; tho' I took a Journey to St. Albans, in ye same time. He is to me extreamly entertaining....' He seems to have contemplated writing a memoir of Richardson after the novelist's death in 1760.

[See Austin Wright, _Joseph Spence: a critical Biography_ (Chicago, 1950), 120-123, 232 n.]

NOTES TO POSTSCRIPT

p. 368, 1. 31--p. 369, 1. 10:

This passage is part of Richardson's new material for his revised Postscript. What he wrote in this paragraph, however, was not reproduced completely or accurately in either the third or the fourth editions, in each of which it appears in different but equally incorrect versions. W.M. Sale has offered a convincing explanation of how the mistakes in printing came about, and suggests that the passage should read as follows:

She was very early happy in the conversation-visits of her learned and worthy Dr. Lewen, and in her correspondencies, not with him only, but with other Divines mentioned in her last Will. Her Mother was, upon the whole, a good woman, who did credit to her birth and her fortune; and was able to instruct her in her early youth: Her Father was not a free-living, or free-principled man; and _both_ delighted in her for those improvements and attainments, which gave her, _and them in her_, a distinction that caused it to be said, that when she was out of the family, it was considered but as a common family.

[_Samuel Richardson: a bibliographical Record of his Literary Career_ (New Haven, 1936), 59-61].

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The Preface to the first edition is reproduced from a copy at the Huntington Library, the Postscript to the fourth edition of _Clarissa_ from a copy in the Rare Books Room of the Library of the University of North Carolina. _Hints of Prefaces for Clarissa_ is a transcript of a manuscript in the Forster Collection (Vol. XV, ff 49-58) in the Victoria and Albert Museum. (Single underlinings have been rendered in italics, double underlinings in boldface.) Thanks is extended to these institutions for their kind permission for the reproduction of this material.

CLARISSA. OR, THE HISTORY OF A YOUNG LADY: Comprehending _The most_ Important Concerns _of_ Private LIFE, And particularly shewing, The DISTRESSES that may attend the Misconduct Both of PARENTS and CHILDREN, In Relation to MARRIAGE.

_Published by the_ EDITOR _of_ PAMELA.

VOL. I.

_LONDON:_ Printed for S. Richardson: And Sold by A. MILLAR, over-against _Catharine-street_ in the _Strand_: J. and JA. RIVINGTON, in _St. Paul's Church-yard_: JOHN OSBORN, in _Pater-noster Row_; And by J. LEAKE, at _Bath_.

M.DCC.XLVIII.

PREFACE.

The following History is given in a Series of Letters, written principally in a double, yet separate, Correspondence;

Between Two young Ladies of Virtue and Honour, bearing an inviolable Friendship for each other, and writing upon the most interesting Subjects: And

Between Two Gentlemen of free Lives; one of them glorying in his Talents for Stratagem and Invention, and communicating to the other, in Confidence, all the secret Purposes of an intriguing Head, and resolute Heart.

But it is not amiss to premise, for the sake of such as may apprehend Hurt to the Morals of Youth from the more freely-written Letters, That the Gentlemen, tho' professed Libertines as to the Fair Sex, and making it one of their wicked Maxims, to keep no Faith with any of the Individuals of it who throw themselves into their Power, are not, however, either Infidels or Scoffers: Nor yet such as think themselves freed from the Observance of those other moral Obligations, which bind Man to Man.

On the contrary, it will be found, in the Progress of the Collection, that they very often make such Reflections upon each other, and each upon himself, and upon his Actions, as reasonable Beings, who disbelieve not a future State of Rewards and Punishments (and who one day propose to reform) must sometimes make:--One of them actually reforming, and antidoting the Poison which some might otherwise apprehend would be spread by the gayer Pen, and lighter Heart, of the other.

And yet that other, [altho' in unbosoming himself to a _select Friend_, he discover Wickedness enough to intitle him to general Hatred] preserves a Decency, as well in his Images, as in his Language, which is not always to be found in the Works of some of the most celebrated modern Writers, whose Subjects and Characters have less warranted the Liberties they have taken.

Length will be naturally expected, not only from what has been said, but from the following Considerations:

That the Letters on both Sides are written while the Hearts of the Writers must be supposed to be wholly engaged in their Subjects: The Events at the Time generally dubious:--So that they abound, not only with critical Situations; but with what may be called _instantaneous_ Descriptions and Reflections; which may be brought home to the Breast of the youthful Reader:--As also, with affecting Conversations; many of them written in the Dialogue or Dramatic Way.

To which may be added, that the Collection contains not only the History of the excellent Person whose Name it bears, but includes The Lives, Characters, and Catastrophes, of several others, either principally or incidentally concerned in the Story.

But yet the Editor [to whom it was referred to publish the Whole in such a Way as he should think would be most acceptable to the Public] was so diffident in relation to this Article of _Length_, that he thought proper to submit the Letters to the Perusal of several judicious Friends; whose Opinion he desired of what might be best spared.

One Gentleman, in particular, of whose Knowlege, Judgment, and Experience, as well as Candor, the Editor has the highest Opinion, advised him to give a Narrative Turn to the Letters; and to publish only what concerned the principal Heroine;--striking off the collateral Incidents, and all that related to the Second Characters; tho' he allowed the Parts which would have been by this means excluded, to be both instructive and entertaining. But being extremely fond of the affecting Story, he was desirous to have every-thing parted with, which he thought retarded its Progress.

This Advice was not relished by other Gentlemen. They insisted, that the Story could not be reduced to a Dramatic Unity, nor thrown into the Narrative Way, without divesting it of its Warmth; and of a great Part of its Efficacy; as very few of the Reflections and Observations, which they looked upon as the most useful Part of the Collection, would, then, find a Place.

They were of Opinion, 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 more necessary INSTRUCTION: That many of the Scenes would be render'd languid, were they to be made less busy: And that the Whole would be thereby deprived of that Variety, which is deemed the Soul of a Feast, whether _mensal_ or _mental_.

They were also of Opinion, That the Parts and Characters, which must be omitted, if this Advice were followed, were some of the most natural in the whole Collection: And no less instructive; especially to _Youth_. Which might be a Consideration perhaps overlooked by a Gentleman of the Adviser's great Knowlege and Experience: For, as they observed, there is a Period in human Life, in which, youthful Activity ceasing, and Hope contenting itself to peep out of its own domestic Wicket upon bounded Prospects, the half-tired Mind aims at little more than _Amusement_.--And, with Reason; for what, in the _instructive_ Way, can appear either _new_ or _needful_ to one who has happily got over those dangerous Situations which call for Advice and Cautions, and who has fill'd up his Measures of Knowlege to the Top?

Others, likewise gave _their_ Opinions. But no Two being of the same Mind, as to the Parts which could be omitted, it was resolved to present to the World, the Two First Volumes, by way of Specimen: and to be determined with regard to the rest by the Reception those should meet with.

If that be favourable, Two others may soon follow; the whole Collection being ready for the Press: That is to say, If it be not found necessary to abstract or omit some of the Letters, in order to reduce the Bulk of the Whole.

Thus much in general. But it may not be amiss to add, in particular, that in the great Variety of Subjects which this Collection contains it is one of the principal Views of the Publication,

To caution Parents against the _undue_ Exertion of their natural Authority over their Children, in the great Article of Marriage:

And Children against preferring a Man of Pleasure to a Man of Probity, upon that dangerous, but too commonly received Notion, _That a Reformed Rake makes the best Husband_.

But as the Characters will not all appear in the Two First Volumes, it has been thought advisable, in order to give the Reader some further Idea of Them, and of the Work, to prefix

_HINTS OF PREFACES FOR CLARISSA_

HINTS OF PREFACES FOR CLARISSA

[1]

Prefatical Hints. Partly taken from Letters to the Warrington Lady,