Chapter 1

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

SAMUEL RICHARDSON,
_CLARISSA:_
Preface, Hints of Prefaces,
and Postscript.

_Introduction_
BY
R. F. BRISSENDEN.

PUBLICATION NUMBER 103
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
1964

GENERAL EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_
Earl R. Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Lawrence Clark Powell, _Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

ADVISORY EDITORS

John Butt, _University of Edinburgh_
James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_
Ralph Cohen, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_
Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_
James Sutherland, _University College, London_
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, _Clark Memorial Library_

INTRODUCTION

The seven volumes of the first edition of _Clarissa_ were published in
three instalments during the twelve months from December 1747 to
December 1748. Richardson wrote a Preface for Volume I and a Postscript
for Volume VII, and William Warburton supplied an additional Preface for
Volume III (or IV).[1] A second edition, consisting merely of a reprint
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?