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