publications give an
interesting view of some current approaches and reactions before opinion
has taken a set form, and help us to get access to the contemporary
reading public.

The present author airs some cynical and skeptical views in religion and
ethics which are not of great critical interest. His ideas about
"sentimental unbelievers" and "political chastity," his simulated
disapproval of contemptuous references to the clergy, the attack on John
Hill's _Inspector_ to which he devotes his Postscript--these points
are little to our purpose. As to literary opinions, he falls into the
usual way of judging fiction by its supposed overt intellectual and
moral effects. His admiration for _Clarissa_ is based on his acceptance
of the complete idealization of the heroine, and of Richardson's
declared intention to show "the distresses that may attend the
misconduct both of parents and children in relation to marriage." In
formal literary criticism he is pompous and scholastic. He approves the
plot of _Clarissa_ in terms of the _Iliad_, but judges subtle and
complex characters by an over-simplified standard of decorum and
censures Lovelace as an intricate combination of Achilles and Ulysses!
His unnecessary labors to show that Richardson is not really Homeric
illustrate the sterile application of epic canons to the novel that
vitiates much early criticism of fiction.

In general, he represents the reader with pretensions to culture which
make him feel superior to Richardson's novels. He thinks they have been
attracting too much attention, yet finds himself forced to attend to
what he professes to despise. The stories are far too long, he
complains, and Richardson pads them to increase the profits of
authorship. (The _Candid Examination_ concurs on this point, and both
writers agree that _Clarissa_ should have been in five volumes instead
of eight.) The _Remarks_ echoes the common complaint that Richardson is
responsible for the flood of new fiction, and prophesies that his novels
will be merely the first in a succession of ephemeral best sellers. All
in all, we have here a fairly common pattern of opinion: _Pamela_ is low
and has no sound moral; _Grandison_ is tedious and excessively mannered;
_Clarissa_ at its best must be admitted to be supreme, despite
moralistic objections to the Mother Sinclair scenes and to the character
of Lovelace. The pamphleteer's silences are sometimes significant:
Pamela is not condemned as a sc