with which all events are made to lead up to the final
denouement--that Fielding, if any one, deserves the title of the
founder of the English novel. But to give this title to any individual
is a manifest injustice. The novel was developed, not created; and in
that development many minds took part. Short love stories had been made
familiar in England by the Italian writers. Such, also, had been
produced by Mrs. Behn, Mrs. Manley, and Mrs. Heywood. Defoe had written
novels of adventure, in one of which, at least, is found the
combination of a character well drawn and a plot well executed. In the
number of his characters and the complication of his plot, Richardson
had surpassed Defoe. It is the merit of Fielding to have combined in a
far greater degree than those who had gone before the characteristic
qualities of the novel. In others we see the promise, in him the
fulfilment.

And this was in no respect the result of an accident. Fielding looked
upon his first work as a new attempt in English literature. "Joseph
Andrews" was first intended to be merely a satire on "Pamela." But study
and reflection on the nature of his work determined Fielding to produce
a "prose epic." "The epic as well as the drama," he said in the preface,
"is divided into tragedy and comedy." Now, he continued, "when any kind
of writing contains all the other parts (of the epic), such as fable,
action, characters, sentiments, and diction, and is deficient in metre
only; it seems, I think, reasonable to refer it to the epic." Such, too,
was the opinion of the Chevalier Bunsen. "The romance of modern times,"
he says in his preface to "Soll und Haben" * * * "represents the latest
_stadium_ of the epic. Every romance is intended, or ought to be, a new
Iliad or Odyssey; in other words, a poetic representation of a course of
events consistent with the highest laws of moral government, whether it
delineate the general history of a people, or narrate the fortunes of a
chosen hero. * * * The excellence of a romance, like that of an epic or
a drama, lies in the apprehension and truthful exhibition of the course
of human things."[177] Lord Byron expressed his opinion that Fielding
had realized this view of the nature of the novel by calling him the
prose Homer of human nature.

Fielding's novels are now considered unfit for general perusal. In
considering the coarseness and immorality of a writer, the intention and
the result must be separated. That Fielding'