In February 1733, when the _Miser_ was first acted, Fielding was five and twenty. His means at this time were, in all probability, exceedingly uncertain. The small proportion of money due to him at his mother's death had doubtless been long since exhausted, and he must have been almost wholly dependent upon the precarious profits of his pen. That he was a.s.sisted by rich and n.o.ble friends to any material extent appears, in spite of Murphy, to be unlikely. At all events, an occasional dedication to the Duke of Richmond or the Earl of Chesterfield cannot be regarded as proof positive. Lyttelton, who certainly befriended him in later life, was for a great part of this period absent on the Grand Tour, and Ralph Allen had not yet come forward. In default of the always deferred allowance, his father's house at Salisbury (?) was no doubt open to him; and it is plain, from indications in his minor poems, that he occasionally escaped into the country. But in London he lived for the most part, and probably not very worshipfully. What, even now, would be the life of a young man of Fielding's age, fond of pleasure, careless of the future, very liberally equipped with high spirits, and straightway exposed to the perilous seductions of the stage? Fielding had the defects of his qualities, and was no better than the rest of those about him. He was manly, and frank, and generous; but these characteristics could scarcely protect him from the terrors of the tip-staff, and the sequels of "t'other bottle." Indeed, he very honestly and unfeignedly confesses to the lapses of his youth in the _Journey from this World to the Next_, adding that he pretended "to very little Virtue more than general Philanthropy and private Friendship." It is therefore but reasonable to infer that his daily life must have been more than usually characterised by the vicissitudes of the eighteenth-century prodigal,-- alternations from the "Rose" to a Clare-Market ordinary, from gold-lace to fustian, from champagne to "British Burgundy." In a rhymed pet.i.tion to Walpole, dated 1730, he makes pleasant mirth of what no doubt was sometimes sober truth--his debts, his duns, and his dinnerless condition. He (the verses tell us)

"--from his Garret can look down On the whole Street of _Arlington_." [Footnote: Where Sir Robert lived]

Again--

"The Family that dines the latest Is in our Street esteem'd the greatest; But latest Hours must surely fall Before him who ne'er dines at all;"

and

"This too doth in my Favour speak, Your Levee is but twice a Week; From mine I can exclude but one Day, My Door is quiet on a _Sunday_."

When he can admit so much even jestingly of himself, it is but legitimate to presume that there is no great exaggeration in the portrait of him in 1735, by the anonymous satirist of _Seasonable Reproof_:--

"_F------g_, who _yesterday_ appear'd so rough, Clad in _coa.r.s.e Frize_, and plaister'd down with _Snuff_, See how his _Instant_ gaudy Trappings shine; What _Play-house_ Bard was ever seen so fine!

But this, not from his _Humour_ flows, you'll say, But mere _Necessity_;--for last Night lay In _p.a.w.n_, the _Velvet_ which he wears to Day."

His work bears traces of the inequalities and irregularities of his mode of living. Although in certain cases (e.g. the revised edition of _Tom Thumb_) the artist and scholar seems to have spasmodically a.s.serted himself, the majority of his plays were hasty and ill-considered performances, most of which (as Lady Mary said) he would have thrown into the fire "if meat could have been got without money, and money without scribbling." "When he had contracted to bring on a play, or a farce," says Murphy, "it is well known, by many of his friends now living, that he would go home rather late from a tavern, and would, the next morning, deliver a scene to the players, written upon the papers which had wrapped the tobacco, in which he so much delighted." It is not easy to conceive, unless Fielding's capacities as a smoker were unusual, that any large contribution to dramatic literature could have been made upon the wrappings of Virginia or Freeman's Best; but that his reputation for careless production was established among his contemporaries is manifest from the following pa.s.sage in a burlesque _Author's Will_ published in the _Universal Spectator_ of Oldys:--

"_Item_, I give and bequeath to my very _negligent_ Friend _Henry Drama_, Esq., all my INDUSTRY. And whereas the World may think this an unnecessary Legacy, forasmuch as the said _Henry Drama_, Esq., brings on the Stage _four Pieces_ every Season; yet as such Pieces are always wrote with uncommon _Rapidity_, and during such fatal Intervals only as the _Stocks_ have been on the _Fall_, this Legacy will be of use to him to revise and correct his Works. Furthermore, for fear the said _Henry Drama_ should make an ill Use of the said _Industry_, and expend it all on a _Ballad Farce_, it's my Will the said Legacy should be paid him by equal Portions, and as his Necessities may require."

There can be little doubt that the above quotation, which is reprinted in the _Gentleman's_ for July 1734, and seems to have hitherto escaped inquiry, refers to none other than the "very negligent" Author of the _Modern Husband_ and the _Old Debauchees_--in other words, to Henry Fielding.

CHAPTER II.

MORE PLAYS--MARRIAGE--THE LICENSING ACT.

The very subordinate part in the _Miser_ of "Furnish, an Upholsterer,"

was taken by a third-rate actor, whose surname has been productive of no little misconception among Henry Fielding's biographers. This was Timothy Fielding, sometime member of the Haymarket and Drury Lane companies, and proprietor, for several successive years, of a booth at Bartholomew, Southwark, and other fairs. In the absence of any Christian name, Mr. Lawrence seems to have rather rashly concluded that the Fielding mentioned by Genest as having a booth at Bartholomew Fair in 1733 with Hippisley (the original Peachum of the _Beggar's Opera_), was Fielding the dramatist; and the mistake thus originated at once began that prosperous course which usually awaits any slip of the kind. It misled one notoriously careful inquirer, who, in his interesting chronicles of Bartholomew Fair, minutely investigated the actor's history, giving precise details of his doings at "Bartlemy" from 1728 to 1736; but, although the theory involved obvious inconsistencies, apparently without any suspicion that the proprietor of the booth which stood, season after season, in the yard of the George Inn at Smithfield, was an entirely different person from his greater namesake. The late Dr.

Rimbault carried the story farther still, and attempted to show, in _Notes and Queries_ for May 1859, that Henry Fielding had a booth at Tottenham Court in 1738, "subsequent to his admission into the Middle Temple;" and he also promised to supply additional particulars to the effect that even 1738 was not the "_last_ year of Fielding's career as a booth-proprietor." At this stage (probably for good reasons) inquiry seems to have slumbered, although, with the fatal vitality of error, the statement continued (and still continues) to be repeated in various quarters. In 1875, however, Mr. Frederick Latreille published a short article in _Notes and Queries_, proving conclusively, by extracts from contemporary newspapers and other sources, that the Timothy Fielding above referred to was the real Fielding of the fairs; that he became landlord of the Buffalo Tavern "at the corner of Bloomsbury Square" in 1733; and that he died in August 1738, his christian name, so often suppressed, being duly recorded in the register of the neighbouring church of St. George's, where he was buried. The admirers of our great novelist owe Mr. Latreille a debt of grat.i.tude for this opportune discovery. It is true that a certain element of Bohemian picturesqueness is lost to Henry Fielding's life, already not very rich in recorded incident; and it would certainly have been curious if he, who ended his days in trying to dignify the judicial office, should have begun life by acting the part of a "trading justice," namely that of Quorum in Coffey's _Beggar's Wedding_, which Timothy Fielding had played at Drury Lane. But, on the whole, it is satisfactory to know that his early experiences did not, of necessity, include those of a strolling player.

Some obscure and temporary connection with Bartholomew Fair he may have had, as Smollett, in the scurrilous pamphlet issued in 1742, makes him say that he blew a trumpet there in quality of herald to a collection of wild beasts; but this is probably no more than an earlier and uglier form of the apparition laid by Mr. Latreille. The only positive evidence of any connection between Henry Fielding and the Smithfield carnival is, that Theophilus Cibber's company played the _Miser_ at their booth in August 1733.

With the exception of the _Miser_ and an afterpiece, never printed, ent.i.tled _Deborah; or, A Wife for you all_, which was acted for Miss Raftor's benefit in April 1733, nothing important was brought upon the stage by Fielding until January of the following year, when he produced the _Intriguing Chambermaid_, and a revised version of the _Author's Farce_. By a succession of changes, which it is impossible here to describe in detail, considerable alterations had taken place in the management of Drury Lane. In the first place, Wilks was dead, and his share in the Patent was represented by his widow. Booth also was dead, and Mrs. Booth had sold her share to Giffard of Goodman's Fields, while the elder Cibber had retired. At the beginning of the season of 1733-34 the leading patentee was an amateur called Highmore, who had purchased Cibber's share. He had also purchased part of Booth's share before his death in May 1733. The only other shareholder of importance was Mrs.

Wilks. Shortly after the opening of the theatre in September, the greater part of the Drury Lane Company, led by the younger Cibber, revolted from Highmore and Mrs. Wilks, and set up for themselves.

Matters were farther complicated by the fact that John Rich had not long opened a new theatre in Covent Garden, which const.i.tuted a fresh attraction; and that what Fielding called the "wanton affected Fondness for foreign Musick," was making the Italian opera a dangerous rival--the more so as it was patronised by the n.o.bility. Without actors, the patentees were in serious case. Miss Raftor, who about this time became Mrs. Clive, appears, however, to have remained faithful to them, as also did Henry Fielding. The lively little comedy of the _Intriguing Chambermaid_ was adapted from Regnard especially for her; and in its published form was preceded by an epistle in which the dramatist dwells upon the "Factions and Divisions among the Players," and compliments her upon her compa.s.sionate adherence to Mr. Highmore and Mrs. Wilks in their time of need. The epistle is also valuable for its warm and generous testimony to the private character of this accomplished actress, whose part in real life, says Fielding, was that of "the best Wife, the best Daughter, the best Sister, and the best Friend." The words are more than mere compliment; they appear to have been true. Madcap and humourist as she was, no breath of slander seems ever to have tarnished the reputation of Kitty Clive, whom Johnson--a fine judge, when his prejudices were not actively aroused--called in addition "the best player that he ever saw."

The _Intriguing Chambermaid_ was produced on the 15th of January 1734.

Lettice, from whom the piece was named, was well personated by Mrs.

Clive, and Colonel Bluff by Macklin, the only actor of any promise that Highmore had been able to secure. With the new comedy the _Author's Farce_ was revived. It would be unnecessary to refer to this again, but for the additions that were made to it. These consisted chiefly in the subst.i.tution of Marplay Junior for Sparkish, the actor-manager of the first version. The death of Wilks may have been a reason for this alteration; but a stronger was no doubt the desire to throw ridicule upon Theophilus Cibber, whose behaviour in deserting Drury Lane immediately after his father had sold his share to Highmore had not pa.s.sed without censure, nor had his father's action escaped sarcastic comment. Theophilus Cibber--whose best part was Beaumont and Fletcher's Copper Captain, and who carried the impersonation into private life, had played in several of Fielding's pieces; but Fielding had linked his fortunes to those of the patentees, and was consequently against the players in this quarrel. The following scene was accordingly added to the farce for the exclusive benefit of "Young Marplay":--

"_Marplay junior._ Mr. _Luckless_, I kiss your Hands--Sir, I am your most obedient humble Servant; you see, Mr. _Luckless_, what Power you have over me. I attend your Commands, tho' several Persons of Quality have staid at Court for me above this Hour.

_Luckless._ I am obliged to you--I have a Tragedy for your House, Mr.

_Marplay_.

_Mar. jun._ Ha! if you will send it me, I will give you my Opinion of it; and if I can make any Alterations in it that will be for its Advantage, I will do it freely.

_Witmore._ Alterations, Sir?

_Mar. jun._ Yes, Sir, Alterations--I will maintain it, let a Play be never so good, without Alteration it will do nothing.

_Wit._ Very odd indeed.

_Mar. jun._ Did you ever write, Sir?

_Wit._ No, Sir, I thank Heav'n.

_Mar. jun._ Oh! your humble Servant--your very humble Servant, Sir. When you write yourself you will find the Necessity of Alterations. Why, Sir, wou'd you guess that I had alter'd _Shakespear_?

_Wit._ Yes, faith, Sir, no one sooner.

_Mar. jun._ Alack-a-day! Was you to see the Plays when they are brought to us--a Parcel of crude, undigested Stuff. We are the Persons, Sir, who lick them into Form, that mould them into Shape--The Poet make the Play indeed! The Colour-man might be as well said to make the Picture, or the Weaver the Coat: My Father and I, Sir, are a Couple of poetical Tailors; when a Play is brought us, we consider it as a Tailor does his Coat, we cut it, Sir, we cut it: And let me tell you, we have the exact Measure of the Town, we know how to fit their Taste. The Poets, between you and me, are a Pack of ignorant--

_Wit._ Hold, hold, sir. This is not quite so civil to Mr. _Luckless_: Besides, as I take it, you have done the Town the Honour of writing yourself.

_Mar. jun._ Sir, you are a Man of Sense; and express yourself well. I did, as you say, once make a small Sally into _Parna.s.sus_, took a sort of flying Leap over _Helicon_: But if ever they catch me there again-- Sir, the Town have a Prejudice to my Family; for if any Play you'd have made them ashamed to d.a.m.n it, mine must. It was all over Plot. It wou'd have made half a dozen Novels: Nor was it cram'd with a pack of Wit- traps, like _Congreve_ and _Wycherly_, where every one knows when the Joke was coming. I defy the sharpest Critick of 'em all to know when any Jokes of mine were coming. The Dialogue was plain, easy, and natural, and not one single Joke in it from the Beginning to the End: Besides, Sir, there was one Scene of tender melancholy Conversation, enough to have melted a Heart of Stone; and yet they d.a.m.n'd it: And they d.a.m.n'd themselves; for they shall have no more of mine.

_Wit._ Take pity on the Town, Sir.

_Mar. jun._ I! No, Sir, no. I'll write no more. No more; unless I am forc'd to it.

_Luckless._ That's no easy thing, _Marplay_.

_Mar. jun._ Yes, Sir. Odes, Odes, a Man may be oblig'd to write those you know." These concluding lines plainly refer to the elder Cibber's appointment as Laureate in 1730, and to those "annual Birth-day Strains," with which he so long delighted the irreverent; while the alteration of Shakespeare and the cobbling of plays generally, satirised again in a later scene, are strictly in accordance with contemporary accounts of the manners and customs of the two dictators of Drury Lane.

The piece indicated by Marplay Junior was probably Theophilus Cibber's _Lover_, which had been produced in January 1731 with very moderate success.

After the _Intriguing Chambermaid_ and the revived _Author's Farce_, Fielding seems to have made farther exertions for "the distressed Actors in Drury Lane." He had always been an admirer of Cervantes, frequent references to whose master-work are to be found scattered through his plays; and he now busied himself with completing and expanding the loose scenes of the comedy of _Don Quixote in England_, which (as before stated) he had sketched at Leyden for his own diversion. He had already thought of bringing it upon the stage, but had been dissuaded from doing so by Cibber and Booth, who regarded it as wanting in novelty. Now, however, he strengthened it by the addition of some election scenes, in which--he tells Lord Chesterfield in the dedication--he designed to give a lively representation of "the Calamities brought on a Country by general Corruption;" and it was duly rehea.r.s.ed. But unexpected delays took place in its production; the revolted players returned to Drury Lane; and, lest the actors' benefits should further r.e.t.a.r.d its appearance by postponing it until the winter season, Fielding transferred it to the Haymarket, where, according to Geneste, it was acted in April 1734. As a play, _Don Quixote in England_ has few stage qualities and no plot to speak of. But the Don with his whimsies, and Sancho with his appet.i.te and string of proverbs, are conceived in something of the spirit of Cervantes. Squire Badger, too, a rudimentary Squire Western, well represented by Macklin, is vigorously drawn; and the song of his huntsman Scut, beginning with the fine line "The dusky Night rides down the Sky," has a verse that recalls a practice of which Addison accuses Sir Roger de Coverley:--

_"A brushing Fox in yonder Wood, Secure to find we seek; For why, I carry'd sound and good, A Cartload there last Week._ And a Hunting we will go."

The election scenes, though but slightly attached to the main story, are keenly satirical, and considering that Hogarth's famous series of kindred prints belongs to a much later date, must certainly have been novel, as may be gathered from the following little colloquy between Mr.

Mayor and Messrs. Guzzle and Retail:--

"_Mayor_ (_to Retail_) ....I like an Opposition, because otherwise a Man may be oblig'd to vote against his Party; therefore when we invite a Gentleman to stand, we invite him to spend his Money for the Honour of his Party; and when both Parties have spent as much as they are able, every honest Man will vote according to his Conscience.

_Guz._ Mr. Mayor talks like a Man of Sense and Honour, and it does me good to hear him.

_May._ Ay, ay, Mr. _Guzzle_, I never gave a Vote contrary to my Conscience. I have very earnestly recommended the Country-Interest to all my Brethren: But before that, I recommended the Town-Interest, that is, the interest of this Corporation; and first of all I recommended to every particular Man to take a particular Care of himself. And it is with a certain way of Reasoning, That he who serves me best, will serve the Town best; and he that serves the Town best, will serve the Country best."

In the January and February of 1735 Fielding produced two more pieces at Drury Lane, a farce and a five-act comedy. The farce--a lively trifle enough--was _An Old Man taught Wisdom_, a t.i.tle subsequently changed to the _Virgin Unmasked_. It was obviously written to display the talents of Mrs. Clive, who played in it her favourite character of a hoyden, and, after "interviewing" a number of suitors chosen by her father, finally ran away with Thomas the footman--a course in those days not without its parallel in high life, above stairs as well as below. It appears to have succeeded, though Bookish, one of the characters, was entirely withdrawn in deference to some disapprobation on the part of the audience; while the part of Wormwood, a lawyer, which is found in the latest editions, is said to have been "omitted in representation."

The comedy, ent.i.tled _The Universal Gallant_; or, _The different Husbands_, was scarcely so fortunate. Notwithstanding that Quin, who, after an absence of many years, had returned to Drury Lane, played a leading part, and that Theophilus Cibber in the hero, Captain Smart, seems to have been fitted with a character exactly suited to his talents and idiosyncrasy, the play ran no more than three nights. Till the third act was almost over, "the _Audience_," says the _Prompter_ (as quoted by "Sylva.n.u.s Urban"), "sat quiet, in hopes it would mend, till finding it grew _worse_ and _worse_, they lost all Patience, and not an _Expression_ or _Sentiment_ afterwards pa.s.s'd without its deserved _Censure_." Perhaps it is not to be wondered at that the author--"the prolifick _Mr. Fielding_," as the _Prompter_ calls him, attributed its condemnation to causes other than its lack of interest. In his _Advertis.e.m.e.nt_ he openly complains of the "cruel Usage" his "poor Play"

had met with, and of the barbarity of the young men about town who made "a Jest of d.a.m.ning Plays"--a pastime which, whether it prevailed in this case or not, no doubt existed, as Sarah Fielding afterwards refers to it in _David Simple_. If an author--he goes on to say--"be so unfortunate [_as_] to depend on the success of his Labours for his Bread, he must be an inhuman Creature indeed, who would out of sport and wantonness prevent a Man from getting a Livelihood in an honest and inoffensive Way, and make a jest of starving him and his Family." The plea is a good one if the play is good; but if not, it is worthless. In this respect the public are like the French Cardinal in the story; and when the famished writer's work fails to entertain them, they are fully justified in doubting his _raison d'etre_. There is no reason for supposing that the _Universal Gallant_ deserved a better fate than it met with.

Judging from the time which elapsed between the production of this play and that of _Pasquin_ (Fielding's next theatrical venture), it has been conjectured that the interval was occupied by his marriage, and brief experience as a Dorsetshire country gentleman. The exact date of his marriage is not known, though it is generally a.s.sumed to have taken place in the beginning of 1735. But it may well have been earlier, for it will be observed that in the above quotation from the Preface to the _Universal Gallant_, which is dated from "Buckingham Street, Feb. 12,"

he indirectly speaks of "his family." This, it is true, may be no more than the pious fraud of a bachelor; but if it be taken literally, we must conclude that his marriage was already so far a thing of the past that he was already a father. This supposition would account for the absence of any record of the birth of a child during his forthcoming residence at East Stour, by the explanation that it had already happened in London; and it is not impossible that the entry of the marriage, too, may be hidden away in some obscure Metropolitan parish register, since those of Salisbury have been fruitlessly searched. At this distance of time, however, speculation is fruitless; and, in default of more definite information, the "spring of 1735," which Keightley gives, must be accepted as the probable date of the marriage.