The interest of the note on the Epistle to Augustus does not, however, end here. In an article supplementary to mine, published in Modern Philology for May 19191, Miss Helen Sard Hughes undertook to account for the omission of Warburton's Preface from the second and subsequent editions of Clarissa. She found at least a partial explanation of this omission in the strained relations which developed between Warburton and Richardson as a consequence of the latter's attitude in the WarburtonEdwards controversy of 1747-8 and later:

Richardson's sympathy with Edwards' critical antagonism, both before and after Warburton's retaliatory utterances [in the edition of Pope], is apparent in the letters that passed between Richardson and Edwards from January 9, 1750, to February 4, 1755. Such partisanship may well have been apparent to Warburton or suspected by him; and it may explain the omission from the edition of 1749 of Warburton's preface published in 1748 and solicited presumably in 1747 or earlier. In any case the correspondence reveals one more of those literary enmities with which Warburton surrounded himself.

Two things are to be noted in this summary of conclusions: first, the intimation that the initiative in the dropping of the Preface was taken by Warburton; and second, the fact that none of the incidents of the quarrel between him and Richardson which Miss Hughes sets forth, chiefly from the latter's published correspondence3, antedate January 1750, although the moving cause of the quarrel existed as early as the end of 1747. Indeed, as appears from a later page of her article, the earliest clear indication which she has found of a coolness on Warburton's part toward the novelist, in distinction from the latter's expressions of sympathy for Edwards, occurs as late as April 17534.

What light, now, is thrown upon these conclusions by Warburton's use of the Preface to Clarissa, with the substitution of Fielding for Richardson, in his edition of Pope? Before we can answer this question, we must fix, if we can, the date of the revision. Fortunately it is possible to do this with a fair degree of certainty. The nine volumes of The Works of Alexander Pope appeared in June 17515. There is reasonably conclusive evidence, however, that the notes to the Epistle to Augustus had been put into final shape nearly two years before. In a letter of June 13, 1749, Warburton promised Hurd to send him his notes on this poem as soon as he could get them 'in a condition to be read".' He had

1 XVII, 45-50.

2 Ibid. p. 46.

3 Neither she nor I have had access to the unpublished correspondence of Richardson in the South Kensington Museum, where, as she notes, there are probably letters which would throw further light upon the Warburton feud.'

4 Pp. 48-49.

5 See The Monthly Review, July 1751, v, 97.

6 Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate to One of His Friends, London, 1809, p. 5.

evidently completed this task early in August, for on the 6th of that month he wrote again:

You are so obliging on the subject of the Epistle to Augustus that the least I could do was to send you the copy I have prepared for the press, to convince you there is the same necessity for your pen, as if I had never wrote a word on the Imitation.... You need not send the MS back till I acquaint you with my want of it, or that you have an opportunity of sending it to Mr Knapton, bookseller, in Ludgate Street 1.

On October 28 he gave further directions concerning the disposition of the manuscript: 'I have now put that volume of which the Epistle to Augustus is part, to the press; so should be obliged to you to send it, by your letter-carrier, direct to Mr Knapton, bookseller, in LudgateStreet. On December 14 he informed Hurd that the packet was in Knapton's hands. In view of the silence of Warburton's letters concerning any further work on the notes to this poem and in view of the fact that grounds for displeasure with Richardson already existed, it is surely safe to conclude that the revision of the Preface took place before the autumn of 1749.

We are now in a position to consider the points discussed by Miss Hughes. In the first place, there is nothing in the known facts clearly inconsistent with her theory that Warburton's annoyance at Richardson for his championship of Edwards was responsible for the omission of the Preface from the second edition of Clarissa. This edition was published on the 15th June 17494, and Warburton, as we have just seen, was working on the notes to the Epistle to Augustus from some time before the 13th June until shortly after the first of August. It is entirely possible that, offended by Richardson's partisanship for Edwards, he had demanded that the Preface be omitted from the new edition of the novel, and then, not willing to discard it altogether3, had revised it in harmony with his new attitude to Richardson for use in the edition of Pope. But if the facts may be made to accord with this possibility, they equally permit of the opposite hypothesis that the initiative in the matter was taken by Richardson, whether with or without reference to the changed relations between him and Warburton. Considerable warrant, indeed, if not conclusive proof, is furnished for this latter explanation by Richardson's own remarks on the Preface in a note prefixed to the third edition of Clarissa a text not considered by Miss Hughes:

Ibid. pp. 7-8. Knapton was to be the principal publisher of the edition. See above, p. 18, n. 1. 2 Ibid. p. 3 Ibid. p. 24.

16.

It was advertised as 'This Day was published' in the St James's Evening Post for June 13-15, 1749.

5 He seems to have had a habit of adapting old work to new occasions. See Mod. Phil. XVI, 497, n. 4.

The work having been originally published at three different times; and a greater distance than was intended having passed between the first publication and the second; a Preface was thought proper to be affixed to the third and fourth Volumes; being the second publication. A very learned and eminent Hand was so kind as to favour the Editor, at his request, with one. But the occasion of inserting it being temporary, and the Editor having been left at liberty to do with it as he pleased, it was omitted in the Second Edition, when the whole work came to be printed together1.

If we cannot accept this statement as a thoroughly satisfactory explanation of the omission of the Preface, we must at least conclude that the incident was not necessarily connected with the feud between Warburton and Richardson, however much this feud may have influenced Warburton in his subsequent use of the Preface. Fortunately the question is not of the first importance.

A somewhat greater interest attaches to the history of the quarrel between the two men. On this point the facts and dates established above add materially to our knowledge. It may well have been, of course, that Warburton's substitution of Fielding's name for Richardson's in his revision of the Preface had other motives besides animosity to Richardson. We know that he was under special obligations to Fielding for compliments paid him not only in the Miscellanies of 1743 but, more recently, in Tom Jones (published in February 1749)2. All due allowances made, however, for this possibility, the elimination of Richardson in favour of the 'lewd and ungenerous' Fielding in a text originally written at the request of the former could hardly have been other than a studied insult. As such, it has a twofold value for our investigation. In the first place, better than any document printed by Miss Hughes it reveals the strength of Warburton's resentment towards Richardson; and, in the second place, it fixes the explosion of this resentment at a date earlier by over three years than that of the earliest episode of the kind which she has discovered3.

Finally, whatever may have been the personal motives involved in the revision of the Preface to Clarissa, the successive appearance in the same text and in the same relation to the earlier development of realistic fiction, of the names of Richardson and Fielding, illuminates in an unexpected way the conception of these two novelists prevalent in their lifetime. A recent French study has questioned the legitimacy of attributing to the reading public of the mid-eighteenth century a perception of those

1 Quoted by Macaulay, pp. 466-67.

2 See W. L. Cross, The History of Henry Fielding, New Haven, 1918, 1, 400, г, 127. 3 That contained in the letter from Richardson to Edwards of April 21, 1753 (see Miss Hughes's article, pp. 48-49). The excuse mentioned in this letter for Warburton's enmity -the fact that in the fourth edition of Clarissa Richardson had reflected upon Pope-does not of course preclude earlier and more fundamental grounds for displeasure.

sharp antitheses between the authors of Clarissa and of Tom Jones which have been so dear to later critics'. For contemporary readers like Sarah Fielding, Lady Bradshaigh, or Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, the two men were rivals indeed, but rivals 'sur le même terrain.' 'A n'en point douter, les admirateurs de Richardson et ceux de Fielding ne formaient point deux camps séparés et adverses'.' The case of Warburton brings fresh support to this hypothesis. He had reasons of his own, it is true, for transferring his allegiance from Richardson to Fielding. But it is surely significant that he effected the transfer without any sense of incongruity and with but a minimum revision of the views he had expressed in the days of his earlier loyalty.

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS, U.S.A.

RONALD S. CRANE.

1 Aurélien Digeon, 'Autour de Fielding,' Revue germanique, XI (1920), 209–14. 2 Ibid. pp. 213, 214.

TRISTRAM AND THE HOUSE OF ANJOU.

PROFESSOR G. L. HAMILTON in a recent number of this Review (vol. xv, p. 425) has written a characteristically learned and illuminating study of early heraldry and its relations to romantic literature. He there challenges my suggestion, stated in an earlier number of the Review (vol. XIV, p. 38), that Thomas, the author of Tristan, attributed to his hero the device of a golden lion on a red field, and my inference that Thomas wrote under the patronage of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine or of Richard I. No one is more grateful than I for the fulness of Professor Hamilton's discussion, partly because the subject is one in which I am, though ignorant enough, interested; and partly because I find among the works to which he refers much that confirms my own rather than his view. The point for which I am contending might seem hardly worth prolonged discussion, were it not that it is an important part of the evidence which I here propose to assemble, showing the special interest which various scions of the royal House of Anjou manifested in the romantic history of Tristram.

In trying to establish the heraldic charge assigned by Thomas to Tristram, I had pointed out that whereas M. Bédier could cite but one derivative of Thomas, Gottfried von Strassburg, in favour of the boar, there were three derivatives of Thomas which agreed on a lion.

Professor Hamilton believes that Gottfried's evidence is to be rated very highly on this point because, he asserts, the boar is a cognizance so utterly unknown in German heraldry before the end of the thirteenth century that Gottfried would never have adopted it unless he had had the precedent of Thomas. 'Down to the end of the twelfth century, at least, the boar does not appear as armorial bearings, nor is it mentioned as such in French epics and German courtly poetry of the next two centuries'.' This statement will not bear examination. Seyler, to whom Professor Hamilton refers, shows that in the twelfth century already the boar was familiar in Germany, if not as a heraldic blazon, at least as a personal badge. The Kaiserchronik (ca. 1140) says of Titus: Er vuort ainen gruonen van; Mit golde was geworht dar an Ain eber wilde' (11. 5263-65). Again the Rolandslied of Pfaffe Konrad (ca. 1150) says,

1 M.L.R. xv, p. 427.