NOVEL. 2G9 
(rente and exquifite fenfibility, a romantic and vifionary 
turn of mind, and genius of the higheft order and pureft 
nature. In bis Heloife, there are, no doubt, confiderable 
faults: in what Rondeau intended for the phiiofophical 
parts there is much fophiftry, and not unfrequently a te¬ 
dious and obfcure weaknefs of argument. The ftyle of 
the letters, alfo, is not fufficiently varied in the lefs im- 
paflioned parts: he did not, indeed, fucceed nearly fo well 
in the difplay of calm reafoning, as of feeling and impaf- 
fioned charafter. But, with all thefe deduftions from its 
merit, the Heloife muft'be ranked among the moll fuc- 
cefsful and fplendid creations of human genius; and 
there arepaffages in it, which, for powerof eloquence, for 
refinement and tendernefs of fentiment, for ardour of 
paffion, and for exquifite delineation of charafter, can¬ 
not be paralleled in any other writer. The circurn- 
flances which gave rife to this moll extraordinary work 
are detailed by RoufTeau in his Memoirs; and, as they are 
extremely interefting, from the difplay which they exhi¬ 
bit of the workings of his imagination, and the extreme 
and morbid fenfibility of his feelings, we (hall briefly de¬ 
tail them. Tired of Paris, he withdrew to a fmall coun- 
try-houfe near it; where he fnut himfelf completely up 
from all vifitors, indulging his tafte for folitude and vi- 
iionary enjoyments. Here he defcribes himfelf as having 
been feized with the moll violent propenfity to love; but, 
as his age and fituation precluded him from having a real 
miftrefs, he created an imaginary one, whom he adorned 
with every charm that a flowing and moll creative fancy 
could fupply. At length, he commenced a correfpondence 
with his imaginary millrefs; and the letters, thus written, 
pleafed him fo much, that he determined to publifn them. 
As, however, the fentiments which they exprefled, and 
the feelings which they difplayed, were very oppofite to 
the fevere and (lern maxims which he had formerly incul¬ 
cated, he was, at firll, at a lofs for a junification of his 
conduft in publifhing them. Here again his imagina¬ 
tion, and his difpofition to fophiftry, came to his aid : he 
perluaded himfelf that the times were fuch, that the He¬ 
loife would be more lifeful than works conducted with a 
drifter regard to morality. He did not conceal from him¬ 
felf the objeftions that might be made to it, nor the ef- 
fefts that it might produce; but he urges, that the dis¬ 
order of which it prefents an example, was lefs dangerous 
and criminal than that which had become common in 
France: as, therefore, hedefpaired of freeing human na¬ 
ture from vice, he refolved to content himfelf with fub- 
flituting one fpecies of crime for another. He argues 
too, that in the generality of fiftitious writings the ftand- 
ard for imitation had been railed too high; that it thus 
created defpair, not emulation ; but that, in his Heloife, 
human nature is exhibited only with that degree of per- 
feftion which all may attain to, while the nature of the 
perfeftion, and the circumltances under which the cha- 
rafters are exhibited, will naturally inlpire a vvilh to imi¬ 
tate them. 
We think, however, that the French novels rather de- 
ferve the name of romances ; and that the novel properly 
fo called, the darhejlic novel, is of Englifh growth. Of 
this opinion was a very entertaining French writer of the 
lall century, baron Grimm, who appears to have bellowed 
great attention on the literature of England. Among 
our lighter works, he ranks the dorneftic novel as a fpe¬ 
cies of romance unknown to our rivals; and, after having 
noticed the better productions of Fielding, he makes thefe 
reflections : “ It feems at firll fight furpriling that the 
French, who have given birth to lo many good romances, 
are poffefled of none which paint their dorneftic manners: 
but, on reflection, we lhall difcover that, if they have no 
pictures of this kind, it is not for want of artilts, but 
for want of originals. When an author has painted our 
beaux and belles, he has nearly exhaufted the pallette, 
and pourtrayed every national feature that it is poftible to 
introduce into a French romance. Such are the works 
VOL. XVII. No. 1176, 
of the younger Crebillon, which might properly be ftyled 
the dorneftic romances of the nation. The romances 
written in the ftyle of the abbe Prevot, are of a different 
clafs ; I Ihould compare them to tragedy, which is nearly 
the fame among all people, becaufe the grand paftions be¬ 
long direftiy to human nature, and have in all countries 
the fame fecret fprings of aftion : but comedy and dotnef- 
tic romances mud neceiTarily be different among different 
people, becaufe they belong to the manners and particu¬ 
lar charafter of patrons, which have no refemblance with 
each other. It might perhaps be correftly faid, that the 
French have had no dorneftic romances, and no comedy, 
lince the time of Moliere, becaufe they have no manners; 
and that they have no charaCteriftic manners, becaufe 
none but a free nation can have thefe diltinftions. How 
many tribes of different characters were compriled in that 
little country called Greece ? What can be more forcibly 
contrafted than an Athenian, a Spartan, a Theban, or 
a Macedonian ? Yet all thefe people inhabited the fame 
climate : but liberty, and their laws, of which it was the 
bafis, not only diftinguifhed them from one another, but 
brought into notice the charafter of each individual. 
They knew no conftraint in fociety ; men dared to be 
themfelves, and drove not to be like all the world, as the 
law of decorum enjoins the nation that has enafted it. 
Hence, in a circle of fifteen perfons, we are fcarcely able 
to diftinguifh in three hours the fool from the man of 
fenfe. All the Parifian world (peaks on the fame fubjefts 
nearly in the fame jargon : we have all a family refem¬ 
blance, that is to fay, we refembie nothing ; and hence 
we (hall never polfefs dorneftic romances. The Englifh, 
on the contrary, have fecured to every individual, toge¬ 
ther with his liberty, the privilege of being fuch as na¬ 
ture formed him ; impofing on him no necelfity of con¬ 
cealing opinions, prejudices, or peculiarities, attached to 
his profeftion ; and hence their dorneftic romances are fo 
agreeable, even to ftrangers, who have never had it in their 
power to become acquainted with Englifh manners : be¬ 
caufe, when the portrait is well reprefented, we feel its 
merit, its truth, and its refemblance, even though we 
have never met the original.” Correfpondence of Baron 
Grimm and of Diderot. 
In the works of Fielding and Smollet, the genuine cha¬ 
rafter of Englifh novel-writing appears in the mod dif- 
tinft and marked manner. As it is the objeft of the no- 
velifl to interell the heart, and to communicate inftruc- 
tion through the medium of pleafure, his work, like a 
tragedy or comedy, fhould be one, exhibiting a hero or 
heroine, whole fuccefs every incident fhould contribute 
to forward or to retard. In this refpeft no work of fancy 
has ever furpafled the Tom Jones of Fielding. It is con- 
ftrufted upon principles of the founded criticifm, and 
contains not a Angle event which does not in fome way 
contribute towards the winding-up of the piece. A liv¬ 
ing author, deeply read in Grecian literature, and far 
from being prejudiced in behalf of any modern, has been 
heard to fay, that, had Ariftotle feen Tom Jones, he would 
have pronounced it a poem perfeft in its kind. 
If we were to compare the mod popular novels of 
Smollet with thofe of Fielding, we fhould be difpofed to 
afcribethe higheft degree of excellence in this fpecies of 
writing to the latter. In Roderick Random and Peregrine 
Pickle, manners, rather than charafter, are depifted ; and, 
in the difplay of them, the acutenefsof the author’s ob- 
fervation is much more remarkable than its extent and 
variety. The humour of Smollet is dill coarfer than 
that of Fielding, and his objeftionable fcenes are brought 
forward with more groflhefs ; while there is none of that 
refined generality, and thofe juft fentiments, at lead of 
moral conduft, with which Fielding in veils his heroes. 
On the other hand, the novels of Smollet, particularly 
Roderick Random, are more full of inftruftive know¬ 
ledge of the world, and are written in a much more ani¬ 
mated, lively, and natural, ftyle. But it is in Humphry 
3 Z Clinker 
