
348 . ‘ Titles of Modern Novels. 
mora! works of Fielding, and Richardfon, 
and Moore, and Burney, &c. &c. and 
wretched performances, which difgrace 
our public libraries, under the fame gene- 
ral denomination of novels? — ; 
Thofe who are not guided merely by 
names, judge for themfelves of the merit of 
a book, whether it be called a novel, a hif- 
tory, or a fermon; but there are many 
who think it virtuous to abftain from 
novel-reading. No matter how much 
good fenfe, wit, reafoning, or morality, 
2 work may claim which bears this pro- 
fcribed title, and who repeat, with telf- 
complacent emphafis, ‘ Pacsee read no- 
vels—I dare fay the book may have a 
vaft deal of meric ; bur it’s a novel, and I 
make it arule never to read novels.” — 
With the fame fagacious antipathy, they 
confider the whole race of zovel-writers. 
If you were to afk one of thefe liberal 
critics, whether they did not think Dr. 
Moore a fine writer ? they would proba- 
bly anfwer your queftion by another 
queftion: Is not he a novel-writer ? 
Thofe who know how far it is in the 
power of the weak to work upon the 
ftrongeft minds, thofe who know hew 
much the felf-approbation of individuals 
is at the mercy of combined numbers, 
will not be furprifed, that this abfurd pre- 
judice has operated to deter men of fupe- 
rior abilities from this {pecies of writing, 
merely by the dread of an cpprobrious 
epithet. Women, who are far more 
dependent upon the opinion of others than 
men either are, or ought to be, have 
doubtlefs been fill more refirained from 
the exertion of their talents by this harth, 
indifcriminate prejudice againft the wri- 
ter of a novel. A woman who has fenfe 
_ enough to make a fair eftimate of her 
own interefts and happinefs, will be pru- 
dently inclined to facrifice the hope of 
fame, to avoid the poffibility of odium. 
- To obviate thefe difficulties, we matt 
evade, without attempting to conquer 
the prepoffeffons of thofe who will not, 
or who cannot, reafon. Inftead of weary- 
_ ing ourfelves with attempting to demon- 
firate to thofe who have the zovellphobia, 
that their antipathy is not rational, we 
had better change the name which ex- 
cites their horror. 
The ingenious critic, who had review- 
ed Camilla, in the Monthly Review for 
Cé&tober, 1796, hints at a claffification of 
novels into the humourous—the pathetic 
—-and the romantic. ‘There are. many 
mote varieties, and a few more diftiné 
fpecies ;—the hiftoric romance, in which 
there is a mixture of truth and fable, of 
[Nove 
novel and hiftory, is a diftinct fpecies- 
We need not, at prefent, inveftigate the 
merits of thefe compofitions; but we may 
remark that their ambiguous pretenfions 
feem to arife from fome taint hope, that, 
by their mixture of hiftorical names and 
faéts, they may efcape the ignominy of 
being claffed amongft mere novels. 
The tobgeblin-vemance, is a name, 
which might,perhaps, properly diftinguifh 
thofe terrible ftorices with which the pub- 
lic have lately been entertained, where we 
have forcerers, and magical delufions, and 
fkeletons, and apparitions of all forts and - 
fizes, and midnight voices, and petits /a- 
dons, and echoing footfieps, and haunted 
caftles, and long paflages, that lead to 
nothing. The innumerable imitations of 
writers of genius, who have fucceeded in 
the terrible, are fair game for ridicule; but | 
we do not mean to exclude fome German 
romances—the fragment of Sir Bertram, 
was, perhaps, in England the firft and 
beft in this ftyle—fome parts of Mrs. 
Radcliffe’s romances, and the late ro- 
mance called the ** Monk,” which fiands 
high upon this lift. 
We only hope that the high ftimulus 
of terror may not be ufed fo much as to 
exhauft the fenfibility of the public mind ; 
and that this ‘fecond childithnefs” of 
tafte will no longer be indulged by wri- 
ters of fuperior talents, who would pro- 
bably excel in a much higher ftyle of com- 
pofition. y 
_ The higheft fpecies of romance is 
furely that: which, at once, exhibits juft 
views of human nature and of real life, 
which mingles reafoning and philotophy, 
with ftrokes of humour, that play upon. 
the fancy, and with pathos, which. 
touches the heart. Who can with-hold 
applaufe from Zeluco, which - Gibbon 
juftly calls, ‘ the ffi philofophical romance 
of the prefent age?” 
Marianne is diftinétly a philofophical 
romance : Cervantes and le Sage have 
mixed fuch a predominant portion of hu- 
mour with their philofophy, that it is 
concealed from fuperficial obfervers ; and 
though Gil Blas and Don rs Se may 
with juftice be ranked amongft philofo- 
phical romances, the general voice would — 
perhaps clafs them with the humourous. — 
Clariffa and Grandifon, though Ri- | 
chardfon has traced in them the human | 
paffions with the moft confummate {kill, | 
might belong, with propriety, either to 
the philofophical or to the pathetic clafs | 
of novels; but Fielding and Smollett, | 
would, at once, claim their places amongft | 
the humourous. Voltaire —Marmontel 
: —Crebillon | 
| 
