



Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Stephanie Eason,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net.










THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY


  SAMUEL RICHARDSON,
  _CLARISSA:_
  Preface, Hints of Prefaces,
  and Postscript.


  _Introduction_
  BY
  R. F. BRISSENDEN.


  PUBLICATION NUMBER 103
  WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
  UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
  1964



GENERAL EDITORS

  Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_
  Earl R. Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_
  Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_
  Lawrence Clark Powell, _Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library_


ADVISORY EDITORS

  John Butt, _University of Edinburgh_
  James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_
  Ralph Cohen, _University of California, Los Angeles_
  Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
  Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
  Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
  Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_
  Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_
  James Sutherland, _University College, London_
  H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_


CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, _Clark Memorial Library_




INTRODUCTION


The seven volumes of the first edition of _Clarissa_ were published in
three instalments during the twelve months from December 1747 to
December 1748. Richardson wrote a Preface for Volume I and a Postscript
for Volume VII, and William Warburton supplied an additional Preface for
Volume III (or IV).[1] A second edition, consisting merely of a reprint
of Volumes I-IV was brought out in 1749. In 1751 a third edition of
eight volumes in duodecimo and a fourth edition of seven volumes in
octavo were published simultaneously.

For the third and fourth editions the author revised the text of the
novel, rewrote his own Preface and Postscript, substantially expanding
the latter, and dropped the Preface written by Warburton. The additions
to the Postscript, like the letters and passages'restored' to the novel
itself, are distinguished in the new editions by points in the margin.

The revised Preface and Postscript, which in the following pages are
reproduced from the fourth edition, constitute the most extensive and
fully elaborated statement of a theory of fiction ever published by
Richardson. The Preface and concluding Note to _Sir Charles Grandison_
are, by comparison, brief and restricted in their application; while the
introductory material in _Pamela_ is, so far as critical theory is
concerned, slight and incoherent.

The _Hints of Prefaces for Clarissa_, a transcript of which is also
included in this publication, is an equally important and in some ways
an even more interesting document. It appears to have been put together
by Richardson while he was revising the Preface and Postscript to the
first edition. Certain sections of it are preliminary drafts of some of
the new material incorporated in the revised Postscript. Large portions
of _Hints of Prefaces_, however, were not used then and have never
previously appeared in print. Among these are two critical assessments
of the novel by Philip Skelton and Joseph Spence; and a number of
observations--some merely jottings--by Richardson himself on the
structure of the novel and the virtues of the epistolary style. The
statements of Skelton and Spence are unusual amongst contemporary
discussions of _Clarissa_ for their brevity, lucidity, and sustained
critical relevance. Richardson's own comments, though disorganized and
fragmentary, show that he was attempting to develop a theory of the
epistolary novel as essentially dramatic, psychologically realistic, and
inherently superior to 'the dry Narrative',[2] particularly as
exemplified in the novels of Henry Fielding.

It is impossible to determine how much of _Hints of Prefaces_ or of the
published Preface and Postscript is Richardson's own work. All were to
some extent the result of collaborative effort, and Richardson did not
always distinguish clearly between what he had written and what had been
supplied by other people.[3] The concluding paragraph of the Postscript,
for example, appears in the first edition to be the work of Richardson
himself, although in the revised version he indicates that it was
composed by someone else. In this instance due acknowledgment may have
been easy; but in many other places it may have been extraordinarily
difficult for the author/editor to disentangle his own words and ideas
from those of his friends.

In preparing the Preface and Postscript Richardson was faced with a
genuine problem. He realised that his achievement in _Clarissa_ was of
sufficient magnitude and novelty to demand some theoretical defence and
explanation. But he realised also that he was himself inadequate to the
task. 'The very great Advantage of an Academical Education, I have
wanted,'[4] he confessed to Mr. D. Graham of King's College. He lacked
that familiarity with literature and with the conventions of literary
criticism which would have made it easy for him to produce the analysis
of his novel which he felt was needed. No wonder he told Graham that 'of
all the Species of Writing, I love not Preface-Writing;'[5] and it is
not surprising that, both before and after the publication of
_Clarissa_, he should have besieged his friends with requests for their
opinions of the novel.

In making these requests he was not simply seeking flattery. What he
needed were sympathetic critics who could clothe in acceptable language
statements which he would recognise as expressing the truth about his
masterpiece. _Hints of Prefaces_, especially if read in the context of
the numerous replies Richardson received, reveals very plainly the
extent to which he was aware of what he wanted from his correspondents.
Most, unfortunately, were sadly incapable of producing a _critical_
account of the novel. In this company Skelton and Spence were brilliant
exceptions; and Richardson's adoption of their statements, apparently to
the exclusion of all others, indicates the soundness of his own critical
intuitions. Equally interesting is his treatment of Warburton's Preface.
Although he did not reprint this in the third and fourth editions, one
paragraph from it is preserved in _Hints of Prefaces_.[6] Significantly,
it is the only paragraph in Warburton's essay which has something to say
about the distinctive qualities of _Clarissa_.

In formulating all these critical statements Richardson is concerned
less with developing a theory of fiction for its own sake than with
justifying his action in writing a novel. His main defence, of course,
is that _Clarissa_ is morally valuable. The reader who expects it to be
a'mere _Novel_ or _Romance_'[7] will be disappointed; and, as 'in all
