¹ The plays have been examined by recent writers on Fielding and some attempt made to correlate them with the novels. These attempts, notably by Cross, Digeon, Banerji, and Van der Voorde, need to be supplemented by attention to such matters as characterization and by a concern with the growth in attitude. Certainly underlying values in the plays are obscured by the remarkably inadequate treatment of Fielding as a dramatist by Allardyce Nicoll in XVIII Century Drama.

² Fielding's interest in Addison is evident from the list of books in his library, see Thornbury, Henry Fielding's Theory of the Comic Prose Epic (1931), pp. 170 ff. He owned Miscellaneous Works (ed. 1746) in four volumes, Freeholder (ed. 1744), Spectator (ed. 1749), Tatler (ed. 1749), Guardian (ed. 1745). There is the evidence, furthermore, of his constant reference to Addison. The unquestioned use of Addison's Upholsterer in the Coffee House Politician (1730) points to an intimate knowledge of Addison at this time.

³ There is an interesting parallel between this statement of Steele's and Chesterfield's: “That the deepest learning, without good-breeding, is unwelcome and tiresome pedantry, and of use nowhere but in a man's own closet—and, consequently, of little or no use at all.” (Letters and Other Pieces [1935] ed., Richmond P. Bond, p. 120.)

⁴ Aurelien Digeon, The Novels of Fielding (1924), p. 7. The suggested possibility of a Molière influence may be admitted, though in this instance it hardly seems likely, in light of the patent English source. Digeon's analysis does not give a true picture of the importance of the various characters of the play.

⁵ The sources of the Ruling Passion idea seem to be the Greek idea of the golden mean as expressed by Aristotle, the Latin concept of the balanced individual derived from the Greek and expressed by Horace, and lastly the native humour tradition.

⁶ See, for example, his “An Essay on the Knowledge of the Characters of Men” in the Miscellanies.

⁷ As a dramatist already thoroughly steeped in seventh century comedy, Fielding was familiar with the humours. And, though he was undoubtedly influenced by the technique, both in characterization and plot, of the comedy of manners, the conception of the humours as a satiric symbol had been so confused as to make difficult the application without the considerable thought Fielding later gave to it. The confusion arose because humour was used in the Jonsonian sense and in the sense of wit. See Congreve's letter to Dennis, “Concerning Humour in Comedy” (July 10, 1695).