Journal　of　A　Voyage　to　Lisbon
  by　Henry　Fielding
  CONTENTS
  INTRODUCTION　TO　SEVERAL　WORKS
  PREFACE
  DEDICATION　TO　THE　PUBLIC
  INTRODUCTION　TO　THE　VOYAGE　TO　LISBON
  THE　VOYAGE
  INTRODUCTION　TO　SEVERAL　WORKS
  When　it　was　determined　to　extend　the　present　edition　of　Fielding；
  not　merely　by　the　addition　of　Jonathan　Wild　to　the　three
  universally　popular　novels；　but　by　two　volumes　of　Miscellanies；
  there　could　be　no　doubt　about　at　least　one　of　the　contents　of
  these　latter。　　　The　Journal　of　a　Voyage　to　Lisbon；　if　it　does　not
  rank　in　my　estimation　anywhere　near　to　Jonathan　Wild　as　an
  example　of　our　author's　genius；　is　an　invaluable　and　delightful
  document　for　his　character　and　memory。　　It　is　indeed；　as　has　been
  pointed　out　in　the　General　Introduction　to　this　series；　our　main
  source　of　indisputable　information　as　to　Fielding　dans　son
  naturel；　and　its　value；　so　far　as　it　goes；　is　of　the　very
  highest。　　　The　gentle　and　unaffected　stoicism　which　the　author
  displays　under　a　disease　which　he　knew　well　was　probably；　if　not
  certainly；　mortal；　and　which；　whether　mortal　or　not；　must　cause
  him　much　actual　pain　and　discomfort　of　a　kind　more　intolerable
  than　pain　itself；　his　affectionate　care　for　his　family；　even
  little　personal　touches；　less　admirable；　but　hardly　less　pleasant
  than　these；　showing　an　Englishman's　dislike　to　be　〃done〃　and　an
  Englishman's　determination　to　be　treated　with　proper　respect；　are
  scarcely　less　noticeable　and　important　on　the　biographical　side
  than　the　unimpaired　brilliancy　of　his　satiric　and　yet　kindly
  observation　of　life　and　character　is　on　the　side　of　literature。
  There　is；　as　is　now　well　known　since　Mr。　Dobson's　separate
  edition　of　the　Voyage；　a　little　bibliographical　problem　about　the
  first　appearance　of　this　Journal　in　1755。　　The　best　known　issue
  of　that　year　is　much　shorter　than　the　version　inserted　by　Murphy
  and　reprinted　here；　the　passages　omitted　being　chiefly　those
  reflecting　on　the　captain；　etc。；　and　so　likely　to　seem　invidious
  in　a　book　published　just　after　the　author's　death；　and　for　the
  benefit；　as　was　expressly　announced；　of　his　family。　　But　the
  curious　thing　is　that　there　is　ANOTHER　edition；　of　date　so　early
  that　some　argument　is　necessary　to　determine　the　priority；　which
  does　give　these　passages　and　is　identical　with　the　later　or
  standard　version。　　For　satisfaction　on　this　point；　however；　I
  must　refer　readers　to　Mr。　Dobson　himself。
  There　might　have　been　a　little；　but　not　much；　doubt　as　to　a
  companion　piece　for　the　Journal；　for　indeed；　after　we　close　this
  （with　or　without　its　〃Fragment　on　Bolingbroke〃）；　the　remainder　of
  Fielding's　work　lies　on　a　distinctly　lower　level　of　interest。　　It
  is　still　interesting；　or　it　would　not　be　given　here。　　It　still
  hasat　least　that　part　which　here　appears　seems　to　its　editor　to
  haveinterest　intrinsic　and　〃simple　of　itself。〃　　But　it　is
  impossible　for　anybody　who　speaks　critically　to　deny　that　we　now
  get　into　the　region　where　work　is　more　interesting　because　of　its
  authorship　than　it　would　be　if　its　authorship　were　different　or
  unknown。　　To　put　the　same　thing　in　a　sharper　antithesis；　Fielding
  is　interesting；　first　of　all；　because　he　is　the　author　of　Joseph
  Andrews；　of　Tom　Jones；　of　Amelia；　of　Jonathan　Wild；　of　the
  Journal。　　His　plays；　his　essays；　his　miscellanies　generally　are
  interesting；　first　of　all；　because　they　were　written　by　Fielding。
  Yet　of　these　works；　the　Journey　from　this　World　to　the　Next
  （which；　by　a　grim　trick　of　fortune；　might　have　served　as　a　title
  for　the　more　interesting　Voyage　with　which　we　have　yoked　it）
  stands　clearly　first　both　in　scale　and　merit。　　It　is　indeed　very
  unequal；　and　as　the　author　was　to　leave　it　unfinished；　it　is　a
  pity　that　he　did　not　leave　it　unfinished　much　sooner　than　he
  actually　did。　　The　first　ten　chapters；　if　of　a　kind　of　satire
  which　has　now　grown　rather　obsolete　for　the　nonce；　are　of　a　good
  kind　and　good　in　their　kind；　the　history　of　the　metempsychoses　of
  Julian　is　of　a　less　good　kind；　and　less　good　in　that　kind。　　The
  date　of　composition　of　the　piece　is　not　known；　but　it　appeared　in
  the　Miscellanies　of　1743；　and　may　represent　almost　any　period　of
  its　author's　development　prior　to　that　year。　　Its　form　was　a　very
  common　form　at　the　time；　and　continued　to　be　so。　　I　do　not　know
  that　it　is　necessary　to　assign　any　very　special　origin　to　it；
  though　Lucian；　its　chief　practitioner；　was　evidently　and　almost
  avowedly　a　favorite　study　of　Fielding's。　　The　Spanish　romancers；
  whether　borrowing　it　from　Lucian　or　not；　had　been　fond　of　it；
  their　French　followers；　of　whom　the　chief　were　Fontenelle　and　Le
  Sage；　had　carried　it　northwards；　the　English　essayists　had　almost
  from　the　beginning　continued　the　process　of　acclimatization。
  Fielding　therefore　found　it　ready　to　his　hand；　though　the　present
  condition　of　this　example　would　lead　us　to　suppose　that　he　did
  not　find　his　hand　quite　ready　to　it。　　Still；　in　the　actual
  〃journey；〃　there　are　touches　enough　of　the　masternot　yet　quite
  in　his　stage　of　mastery。　　It　seemed　particularly　desirable　not　to
  close　the　series　without　some　representation　of　the　work　to　which
  Fielding　gave　the　prime　of　his　manhood；　and　from　which；　had　he
  not；　fortunately　for　English　literature；　been　driven　decidedly
  against　his　will；　we　had　had　in　all　probability　no　Joseph
  Andrews；　and　pretty　certainly　no　Tom　Jones。　　Fielding's
  periodical　and　dramatic　work　has　been　comparatively　seldom
  reprinted；　and　has　never　yet　been　reprinted　as　a　whole。　　The
  dramas　indeed　are　open　to　two　objectionsthe　first；　that　they
  are　not　very　〃proper；〃　the　second；　and　much　more　serious；　that
  they　do　not　redeem　this　want　of　propriety　by　the　possession　of
  any　remarkable　literary　merit。　　Three　（or　two　and　part　of　a
  third）　seemed　to　escape　this　double　censurethe　first　two　acts
  of　the　Author's　Farce　（practically　a　piece　to　themselves；　for　the
  Puppet　Show　which　follows　is　almost　entirely　independent）；　the
  famous　burlesque　of　Tom　Thumb；　which　stands　between　the　Rehearsal
  and　the　Critic；　but　nearer　to　the　former；　and　Pasquin；　the
  maturest　example　of　Fielding's　satiric　work　in　drama。　　These
  accordingly　have　been　selected；　the　rest　I　have　read；　and　he　who
  likes　may　read。　　I　have　read　many　worse　things　than　even　the
  worst　of　them；　but　not　often　worse　things　by　so　good　a　writer　as
  Henry　Fielding。　　The　next　question　concerned　the　selection　of
  writings　more　miscellaneous　still；　so　as　to　give　in　little　a
  complete　idea　of　Fielding's　various　powers　and　experiments。　　Two
  difficulties　beset　this　part　of　the　taskwant　of　space　and　the
  absence　of　anything　so　markedly　good　as　absolutely　to　insist　on
  inclusion。　　The　Essay　on　Conversation；　however；　seemed　pretty
  peremptorily　to　challenge　a　place。　　It　is　in　a　style　which
  Fielding　was　very　slow　to　abandon；　which　indeed　has　left　strong
  traces　even　on　his　great　novels；　and　if　its　mannerism　is　not　now
  very　attractive；　the　separate　traits　in　it　are　often　sharp　and
  well…drawn。　　The　book　would　not　have　been　complete　without　a
  specimen　or　two　of　Fielding's　journalism。　　The　Champion；　his
  first　attempt　of　this　kind；　has　not　been　drawn　upon　in
  consequence　of　the　extreme　difficulty　of　fixing　with　absolute
  certainty　on　Fielding's　part　in　it。　　I　do　not　know　whether
  political　prejudice　interferes；　more　than　I　have　usually　found　it
  interfere；　with　my　judgment　of　the　two　Hanoverian…partisan　papers
  of　the　'45　time。　　But　they　certainly　seem　to　me　to　fail　in
  redeeming　their　dose　of　rancor　and　misrepresentation　by　any
  sufficient　evidence　of　genius　such　as；　to　my　taste；　saves　not
  only　the　party　journalism　in　verse　and　prose　of　Swift　and　Canning
  and　Praed　on　one　side；　but　that　of　Wolcot　and　Moore　and　Sydney
  Smith　on　the　other。　　Even　the　often…quoted　journal　of　events　in
  London　under　the　Chevalier　is　overwrought　and　tedious。　　The　best
  thing　in　the　True　Patriot　seems　to　me　to　be　Parson　Adams'　letter
  describing　his　adventure　with　a　young　〃bowe〃　of　his　day；　and　this
  I　select；　together　with　one　or　two　numbers　of　the　Covent　Garden
  Journal。　　I　have　not　found　in　this　latter　anything　more
  characteristic　than　Murphy's　selection；　though　Mr。　Dobson；　with
  his　unfailing　kindness；　lent　me　an　original　and　unusually
  complete　set　of　the　Journal　itself。
  It　is　to　the　same　kindness　that　I　owe　the　opportunity　of
  presenting　the　reader　with　something　indisputably　Fielding's　and
  very　characteristic　of　him；　which　Murphy　did　not　print；　and　which
  has　not；　so　far　as　I　know；　ever　appeared　either　in　a　collection
  or　a　selection　of　Fielding's　work。　　After　the　success　of　David
  Simple；　Fielding　gave　his　sister；　for　whom　he　had　already　written
  a　preface　to　that　novel；　another　preface　for　a　set　of　Familiar
  Letters　between　the　characters　of　David　Simple　and　others。　　This
  preface　Murphy　reprinted；　but　he　either　did　not　notice；　or　did
  not　choose　to　attend　to；　a　note　towards　the　end　of　the　book
  attributing　certain　of　the