From Fiction to the Novel (review)

Abstract

Reviews Geoffrey Day. From Fiction to the Novel. London and New York: Routledge, 1987. vii + 223pp. US$45.00. Geoffrey Day thinks eighteenth-century fiction is underappreciated because it is misread. He thinks that much of the misreading results from the application of nineteenth and twentieth-century templates for "the novel"; that is, eighteenth-century novels are judged by standards formulated by subsequent critics for more recent novels. The necessary corrective for Day is to return to the words of the practitioners of eighteenth-century fiction and criticism: for example, "Fielding provided a clear statement of the nature of his work. Unfortunately much contemporary and modem criticism, in attempts to categorize and rationalize, has chosen to ignore the signpost" (p. 21). Day's study surveys the major issues confronted by eighteenth-century critics of prose fiction: fable versus romance; history versus fiction; instruction versus veracity; the moral function of fiction; instruction versus pleasure; the importance of probability. Unusually generous quotations (twenty-four pages from James Beattie's "On Fable and Romance" to note the extreme) illustrate accounts of the major positions organized chronologically and by issue, providing a useful outline of eighteenth-century criticism of fiction from Congreve to Barbauld. As the above quotation indicates, Day assumes that eighteenth-century pronouncements are largely self-explanatory, to be taken at face value. Occasionally he is forced to acknowledge that there are problems with his approach: "One difficulty with Defoe is deciding in what spirit to take some of his editorial assertions" (p. 1 14). The discussion that follows demonstrates that Defoe's texts are problematic, but it fails to force Day to challenge his faith in the transparency of the criticism he is presenting. And since he has refused to consider (consciously) any but eighteenth-century theories of fiction, he is unable even to attempt to resolve those problems he finds. Much of the strength of Day's study lies with its presentation of opposing positions that effectively highlight the many contentious issues for eighteenth-century critics of fiction. The most extensive treatment is given to the familiar debates between Richardson and Fielding and their respective followers, a focus that allows Day to bring together EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION, Volume 3, Number 1, October 1990 78 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION 3:1 a number of issues in a single context. It also most clearly reveals the impossibility of neutrality. Day relates how Richard Cumberland defended Fielding by showing the negative effect of Clarissa on young women; he offers the extreme example of a young lady who insisted on emulating Clarissa by having her coffin in her bedroom. Day then presents Anna Seward's response, that it is unfair to judge a work by its effect on a single "romantic delirious fool." She supports her argument by pointing to similar effects the Bible has had on those who go to abnormal extremes in imitation of Christ. For Day, Seward displays the lack of a sense of humour typical of Richardsonians: her argument is dismissed as a confused over-reaction. I find Seward's argument appropriate and logical as an answer to Cumberland; I even find her humorous irony of a kind with Cumberland's in its presentation. Day clearly prefers Cumberland's view; he probably prefers Fielding to Richardson. Such preferences cannot be removed from a study of this kind, but they are at odds with Day's assumption of neutrality, and, as a result, weaken the credibility of his argument. The most curious problem with Day's study is one of intended audience. His publisher emphasizes his call for a "radical revision" of the "perception of 'an eighteenth century novel'" (p. 162). The dust-jacket describes the book as "an iconoclastic, learned and lively book, which gently but precisely undermines a basic category of modern literary understanding." The question is "Whose understanding?" It will come as no surprise to readers of Eighteenth-Century Fiction that eighteenth-century theories of prose fiction are varied and that they are not based on twentieth-century assumptions. Day is clearly well read in eighteenth-century criticism; his notes suggest that he is unaware of twentiethcentury discussions of the material he covers. His tone is one of fresh...