# The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and his Friend, Mr. Abraham Abrams/Preface

AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
As it is possible the mere English reader may have a different idea of
romance from the author of these little[A] volumes, and may consequently
expect a kind of entertainment not to be found, nor which was even
intended, in the following pages, it may not be improper to premise a
few words concerning this kind of writing, which I do not remember to
have seen hitherto attempted in our language.
[A] _Joseph Andrews_ was originally published in 2 vols. duodecimo.
The EPIC, as well as the DRAMA, is divided into tragedy and comedy.
HOMER, who was the father of this species of poetry, gave us a pattern
of both these, though that of the latter kind is entirely lost; which
Aristotle tells us, bore the same relation to comedy which his Iliad
bears to tragedy. And perhaps, that we have no more instances of it
among the writers of antiquity, is owing to the loss of this great
pattern, which, had it survived, would have found its imitators equally
with the other poems of this great original.
And farther, as this poetry may be tragic or comic, I will not scruple
to say it may be likewise either in verse or prose: for though it wants
one particular, which the critic enumerates in the constituent parts of
an epic poem, namely metre; yet, when any kind of writing contains all
its other parts, such as fable, action, characters, sentiments, and
diction, and is deficient in metre only, it seems, I think, reasonable
to refer it to the epic; at least, as no critic hath thought proper to
range it under any other head, or to assign it a particular name
to itself.
Thus the Telemachus of the archbishop of Cambray appears to me of the
epic kind, as well as the Odyssey of Homer; indeed, it is much fairer
and more reasonable to give it a name common with that species from
which it differs only in a single instance, than to confound it with
those which it resembles in no other. Such are those voluminous works,
commonly called Romances, namely, Clelia, Cleopatra, Astraea, Cassandra,
the Grand Cyrus, and innumerable others, which contain, as I apprehend,
very little instruction or entertainment.
Now, a comic romance is a comic epic poem in prose; differing from
comedy, as the serious epic from tragedy: its action being more extended
and comprehensive; containing a much larger circle of incidents, and
introducing a greater variety of characters. It differs from the serious
romance in its fable and action, in this; that as in the one these are
grave and solemn, so in the other they are light and ridiculous: it
differs in its characters by introducing persons of inferior rank, and
consequently, of inferior manners, whereas the grave romance sets the
highest before us: lastly, in its sentiments and diction; by preserving
the ludicrous instead of the sublime. In the diction, I think,
burlesque itself may be sometimes admitted; of which many instances
will occur in this work, as in the description of the battles, and some
other places, not necessary to be pointed out to the classical reader,
for whose entertainment those parodies or burlesque imitations are
chiefly calculated.
But though we have sometimes admitted this in our diction, we have
carefully excluded it from our sentiments and characters; for there it
is never properly introduced, unless in writings of the burlesque kind,
which this is not intended to be. Indeed, no two species of writing can
differ more widely than the comic and the burlesque; for as the latter
is ever the exhibition of what is monstrous and unnatural, and where our
delight, if we examine it, arises from the surprizing absurdity, as in
appropriating the manners of the highest to the lowest, or _e converso_;
so in the former we should ever confine ourselves strictly to nature,
from the just imitation of which will flow all the pleasure we can this
way convey to a sensible reader. And perhaps there is one reason why a
comic writer should of all others be the least excused for deviating
from nature, since it may not be always so easy for a serious poet to
meet with the great and the admirable; but life everywhere furnishes an
accurate observer with the ridiculous.
I have hinted this little concerning burlesque, because I have often
heard that name given to performances which have been truly of the comic
kind, from the author's having sometimes admitted it in his diction
only; which, as it is the dress of poetry, doth, like the dress of men,
establish characters (the one of the whole poem, and the other of the
whole man), in vulgar opinion, beyond any of their greater excellences:
but surely, a certain drollery in stile, where characters and sentiments
are perfectly natural, no more constitutes the burlesque, than an empty
pomp and dignity of words, where everything else is mean and low, can
entitle any performance to the appellation of the true sublime.
And I apprehend my Lord Shaftesbury's opinion of mere burlesque agrees
with mine, when he asserts, There is no such thing to be found in the
writings of the ancients. But perhaps I have less abhorrence than he
professes for it; and that, not because I have had some little success
on the stage this way, but rather as it contributes more to exquisite
mirth and laughter than any other; and these are probably more wholesome
physic for the mind, and conduce better to purge away spleen,
melancholy, and ill affections, than is generally imagined. Nay, I will
appeal to common observation, whether the same companies are not found
more full of good-humour and benevolence, after they have been sweetened
for two or three hours with entertainments of this kind, than when
soured by a tragedy or a grave lecture.
But to illustrate all this by another science, in which, perhaps, we
shall see the distinction more clearly and plainly, let us examine the
works of a comic history painter, with those performances which the
Italians call Caricatura, where we shall find the true excellence of the
former to consist in the exactest copying of nature; insomuch that a
judicious eye instantly rejects anything _outre_, any liberty which the
painter hath taken with the features of that _alma mater_; whereas in
the Caricatura we allow all licence--its aim is to exhibit monsters,
not men; and all distortions and exaggerations whatever are within its
proper province.
Now, what Caricatura is in painting, Burlesque is in writing; and in the
same manner the comic writer and painter correlate to each other. And
here I shall observe, that, as in the former the painter seems to have
the advantage; so it is in the latter infinitely on the side of the
writer; for the Monstrous is much easier to paint than describe, and the
Ridiculous to describe than paint.
And though perhaps this latter species doth not in either science so
strongly affect and agitate the muscles as the other; yet it will be
owned, I believe, that a more rational and useful pleasure arises to us
from it. He who should call the ingenious Hogarth a burlesque painter,
would, in my opinion, do him very little honour; for sure it is much
easier, much less the subject of admiration, to paint a man with a nose,
or any other feature, of a preposterous size, or to expose him in some
absurd or monstrous attitude, than to express the affections of men on
canvas. It hath been thought a vast commendation of a painter to say his
figures seem to breathe; but surely it is a much greater and nobler
applause, that they appear to think.
But to return. The Ridiculous only, as I have before said, falls within
my province in the present work. Nor will some explanation of this word
be thought impertinent by the reader, if he considers how wonderfully it
hath been mistaken, even by writers who have professed it: for to what
but such a mistake can we attribute the many attempts to ridicule the
blackest villanies, and, what is yet worse, the most dreadful
calamities? What could exceed the absurdity of an author, who should
write the comedy of Nero, with the merry incident of ripping up his
mother's belly? or what would give a greater shock to humanity than an
attempt to expose the miseries of poverty and distress to ridicule? And
yet the reader will not want much learning to suggest such instances
to himself.
Besides, it may seem remarkable, that Aristotle, who is so fond and free
of definitions, hath not thought proper to define the Ridiculous.
Indeed, where he tells us it is proper to comedy, he hath remarked that
villany is not its object: but he hath not, as I remember, positively
asserted what is. Nor doth the Abbe Bellegarde, who hath written a
treatise on this subject, though he shows us many species of it, once
trace it to its fountain.
The only source of the true Ridiculous (as it appears to me) is
affectation. But though it arises from one spring only, when we consider
the infinite streams into which this one branches, we shall presently
cease to admire at the copious field it affords to an observer. Now,
affectation proceeds from one of these two causes, vanity or hypocrisy:
for as vanity puts us on affecting false characters, in order to
purchase applause; so hypocrisy sets us on an endeavour to avoid
censure, by concealing our vices under an appearance of their opposite
virtues. And though these two causes are often confounded (for there is
some difficulty in distinguishing them), yet, as they proceed from very
different motives, so they are as clearly distinct in their operations:
for indeed, the affectation which arises from vanity is nearer to truth
than the other, as it hath not that violent repugnancy of nature to
struggle with, which that of the hypocrite hath. It may be likewise
noted, that affectation doth not imply an absolute negation of those
qualities which are affected; and, therefore, though, when it proceeds
from hypocrisy, it be nearly allied to deceit; yet when it comes from
vanity only, it partakes of the nature of ostentation: for instance, the
affectation of liberality in a vain man differs visibly from the same
affectation in the avaricious; for though the vain man is not what he
would appear, or hath not the virtue he affects, to the degree he would
be thought to have it; yet it sits less awkwardly on him than on the
avaricious man, who is the very reverse of what he would seem to be.
From the discovery of this affectation arises the Ridiculous, which
always strikes the reader with surprize and pleasure; and that in a
higher and stronger degree when the affectation arises from hypocrisy,
than when from vanity; for to discover any one to be the exact reverse
of what he affects, is more surprizing, and consequently more
ridiculous, than to find him a little deficient in the quality he
desires the reputation of. I might observe that our Ben Jonson, who of
all men understood the Ridiculous the best, hath chiefly used the
hypocritical affectation.
Now, from affectation only, the misfortunes and calamities of life, or
the imperfections of nature, may become the objects of ridicule. Surely
he hath a very ill-framed mind who can look on ugliness, infirmity, or
poverty, as ridiculous in themselves: nor do I believe any man living,
who meets a dirty fellow riding through the streets in a cart, is
struck with an idea of the Ridiculous from it; but if he should see the
same figure descend from his coach and six, or bolt from his chair with
his hat under his arm, he would then begin to laugh, and with justice.
In the same manner, were we to enter a poor house and behold a wretched
family shivering with cold and languishing with hunger, it would not
incline us to laughter (at least we must have very diabolical natures if
it would); but should we discover there a grate, instead of coals,
adorned with flowers, empty plate or china dishes on the sideboard, or
any other affectation of riches and finery, either on their persons or
in their furniture, we might then indeed be excused for ridiculing so
fantastical an appearance. Much less are natural imperfections the
object of derision; but when ugliness aims at the applause of beauty, or
lameness endeavours to display agility, it is then that these
unfortunate circumstances, which at first moved our compassion, tend
only to raise our mirth.
The poet carries this very far:--
Where if the metre would suffer the word Ridiculous to close the first
line, the thought would be rather more proper. Great vices are the
proper objects of our detestation, smaller faults, of our pity; but
affectation appears to me the only true source of the Ridiculous.
But perhaps it may be objected to me, that I have against my own rules
introduced vices, and of a very black kind, into this work. To which I
shall answer: first, that it is very difficult to pursue a series of
human actions, and keep clear from them. Secondly, that the vices to be
found here are rather the accidental consequences of some human frailty
or foible, than causes habitually existing in the mind. Thirdly, that
they are never set forth as the objects of ridicule, but detestation.
Fourthly, that they are never the principal figure at that time on the
scene: and, lastly, they never produce the intended evil.
Having thus distinguished Joseph Andrews from the productions of romance
writers on the one hand and burlesque writers on the other, and given
some few very short hints (for I intended no more) of this species of
writing, which I have affirmed to be hitherto unattempted in our
language; I shall leave to my good-natured reader to apply my piece to
my observations, and will detain him no longer than with a word
concerning the characters in this work.
And here I solemnly protest I have no intention to vilify or asperse any
one; for though everything is copied from the book of nature, and scarce
a character or action produced which I have not taken from my I own
observations and experience; yet I have used the utmost care to obscure
the persons by such different circumstances, degrees, and colours, that
it will be impossible to guess at them with any degree of certainty; and
if it ever happens otherwise, it is only where the failure characterized
is so minute, that it is a foible only which the party himself may laugh
at as well as any other.
As to the character of Adams, as it is the most glaring in the whole, so
I conceive it is not to be found in any book now extant. It is designed
a character of perfect simplicity; and as the goodness of his heart
will recommend him to the good-natured, so I hope it will excuse me to
the gentlemen of his cloth; for whom, while they are worthy of their
sacred order, no man can possibly have a greater respect. They will
therefore excuse me, notwithstanding the low adventures in which he is
engaged, that I have made him a clergyman; since no other office could
have given him so many opportunities of displaying his worthy
inclinations.