ndeavour to contribute my mite towards
settling the standard of excellence, both as to degree and kind, in these
several writers....

There is very little to warrant the common idea that Fielding was an
imitator of Cervantes, except his own declaration of such an intention in
the title-page of Joseph Andrews, the romantic turn of the character of
Parson Adams (the only romantic character in his works), and the
proverbial humour of Partridge, which is kept up only for a few pages.
Fielding's novels are, in general, thoroughly his own; and they are
thoroughly English. What they are most remarkable for, is neither
sentiment, nor imagination, nor wit, nor even humour, though there is an
immense deal of this last quality; but profound knowledge of human nature,
at least of English nature; and masterly pictures of the characters of men
as he saw them existing. This quality distinguishes all his works, and is
shown almost equally in all of them. As a painter of real life, he was
equal to Hogarth; as a mere observer of human nature, he was little
inferior to Shakspeare, though without any of the genius and poetical
qualities of his mind. His humour is less rich and laughable than
Smollett's; his wit as often misses as hits; he has none of the fine
pathos of Richardson or Sterne; but he has brought together a greater
variety of characters in common life, marked with more distinct
peculiarities, and without an atom of caricature, than any other novel
writer whatever. The extreme subtlety of observation on the springs of
human conduct in ordinary characters, is only equalled by the ingenuity of
contrivance in bringing those springs into play, in such a manner as to
lay open their smallest irregularity. The detection is always complete,
and made with the certainty and skill of a philosophical experiment, and
the obviousness and familiarity of a casual observation. The truth of the
imitation is indeed so great, that it has been argued that Fielding must
have had his materials ready-made to his hands, and was merely a
transcriber of local manners and individual habits. For this conjecture,
however, there seems to be no foundation. His representations, it is true,
are local and individual; but they are not the less profound and
conclusive. The feeling of the general principles of human nature,
operating in particular circumstances, is always intense, and uppermost in
his mind; and he makes use of incident and situation only to bring ou