comedy.”  Now, he continued, “when any kind of writing contains all the other parts (of the epic), 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.”  Such, too, was the opinion of the Chevalier Bunsen.  “The romance of modern times,” he says in his preface to “Soll und Haben” * * * “represents the latest stadium of the epic.  Every romance is intended, or ought to be, a new Iliad or Odyssey; in other words, a poetic representation of a course of events consistent with the highest laws of moral government, whether it delineate the general history of a people, or narrate the fortunes of a chosen hero. * * * The excellence of a romance, like that of an epic or a drama, lies in the apprehension and truthful exhibition of the course of human things."[177] Lord Byron expressed his opinion that Fielding had realized this view of the nature of the novel by calling him the prose Homer of human nature.

Fielding’s novels are now considered unfit for general perusal.  In considering the coarseness and immorality of a writer, the intention and the result must be separated.  That Fielding’s works are coarse, and that they contain scenes and characters of a dissolute nature, is neither to be denied nor to be regretted.  If they were more pure, they would be less valuable from a historical point of view; less true to nature, and therefore less artistic.  That the author’s intention was far from the production of works with an evil tendency, is evident.  He was careful to say in the preface to “Joseph Andrews”:  “It may be objected to me that I have against my own rules introduced vices, and of a very black kind, in 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.”  And again, still more strongly, Fielding claims the merit of purity and moral effect for “Tom Jones,” “I hope my reader will be convinced, at his very entrance on this work, that he will find, in the whole course of it, nothing prejudicial to the cause of religion and virtue; nothing inconsistent with the strictest rules of decency, nor which can offend the chastest eye in the perusal.  On the contrary, I declare, that to recommend goodness and innocence hath been my sincere endeavor in this history. * * * Besides displaying that beauty of virtue which may attract the admiration of mankind, I have attempted to engage a stronger motive to human action in her favor, by convincing men that their true interest directs them to a pursuit of her.  For this purpose I have shown, that no acquisitions of guilt can compensate the loss of that solid inward comfort of mind, which is the sure companion of innocence and virtue; nor can in the least balance the evil of that horror and anxiety which, in their room, guilt introduced into our bosoms.”