This touches the difference between Fielding and Scott. In
the work of the latter, true to his character of a modern and
a romantic, we become suddenly conscious of the background.
Fielding, on the other hand, although he had recognised that
the novel was nothing else than an epic in prose, wrote in
the spirit not of the epic, but of the drama. This is not,
of course, to say that the drama was in any way incapable of
a regeneration similar in kind to that of which I am now
speaking with regard to the novel. The notorious contrary
fact is sufficient to guard the reader against such a
misconstruction. All that is meant is, that Fielding
remained ignorant of certain capabilities which the novel
possesses over the drama; or, at least, neglected and did not
develop them. To the end he continued to see things as a
playwright sees them. The world with which he dealt, the
world he had realised for himself and sought to realise and
set before his readers, was a world of exclusively human
interest. As for landscape, he was content to underline
stage directions, as it might be done in a play-book: Tom and
Molly retire into a practicable wood. As for nationality and
public sentiment, it is curious enough to think that Tom
Jones is laid in the year forty-five, and that the only use
he makes of the rebellion is to throw a troop of soldiers
into his hero's way. It is most really important, however,
to remark the change which has been introduced into the
conception of character by the beginning of the romantic
movement and the consequent introduction into fiction of a
vast amount of new material. Fielding tells us as much as he
thought necessary to account for the actions of his