Fielding’s Library: An Annotated Catalogue by Frederick G. Ribble and Anne G. Ribble (review)

81 motivates Wycherley’s plays. Fine, but does that statement alone denote a subgenre ? Perhaps fear and the conflicts that arise from it are at the heart of most Restoration comedies. How, then, is Wycherley different? Mr. Vance essentially makes two arguments : Wycherley’s ultimate goal is simply to depict what he sees happening around him, and all the action in his plays centers on the fears inherent in the characters . Mr. Vance does a better job discussing the first. His close readings are thorough—no nuance is too small for Mr. Vance, no piece of dialogue too minor— but the concept of fear often gets pushed aside in his analysis. At times, the connection is clear (Pinchwife is deathly afraid of being made a cuckold by his wife); at other times, we must draw our own conclusions. The fear as motivator argument lacks a forward thrust in the text, and often become buried in his detailed plot analyses. Disregarding the performances, Mr. Vance relies solely upon the printed text. Although many playwrights (Wycherley included) wrote for particular actors, as he knows, he nevertheless assesses the play as dramatic literature. Hemighthave changed his title to William Wycherley’s Four Plays. Elisabeth J. Heard St. Louis University FREDERICK G. RIBBLE and ANNE G. RIBBLE . Fielding’s Library: An Annotated Catalogue. Charlottesville: The Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia, 1996. Pp. lxxxv ⫹ 435. $30. Scholars have long recognized that Fielding exploited his learning, but the only substantive evidence of his reading has been the Baker sale catalogue (1755). As many biographers have noted, the catalogue does not include all the books Fielding owned, and the abbreviated listings offer little information about the nature of the editions themselves. In their annotated catalogue of the novelist’s library , however, Mr. and Ms. Ribble provide a meticulously researched and comprehensive account of Fielding’s reading. The main strength of Fielding’s Library is its thoroughness, for the authors fill in a great deal of information not provided by the entries in Baker. For each entry, they have, where possible, fully identified the original edition, giving complete bibliographic information and modern locations of the work. Where Baker’s citation is unclear, they list the edition Fielding mighthaveowned.Inaddition , they provide brief sketches of the authors or editors and, whereappropriate, information about the book’s contents— especially useful for the more esoteric volumes. Recognizing that Fielding’s ownership does not necessarily demonstratethatheactuallyreadabook ,Mr.and Ms. Ribble have also attempted to locate references to these works in Fielding’s writings. These citations at the end of each entry are relatively complete,except when Fielding mentions the author so many times as to make a full list impracticable , as in the case of Horace. Finally, they tracetheprovenanceofvolumessold in the Baker sale catalogue when possible . In addition to works listed in Baker,the authors have also wisely included fifty other titles thatFielding mayhaveowned, since the Baker catalogue representsonly a portion of Fielding’s library. As Hugh Amory has noted, other books were part of the sale of Fielding’s effects at Fordhook Farm, and Fielding, always in need of money, undoubtedly sold or gave away still others during his lifetime. Consequently , the authors have added books to 82 which Fielding subscribed, works with a Fielding provenance not listed by Baker, and works mentioned often by Fielding but missing from the sale. My doubt concerns the third category: citation does not prove ownership. Another problem with the Baker catalogue is its haphazard organization. Mr. and Ms. Ribble have rectified this difficulty by arranging their list for scholarly use. The main entries are alphabetical by author. Because many of the volumes are translations, editions, compilations, or anthologies, the authors have extensively cross-referenced the entries, providing a full general index so that one can, for example , identify which volumes contain translations by Thomas Creech, best known for his English version of Lucretius , but also a contributor to translations of Juvenal and Persius done ‘‘by several hands.’’The Catalogue also provides two additional indices: one lists books according to their date of publication and the other groups them by printer, publisher , and bookseller. Finally, the authors introduce their catalogue with the most...