[In the following essay, Jensen provides textual evidence to show that Shamela was written by Fielding.]

In his Samuel Richardson (Eng. Men of Letters, 1902) Mr. Austin Dobson discusses the authorship of the above parody on Richardson's Pamela, but does not decide the question for us. The evidence that he brings forward seems to support Miss Thomson's conjecture (Samuel Richardson, London, 1900, p. 38) that it is not improbable that Henry Fielding wrote this pamphlet. In a recent examination of a copy in the possession of the Yale Library, I have found further evidence to support such a conjecture; and I am now tempted to state positively that Shamela is the work of Fielding.

There is in Fielding's prose a peculiarity of word-usage that affords a mechanical test for his style, and this is his almost invariable use of hath, doth, whilst, durst, etc., in place of the has, does, etc., which his contemporaries generally used. I have already examined the prose of a great number of his fellow writers and have found only two men who employ hath, doth, etc.—William Mason, the poet, and Joshua Brogden, Fielding's clerk. Consequently, when I find this usage in a work that on other grounds is possibly Fielding's, I feel that there is a presumption strongly in favor of his having written it. Such a test is applicable to Shamela, and when it is applied, it reveals an almost invariable use of hath, doth, and whilst. There are several exceptions—in three cases has is found, but in each instance the text is quoted from a contemporary. These would, consequently, seem to prove the rule; and on the basis of this evidence (Mason was too young at the time and Brogden too limited in his ability to have written the pamphlet) I feel that I have good grounds for a presumption that this parody is the work of Fielding.

Further new evidence is not lacking. Compare these passages: Shamela, p. 55:

“Vice exposed in nauseous and odious Colours.”

Covent-Garden Journal, No. 20:

“Vice in its proper odious Colours.”

Shamela, p. 55:

“As to the Character of Parson Williams, I am sorry it is a true one. Indeed those who do not know him, will hardly believe it so; but what Scandal doth it throw on the Order to have one bad Member, unless they endeavour to screen and protect him?”

Champion, March 29, 1740:

“… I have already [in the issue of March 6th] condemned the custom of throwing scandal on a whole profession for the vices of some particular members.” … “But there is an error directly opposite to this … I mean that protection which some persons would draw from their professions …”

(Henley Edition, xv, 261).

Shamela, p. 5:

“As for Honour to the Clergy, I am sorry to see them so solicitous about it; for if worldly Honour be meant, it is what their Predecessors in the pure and primitive Age, never had or sought. Indeed the secure Satisfaction of a good Conscience, the Approbation of the Wise and Good, … and the extatick Pleasure of contemplating, that their Ways are acceptable to the Great Creator of the Universe, will always attend those, who really deserve these Blessings: But for worldly Honours, they are often the Purchase of Force and Fraud, we sometimes see them in an eminent Degree possessed by Men, who are notorious for Luxury, Pride, Cruelty, Treachery …”

Champion, March 29, 1740:

“But here I would not be understood to mean [with reference to honouring the clergy] what we vulgarly call honour and dignity in a worldly sense, such as pomp or pride, or flattery, or any of this kind, to which indeed nothing can be so opposite, as will appear from examining into the qualities which are laid down as absolutely necessary to form this character, and indeed must be understood so, as they are no other than the copies of their great Master's.”

(Henley Edition, xv, 264.)

Certainly there is a parallelism here that strengthens my presumption; but in view of all the evidence at hand, the most that I can say is that it is very probable that this pamphlet is the work of Fielding.